The Need for a New (Albeit Modified) Ataturk

In the wake of World War I, the Ottoman Empire was wiped from the pages of history for its supporting role of the Central Powers. As a result, the Allies sought their own piece of the Turkish dinosaur. France and Great Britain carved up the old Fertile Crescent along the lines of the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), with the British overseeing much of Iraq, Jordan and Palestine and the French overseeing Syria and Lebanon, as well as portions of modern-day Turkey. Meanwhile, the Italians and Greeks made a grab for land around Constantinople. However, from the Turkish military sector emerged a skilled commander named Mustafa Kemal, known in history as Ataturk.

Throughout the early 1920s, Ataturk pushed back the Greek forces, including ethnic Greeks who had settled in Turkish territories. He then pushed through a series of reforms that were considered fairly radical. He implemented a new Latin alphabet and allowed women to have the right to vote. But, his most daring set of reforms was the secularization of Turkey. He went after religious orders and nationalized property held by religious organizations. In the schools of the new country, a secular curriculum was put in place and Sharia law was replaced with one modeled after Western Europe. Islam was delegitimized as a governing force and symbols of the faith, notably the veil, were outlawed. In his efforts, Ataturk was brutal and unrelenting, particularly towards the Kurds, but he was able to reverse centuries of historical precedent to bring stability and democracy to a country possessing little experience with either. In the aftermath, Ataturk, who died in 1938, became a national hero.

Today, Turkey has Recep Tayyip Erdogan. A far cry from Ataturk (except, sadly, his attitude towards the Kurds), he has recently brought Turkey to the point of conflict at various levels. He seems to be going out of his way to destabilize the region. First, he is operating under the false impression that he does not need Europe – saying the continent needs him more. This is seen in the widening gulf between the European Union and Turkey over admission of the latter into the former. Turkey’s economy is extraordinary but I wonder what would happen if some European countries revoked the guest worker program and forced hundreds of thousands of unemployed Turkish nationals to their native land (there are two million in Germany alone)? I don’t foresee countries doing that but I can see an end to the program. This would be a new weight on the Turkish economy that could undermine Mr. Erdogan’s policies.

Second, Mr. Erdogan is pursuing policies that could endanger the fragile stability in the entire region with two cases in particular – Cyprus and Israel. Of concern to the EU is his refusal of any Greek-Cypriot ships to enter Turkish waters or ports. Perhaps, Mr. Erdogan feels his country’s economy does not need their products but the actions seem to be based more on purposefully antagonizing Greek Cyprus on simply historical grounds. The resulting increase in tensions is avoidable. Yet, as problematic as the Cyprus situation is, it does not measure up to his stance on Israel.

The prime minister was the former mayor of Istanbul and is the head of the Justice and Development Party (AK), an Islamist party that has led some to fear, particularly when he came to power in 2003, of an ebbing of Turkey’s secular traditions. While his rule has not suggested an obliteration of said traditions, his stance with Israel seems a ploy to cater to his base. Israel has the right to protect its borders and inspect anything coming into its territorial waters. The fact that the flotilla advocates, a group attempting to run the blockade Israel has on shipments to Gaza, refuse to have their cargo inspected suggests the worst and has nothing to do with the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. They are the ploy and the flotilla, a Trojan horse. While the U.S. has encouraged Mr. Erdogan to ease back on the stance with regards to Israel, he has escalated by suggesting the next flotilla attempt would be protected by Turkish ships. Whether or not this is bluster, (the New York Times once referred to him as a “hothead,”) the implications are the same.

Ataturk, while progressive at home, was aware of the importance of good relations with his neighbors. His active role within the League of Nations (a precursor to the United Nations), his partnership within the Balkan Entente (1934) and his non-aggression agreement with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan in the Saadabad Pact (1937) shows his understanding of the importance of regional stability. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has shown the opposite. While conditions within the country have ameliorated since his ascension to the prime ministership, the same cannot be said beyond. Let us hope he is a student of history. If not, I fear for the region.