Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2003, pages 85-89

Waging Peace

“Islam and Democracy: the Turkish Model?”

On Feb.11 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, Center Fellow Haldun Gulalp presented a talk entitled “Islam and Democracy: the Turkish Model?” The animated sociology professor from Istanbul’s Bogazi’i University discussed theplace of religion in the current Turkish government.

There is a similarity, said Gulalp, between the Turkish secularists’ view of Islam and the way in which many Westerners have decried the incompatibility of Islam and democracy. Under secularist governments, he observed, Turkey was touted as a model Muslim country by the West only because its Muslim identity was suppressed. Most Westerners and secularists believed that, for a Muslim country to become truly democratic, it had to shed its Islamic culture, identity, and existence.

However, argued Gulalp, under its present government Turkey may become a valid model for the coexistence of Islam and democracy. It may also represent a viable alternative to Islamist governments, as well as to secularist regimes which have suppressed not only their Islamist opponents but Muslim identity itself.

In considering what differentiates Turkey’s previous Islamist regime from today’s Muslim government, Gulalp began by distinguishing between Islam and the politics of Islamism. The former, he stated, encompasses religion and culture, while Islamism denotes a political ideology. During the previous Islamist government, he said, “what we had was a case of political Islam, not founded on democratic principles.” Although it participated in the electoral process and won legitimately, he pointed out, it was not a pro-democracy government.

Many believe that because Islam, particularly as a culture, was oppressed under secular Turkish governments, the assertion of an Islamic identity in the form of a political movement was a progressive and democratic step. “I was critical then of this view,” said Gulalp. “Islamism as a political movement cannot be democratic.” Any policy based on an assertion of cultural identity, he maintained, has the potential to be authoritative and intolerant. “It necessarily presumes an essential quality to culture and members of that culture,” he said. “It presumes a homogeneity that doesn’t exist, and forces people into straitjackets.”

Recalling the slew of post-Cold War identity movements, Gulalp noted that most were defensive, looking for an assertion of identity that was non-negotiable. Furthermore, he said, “political Islamism and other identity movements are geared toward power—capturing state power to impose a certain view.”

Islamism, he stressed, is deeply in touch with and makes use of modernity, a fact noted by scholars. Its “traditional identity” is merely for ideological purposes. Ironically, this top-down approach to power was the basis of Islamists’ criticism of secularist regimes, except that the latter championed forced Westernization. “Both movements were non-democratic,” stated Gulalp, “and for the same reasons.”

A number of events, he continued, led to a re-thinking among the younger generation of Islamists: if we’re struggling for our identity to be accepted, will our acceptance of other points of view be selective or universal? As a result, Gulalp said, they became amenable to many global concepts, such as human rights and liberal democracy. During Turkey’s recent elections the Islamist party split in two—with the older generation of Islamists garnering a mere 2 percent of the vote, while the younger set formed the new government under the Justice and Development Party.

This new attitude has been expressed most clearly in the case of European Union membership. In order to smooth the way to membership, the present government has declared its most important goal to be the pursuit of strategic partnerships with European countries and allies. At the same time, however, noted Gulalp, Turkey’s top three government leaders are “openly and proudly Muslim,” as well as committed to democracy. According to them, Europeans should accept that a Muslim nation has a right to join the EU.

When asked about the transformation of Islamism around the world, Gulalp expressed the belief that the tragedy of Sept. 11 brought things to a head. “One may interpret that date as the beginning of a new phase of the clash of civilizations,” he said. “But I think of it as a last desperate effort, a closure to the period of Islamism. Many ordinary Muslims as well as the Islamist movements are strongly trying to disassociate themselves from 9/11. You can inflict damage, they think, but what can you build?”

In Gulalp’s opinion, however, the rethinking that began on Sept. 11 in other parts of the world, such as Egypt, had begun a few years before in Turkey. Its Islamists were prepared.

When asked about the compatibility of new developments with the legacy of Kemal Ataturk, Gulalp replied that the latter has been much debated, and not only by the Islamists. “‘Kemalism’ has been exposed as an ideology, and [thereby] weakened,” he said. “The fact that it is discussed means it’s no longer taken for granted.”

According to Gulalp, this is related to the phenomenon of globalism. The Third World nationalist ideologies of this century were a means to catch up with modernizing Europeans and Americans. Now, he said, “it is difficult to remain independent and become part of the global civilized world.”

—Homayra Ziad

Columbia University Holds Palestinian Film Festival

Human rights activists the world over clamor to be heard amid the rumor of wars. Let the focus go to the plight of the Palestinian people, however, and many of the most vocal dissenters and advocates of justice attempt to silence any mention of one of today’s most intractable human rights violations—the dispossession of the Palestinian people. Those who persist in telling about this great wrong accept the risk of being called anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic, or a self-hating Jew, and face isolation and scorn through the practice of shunning. It’s a small price to pay for those of us who have the freedom to speak. Self-imposed silencing allows a wrong we would never tolerate in another circumstance to continue unabated. By our silence we support the very wrong we decry.

Columbia University’s Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures in New York chose to be heard regardless of behind-doors grumbling from friends of Israel. The result: nothing less than raves and solidly visible support from audiences of more than 400 students and interested attendees at the five-day, sold out “Dreams of a Nation,” a 37-film marathon. All films were written and directed by Palestinians or star Palestinian actors. Here, at last, is a body of work necessary for a more courageous public stand among those of us who support human rights for Palestinians. It’s about time.

Among the festival’s three world premiers, 12 U.S. premiers and five New York premiers, Elia Suleiman’s “Divine Intervention,” Hany Abu-Assad’s “Rana’s Wedding: Jerusalem Another Day” and “Ford Transport” stood out as quality pieces worthy of mainstream theater showing. These films reach into a viewer’s soul with the intensity of classic storytelling.

It is said that Americans are the best entertained people in history—and these Palestinian filmmakers know this. Nor do they want our pity. Eschewing mournful attempts to cast guilt by a sad display of victimization, their films are filled with creativity and humor, culture and history. They show terror, yes, and reasons why hatred exists, but they are rich in portraying how love and family keep Palestinians going and winning.

Watching “Divine Intervention,” the audience sits like characters in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, experiencing the emotion (or lack thereof) of occupation’s endless emptiness: no work, no books to read, nowhere to go, nowhere to be—the void of dispossession. Even the smallest incitement, a neighbor desperate for conversation, throwing his garbage into his neighbor’s garden, goes unresolved. We, the audience must wait and wait. Nothing happens; nothing is resolved. The audience must experience boredom and confusion in order to feel the dehumanization caused by giving up even the most basic aspect of personal pride just to get through another day. Director Suleiman provides vicarious boredom, then rewards us with scenes of passion as erotic as anything Hollywood produces—by showing only his lovers’ faces and coupling hands.

For the many who have not experienced daily life on the West Bank first hand, the feature film “Rana’s Wedding” and documentary “Ford Transit” provide the armchair adventure without the risk. Easy to follow, less metaphorical than “Divine Intervention,” Hany Abu-Assad’s films show the resolve and fearlessness essential to those who remain in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. As the driver in “Ford Transit” says, “If you’re afraid, you can’t live here.” And live he does, along with the determined young people in “Rana’s Wedding” who are set on getting married on the spot—with wedding gown, hair in style, father in place and joy exceeding the exhaustion, disappointments, and IDF detours imposed with ridiculous consequences for occupier and occupied alike. “Rana’s Wedding” and “Ford Transit” show why Palestinians are worthy of our support. The people portrayed are winners.

The “Dreams of a Nation” festival has established a center where these and other films can be borrowed for local showings across the United States. Information about the collection and ordering films is available at <www.dreamsofanation.org>.

In addition to the features briefly reviewed above, there are other Palestinians films that educate as well as entertain. Sobhi al-Zobaidi’s “Crossing Kalandia” or Hazim Bitar’s “Jerusalem’s High Cost of Living” (available from the AET Book Club) provide a close look at harassment and intimidation. For poetic, elegantly filmed documentaries that show how occupation deadens pride and personal potential, one might select Akram Safadi’s “Song on a Narrow Path: Stories from Jerusalem” or Muhammad al-Sawalmeh’s “Night of the Soldiers.” Palestinian culture is clearly portrayed in Hanna Elias’s “The Mountain” and Michel Khleifi’s “Tale of Three Jewels,” and history reveals itself through Kais al-Zobaidi’s “Palestine, A People’s Record” or Maryse Gargour’s archival piece, “Blanche’s Homeland.” To see real anger, watch Muhammad Bakri’s “Jenin, Jenin” (available from the AET Book Club); for willingness to die for the cause, try Ghada Terawi’s “Staying Alive”; for the psychic destruction caused by personal dispossession, order a copy of Mahmoud Al Massad’s “Shatter Hassan,” Rashid Masharawi’s “Haifa,” or Alia Arasoughly’s “This is not Living.”

Two important films show interactions between outsiders and Palestinians. “The Satellite Shooters,” by Annemarie Jacir and Jeremy Hardy and “The Israeli Army,” by Leila Sansour, respectively portray the difficulties of a young Palestinian misfit trying to find himself in America and the interactions among peace activists who choose to take their support to the front lines in Bethlehem. These films offer a humorous perspective to situations few would find very funny, and leave victimization behind in favor of valor.

The new wave of Palestinian cinema is an art form that meets modern standards of quality filmmaking. Columbia University’s Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures has the films. Hopefully, Americans who care about the Palestinian tragedy will make it a priority to share the cinematic literature handed to us by the courageous and determined young filmmakers of Palestine. —Betsy Mayfield

Turkish Scholar Meliha Altunisik Looks at War in Iraq

On Feb. 5, the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC hosted a talk by Scholar-in-Residence Meliha Altunisik, an associate professor at Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey. Dr. Altunisik’s research is on the triangular relationship between Turkey, the U.S., and Iraq. As debate over the impending war on Iraq has been raging in all quarters of Turkish society, her speech addressed the prevalent attitudes toward the war within important political categories: opinion makers (academia, media, civil society organizations); foreign and security policy elites; and the general public.

Turkey’s opinion makers are deeply divided on the issue of war, said Altunisik. The small fraction who favor Turkish involvement base their support on the “inevitability thesis.” Because war is bound to take place, they believe, Turkish participation will both prevent negative diplomatic consequences for the government and ensure a place at the table during post-war reconstruction. They argue that Ankara cannot afford to alienate a major ally who grants the country significant economic and political support. Furthermore, they claim, maintaining the status quo in Iraq is detrimental to Turkish political and economic interests.

On the other hand, Altunisik continued, the anti-war contingent firmly believes that “Turkey should not be fighting someone else’s war.” Opposition does not lie in any loyalty to Saddam Hussain. Rather, it revolves around the very real issues of negative economic consequences, possible loss of fighting men, and threats to Turkey’s territorial integrity, both through an influx of refugees and the potential post-war creation of an independent Kurdistan. Interestingly, according to Altunisik, both factions among the opinion-makers decry the specter of Iraq as a pressing security threat.

The stance of the security and policy elite is more complicated, she continued, and stems directly from Turkey’s bitter experience during the first Gulf war. “The popular reading,” she explained, “is that Turkey failed to bargain effectively in 1991—and paid dearly.” Economic losses, not including indirect costs, were estimated at $4 billion to $6 billion, and many analysts blame 1991 for the recent and severe crisis in the Turkish economy. Washington failed to compensate Turkey for damages; even worse, Altunisik noted, promising business opportunities in post-war Kuwait failed to materialize, as those were largely monopolized by American enterprises. An influx of 500,000 Kurdish refugees from Iraq further exacerbated the situation in the first Gulf war, as Turkey was unprepared to handle the resulting economic and security consequences.

Today, Altunisik told the audience, bleak alternatives again have rendered the government in favor of involvement. This time, however, there is a push to secure a “sincere commitment” of repayment and aid from the United States.

The negative economic effects of a possible war already are evident in southeastern Turkey. Foreign investment is bound to fall, and rising oil prices will impact the oil-importing country. An audience member representing the Turkey Industrialists and Businessman’s Association added Turkish businesses and investment banks have estimated potential post-war economic damage at $14 billion to $15 billion in the first year. Direct costs would arise from a drop in tourism, which is 15 percent of the economy, and loss of pipeline income. Indirect costs would stem from damage to the economic recovery program in place today. Positive economic consequences, such as a potential resumption of trade with a democratic Iraq, are “vague,” he said, “but the negative costs are concrete.”

For these reasons, said Altunisik, Turkey is asking the U.S. for economic aid, lifting of industrial quotas, and the creation of industrial zones. Furthermore, the government is pressing for the safe accommodation of refugees in Iraq rather than in Turkey.

Furthermore, Ankara is angling to be an integral part of any post-war reconstruction program. According to Altunisik, the “day-after scenario” is a crucial consideration for the policy elite. “How will Iraq be governed?” she asked. “How violent will it be? How long will America stay?” There is fear that the United States will become entrenched in the region, intensifying the existing anti-Americanism and resentment against the U.S. government.

Although the present government has not openly expressed these fears, she added, Ankara also has concerns about a potential upsurge in Kurdish nationalism or the establishment of a Kurdish state in Iraq. Related concerns are the possibility of post-war ethnic and religious strife which may spill into Turkey, as well as the fate of Turkmens in Iraq.

Altunisik noted the additional danger of possible missile retaliation against Turkish bases. Turkey has been trying to obtain NATO’s assurance of defense under Article V, she said, but there had been difficulties in garnering support from Germany, France, and several other countries that are queasy about war. This issue highlights the inevitable effect of Turkey’s alliance with the U.S. on Ankara’s relations with the European Union and countries of the Middle East. If it participates in a war without international legality, relationships with these regions would suffer, she said. Accordingly, said Altunisik, Turkey has welcomed President Bush’s efforts at multilateral diplomacy and the passage of Resolution 1441. Furthermore, the Turkish government organized delegations to Iran and several Arab countries in an attempt at multi-lateral diplomacy. A delegation was even sent to Iraq, urging Saddam Hussain to fully comply with U.N. resolutions or step down.

The delegation, however, also was an action with domestic implications, a means to reassure public opinion that the government had exhausted all avenues to prevent war. For the public, she stated, remains dead set against Turkey’s involvement in a war. Altunisik cited a recent poll by the Pew Data Center in which 83 percent of the Turkish public is opposed to American use of Turkey’s air bases. Furthermore, the ruling Justice and Development Party is itself split on the issue of involvement. According to Altunisik, “the Islamist-origin core is resistant to war,” and newspapers close to the party are very critical of the war stance. This is also a reflection of the general distaste across the Turkish political spectrum for the contradictions and vacillations of U.S. policy vis à vis Iraq. Despite this, however, Justice and Development head Tayyib Erdogan recently presented a case to his party for the inevitability of Turkey’s involvement. —Homayra Ziad

Anti-war Teach In

In conjunction with a “week of resistance” which culminated in massive anti-war demonstrations around the world (see pp. 38-40), International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) sponsored a “teach-in” on Valentine’s Day, Feb. 14, at the Community Church in New York City. The daylong event opened with a plenary session that focused on analyzing the Bush administration’s plans for war, including the issues of oil and Israel, and what the anti-war movement’s next steps should be. A number of upcoming events were announced, including a march on the White House, originally scheduled for March 1, but subsequently rescheduled for March 15, a student walk-out on March 5, and a march in solidarity with Iraqi women on March 8, International Women’s Day. ANSWER also called for emergency action on whatever day bombing might begin.

Three sessions of workshops followed. The first comprised four panels, including the impact of social movements on political change, the relationship between U.S. foreign policy and Iraqi history, the role of racist ideology in pro-war propaganda, and the question of whether regime change might be a new tactic for the U.S. government. Among others, this latter panel included ANSWER activist Jamal Hassanzadeh speaking on 1953’s CIA-engineered coup in Iran, and ANSWER steering committee member Chuck Kaufman of the Nicaragua Network, who discussed tools used by the U.S. in various Latin American regime changes, citing Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Panama.

This reporter participated in the second session, moderating a workshop on the tradition of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East from the post-WW1 colonial period to the present. At this workshop, ANSWER youth member Ben Becker, a Columbia University history student, discussed the general history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, and Nasri Zakharia of the Free Palestine Alliance outlined the role of Washington’s “special relationship” with Israel in regard to Middle East policy. Other session panels included a look at possible Bush administration steps in the so-called “war on terror” following a war on Iraq, the cost of war in the U.S., including its impact on federal funding for health, education, and welfare, and the role of the U.N., whether it can be a force for peace or not.

The third session of workshops were meetings of various groups—Youth and Student ANSWER, Doctors and Nurses Against the War, Community and Labor Outreach, and SNAFU (Support Network for the Armed Forces Union)—discussing strategies of organizing. A closing plenary reported on anti-war organizing efforts around the country.

The day closed with an evening rally that included remarks on “Iraq and Palestine,” the “Domestic Consequences of War,” “Struggles against Corporate Globalization and U.S. Imperialism,” and “Building the Anti-War Movement.” In opening statements, Sara Flounders of the Iraq Sanctions Challenge and the International Action Center said, “If the U.S. lets bombs fall on Iraq, it will learn what Israeli troops know in the West Bank and Gaza, what the U.S. learned in Vietnam, and what the French in Algeria and the British in India learned, that all the weapons in the world cannot stand up against popular resistance.”

Kadouri Al Kaysi of the Committee in Solidarity with the Iraqi People expressed dismay that, after 13 years, he was still talking about the suffering of Iraqis. He then asked if the “freedom” the U.S. was proposing for Iraq would be similar to that given Afghanistan.

Dr. Asha Samad of the Immigrant and Refugee Coalition of North America raised the question of poverty as well, and discussed the effects of depleted uranium on Iraq. She also wondered why ethnic cleansing was not decried in Palestine, suggesting “settlers” be called “Palestinian Jews.” Nasri Zakharia of the Free Palestine Alliance also spoke about the plight of Palestinians as the world watches Iraq, and advocated one democratic state for all citizens. Jamie Vasquez of Veterans for Peace noted that, though only hundreds of Americans died in the Gulf war, hundreds of thousands have died since as a result of the war. He had a Purple Heart and was considered a patriot by his country, he told the audience, but conferred that title on his listeners, for their work against the war.

Brian Becker wound up the Iraq and Palestine panel by saying that, although a U.S. military victory over Iraq was a foregone conclusion, the aftermath of such arrogance in the face of millions of Europeans, Arabs, Africans, and Latin Americans demonstrating on the same day, with the same slogans, had yet to be considered.

In the panel on “Domestic Consequences of War,” the Rev. HerbertDaughtry of the House of the Lord Church in Brooklyn, fired up the audience before attorney Lynne Stewart (facing 40 years’ imprisonment for defending the “Blind Sheikh” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) addressed the issue of the shredding of American civil rights—including the ruling that the Feb. 15 demonstration could not include a march. Bobby Khan of the Coney Island Avenue Project continued the theme, talking about the humiliation of Arab and Muslim detainees in the U.S., finally asking “Who’s next?” The panel concluded with the Rev. Graylan Hagler of the Plymouth Congregational Church in Washington, DC, who delivered another fiery speech exhorting the audience to stand up to the abuses of power occurring in the U.S.

Nilda Medina of the Committee for Rescue and Development in Vieques, William Camacaro of the Venezuela Solidarity Committee, the Rev. Lucius Walker of Pastors for Peace and the Free the Cuban Five Committee, Bernadette Loren of Bayan USA, Yoomi Jeong of the Korea Truth Commission, and Macrina Cardenas of the Mexico Solidarity Network all addressed the current situation and its impact on their own areas of expertise and concern. Finally, ANSWER Student and Youth Coordinator Peta Lindsay, and steering committee members Chuck Kaufman and Larry Holmes, joined Sarah Sloan in discussing the progress and goals of building the anti-war movement. The audience adjourned, ready to raise their voices once again in the ongoing struggle to stop a war on Iraq. —Sara Powell

Bill Polk Speaks Out on War

Nizar and Ellen Jawdat hosted a cocktail party Feb. 11 at St. Luke’s Gallery for writer-historian William R. Polk, who was in Washington, DC to lecture at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and make other media appearances. Surrounded by David Roberts prints celebrating the glories and mysteries of the Middle East, Polk enthralled guests with his news of Iraq after his recent visit. (See page24 for Polk’s complete report.) He described fatalistic Iraqi people concentrating on their daily routine instead of on the uncertainty and potential devastation of war.

He saw no Iraqi preparations for war, he said—not even sandbags or trenches protecting museums that house 23 million to 24 million antiquities. Construction of roads, businesses and homes continues as if everything were normal, he said.

In discussing possible ways to avert a war, Polk said Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz was as resigned as his countrymen. Aziz told Polk that Iraq could never prove to President George Bush’s satisfaction that it had no weapons of mass destruction. Aziz, who learned logic in school, noted that it is impossible to prove the negative. “We cannot prove we don’t have weapons,” Aziz said, hence Iraqis cannot avert the war. (Polk later pointed out that Israel has 600 nuclear weapons. Which country is a real danger to the world?)

Nevertheless Polk and Aziz considered ways to break the stalemate that included:

•Iraq pays for 5,000 peacekeepers and more U.N. inspectors for five years;

•When the oil industry is back on its feet, Iraq uses 5 percent of its oil profits to benefit an international health program;

•Iraq enters an international peace treaty specifying it will not acquire weapons of mass destruction.

At the end of their productive talk, however, Aziz said he was afraid nothing Iraq could do would make a difference: War was already decided. When newsmen interview Iraqi leaders, Aziz added, they do not report what they say. Instead reporters say what they always intended to broadcast.

When asked why the U.S. media seem muzzled on Iraq, Polk replied that he thought it was more of a commercial issue than a media conspiracy. Viewers at their breakfast tables don’t want to see flies, bodies, and Indians on TV news, he explained, they want to see glorious cowboy heroes. During this war, just as in the previous Gulf war, the Defense Department will supply TV stations with the right kind of news clips.

Polk also focused on the unintended consequences of an attack on Iraq—especially the increased risk of terrorism. If by chance the hawks in the Bush administration are correct and 99 percent of the Iraqi people initially welcome U.S. troops marching into Baghdad, that still leaves one percent (or 60,000) of Iraqis who will be fanatic America-haters.

While Iraqis have always been too secular to join the likes of Osama bin Laden, Polk added, if the United States appears to be waging a war against Arabs even Bin Laden, who in 1991 offered to send a brigade to help throw Iraq out of Kuwait, may have new recruits. Even if only one percent of Iraqis feel justified in joining terrorist groups and launching attacks on Americans at home and abroad, he said, the threat of terrorism will grow.

It’s like Dr. Frankenstein, Polk said: in Iraq and Afghanistan, we created a monster and it turned on us.

A war on Iraq, Polk argued, will do nothing to improve our security. It will do everything to hurt our standing in the world. “It’s as if Osama bin Laden planned out this policy which will destroy many of the things I value in our society—our rights and laws.”

As for calling for regime change—a euphemism for the murder of Saddam Hussain—Polk said, “I happen to believe in morality...

“All my life,” he continued, “if you said you were American you were welcomed anywhere in the world. That’s not true anymore. It’s a terrible loss....The reservoir of good will in the Middle East is now drained....I don’t want my country to be a Roman Empire. I want it to be a republic. It’s the duty of patriotic Americans to stand up and say ‘This is crazy.’

“God damn it, I’m very patriotic,” Polk concluded. “To be acquiescent now is not patriotic.” —Delinda C. Hanley