The Region: America, look behind you!

Turn around! Turn around!


Feb 23, 2009 21:29 | Updated Feb 24, 2009 10:51

America: A freight train is heading your way and you’re standing right on the tracks, looking in the wrong direction.

Or perhaps it is like a horror film in which the killer sneaks up behind the hapless victim while the movie audience yells: “Turn around! Turn around!” And then blood spatters the screen.

Unfortunately, in this case, it might be our blood, and it won’t be produced by a special effects department.

Today, US policy and the dominant thinking are not based on realpolitik but on international affairs as a popularity contest. Its motto might be, “The nice will inherit the Earth,” as the Obama administration tries to prove that it’s not like that mean old Bush.

Before we get to the oncoming train, consider two small but indicative examples.

Scene 1: The UN committee planning the Durban-2 pro-racism – I mean “anti-racism” – conference. Libya chairs the committee, Iran is the vice-chair, Cuba, the rapporteur, and Russia is presiding. The plan is designed to ensure that the conference limits free speech, bashes Israel and enshrines Muslims as the world’s only and perpetual victims.

The US representative stands to propose amendments. Is the speech a thunderous denunciation of dictatorship and a defense of liberty? Not exactly. Here is the key sentence: “I hate to be the cause of unhappiness in the room… I have to suggest [amendments] and I offer my sincere apologies.”

How’s that for speaking softly and carrying a big pillow? (US president Theodore Roosevelt a century ago famously described diplomacy as “speaking softly and carrying a big stick.”)

Scene 2: The camera pans and the screen fills with an invitation to a conference being held by the Brookings Institution in Washington. The purpose is defined as asking, “How should Europe engage Russia to put relations between the West and Russia on a more positive and sustainable basis?” There is no room for pressure, opposition or criticism as part of the package; no hint of the need for flexibility to be accompanied by toughness.

Russia invaded Georgia, fought a surrogate war against Azerbaijan, blackmailed Ukraine and Lithuania. It has opposed sanctions on Iran, sold huge amounts of arms to Syria and committed real human rights’ violations in Chechnya. It is the dawning of the age not of Aquarius (as the film Hair once said of the utopia predicted in the 1960s) but of Aquarium, in which the sharks are put in charge.

US policy is putting the emphasis on conciliation with Iran and Syria, and a soft line toward Pakistan, despite its lack of cooperation on fighting terrorism against India or in Afghanistan.

The only thing you can do with a strategy of carrots without sticks is to make carrot cake. Now consider what is sneaking up on the US government as it hands out candy:

On March 29, local elections will be held in Turkey. If the current government wins these municipal races, especially in Ankara and Istanbul, the country will be encouraged to go even further down the road toward Islamic extremism. Whatever happens internally (where the nature of Turkish society forces it to go more slowly), Ankara’s foreign policy is increasingly aligned with that of the radicals in the region – not only Hamas but also Syria and Iran.

Turkey’s many friends are hoping that moderation and its traditional political virtues win out. But what’s happening there may well be the most important political event in the Middle East since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. Think of what it means if, in whole or even in part, Turkey goes from the Western to the radical camp; clearly this is a world-changing event.

Then on June 7 come the Lebanese elections. Given the vast amounts of money they have spent, their use of violent intimidation and demoralization due to the Western abandonment of the moderates, it is likely that Iran’s Syrian clients will take over Lebanon’s government. This does not mean domination by Hizbullah but by four allied forces: pro-Syrian Sunni politicians; Michel Aoun’s Christian forces; and the two Shi’ite groups, Hizbullah and Amal.

Already, Lebanon’s president and former armed forces’ commander Michel Suleiman is very close to the Iran-Syrian orbit. This doesn’t mean that Lebanon will be annexed or militarily reoccupied by Syria, or that Lebanon will become an Islamist state internally. But it does mean that Lebanon will become a reliable ally of what Syrian President Bashar Assad calls “the resistance front.”

In the region, these two developments will be perceived as two big victories for Teheran, and a sign that the Islamist-radical side is the wave of the future.

And what is the United States doing to fight, stop or manage this visible crisis?


FINALLY, ON June 12, presidential elections will take place in Iran itself. The likelihood is the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, either fairly or through manipulation of the ballot. The Iranian ruling establishment, which might have been persuaded to endorse a less extreme candidate if there had been enough Western pressure to make the incumbent look bad, has backed an openly aggressive anti-Semite.

Even though Ahmadinejad is not the real ruler of Iran, he and his allies are working to make him so. And of course his reelection means not only that Iran is waging a campaign to get nuclear weapons, it will mean that it is moving at the fastest possible speed, with the least likelihood of compromising and the most probability of using such a weapon (or forcing Israel to act militarily to stop the process). By years’ end, or shortly after, Iran might have an atom bomb.

In short, 2009 is looking like a year of massive defeat for the US and its friends in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Washington is blind to this trend, pursuing a futile attempt to conciliate its enemies, losing time and not adopting the policies desperately needed.

Instead, the US should make itself leader of a broad coalition of Arab and European states, along with Israel, to resist Islamism and Iranian ambitions.

Alas, the new administration is fooling around while the region burns.
Turn around! Turn around!

The writer is director of the Global Research in
International Affairs Center at IDC Herzliya and editor of the
Middle East Review of
International Affairs Journal.


Feb 26, 2009 21:52 | Updated Feb 26, 2009 23:01

February 27: Talking Turkey

Talking Turkey

Sir, – Barry Rubin’s “America, look behind you! Turn around! Turn around!” (February 24) was very misleading on Turkey and the upcoming local election. He warned that if the current government won the election, Turkey would be encouraged to go in the direction of “Islamic extremism.”

The March 29 election is much more about the maturing of our democracy than anything else. Also, it is seen as a referendum on our government’s
foreign policy since 2007.

Turkish foreign policy has been marked by a very proactive outlook to our neighborhood and aims to reintegrate Turkey back into regions where we were present for centuries. We are aware that coming into the region means taking over more responsibilities. We are not shy of that. The talks we hosted between Israel and Syria for more than a year are only one example of these new responsibilities.

Interpreting Turkey’s delicate neighborhood policy as a sign of Turkey becoming “Islamist extremist” not only fails to appreciate the constructive role Turkey has been playing in the region but also reflects the failure to recognize new regional realities.

foreign policy establishment is much more sophisticated than Mr. Rubin’s very simplistic charge that Turkey is “switching to the radical camp” suggests. When we started to engage with Syria in 2003, we received similar criticism. Today we see that most of our European and American allies understand the wisdom of this policy. I am confident that our approach to the Palestinian issue will go through a similar evolution.

The only agreeable part of Mr. Rubin’s piece was that “what happens in Turkey is the most important political event in the Middle East since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago.” Indeed, Turkey’s consolidation of democracy, its historic engagement with the European Union, its growing regional consciousness and proactivism in its neighborhood is a historic process. Turkey’s allies should embrace it and engage with Turkey rather than complain about it.

AK Party Deputy


How Turkey is Gradually Being Colonized

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis March 01, 2009

In a previous article entitled ´The Colonization of Turkey´ (, I drew a historical diagram of Iran, China, Japan, and Turkey, the only Asiatic countries that have not been colonized, at least in the way the proper meaning of the word suggests (military occupation and foreign administration ruling the colonized country). It is clear that through the aforementioned I consider Russia as a basically European country, as its historical center lies exclusively on European soil, in the west of the Ural mountains.

Indirect Colonization and Socio-political Eclecticism

Yet, if these four Asiatic countries have not been colonized stricto sensu, they have been indirectly colonized at all levels, economic, political, educational, cultural and geopolitical. Here, I want to clarify that I make a very clear distinction between voluntary acceptance of theories, systems, ideas, practices, and policies implemented by other countries and indirect colonialism. I would rather identify the former as Socio-political Eclecticism.

Indirect colonialism means, on the contrary, blind acceptance of another country´s systems, ideas, practices, and policies without a chance for the accepting country (which is thus indirectly colonized) to preserve its authenticity, historical integrity, cultural and national independence. Indirect colonialism has mostly to do with systems composed in another country by theoreticians, philosophers, intellectuals and academia totally unrelated to the country that becomes indirectly colonized by accepting them. It may also involve the blind acceptance of a behavioural system.

The examples of Communist China and post-WW II Japan are quite indicative; particularly, the Cultural Revolution was an extreme phenomenon of de-Sinization. To accept and implement a typically Euro-centric system of worldview (Marxism – Leninism), the Communist Party of China tried systematically to irrevocably delete the essence of 5000 years of Chinese Civilization, Integrity, Authenticity and Identity. Japan´s modern society, despite the preservation of number of traditions, doesn´t reflect what Japan has been over the past 500 years. The same can even be said for post-WW II Germany, but this is not the subject of the present article.

Today´s Islam and Islamism: Indirect Colonization

Indirect colonization can also take the form of acceptance of a theoretical simulacrum of a system that the indirectly colonized country and people consider as surely their own. This is precisely the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran; in fact, modern Islamism is not a system emanating out of the Cultural and Political Heritage of Islam. It is an Orientalist sub-system created in Western European (read mainly French and English) academic and Freemasonic ateliers that superimposes the religious element over the political only to accommodate the colonial powers´ anti-Islamic, anti-Ottoman, and anti-Iranian interests. As such, it has been projected on Muslim countries in a sophisticated way only to engulf them in vain queries, unrealistic purposes, catastrophic policies and permanent underdevelopment.

The focus of the Islamism has certainly been the area of the so-called Arabic speaking countries, a vast part of the Ottoman Empire that was gradually cut off and victimized though the earlier projection of the equally colonial and absolutely fake dogma of (Pan-)Arabism. None of these countries has ever been Arabic, except Hedjaz, namely the Western part of today´s Saudi Arabia. Not a single inhabitant of the aforementioned realm (except the region of Hedjaz) is Arab, and the mere phenomenon of linguistic arabization did not change in anything the Aramaean, Yemenite, Coptic, Nubian, Kushitic and Berberic identities of the greatly different (from one another) nations who have been targeted by the colonial powers, detached from their own country (i. e. the Ottoman Empire), and monstrously deformed following the criminal projection of the fabricated, fake Arabic identity on them.

Yet, Islamism was viciously supported by the colonial countries and diffused by them beyond the limited area of the so-called Arabic speaking countries. In the late 1970s, Iran fell victim of these colonial endeavours. Certainly, Ayatullah Khomeini and his team, and the various administrations of the 30-year regime could never imagine that they are real tools of the colonial powers that apparently constitute their enemies.

However, contrarily to the Safevid Persian imperial policies, the Islamic Republic does not reflect any real political opposition to the colonial powers. The official Iranian claim for Vilayat-e Faqih is not a political system, and does not provide for any opposition to Anglo-French and American post-colonialism. The Iranian theoretical background of the Islamic Republic is a religious system that, although Shia, reflects Sunni schools of jurisprudence and philosophy in many aspects. But it consists in a superimposition of the religious on the political, and this did not occur at all at the Safevid or earlier times. In fact, this fact relates to our modern times, and to the colonial projections on the Islamic countries.

From the times of the earlier Islamic dynasties down to the Ottoman and Safevid times, the political ideology of the Caliphate and the other imperial Islamic establishments certainly reflected Islamic values but was not subordinated to the religion. It was the continuation of earlier imperial political ideologies, the Sassanid Iranian, the Eastern Roman, the Arsacid Parthian, the Imperial Roman, the Seleucid Syrian, the Macedonian, the Achaemenid Persian, the Babylonian, the Assyrian, and the Akkadian systems.

As imperial systems, not as religions, the Ottoman Empire, Safevid Iran, and Mogul India enabled the world of Islam to prevail over the rest of the world politically, economically, intellectually, culturally, educationally, academically, and artistically. In this case, the ´rest of the world´ was in fact limited to two realms: Northwestern Europe and China.

The European colonial attack against these imperial systems (something that is not the subject of the present article) involved many methods, but the most critical one was the projection of the Freemasonry-invented and colonially diffused Islamism, a system which – so conveniently for the colonial powers and so pathetically for all Muslims – superimposed the religious over the political element within the query for an all-Islamic political entity.

This Islamic pseudo-state, in which the religious element is superimposed over the political element, if we hypothesized that it existed, it would be the top colonial achievement throughout the Islamic world because it would consist in a non-political entity (a fake state – as any state without a proper political ideology is a fake) guided by an extreme deformation of Islam that is believed as Islam by today´s Muslims, and even worse, this deformation of Islam would play the role of the political ideology in that fake state.

When I speak of deformation of Islam, I mean that to the earlier stages of prevalence of the Hanbalist school and the system of Ibn Taimiya have been added the most recent layers of Wahhabism and Islamic Modernism (Jemal al Din Afghani and Mohamed Abduh), which bear a strong mark of unscreened colonial influence. As long as today´s Islamic sheikhs, muftis, theoreticians, theologians, and intellectuals do not reject the aforementioned layers, they will fail to reach Islamic authenticity at either the political – ideological or the philosophical – theological level. Accordingly, what they call ´religion´ is totally irrelevant and illusory. But this is again not the main subject of this article.

I expanded much on the issue of Islamism as indirect colonization, because what was achieved by the colonial powers in Iran in 1979 is attempted against Turkey with a 30-year delay.

Kemal Ataturk and Modern Turkey: Colonial or Anti-Colonial?

As I said earlier, a voluntary acceptance of theories, systems, ideas, practices, and policies implemented by other countries is not indirect colonialism. I used the term “Socio-political Eclecticism” to describe it. This was typical of Kemal Ataturk and did characterize the innovations he introduced in Turkey. I would not refer to the subject but I do so only to refute Islamist literature against the founder of Modern Turkey. This literature is abundant in Arabic and Farsi but it progressively finds however its way to the global mass media in several international languages due to the phenomenon of labor immigration. In fact, Arabic speaking countries´ elites, plunged in severe analphabetism and extreme obscurantism, have felt for many long decades a grave complex of inferiority because Turkey was not colonized, whereas their territories were colonized by the English, the French, the Italians, and more recently the Americans.

The following trait is an additional testimony to the colonial nature of the Arabic speaking countries; both parts of their regimes, the local modernizers who want to pathetically imitate Europe and America (and they do so without understanding the logic and the reason behind every behavioural or theoretical particularity of the Westerners) and the Islamists who idiotically believe in the pillars of the Islamic Modernism and even more inanely desire the rise of an Islamic state (deprived of political ideology and with their deformed Islam playing the role of political ideology), hate Kemal Ataturk, revile Turkey´s achievements (that are all due to his policies), and try to defame them as a form of colonialism – called Turkey´s westernization.

Rejection of colonialism is not a theoretical endeavour; it is mainly a political act. It denotes denial of the colonial powers, involving fight and war against them, lack of contact with them, opposition to their plans, dismantlement of their deeds and destruction of their interests at the local level. Even more importantly, rejection of colonialism means absolute refutation of all colonial proposals; in fact, national sovereignty implies automatic rejection of cooperation with colonial powers´ representatives (military, economic, administrative, academic, spiritual, etc.) and decisive punishment of all those who betraying their nation, for their own economic sake, collaborate in any form with the colonial powers´ forces.

Nothing of all this concerns the pathetic apostates of the Ottoman empires who, believing in the diverse lies of the colonial representatives, collaborated with the English and the French only to see a disaster befalling on their countries that remained underdeveloped, anachronistic and dysfunctional. The various Arabic speaking groups who, after having been enticed by the English and the French, voluntarily worked with them, represent servility, docility and slavery better than any other ethnic group on earth. They were expecting to become rulers in a united ´Arabic´ kingdom, and they were divided to more 10 (ten) countries (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, Emirates, Oman, Bahrain)! But this was not what the English were promising in 1915 to these imbecile Arabic speaking groups in order to convince them to desert the national army of their country, the Ottoman Empire, and help them bring down the last political instance of the Islamic world. …..

None of all these besotted, ignorant and lewd pseudo-elites of Damascus, Baghdad, Jerusalem, Mecca, and Cairo would have expected in the 1910´s the developments that followed the end of WW I. They were ´sure´ that the English and the French would help them substitute their bogus-state to the Ottoman Empire that they had hated due to the evil propaganda of the colonials, which they were gullible, obtuse and brainless enough to accept.

The pro-Western (minority) and the Islamist (majority) elites of the so-called Arabic speaking countries, who have uninterruptedly served the colonial powers as the world´s most obedient and passive slaves, having engaged in typically evil duplicity (promising one thing to their colonial masters and saying precisely the opposite to their rude, uncivil and barbaric masses), denounce Kemal Ataturk´s policies that displeased the colonial powers because they were the means of a backward country´s rise to power and modernity.

In fact, Kemal Ataturk, contrarily to Lenin, Mao and others, did not intend to (and did not) implement a certain system; although we have the tendency to view his policies now en bloc and thus consider them as a system, they were not perceived like that in the 1920s and the 1930s. His policies were not a mere imitation, a blind copy or a dogmatic transplantation of another system. There was a great role for the state in the restructuring of the economy, but there were private companies as well. There was a change of writing system far more radical than the small changes introduced by Lenin in the Russian alphabet. Everything was decided upon and introduced as policy in order to enable the local populations smoothly cope with Western European and Northern American competition in terms of science, technology, economy, efficient governance, and social infrastructure. It was an effort of modernization based on a pragmatic assessment of the then world.

Kemal Ataturk´s policies were not dictated by the colonial powers, and this is very easy to reconfirm after crosschecking the subject at the global level; nowhere did France and England suggest to local governments to implement policies introduced in Turkey by Kemal Ataturk.

At this point one has to denounce once forever the ridiculous myth of Arabic countries´ socialism; there has never been such a thing as Arab socialism. The socialists, the Nasserists and the Baathists did not dare implement even 10% of Kemal Ataturk´s reforms. No Latin writing, and no Sunday as weekend! And certainly, none of them dared prohibit the Islamic veil from the public places or to eliminate the religious schools that have always been the worst impediment in the path of modern countries for progress.

The policies of Kemal Ataturk could not possibly and actually did not please the colonial powers because they offer to any country whereby they are to be eventually implemented the tools to achieve competition with the leading European countries. On the contrary, the colonial countries consider that their own interests are guaranteed when the targeted countries simply imitate Western policies, fail to understand the reasons and the purposes behind these policies, and are thus engulfed in internal inconclusive conflicts that are eternalized.

We have a very clear indication of the terrible clash occurred between Kemal Ataturk and the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge which is the guiding force of the colonial regimes of France and England; to eliminate its subversive penetration, which was targeting him directly, Kemal Ataturk, as a true and staunch Freemason, decided the elimination of the institutions depending on the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge, and the cancellation of their evil works.

However, one must have a clear idea of what Kemal Ataturk and his military – political establishment have been and what they have not. The latter is also of importance as it still influences and determines today´s Turkey, its political decision making process, and its intellectual – academic debates.

Kemal Ataturk was not an atheist firmly engaged in favour of evolutionism and materialism; to depict him in this way bears witness to either ignorance or conspiracy. The Turkish Republic was never an anti-Islamic country determined to harm Islam; on the contrary, it was a state whereby nothing could be done in order to defame Islam. Contrarily to Kemal Ataturk´s state, the Islamic Republic of Iran constitutes a reason for Islam´s defamation, denigration and vilification. Similarly with Saudi Arabia, which is the state that defamed Islam most throughout the World History, Iran and every fanatic Islamist establishment misrepresent Islam and damage its chances of being correctly, fairly and accurately perceived by people allover the world.

Ever Lurking Colonial Powers: from Turkey´s Adhesion to NATO to Erdogan´s High Treason

As I already said in the previous article, Turkey´s adhesion to NATO in the early 50s was partly due to the pro-American policy of the heretic premier Adnan Menderes, who had attended the American College for Secondary Education at Izmir in the 1910s, and pursued a steady anti-Ataturk policy that rightfully ended with his execution, following a military coup against his demagogic and catastrophic government.

Turkey´s participation in the NATO was certainly a form of partly colonization that did not affect directly the Turkish society. It mainly consisted in diffusion of falsehood (from the part of the top US, English and French military) among the top Turkish military, mainly the 3-star and 4-star generals. The falsehood had preponderantly to do with general geo-strategic considerations and perception of threats; by exaggerating the Soviet threat, the NATO colonials obtained Turkey´s participation in the Cold War.

Of course, the overall phenomenon involved diverse methods such as excessive bribery, multifaceted deception, secretive initiation to American and English Freemasonic institutions that are all controlled by the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge, premeditated support of these generals in their promotion. This occurred in parallel with the very traditional method which provided for the selection of several Turkish students abroad for initiation and membership in the aforementioned institutions whereby every member is a real hostage; this is so because the initiation and the membership involve grave psychological constraints, psychic shocks, severe threats, and blackmail. The later social and professional promotion of the diverse members in the administration machine, the academia, the mass media, the politics, the diplomacy and the economy offers the means of power control to the evil and subversive organization that identifies its interests with those of England and France. As hierarchy is all that matters therein, the real targets are unknown to most of the members, but the ordered action is compulsory; consequently, the people held captive in this organization can prove to be greatly harmful to their own country – at their unbeknownst. In fact, every concept of national independence, personal, social and political freedom, and democracy is eliminated when this organization is allowed or manages to be fully functional. This is the reason Kemal Ataturk, well aware of their perversity, prohibited their further function in the 1930s.

Several coups in Turkey were precisely due to the desire of the military to put under control or to limit the activity of this sort of unconscious traitors. Certainly Turkey is only one example in this regard; similar phenomena occurred in various countries.

One can describe the entire system as an effort to totally control and damage other countries through a veil of predefined (pre-arranged) networks that function as catalysts. It goes without saying that more isolated a country is greater is the difficulty of the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge to penetrate it. That´s why the trickery of the liberal economy was invented in order to mainly help the malicious institution further penetrate whereby penetration was difficult or impossible in the past.

With respect to Turkey, the first stage of colonialism involved mainly a few members, ceaseless contacts, extensive selection of data, and thorough analysis of the system´s functionality. The data would be later used, when the correct timing would be identified. The first stage lasted no less than 50 years, 1952 – 2003.

The most important effect of this stage of colonialism was the high acquaintance with the details of political, military and economic life in Turkey, and the progressively acquired control of the various military projects, functions, plans, and practices. This was achieved through continuous interaction with the selected 3-star and 4-star generals, their Freemasonic initiation, and the subsequent long cooperation.

During this period, while NATO served the colonial purposes as described, France and England never got rid of their hereditary Anti-Turkish racism and hysteria. Whenever the Cold War was not undergoing a severe crisis, the two European colonial powers pursued their plans either triggering Turkish – Greek conflicts (tragic events at Istanbul in 1955) or provoking inter-community misunderstandings in Cyprus (through the 50s and the 60s until 1974).

In addition, they laid the foundations of their approach to what they diffused as ´Kurdish problem´ which is another typical fallacy because under the umbrella – name ´Kurds´ the Anglo-French colonial academia and diplomats compressed more than 10 different nations. The tactics is very old and widely implemented; a state whereby ten different nations are compressed and oppressed can never undergo proper and pertinent nation – building, and this situation triggers in turn internal conflict and underdevelopment. It is mainly in the 60s and the 70s that Anglo-French academia started speaking of ´Kurds´ (and meaning – erroneously – one nation) analytically.

Similarly, the Armenian Diaspora was given the order to continue the anti-Turkish propaganda for the terrible massacres occurred in 1915 – 1916 in the Northeastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire because the Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire, incited by the French and the Russians, had decided to betray their own country for the sake of the enemy. Instead of demanding recognition of an inexistent genocide, the Armenians of the Diaspora should present to Turkey their apologies for having shamelessly betrayed their own country,

At the same time, the reactionary elements of the Modern Islamic theology and the traditionalist minority managed to survive and to form some connections with Islamic extremists in countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan. This was anticipated by the colonial powers, and offered them an additional point of pressure over Turkey.

The second stage of Turkey´s colonization started with the rise of the AKP party in 2003. It was meant to complete the earlier preparation, and fulfill Turkey´s colonization. The sophisticated plan provided for the following parts:

1. The political rise of an extremist Islamist party camouflaged up to great extent

2. The parallel socioeconomic rise of provincial businessmen ready to form the backbone of the new establishment

3. An active engagement of Turkey in negotiations with the European Union which would bring forth the pretext for democratization

4. The orchestrated pressure by EU institutions and the Islamist party for limitations in the role of the military in Turkey

5. The gradual diffusion and imposition of Islamist ideas and forms of thought among the Turkish society

6. The recognition of the myth “Kurds” by the Turkish government

7. The recognition of the myth “Armenian Genocide” by the Turkish government

8. The elimination of Turkish ambitions in Caucasus and Central Asia

9. The use of Turkish diplomacy in order to promote several colonial peace plans in the Middle East

10. Advanced liberalization and consequently increased economic control of Turkey

11. The final attack against the military establishment through the creation and meticulous guidance of a huge scandal directed against the military which would involve spectacular but untrue discoveries in order to impress the local people, and defame the military.

12. Adoption of all the terms and dogmas of Islamic Modernism

13. Acceptance of all the terms of the colonial dogmas, Orientalism, Pan-Arabism, and Islamism, and

14. The final abolition of Kemal Ataturk´s Turkey and the subsequent adaptation of the country into a religious, barbaric and unilateral system – similar with that of the Ayatullahs of Iran or the religious extremism and darkness of Saudi Arabia.

In a forthcoming article, I will analyze the character of today´s Turkey which is being altered and turned into that of a fully colonized country.


Picture: Allenby enters Jerusalem; a critical development of the WW I in the Middle East.

The Geopolitical Great Game

Turkey and Russia Moving Closer

By F. William Engdahl

February 27, 2009 “Globalresearch” — Despite the problems of the ruble and the weak oil price in recent months for the Russian economy, the Russian Government is pursuing a very active foreign policy strategy. Its elements focus on countering the continuing NATO encirclement policy of Washington, with often clever diplomatic initiatives on its Eurasian periphery. Taking advantage of the cool relations between Washington and longtime NATO ally, Turkey, Moscow has now invited Turkish President Abdullah Gul to a four day state visit to discuss a wide array of economic and political cooperation issues.

In addition to opening to Turkey, a vital transit route for natural gas to western Europe, Russia is also working to firm an economic space with Belarus and other former Soviet republics to firm its alliances. Moscow delivered a major blow to the US military encirclement strategy in Central Asia when it succeeded earlier this month in convincing Kyrgystan, with the help of major financial aid, to cancel US military airbase rights at Manas, a major blow to US escalation plans in Afghanistan.

In short, Moscow is demonstrating it is far from out of the new Great Game for influence over Eurasia.

Warmer Turkish relations

The Government of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has shown increasing impatience with not only Washington policies in the Middle East, but also the refusal of the European Union to seriously consider Turkey’s bid to join the EU. In the situation, it’s natural that Turkey would seek some counterweight to what had been since the Cold War overwhelming US influence in Turkish politics. Russia’s Putin and Medvedev have no problem opening such a dialogue, much to Washington’s dismay.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul paid a four-day visit to the Russian Federation from February 12 to 15, where he met with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, and also travelled to Kazan, the capital of Tatarstan, where he discussed joint investments. Gul was accompanied by his state minister responsible for foreign trade, and Minister of Energy, as well as a large delegation of Turkish businessmen. Foreign Minister Ali Babacan joined the delegation.

Visit to Tatarstan

The fact that Gul’s Moscow visit also included a stop in Tatarstan, the largest autonomous republic in Russian Federation whose population mainly consists of Muslim Tatar Turks, is a sign how much relations between Ankara and Moscow have improved in recent months as Turkey has cooled to Washington foreign policy. In previous years, Moscow was convinced that Turkey was trying to establish Pan-Turanism in the Caucasus and Central Asia and inside the Russian Federation, a huge concern in Moscow. Today clearly Turkish relations with Turk entities inside the Russian Federation are not considered suspicious as it was once, confirming a new mood of mutual trust.

Russia elevated Gul’s trip from the previously announced status of an ‘official visit’ to a ‘state visit,’ the highest level of state protocol, indicating the value Moscow now attaches to Turkey. Gul and Medvedev signed a joint declaration announcing their commitment to deepening mutual friendship and multi-dimensional cooperation. The declaration mirrors a previous ‘Joint Declaration on the Intensification of Friendship and Multidimensional Partnership,’ signed during a 2004 visit by then-President Putin.

Turkish-Russian economic ties have greatly expanded over the past decade, with trade volume reaching $32 billion in 2008, making Russia Turkey’s number one partner. Given this background, bilateral economic ties were a major item on Gul’s agenda and both leaders expressed their satisfaction with the growing commerce between their countries.

Cooperation in energy is the major area. Turkey’s gas and oil imports from Russia account for most of the trade volume. Russian press reports indicate that the two sides are interested in improving cooperation in energy transportation lines carrying Russian gas to European markets through Turkey, the project known as Blue Stream-2. Previously Ankara had been cool to the proposal. The recent completion of the Russian Blue Stream gas pipeline under Black Sea increased Turkey’s dependence on Russian natural gas from 66 percent up to 80 percent. Furthermore, Russia is beginning to see Turkey as a transit country for its energy resources rather than simply an export market, the significance of Blue Stream 2.

Russia is also eager to play a major part in Turkey’s attempts to diversify its energy sources. A Russian-led consortium won the tender for the construction of Turkey’s first nuclear plant recently, but as the price offered for electricity was above world prices, the future of the project, awaiting parliamentary approval, remains unclear. Prior to Gul’s Moscow trip, the Russian consortium submitted a revised offer, reducing the price by 30 percent. If this revision is found legal under the tender rules, the positive mood during Gul’s trip may indicate the Turkish government is ready to give the go-ahead for the project.

Russia’s market also plays a major role for Turkish overseas investments and exports. Russia is one of the main customers for Turkish construction firms and a major destination for Turkish exports. Similarly, millions of Russian tourists bring significant revenues to Turkey every year.

Importantly, Turkey and Russia may start to use the Turkish lira and the Russian ruble in foreign trade, which could increase Turkish exports to Russia, as well as weakening dependence on dollar mediation.

Post-Cold War tensions reduced

However the main message of Gul’s visit was the fact of the development of stronger political ties between the two. Both leaders repeated the position that, as the two major powers in the area, cooperation between Russia and Turkey was essential to regional peace and stability. That marked a dramatic change from the early 1990’s after the collapse of the Soviet Union when Washington encouraged Ankara to move into historically Ottoman regions of the former Soviet Union to counter Russia’s influence.

In the 1990’s in sharp contrast to the tranquillity of the Cold War era, talk of regional rivalries, revived ‘Great Games’ in Eurasia, confrontations in the Caucasus and Central Asia were common. Turkey was becoming once more Russia’s natural geopolitical rival as in the 19th Century. Turkey’s quasi-alliance with Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Georgia until recently led Moscow to view Turkey as a formidable rival. The regional military balance developed in favor of Turkey in Black Sea and the Southern Caucasus. After the disintegration of the USSR, the Black Sea became a de facto ‘NATO lake.’ As Russia and Ukraine argued over the division of the Black Sea fleet and status of Sevastopol, the Black Sea became an area for NATO’S Partnership for Peace exercises.

By contrast, at the end of the latest Moscow visit, Gul declared, ‘Russia and Turkey are neighboring countries that are developing their relations on the basis of mutual confidence. I hope this visit will in turn give a new character to our relations.’ Russia praised Turkey’s diplomatic initiatives in the region.

Medvedev commended Turkey’s actions during the Russian-Georgian war last summer and Turkey’s subsequent proposal for the establishment of a Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform (CSCP). The Russian President said the Georgia crisis had shown their ability to deal with such problems on their own without the involvement of outside powers, meaning Washington. Turkey had proposed the CSCP, bypassing Washington and not seeking transatlantic consensus on Russia. Since then, Turkey has indicated its intent to follow a more independent foreign policy.

The Russian aim is to use its economic resources to counter the growing NATO encirclement, made severe by the Washington decision to place missile and radar bases in Poland and the Czech Republic aimed at Moscow. To date the Obama Administration has indicated it will continue the Bush ‘missile defense’ policy. Washington also just agreed to place US Patriot missiles in Poland, clearly not aimed at Germany, but at Russia.

Following Gul’s visit, some press in Turkey described Turkish-Russian relations as a ‘strategic partnership,’ a label traditionally used for Turkish-American relations. Following Gül’s visit, Medyedev will go to Turkey to follow up the issues with concrete cooperation proposals. The Turkish-Russian cooperation is a further indication of how the once overwhelming US influence in Eurasia has been eroded by the events of recent US foreign policy in the region.

Washington is waking up to find it confronted with Sir Halford Mackinder’s ‘worst nightmare.’ Mackinder, the ‘father’ of 20th Century British geopolitics, stressed the importance of Britain (and after 1945 USA) preventing strategic cooperation among the great powers of Eurasia.

F. William Engdahl is author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Pluto Press) and Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation ( ). His new book, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order (Third Millennium Press) is doe for release in late Spring 2009. He may be reached via his website: .

Turkish army says no demands yet from U.S.

Friday, 20 February 2009 10:08

The U.S. has not knocked on Turkey’s door to set up a military base on the Black Sea coast after the Kyrgyzstan decision to close a key base for Afghanistan operations, a spokesman for the Turkish army said Friday.

Recent media reports have suggested that the U.S. may look at setting up a military base in the Turkish city of Trabzon as an alternative to the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan which is due to close later this year.

“There is no such demand as yet,” military spokesman Brig. Gen. Metin Gurak told a weekly press briefing.

Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev signed into law on Friday the closure of the Manas air base outside the Kyrgyz capital, a key U.S. military supply base for Afghanistan, making good on a decision that shocked Washington.

Bakiyev’s announcement last month for the closure came after Russia offered more than $2 billion in aid to the struggling Kyrgyz economy. The government has insisted that Moscow did not set the closure as a conditıon

The U.S. Air Force has been deployed at an airbase in Turkey’s southern city of Incirlik since the signing of a joint agreement in 1954. The NATO base is currently home to the United States’ 39th Air Base Wing and some 5,000 U.S. service personnel.

Gurak also said the number of the Turkish troops could increase in Afghanistan, in line with the handover of the command of the Kabul Area Command to Turkey in August.

Foreign policy experts here suggest that U.S. President Barack Obama may have asked for more Turkish troops or other Turkish contributions in Afghanistan during separate phone conversations he had with Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan earlier this week.

Turkey currently has some 800 troops serving with NATO forces in Afghanistan, most of who are based in the capital, Kabul. Having the second biggest army within NATO and as the only Muslim country in the alliance, Turkey is uniquely placed to help.

An Obama Policy toward Turkey: Continuity or Change?


February 19, 2009

Mavi Boncuk |
An Obama Policy toward Turkey: Continuity or Change?
Featuring Soner Cagaptay, Mark Parris, and Ian Lesser
February 18, 2009

Listen to MP3 Audio files

Soner Cagaptay | Mark Parris | Ian Lesser | Q&A

The Obama administration faces a number of imminent decisions in developing U.S. policy toward Turkey. Should Washington choose sides in Turkey’s protracted struggle over secularism and democracy involving the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its opponents? Can the United States bring the reluctant AKP to support U.S. efforts on issues ranging from Iran’s nuclear program to Russian regional ambitions?

To discuss these issues, The Washington Institute invited Soner Cagaptay, Mark Parris, and Ian Lesser to address a special Policy Forum on February 18, 2009.

Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow and director of the Institute’s Turkish Research Program. A visiting professor at Georgetown University, he recently spent four months in Turkey researching and writing on Turkish foreign and domestic policy.

Mark Parris, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, is counselor to the Turkey Project and visiting fellow for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.

Ian Lesser is a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, focusing on Turkey and the U.S.-Turkey-EU triangle.

Labels: PolicyWatch, politics