Perhaps the relationship between Turkey and Europe can best be understood through the lens of R&B music (or, excuse me, ‘urban pop’).
“You were so blind to let me go.
You had it all but did not know.
No one you’ll find will ever be,
Closer to all your dreams than me,
Believing the grass would be greener,
You told yourself, ‘I just don’t need her, now.’
But I know you’ll soon discover,
You’re never satisfied with any other,
Someday, oooh someday, the one you gave away will be the only one you’re wishing for…”
- Mariah Carey “Someday”
The perplexed, incredulous, hyper-sensitive and even defensive reaction of many to the frank admission and insight of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed yesterday in London, regarding Turkey, highlights the enormous dilemma the West now faces in figuring out how to handle the nation-state that has rapidly, perhaps overnight, become the geopolitical proxy of the entire Islamic World.
When Europe in effect said of Turkey, ‘I just don’t need her, now,’ last decade and last century - was a course embarked upon that could never be reversed?
Is Turkey ‘the one’ Europe ‘gave away,’ which some in the U.S. are now ‘wishing for?’
In an aptly titled Wall Street Journal article, “Gates Says EU Pushed Turkey Away,” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703890904575296900180727936.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird) we read:
“I personally think that if there is anything to the notion that Turkey is, if you will, moving eastward, it is, in my view, in no small part because it was pushed, and pushed by some in Europe refusing to give Turkey the kind of organic link to the West that Turkey sought,” Mr. Gates said, according to the agency reports.
“We have to think long and hard about why these developments in Turkey [are occurring] and what we might be able to do to counter them and make the stronger linkages with the West more apparently of interest and value to Turkey’s leaders,” he said.
And what is this ‘organic link’ to the West that Turkey sought?
“Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused the European Union of pushing Turkey toward the East by its resistance to letting the mainly Muslim nation join the bloc, the closest any senior U.S. official has come to saying the West risks losing Turkey.
…The EU agreed to begin membership talks with Turkey in 2004, some 50 years after the nation of more than 70 million people first expressed interest. But the talks have gone slowly, as the EU has frozen a third of the so-called negotiating chapters, mainly over Turkey’s refusal to open its ports to recent EU entrant Cyprus. France, Germany and several other current members have repeatedly said they don’t believe Turkey belongs in the bloc,” the Wall Street Journal writes.
Now, for still more of the historical and political dynamics of the denial of EU membership to Turkey please read my “Turkey – Buffer, Butler, Or Balance?” published at BlackElectorate.com back in 2002(http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=759).
A critically important portion of what I wrote reads:
“Mr. Erdogan has accused the 15-nation European Union of being hypocritical in insisting that Turkey improve human rights and democracy before it can open talks on EU membership. Turks argue that the political criteria that it must meet are amorphous and incapable of objective and fair evaluation, unlike the economic criteria that comprised the Maastricht Treaty that served as the basis of entry into the European Union by its founding member-states, 10 years ago. Turkish leaders say they are being treated with a double-standard. Valery Giscard d’Estaing, head of the EU’s constitutional convention, said last month that at its core, Turkey was not European, and that its entry into the member-nation body would spell the end of the European Union. Other European leaders have outright stated that no Muslim nation has a place in the EU.”
There is so much more (than meets the eye of mass media coverage) to what is happening with Turkey that it requires more than the 20/20 vision that comes with a mastery of culture, politics, and economics. Only the foresight that comes from spiritual insight and a mastery of the perspective of history will do - not only if the transition that Turkey is going through is to be properly perceived but even more critically important – so that mistakes and errors are not made in the handling of Turkey by Israel, Europe, and America that lead to a great war.
Whether sobering voices like Secretary Gates’ are heard, or not, could be a litmus test.
I for one am not at all surprised that it would be a military man who would have the courage and understanding to say what Mr. Gates did in England. He is a very powerful man who moves in very influential circles. In many ways, I see him as part of the more elite network that at times plans the course of current events. The saying, “Presidents come and go but the Generals remain,” finds great salience in Secretary Gates’ professional career. His official Department of Defense biography reads like:
Before entering his present post, Dr. Gates was the President of Texas A&M University, the nation’s seventh largest university. Prior to assuming the Texas A&M presidency, on August 1, 2002, he served as Interim Dean of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M from 1999 to 2001.
Secretary Gates joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1966 and spent nearly 27 years as an intelligence professional. During that period, he spent nearly nine years at the National Security Council, The White House, serving four presidents of both political parties.
Dr. Gates served as Director of Central Intelligence from 1991 until 1993. He is the only career officer in CIA’s history to rise from entry-level employee to Director. He served as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence from 1986 until 1989 and as Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser at the White House from January 20, 1989, until November 6, 1991, for President George H.W. Bush.
…He is the author of the memoir, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insiders Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War, published in 1996.
Until becoming Secretary of Defense, Dr. Gates served as Chairman of the Independent Trustees of The Fidelity Funds, the nation’s largest mutual fund company, and on the board of directors of NACCO Industries, Inc., Brinker International, Inc. and Parker Drilling Company, Inc.
Head of arguably the most influential intelligence agency in the world. Head civilian official guiding the most powerful military in the world. A Chairman position as part of the leadership of the nation’s largest mutual fund company. Secretary Gates has the kind of juice and access to high-level information that only a small inner circle do. He knows what the public does not know. He even knows what Presidents don’t know.
Look deeper into exactly why Secretary Gates – brought into his position by President George W. Bush – was retained by incoming President Barack Obama. He was to only stay on for a year. A year is up. Will he remain, or will a split in the administration over how to deal with Turkey (and the broader Muslim population, including its unique American segment) be a factor?
As a military man steeped in world history Secretary Gates - like any retired or active military personnel, or their of-age dependents (us former ‘Army brats’) - does not look at Turkey in the same manner as the Western mainstream media would or an increasingly skewed foreign policy intelectual class (neo-liberal and neo-conservative). Turkey’s membership in NATO, alone, where its formidable military presence is second only to that of the United States of America, should cause any observer who wants to simply label and write Turkey off as an anti-Semitic and anti-Western country to be considered foolish.
Said another way, I believe that if any active member of the U.S. Armed services serving in Europe (or their dependents) were questioned as to whether Turkey was a U.S. ally or not the overwhelming answer would be ‘yes.’ I also believe that if the portion of these same persons who had served time in Europe were asked if Turkey was an anti-Semitic country the answer would be ‘no.’ Lastly, I believe that if these same persons – making the ultimate sacrifice – were asked which of the two - NATO member Turkey or the non-NATO Israel - were the closer friend or ally of Europe or the United States, the answer would be ‘Turkey.’
[Interestingly the 'conservative' Rupert Murdoch wants Israel to become a member of NATO (See his April 22, 2008 op-ed, "Enlarge The Atlantic Alliance"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882641077833349.html?mod=rss_opinion_main), as does the 'progressive' Rabbi Michael Lerner. ]
Yet, the civilian-dominated culture of U.S.-based intellectuals remain fixated on the currently negative view of Israel that many in Turkey have post-flotilla incident.
What really explains this possible disconnect?
There are real reasons – rooted in the history and break-up of the Ottoman Empire by the West – that provide a context and perspective for the attitude that the Turkish people have today, which only now being accurately reflected by its leadership.
It is beyond the scope of this writing now, but a few moments in history are sufficient to indicate there is more to the story than ‘the war on terror’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ as usually narrowly defined by the United States mainstream cable media (who has been out to lunch on the flotilla controversy).
Just for a bit of context it would be worthwhile for all of us - especially political leadership - to look at and calmly discuss:
- The correspondence between the British high commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, and the Sherif Hussein of Mecca during the period of 1915 and 1916. Their discussions revolved around Britain recognizing the independence of Arabs who revolted against Turkey.
- The Balfour Declaration of November 1917 (an eleven line statement from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Zionist movement) and a June 16, 1918 response to concerns over it by Sherif Hussein and 7 Arab leaders to British assurances that a “Jewish settlement in Palestine would only be allowed in so far as would be consistent with the political and economic freedom of the Arab population.” Part of the British response included the intention to divide Arab territories into three parts including the areas under Turkish control.
- The joint Anglo-French Declaration of November 7, 1918 which promised, “the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turk and the setting up of national governments and administrations that shall derive their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations.”
- There were five treaties of peace after World War I made with the defeated powers:
o Treaty of Versailles with Germany, June 28, 1919
o Treaty of Saint-Germain with Austria, September 10, 1919
o Treaty of Neuilly with Bulgaria, November 27, 1919
o Treaty of Trianon with Hungary, June 4, 1920
o Treaty of Sevres with Turkey, August 20, 1920
However, only the Treaty of Sevres with Turkey was never ratified.
It was eventually replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
Many scholars believe that it is the Treaty of Lausanne that marks the real formal end to World War I and marks the end of what is described as Turkey’s 400 year fall. A key issue that this Treaty would address that would remain a controversial one was who should control the enormously important Bosporous Straits.
Today the Bosporous Straits is treated as an international shipping lane with Turkey maintaining the right to control access to it. How important is access to the Bosporous Straits? It is the route through which Russian oil is transported to Western Europe and the United States.
Might it be a factor in a future war of some kind?
Anyone with any credible background in the oil industry or military affairs would never judge Turkey purely by its relationship with or disposition toward Israel. Nor would they label the country ‘Anti-Semitic’ and use that definition as the criteria or key variable by which to determine or drive U.S. foreign policy toward Turkey. Yet, despite the complexities many are leaning toward an oversimplification that does just that.
You can see the dilemma and dynamic at work in the opinion editorial, ‘Erdogan and the Israel Card,’ authored by Mr. Steven J. Rosen, published in today’s (June 10, 2010) Wall Street Journal. Although his own words indicate there is so much more to Turkey, he can’t resist reducing the analysis of Turkey to a depiction of it as a bastion of anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist feelings. The piece lacks historical or contemporary perspective and the context of causality.
The pre-occupation with the Turkish view of Israel causes Mr. Rosen to not devote any real space to what Secretary Gates properly focuses on and which may be a much bigger factor – Turkey’s denial of entry into the EU, while being a card-carrying member of NATO and the blow this has dealt to the Turkish psyche, which has never recovered from the Fall of the Ottoman Empire.
In providing reams of polling data which he uses to describe Turkey as anti-Israel Mr. Rosen provides no similar polling results regarding the level of anti-Turkey sentiment in Israel. If a high level of anti-Turkish views were found in Israel then what, one could reasonably ask Mr. Rosen? Mr. Rosen cites the BBC World Service Poll and the Pew Global Attitudes survey as his sources. If these two respected polling outfits do not poll the views of Israeli citizens toward other countries, then before citing them, Mr. Rosen should forthrightly state that fact.
And if true, we could all then ask why?
And what about polling data that shows the virulent nature of anti-Turkish views throughout Western Europe?
Is anti-Turkish sentiment in Europe any less important than anti-Israel sentiment inside of Turkey?
It is this kind of one-sided coverage in the Western media and argumentation style, devoid of historical perspective, or balance, that I am convinced will place us all on the precipice of war, and sooner rather than later.
Now, previously I stated that solving this problem would require not only the highest level of cultural, political, and economic insight – some of which an individual like Secretary Gates may possess – but also spiritual insight.
Among several public and private statements the Honorable Elijah Muhammad made/wrote regarding Turkey is this, currently present within the pages of his classic book, Message To The Blackman:
“Today, it is visibly understood that the fall of America cannot be checked, for the foundation has been removed. The 1914 war, which involved all of the white race, crushed the power of Turkey in Europe and pushed that power back across the Bosporus (or pushed Islam out of Europe as nearly as possible). An old prophetic saying is that when Turkey has been pushed out of Europe (across the Bosporus), setting her capital away from the once Constantinople, this would make the end of the white world.”
Is the rejection of Turkey by the EU a spiritual, cultural, and political continuation of what the Honorable Elijah Muhammad describes as Turkey being ‘pushed out of Europe (across the Bosporous)?’
Is the denial of EU membership to Turkey continuing a war of some kind - perhaps a more ‘secret’ one that lies deep beneath the surface, hidden from public view?
The deepest kind of study of the Dark Ages, the European Renaissance, the Crusades and World War I – how they started and ended – and how it relates to the second of the world’s two greatest unresolved problems, the Arab Israeli conflict, is one of the best ways we all can improve the quality of the conversation and search for solutions.
I don’t remember all of it (smile) but I received a full year of education on these subjects when in the 6th grade while attending a Department of Defense school in West Germany. The teacher was a brilliant Caucasian man whom I wish I could find and thank today. Maybe Facebook (smile).
A question: would U.S. foreign policy and domestic voting patterns change if these kinds of subjects were taught as early as elementary school.
Is the issue of the historic relationship between Europe and Islam as important to world peace as the Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s words outright state and imply?
Yes. There is still a lot buried in it that would surprise the ‘White World,’ and others.
The rise of Turkey and the rise of President Obama – in different ways – are unearthing some striking dynamics in that little-known history.
And there is still something very heavy contained within President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt, that Americans and Europeans have yet to come to terms with, and which the Islamic World does not seem to fully appreciate.
I hope you will read my commentary regarding it, “Mass Mizan: President Obama Invites The Muslim World To Force Him To Change U.S. Foreign Policy” (http://www.cedricmuhammad.com/mass-mizan-president-obama-invites-the-muslim-world-to-force-him-to-change-us-foreign-policy/)
As we head toward war – if the quality of the conversation regarding Turkey and Israel does not improve – is there an even deeper need, now, for a Message To The Western World of some kind?
If so who would be best qualified to deliver it – a wise political leader or a profound spiritual teacher?
Cedric Muhammad is a business consultant, political strategist, and monetary economist. He is a former GM of Wu-Tang Management and currently a Member of the African Union’s First Congress of African Economist. He’s the Founder of the economic information service Africa PreBrief (http://africaprebrief.com/) and author of ‘The Entrepreneurial Secret’ (http://theEsecret.com/). Cedric can be contacted via e-mail at: cedric(at)cmcap.com