For my academic writings, please consult:
http://works.bepress.com/mehmetozkan/

January 20, 2008

Pakistan: Ilk izlenimler

İlk olarak İslamabad şehri gezildi. İslamabad, Pakistan’ın genel durumuna cok benziyor. Nasıl Pakistan’da genel olarak herşey bir yeni yapılanma içerisindeyse, aynı şekilde İslamabad şehri de her açıdan bir yapılanma içerisinde. Şehrin merkezinde yedi yıldızlı bir otelin inşaatına başlanılmış. Yollar yeniden düzenleniyor ve yapılanma içerisinde. İslamabad’da yaklaşık yarım milyon insan var, ama, yaklaşık 170 milyonluk Pakistan’ın kalbi burada atıyor. Parlamento, Başkanlık Sarayı ve devlet erkanı burada yerleşmiş durumda.
İslamabad yirminci yüzyılda İslam mimarisini temsil eden en büyük yapının da merkezi aynı zamanda. Suudi Arabistan eski Kralından adını alan Faysal caminin minari bir Türk: Vedat Dalokay. Yine Türkiye’den İslam mimarisinin önde gelen bir diğer ismi Turgut Cansever’in de bu cami projesine çok ciddi katkıda bulunduğu, gerek akademik çevrelerde, gerekse halk arasında bilinen bir gerçek. İslamabad şehrinde son derece modern Pakistan anıtı var. Bir parkın tepesinde kurulan bu anıtın en önemli özelliği sadece Pakistan kahramanları için resim ve posterlerin olması değil aynı zamanda bir çok dünya liderinin ağaç diktiği bir ormanlığın olması. Türkiyeden Fahri Korutürk, Turgut Özal, Süleyman Demirel, Necmettin Erbakan ve Tayyip Erdoğan`ın diktiği ağaçlar orada ilk gözümüze çarpanlardı.

İslamabad gezisi dahilinde, son aylarda bir hayli meshur olan Lal Mescidi’ni de ziyaret ettik. Pakistan hükümetinin medrese yıkımı ve baskını uzun süre dünya gündemini meşgul etmişti. Çevreden konuştuğumuz bir çok kişi orada öldürülen öğrenci sayısının, haberlerin belirttigi gibi 150-200 civarında değil, yaklaşık 2500 olduğunu söylüyorlar. Her ne kadar tam rakamın ne olduğunu bilmek mümkün gözükmese de, bize söylenen rakamlar eğer gerçek ise, bu durum son yıllarda yapılan en büyük devlet cinayetleri arasında sayılması gerekir.
18 Aralik 2007
Islamabad- Pakistan

Die Darfur-Krise verstehen: Erwartungen vom G8 Gipfel

Mehmet OZKAN

Der 33. G8-Gipfel, der dieses Jahr zwischen dem 6. und dem 8. Juni in Heiligendamm in Deutschland stattfand, wird von vielen Kommentatoren und Politikwissenschaftlern als Wendepunkt bezeichnet. Grund dafür ist zweifellos die Erwartung der baldigen Lösungen der Probleme dieser Welt. So wurden auf dem Gipfeltreffen, das unter dem Vorsitz Deutschlands stattfand, drei wesentliche Themen behandelt. Das wichtigste unter diesen Themen ist die globale Erwärmung. Die anderen beiden Aspekte sind mit Afrika verbunden und haben einen direkten Einfluss auf die internationale Politik: Darfur und die Entwicklung Afrikas. Im Allgemeinen wurde von dem diesjährigen Treffen – bis auf einige Versprechungen bezüglich der globalen Erwärmung – nicht viel erwartet.
Ebenso wurden bezüglich der Entwicklung Afrikas, außer der Wiederholung der Versprechen vergangener Jahre und der Betonung der Bedeutung des afrikanischen Kontinents für die internationale Politik, keine praktischen Lösungen erwartet. Das Hauptthema des diesjährigen Treffens war die Darfur- Krise. Über die Krise in Darfur zu sprechen und eine unverzügliche Lösung zu finden, ist nicht nur ein Bedarf, sondern vielmehr eine Notwendigkeit. Die Krise, die in den letzten Jahren international großes Aufsehen erregt hat, ist nicht mehr nur das Problem Afrikas, sondern hat sich zu einem Zentrum des globalen Machtkampfes entwickelt. Vielleicht ist dieses Fakt auch das größte Hindernis für eine Lösung. Der Konflikt in Darfur entstand ursprünglich aus den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen den Milizen, den so genannten Dschandschawîd, und rebellierenden Stämmen. Auch wenn es auf den ersten Blick so aussieht, als sei dieser Konflikt erst im Februar 2003 entstanden, lassen sich dessen Spuren bis in die 60er und 70er Jahre zurückverfolgen. Der Machtkampf zwischen arabischen und afrikanischen Muslimen, bei dem es auch um die psychologische Autorität geht, geriet durch das Eingreifen einiger arabischer Länder außer Kontrolle. Heute gibt es mehr als 2,5 Millionen Menschen, die ihre Wohnstätten verlassen mussten und in Flüchtlingslagern untergebracht wurden.
Die Frage, ob dieser Konflikt, in den schätzungsweise 200 000 Menschen involviert sind, als Völkermord einzustufen ist, stellt eine andere internationale Diskussion dar. Denn laut dem UNAbkommen zur Vorbeugung und Bestrafung von Völkermord, das 1948 bei der Generalversammlung beschlossen wurde, muss die internationale Gemeinschaft im Fall eines Völkermordes sofort eingreifen. 004 wurden von Seiten der Afrikanischen nion Soldaten in das Krisengebiet entsandt, um eineösung herbeizuleiten. Später wurden diese Kräfte von den Vereinten Nationen anerkannt und unter deren Aufsicht gestellt, wobei sie größtenteils immer noch von der EU finanziert werden. Die stetige Ausweitung des Krisengebietes hat jedoch gezeigt, dass die Friedenssoldaten nicht ausreichend sind, weshalb die UN weitere Soldaten zu entsenden gedenkt. Die sudanesische Regierung jedoch hatte sich bis April dieses Jahres energisch dagegen gewehrt. Erst vor kurzem signalisierte der Sudan der Stationierung einer begrenzten Anzahl von UN-Soldaten zustimmen. Die Hauptursache für die Komplexität und Undurchschaubarkeit des Konfliktes in Darfur ist, dass sich ständig verschiedene Akteure gemäß ihren Interessen in die Darfur-Krise einmischen. Der wichtigste dieser Akteure ist China. Denn die Wirtschaft Chinas wächst jedes Jahr um 12 Prozent und man möchte dieses Wachstum beibehalten. Umso wichtiger ist es internationale Energiequellen sicher und günstig für das eigene Land zu gewinnen. Aufgrund dieser Tatsache steht China an erster Stelle der Länder, die stark vom Irak-Krieg beeinträchtigt wurden. China muss heute für ein Barrel Öl umgerechnet 60 bis 70 Dollar zahlen, wofür es früher 20 Dollar bezahlt hatte. Dies bedeutet für China nicht nur erhöhte Kosten, sondern auch einen ungünstigen influss auf das Wirtschaftswachstum. ngesichts der Diskussionen einen „Regimewechsel“ im Iran nd einen Krieg, ist sich China der öglichen Folgen für die Republik ewusst. Die von Fachleuten vorhergesagte Erhöhung des Ölpreises auf 100 bis 130 Dollar im Fall eines Angriffs auf den Iran, veranlasst China verschiedene Strategien zu entwickeln. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Diskussionen sucht China den Kontakt mit erdölexportierenden afrikanischen Staaten und baut seine Beziehungen mit der sudanesischen Regierung aus, um die Erdölquellen in der Darfur- Region nutzen zu können. Eine auf internationaler Ebene verfestigte Meinung ist, dass die sudanesische Regierung keine konstruktive Rolle in diesem Konflikt einnimmt, ja sogar Partei ergreift.
In diesem Rahmen ist es verständlich, dass ein Sanktionsvorhaben des UNSicherheitsrates am Veto Chinas scheiterte. Der Hauptgrund des Verhaltens Chinas liegt in den Han Handelsbeziehungen Chinas mit dem Sudan. Der Darfur-Konflikt ist vielleicht das deutlichste Beispiel einer regionalen Krise, die zum Zentrum eines globalen Machtkampfes ausgeartet ist. Ein politischer Konflikt, egal wo er besteht, wird, wenn wirtschaftliche Interessen mit ins Spiel kommen, zu einem unlösbaren Problem und erhält globale Bedeutung. Das ironische dabei ist, dass, obwohl es der Konflikt internationale Relevanz erlangt, keine Lösung für das anfänglich kleine Problem gefunden werden kann. Ein typisches und sehr heikles Beispiel dafür ist der Kongo. Die Frage ist, ob der G8-Gipfel nun erkannt hat, dass die Lösung des Darfur-Konflikts eigentlich mit China und demzufolge mit den USA zusammenhängt? Denn zweifelsohne hat China den größten wirtschaftlichen Einfluss auf die sudanesische Regierung. Ferner muss dafür gesorgt werden, dass jeglicher Beschluss des UN-Sicherheitsrates bezüglich dem Sudan nicht am Veto des ständigen Mitglieds China scheitert. Von der Chinesischen Republik einen Beitrag zur Konfliktlösung zu erwarten, heißt in diesem Zusammenhang seinen Energiebedarf sicherzustellen. In dieser Hinsicht darf man der chinesischen Regierung nicht zumuten, auf die sicheren Energiereserven aus dem Sudan zu verzichten, mögen sie auch noch so gering sein, zumal immer noch die Rede von einem Krieg mit dem Iran ist.
Das Grundlegendste, das die Regierungsführer der G8 vielleicht erreichen sollten, ist die USA zu einem Tonwechsel bezüglich des Iran zu bewegen. Zugleich könnte man China, das als beobachtendes Mitglied am G8-Treffen teilnahm, Sicherheiten hinsichtlich seiner Energieversorgung bieten, um so den Weg zu einer endlichen Lösung des Darfur-Konflikts zu ebnen. Doch weil auch bei dem diesjährigen Treffen wie jedes Jahr keine Ergebnisse, außer Schönrederei und der Tendenz alles an die UN herausgekommen sind, sind wir gezwungen sein auf ein anderes Treffen zu warten. Das G8-Treffen wird als Gipfeltreffen angesehen, weshalb von solchen Veranstaltungen auch strategische Beschlüsse von internationalem Rang erwartet werden. Auch der diesjährige G8-Gipfel hat jedoch unsere Erwartungen nicht erfüllen können.

Die Organisation der Islamischen Konferenz: Fragen und Probleme

Mehmet OZKAN

Die OIC, dessen einzige Voraussetzung für eine Mitgliedschaft die muslimische Identität der Bevölkerung ist, ist eine Organisation im Sinne einer Konferenz. Diese Eigenschaft macht sie zu einer Arena und weniger zu einem Akteur.

Die Organisation der Islamischen Konferenz (OIC) ist zweifellos die größte islamische Organisation weltweit. Sie wurde 1969 nach dem Anschlag auf die Al-Aksa Moschee in Jerusalem unter Zusammenschluss von einigen islamischen Ländern gegründet. Sie weist heute eine Mitgliederzahl von 56 Ländern auf und ist somit die größte internationale Organisation nach der UN. Diese Besonderheiten machen die OIC zu der einzigen Organisation, die in der Lage wäre die Muslime gebührend zu vertreten. Doch anders als erwartet, beteiligt sie sich seit dem Kalten Krieg und insbesondere nach dem 11. September, der den Islam zum wichtigsten Diskussionsthema weltweit machte, nicht an den Diskussionen. In diesen Tagen benötigt die islamische Welt eine laute und einheitliche Stimme, doch die OIC stellt die eigene Organisation in Frage und ist weit davon entfernt Hoffnung für die Zukunft zu verbreiten. Was sind die Gründe für die Wirkungslosigkeit der OIC? Wie kann sie in Zukunft erfolgreicher werden? Mit diesen Fragen werden wir uns im Folgenden beschäftigen.

Erst die geschichtliche Einordnung der jetzigen Erfolglosigkeit der OIC, ermöglicht es Aussagen über die Zukunft dieser Organisation zu machen. Zunächst ist anzumerken, dass die OIC nicht wie die Afrikanische oder die Europäische Union eine regionale Organisation ist. Sie besitzt Mitglieder aus vier Kontinenten, doch hat dennoch keinen großen Wirkungskreis. Einer der wichtigsten Gründe hierfür ist, dass die Mitglieder zum Teil Länder der Dritten Welt oder Entwicklungsländer sind. Hieraus resultiert die Tatsache, dass die OIC bei globalen Entscheidungen der mächtigeren Staaten nicht zu Rate gezogen wird.

Die OIC, dessen einzige Voraussetzung für eine Mitgliedschaft die muslimische Identität der Bevölkerung ist, ist eine Organisation im Sinne einer Konferenz. Diese Eigenschaft macht die sie zu einer Arena und weniger zu einem Akteur. In der Arena verfolgen die Mitglieder hauptsächlich ihre eigenen Interessen und versuchen die anderen von den eigenen Ansichten zu überzeugen. Schon von Beginn an sahen die Mitglieder einem gemeinsamen Handeln problematisch entgegen. Ein kurzer Rückblick in die Geschichte wird dies offen darlegen. Mächtige Mitglieder der OIC wie Saudi Arabien, Pakistan, der Iran und Ägypten nutzten die Organisationen zeitweise für eigene politische Interessen, was die OIC schwächt. 1970 beispielsweise erreichte der arabische Nationalismus unter dem Einfluss des ägyptischen Staatsoberhauptes Nasser seinen Höhepunkt, doch Saudi Arabien, ebenfalls ein Mitstreiter um die Führungsposition in der arabischen Welt, der die Zentrale der OIC beherbergt und die Organisation größtenteils finanziert, stärkte die OIC und entpolitisierte damit den arabischen Nationalismus. Zudem ermöglichte die OIC es Saudi Arabien die Islamismus-Politik im eigenen Lande für eine Weile zu entpolitisieren. Nach der islamischen Revolution 1979 versuchte der Iran die OIC als eine Plattform zu nutzen, um die islamische Revolution auch in andere muslimische Länder zu exportieren. Daraufhin begann im Nahen Osten zwischen dem Iran und Saudi Arabien eine Streıtıgkeıten zwischen Sunniten und Schiiten, bei der Saudi Arabien den arabischen Nationalismus diesmal als Gegenposition einsetzte und den Versuch unternahm die OIC über den Nationalismus zu definieren, um die Position des Irans zu schwächen. Im Zuge dieser Politik Saudi Arabiens wurde Ägypten, das aufgrund eines Vertrags mit Israel 1978 von der OIC ausgeschlossen wurde, 1984 wieder in die Organisation aufgenommen. Der Protest des Irans aufgrund der Teilnahme Ägyptens an dem OIC Treffen in Casablanca 1984 ist ebenfalls auf den Machtkampf zwischen Saudi Arabien und dem Iran zurückzuführen.

Nach 1980 wuchs das Interesse der Türkei, die 1969 Mitglied wurde, an der OIC und nach 1995 befand sie sich in der Reihe der Länder ein, die einen Machtkampf bestritten. Der Kreis der Hauptakteure in der OIC-Arena wurde größer, denn neben der Türkei kamen auch Malaysia, Algerien, Jordanien und gar Marokko hinzu. Ob dieser Zustand zu einer Teilung, Gruppenbildung oder zu einer Vereinigung führen wird, wird uns die Zukunft zeigen.

Wie bereits erwähnt, tritt die OIC weniger als Akteur auf, sondern dient viel mehr als eine Plattform. In den letzten Jahren, insbesondere nach der Ernennung Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlus zum Generalsekretär der OIC im Jahre 2004, begann man verstärkt der Frage nachzugehen, warum es der OIC nicht gelinge in der internationalen Politik als Akteur aufzutreten. Daraufhin wurden Maßnahmen eingeleitet, um dies in der Zukunft zu ändern. In diesem Rahmen trafen sich Experten aus der islamischen Welt in bestimmten Zeitabständen und arbeiteten an neuen Projekten. Die Veränderung der Satzung und die Erweiterung der Befugnisse des Generalsekretärs wurden im Zuge dieser Projekte vorgeschlagen und 2005 auf der OIC Konferenz in Mekka in Kraft gesetzt. Trotz all dieser positiven Schritte wird etwas Grundlegendes bei den Reformarbeiten außer Acht gelassen, denn das Problem der OIC wird auf die Bürokratie reduziert. Im Grunde genommen ist das Problem der OIC viel mehr ideologischer als bürokratischer Natur. Solange die vorgenommenen Veränderungen sich auf das Bürokratische beschränken, wird sich der Umbruch innerhalb der OIC verzögern. Eine Neudefinition der OIC, eine Antwortsuche auf die Fragen warum und zu welchem Zweck sie gegründet wurde, ist zwingend notwendig. Der Hauptgedanke bei der Gründung 1969 war den Palästinensern Hilfe zu leisten. Doch obwohl seit der Gründung 40 Jahre vergangen sind, ist die Situation der Palästinenser nach wie vor schlecht, denn es wird weder aufrichtige Hilfe geleistet noch gibt es ein Hilfsprojekt. Obwohl die OIC die größte Vereinigung nach der UN ist und den Anspruch erhebt die einzige offizielle Vertretung der islamischen Welt zu sein, hat sie weder ein Friedensangebot zwischen Palästina und Israel noch wird sie in die Verhandlungsgespräche zwischen beiden Parteien involviert.

Bisher verfolgte die OIC leider eine „apolitische“ Politik. Die OIC, dessen Gründung eine Reaktion auf den Angriff auf die Al-Aksa Moschee zurückzuführen ist, nahm auch im weiteren Verlauf eine reaktionäre Haltung ein. Diese Haltung ist nicht mehr als ein bloßes Problem des bürokratischen Aufbaus der OIC anzusehen, sondern zu einer generellen ideologischen Haltung geworden. Während des Kalten Krieges war die Möglichkeit des politischen Eingreifens zugegebenermaßen gering, da die gesamte Weltordnung in zwei Lager geteilt war. Insbesondere die Tatsache, dass die OIC- Mitglieder in beiden Blöcken vertreten waren, erschwerte die Einigung zwischen den Mitgliedsländern. Heute, nach nun mehr 15 Jahren seit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges, ist die OIC leider immer noch nicht imstande eine einheitliche Stellung zu den Problemen der Muslime einzunehmen und kollektiv gegen Unrecht vorzugehen. Die Tatsache, dass selbst die Organisation für afrikanische Einheit, der die OIC ihre Satzung zu verdanken hat, sich erneuerte und von der Afrikanischen Union abgelöst wurde, macht eine Veränderung der OIC zwingend notwendig.

ISLAM KONFERANSI ORGUTU: SORULAR VE SORUNLAR

Mehmet OZKAN

Bugunku kuresel sistem icinde en buyuk islami organizasyon kuskusuz ki Islam Konferansi Orgutudur (IKO). 1969 yilinda Kudus`teki Mescidi Aqsa`ya yapilan bir saldiri sonucu bazi musluman devletlerin bir araya gelmesiyle kurulan IKO, bugun 56 uyesiyle Birlemis Milletler`den sonra uye sayisi acisindan dunyadaki en buyuk ikinci uluslararasi orguttur. Bu ozelligine ragmen, genelde soguk savas sonrasi ozelde ise 11 Eylul olaylari sonrasi dunya siyasetinde en onemli tartisma konusunun islam oldugu bir ortamda, Islam dunyasini gerek temsil kabiliyeti gerekse kurumsal acidan temsil edebilecek tek organ olan IKO, beklenenin aksine yapilan tartismalara muslumanlar adina katilamamaktadir. Islam dunyasinin sesini daha gur ve tek sesle duyurmasi gerektigi su gunlerde, IKO kendi bizatihi varligini tartismaya actigi gibi gelecekle ilgili de umut vermekten uzaktir. IKO`yu basarisiz kilan sebepler nelerdir ve IKO nasil basarili olabilir sorularina cevap aramak bu yazinin temel amacidir.

IKO`nun gunumuzdeki etkisizligini ancak tarihi bir baglama yerlestirebilir ve oradan yola cikarak gelecekle alakali yorumlar yapabiliriz. Oncelikle belirtilmelidir ki IKO Afrika ya da Avrupa Birligi gibi bir bolgesel orgutlenme degildir. Dort kitadan uyesi olan IKO ayni zamanda gercek bir kuresel orgut olmaktan da uzaktir. Bunun en temel sebebi genellikle uyelerinin dunya siyasetinde ucuncu dunya ve de gelismekte olan ulkeler olarak adlandirilan devletlerden olusmasi ve bu sebeple buyuk guclerin etkin oldugu kuresel karar alma mekanizmalarindaki etkisizligidir.

Tek uyelik sartinin musluman ulke olma oldugu IKO, genel olarak bir ‘konferans orgutlenmesi’ niteligindedir. Bu niteligi IKO`yu kurumsal olarak uluslararasi alanda bir aktor olmaktan cok bir arena`ya donusturmustur. Arena daha cok uye devletlerin kendi cikarlarini onceledigi ve baskalarina kabul ettirmeye calistigi bir ortam olup, uyelerin beraber hareket etme fikrine en bastan sorunlu baktiklari bir durumdur. Kisa bir tarihi bakis bu durumu ortaya koyacaktir. IKO icindeki Saudi Arabistan, Pakistan, Iran ve Misir gibi guclu uye devletler donem donem IKO`yu kendi siyasetlerine alet etmis ve bu durum IKO`nun etkisizlestirilmesiyle sonuclanmistir. Mesela 1970`lerde genellikle Arap dunyasinda Misir lideri Nasser`in etkisiyle arapciligin hat safhada oldugu donemde, Arap dunyasinda liderlik yarisinin bir parcasi olarak hem genel merkezini elinde bulunduran hem de orgutu buyuk oranda tek basina finanse eden Saudi Arabistan IKO`yu one cikarmis ve bir nevi arapciligi de-politize etmistir. Ayni sekilde muslumanlari temsil acisindan en kapsayici kurum olan IKO ayni zamanda Saudi Arabistan`in bolgede yayginlasan islamcilik siyasetini de ayni donemde bir sure de-politize etmesinin onunu acmistir. 1979 Iran devrimi sonrasinda ise Iran IKO forumunu islamciligi ihrac etme arenasi olarak gormustur. Bir nevi ortadogudaki sia-sunni catismasinin siyasal yansimasi olarak 1979 sonrasinda Saudi Arabistan Iran`in bolgedeki etkisini kirmak icin arapcilik siyasetine geri donmus ve IKO`yu bu kulvara dogru cekmistir. Dolayisiyla 1978 yilinda Israil ile anlasma yaptigi icin IKO`den ihrac edilen Misir, sia-sunni egemenlik catismasinin bir sonucu olarak 1984 yilinda Suudi Arabistanin cabalariyla IKO ye yeniden uye olmustur. Misir`in yeniden katildigi 1984 Kasablanka IKO toplantisinin Iran tarafindan acikca protesto edilmesinin arkasinda da bu guc mucadelesinin yansimalarini bulmak mumkundur.

1980 sonrasi yavas yavas IKO`ye daha sicak bakmaya baslayan Turkiye, 1995 sonrasinda IKO`ye yonelik izledigi yakinlasma siyaseti sonucu IKO`nun kurumsal arenasinda guc mucadelesi yapan ulkeler arasina katilmistir. Onceden sayilari daha sinirli olan IKO arenasinin ana aktorlerleri arasina artik Turkiye`nin yaninda Malezya, Cezayir, Urdun ve hatta Fas da katilmis bulunmaktadir. Bu durumun gelecekte IKO icinde bolunme ya da gruplasmaya mi yoksa birlesmeye mi yol acacagini ancak zaman gosterecektir.

IKO`nun bir aktor`den cok bir arena oldugu yukarida vurgulanmisti. Son yillarda ozellikle Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu`nun 2004 yilinda orgutun yeni genel-sekreteri olarak secilmesinden sonra IKO`nun kuresel siyasette neden aktor olamadigi sorusu daha cok sorulmaya ve IKO`nun uluslararasi alanda gercek bir aktor haline getirilmesi icin calismalar yapilmaya baslanmistir. Bu cercevede akil adamlar grubu olarak adlandirilan islam dunyasindan uzmanlar cesitli zamanlarda bir araya gelmis ve projeler uzerine tartismislardir. Bu cercevede IKO tuzugunun degistirilmesi ve genel-sekreterin yetkilerinin artirilmasi gibi oneriler ilk etapta kabul gormus ve 2005 yilinda Mekkede yapilan Devlet Baskanlari zirvesinde kabul edilmistir. Tum bu pozitif adimlara ragmen bu reform calismalarinda gozden kacirilan temel nokta IKO`nun temel sorununun burokratik oldugu yonundeki on kabuldur. En temelde IKO`nun ana sorunu burokratik degil ideolojiktir. Yapilan duzenlenmelerin burokratik duzeyde kalmasi gecici bir rahatlamanin disinda IKO`de kalici bir orgutsel donusum yapabilmesi zayif bir ihtimaldir. IKO ilk olarak ne oldugu, ne icin kuruldugu ve amacinin ne oldugu konusundaki sorulara net yanitlar vermek zorundadir. 1969 yilinda kuruldugu zaman en temel amac Filistinlilere yardim etmekti. Aradan yaklasik kirk yil gecmis olmasina ragmen bugunku Filistinlilerin durumunu o zamana gore daha kotu oldugu gibi, ortada ne Filistin icin gercek bir destek ne de proje vardir. Ayni sekilde hem BM`den sonraki en buyuk orgut olan hem de Islam dunyasinin tek temsilcisi oldugunu iddia eden IKO`nun ortada bir Filistin-Israil baris plani olmadigi gibi, yapilan baris gorusmeleri konusunda IKO`ye bilgi verilme ihtiyaci bile hissedilmemektedir.

Su ana kadar IKO`nun temel siyaseti malesef `siyasetsizlik` olmustur. Kurulusunu bile Mescidi Aqsa`ya yapilan bir saldiri sonucu ortaya cikan tepkisellige borclu olan IKO, tarihi boyunca tepkisel ve savunmaci bir tavir gostermistir. Artik savunmaci ya da reaksiyoner yaklasim IKO`nun burokratik yapisindan kaynaklanan bir sorun olmaktan ziyade temel ideolojik esaslarindan birisi olmustur. Hic kuskusuz soguk savas doneminde uluslararasi orgutlerin dunya siyasetindeki etkisi iki kutuplu dunya duzeni dolayisiyla sinirliydi. Ozellikle dogu, bati ve baglantisizlar olarak adlandirilan uc bloktan da uyesi olan IKO icin siyasi konularda ortak bir tavir gelistirilememesi bir nebze anlasilabilir birseydi. Fakat soguk savas biteli onbes yildan fazla olmasina ragmen IKO hala muslumanlarin sorunlari konusunda ortak tavir almak bir yana, ortak tepki bile verememektedir. Tuzugu bile Afrika`daki kitasal orgutlenmeden adapte ederek olusturulan IKO nun, tuzugunu borclu oldugu Afrika`daki orgutlenmenin (Afrika Birligi) bile kendisini yeniledigi bir ortamda kendini yenilemesi bir ihtiyactan cok zaruret haline gelmistir.

IKO`nun en buyuk handikaplarindan birisi de islam dunyasindaki uluslararasi orgut bollugudur. Arap Ligi, D-8, Ekonomik Isbirligi Orgutu (ECO) ve Korfez Isbirligi Konseyi gibi orgutlenmelerin bulundugu bir ortamda kararlar genellikle bu tur kucuk capli orgutlenmelerde alinmakta ve bu durum IKO`nun hem by-pass edilmesine hem de etkisizlestirilmesine yol acmaktadir. IKO`nun bir semsiye orgut olarak gorulmesi ve IKO`nun rolunun ne oldugunun tam olarak belli olmamasi da (ideolojik problem) bu surece alt yapi hazirlamaktadir.

Gunumuz Islam dunyasi yenilenmis bir IKO ya da benzeri bir orgutlemeye acilen ihtiyac duymaktadir. Fakat derin bir entellektuel liderlik sorununun yasandigi islam dunyasinda fikir birliginin saglanamadigi bir ortamda aksiyon birligini saglayacak kurumsal yapilarin olusmasini beklemek naïve olsa gerekir. Bu sebeple islam dunyasindaki kurumsal olusumlarin gecici ya da kalici bir basari grafigi cizmeleri, islam dunyasindaki fikirsel olusumlarla direkt baglantilidir. Ayni sekilde gercek anlamda muslumanlari temsil edebilecek yenilenmis bir IKO`nun ancak islam dunyasinda olusan bir fikir birliginin aksiyona donusmesi sonucu ortaya cikabilecegi unutulmamalidir. Stratejik karmasanin hukum surdugu islam dunyasinda taktiksel adimlari atan kurumlarin tali bir rol oynadigi goz ununde bulunduruldugunda, IKO`nun geleceginin islam dunyasinin yeniden yapilanmasiyla dogrudan baglantili oldugu ortadadir.
4 Ekim 2007,
Sevilla-Ispanya

WAR IN THE HOLY LAND: ISRAEL, LEBANON, IRAN AND THE COMING WORLD ORDER

Mehmet OZKAN

Toynbee analyses historical trends in ‘challenge’ and ‘response’ and argues that if a civilization or a state cannot respond to the challenge in adequate way, it might be the beginning of a civilization or state. While trying to understand the logic of the history, he talks about ‘mimesis’ or in other word ‘imitation’. For him mimesis is a group of people who comes together and process of building the civilization, mainly by intellectual means. If Toynbee were right, one can simply ask the question: has western civilization lost its mimesis? By looking at the current unfolding events in global politics in general and Israel- Lebanon case in particular, one cannot think to draw some lessons and conclusion from Toynbee`s ideas and current international relations. There is an ongoing debate whether the West or ‘Western mentality’ has lost its ‘dominant role’ in global politics. No one can argue that West has lost its key importance yet, but is it ‘fast’ approaching?
Legitimacy is one of the key fundamental issues in whole political philosophy. Power, by all means, cannot survive without legitimacy. And legitimacy alone without power is not enough to implement any policy or regulations. So how it should be balanced stands as a principle question before us. In this article, I want to make an analogy (true or false) between three events. First one is at national level, second is at regional level, third one is international level: 28 February process in Turkey, Israeli-Lebanon War in 2006 and 9/11 attacks to the United States respectively. Beginning with the national level is important because it will not only provide an approach that goes from ‘below-to-above’, but also it will lay down the ground for the theoretical basis of this analysis. In 1997, elected Turkish government was ousted by military coup. The so-called decisions of the National Security Council in the 28 February 1997 did not only give the name to the process, but also created a condition in which the Islamic-oriented Welfare (Refah) Party either was to follow the NSC and implement the decisions, or simply to leave the office. Welfare Party wanted to do neither of them. Thus it was created an immense pressure on government through media, business associations and the other parties on pretext of Welfare Party has other plans in mind, such to bring a system similar to Iran. At the end, Welfare Party leader Necmettin Erbakan had nothing to do, but resign. While the events in that time can be summarized simply as above, 28 February process was more than that. It was ‘clash’ between ‘center’ (secular elite) and ‘periphery’ (Muslim or Anatolians) within Turkish society. It was a pre-emptive action to prevent the fast-walking periphery to the centre. After getting rid of Welfare Party from power, restricting the entry of Imam-Khatip School graduates to university and banning the scarf at university campuses has become the main tenets of preventing periphery. The process itself left an ambiguous legacy in the Turkish politics and society. Just after five of the process in 2002, a party coming from the similar origin with the Welfare Party came to power in Turkey with absolute majority. In rhetorical term, the 28 February process created an environment in which periphery can walk faster indeed did do. By the time of writing this article (August-2006), apparently the same party will win the next election, and even will elect the president. If it happens, to suffice to say that Turkish politics will change completely with a ‘silent revolution’ as some call it. Turkish central political elite wanted to solve an issue completely at once, but it stroked back in a way it will never disappear, by contrast, will dominate more than ever. In Turkish case, while the ‘centre’ was successful in ousting the ‘periphery’ from the power, udging from the current Turkish politics, 28 February process should be seen as ‘the nnouncement of the death of centre’ in Turkish politics. I want to call this process ’28 ebruary syndrome’, which will be used as a theoretical base for regional and global evelopments. . In summary, 28 February syndrome starts with huge claims aimed at eaching ‘complete solutions’ but ends with misery. The sad part is that the announcer of the ‘sorting things out’ announces its end but never realize so.
The regional 28 February process has started recently by Israeli invasion of south Lebanon. Although it is argued that it is a response against the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, the main underlying reason for this venture is to cut Iran`s arm in Lebanon. Israel is operating in Lebanon as a proxy of the US, on behalf of the US and for the benefit of both American and Israeli interests. So far, Israel could not reach any point it wanted to reach and, by contrast, was shocked by the Hizbollah rockets, which was not expected that Hizbollah has long-distance missiles. In the long run, Israeli invasion of Lebanon will be probably good for Iran and Shiite politics in the Middle East. It is highly possible that at the end, Iran will have nuclear weapons and, if it becomes, this will change the whole Middle East politics. In an environment where Iran has nuclear weapons, Turkey and Egypt will certainly be waiting on the queue to have nuclear weapons at the very next day. There is a high possibility that in such environment Saudi Arabia would get nuclear weapons too. This imaginative Middle East will never make or feel Israel secure. It will lift the Israeli leverage in the Middle East politics. After the 9/11, the US has incredibly damaged its credibility, leadership and hegemony in global politics. Afghanistan and Iraq ventures, coupled with the de facto ostracizing of the United Nations, created an environment in which the US will never feel secure. Recognizing no central authority, no law, no moral value have equated with the US after 9/11. No one really understands against what the US is really fighting: is it against an ideology (fundamentalism), an organization (Al-Qaida), a civilization (Islamic or the rest), or simply against its own values? Under the cloudy conditions of the international politics, there is no one to explain the reality over rhetoric. Beginning of the all ends starts with the loss of legitimacy and credibility. Should the US be right on its fight against terrorism, would it be necessary to sacrifice its legitimacy- that took decades (maybe centuries) to gain? Current America is ‘fond of power’, does not have an intention neither to be an empire nor hegemon. The sole superpower has fallen victim its own ‘national interest’. Can someone show a better example in global politics than the US, who acts as if ‘only as a nation-state’? Not knowing or realizing own potential might be also a problem in the longer run. One never knows when it is going to explode. I have doubts whether the US administration is taking even their apparent principal advisor seriously: Machiavelli. He proposed to rule country by fear but warned that never gain hatred from the ruled. Once hatred dominated society against rulers, there will be no fear anymore from them. America has been very successful in creating hatred all over the world within a decade. No one is afraid of America anymore. But America is afraid of itself, its own power and its own hegemony. Historically, the more insecurity exists, the more people or states tend to be violent. Are we at the end of American history? Israeli invasion of south Lebanon should be seen as a ‘suicide’ for Israel and American politics in the Middle East. Reminding Toynbee’s understanding of power change in history, powers are not destroyed by others but themselves: ‘civilizations do not die, but suicide’. Bringing back Shiite to Middle Eastern politics, maybe more powerful than it was in Abbasid period, has been the ‘unintended consequences’ of the American invasion of Iraq.
Now, with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Iranian Shiite power in the Middle East gained, and will gain, more power: Iran have been given a chance to negotiate to have nuclear weapons in return to two elements, (i) bringing stability to Iraq and (ii) leave or decrease Hizbollah’s influence and role in Lebanon for Israel’s security. In deterring the dominance of Shiite politics in the Middle East, America and Israel have only two options now. Both of them are in a way or another related to Sunni politics. One of them is to ‘return to state’ in the Middle East to preserve its interest through ‘bought’ leaders. This will be returning to the Cold War period
wherein the US relied on dictators many times, because of its belief that the worst stability is better than the best instability. There is some suggestion that has been already made to American government recently. Second and more dangerous option for the America is to push democratisation. Despite democratisation rhetoric that the US is pushing in the Middle East, the reality on the ground will work against the American interest. It will simply bring Islamic movements to the power and once there is no sign of clash between Sunnis and Shiites, the United States might face disastrous exclusion from the Middle Eastern politics. Overall, in regional dimension in any scenario, the periphery is being dominant or in other words, the centre is losing its hegemony. As history reveals itself, what has happened after the 9/11 events is certainly the internationalisation of the 28 February process. Total fight against Muslims and Islam has been the main dominant theme. Shocked by the 9/11, America occupied Iraq and Afghanistan as response. As the time goes, the US lost its credibility, legitimacy and trust in the eyes of others as mentioned above. Israeli occupation of Lebanon should be equal to the 9/11 of America. The only difference is that Israel is created its own 9/11, while for the US, it came from outside. I see a similar trend between the America’s role in world politics, Israeli role in the Middle East and the role of ‘centre’ in Turkish politics: the former ones has failed or will fail.

From a broader perspective, if one takes account of the possibilities in regional and international 28 February process, Turkey might rise as of the key power in international relations and the Middle East along with the Iran. There is no guarantee that America will have same power as today in coming decades, especially in an environment where China and India are rising economically and politically. The less power the US has, the less likely the US will be key in dominating the Middle East politics and backing Israel. The less support Israel gets from the US, the more likely Israel to be prone to violence due to increased insecurity reasons. However, should Turkey and Iran have nuclear power, the chance for Israel to be violent in the Middle East is less. Because any triggering event might end up with a nuclear threat, which is not beneficial for all parties in the region.
In overall, if this analogy has some truth, the ‘periphery’ or the real people are taking over the control, at least starting a process in that way. Today there is many reasons to define west as ‘arrested civilization’ by Toynbee’s terminology. Stuck between ‘strategic fatigue’ and ‘empire’, the west today has become the ‘sick man of the world’. As a solution, we need some visionary and brave doctors who he will decide to kill ‘the sick man’ if there is no cure, and most importantly will be a threat to the world.
August 2006
Crete, Greece

FILISTIN SORUNUNUNA YAKLASMAK (II)

Ortadoğunun en temel sorunu olan Filistin sorunu hergeçen gün gündemi işgal etmeye devam ediyor. Kasım ayı sonunda yapılan Annapolis toplantısı ve sonrasında açıklanan niyet bildirgesinde de belirtildiği gibi 2009 yılında soruna kalıcı bir çözüm bulma cabaları arttırılacak. Her ne kadar yapılması planlanan görüşmelerden kalıcı bir çözümü ne İsrail tarafı ne de Filistin tarafı beklese de, Filistin sorunu 2008 yılının önemli gündem maddelerinden birisi olmaya devam edecek. Bu yazıda genel olarak Filistin sorununa nasıl bakmalı sorusu cevaplandırılmaya çalışılacaktır. Özellikle Filistinliler açısından Filistin sorununa olayın tarihi bağlarını da dikkate alarak yaklaşmak, günümüz stratejileri anlamak için önemli olabilir.

Genel bir tarihi değerlendirme yapılması gerekirse Filistin sorununu dört safhaya ayırmak mümkündür. Bir tür dönemlendirme sayılabilecek olan bu safhaların her biri kendine has özelliklere, dönüşümlere ve açılımlara sahiptir. Bu değişim ve dönüşümleri anlamak Filistin sorununu tarihi bir çerçeveye oturtmak için önemlidir.

Filistin sorunu hiç yoktan ortaya çıkmış bir sorun değildir. Bölgenin İngiliz sömürgeciliği altına girmesi sonucu başlayan bir dizi olaylar silsilesi bugünkü sorunun temellerini atmıştır. Birinci safha olarak İngilizlerin Filistin bölgesinde bir yahudi devleti kurulmasına destek niteliğinde 1916´da yayınladıkları Balfour deklerasyonundan başlayarak İsrailin bir devlet olarak bağımsızlığını ilan ettiği 1948 yılına kadarki dönemi almak gerekir. Bu dönem daha cok islam dünyasında sömürgeciliğe karşı mücadelenin yoğun yaşandığı dönemdir. Hem siyasal hem de entellektüel anlamda yaşanan bu mücadelede Filistin konusu önemli bir yer işgal etmiştir. Aynı dönemde kurulan bir cok islami hareket Filistin sorununa özel önem atfetmiş ve kendi ülkelerinde Filistin konusunu en temel mesele olarak aktarmıştır. Bu hem halk hem de elit düzeyinde genelde kabul görmüştür, fakat ne varki söylemsel ve manevi destek dışında Filistine ciddi bir yardım sağlanamamıştır. Bunda en temel olarak ilgili devlet ve toplulukların halen kendi bağımsızlıklarını kazanmamış olmamaları ve de imkanlarının sınırlı olmasının ciddi payı vardır.

İkinci dönem olarak adlandıracağımız 1948 yılından 1967 savaşına kadarki dönem aslında Filistin sorunu için altın dönemi temsil eder. Mısır liderliğindeki Arab milliyetçiliği Filistin sorunuyla özel olarak ilgilenmiş ve destek olmuştur. Aynı zamanda bağımsızlıklarını kazanan diğer Arap ve müslüman devletler de desteklerini esirgememişlerdir. Ortadoğuda bütün olayaların Filistin sorunu merkezli düşünüldüğü bu dönem ne yazık ki yanlış hesap ve duygusal hareketlerin kurbanı olmuştur. 1967 yılında Arap ordularının İsraile karşı sadece altı gün dayanabilmesi yıllardır oluşturulan hem özgüveni yıkmış hem de Arap dünyasını bir daha toparlanmamak üzere bölmüştür. 1967 savaşı Arap dünyasında öyle etkili olmuştur ki, hem söylemsel hem de ciddi siyasal değişimlere öncülük etmiştir. Özellikle Arap dünyasının kalbi olan Mısır örneğinde bu değişimin yaşanması bu savaşın ne kadar derin bir iz bıraktığının en önemli delilidir.

Üçüncü safha genel olarak bir toparlanma ve yeniden sürece intikal etme çabasıdır. 1967 savaşından başlayarak 1987’de başlayan birinci intifadaya kadar devam eden bu dönemde genel olarak hem Filistin hem de Arap devletleri bir yeni siyaset arayışı içine girmiştir. Filistinde Hamas bir alternatif hareket olarak ortaya çıkmış, Mısır İsrail ile barış anlaşması imzalamıştır. İran devrimi sonrası bölgeye yönelik tüm dikkatler körfeze yönelmiştir. Ayrıca sekiz yıl süren İran-İrak savaşı da, Filistin sorununa olan ilgiyi hergeçen gün azalttığı gibi, artık Filistinliler kendi başlarına bırakılmıştır. Bundan dolayıdır ki 1987´de başlayan intifada bir nevi Filistinlilerin dünyanın unuttuğu ciddi bir soruna bir tepki mahiyetindedir. Ancak intifadanın yoğunlaşmasından sonradır ki dünya tekrardan Filistin sorunuyla ilgilenmeye başlamıştır.

Dördüncü safha olarak nitelendirdiğimiz bu safhada, uluslararası ve bölgesel aktörlerin gerçekten barış yapmak isteyip-istemediği ciddi bir şekilde tartışmaya açıktır. Aynı şey İsrail için de sözkonusudur. Daha önceleri İsrail ile görüşmeye bile karşı çıkan Filistinli liderlerin bu dönemde barışa en istekli taraf olmaları, hergeçen günün aslında kendilerine zarar verdiğini anlamaları sonucudur. Artık 1990 sonrası dönemde, Arap devletleri Filistini eskisi kadar desteklememektedirler. Aksine yer yer İsrail ile flört etme ve mümkünse barış anlaşması imzalama teşebbüsü içine girmişlerdir. Dolayısıyla Filistin tarafının kabul edilebilir bir barışı destekleyen tavrı bir nevi denize düşenin yılana sarılması hikayesine benzemektedir. Arka planda barış isteyen taraf Filistin olmasına rağmen, Filistin idaresinin özellikle barış istemeyen taraf olarak gösterilmeye çalışılması tamamıyla İsrail stratejisinin bir ürünü olup, haklı konumdaki Filistini haksız duruma düşürmüş ve zayıflatmıştır. Aynı şekilde Filistin liderlerinin temsil meşruiyeti sınırlı olan Kudüs konusunda taviz vermeye zorlanması da Filistini zor durumda bırakmak için özellikle uygulanan başka bir stratejidir.

Genel olarak bakıldığında bu dört safhanın her birinde ciddi bir söylemsel dönüşüm olmuştur. Birinci safhada Filistin sorunu bir islami sorun olarak görülmüştür. 1948 sonrası dönem aynı zamanda Nasser liderliğinde Arap milliyetçiliginin yükselişi olduğu için Filistin sorunu Arap milliyetçiliği açısından değerlendirilmiş ve bir Arap sorunu olarak görülmüştür. Üçüncü safha daha çok ulusal çıkarların devreye girdiği ve herkesin bir nevi kendi başının çaresine baktığı bir dönemdir. Yaser Arafat liderliğindeki FKÖ`nün hem Arap dünyasında hem de 1974´te Birleşmiş Milletler nezdinde Filistinlilerin tek temsilcisi olarak kabul edilmesi Filistinliler için hem bir avantaj hem de bir dezavantaj oluşturmuştur. FKÖ ile birlikte Filistinliler kendilerine ait bir mücadele örgütüne ve temsilciye sahip olmuş olup bu bir avantaj olarak görülebilir, fakat FKÖ´nün ortaya çıkışı bir çok Arap devleti tarafından asıl destek verilmesi gereken bir örgüt olarak görülmemiş, aksine FKÖ Filistin için mücadele ediyor artık biz kendi işimize bakalım türü bir anlayışa yol açmıştır. Bu durum özellikle Arap devletlerinin ulusal çıkar merkezli Filistin sorununa yaklaşımları dolaylı olarak mesrulaştırmıştır. Birinci intifada sonrasından günümüze kadar olan dönem daha çok görünüşte barış taraftarı ama asla barışı istemeyen bir tür iki yüzlü bir yapı arz eder. Artık taraflar için barış farklı anlamlar taşımaktadır. Arap devletlerinin Filistin için destekleri sözden öteye geçmemektedir. Buna bir de Filistin içinde yaşanan liderlik çatışması ve Hamas-FKÖ çekişmesi eklenince Filistin sorunu sadece kendi haline bırakılmamış, ayrıca kendi kendisini bitiren bir hal almıştır.

Filistin sorunu bugün için bir çok açıdan beşinci bir safhanın eşiğindedir. Bu safha Filistin bölgesinin tamamıyla israil kontrolü altına girmesinden, bir iç savaşa, ya da bölgesel bir savaşın fitilini yakacak küçük bir kıvılcıma kadar bir çok yöne gidebilir. Filistinliler açısından Hamas ve FKÖ´nün ötesinde yeni bir ulusal stratejinin geliştirimesi her açıdan artık bir ihtiyaçtan öte zaruret haline gelmiştir. Özellikle Irak savaşı sonrası bölgesel dengelerin ciddi şekilde değiştiği şu günlerde Filistinin küçük hesaplara kurban gitmesi en az bir kaç onyılın daha heba olmasına yol açabilir.


10 Aralik 2007
Linkoping-İsveç

FİLİSTİN-İSRAİL SORUNUNA NASIL YAKLAŞILMALI? (I)

Tarihçiler son elli yılda ortadoğudaki en büyük sorunun Filistin-İsrail arasındaki çatışma olduğu konusunda hemfikirdirler. Küresel dünya düzeninde bu sorun sadece ortadoğuya barış getirmenin önündeki en büyük engel olmayıp aynı zamanda bölgedeki diğer gelişmeleri de doğrudan etkilemektedir. Ortadoğu devletlerinin Filistin-İsrail çatışmasına yaklaşımı, ilgili devletin ortadoğudaki etkinliğini doğrudan etkiledigi gibi onların iç meşruiyetleri açısından da kilit bir öneme sahiptir. Filistin olaylarına duyarsız hiç bir bolgesel devlet kendi halkına bunu izah edemez. Filistinde yaşanan trajedi tarih boyunca çeşitli adlandırmalara sahne olmuştur. 1940`lardan başlayarak 1970’lere kadar süren dönemde Filistinde yaşanan olaylar genel olarak Arap-İsrail çatışması olarak adlandırılmıştır. 1970 sonrasında ise daha çok Filistin-İsrail adlandırılması tercih edilmiş olup bu ciddi bir ölçek daralmasını ifade eder. Son yıllarda ise durumu sadece Filistin sorunu olarak adlandırmanın yaygınlaştığını dikkatten kaçırmamak gerekir. Bir durumu adlandırmak onu anlamlandırmanın bir önceki aşamasıdır. Çok değil yaklaşık yüz yıl önce müslümanlar ve yahudiler arasında hiç bir sorun yoktu. Filistinde bugün yaşananlar I. Dünya Savaşından sonra bölgeye artarak devam eden yahudi göçüyle başlamış, 1948 yılında İsrail devletinin kurulmasıyla çetrefilleşmiştir. Daha sonraları yaşanan savaşlar ve barış görüşmeleri ise olayı bugün için çözülemez hale getirmiştir. Tarihi süreç boyunca Filistin tarafı sorunun ortaya çıkmasında ‘pasif’ bir rol oynamış ve sorun yaratıcı taraf hep İsrail olmuştur. Dolayısıyla bu yazıda Filistin meselesi bir İsrail sorunu olarak nitelendirilecek ve sorun yaratici tarafin genel olarak izlediği stratejiler ve günümüze yansılamarı izah edilecektir. Durumun Filistin açısından incelenmesi ise başka bir yazının konusudur.

İsrail bugün bölgede kalıcılığını kuvvetlendirmek ve Filistini barış istemeyen taraf olarak göstermek için temel olarak üç strateji izlemektedir. Bunlardan ilki küçük ölçekli olup, iç işlerle alakalıdır. İkinci strateji orta kademe olarak nitelenebilir ve genel olarak bölgeye gelen turist ve yabancılarla ilgilidir. Üçüncüsü ise bölgesel ve küresel dengelerle ilgili olup, makro ölçeklidir.

İsrail hergeçen gün isgal ettiği toprakları çeşitli resmi ya da gayriresmi gerekçelerle genişletmektedir. Checkpoint olarak adlandırılan askeri kontrol noktalarının sayısı hergeçen gün teror gerekçesiyle artmakta ve bu durum Filistinliler için artık çekilmez hale gelmektedir. Bir mahalleden diğer mahalleye gitmek için bile İsrail otoritelerinden izin almak gerektiği gibi, bu verilen iznin kontrol noktasında hale geçerli olup olmadığı sadece şansa ve oradaki askerin anlayışına bırakılmıştır. Gerekçesiz olarak saatlerce bekletilmek artık Filistinliler için sıradan bir şeydir. Aynı şekilde Filistinlilerin yaşadığı bölgelerin içinde mantar gibi biten yahudi yerleşim birimleri artık modern dünyada ‘yavaş işgal’ in yeni adı olmuştur. Her geçen gün genişleyen bu yerleşim yerleri Filistinlileri yüzyıllardır yaşadıkları yerlerden zorla ya da gönüllü bir şekilde ayrılmaya zorlamaktadır. Her ne kadar bu durum işgal amaçlı olsa da, aslında temel hedef Filistinliler üzerinde psikolojik yıkımdır. İsrail geri dönmemek üzere Filistini terk etmek isteyen herkese gereken kolaylığı göstermeye dünden razıdır ve bu durumu psikolojik yıkımla hızlandırmaya çalışmaktadır. Azalan Filistin nüfusu her açıdan israil’in işini kolaylaştıracaktır. Çok çarpıcı bir örnek olarak medyaya yansımayan ama hergün Jenin mülteci kampında yaşanan olaylar örnek verilebilir. Jenin tarih boyunca israil’e karşı direnişin en güçlü olduğu yerlerden birisidir. Yaklaşık 1km²’lik bir alandan oluşan Jeninde 15 bin kişi yaşamaktadır. Burada eğitimli insan sayısı hayli yüksek olup 860’dan fazla kişi universite, 67 kişi ise master diplomalıdır. Eğitimle direniş bilincini birlikte taşıyan Jenin`in 2002 de hiç yokken neden yıkıma uğradığının açıklaması burada yatmaktadır: psikolojik de-moralizasyon. Hiç bir gerekçe gösterilmeden halen her gece israil askerleri Jenin mülteci kampına gelmekte ve bir kaç aileye zorla evlerini terke zorlamaktadır. Aileler ancak dışarıda gece yarısı 3-4 saat bekledikten sonra evlerine girmelerine izin verilmektedir. Hergün tekrarlanan bu olay medyanın dikkatinden uzak ama son derece önemli bir de-moralize etme, psikolojik yıkım örneğidir.

İsrail`in ikinci temel stratejisi ilginç bir ikilemi barındırmaktadır. Şehirlerini bir turizm yeri olarak tanıtan ve yabancı çekmeye çalışan israil aynı zamanda ülkeye gelen yabancıların Filistin tarafını ziyaret etmemesi için elinden gelen bütün çabayı göstermektedir. Dünya medyasındaki söylemi kontrol eden yahudiler, bu söylem dışında insanların bilgi edinmesini istememektedir. Filistine giden herkesin oradaki durumun göründüğünden en az on kat daha kötü olduğunun farkına vardığını bilen israil, sınır kapısında Filistin bölgesini ziyaret edeceğini söyleyenlerin bazılarını gerekçesiz olarak geri gönderdiği gibi, bazılarını ise ekstra sorgulamadan geçirmektedir. İsrail ülkeye gelen yabancılar üzerinde sorgulamalarla psikolojik baskı kurarak onların Filistin tarafına geçmesini önlemeye çalışmaktadır. Çünkü Filistin tarafına geçen bir çok kişi artık medyanın gerceklerin ne kadarını yansıttığının farkındadır.

İsrail’in üçüncü stratejisi bölgesel ve küresel siyasette kendi meşruiyet alanını mümkün olduğunca genişletmektir. 1978’de Mısır’la yaptığı anlaşma sonucu Mısır’ı potansiyel savaşılabilecek bir ülke olmaktan çıkaran israil kendisine karşı oluşabilecek herhangi bir bölgesel muhalefeti bütün gücüyle önlemeye çalışmaktadır. Aynı zamanda bölge devletleriyle ilişkileri geliştirmenin yolunu aramakta ve bu şekilde meşruiyet alanını genişletmeye çalışmaktadır. 1990’larda Ürdünle yaptığı anlaşmalarla ilişkilerini çeşitlendiren israil’in Türkiye ile ilişkileri ilerletmeye aşırı istekli olmasının arkasında bu meşruiyet arayışı yatmaktadır. İsrail’in son yıllarda körfez ülkelerine açılmaya çalıştığı ve Qatar başta olmak üzere bazı krallıklarla flört etmeye başladığını ayrıca belirtmek gerekir. Özellikle Irak savaşı sonrası ortadoğuda oluşmaya başlayan Şia-Sünni bloklaşmasından kendine pay çıkarmaya çalısan israil körfez ülkelerinin İran karşıtı duygularını sömürerek ilişkilerini geliştirmeye çalışmaktadır. Normalde Şia hiç bir kökeni olmayan Hamas’ı bile hep İranla birlikte telaffuz ederek bölge devletlerinin gözünde devre dışı bırakmaya çalışması tamamıyla bu stratejinin bir parçasıdır. Aynı şekilde İran`nın nükleer silah üretme çabalarına karşı oluşan küresel muhalefeti de hem Hamas’ı bitirmek hem de bölgedeki dengeleri değiştirme potansiyeli bulunan İran’ı izole etmek için kullanmaktadır.

Bugün ortadoğuda yaşanan trajedi temel olarak bir İsrail sorunudur. Bu sorunun çözümü herşeyden önce İsrail’in nasıl bir devlet olmak istediği sorusuyla doğrudan alakalıdır. Hergeçen gün toprak genişleten israil için son noktanın neresi olduğu hala belli olmadığı gibi, artık meşruiyetini hem bölgede hem de küresel düzeyde güçlendirmiş bir İsrail’in barış yapma gibi bir ihtiyacı da yoktur. Artık barış görüşmeleri zaman kazanma ve şirin görünmenin ötesinde bir anlam taşımamaktadır. Uluslararası düzende büyük ölçekli sorunların çözümü ancak sistemdeki büyük değişimlerle gerçekleşir. Güney Afrikadaki ırkçı Aparheid rejimini sona erdiren her ne kadar siyah halkın mücadelesi gibi görünse de aslında soğuk savaşın sona ermesidir. Dolayısıyla İsrail sorununun sona er/diril/mesi de ancak ve ancak bölgesel ve küresel güç dengelerinde yaşanacak bir değişimle mümkündür. Bölgesel anlamda güç dengelerini kendi aleyhine degiştirebilecek tek etkenin İran’ın nükleer silaha sahip olması olduğunun farkında olan İsrail’in İran’ı izole etmenin yanında, muhtemel bir savaşı bile desteklemesinin arkasındaki temel etken budur.

10 Ekim 2007
Sevilla- Spain

PALESTINE: WAYNEK AL-DUNYA?

"If borders open today, people in Gaza will invade Israel by spoon"
Adham Noman, a friend who strongly feels what does occupation mean.
Palestine is a place one can only enter after minimum several hours interrogation at the airport. If one is lucky to enter then the story starts. A beautiful and relatively strong society and people are waiting for you. Every building and street has a story to tell you. Either someone got killed in that building in the struggle or it has a historical importance. Not only buildings but also people who runs shops has a story to tell if one could spare a little time fro them too. They will probably mention their stories with the occupation, hoe Israeli soldiers treat/ed them or how their shops or goods are taken away without showing any reason. Amid this deeply, sometimes highly emotionally areas, life is still lively. Music is still loud. People are still talking about happiness, love, future plans and dreams. Palestinian society is one of the highly educated societies in the world. They are strong in knowledge, emotion and understanding, but not in weaponry. That is the point they losing or winning depending on which way one looks ate the issue.
Palestinian society is very much preoccupied with political issues. It is not only national one, as naturally expected, but also international one. Interestingly enough, recent Turkish elections and the re-election of Erdogan as Turkish premier is one of the hottest topic. Even it draws more attention than the recent peace initiatives driven by Arab League and Tony Blair. . Turkish case is so important that it can even be a topic for Hutba in the biggest mosques. Imams seems overjoyed with Erdogan`s winning as if Palestine won. As far as it seems from within Palestinians are not optimistic for a possible peace. They lost, if not totally, their hopes for peace. Some expects a tsunami, some waits for an earthquake to end ongoing violation of human dignity in Palestine.
While writing this piece, there have been developments to bring peace to holy land. The Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair was in the area for laying the ground for possible peace talks, while the foreign ministers of Jordan and Egypt paid a visit to Israel to present Arab League peace plan to Israel. Just to show people how become so pessimistic about piece, there is not even a serious attention or even mention of these developments. It is highly possible that Israelis also do not take these developments seriously. Simply, there is not ground fro piece now. While traveling within Palestine, it is impossible to miss one element. There are lost of NGOs, government agencies and organizations work to help or alleviate the problem. Turkish TIKA, German GTZ, Switzerland representative to PNA and even Orthodox Church are on the ground to help people. There is not need to mention USAID, UN and EU offices. After seeing all this organizations working here, one asks this question naturally: why are they really doing? Or do they know what they are doing? Of course they seem doing very necessary job on the ground, but I think it is time to question this development and even international aid itself. In the post-cold war era, there have been booms in NGOs and aid organizations, at the same the crisis increased all over the world rather than decreasing as expected at that time. In this environment, NGOs and aid organizations seem to play 'good police' role, most of them having government support behind them. It may be contradictory but one can find more NGOs and aid organizations working on the ground from the country that is apparently involved most in creating conflict itself. Time has come to re-think the real role of NGOs and aid organizations. The best cure can never replace prevention. Time has come for NGOs to focus on prevention rather than cure. Cure is needed but prevention is a must. If each NGO pressure its own government not to involve in creating conflict of any type, maybe NGOs will be jobless at the end but world will see more peace! Palestine is clear example of this existing contradiction and Palestinian question should broaden our perspective on bringing peace to global world.

Climate, History and International Politics in Scandinavian Countries: Some Preliminary Thoughts

Mehmet OZKAN

Anyone reads the history of independent movements in Africa or elsewhere, or anyone who travels to conflict-ridden areas such as Southern Africa or Balkans will certainly see some kind of help, financial aid or otherwise provided by Sweden in particular and Nordic countries in general.
Nordic countries are sparing their % 0.7 of GDP to foreign aid, being among the few countries that catch the Millennium Developing Goals of United Nations. Currently, the 15 percent of the population of Sweden either were born outside then moved to Sweden or their parents were born outside. One can even argue that Sweden is very much welcome to foreigners, especially the minorities and oppressed ones in other countries, if they wish to immigrate. Why so and why Sweden or Nordic countries? Do they have vital or any political or economic interest at all in those areas? If they are doing this only with humanitarian purpose, why are they so humanitarian in comparison to other nations? These questions stroked me for last two years after I exposed to Southern African history and politics. Now living in Sweden gave me chance to understand and analyze my questions. In this short essay, first a historical and psychological account of Swedes will be outlined. Second, their neutrality and mostly egalitarian inclinations will be understood in terms of climate in the area. Third, an explanation for both, why Sweden is the most helpful nation, and the popularity or widespread of rock music in the area well be offered.
I
History is the best place to find future. The deeper one goes into history, the further one understands the future. In a metaphoric form, the stronger the archer takes aback his/her arc, the faster and further the arrow would go. Therefore, a short historical description is needed here to shed a light on current issues. In 17th century Sweden was one of the great powers in European politics and was then relatively able to define the future of the continent. Under the rule of King Gustav II Adolph, Sweden took part in Thirty Years’ War and was quite successful. However, such a great nation started to lose its position as mover-and-shaker in the continents affairs day-by-day since then. Although, there can be many explanations such as separation of area among different kings or rulers, the main point here is that Nordic countries in general and Sweden in particular has lost its influence in European affairs. Of course they were not out, but quite down. That is mostly why Sweden united with Norway in order to find a way and act together to bring its influence back. Unity with Norway, though it was created by force, lasted between 1814 and 1905. But this created more disintegration rather than the aimed integration. Until the 20th century, the overall declining trend continued. In the first half of 20th century, two world wars were fought between other players in Europe, mainly France, Britain and Germany. Nordic countries were neutral and did not involve either of the wars. Perhaps, Nordic countries were of opinion that they could play a constructive role in Europe after the wars, thus increasing their influence in European affairs. However that had not happened and power blocs moved to the US and the Soviet Union, leaving Europe first time in modern times as a battleground but not power centre. For Nordic countries, there were limited options; either they would align themselves with the Atlantic bloc or stay neutral as they did in first half of the 20th century. They preferred to be neutral focusing their economic development and creating a social state. At the same time, the developing process of European Union was undergoing in Europe, for the Nordic countries, it was there only to watch in that time. When the Cold-War ended, Nordic countries entered to the EU (with the exception of Norway), but such a move decreased further their influence in European affairs in essence, although they are inside the decision-making process. Today, many people agree that the EU cannot take any decision without the authorization of Germany, France and Britain together. This tripartite-character of the EU is not much-liked, but accepted as bona fide.

It seems that Nordic countries’ donation and good-offices policies can be understood fully in the light of above-summarized historical account and psychology. Against this background, one can claim that the channels were needed to express or show that Nordic countries are active in global politics not only for the other nations, but most importantly for the Nordic countries per se. Coupled with and supported by the psychological imperatives that they were the-mover-and-shaker once, the intentions to find a way to be influential in global politics and humanitarian inclinations came together and showed itself in supporting the anti-apartheid and self-determination movements in various part of the world. Financial aid, supporting local projects, and scholarships have all can be regarded as the realizations of this policy. There seems a strong tendency to help minorities in all over the world, especially the ones who faces some sort of human rights or war crisis. In other words, immigrants in Nordic countries consist of minority groups from different part of the world, rather than majorities in anywhere in the world. Party in explaining this understanding, the immigrant populations in Nordic countries are mostly from the Kurdish areas of the Middle East, Somali, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other conflict-ridden areas. It is arguable to say that Sweden and other Nordic countries are of helpful of other minorities not only because of humanitarian purposes, but also the minority psychology or ineffectiveness that they experience in European affairs. While this issue is open to debate and further research, my reading of deeper Swedish psychology points this way. In Foucaultian term, ‘the archeology of knowledge’ might have established a similarity in Nordic perception between minorities all over the world and themselves.

II
Nordic countries are among the coldest areas in the World. The number of dark days and the very short light time during the day are the main characteristics of winter in Nordic countries. During almost six months winter period, for one, there is no option but to stay at home. The longevity of the dark and gloomy days should have some impacts on people who live in there. Usually the people of cold areas are seen as serious and having strong character against difficulties. In Nordic countries, strong character may be not that recognizable but seriousness and rationality is quite vivid. If the clime has an effect on human behavior, this can be illustrated clearly in music industry. Nordic countries are areas that rock music is widely listened and more importantly produced. In an overall judgment, rock music has sort of rebellion character and mostly a representation or repercussion of individualities. Egalitarian societies are the cradle, and par excellence, of individualist life style. This notion, which is very much well-established in Nordic countries, coupled with the climate influence results a society where people need to face the real reality of gloomy weather and real individualist life style. Therefore, the popularity and productivity of rock music industry in Nordic countries can be attributed to climate condition.

III
In global politic, neutrality has become the cornerstone of the foreign policy of Sweden, Finland and Norway. Although, this is partly explained with regard to stationing at the periphery of Europe, such an understanding does not fully explain the reasons behind Nordic neutrality. It is also questionable, given the fact that Britain is also located at the periphery of Europe rather than the center geographically. I think Nordic neutrality needs to be understood from two perspectives. First, Nordic countries were never colonizers as the other Europeans, notably Britain, were. Being not a colonizer, theoretically, provided little information about the rest of the world; killed adventures feelings among the society; and thus created a socially reserve, constructed society in which internal happiness is regarded as the main aim. Put sufficiently, the importance that was attributed economic development and social well-being in Nordic countries’ policies is a by-product of being non-colonizer. In other words, psychology of non-colonizer never or rarely looks outside word, until it solves its own problem at outmost level. They do take hardly any risk, and, therefore play the game very carefully. Consider the unwillingness of Norway in joining the European Union, while there is open and standing invitation. In Nordic countries, the involvement in outside affairs is secondary rather than primary and it shows itself in low politics such as financial aid, not in high politics. However, there might be an expectation or hope that low politics will help to reach high politics.

Second, the influence of climate in this process is also vital. As explained above, Nordic countries were not colonizers. Colonizers have usually imperial mentality and psychology. Nordic countries do not have such understanding of global politics. Climate is, in supportive of and settling this notion, important to understand. Probably, the climate is not the sole factor in creating such thinking, but it likely that climate condition played a role in ‘naturalizing’ this notion.

During the long winter in Nordic countries, one usually has no one to ask help. As mentioned days are very short, and nights are long. Social interactions in cold and dark winter days are, expectedly, less. The connection with outside world, physically, is diminished dramatically. Once everybody lives in a self-help condition (positively), individual doings are coming to surface. Now thanks to technological developments, TV, internet, and computer games are making life much easier but they are also creating more individualist society in Nordic countries. This issue, I believe, is creating an ‘unintended consequence’ that supports and embarks on the creation of more egalitarian society. Therefore, climate dimension should be also brought in to understand the development of democracy and egalitarian society in Nordic countries.
Originally published in A DIFFERENT VIEW, Issue 10, January 2007.

Assimilated Immigrants as Problems

The complexities of immigration sometimes mean that its not the newly arrived migrants who have trouble settling in but also their second- and third-generation migrant relatives.

With the globalization process, international politics has changed deeply. Not only are trade, labour and goods globalized, but also people and the ‘new generation’ feel the impact of globalization. From the outset of the 21st century, politics has gained new elements. It is no longer the “local” who rules the country. Thanks to immigration, many immigrants are taking positions in governments, academic or media in the host country. This, at first glance, can seem and is expected to help to establish a better world where people can understand each other. It is fair to expect that the immigrant will show the true side of their original country to new follow-countrymen and women, eliminating misunderstanding, prejudices and barriers.

While this in mind, in the political area, things are not moving the way we wanted to. In many countries today, immigrants who hold positions in their new country are making the situation worse. France’s presidential candidate, Nicholas Sarkozy, himself an immigrant, wants to get rid of immigrants in France. That is how he defined his presidential campaign and there is strong evidence that it might work. Sweden’s newly appointed Minister for Integration and Gender Equality Nyamko Sabuni, who is originally from Congo, urges that immigrants either adapt local values or face the consequences. Similarly, many Arab-Americans are the ones who actually support the war and the interventionist American policy in the Middle East, although many of those have fled from war and conflict. From academia Professor Fouad Ajami, who is intellectually behind the Bush administration with Bernard Lewis; and ex-news anchorwoman and now anti-radical Islam activist Brigitte Gabriel do come from Lebanon and now live in the US with their American citizenship, but they staunchly supported Israel in the 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War. Gabriel went on posting an open letter in her organization’s website, the American Congress for Truth, thanking Israel deeply, while Israel was destroying her country, Lebanon. She expressed joy and happiness in her letter while Israel killed innocent people and bombed infrastructure. Fuad Ajami as usual serviced his intellectual capacity to legitimize killings by providing strategic reasons. It is also not surprising that the daughter of an immigrant to the US, now Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice represents the most hawkish politician in the US cabinet.

Why are the immigrants becoming more supportive of the ‘king’ than the ‘king’ himself? Why are they turning their backs to where they come from, and lending their full energy to serve where they are, rather than trying to bridge the gap of understanding between where they come from and where they live? Without answering these deep questions, and creating a new generation of immigrants that understands both sides without condemning one for the sake of other, I do not think we can create a globalized world in which all can live in peace.

Having such a result on the contemporary world, partly shows the failure of the integration process based on assimilation. Coupled with the ‘standardization’ of modernity, such processes created a kind of immigrant that is neither local nor foreign. Their ‘standing’ for old values in a changing society is a mere indication that they are neither psychologically nor politically stable. Their life has passed on the edge most of the time. One the one hand, they worked hard to be disconnected from their past, on the other; they wanted to be accepted fully by the society in which they live. None of them was successful and as a result of increasing personal trauma, as a last resort, they thought that to be more in favour of the ‘king’ than the king’s supporter would solve this dilemma.

There are several issues that need to be discussed to solve this puzzle. First, as a new generation, we must question the ‘representativeness’ of immigrants. They are creating new obstacles rather than solutions in understanding, and actually blocking to create new space for understanding. The worst thing is that they are consciously or unconsciously monopolizing the ‘voice’ of the country they came from. Second, integration/assimilation policies of the West need to be reconsidered and discussed seriously. If the West wants its immigrant to be ‘assimilated’, this is not even to the West’s own advantage. The cited example above is just the indication of symptoms that such a trend is prone to create more problem than solution.

Sociologists, anthropologists, politicians and psychologists have utmost responsibility to do research on this process and its implication, if we all want to see a ‘tolerant’ and ‘accommodative’ future. In short, from such an understanding, globalization and immigration are not actually serving for a better world. We need to think about this deeply.
Originally published in A DIFFERENT VIEW, Issue 12, March 2007.

What would Kurdistan mean for Kurds? A Strategic Perspective


The turmoil in Iraq has taking direction in a way that it would affect the region as a whole with its consequences that might lead a regional mayhem. Especially after the execution of Saddam Hussein, the civil war discourse has been the main theme when international community discusses Iraqi issue. In this short, though modest, piece of writing the main focus will be the future of a possible Kurdistan.

The turmoil in Iraq has taking direction in a way that it would affect the region as a whole with its consequences that might lead a regional mayhem. Especially after the execution of Saddam Hussein, the civil war discourse has been the main theme when international community discusses Iraqi issue. In this short, though modest, piece of writing the main focus will be the future of a possible Kurdistan. If Kurdistan were established what would be the regional balance for Kurds themselves is the tenet of this writing. Realizing the fact that it is highly debatable for someone who is from Turkey and speculates (or gives advise) about the future foreign policy of Kurds in Iraq, however, from an academic perspective, I guess I am entitled to speculate.

First of all, it is better if we set the background issues related to topic. Historically, northern and southern Mesopotamia (South-eastern Turkey and Northern Iraq) has become the scene of competition among the powers that exist in the area. However, as a historical experience whoever is strong in the area either from south or north controls the all Mesopotamia especially through economic trade and political interaction. After decreasing Saddam’s influence (or control) in northern Iraq, especially after the first Gulf War, Turkey has become the dominant in the area. It was also the case when Iraq was using Kirkuk-Yumurtalik (Turkey-Iraq) pipeline as means of using another way to open the world. But, despite much margin of economic loss, Turkey cut off this pipeline as showing its support to coalition against Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait. After the first Gulf War interestingly Iraq’s dependence on Turkey through trade decreased but Kurds’ dependence on Turkey for security and trade increased. It was especially the case for Iraqi Kurds. Before the occupation of Iraq by the US-led coalition in 2003, the Iraqi Kurds were dependent on the good will of Turkey for the fulfilment of specific needs. These are simply included the continued presence of the Poised Hammer force on Turkish soil for reasons of security and the UN humanitarian help; the import and export of supplies through Turkish ports; the openings of new road links and a new telephone network with Turkey.

Given the fact that Turkey, Iran and Syria and Arabs at large all oppose the emergence of a sovereign Kurdish state in post-Saddam Iraq, and each actually have the capacity to undermine any existing Kurdistan’s stability and security. Most importantly, if exist, Kurdistan will be a landlocked state.

Because of historical and religious reasons, the Kurds in Iraq have problems with the all-surrounding countries. Syria and Iran, because of their Shiite government and intentions to play Shiites card within Iraq created tense relations between Kurds and them. Although Kurds have a problematic relations even with Turkey, the intensivity of this relations between Turkey and Kurds, in comparison with that of Kurds to Iran and Syria, are less and possible to find solutions.
In any possible scenario, if Kurds announce their independent in the north, the Shiites would also seek an independent state in the south of Iraq. This simply means the scattering of Iraq and would be costly especially for Sunni Arabs and Turkomans. If this situation exists, the leaders of Kurdistan would find in an environment summarized as follows: in the north Turkey, in the south newly emerged Shiite state depending on Iran, in the east Iran, in the west Syria, with all of which Kurds has problematic relations. Then the issue will be with which state surrounding Kurdistan problems how soon and how easily could be solved, since Kurdistan would need international opening. I believe in this case Turkey would come to spotlight due to several reasons. Turkey’s main concern stems from domestic contingencies, therefore, if Kurdistan leaders would guarantee not to intervene Turkey’s internal Kurdish issue, there is no reason for Turkey not to develop good relations with newly established Kurdistan. However, the problematic areas would not be easy to solve with other surrounding countries Iran, newly existing Shiite state and Syria. It is because the problems between them are not security related, but religious and societal. This would lead to a situation whereby Kurdistan depends on Turkey.

Even until recently and today Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) has relied on transit across the Turkish border for humanitarian assistance, legitimate trade, and the smuggling of oil and many other commodities. These explanations make clear that once Kurdistan is landlocked, as it was in the last ten year, in the future Kurdistan will depend on Turkey more than any other country.

While keeping this reality in mind, it can be argued that Kurds would benefit from an economic recovery in post-Saddam period provided by a stable and sovereign Iraq, rather than seeking an independent Kurdistan. Softening their stance on autonomy and supporting a unified Iraq would enable Kurds to avoid the wrath of Iraq’s neighbours and even win their gratitude. This is a case particularly for Turkey. In any case, if a Kurdistan exists in northern Iraq, Kurdish economic well being in terms of international trade would remain largely at the mercy of Turkey and other neighbouring states. As landlocked and surrounded by the enmity of neighbouring states, after the establishment of a Kurdish state, the tough times await for Kurds.

As argued above that Turkey’s relations with Iraqi Kurds could be solved easier than those with the other Iraqi neighbours, after Kurdistan’s existence if current conditions exist, such as the tension between Kurdish leaders and the governments of Syria and Iran, one can easily claim that, the survival of Kurdistan, if not existence, would depend on Turkey more than any other country and any other time in history. Therefore, in any case, a land-locked Iraqi Kurdistan can acquire enormous benefit from good relations with Turkey, and likely suffer enormously in their absence.

For the Kurds, post-Saddam period is an historical opportunity to control or at least exert their influences on all Iraq, rather than seeking an independent state but then soon-to-be-turned another dependency, only changing from Saddam’s mercy to the goodwill of Turkey.
Originally published in A DIFFERENT VIEW, Issue 11, February 2007, pp. 10-12, and WORLD STUDENT PRESS AGENCY website (www.studentpa.info)