Anatomy of a War Crime: Behind the Enabling of the 'Kill Team'
TIME (blog)
... Iraq's Triangle of Death, descended into a tailspin of poor discipline, brutality and substance abuse that culminated in a heinous war-crime: four members of this platoon raped a 14 year-old girl, killed her, her parents and her 6 year-old sister. ...See all stories on this topic »

Andrew Wilkie: Whistleblowers Like Wikileaks Need Protection

Sudden amendment for war crime arrest law
Jewish Chronicle
Supporters of the Labour amendment argue that the new units would reassure people that the new system would not slow down the arrest of any genuine war crimes suspects. The proposed amendment is also designed to pacify backbenchers uncomfortable that ..

Libya war: Gaddafi must face war crime trial not exile, says David ...
The Prime Minister will reject a plan by Italy and Germany to let the tyrant off the hook in a bid to speed up a change of regime. www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Libya-war-Gaddafi-face-war-crime-tri...

Obama Tries, Without Success, to Explain an Undeclared War

The speech was, to no one’s surprise, ably delivered. The president spoke with emotional and rhetorical power of how he felt there had been a need to intervene in order to prevent “a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” He explained how there are times “when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are.” He decried the temptation “to turn away from the world” and promised that “wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States.”

Those are noble sentiments, well expressed.

Unfortunately, he also spoke about how he had initiated the way on his own: “I ordered warships into the Mediterranean.” “I refused to let that happen.” “I authorized military action…” “At my direction…”

The problem is that presidents are not supposed to start wars, especially wars of whim that are offensive rather than defensive in nature. That was the complaint against George W. Bush when he failed to obtain a declaration of war before ordering the invasion of Iraq, that is the ongoing complaint against Obama for maintaining the undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is the legitimate and necessary complaint against Obama now, a complaint that should come not just opponents of the military intervention but supporters who want that intervention to be lawful and legitimate.

The president did not address the fact that the Libyan adventure is an undeclared war. In fact, he barely mentioned the Congress that is supposed to declare wars, saying only: “And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.”

But the Constitution does not discuss “consulting the bipartisan leadership.” It says that: “Congress shall have the power…to declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

That was the point that Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, with regard to the speech made in a letter to Congress.

Suggesting that “President Obama owes the nation an explanation as to why he had time to consult with 15 members of the UN Security Council, 22 members of the Arab League, and later, with 28 members of NATO, to garner support for an attack with Great Britain and France, but had no time to come to the United States Congress for prior authorization before attacking Libya,” Kucinich argued that “Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is very clear. It is Congress that determines when our nation goes to war. President Obama superseded that authority and bought a new war for the American people without Congressional approval. We must know what it will cost, how long it will last, what is the end game, and when will NATO—whose military bills we pay—get out.”

Kucinich continued: “President Obama’s failure to come to Congress, as required by the Constitution, left us without the opportunity to have a full and ample debate on the merits of military intervention in Libya. As such, I intend to offer a bipartisan amendment to cut off funds for U.S. participation in the war to the next funding measure. I want to thank Representatives Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) for their co-sponsorship of the amendment.”

Kucinich has been a steady and outspoken critic of the president’s failure to seek a declaration of war.

But, after Obama spoke, other members of Congress voiced their objections.

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, issued a statement immediately following the president’s speech, which began: “I oppose the current engagement of U.S. military forces in Libya. Our nation cannot afford a third war and Congress has not authorized it.”

Echoing Kucinich, she said: “The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war. Defense Secretary Gates has publicly stated that Libya is not a vital interest of the United States. Congress must debate and act on this new military engagement in Libya.”

Baldwin also raised other concerns: “For a decade now, the U.S. has been fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have spent nearly a trillion dollars of borrowed money and lost nearly 6,000 American lives. Thousands more servicemen and women have suffered serious, life-altering injuries. Even as they support these wars with no clearly defined mission or exit strategy, House Republicans are seeking deep cuts in job creation efforts, veterans’ services, health care, education, and transportation. These are misguided priorities.”

“Our troops must be brought home safely and soon from Afghanistan and Iraq; and Congress must return its focus to creating jobs, educating our children, and ensuring access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans,” concluded Baldwin.

--
Ed. Dickau

--
Ed. Dickau

-- 
Ed. Dickau

JOIN THE LIVE CHAT VISIT WHITEHOUSE.GOV

Exemplary Army justice for Afghan war crimes POSTED BY PATRICK O'CALLAHAN ON MARCH 26, 2011 AT 3:51 PM   This editorial will appear in tomorrow's print edition. The prosecution of war crimes at Forward Operating Base Ramrod in Afghanistan promises to become one of the Army’s most honorable episodes – if it focuses as much attention on commanders as it has on enlisted soldiers. The trials and hearings at Joint Base Lewis-McChord have revealed an attitude of intolerance of atrocities and criminal behavior that might have been dismissed as the cost of doing business in previous wars. Last week’s sentencing of one defendant, Spc. Jeremy Morlock, shows how tough the Army has gotten. Morlock pleaded guilty to three counts of murdering Afghan civilians and several less serious crimes in what prosecutors say was a series of killings carried out last year by Morlock and four of his platoon-mates. But he has been cooperating with the prosecution and is expected to be the key witness against the accused ringleader, Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs. He was sentenced to 24 years Wednesday, a tough deal for a defendant turned state’s evidence. Expect worse for Gibbs or any of the other three if convicted after a trial. Gibbs is accused of enlisting the others in a sociopathic sport that consisted of killing noncombatants opportunistically when on patrol, claiming they were enemies. Soldiers in any conflict can break under the stress of combat and kill indiscriminately, but this a case of cold premeditation. Three other soldiers accused of lesser crimes, including smoking hashish and beating up a whistle-blower, have already been given bad conduct discharges from the Army, a stigma that will follow them the rest of their lives. Military authorities have also investigated whatever breakdown in command helped set the stage for the atrocities. There’s considerable evidence that these soldiers’ brigade leader was flouting a counterinsurgency strategy that focused on protection of civilians. The three murdered civilians weren’t protected, to say the least. So far, the Army has not responded to The News Tribune’s requests for the 500-page report on the review. It would do itself a favor by releasing the document; the investigation itself is evidence of an organization bent on policing itself. And the public must be assured that commanders are being held as accountable as their troops. Let’s hope the world, particularly Afghanistan, is paying attention to the courts-martial at JBLM. Morlock’s conviction roughly coincides with a German magazine’s publication of sickening photos of him posing with one of the murdered Afghans. One picture shows him grinning and holding the man’s head up like a hunting trophy. That’s a revolting statement about the depravity some soldiers are capable of when they lose their moral bearings in a combat zone. But the Army’s aggressive prosecution makes its own statement about what the U.S. military – and America itself – expects of its troops. “This is not us,” said Morlock’s prosecutor, Capt. Dre Leblanc. “We don’t do this. This is not how we’re trained. This is not the Army.” The punishments these soldiers face – combined with public accountability for their commanders – will help put an exclamation mark after those words. Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/opinion/2011/03/26/exemplary-army-justice-for-afghan-war-crimes/#ixzz1Hl86uvS6 The catastrophe in Japan has made apparent just how fragile the global Economy Has Become. Factories Around The World Have Had To Slow Production Due To A Lack Of Parts. But The Problems Are Surmountable -- Provided The Nuclear Disaster In Fukushima Doesn't Worsen. It's about 9,000 kilometers (5,625 miles) from Tokyo to Mulfingen and Künzelsau, but it didn't take long for the shockwaves from Japan to reach these two towns in the southwestern German state of Baden-Württemberg. The region is home to several small and mid-sized companies, including EBM Papst and Ziehl-Abegg, the world's two top producers of fans and specialized ventilation systems. Normally, the two companies are competitors. Now, however, they share the same fate. One of their key suppliers, a computer chip factory operated by electronics giant Toshiba in northern Japan, is out of commission. Although detailed information about local conditions is hard to come by, everything the German executives have heard suggests that the earthquake and tsunami severely damaged the chip factory. "If delivery is delayed, it can shut down the entire production process," says Peter Fenkl, chairman of Ziehl-Abegg. "We expect that our assembly lines could come to a standstill for one to two weeks," says Hans-Jochen Beilke, chairman of operations at EBM Papst. Although the scope of the catastrophe in Japan is still not fully clear, it's safe to say that the economic damage has been considerable. Japan, the world's third-largest economy, exports its goods to every corner of the earth. Japanese companies supply world markets with modern memory chips, flat-screen TVs, cameras and cars. The French bank Crédit Lyonnais estimates that one-fifth of all high-tech products worldwide are from Japan. The devastating earthquake and tsunami 12 days ago -- resulting in widespread power outages -- has severely curtailed production. Things could get even worse should attempts to prevent a massive disaster at the nuclear reactors in Fukushima fail. 'Nuclear Winter for the Economy' Currency speculators are fueling demand for the yen, because they expect the rebuilding effort to cost billions. Nervous investors have sent stock prices in New York, Frankfurt and Tokyo on a roller-coaster ride. Some economic experts fear a global recession, a "nuclear winter for the economy," as a Frankfurt securities dealer put it last week. Japan once taught the world how a modern factory works. Now, though, it is the disaster in Japan that has brought the global supply chain to a standstill. The transmission Porsche installs into its Cayenne SUV is made by the Japanese manufacturer Aisin, where production has been hampered. A damaged Toshiba plant produces an important memory chip used in Apple's iPad. Automaker Opel has announced plans to cancel some shifts at its plant in Eisenach, Germany this week due to a shortage of components from Japan. Trade routes have also been impaired. Container ships operated by Hapag-Lloyd can no longer dock at the destroyed port of Sendai. Lufthansa Cargo is no longer offering regular service to Tokyo because of the radiation risk. In a world in which factories no longer maintain large inventories, constant supply is mandatory. Should that supply be interrupted, they can often continue producing only for a few days. The assembly lines at EBM Papst and Ziehl-Abegg now depend on a handful of electronic components from Japan, often costing little more than a few cents. But they the transformers, resistors and memory chips are vital components in products ranging from fans for laptops and car engines to the air-conditioning systems in New York skyscrapers and hotels in Mecca. Potential Threat "There will be an impact," says Ziehl-Abegg Chairman Fenkl. His order books are full but his warehouses, unfortunately, are not. And even if he manages to obtain new parts quickly enough, the risks to the economy still exist. "What good would it do if we delivered our fans to an automaker on time, while a supplier of fuel pumps cannot because he is missing parts from Japan?" Fenkl asks. The potential threat to German companies is relatively small compared to the problems faced by the Asian and North American economies. The volume of trade between Japan and Germany comes to about €35 billion a year -- a fraction of the trade between Japan and China. Experts estimate that it will cost about $200 billion (€142 billion) to clean up and rebuild those parts of the country most affected. Expensive, to be sure, but possible. It cost about $100 billion to rebuild Kobe after the devastating 1995 earthquake -- but the effort proved to be an economic stimulus of sorts for the Japanese economy. Should the situation become drastically worse in the damaged reactors in Fukushima, the future would look even bleaker. Significant areas in the Fukushima region would become permanently uninhabitable. The shock to the global economy would likewise be considerable. Worst Case "The situation would be comparable with Germany after World War II," says Klaus-Jürgen Gern of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Michael Heise, chief economist at Allianz Insurance, predicts: "It would shake the financial markets and could bring the recovery of the global economy to a standstill." Bank Sarasin, a Swiss private bank, expects that in the worst case Japan could permanently lose about 10 percent of its economic strength if large parts of the country become contaminated with radiation. This would curb worldwide growth by about one percentage point. The stock and foreign currency markets reflect how uncertain the situation is. The benchmark index of the Tokyo Stock Exchange initially lost 15 percent last week before entering a period of fluctuating sharp gains and losses. By the time markets closed last Friday, many companies had made up some of the losses from earlier in the week -- and the rally has continued this week. Those who had expected the Japanese yen to come under pressure in a time of need were disappointed. In fact, the opposite occurred, as the yen became more and more expensive. Last Thursday, a US dollar was trading at only 76 yen, the lowest rate since the end of World War II. At that point, the finance ministers and central bank chairmen of the key industrialized nations had had enough. In a joint action, they injected yen into the market, managing to stem the currency's appreciation, at least temporarily. Japanese companies which rely on exports were relieved at the move. In the current crisis, it is vital that they are able to sell their products at a reasonable price on the world market. If, That Is, They Are Able To Produce Any Goods At All.

Shut Up About Neo-Ottomanism Already Nick Danforth - March 25, 2011 2:00 pm A number of developments—from Wikileaks to the democratic upheaval in the Middle East—have prompted articles debating Turkey’s newly active, “neo-Ottomanist” foreign policy. Indeed, in recent years Turkey has been particularly quick to build political and economic ties with formerly hostile neighbors. American critics of this policy love to call it “neo-Ottoman,” as do some Turkish advocates. Say what you will about the Ottoman Empire or Turkey’s foreign policy, the metaphor makes no sense. As it is currently used, “neo-Ottomanism” implicitly links political Islam and Ottoman nostalgia to some vaguely defined anti-American, anti-European, pro-Muslim, or generally Middle East–oriented foreign policy. In doing so, the term misrepresents history in order to misunderstand the present. Let’s take a quick country-by-country look at Turkey’s foreign policy and see just how familiar it would be to the Sultans. Iran – Turkey’s rapprochement with Iran strikes many as the most frightening manifestation of the neo-Ottoman spirit. Iran, of course, was never part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans, despite their admiration for Persian poetry, still managed to fight quite a bit with the Safavid Empire. Not surprisingly, when Turkish politicians visit Tehran today, it’s the several centuries after things calmed down that they prefer to talk about. Syria – Leaders from Turkey’s governing party the AKP get grief for being neo-Ottoman or Islamist when they meet with Syrian president Bashar Assad, and then again when they meet with representatives of Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the relationship between the Assad family and the Muslim Brotherhood is a particularly bloody one. Bashar Assad, whose father massacred tens of thousands of Brotherhood members along with fellow residents of the city of Hama in 1982, may be a nasty dictator, but he is certainly not an Islamist. Iraq – After forming a High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council and abolishing visa requirements, Turkey conducted $6 billion worth of trade with Iraq in 2010. Sultan Suleiman the Great did not institute a free-trade zone with Iraq in 1534; he conquered it. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, no one in Turkey or America compared George W. Bush with Sultan Suleiman or accused the United States of having a neo-Ottoman foreign policy (though Iraqis may well have). Indeed, conflating economic ties with political rule would sound almost offensive in other contexts. When Germany invests in France or Eastern Europe, nobody calls it “neo-Nazism.” The Balkans – In a world before oil, the Balkans were always more of a cultural and economic hub for the Ottomans than the Middle East. Turkish companies are now investing in once vibrant Ottoman cities like Skopje, Bitolas, and Mostar. If ever there was a place for using “neo-Ottoman” in a purely economic sense, this would be it. But why would anyone talk about Macedonia when they could be talking about somewhere with oil like… Libya – So far, it seems most commentators have correctly identified in Turkey’s resistance to Western intervention in Libya the timeless and universal value of putting profits first. But Libya’s instability offers a perfect opportunity for a real neo-Ottoman coup. In the sixteenth century, the Ottoman pirate Barbarossa took advantage of internal power struggles among quarrelsome Maghrebi rulers to seize control of the North African coast and then run it as a pirate haven. If this is Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan’s end-game, Qaddafi seems to be the only one worried. In an interview with a French newspaper, the Libyan leader warned the world that if the rebels win, the Mediterranean will return to an era when “Barbarossa, pirates, and Ottomans” held Western ships for ransom. Israel – This one is tricky. As Turks are eager to tell you, the Ottomans really treated Jews pretty well, at least by the standards of the times. When the Spanish monarchy drove the Jews out of Spain, the Ottomans welcomed them. For centuries, Jews lived throughout the Ottoman Empire, practicing their religion and continuing to speak a version of Spanish. Then in the 1930s, the super-secular government of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk began pressuring them to speak Turkish and adopt Turkish names. In the 1940s, Turkey went after their money with a special confiscatory tax. So a genuinely neo-Ottoman approach to Israel might look a lot better than one based on the ugly anti-Semitism that is widespread among secular and religious Turks today. Greece – After several centuries of living in relative harmony, things ended badly between the Ottomans and the Greeks. Turkey’s relations with Greece are better now than at any point since the two countries almost went to war over Cyprus in 1974. If ever there was a triumph of pragmatism over history, this is it. Western Europe – Ataturk famously tried to Westernize Turkey and leave the Islamic, Eastern, and Ottoman past behind. He never actually used the phrase “Westernize” himself, preferring to speak of his desire to make Turkey modern. Nonetheless, everyone knew this meant being modern like France, Britain, or Germany. Ataturk’s vigorously “pro-Western” domestic policies—which famously included banning the fez and switching written Turkish from Arabic to Latin letters—never led to a “pro-Western” foreign policy, as many would like to believe. As an Ottoman general, Ataturk did not go to Gallipoli to discuss his admiration for European culture with invading British officers. After the First World War, he used weapons provided by the newly formed Soviet Union to fend off the French, British, Greek, and Italian forces trying to occupy Anatolia. In doing so he set the stage for his signature policy of non-intervention, neutrality, and good relations with as many neighbors as possible. Which brings up… Russia – The immediacy of the Soviet threat after the Second World War forced Turkey to abandon its policy of neutrality and seek safety in NATO. At a time when “Eastern” meant Communist, not “Muslim,” this made Turkey as Western as it needed to be. At this point, an anti-Soviet policy was perfectly Ottoman; it was Russia after all who had helped bring down the Empire in the nineteenth century. As worried as the United States might be now about Turkey making nice with Russia, this is about as far from neo-Ottoman as a policy could get. In fact, during the early years of the Cold War, the United States encouraged Turkey to embrace its Ottoman heritage by leading the Arab world in a defensive alliance against Communism. The EU – Is joining the EU neo-Ottoman? Well, if you think the Ottomans were European, then yes. Otherwise, no. The Ottomans ruled much of Europe in their time. For advocates of EU accession, this shows how European they were. For opponents, it makes them the eternal enemy. Austrian nationalists imagine that if Turkey joins the EU, Turks will at long last slip through the gates into Vienna. Meanwhile, anti-EU Turkish nationalists insist that in incorporating Turkey, the Europeans will finally realize their dream of retaking Constantinople for Christendom. History just doesn’t offer that many analogies for an economic union of post-industrial democracies that have been partially successful in instituting a common currency but not in transforming into a political federation. Given Turkey’s location, its foreign policy will always involve former Ottoman lands. To date, Turkey’s approach to this neighborhood has been nuanced and pragmatic. There may be good reason to worry that it is also unrealistic, hypocritical, or bad for American interests. But there is no reason to confuse these legitimate criticisms by sticking a fez on them.

The Workers’ Greatest Power Is In The Streets.

French lesson: ‘It’s not over’ : By Tony Murphy : Published Mar 21, 2011 9:19 PM

Once Gov. Scott Walker signed anti-union Act 10 on March 10, the media treated the battle in Wisconsin as over. “Republican tactic ends stalemate in Wisconsin” blared the front page of the New York Times on March 11.

Yet the next day, the largest-yet march in Madison protested the dismantling of collective bargaining.

The dynamic, inspiring movement against Walker’s union-busting bill is alive and well — and not going away. Its spreading to Ohio, Indiana and other states is much needed, and will be like oxygen for the labor movement.

Hanging in the balance is the question of whether the struggle in Wisconsin itself is really over.

Of course, the corporate media would have us think it is.

However, Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug La Follette has refused Walker’s request to publish the new law before the state’s customary ten-day waiting period. “It’s been rushed enough,” La Follette said. (La Crosse Tribune, March 11)

Can a law be reversed after it’s been passed? Yes. This has happened in recent history — in France in 2006.

Take a lesson from France in 2006

On March 31 of that year, President Jacques Chirac signed a bill, known as the CPE, which allowed bosses to fire workers under age 26 for no reason or with no explanation.

At that point, protests and one-day general strikes against the CPE had already closed universities, blocked railways and rocked France for weeks.

Students and unions took passage of the law as a sign to ratchet up the street struggle. Another national strike was called for April 4.

Unions estimated the strike’s turnout at 3 million. Creative and militant tactics included electricity workers sabotaging the power supply at the Montpellier Town Hall and the Polygone shopping center. Electricity was cut for at least half an hour.

Chirac and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin kept explaining that they were pushing the CPE against the will of the people for honorable reasons. They kept on saying that right up until April 10 when the demonstrations forced them to reverse course — and announce that they were scrapping the law for good.

Like Walker, Villepin was not held back by legality. The Financial Times reported that he “rammed reform through parliament as if he were leading a charge of the Imperial Guard.” (April 5, 2006)

The French movement’s defeat of the CPE speaks volumes about how to proceed with the struggle in Wisconsin. While the Wisconsin’ South Central Labor Federation voted to endorse a general strike, Democrats and many unions are pushing a recall campaign against Walker and other Republicans. This is now widely advanced as the next step in the struggle, along with ballot-box vengeance.

Whatever is done with legal and electoral tactics, the real strength of this movement is in the streets. The protesters themselves have shown again and again that their impulse is to return to the streets in Madison and elsewhere. Some 4,000 people confronted Walker on March 13 when he attended a Republican fundraiser in Howard, Wis.

The movement still has great momentum. And the defeat of the anti-worker CPE in France is an object lesson pointing the way for the struggle: The workers’ greatest power is in the streets.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://cdn.widgetserver.com/syndication/subscriber/InsertWidget.js"> Shut Up About Neo-Ottomanism Already Nick Danforth - March 25, 2011 2:00 pm A number of developments—from Wikileaks to the democratic upheaval in the Middle East—have prompted articles debating Turkey’s newly active, “neo-Ottomanist” foreign policy. Indeed, in recent years Turkey has been particularly quick to build political and economic ties with formerly hostile neighbors. American critics of this policy love to call it “neo-Ottoman,” as do some Turkish advocates. Say what you will about the Ottoman Empire or Turkey’s foreign policy, the metaphor makes no sense. As it is currently used, “neo-Ottomanism” implicitly links political Islam and Ottoman nostalgia to some vaguely defined anti-American, anti-European, pro-Muslim, or generally Middle East–oriented foreign policy. In doing so, the term misrepresents history in order to misunderstand the present. Let’s take a quick country-by-country look at Turkey’s foreign policy and see just how familiar it would be to the Sultans. Iran – Turkey’s rapprochement with Iran strikes many as the most frightening manifestation of the neo-Ottoman spirit. Iran, of course, was never part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans, despite their admiration for Persian poetry, still managed to fight quite a bit with the Safavid Empire. Not surprisingly, when Turkish politicians visit Tehran today, it’s the several centuries after things calmed down that they prefer to talk about. Syria – Leaders from Turkey’s governing party the AKP get grief for being neo-Ottoman or Islamist when they meet with Syrian president Bashar Assad, and then again when they meet with representatives of Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the relationship between the Assad family and the Muslim Brotherhood is a particularly bloody one. Bashar Assad, whose father massacred tens of thousands of Brotherhood members along with fellow residents of the city of Hama in 1982, may be a nasty dictator, but he is certainly not an Islamist. Iraq – After forming a High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council and abolishing visa requirements, Turkey conducted $6 billion worth of trade with Iraq in 2010. Sultan Suleiman the Great did not institute a free-trade zone with Iraq in 1534; he conquered it. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, no one in Turkey or America compared George W. Bush with Sultan Suleiman or accused the United States of having a neo-Ottoman foreign policy (though Iraqis may well have). Indeed, conflating economic ties with political rule would sound almost offensive in other contexts. When Germany invests in France or Eastern Europe, nobody calls it “neo-Nazism.” The Balkans – In a world before oil, the Balkans were always more of a cultural and economic hub for the Ottomans than the Middle East. Turkish companies are now investing in once vibrant Ottoman cities like Skopje, Bitolas, and Mostar. If ever there was a place for using “neo-Ottoman” in a purely economic sense, this would be it. But why would anyone talk about Macedonia when they could be talking about somewhere with oil like… Libya – So far, it seems most commentators have correctly identified in Turkey’s resistance to Western intervention in Libya the timeless and universal value of putting profits first. But Libya’s instability offers a perfect opportunity for a real neo-Ottoman coup. In the sixteenth century, the Ottoman pirate Barbarossa took advantage of internal power struggles among quarrelsome Maghrebi rulers to seize control of the North African coast and then run it as a pirate haven. If this is Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan’s end-game, Qaddafi seems to be the only one worried. In an interview with a French newspaper, the Libyan leader warned the world that if the rebels win, the Mediterranean will return to an era when “Barbarossa, pirates, and Ottomans” held Western ships for ransom. Israel – This one is tricky. As Turks are eager to tell you, the Ottomans really treated Jews pretty well, at least by the standards of the times. When the Spanish monarchy drove the Jews out of Spain, the Ottomans welcomed them. For centuries, Jews lived throughout the Ottoman Empire, practicing their religion and continuing to speak a version of Spanish. Then in the 1930s, the super-secular government of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk began pressuring them to speak Turkish and adopt Turkish names. In the 1940s, Turkey went after their money with a special confiscatory tax. So a genuinely neo-Ottoman approach to Israel might look a lot better than one based on the ugly anti-Semitism that is widespread among secular and religious Turks today. Greece – After several centuries of living in relative harmony, things ended badly between the Ottomans and the Greeks. Turkey’s relations with Greece are better now than at any point since the two countries almost went to war over Cyprus in 1974. If ever there was a triumph of pragmatism over history, this is it. Western Europe – Ataturk famously tried to Westernize Turkey and leave the Islamic, Eastern, and Ottoman past behind. He never actually used the phrase “Westernize” himself, preferring to speak of his desire to make Turkey modern. Nonetheless, everyone knew this meant being modern like France, Britain, or Germany. Ataturk’s vigorously “pro-Western” domestic policies—which famously included banning the fez and switching written Turkish from Arabic to Latin letters—never led to a “pro-Western” foreign policy, as many would like to believe. As an Ottoman general, Ataturk did not go to Gallipoli to discuss his admiration for European culture with invading British officers. After the First World War, he used weapons provided by the newly formed Soviet Union to fend off the French, British, Greek, and Italian forces trying to occupy Anatolia. In doing so he set the stage for his signature policy of non-intervention, neutrality, and good relations with as many neighbors as possible. Which brings up… Russia – The immediacy of the Soviet threat after the Second World War forced Turkey to abandon its policy of neutrality and seek safety in NATO. At a time when “Eastern” meant Communist, not “Muslim,” this made Turkey as Western as it needed to be. At this point, an anti-Soviet policy was perfectly Ottoman; it was Russia after all who had helped bring down the Empire in the nineteenth century. As worried as the United States might be now about Turkey making nice with Russia, this is about as far from neo-Ottoman as a policy could get. In fact, during the early years of the Cold War, the United States encouraged Turkey to embrace its Ottoman heritage by leading the Arab world in a defensive alliance against Communism. The EU – Is joining the EU neo-Ottoman? Well, if you think the Ottomans were European, then yes. Otherwise, no. The Ottomans ruled much of Europe in their time. For advocates of EU accession, this shows how European they were. For opponents, it makes them the eternal enemy. Austrian nationalists imagine that if Turkey joins the EU, Turks will at long last slip through the gates into Vienna. Meanwhile, anti-EU Turkish nationalists insist that in incorporating Turkey, the Europeans will finally realize their dream of retaking Constantinople for Christendom. History just doesn’t offer that many analogies for an economic union of post-industrial democracies that have been partially successful in instituting a common currency but not in transforming into a political federation. Given Turkey’s location, its foreign policy will always involve former Ottoman lands. To date, Turkey’s approach to this neighborhood has been nuanced and pragmatic. There may be good reason to worry that it is also unrealistic, hypocritical, or bad for American interests. But there is no reason to confuse these legitimate criticisms by sticking a fez on them.

 

 

 

Shut Up About Neo-Ottomanism Already

Nick Danforth - March 25, 2011 2:00 pm

A number of developments—from Wikileaks to the democratic upheaval in the Middle East—have prompted articles debating Turkey’s newly active, “neo-Ottomanist” foreign policy. Indeed, in recent years Turkey has been particularly quick to build political and economic ties with formerly hostile neighbors. American critics of this policy love to call it “neo-Ottoman,” as do some Turkish advocates. Say what you will about the Ottoman Empire or Turkey’s foreign policy, the metaphor makes no sense. As it is currently used, “neo-Ottomanism” implicitly links political Islam and Ottoman nostalgia to some vaguely defined anti-American, anti-European, pro-Muslim, or generally Middle East–oriented foreign policy. In doing so, the term misrepresents history in order to misunderstand the present. Let’s take a quick country-by-country look at Turkey’s foreign policy and see just how familiar it would be to the Sultans.

Iran – Turkey’s rapprochement with Iran strikes many as the most frightening manifestation of the neo-Ottoman spirit. Iran, of course, was never part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans, despite their admiration for Persian poetry, still managed to fight quite a bit with the Safavid Empire. Not surprisingly, when Turkish politicians visit Tehran today, it’s the several centuries after things calmed down that they prefer to talk about.

Syria – Leaders from Turkey’s governing party the AKP get grief for being neo-Ottoman or Islamist when they meet with Syrian president Bashar Assad, and then again when they meet with representatives of Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the relationship between the Assad family and the Muslim Brotherhood is a particularly bloody one. Bashar Assad, whose father massacred tens of thousands of Brotherhood members along with fellow residents of the city of Hama in 1982, may be a nasty dictator, but he is certainly not an Islamist.

Iraq – After forming a High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council and abolishing visa requirements, Turkey conducted $6 billion worth of trade with Iraq in 2010. Sultan Suleiman the Great did not institute a free-trade zone with Iraq in 1534; he conquered it. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, no one in Turkey or America compared George W. Bush with Sultan Suleiman or accused the United States of having a neo-Ottoman foreign policy (though Iraqis may well have). Indeed, conflating economic ties with political rule would sound almost offensive in other contexts. When Germany invests in France or Eastern Europe, nobody calls it “neo-Nazism.”

The Balkans – In a world before oil, the Balkans were always more of a cultural and economic hub for the Ottomans than the Middle East. Turkish companies are now investing in once vibrant Ottoman cities like Skopje, Bitolas, and Mostar. If ever there was a place for using “neo-Ottoman” in a purely economic sense, this would be it. But why would anyone talk about Macedonia when they could be talking about somewhere with oil like…

Libya – So far, it seems most commentators have correctly identified in Turkey’s resistance to Western intervention in Libya the timeless and universal value of putting profits first. But Libya’s instability offers a perfect opportunity for a real neo-Ottoman coup. In the sixteenth century, the Ottoman pirate Barbarossa took advantage of internal power struggles among quarrelsome Maghrebi rulers to seize control of the North African coast and then run it as a pirate haven. If this is Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan’s end-game, Qaddafi seems to be the only one worried. In an interview with a French newspaper, the Libyan leader warned the world that if the rebels win, the Mediterranean will return to an era when “Barbarossa, pirates, and Ottomans” held Western ships for ransom.

Israel – This one is tricky. As Turks are eager to tell you, the Ottomans really treated Jews pretty well, at least by the standards of the times. When the Spanish monarchy drove the Jews out of Spain, the Ottomans welcomed them. For centuries, Jews lived throughout the Ottoman Empire, practicing their religion and continuing to speak a version of Spanish. Then in the 1930s, the super-secular government of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk began pressuring them to speak Turkish and adopt Turkish names. In the 1940s, Turkey went after their money with a special confiscatory tax. So a genuinely neo-Ottoman approach to Israel might look a lot better than one based on the ugly anti-Semitism that is widespread among secular and religious Turks today.

Greece – After several centuries of living in relative harmony, things ended badly between the Ottomans and the Greeks. Turkey’s relations with Greece are better now than at any point since the two countries almost went to war over Cyprus in 1974. If ever there was a triumph of pragmatism over history, this is it.

Western Europe – Ataturk famously tried to Westernize Turkey and leave the Islamic, Eastern, and Ottoman past behind. He never actually used the phrase “Westernize” himself, preferring to speak of his desire to make Turkey modern. Nonetheless, everyone knew this meant being modern like France, Britain, or Germany. Ataturk’s vigorously “pro-Western” domestic policies—which famously included banning the fez and switching written Turkish from Arabic to Latin letters—never led to a “pro-Western” foreign policy, as many would like to believe. As an Ottoman general, Ataturk did not go to Gallipoli to discuss his admiration for European culture with invading British officers. After the First World War, he used weapons provided by the newly formed Soviet Union to fend off the French, British, Greek, and Italian forces trying to occupy Anatolia. In doing so he set the stage for his signature policy of non-intervention, neutrality, and good relations with as many neighbors as possible. Which brings up…

Russia – The immediacy of the Soviet threat after the Second World War forced Turkey to abandon its policy of neutrality and seek safety in NATO. At a time when “Eastern” meant Communist, not “Muslim,” this made Turkey as Western as it needed to be. At this point, an anti-Soviet policy was perfectly Ottoman; it was Russia after all who had helped bring down the Empire in the nineteenth century. As worried as the United States might be now about Turkey making nice with Russia, this is about as far from neo-Ottoman as a policy could get. In fact, during the early years of the Cold War, the United States encouraged Turkey to embrace its Ottoman heritage by leading the Arab world in a defensive alliance against Communism.

The EU – Is joining the EU neo-Ottoman? Well, if you think the Ottomans were European, then yes. Otherwise, no. The Ottomans ruled much of Europe in their time. For advocates of EU accession, this shows how European they were. For opponents, it makes them the eternal enemy. Austrian nationalists imagine that if Turkey joins the EU, Turks will at long last slip through the gates into Vienna. Meanwhile, anti-EU Turkish nationalists insist that in incorporating Turkey, the Europeans will finally realize their dream of retaking Constantinople for Christendom. History just doesn’t offer that many analogies for an economic union of post-industrial democracies that have been partially successful in instituting a common currency but not in transforming into a political federation.

Given Turkey’s location, its foreign policy will always involve former Ottoman lands. To date, Turkey’s approach to this neighborhood has been nuanced and pragmatic. There may be good reason to worry that it is also unrealistic, hypocritical, or bad for American interests. But there is no reason to confuse these legitimate criticisms by sticking a fez on them.