Clinton attacks Turkey-Brazil deal with Tehran

[bigross86]

With a little bit of disinformation and quick movement, it might be able to work though, no?

[zraver]

anything is possible.

[Ararat]

Turkey (politics) is a very tricky country to understand for Turks let alone outsiders like me............some would even say an Islamic Turkey might be better than a Kemalist one.
To certain countries in the region that makes no difference since Turkey’s certain policies towards them remains the same and will never change (A Turk will always be a Turk and has no friends but Turks) but at the end of the day it might be better for the 'good of Turkey'.

In my opinion the article below explains it very well (and the compass heading of Turkey) even though it is over a year old.
I also speculate from what I have seen in last few years is that moderate Kemalist and Islamist in Turkey are merging together as a stronger force towards Turkey's ambitions to become a superpower in the region while Erdogan takes out the most Fascist Kemalists (Ergenekons) and their strong-rooted "Deep State" infrastructure which exist in all fabric of the society out of the picture.
Although Erdogan himself has admitted that it might be impossible to destroy this deep state.........if not, then must be controlled, according to him.

-------------------------------

May 17, 2009

Revisiting Kemalism's 'Western Orientation'
[Originally published in Hürriyet Daily News]

The White Path: Revisiting Kemalism's 'Western Orientation'

One of the narratives about Turkey that we hear very often these days is the "Western orientation" of its Kemalist revolution. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, we are told, Mustafa Kemal and his followers emerged as the saviors of the country by recreating it as a modern republic and turning its face to the West. This story is often followed by alarmist comments about the current destination of Turkey under its current government. The Kemalists are not in power anymore, we are warned, and the new non-Kemalist elite is changing its orientation from the West to the East.

Unfortunately, the commentators who publicize this narrative hardly note the fact that most Kemalists in contemporary Turkey have become diehard opponents of the European Union accession process. They also rarely speak about the fact that the latest Kemalist attempt to overthrow the current government (aka "Ergenekon") was also planning to make the country an ally of Russia and China rather than the EU and U.S.


Which West?

But that is the smallest of the flaws in their argument. The bigger problem is their dismissal of the problems in Kemalism's "Western orientation."

Let me explain what I mean. Today when we use the term "the West," the political system that comes to our mind is often liberal democracy. But during the formative years of Kemalism, i.e., the late 20s and 30s, that was not the case. In fact, liberal democracy was a growingly marginal model in Europe at time. The ascendant model was totalitarianism, as exemplified first by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. And these two had some considerable influence on Kemalist ideology and practice.

First came corporatism, the economic model of Fascist Italy, which was based on Mussolini's fundamental idea: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." As scholars Taha Parla and Andrew Davison explain in their book, "Corporatism in Kemalist Turkey," Turkey adopted this state-dominated way of organizing the economy by orchestrating social segments and interest groups. The authors, as the book's publisher note, illuminate "Kemalism's emphatic and self-conscious, corporatist ideological core," and "require a rethinking of its democratic, secular, and modernist reputation."

But this was not the most problematic theme that Kemalism incorporated from "the West." A worse one was racism. Although they never became a full-fledged policy, racist theories that gloried the "Turkish stock" became popular among the Kemalist elite in the 30s. In 1932, the First Turkish Historical Congress was held in Ankara under the auspices of Atatürk. Afet İnan, one of Atatürk's protŽgŽs, presented a "scientific" paper in which she argued that the Aryan race, whose "brachycephalic skull" made it superior to others, included the ancient Central-Asian Turks. Another speaker at the same congress, Dr. Şevket Aziz Kansu, shared his extravagant studies on the features of the "Turkish skull." He had measured the skull sizes of 50 "pure Turks," half male, half female, and found them to be of pure European "Alpine race."

These nutty race theories influenced official policies. Some government advertisements in newspapers for new personnel noted that applicants had to be from "the Turkish stock," in addition to being a citizen of Turkey.

In 1935, the "third man" of the regime, Recep Peker, the general secretary of Atatürk's Republican People's Party, or CHP, had a long trip to Nazi Germany, and came back with a deep sense of admiration. He wrote a long report suggesting that Turkey should adopt the principles that made this new Germany so "efficient." He also started to promote the idea of "disciplined liberty" and denounced liberalism as a deviant idea. In 1936, Turkey adopted the hallmark of all totalitarian regimes: The unification of the ruling party and the state. The heads of CHP's local branches became governors of their cities.


Nasty stuff

Luckily, Atatürk did not really embrace these racist and totalitarian visions. After toying with them for a while, he decided to take a more moderate path, which was paralleled by his decision to approach Britain, rather than Germany, on the eve of World War II. When he died in 1938, however, the fascist tendencies within the CHP were still alive and were soon emboldened by the Nazi's initial success in the war. In 1942, in tune with the zeitgeist, the CHP government issued the infamous "wealth tax," a very heavy levy on the non-Muslim, especially Jewish, minority. Some who failed to pay were sent to a labor camp established in eastern Turkey.

When the Nazis started to lose the war, the CHP government silently changed sides, and soon accepted a multi-party system in order to cope with the new global trend. But it never questioned the nasty stuff in its past.

Regrettably that nasty stuff still lives on among Turkey's dogmatic Kemalists, who still idealize an authoritarian state, a xenophobic nationalism and a tyrannical secularism. Drifting away from their understanding of Kemalism will only be a blessing for this country.

Posted by Mustafa Akyol at May 17, 2009 6:13 AM

[Big K]

Turkey (politics) is a very tricky country to understand for Turks let alone outsiders like me............some would even say an Islamic Turkey might be better than a Kemalist one.

yes it would be better for many others except Turkey it self.

the decline and fall of Ottomans caused by people who used Islam as a tool for preventing the country from any development like printing.

print tech came in Turkey 280 years later....this alone can explain much about why Ataturk & his followers dont like those religion-abusers.

after reading the full article it seemed me this guy have absolutely no clue about Ataturk at all.

Ararat,

during&after the war of independence the parliament was ready (and proposed too) to give him the caliphate and the throne/presidency.

he barely accepted the title of supreme commander of TAF but only after an election.

even in those days there was strong opposition against Mustafa Kemal.

oh btw,

did you or him EVER read any of Mustafa Kemal's saying about Mussolini and his followers??? (Mussolini & his black shirts was the source of influence of Hitler as you know)

if you read (i let it to you since you are very eager to make researchs about Turkey's founder father) you can see what is the thruth...

being opposite to the EU membership is not because of its benefits or development.

it is because of the double standards of EU,
it is because of their incredible economic sanctions like "customs unions" which made our country a open market for EU goods and preventing other competition by exercising taxes even we are not EU member. (oh Greece dont have this even they are a MEMBER of EU) for exemple my company imports cars from India but every one of our cars had to pay custom taxes while any EU made cars dont have to pay it...can i ask WHY????????

oh oh i forgot, while violatig the free trade rules in Turkey, the EU dont let Turkish goods to be sold in their markets without export taxes or limitations.....now with rules like this the EU can go to hell and i wont care in any manner.

"corporatism"???.....idiot dont have the historical knowledge about Ottomans last times or Turkeys early periods...THERE WAS NO PRIVATE SECTOR.....or...THERE WAS NO INDUSTRIAL ANYTHING IN ANYWHERE N THE COUNTRY....

so the state should be the first to invest in many sectors....

the idiot writer dont know about Ataturks sayings about Mussolini, this showed his ignorence again....

Kemalism's "Western orientation."

there was no western orientation. there was the orientation of the country to its contemporaries.

Ataturk told that "i dont say you to be westernised, i say you to get the country ASAP to the same level with its contemporaries" "we will search and find the development where ever it is and we will exercise its ways which are suitable for us"

yes they observed and admired the development of Germany after the WW1. they re builded the country from the ground level...this is admired by majority of the world too during those days but this does not means that Ataturk was facist. he was not at all.

idiots dont understand the meaning of the word "how happy is he who can say i am a Turk"

he didnt say "how happy is he who IS Turk" but instead he sad "how happy is he who can say i am a Turk"

anyone with a brain can understand what he wanted to create.

he researched the source of Turks which is not that clear even today because of very high assimilative character of Turks, theres nothing wrong in that.



that tax was existent and was wrong and stopped being exercised by 1943, cancelled totally in 1944

but imagine how poor was the state. the taxes collected formed 80% of total budget.

in 1935 there was 1,98% non-muslim population, after the tax in 1945 it became 1,45% and 1,08% in 1955.

Some who failed to pay were sent to a labor camp established in eastern Turkey.

pppffffffffffffffffffffffffffff Ararat this is becoming more and more funny...hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha where was these camps

When the Nazis started to lose the war, the CHP government silently changed sides, and soon accepted a multi-party system in order to cope with the new global trend. But it never questioned the nasty stuff in its past.

infact during the war all sides wanted Turkey at their side. Churchill wanted desperately TUrkey hoping it will diminish the influence of USSR ,n the Balkans after the war, Stalin rejected it very strongly.

imagine a Turkey who was that poor that there was only 1 cement factory in whole country which was already short in production of cement needed to build bunkers for "Cakmak line" a defensive line against Nazis who were in Greece already.

that Turkey was the main Chromium supplier of Nazis. when Allies asked to stop it, PM told them "ok we can stop supplying chrome to Nazis if you can buy that chrome instead of them". please reserach a bit the poverty in Turkey during ww2.

in and no the multiparty systems first attempts was in 1945 with Nuri Demirag's MKP.

not in 1945 with DP.

Regrettably that nasty stuff still lives on among Turkey's dogmatic Kemalists, who still idealize an authoritarian state, a xenophobic nationalism and a tyrannical secularism. Drifting away from their understanding of Kemalism will only be a blessing for this country.

there are some people with that type of Kemalism (which is absolutely nothing to do with Ataturk himself) but this is because of very high degree of threat sense. they are too much conservative and dont have confidence to the power of Turkey.

and they have right to a degree. but the rest of the article is garbage and nothing more.

[TTL]

Turkey (politics) is a very tricky country to understand for Turks let alone outsiders like me............some would even say an Islamic Turkey might be better than a Kemalist one.

Agreed. As an example you are confusing Kemalism with fascism. In Turkey anyone who loves liberty and country is a Kemalist. The main pillar of Kemalism is never the Turkish race but the Turkish nation.The transfer of medieval ottoman millet to modern Turkish society was instant, we never had the chance to go through the processes like europe did. Kemalism for us in not a political view but the founding principle of our self-image as a nation.

Ataturk's some racist and illogical actions (the sun language theory ect.) are not accepted by majority of Kemalists in Turkey today, they were results of the late periods of his life when he was a very sick man. He tried to establish a sense of nation in Turkish people since under ottoman ummet system there was none. Turkish people learned that they are a nation only after the fall of the empire, before the republic the word Turk meant a rude and uneducated peasant to the ottoman elites.

The tyrannical secularism was a must forced by the conditions back then. Even today I am not sure if the diminishing influence of the army will be a good or bad thing. Those of you who never saw the black fanaticsm of Islam and immense suffering it brought to people of ME first hand may find it hard to understand and see it as an attack on religious liberty. In ottoman times religious fanaticsm held the society by it throat. It enslaved our women, surpassed free and creative thinking, for centuries opposed reform and scientific progress. It was so entrenched and prevalent the idea of reform was unthinkable. So we losed an empire because of failure to reform and were nearly losing our nation as well.

These conditions shaped the Kemalist ideology and actually it was not formulated by one man but the whole nation. Otherwise Ataturk would never succeed in securing the support of the masses needed to forge republic of Turkey. It is not like he landed anatolia with an army of followers.

Deep state and fascist tendencies of 50's governments are not related with Kemalism but general state of the pre-WW2 world and Cold War after that.

[Ararat]

even in those days there was strong opposition against Mustafa Kemal.
oh btw,
did you or him EVER read any of Mustafa Kemal's saying about Mussolini and his followers??? (Mussolini & his black shirts was the source of influence of Hitler as you know)
if you read (i let it to you since you are very eager to make researchs about Turkey's founder father) you can see what is the thruth...............

Sounds like you really didn’t like the article written by you countryman in Harriet. Hey its OK, don’t sweat it. Since you suggest research you should know I actually have respect for Ataturk as a military leader despite everything that went down and also since you brought it up I agree, I don’t know much about labor camps as you mentioned but I do know about certain gassing of thousands orphans in a church in Trabzon. No matter at this point in time.

Sometimes it may be necessary for a happy Turk to re-measure his Turkish “Skull” with a copy of the Article 301.



TTL:
Thanks for the insight, I mean it.

However on this point......Apparently Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan disagrees in regard to a “Deep State” and I tend to take his word for it.
Also by Fascism I mostly refer to the Ultra-Nationalist “Gray Wolf” types, which by the way they also always had a large presence in Azerbaijan and now have infested Northern Iran ever more than before and these Iranian Mullahs are allowing it, or can't stop it.

[Big K]

Sounds like you really didn’t like the article written by you countryman in Harriet. Hey its OK, don’t sweat it. Since you suggest research you should know I actually have respect for Ataturk as a military leader despite everything that went down and also since you brought it up I agree, I don’t know much about labor camps as you mentioned but I do know about certain gassing of thousands orphans in a church in Trabzon. No matter at this point in time.

Sometimes it may be necessary for a happy Turk to re-measure his Turkish “Skull” with a copy of the Article 301. ....

at the end, once again, your anger is far from mine that you lose relevancy and started to attack anything that your propaganda allows you.

you have nothing in your hand but your hatred and provocative talk, just talking and talking and nothing more...

[Rastagir]

Agreed. As an example you are confusing Kemalism with fascism. In Turkey anyone who loves liberty and country is a Kemalist. The main pillar of Kemalism is never the Turkish race but the Turkish nation.The transfer of medieval ottoman millet to modern Turkish society was instant, we never had the chance to go through the processes like europe did. Kemalism for us in not a political view but the founding principle of our self-image as a nation.

Ataturk's some racist and illogical actions (the sun language theory ect.) are not accepted by majority of Kemalists in Turkey today, they were results of the late periods of his life when he was a very sick man. He tried to establish a sense of nation in Turkish people since under ottoman ummet system there was none. Turkish people learned that they are a nation only after the fall of the empire, before the republic the word Turk meant a rude and uneducated peasant to the ottoman elites.

The tyrannical secularism was a must forced by the conditions back then. Even today I am not sure if the diminishing influence of the army will be a good or bad thing. Those of you who never saw the black fanaticsm of Islam and immense suffering it brought to people of ME first hand may find it hard to understand and see it as an attack on religious liberty. In ottoman times religious fanaticsm held the society by it throat. It enslaved our women, surpassed free and creative thinking, for centuries opposed reform and scientific progress. It was so entrenched and prevalent the idea of reform was unthinkable. So we losed an empire because of failure to reform and were nearly losing our nation as well.

These conditions shaped the Kemalist ideology and actually it was not formulated by one man but the whole nation. Otherwise Ataturk would never succeed in securing the support of the masses needed to forge republic of Turkey. It is not like he landed anatolia with an army of followers.

Deep state and fascist tendencies of 50's governments are not related with Kemalism but general state of the pre-WW2 world and Cold War after that.

I quite like your analysis. Some thoughts:

1) Kemalism, as every other "ideology" (and I use the term loosely because, quite frankly, I do not know whether there IS a correct term) is well and good in paper but in action it might be flawed. This, I believe, applies to every ideology. Communism is a wonderful thing, with one major flaw: it's completely utopic. Human nature, with all it's flaws, will reject the basic principles and twist them into something else altogether. Same with Anarchy and the same goes, unfortunately, with Democracy. The latter is at it's best when applied to a limited population (as was when it was first implemented, in the Greek city-states and, even then, we all now it was far from perfect). Kemalism, the way I see it, is a fine base but comes at odds with the religious aspect of the people it encompasses. And this, unfortunately, in the long term will (or, already has) turn Kemalism into something else. Religion almost always wins when it comes at odds with a political system.

2) I never understood our countries (both yours and mine) tendencies to "follow the example of the West". We are not western countries in the same way England or the Americans are. And we will never be. I see having more common traits with you, the Romanians, the Serbs and the Albanians than I see with an englishman or a german. The fact that countries like these are successful do not justify our tendencies to "ape" them. We will never be like them, we will have our distinct identities, our own ways of life. Theirs, as you say, stem from decades of evolution, and it is stupid and irresponsible to try to emulate them. Again, I do not only speak of your country, but of mine, as well.

3) I do not understand why the hell Turkey must fall on either side of the spectrum: either "an Islamist state" or a "Kemalist-Secular" one. There are no gray areas in between? Shouldn't Turkey try to achieve a distinct identity which encompasses both the principles of Kemalism but allow (to a certain extend) a distinct tone of Islam? Instead of having to suppress a predominant Muslim population or having to blindly follow a religious path, how come no one ever tried to combine them? You might say "this is impossible" but from where I am sitting it seems to me that the present (or past) state of affairs isn't viable either.

In other words, shouldn't Kemalism be allowed to evolve since it (partially) failed to completely eradicate the religious aspect of the state?

[Big K]

I quite like your analysis. Some thoughts:

1) ...., the way I see it, is a fine base but comes at odds with the religious aspect of the people it encompasses. And this, unfortunately, in the long term will (or, already has) turn Kemalism into something else. Religion almost always wins when it comes at odds with a political system.

i always thought that he died too early.

thats why he founded "Presidency of Religious Affairs" in 1924. in 1932 the "Adhan" in Turkish instead of its Arabic original.

i think he wanted to rescue the religion from its obscure and "elitist" situation. by elitist i mean the "mullahs" or "imams" or any other people who use the ignorence of the un-educated people.

2) I never understood our countries (both yours and mine) tendencies to "follow the example of the West". We are not western countries in the same way England or the Americans are. And we will never be. I see having more common traits with you, the Romanians, the Serbs and the Albanians than I see with an englishman or a german. The fact that countries like these are successful do not justify our tendencies to "ape" them. We will never be like them, we will have our distinct identities, our own ways of life. Theirs, as you say, stem from decades of evolution, and it is stupid and irresponsible to try to emulate them. Again, I do not only speak of your country, but of mine, as well..

Ataturk didnt say exactly "West". he sad "level of contemporary civilization"

look at his speech. ill try to translate this. errors are mine.

heres in Turkish

"Efendiler! .... Hakikaten Avrupa'nin bütün ilerlemesine, yükselmesine ve medenilesmesine karsilik Türkiye tam tersine gerilemis ve düsüs vadisine yuvarlana durmustur. Artik vaziyeti düzeltmek için mutlaka Avrupa'dan nasihat almak, bütün isleri Avrupa'nin emellerine göre yapmak, bütün dersleri Avrupa'dan almak gibi bir takim zihniyetler belirdi.

Halbuki hangi Istikbal vardir ki ecnebilerin nasihatleriyle, ecnebilerin planlariyla yükselebilsin?

Tarih, böyle bir hadiseyi kaydetmemistir!

Mustafa Kemal ATATÜRK
6 Mart 1922, TBMM "

heres my translation
"Gentleman!...infact contrary to all the development and progress of Europe, Turkey fell in to the valley of backwardness. in order to fix it there are some ideas that appeared who say that we must do anything and everything according the Europe's will, taking all the lessons&advices from them.

but who could rise with the advices of foreigners, with the plans of foreigners?

theres no such thing in the history"

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
6 march 1922
Grand National Assembly of Turkey

he was in love with freedom & independence. once he told:
"freedom is my character"

as a last thing on this matter:
please dont forget the USSR's moves after WW2 towards Turkey. those were decisive moves who pushed Turkey to West.

3) I do not understand why the hell Turkey must fall on either side of the spectrum: either "an Islamist state" or a "Kemalist-Secular" one. There are no gray areas in between? Shouldn't Turkey try to achieve a distinct identity which encompasses both the principles of Kemalism but allow (to a certain extend) a distinct tone of Islam? Instead of having to suppress a predominant Muslim population or having to blindly follow a religious path, how come no one ever tried to combine them? You might say "this is impossible" but from where I am sitting it seems to me that the present (or past) state of affairs isn't viable either.

read this:

Fâtır / 5
Yusuf Ali (English)
O men! Certainly the promise of Allah(3876) is true. Let not then this present life deceive you,(3877) nor let the Chief Deceiver deceive you about Allah. *
M. Pickthall (English)
O mankind! Lo! the promise of Allah is true. So let not the life of the world beguile you, and let not the (avowed) beguiler beguile you with regard to Allah.

Turkey's paranoia about religion is not without reasons. Most of religious people were always an obstacle infront of development and free thinking. And Ottomans suffered its consequences by losing the whole Empire.

we never forgot "istemezuk" a word in Turkish means "we dont want it" who used by religious fanatics oftenly when they revolt against almost anything new especially technological advances (like printing who came 280 yrs late)

even today we have this paranoia and it has valid roots.

after Ataturk this paranoia became something even bigger. Contrary to the people(modest or fanatic), for decades heads of the state ignored the presence & power of religion thinking they act secularly. in time this became a front more and more vulnerable to abuses.

but we can not blame Ataturk because of facts that i stated above. he did not left the "religion front". actually he would control it by.

this is the point that we can see that "secular elitists" in Turkey. and i think they are the ones who betrayed the secularism willingly or not.

about those elitists: heres his speech from 1925 in Konya. translation errors are mine.

....in order to reach the succes the intellectual classes minds&targets should be naturaly in harmony with the rest of the people. this means the principles told by intellectuals to the people should be taken from the hearts&souls of that people. if this people believes them they would be ready for any help...

for exemple about my thoughts:

i never saw a Chief of General Staff exiting from a mosque after a prayer which would have tremendous effect on the moderate people.

they only want to see that "hey our state is and shoud be secular but we are personally muslim"

In other words, shouldn't Kemalism be allowed to evolve since it (partially) failed to completely eradicate the religious aspect of the state?

it was an evolving move...

"Kemalism" is the word created by people who hate him in order to simplify his heritage.

he was a man of revolution.
his description(errors are mine):

The Revolution is breaking all the rules&institutions who caused our nations backwardness and establishing new institutions who will help our nation to advance to catch the contemporary nations

Kemalist ideology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

please check the Revolutionism

[Aryajet]

UNSC approves new sanctions on Iran with 12 yay, 2 nay (Brazil, Turkey) and 1 abstain (Lebanon).

Among the nations who approved the sanctions are Uganda, Gabon, Bosnia and Nigeria, all supposed to be friends of islamic republic.

Looking at what IRI has done for Lebanon after the 2006 war I suppose a firm Nay was expected in ayatoilettes minds.

U.N. Approves New Sanctions to Deter Iran - NYTimes.com

[Spagnostic]

ATurkish people learned that they are a nation only after the fall of the empire, before the republic the word Turk meant a rude and uneducated peasant to the ottoman elites.

That is not completely true,the notion of a turkish nation idea sprung at the turn of the 20th century,mostly advocated by young turks(jöntürk),Atatürk,in a way tried to finish up the process.

Also about secular army losing ground,i do not know what foreigners might think of that,but as posted on previous pages,( foreign policy link) ARmy is being replaced with another and far more suprresive and authoretiran center of power,which is Fethullah Gülen.

In other words,country is not becoming more liberal as some of our idiot liberals try to sell.

This Imam has also strong ties with police force (around %80 of policemen are followers of him) and iirc,there are around 200k policemen in our country.This number is growing every year btw.

And as pointed out by our previous president T. Özal,one of the secret task of this huge force is to counter any coupe attempt.

You should also note that,AKP goverment tried to pass a law,which was going to enable this force to purchase and obtain heavy weapons. Wtf, law enforcement need tanks and ATGs?

[Big K]

it was always a rightist govt. who, step by step, eroded the country.

menderes, ozal, etc...and today we have their monuments...

[Dreadnought]

UNSC approves new sanctions on Iran with 12 yay, 2 nay (Brazil, Turkey) and 1 abstain (Lebanon).

Among the nations who approved the sanctions are Uganda, Gabon, Bosnia and Nigeria, all supposed to be friends of islamic republic.

Looking at what IRI has done for Lebanon after the 2006 war I suppose a firm Nay was expected in ayatoilettes minds.

U.N. Approves New Sanctions to Deter Iran - NYTimes.com

;)

[andrew]

Don't take it as gospel. Part of it is guesswork. There may be others here who are better informed who can thow more light on it.

Another explanation of the unusual Brazil-Turkey offer is that the both countries are dissatisfied with the existing non-proliferation regime which greatly benefits the official nuclear powers and circumscribes capabilities of the non-nuclear ones.