Turkish Coup, Muslim Democracy and Western Bad Faith: New Age Islam's Selection, 10 September 2016
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
10 September 2016
• Turkish Coup, Muslim Democracy and Western Bad Faith
By Mujeeb R Khan
• Erdogan’s ‘Win-Win’ On the World Stage
By Cengiz Çandar
• US Should Revisit ME Policy
By Harun Yahya
• Assad’s Exit Must for Syria Solution
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
• Why Palestine's 'Merry Christmas People' Are Not So Merry
By Daoud Kuttab
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Turkish Coup, Muslim Democracy And Western Bad Faith
By Mujeeb R Khan
09 Sep 2016
The failure of the July 15 coup attempt in Turkey once again exposed a cognitive chasm between many in the Western and Muslim worlds when it comes to upholding ostensibly universal values surrounding democracy and self-determination.
Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre who, along with Frantz Fanon, led the Western intellectual struggle against colonial mass slaughter and torture in Algeria, defined "mauvaise foi" or "bad faith", as insincerity towards one's professed highest values which inevitably ends in self-deception and defeat.
In this vein, it was sobering to watch the leading news networks in the United States, such as CNN and Fox, when it seemed the Turkish coup might be succeeding.
A number of American politicians and network "experts" could scarcely suppress their glee over the thought that the elected government would be overthrown and another General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi type junta in Turkey would, according to them, "serve American interests".
Even The New York Times, labelled the popular defence of democracy a "counter-coup", and the millions of common citizens who repeatedly defied death as being akin to Erdogan's "sheep"
Further, such bad faith was shown by "liberal" California Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman, a stalwart of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, who jumped to cheer the Turkish coup adding in an Orwellian tweet that it would, "lead to real democracy".
This of course echoed US Secretary of State John Kerry's infamous declaration, as the blood of thousands of pro-democracy protesters massacred at Egypt's Rabaa Square had yet to congeal, that General Sisi was "restoring democracy" in Egypt.
Fearing Accountable Government In The Muslim World
The bitter irony here is, of course, that Western democracies seeking to dominate and exploit the region have long been the greatest external impediment to accountable and representative governments in the Muslim world.
This goes back even to the very emergence of constitutional reforms and parliamentary institutions in the late 19th and early 20th century as both the Ottoman State in 1877-78 and 1911-13, and Iran from 1905-07 were subjected to European imperial invasions intended, in part, to subvert such modernising and strengthening reforms.
Following the devastating 9/11 attacks, when the profits from such neo-imperialism in the region literally went up in smoke, both Bush and Obama seemed capable of moments of mindfulness in admitting that the US sacrificing of democracy and development in the region for the sake stability had achieved neither.
It continued with Operation Ajax, the 1953 CIA and MI6 orchestrated coup against Iran's democratically elected leader Mohammad Mosaddegh.
During the Cold War, the US pursued similar ruthless strategies against left-leaning democratic rulers in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, however, the Middle East remains an anomaly in that, as such anti-democratic policies have not been suspended here with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
In Algeria in 1991, both Washington and Paris gave the green light to the "eradicateurs" of the Algerian junta to cancel the elections won by the moderate Muslim democratic Islamic Salvation Front, plunging the country into a civil war taking more than 200,000 lives.
The junta's intelligence agencies even turned to the ruthless, ISIL-like Salafist Armed Islamic Group of Algeria (GIA), using it to carry out the massacres of thousands of pious pro-democracy Muslims in the Blida region, as well as terrorist attacks in France, when it looked as if Paris might slacken its support for "Le Pouvoir" or Algeria's unelected military regime.
In 2006, when Hamas swept democratic elections in Gaza against the thoroughly corrupt and compromised Fatah regime, Israel and the US reacted with punitive fury against the civilian population for daring to have made "the wrong choice".
Similarly, neo-conservatives in the George W Bush and Dick Cheney administration derailed the peaceful transition in Somalia of the moderate Islamic Courts Union party only to see the country plunge back into civil war and the emergence of their own Golem in the form of the al-Shabab organisation.
What Goes Around Comes Around
Apologists for such predatory policies like to claim that there are few "Jeffersonian democrats" in the region and that elections lead to "one person, one vote, one time".
The indulgence of the original Jeffersonian democrats in ethnic cleansing and slavery aside, this conceit overlooks the fact that democracy emerges not from some immaculate conception, but as an iterative process teaching trust, compromise, and the legitimacy of one's political opponents overtime.
A more credible explanation for why many Western governments and pro-Israel interest groups have long feared democracy in the Muslim world is that popular and accountable governments would insist on controlling their own markets and natural resource wealth, and would exact a heavy price for predatory policies in the region, including the dispossession of the native Palestinian population and the Western propping up of dictators and single family despotisms.
Following the devastating 9/11 attacks, when the profits from such ongoing neo-imperialism in the region literally went up in smoke, both George W Bush and Barack Obama seemed capable of moments of mindfulness in admitting that the US sacrificing of democracy and development in the region for the sake stability had achieved neither.
Yet, the Obama administration fecklessly acquiesced in the coup in Egypt and the broader betrayal of the Arab Spring in Syria, Bahrain and Libya.
As many in the region have noted, ISIS is Sisi spelled backwards. Brexit and the rise of neo-fascist movements in the US and Europe clearly demonstrate that continued Machiavellian Western efforts to uphold despotism and safeguard the post-Ottoman Sykes-Picot fragmentation of the region now threatens democracy and fragmentation in the West itself.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/turkish-coup-muslim-democracy-western-bad-faith-160908091821163.html
-----
Erdogan’s ‘Win-Win’ On the World Stage
By Cengiz Çandar
September 9, 2016
In the Sept. 1 Financial Times, Simon Kuper’s column “How Turkey tramples free speech” had the following accurate observation: “A modern Turkish government has probably never been so central to geopolitics. Western leaders want [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan’s help to fight [the Islamic State (IS)], to minimize the horrors in Syria and to keep Middle Eastern refugees out of Europe. If he cooperates, the West will allow him his excesses. But Erdogan is now snubbing Europe and the US and flirting with Russia and Iran. He is also going freelance in Syria: Turkish artillery and jets are helping Syrian rebels fight the Kurdish militia.”
It is true that the current Turkish government is central to geopolitics, and there is no one who is more aware of this fact than Erdogan himself. His awareness — and perhaps even more than that, his political wit — is the main reason he is snubbing Europe and the United States and going freelance in Syria.
His snubbing produced dividends, and his contacts with US President Barack Obama, Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the G-20 Summit in Hangzhou, China, are clear indicators of this.
Anybody who knows Erdogan closely and understands his modus operandi knows that his flirting with Russia and Iran was a “win-win” policy.
If Turkey was sidelined by the Western world, he would have done the necessary groundwork to be on the same page with Russia and Iran in a new international alignment that would replace Turkey’s Western vocation. That would be a win. His flirting with Russia and Iran would also work as leverage in getting the United States and Europe to support him. That would also be a win.
And he won. Erdogan is like a master poker player. He not only plays his own cards very well, but he also has the gift of seeing the cards in the hands of the others across the table.
His one-on-one meeting with Putin was not expected to be dramatic. Both they know each other very well, and they have similar mindsets.
The Aug. 9 Erdogan-Putin rapprochement in St. Petersburg continued in Hangzhou as business as usual and reached new heights in the cooperation against IS in northern Syria. They spoke on the phone Sept. 8, and the tacit cooperation on Syria between the two leaders led to announcements from both the Kremlin and the Turkish government. The Kremlin’s announcement was at 10:45 p.m. Turkish time, emphasizing the agreement of both leaders on the continuation of the peace efforts in Syria, followed only 10 minutes later with the more specific announcement of the Turkish presidency, mentioning that both presidents agreed that the efforts to reach a cease-fire in Aleppo for the upcoming Muslim religious holiday has to be intensified. It referred to the efforts in this regard of Russia and the United States.
A few hours before that announcement, Erdogan, with clear self-confidence, said, “Without Turkey’s consent, no scenario can be executed in Syria.”
This is an apparent reversal of fortunes for a leader and his country; only a short while ago, Syria meant Erdogan’s decline and Turkey’s doom.
Syria is still a very risky, uncertain case, but compared to earlier circumstances, it is a colossal turnabout.
Interestingly enough, the change of direction in Syria was thanks to the United States. Erdogan received what he wanted from Obama in Hangzhou, as Soner Cagaptay, the director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute, put it accurately, “a tender loving care, which he had not gotten a lot lately.”
To the dismay of Erdogan’s critics, Obama, during the meeting and later on, spoke only about his support for Turkey, did not bring up the crackdown on the press and did not mention the mass arrests that followed the coup.
Kuper, who wrote prior to the G-20 Summit, “If Erdogan cooperates, the West will allow him his excesses,” has been vindicated by the account of the Erdogan-Obama meeting.
Obama, after voicing his strong support of Erdogan and Turkey, ended his remarks in the joint press conference as follows:
“So, Tayyip, once again, it’s good to see you. We're glad you're here, safe, and that we are able to continue to work together to build on the strong alliance and partnership that we've established during the course of my presidency.”
The apparent affection he displayed for his Turkish counterpart was reciprocated. Erdogan responded with equal warmth: “President Obama, thank you. Barack, thank you. … It's a pleasure for me to get together with you within the framework of the G-20 Summit here in Hangzhou. In the aftermath of July the 15th failed coup, we've had a telephone conversation and this is the first time we got together in order to see each other face to face. And I would like to thank you for your support against this coup attempt.”
The way he spoke, the words he chose were in stark contrast to the language he and his loyalists used earlier in blaming America for the failed coup.
On Sept. 6, The New York Times published an interview with Deputy Prime Minister and government spokesman Numan Kurtulmus. He said, “Our official position is clear. We don’t see any evidence that US officials supported the coup d’etat.”
The case is closed. Now that Obama is onboard with Erdogan, officially endorsed allegations linking Washington with the failed coup have been dropped.
Erdogan went from being snubbed by Obama during his visit to Washington in February to being pampered by the same Obama at Hangzhou in September.
That could be realpolitik for Obama, but for Erdogan, it is a great leap forward, indeed.
Erdogan’s stature in front of the most powerful and important European leader, Germany’s Merkel, also merits attention. The image of their bilateral meeting in Hangzhou that seemingly showed the German chancellor humiliated by him triggered anger in the German media. Die Welt likened Merkel next to Erdogan, looking like a governor suffering under the weight of a crime she committed, being received in the court of the Sultan.
That could be an imperative realpolitik move for Merkel. She needs Turkey to stem the flow of refugees into Europe, which is the biggest concern of the EU. Yet Die Welt insisted that Germany should have a red line in regard to respect and that one of Merkel’s obligations is to demonstrate that Berlin is not a Turkish province.
The G-20 Summit in Hangzhou became a stage to see how shrewd Turkey’s president is. It is a foregone conclusion now that he will outlive Obama and maybe Merkel, as well.
Similar to Putin, he will be regarded as a veteran international political actor.
Source: al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/turkey-erdogan-g-20-meeting-merkel-obama-putin.html
----
US Should Revisit ME Policy
By Harun Yahya
10 September 2016
Vengeance is a strong, yet destructive feeling and brings with it violence and anger, begetting even greater vengeance in return. Just like losing one’s temper, succumbing to the desire of vengeance is often the easier path; except its consequences are more severe. For example, the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001 was quite horrible not only for the US, but for the entire world.
We are on the 16th anniversary of the Sept. 11 disaster. This horrific terror incident is a major disaster that deserves as much condemnation as any terrorist activity around the world. However, just like many foreign policies the US has pursued in the last 20 years, the strategy to overcome the Sept. 11 was riddled with mistakes. The Bush administration acted on a sudden desire for vengeance and perhaps paved the way for many terrible developments in the Middle East. He responded to radicalism not with knowledge and education, but with weapons; drove the radical elements to become even more radical; and in a way he is the reason behind the increasingly high number of terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Driven by vengeance, he sought to engineer Afghanistan and Iraq, ordered drone attacks on random targets and became the architect of the dreadful torture centres such as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib where humanity itself was destroyed. Motivated by revenge, this move incited the hatred of millions of people whose families had suffered torture or murdered without any justified reason. This move impelled a great number of people to join among the ranks of the radicals.
The Obama administration came to power with the promise of rectifying these mistakes yet continued to carry out the similar mistakes, albeit with different methods. Under Obama’s rule, the US once more turned to its weapons as a trump card, without paying any regard to the people, the religion and the culture of the region.
The problems we face are enormous. Coming from a socialist background, Obama made a grave mistake by supporting the Stalinist terrorist organization PYD against radicalism. In one fell swoop, he tarnished the century-old US struggle against communism. He fails to see that a communist terrorist organization poses a greater threat to both the Middle East and his own country.
On Sept. 11, the US should revise in depth its Middle East policy that has been in development since 2001 and approach the subject with self-criticism. The sense of revenge has led US, Europe and the Gulf region to their ruin. The right course of action for the US to follow is not to insist on politics; instead, it must adopt a rationalistic and compassionate policy.
Institutions and think-tanks that have been steering the Middle East policies are well-known. The same strategies and the same mistakes. Therefore, it is crucial for US to focus on different insights, to pay heed to the circles that are familiar with the spirit of this region and to act in cooperation with these circles.
Similarly, the US always gives prominence to the counsel of certain England-based US institutions and NGOs concerning its strategies. However, the foreign policy devised by these institutions only serves the interests of the English deep state; not US. Therefore, US should carefully consider the fact that its actions serve the interest of a devious deep state system, whether knowingly or unknowingly. If US genuinely wishes to be a supporter of democracy in the Middle East, it should discard the interests of the deep states and adopt a rationalistic educational, incentive and re-conciliatory policy.
The Greater Middle East Project has been largely unmasked. It earned hatred of the Middle East with the exempt of communist organizations. And today, it has become more evident that Turkey and Russia will never allow such a project to be materialized. The attempt to forcefully redesign the region will further fuel anti-Americanism and in no way will it bring about the long-awaited democracy. The most accurate course of action the mostly Christian American society should take is to draw up strategies that give prominence to love and peace, the fundamental tenets of Christianity, which will definitely bring many blessings. The Middle East policy cannot be shaped by the analyzes of the individuals who try to look down on, and determined to depreciate and annihilate the Middle East nations from their keyboards. The region is the land of prophets; it is a precious geography inhabited by the progeny of prophets and ethnicities each more valuable than the other. To be able to reach accurate diagnoses and offer precise guidance regarding the Middle East, first of all one must be quite familiar with the values of the true Islam that is based on the Qur’an, and introduce these moral values through a viable strategy. When the American foreign policy experts take this into consideration, they will immediately realize that what the Middle East needs are not war and revenge, but love and a proper Islamic conception.
Democracy and the sense of liberty will surely suit the Middle East. However, this should be accomplished through a viable strategy and by winning the hearts of the people. The previous policies largely alienated the people of the region from the US. We hope that the newly elected president of the US will adopt a policy of education and love that will help win over the Middle East and its people.
Source: arabnews.com/node/982741/columns
----
Assad’s Exit Must for Syria Solution
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
Saturday 10 September 2016
Even in times of war, there is always hope for a political settlement even in Syria. The Syrian political opposition held a meeting in London this week, represented by its negotiations committee, and it announced its program. This coincided with the negotiations held at the G20 summit in China.
I do not want to refer to uncertain information and say that the parties have agreed and the only remaining step is negotiating where President Bashar Assad will be sent to live in exile. The negotiations focused on the start of new talks within an ambiguous vision.
The most important point is what Riyad Hijab, the coordinator and leader of the opposition, said. He said he is also trying to simplify the complex labels and divisions within the opposition.
Hijab clearly said that Assad should not be part of any solution and cited the examples of Yemen and Iraq. He reminded everyone that a weak solution, which leaves space for an excluded president, leads to more destruction later on.
While signing the agreement to end the crisis in Yemen, the opposition parties agreed on the mediators’ condition, which states that the ousted President Ali Abdullah Saleh only has a role in the party and not in the government. The result was that Saleh took advantage and worked with the Houthi opposition to intervene and created political sabotage.
Saleh forged relations with the Houthi militias through his armed forces and they staged a coup together. As a result, Yemen plummeted into a deeper crisis with more people losing their lives and institutions damaged. Now, the solution has become even more difficult because Saleh is still in Sanaa.
Hijab’s second example was Nouri Al-Maliki, the former Iraqi prime minister. He obstructed the government’s operations for almost two years in order to dominate over it, and refused to leave when the time for that came. He made the circumstances related to security as an excuse.
He then tried to exploit his authority to stay in power. When all the Iraqi forces went against him and the international forces intervened and threatened him, he withdrew. But he retained powers and led militias under different names and even succeeded in marginalizing his successor.
The results are evident today. There is chaos in the political arena, obstruction of the government’s operations and the role of the Iranians in governing and administering the affairs of the military. Assad in Syria might not resemble Al-Maliki in Iraq because the latter was a legitimate ruler, but the condition of Saleh is identical to that of Assad. Yemenis revolted against him all over the country during the Arab Spring and they all agreed on his resignation. Allowing him to stay and work in Yemen was the wrong decision.
Hijab is right when he fears that the Yemeni example will be repeated. Assad will always be a source of danger if he remains part of the proposed regime, or if he is only sitting on a couch in his house watching television. He is capable of sabotaging the political solution and the situation and the war will continue because of him.
If the Russians and Americans want to reach a serious solution, they must first agree on Assad’s resignation. Issues like who will govern and who will vote, in addition to the constitution are only details, as the differences on them are now limited. The majority of the Syrian forces accept a regime that, according to them ensures coexistence, protects the rights of the minorities, and the principle of the ballot box.
The remaining part of the political solution, as presented by Hijab on three stages, reflects the maturity of the opposition, which is ready to accept a realistic solution. It will certainly remain as ideas if the major powers do not support it. Without such a solution, the world will have to sit on the same table with terrorist groups and accept the resignation of Assad, so that a group like Taliban Afghanistan, which is now in control, takes power. Assad will step down at a later stage and the political opposition will lose its popularity.
Source: arabnews.com/node/982736/columns
----
Why Palestine's 'Merry Christmas People' Are Not So Merry
By Daoud Kuttab
September 9, 2016
In a long interview with Egyptian ONtv Sept. 1, Jibril Rajoub, head of the Palestinian Football Association, appeared to ridicule Palestinian Christians. Almost a week later, on Sept. 6, Rajoub insisted in an interview on al-Quds TV that when he referred to the “Merry Christmas people,” he was merely being jovial. He claimed that he had often used the term and that no one had ever complained about it.
Many Palestinian Christians, including Atallah Hanna, Greek Orthodox archbishop of Sebastia, weren't laughing and demanded an apology. After initially hesitating, Rajoub apologized on Palestine TV Sept. 7 after a meeting in Ramallah with Catholic bishops who accepted the apology and asked that the incident be forgotten. Regardless, the episode has left a bad taste among a Palestinian community revealed to be fragile.
The context of Rajoub's utterance was another reason it upset so many people. Talking about the 2012 municipal elections, Rajoub complained in the hour-long ONtv interview (later rebroadcast on Palestinian TV) that Palestinian Christians — or as he called them in that instance, the “Merry Christmas people” — had voted for Hamas candidates in the West Bank. The criticism was not taken lightly, with many noting that in elections, Palestinian Christians, like Palestinian Muslims, have the right to choose whomever they want and not have it used against them.
Mohammad Baraka, a former member of the Knesset and head of the High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel, had called on Rajoub to apologize Sept. 5. Baraka said that Rajoub's words, because they were rebroadcast without editing on Palestine TV, appeared to have been supported by the Palestinian government.
Hanna, angered by Rajoub, posted a statement Sept. 3 on his Facebook page that was republished on many local websites: “Palestinian Christians are not the 'Merry Christmas people,' but we are the people of the first church, which sent its Christian message from Palestine to the world. We are proud of our Eastern Christian origin, whose light came from the Holy Land and spread to the entire world.”
Amid the widespread criticism of Rajoub, a number of Palestinians came to his defence, claiming that they know him and that he is not sectarian or racist. Sami Awad, director of the Bethlehem-based Holy Land Trust, told Al-Monitor that Palestinians should not fall into what he called “a trap,” saying that Palestinians have become overly sensitive to any somewhat provocative or challenging statement.
“In the face of not being able to address the bigger challenges that we, as Palestinians face, and in the continuous failure of the leadership to provide real solutions to these challenges, we begin to nitpick at each other,” he said. “The Palestinian community, both Christian and Muslim, needs to be bigger than falling into such traps.”
Sani Meo, publisher of the magazine “This Week in Palestine,” told Al-Monitor that Christians ought to have more cultural resistance. “It was a faux pas on his [Rajoub's] part, but it didn't warrant all this fuss,” he said. “I would have liked to have seen that fierce reaction toward blatant Israeli racist smearing.”
Meo conceded that what he called “Rajoub-gate” had exposed flaws and weaknesses in Palestinian society, stating, “I thought we were beyond such issues and because of this, I am very disappointed.”
Bishara Awad, founder and president emeritus of the Bethlehem Bible College, also defended Rajoub. “Rajoub is known to us,” he wrote in an email to Al-Monitor. “I would not take his words as being against Christians in any way or take what he said negatively in any way.”
Jamal Dajani, director of strategic communications in the Palestinian prime minister's office, told Al-Monitor that the idea of labeling people is unacceptable. “Before we start labeling people as Christians or Muslims, we need to remember that we are all Palestinians, and when we stray from this belief, we will lose our identity,” he said
Palestinian Christians — who, in the first half of the 20th century, represented roughly 20% of the population of Palestine — have dwindled in numbers in recent years. Today, Palestinian Christians in the West Bank total a mere 50,000, while some 150,000 Arab citizens of Israel are Christians. The largest number of Palestinian Christian emigres lives in the Americas, mostly in Latin America, and hold high positions in government and in business.
Palestinian Christians played a major role in the development of modern Palestinian nationalism, among them George Habash and Nayef Hawatmeh, who founded left-wing factions in the Palestine Liberation Organization. Kamal Nasser, a Christian killed in 1973 by the Israelis, was a leader in the Fatah movement. Palestinian Christians have represented the PLO around the world, including Manuel Hassassian, head of the Palestinian mission to the United Kingdom, and Naim Khader, PLO representative to Belgium who was assassinated in 1981 by the Abu Nidal Organization. Afif Safieh, former head of the PLO missions in Washington and Moscow, is now a member of Fatah's Revolutionary Council.
According to municipal law, Palestinian Christians are guaranteed the post of mayor in the birthplace of Jesus (Bethlehem) and in Ramallah. Some leading institutions of higher learning (Birzeit and Bethlehem universities), schools (Friends School and the Mutran school for boys) and hospitals (St. Joseph’s and the Augusta Victoria), among others, were established or are run by Palestinian Christians. The leading Christians in the Palestinian leadership today are PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi and presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh. The head of the Palestinian National Fund based in Amman is Ramzi Khoury, also a senior Fatah leader.
The spat over Rajoub's language will not last long, but this tempest in a teacup reflects a much deeper problem — the fragility of Palestinian society. Most societies succeed when they agree on and prioritize a unifying identity, rather than focusing on smaller, group identities. For decades, the Palestinians have been able to unite behind their national identity, but this unity has been fractured during the 10-year-old split between Fatah and Hamas and is widening. The sooner Palestinians are able to pull themselves together and unify behind their common national identity, the stronger they will be in dealing with their adversaries.
Source: al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/palestine-leader-christians-merry-christmas-people.html
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/turkish-coup,-muslim-democracy-western/d/108520