Mustafa Malik

Category: Posts

Lost in ‘post-secular’ Bangladesh

 

Badruddin Umer is upset because he sees that the Bangladesh Jamaat-e Islami party and “right-wing forces” have strengthened since last year’s student-led uprising. Speaking at a meeting celebrating that upheaval at the National Press Club in Dhaka, Umer lambasted the  National Citizens Party (NCP), led by some of those students, for “mixing religion with politics.”

 

And he deplored the fact that Bangladeshi politics don’t reflect a struggle between the working class and the exploitative economic and political establishments. He has been doing so for more than half a century.

 

I have always admired Umer’s commentaries and activism, espousing democracy and opposing political repression. He vociferously denounced the brutal autocracy of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed, who was overthrown by the student-led upheaval.

 

The problem with Umer, however, is that he has been left behind by Bangladeshi society and culture, as well as the world at large. He began his career as a Marxist-Leninist activist, disdaining religious values and gearing up for a Marxist class struggle in what was East Pakistan and is now Bangladesh.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, strands of the progressive politics in East Pakistan, as in much of the rest of the developing world, were underpinned by Marxist themes. In 1957, while a 10th grader at a Sylhet high school, I was almost recruited to an underground Communist organization by Mofiz Ali, a well-known Communist leader from Shamshernagar in Maulvibaza district.

 

Beginning in the Bengali Language Movement, Islamic expressions and idioms were despised in some elite circles in East Pakistan, who identified Islam with Urdu-speaking West Pakistani elites, who opposed the demand to make Bengali a Pakistani state language.

 

Communism and the idea of class struggle have since vanished in Bangladesh, as elsewhere, even though our Badruddin Umer still harps on it.

 

Western secularism, especially the French model, totally banishes religion and religious symbols from the public sphere. That brand of secularism has been alien to “Muslim Bengal,” which spearheaded the Pakistan movement, the harbinger of Bangladesh. Islam has been the bedrock of Bengalee Muslim, hence Bangladeshi, culture and politics. Without the Muslim League government in Bengal in 1946  under Prime Minister Husseyn Shaheede Suhrawardy, Pakistan could probably never have been born, and neither would have Bangladesh.

In the 1950s and 1960s, some Bengali political and cultural activists mimicked Western secularist conduct and rhetoric, disowning the Islam-oriented social and political values of our Bengalee Muslim society. This approach never worked and has since been abandoned by most people in Bangladesh. Bangladeshis view secularism (as does the Indian National Congress) as freedom to uphold religious values and practices in private and much of the public sphere. Philosopher Charles Taylor would refer to such an arrangement as “post-secular.”

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman founded a “secular, socialist” Bangladesh. Prime Minister Hasina, his daughter, used to launch her election campaigns with prayers at the shrine of the saint Hazrat Shahjalal in Sylhet. And she performed a widely publicized hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. On her return trip, she descended from the aircraft, mumbling prayers while holding a rosary with her outstretched right hand. All the same, she professed to be a secularist.

Badruddin Umer is a discordant voice of a failed ideological experimentation of the bygone era.

 

~Mustafa Malik, the host of the blog ‘mustafamalik.com’, is a retired American journalist who grew up in Bangladesh.

 

 

 

 

 

Can Bangladesh keep democratic?

 

BANGLADESH HAS BEGUN the first annual celebration of its struggle for the restoration of democracy.

 

A student-led movement during last July and August overthrew Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed, ending her 16-year-long repressive autocracy and ushering in the interim government of the Nobel laureate Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus.

 

Opening the celebrations, Professor Yunus called on Bangladeshis to remain vigilant so “autocracy can’t raise its ugly head again.”

 

At a separate event, Syed Abdullah Muhammad Taher, deputy leader (naeb-e amir) of the Jamaat-e Islami party, echoed Yunus’s call but warned the celebrants to watch out so “the BNP doesn’t restart looting” after coming to power again.

 

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party, or BNP, had been accused of engaging in corruption under Prime Minister Khaleda Zia’s 2001-2006 regime. Her son, Tarique Rahman, was blamed for embezzlement and other criminal activities through what was known as “Hawa Bhavan” schemes.

 

The BNP and the Jamaat had been allies in previous governments. In December 2003, Martiur Rahman Nizami, then Jamaat chief and industries minister in a BNP-led government, told me at his Shilpa Bhavan office in Dhaka that his party’s alliance with the BNP was “an alliance of values.”  He meant Islamic values because the two right-of-center parties were pitted against the staunchly secular, pro-Indian Awami League party.

 

(Nizami would later be executed by the Hasina government on seemingly trumped-up charges of sedition and crimes against humanity.)

 

The BNP and the Jamaat are now the largest political parties in Bangladesh, and their old rival, the Awami League, is in the political wilderness. Having no other rivals, the two parties are gearing up to fight against each other in the next parliamentary elections, which are expected to be held early next year. Jamaat leader Muhamad Taher’s dig at the BNP appears to be a preview of their upcoming election campaigns.

 

Holding elections isn’t the biggest challenge facing Bangladesh, however. Establishing Democracy is.

 

The Bangladesh independence movement began in the late 1960s as a struggle to restore democracy in old Pakistan, of which Bangladesh was a province. Nearly a dozen parliamentary elections have been held during Bangladesh’s 54-year-long history, and yet democracy has eluded the country.

 

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman launched the Bangladesh independence struggle in East Pakistan and became the founder of independent Bangladesh. He was elected the country’s first prime minister, but transformed himself into a brutal dictator, ruling the country under a one-party government. Having assassinated democracy, Mujib himself fell victim to assassins’ bullets in August 1975.

 

The BNP was launched by one of Mujib’s successors, Maj. Gen. Ziaur Rahman, after he had grabbed power through an army coup d’état. President Zia ruled Bangladesh with an iron fist. In August 1978, I asked his titular prime minister, Shah Azizur Rahman, in Dhaka about “the status of democracy” under his boss’s civilian government.

 

“It takes a while,” replied the old stalwart of the Pakistan movement.

 

Zia’s civilian government followed an election, and after an interlude of another military dictatorship, elections were restored in 1991, returning the BNP to power, followed by a string of Awami League governments under Hasina.  All elections held under Hasina were rigged.

 

The student-led upheaval that toppled Hasina and drove her into India last Aug. 5 was an outburst of Bangladeshis’ pent-up outrage at her and her Awami League, who had not only unleashed wanton tyranny but relegated all levels of society into their servitude.

 

In July 2022, I was waiting for my turn to see a physician at his private chamber in Sylhet town, where I live. Suddenly, the doctor’s assistant dropped her phone and told him that the vice president of the town’s Awami League branch had arrived for a visit with the doctor.

 

Did he have an appointment? I asked the assistant. She nodded no.

 

The doctor ordered us to wait until the Awami League bigwig was served. As the mighty visitor lumbered through the waiting room, everybody – except me – rose in veneration. The man incinerated me with his blazing gaze before entering the doctor’s chamber.

 

Bangladeshis are waiting impatiently to see democracy restored once again to their country. The challenge they face will be to build a democratic culture and keep up their vigilance against the forays of future autocrats.

 

In 1787, a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia adopted the American Constitution. Having got the document approved by delegates, Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, stepped out into the street.

 

“Is it a monarchy or a republic, doctor?” a woman asked the sage, who was commonly called “doctor,” even though he didn’t have a doctorate or a medical degree.

 

“A republic, madam,” Franklin replied, “if you can keep it.”

 

Muhammad Yunus and his interim government are striving to have democracy restored in Bangladesh. It will be up to the Bangladeshis to keep it.

 

~Mustafa Malik, the host of the blog ‘mustafamalik.com,’  worked for more than three decades as a reporter, editor and columnist for American newspapers and as a researcher for American think tanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlike Arabs, Iran stands up to US

DONALD TRUMP’S RECKLESS dash into the Iran war last week reminds me of a question a young Jordanian posed at a meeting in Pakistan 36 years ago.

 

In October 1989, I was visiting the Pakistani city of Quetta as part of my fieldwork for a research project on democracy in Pakistan. But the big story in Quetta, as in some other Pakistani cities, was not democracy. It was the raucous celebration of Afghan Mujahideen’s victory over Soviet invaders in neighboring Afghanistan.

 

The anti-Soviet struggle in Afghanistan was mainly a Pashtun thing, and Pakistan had 26 million Pashtuns, double the number of those living in Afghanistan.

 

On the evening of Oct. 19, my friend Mian Jamil Ahmed, a well-known businessman in Quetta, came into Hotel Lourdes, where I was staying. I had invited him for dinner and chit-chat. Jamil had been a disciple of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, whom military dictator Gen. Ziaul Huq had murdered. He wanted to share with me the story.

 

As I received Jamil at the hotel counter, two Mujahideen activists asked him to drop in at their meeting in a hotel room. At their request, I went along. The room was packed with Arab, Uzbek, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Malaysian, and other Muslim youths, who were returning home after driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

 

A young Jordanian man asked a speaker: “Now that we are done with the [Soviet] Communists, how long do we need to throw the Yankees out of our lands?”

 

“Insha Allah, (Allah willing) soon,” the speaker said, without elaborating.

 

Back in my hotel room, I asked Jamil what he thought of the Jordanian’s question.

 

He said the Afghans could defeat the Soviet army because “independence is in their genes.” They had, he continued, defeated British invading armies three times,” and that “Alexander skirted the Pashtun area” while invading what is now Pakistan.

 

Jamil said that most of the “Pakistanis and Arabs” were “slavish” followers of their dictators and kings who had been “bought by Americans,” promising the protection of their regimes.  It was hard to build a movement against American hegemony in the countries that were “American protectorates.” Pakistan, he continued, had been a pro-American army dictatorship, sometimes behind the civilian facade of a prime minister.

 

I remembered Jamil the other day when Trump was hosting the Pakistani army chief Gen. Asim  Munir – not the elected Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif – at the White House. Soon after Gen. Munir’s return to Pakistan, Islamabad nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

O.K., if some Muslim states are “American protectorates,” what about Iran?

 

The Iranians, like the Pashtuns, are a breed apart. Iran (or Persia), has been the first of the six historic civilizations, according to philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. The others: India, China, Egypt, Greece and Rome. The Iranians have never accepted the hegemony of another nation or civilization. The last example of their successful resistance to foreign hegemony was the 1980-1988 war against the U.S.-backed Iraqi invasion under Saddam Hussein.

 

It appears that Donald Trump, ignorant as he is of foreign affairs, was hoodwinked by Israel’s wily Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, potentially plunging America into war with Iran.  Trump’s rationale behind bombing three of Iran’s nuclear sites was to eliminate its nuclear program, which he argued, without any evidence, was going to produce nuclear warheads soon.

 

It appears now that Iran’s nuclear program, including its stockpile of 400 kg of highly enriched uranium, remains largely intact.  Americans were floating the idea of a regime change in Iran. But even if the government of the supreme Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is overthrown, the successor regime in Iran would be as or more committed to Iran’s nuclear project.

The Iranians are deeply patriotic people, and as Mark Lander of the New York Times says, the nuclear program is “deeply embedded in Iran’s history, culture, sense of security, and national identity.”

 

~Mustafa Malik, the host of the blog ‘mustafamalik.com’, worked for 36 years as an American journalist and a research fellow for the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Chicago.

 

Anti-Arab racism flares up over Gaza

I DEPLORE THE killing of two Israeli Jews in Washington. Human life is sacrosanct. Young Yaron Lischensky and Sarah Milgram were about to get engaged. Their deaths at the hands of a Hispanic-Americangunman were a tragedy.

The two murders have, understandably, outraged Jews and non-Jews in the West. Many Jews have, however, attributed the incident to antisemitism. It’s a too-obvious attempt to distract people from the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

It reminds me of two incidents that took place in America soon after Hamas’s Oct 7, 2023, incursion into Israel.  A six-year-old Palestinianboy in Illinois, who wentoutdoors with his mother, was killed by an American gunman. The other incident was the killing of three Palestinian American students in Vermont by another American man. None of the four murders created a ripple in American society or administration.

Many in the Arab world are celebrating the murder of the Jewish couplebecause the shooter, Elias Rodriguez, was a pro-Palestinian activist. He roared, “Free, free Palestine,” as he started shooting the two Israelis. The Arabs should not gloat over the murders. But they (except their repressive kings, kissing President Donald Trump’s behind)were outraged, seeingthe Gaza genocide as blatant anti-Arab racism.

While the Trump administration ignoresthe carnage in Gaza, Europeans are yawning.Would they allow a massacre like this in Europe?

The Bosnians are white Europeans. From 1992 on, Serb militias from Serbia waged a hair-raising orgy of slaughter of Bosnians to drive them from their land. It was like today’s Israeli slaughter of Palestinians, through which Israel wants to clear the Gaza Strip of its Palestinian population.

In 1995, I was invited to an international conference on Bosnia, in Bonn, Germany, to help Bosnians with money and logistical support. I was the treasurer of the Bosnian Task Force in Washington. I arrived in Bonn on Aug. 29, and went right into a meeting. The delegates, mostly European and American, went on a tangent criticizing President Clinton, for his inaction in the face of a “genocide taking place on European soil,” as one delegate put it.

The next day,American fighter jets began rainingbombs on Serb targets. Over dinner,Antoine Guiguard, a French delegate, joked that Clinton had been “scared into action by our blitz,” angry denunciation. The American bombing spree silenced Serb guns right away.

In the Serb genocide, 10,000 Bosnians perished in three years, but the genocide in Gaza has cost the lives of 55,000 Palestinians in 19 months. Why doesn’t Trump act to stop the worst genocide in the Middle East? The answer: anti-Arab racism. The Bosnians are white Europeans, but the Palestinians have a brown skin tone.

Israel is the last vestige of racist colonialism in Asia and the Middle East. All the previous colonial powers, including the British Empire, on which “the sun never set,”were rolled back by the willpower of brown-skinned natives. Seeing the Palestinians’ unswerving resolve, sacrifices, and patience, I don’t see white Ashkenazi-dominated Israel being an exception.

~Mustafa Malik, the host of the mustafamalik.com blog site, worked  36 years for U.S., British and Pakistani newspapers and two American think tanks. He writes mostly about international affairs.

Exodus 2.0?

JAKE SULLIVAN’S MARATHON mission to Saudi Arabia to normalize Saudi-Israeli relations is also intended to revive the “two-state solution” to the Palestinian-Israeli imbroglio. Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman was reported to have been indifferent to the Palestinian issue, but reports from Jeddah indicate that the Saudis are now insisting on the revival of “the Arab Peace Initiative,” the 2002 proposal from the late Saudi King Abdullah that called for the creation of a Palestinian state in return for the recognition of Israel by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.

It reminds me of Haider Abdel Shafi. In 1991 Abdel Shafi had led the Palestinian delegation to the U.S.-mediated peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, held in Madrid, Spain. I was interviewing him the following year on his visit to Washington to follow up on those talks.

I asked the Palestinian physician-turned-politician if he thought the Israelis would “allow you to have a state of your own.”

“They should,” he said, tartly, “unless they want to stay as pariahs in the Arab world for ages and ages.”

“Jack Khazmo told me,” I replied, “that you are wasting your time with the Israelis.” I quoted the editor of the Arabic-language Jerusalem weekly Al-Bayadir al-Siyasi as saying that “the Jews will not return an inch of our land until we make them truly miserable.”

Khazmo, a Palestinian Christian, was also a valiant activist in the Palestinian struggle for independence. I used to meet him on my visits to Jerusalem.

“Doesn’t being a pariah make you miserable?” Abdel Shafi said.

Abdel Shafi died in 2007. Meanwhile, four Arab states have established diplomatic relations with Israel and the Biden administration is now trying to help normalize Israel’s relations with a fifth, Saudi Arabia. If the veteran politician from Gaza were alive today, I would have asked if he still considered Israel a pariah state.

President Biden has been pretty insensitive to the horrible Israeli brutality to the Palestinians and Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Yet he also hates Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right administration. And his relations are severely strained with bin Salman, the Saudi kingdom’s effective ruler. All the same, the American president has been trying tenaciously to help formalize the Saudi-Israeli relations.  You wonder why.

The question haunts you, especially, as bin Salman has put forward a stiff price tag for the American initiative. He wants a NATO-like defense treaty with the United States, which would oblige Americans to come to the kingdom’s defense if it’s attacked by an adversary, conceivably Iran. In addition, the Saudis want America to let them have a “peaceful” nuclear program. And bin Salman wants to see the “two-state” formula for the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict revived, mostly for the consumption of the anti-Israeli Arab public.

Biden has taken on a daunting task. The U.S. Congress or the American public would have a hard time agreeing to go to war to defend the repressive and obscurantist Arab kingdom. They would be reluctant, too, to allow Saudi Arabia to have a nuclear program, which may not remain peaceful and could one day trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Also, Netanyahu’s the far-right ministers, dominating his government, are bent expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank to absorb the territory within a Greater Israel. Persuading them to concede a Palestinian state would be next to impossible.

Biden’s gambit

Actually, Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, has been assigned a task that is irrelevant to the reality on the ground. Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies have been cooperating for years. The Saudi government uses Israeli intelligence and tools to track internal dissent. Riyadh has allowed Israeli aircraft to use its air space. It’s courting Israeli investments and is talking about allowing Saudi investments in Israel. If they feel the need, the Saudis and Israelis could formalize their relationship without outside help. About the only reason the monarchy isn’t embracing Israel publicly is the everyday Saudi citizens’ loathing for Israel, mainly because of the Jewish colonization of Palestine and the daily Jewish atrocities toward Palestinians.

“If it weren’t for [Saudi] public hostility toward the [Israeli] Jews, bin Salman would have jumped into Netanyahu’s bed,” a Saudi businessman told me this off-color joke last summer in Arlington, Virginia, on condition of anonymity. As Abdel Shafi said 31 years ago, Israel remains a pariah state to most Arabs, Saudis included.

An Arab Barometer poll has shown that support for the recognition of Israel by Arab states is 5% in Egypt, 5% in Jordan, 6% in Palestine, 14% in Iraq, 17% in Lebanon, 7% in Libya, 11% in Tunisia, 4% in Algeria, and so on. And an Israeli public opinion survey has found 35% of Saudis support the normalization of their kingdom’s relations with Israel, but only 24% of them accept Israel’s right to exist and 88% insist on the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Biden’s widely publicized interest in normalizing Saudi-Israeli relations is plainly opportunistic and cynical. Donald Trump, his predecessor as president, started the normalization of Israel’s relations with Arab states through what is called “Abraham Accords,” which is one of the few foreign-policy issues supported by most Americans, Democrats and Republicans. Democrat Biden sees Republican Trump as his likely rival for the presidency in next year’s election.  By engaging publicly in the talks to help Israel formalize its relations with a key Arab state, Biden is trying to steal the popular issue from his potential Republican rival. Well, even if he fails, American voters and America’s powerful Israel lobby would remember his efforts.

I didn’t mention to Abdel Shafi the history of Jewish communities living as pariahs among Europeans, Egyptians, Romans, Assyrians, Babylonians, and so forth. The problem, however, is with living within a modern nation-state with a growing and increasingly assertive Palestinian population.

I see Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation and atrocities increasing progressively, prompting ever more brutal Jewish reprisal. But I don’t believe that the 21st century will be putting up with this grave injustice for very long. With prospects for a separate Palestinian state almost non-existent, Palestinians, Israelis and the world will be forced to deal with the reality of a single state between the Jordan River and the sea. In this state  Jews are 6.5 million and Palestinians 6.41 million. The Palestinian birth rate is 4.1 children per woman, compared to the Jewish 3.1 children. Greater Israel is going to be a Palestinian-majority state pretty soon.

In April 2016 Biden, then U.S. vice president, said the continued expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank was creating a “one-state reality,” and that Jews won’t remain the majority in such a state. Earlier, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Israeli daily Ha’aretz that without a separate Palestinian state, which is now practically impossible to create, Israel would face “a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights” in which case “Israel [would be] finished.”

But would the “one-state solution” be a real solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Ray Hanania, a Palestinian-American journalist, says that the idea of Jews and Palestinians living peaceably together in a Muslim-majority state is “fundamentally flawed.” He asks: “Exactly where do Jews and Christians live in the Islamic world today side-by-side with equality?”

Many among the Israeli intelligentsia see themselves face to face with this challenge. Benny Morris, the famed Israeli historian, says Jews won’t be able to live in a Palestinian-majority state in “stifling darkness, intolerance, authoritarianism.” He predicts that most Israeli Jews would eventually migrate to Western countries, with only those unable to do so for practical reasons and Ultra-Orthodox Jews staying behind.  The late Steven Plaut, a writer and economist at Haifa University, agreed. He referred to the “one-state solution” as the “Rwanda Solution.”  He warned that an Israeli-Palestinian state ruled by a Palestinian majority would eventually lead to a “new Holocaust.”

Palestinians won’t, of course, be doing to the Jews what the Nazis did to them, but life for modern, high tech, affluent Jews among a religiously conservative Muslim majority with memories of many Jewish injustices would be, to repeat Khazmo’s expression, “truly miserable.”  Israeli journalist Gershom Gorenberg writes that a Muslim-majority Israel would just collapse economically. Like Morris, he says the Jewish intelligentsia won’t be able to cope in it, and that most of them would emigrate to the West.

You can call that Exodus 2.0, reminiscent of the biblical Hebrew Exodus from Egypt, led by Moses.

~Mustafa Malik, the host of the blog After the Clash, worked 32 years as a reporter, columnist and editor for American newspapers. In the 1990s he conducted fieldwork on American foreign policy options in Israel and five Arab countries as a researcher for the University of Chicago Middle East Center.

Turkish nationalism wins in Turkey

LIKE MOST EUROPEAN and American pollsters and pundits, I was surprised by Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s victory in both the first and second round of the Turkish presidential election. In fact in my last blog entry (“Erdogan: Secular Muslim icon”), I said Erdogan could be walking into the sunset of his political career in this election.

I hadn’t visited Turkey for years and was relying on the forecasts of Western pundits, who were saying that Turkey’s high inflation rates (45%-85%), skyrocketing prices of essential goods, and the Erdogan regime’s slow response to the disastrous Feb. 6 earthquake would inevitably hand the election to the staunchly secularist opposition candidate, Kemal Kilicdaroglu.

Since Erdogan was reelected president on Sunday, I’ve gone through explanations of his victory by various scholars and commentators. None seemed to spotlight the event as poignantly as a comment made by a taxi driver in Istanbul a quarter-century ago.

On a muggy August afternoon in 1999 I hailed a taxi near my apartment on Istanbul’s Aydede Caddesi, a bloc from the city’s historic Taksim Square.

“Boazici University,” I instructed the cabbie.

I had a 3:30 p.m. interview Professor Binnaz Toprak, a famed political scientist at the university. I was researching the outlook for Turkey’s accession to the European Union and, at that point, trying to learn how the country’s steaming Islamic resurgence might be affecting the issue.

Kerem was in his late 30s, from near the Anatolian city of Eskisehir, and had been a cabbie in Istanbul for six years. He communicated with me with a mixture of Turkish and English words and physical gestures.

What did he think of Mesut Yilmaz? I asked. Ultra-secularist Yilmaz was Turkiye’s prime minister.

“Hirsiz,” he said. The Turkish word meant thief.

“Is Tansu Ciller good?” I inquired. Ciller had preceded Yilmaz as prime minister.

“Not good,” he replied in English. “Not good.” He waved his right hand dismissively.

“Is Tayyip Erdogan any good?” I asked.

Erdogan had been known at that time as a gung-ho Islamist. (He would proclaim himself a “secular Muslim” later.) Just three weeks before, the second-ranking leader of Turkiye’s Islamist Virtue Party had come out of prison, having served a four-month term to which he had been sentenced by an ultra-secularist court. His crime: He had recited a provocative Islamic poem at a public meeting. Erdogan had also been fired from the post of mayor of Istanbul for the same offense. All this had made the former Istanbul mayor a rock star among, not just Islamists, but most everyday Muslim Turks who resented the radically secular system that banned Islamic symbols in the public sphere and discriminated against practicing Muslims.

“Good!” the cabbie replied enthusiastically. “Tayyip Erdogan good.”

“Erdogan, basbakan!” the man continued. Basbakan means prime minister. He obviously meant that he wanted to see Erdogan as prime minister of Turkiye.

“Erdogan!” he repeated excitedly, took both his hands off the wheel and began kissing his fingers.

The car swerved to the right, and then to the left.

“Stop!” I shouted. “Steady the car now and drive carefully.”

I wanted to get to the university alive and didn’t say another word until we arrived at the Boazici University parking area. Before getting off, I asked Kerem why he was so excited (heyecanlı) about Erdogan.

“Toorkish,” he said, with soft “t”. “No Avrupali,” meaning European.

I had some half an hour to the interview and was thinking of what the man was trying say about Erdogan as I strolled the bank of the adjacent Bosphorus Strait, which splits off the European part of Istanbul from its Asian segment and links the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara and the Mediterranean and eventually to the Atlantic Ocean via the Gibraltar. I got distracted from my thoughts about Kerem and Erdogan as I reminisced my previous visit to the iconic landscape, about which Henry Adams wrote, “The Judas tree will bloom for you on the Bosphorus if you get there in time.” I didn’t see any Judas tree greeting me; but the ripples of the Bosphorus, sparkling in the sun, seemed to be welcoming me.

I had known Toprak from an earlier interview. The political science professor handed me a folder with several clips of her writings. I began the conversation by narrating my cab driver’s excitement about Erdogan. What was he trying to say about Erdogan being “Turkish” and not “Avrupali”? I asked.

She said the man had “summed up” why many Turks supported Erdogan and “the so-called Islamist movement” in Turkey. The driver obviously was “Islamic-minded” because he admired Erdogan, she said. Erdogan and most other Turkish Islamists represented “the Turkish brand” of Islam. Turkish Muslims, she explained, didn’t care much about Arabs and “many of them aren’t fond of Europeans,” even though the founder of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and his followers, known as “Kemalists,” were.  Toprak added that by saying he liked Erdogan because he wasn’t “Avrupali,” Kerem was “telling you that he resented the secularist Turkish establishment’s Europhilia.”

On the evening of May 13 – the day before the first round of Turkish elections – Kemal Kilicdaroglu, Erdogan’s rival from Ataturk’s Republican People’s Party (CHP), concluded his campaign with a visit to the mausoleum of the anti-Islamic founder of the nation. Erdogan, on the other hand, marked the end of his campaign with a prayer at Hagia Sophia Mosque. Hagia Sophia used to be the world’s most majestic Christian cathedral until the Ottoman sultan Mehmet II conquered Istanbul (then called Constantinople) in 1453 and converted the cathedral into a mosque. In 1934 Ataturk turned it into a museum. In 2020 Erdogan reconverted the museum into a mosque.

If Kerem was listening to his president’s victory speech Sunday night, he must have been pleased to hear him say that his triumph over Kilicdaroglu was a victory of Turkey and “all Turkic people,” emphasizing further his Turkish cultural identity.

It actually was a victory for Turkish nationalism and culture, as different from other Muslim national cultures. It certainly marked a rejection of European culture, favored by Kilicdaroglu and other Kemalists – and Ataturk.

  • Mustafa Malik, who hosts the blog After the Clash, researched Turkish-European relations as a journalism fellow for the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

 

Erdogan: Secular Muslim icon

POLLS SHOW TURKISH President Recep Tayyip Erdogan behind the opposition presidential nominee, Kemal Kilicdaroglu. Erdogan has alienated a lot of Turks through his crackdowns on descent and media outlets critical of him. The Turkish economy is reeling from double-digit inflation and the lira has been decimated by his fixation with low interest rates. The Biden administration has been consistently supporting the anti-Turkish Kurdish militia in Syria, who have aggravated Turkey’s security problems.

Well, poll numbers could be see-sawing before the May 14 the election; we can’t predict now whom the Turkish voters will finally pick as their next president. But in case – just in case – Erdogan’s 20-year rule as president and prime minister of Turkey is coming to an end, I’m wondering what legacy he would be leaving behind.

In Western political circles and media, Erdogan has been virulently reviled since he came to power, mainly because of his Islamic roots and muscular foreign policy, which occasionally clashes with those of America and the West. On the other hand, he has continually espoused and defended Muslim causes and issues around the world as no other Muslim leader has, and a Pew Research poll has found him to be the most admired statesman in the Muslim world.

Some philosophers and sociologists (Jurgen Habermas, Gregor McLennan, et al) would call him a “post-secularist,” one retaining a secular political system while allowing religious values and symbols to infiltrate the public space.  Others (e.g. Asef Bayat, Vali Nasr) would label him a “post-Islamist,” as he came from an Islamist political party but has left it and set up a secular one and has been working through secular institutions.

I prefer calling the Turkish president a “Muslim democrat,” the phrase Erdogan used to describe himself to me. It identifies him, I think, more authentically. It took me years, though, to come to realize its authenticity.

On the hot, muggy afternoon of Nov. 2, 1998, my Turkish friend and interpreter, Cemal Usak, barged in with me to the office of the then Istanbul mayor, Erdogan. Usak was his classmate and boyhood friend and had set up my interview with him. Usak was general secretary to the Journalists and Writers Association in Istanbul and had been helping me with my research project.

Erdogan was putting things into cardboard boxes in the middle of the room, but he got up and led us to a coach behind a tea table blazoning a multicolor bouquet in the middle. A few weeks before, the mayor had been fired from his job after his conviction for reciting a provocative Islamic poem at a public meeting. Turkey was under the ultra-secularist government of Prime Minister Ahmet Mesut Yilmaz. The Islamist mayor had been given a 10-month prison sentence for reading out the so-called “jihadist poem.” It read:

“The mosques are our barracks, the minarets our bayonets, the domes our helmets and the faithful our soldiers….”

I had been to Turkey for nearly two months and found an Islamic resurgence roiling the country. Erdogan’s prison sentence (which would later be reduced to four months) had made him a hero of sorts among Islamists and many everyday Turks.

Having seated us on the coach, our host scampered to an assistant and was instructing him about what to put into which boxes, etc. I noticed bouquets and clusters of flowers filling the whole corner of the room to my right. I asked an attendant why there were so many flowers in the room.

“People started bringing them in since the day he returned from the court,” he said. Usak explained that he meant since the day the court gave Erdogan the prison sentence.

Erdogan rushed back and sat next to me on the coach and asked how long I had been working at the Washington Times.

I realized that Usak had briefed him about me.

I said I had left the Washington Times to take up my current assignment.  “I am doing fieldwork in Western Europe and here about the prospects for Turkey’s membership of the European Union,” I added.

Erdogan’s eyes lit up, indicting his interest in the subject. He asked a couple of questions about my findings on the issue in European countries. I kept my answers brief and told him that I didn’t find “Europeans very interested in having you in the European Union.”

“You think so?” he said. “We would like to join the European Union, though.”

I was surprised to hear that.

“But your leader, Mr. Erbakan, has been opposed to Turkey’s EU membership and NATO membership,” I said.

Necmettin Erbakan, president of the Islamist Welfare Party to which Erdogan belonged, had been denouncing Turkish governments’ attempt to join the EU and Turkey’s membership of NATO, and when he was prime minister, he tried, unsuccessfully, to form an “Islamic NATO” with eight Muslim countries. Erbakan was the founder of the Islamist movement in Turkey. He had been overthrown as prime minister the year before under the pressure of army generals, the traditional guardians of Turkey’s aggressively secular system. The generals had judged him a threat to the country’s secular system.

Erdogan didn’t respond to my comment about Erbakan’s opposition to Turkey’s accession to the EU.

Religious freedom

After asking him a couple of other questions, I said, “If the Welfare Party came to power today, would you try to introduce the Shari’a in Turkey?”

“No, the Sharia is for individual Muslims to observe,” he replied, beckoning me to a glass of soft drink and a plate of biscuits placed on the tea table. “The state should be secular.”

I was stunned again. A radical Islamist wants a secular Turkish state!”

“Isn’t the secular state sending you to prison for reading an Islamic poem?” I said, having had a sip of the drink.

He explained that “the Kemalists’ version” of secularism suppressed people’s  religious freedom and persecuted women who wore Islamic head covering in public, but that under his version of secularism “the state will guarantee religious freedom.”

The officials and other supporters of the staunchly secular Turkish state, founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, are known as “Kemalists.”

“I’m a secular Muslim,” he added, “but I want religious freedom. For everybody.”

Now he’s a secular Muslim!

I was shocked.

The man who was going to prison for reciting a “jihadist poem” and has been known throughout Turkey as a diehard Islamist now says he’s a secular Muslim.  He must be lying through his teeth, I said to myself. I suspected that Usak had told him that I wrote in American newspapers and journals, and he just didn’t want Americans to think of him as an Islamist zealot.

On my way back I asked Usak what he made of Erdogan’s description of himself as a secular Muslim. My friend was a follower of Fethullah Gulen, a famous Turkish cleric who would be accused in 2016 of sponsoring a failed military coup against the Erdogan government.

“We are secular Muslims, too,” he said. Gulen and his followers were indeed secular. “You are,” I replied, “but the Welfare Party is an Islamist organization and your friend [Erdogan] is a leader of that party. An Islamist firebrand.”

I recalled my interviews with Abdullah Gul, then a member of the Turkish parliament (later president of Turkey) and Ahmet Davutoglu, a professor at Marmara University in Istanbul who was known as Erdogan’s mentor (later Turkish prime minister); both had ruled out introducing Islamic law in Turkey but neither of them had identified himself as secular. I hadn’t brought up the question, however.

I was getting ready to return to the United States and wished that I had the time to investigate why Erdogan had called himself as a “secular Muslim.”

The next day I dropped in at Istanbul’s Hurriyet newspaper office for a goodbye lunch with my friend Oktay Eksi, the paper’s chief columnist.

I told him about my interview with Erdogan and said, “Can you believe that Erdogan told me that he was a secular Muslim?”

Eksi used to be a politician belonging to the secularist Republican People’s Party.

“These Islamists are hypocrites,” he said, trying cut a piece of meat on his plate with his knife and fork. “But I heard that Erdogan, Abdullah Gul, Bulent Arinc and a few others are going to leave the Rafah [Welfare] Party.”

I stopped eating, anxious to hear more about it.

“Really?” I said. “Why?”

Eksi said he had learned from Welfare Party sources that “a number of younger party members” had decided that an Islamist party won’t have a future in Turkey, “especially after Erdogan’s jail sentence and the firing of Erbakan” as prime minister.

Those party members were “led by Erdogan and Gul to a meeting with Erbakan,”  he added, where they had “a fight with Rajai Kutan.” Kutan was an Erbakan’s closest associate.

I have since been following Turkish politics and have interviewed Erdogan twice more – in Turkey and Washington – and I understand that his and many other Turkish Islamists’ transition to the “secular” Justice and Development Party (AKP) was the result of serious soul searching. They have realized that an Islamist party won’t be tolerated by the Turkish army and Kemalist elites and would be ostracized by Europe and America.

During my visit to Turkey the following year Erbakan admitted to me the rift in his party. He said some of the dissidents had been “very dear to me, and they are pious Muslim brothers,” but that they thought they could serve Islam better from “outside politics.” They were “misguided” and needed “more courage” to pursue Islamist politics, Erbakan added.

Over the decades I have frequented Muslim countries in South and West Asia and Muslim communities in America and Europe.  I have seen an interesting trend among many Muslims almost everywhere. They pray and fast and are building mosques and madrasas. They agitate over the persecution of Muslims in India, Palestine and Myanmar. But they are leaving Islamist organizations.

In Bangladesh, where I live now, mosques and madrasahs are proliferating. And Friday congregations in some mosques extend to the yards. But the Bangladeshi Islamist party, the Jamaat-i-Islami, has all but become extinct.

The Bangladeshi population is more than 90 percent Muslim, but the Jamaat-i-Islami there has never received more than 6 percent of the vote. Pakistanis are 96 percent Muslim. There, too, the Jamaat never got more than 6 percent of the vote. In Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, the largest Islamist party, the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), won 8 percent of the vote at the last election, and the second-largest, the United Development Party (PPP), got 4 percent.  In Morocco, the Islamist Justice and Development Party (PJD) suffered the most devastating defeat at the 2021 elections, having lost 112 seats and winning only 13.  Yet in all these Muslim-majority countries, Islamic piety, values and symbols permeate social and cultural life.

To me, it all means that Muslims are modernizing fast and jettisoning Islamism because it doesn’t fit well with the public space where modernity reigns. Yet they continue to practice the Islamic faith and cherish Islamic values, which lend meaning to their lives.

The point I’m trying make is exemplified by Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s current prime minister.  I met him in Washington in the 1980s as a fire-breathing Islamist youth from Malaysia. He was the leader of Malaysia’s largest Islamic youth movement, known as ABIM (Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia) and a darling of the American Muslim leaders. Together with the Islamic scholar Ismail al-Faruqi, Anwar founded the Islamic think tank International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Herndon, Virginia.

On his return to Malaysia, Anwar plunged into radical Islamic politics and was having a hard time making progress. Along the way, he served jail terms in sodomy and corruption cases, apparently trumped up by his political rivals. While he was going through these, he began espousing ethnic pluralism and religious tolerance. He was reaching out to the Chinese minority and other non-Muslim ethnic communities and gaining their support.  Last November Anwar became prime minister as the head of a progressive alliance, while the hardline Malaysia Islamic Party (PAS) led the opposition.

Democratic institutions

In one of his first press interviews as prime minister, Anwar told Reuters that he would work hard to “rid the country of corruption, racism and religious bigotry,” the last phrase was apparently aimed at the Islamist PAS.

I see Anwar following Erdogan’s political trajectory.  Once a radical Islamist, Erdogan has emerged as a leading secularist among Muslim rulers in the world. He has retained Turkey’s secular constitution and democratized its laws. Turkey is about the only Muslim country where alcohol stores and bars are open. Erdogan has wrested democratic institutions from the clutches of the Kemalist army and judiciary. And he reined in the army and the courts, which were strangleholds of Kemalism.

As part of his agenda for religious freedom, Erdogan struggled for years to lift the ban on Muslim women’s headscarves in public institutions until he succeeded in doing so and got the Directorate of Religious Affairs to open new Islamic schools and mosques. In his view, that was part of his struggle for freedom, i.e. religious freedom, denied to Turkish Muslims by authoritarian Kemalist regimes. A Kemalist prosecutor made a failed attempt in a court to have Erdogan’s AKP banned for its alleged threat to the secular constitution. As prime minister, Erdogan tried hard, but unsuccessfully, to join the EU and he keeps Turkey firmly in NATO, long opposed by some of Turkish Islamists.

He not only established secular democracy in Turkey but propagated it in other Muslim countries as well. During his 2011 trip to Egypt, he enraged many of his hosts when he advised them: “I hope there will be a secular state in Egypt. One must not be afraid of secularism. Egypt will grow in democracy and those called upon to draw up the constitution must understand it must respect all religions.”

Oh yes, Erdogan is also zealously espousing Muslim causes in Palestine, Kashmir, and elsewhere. He has built more than 100 mosques in a host of foreign countries. Among them is the largest American mosque built in what used to be my neighborhood in the Washington suburbs. In 2020 he earned vociferous denunciation from the West when he re-converted Hagia Sophia (or Aya Sofia) from a museum back into a mosque. Once a Byzantine cathedral, the Turks, in 1453, had made it a mosque upon their conquest of Istanbul (then the Byzantine capital of Constantinople), but Ataturk, during his campaign to de-Islamize Turkey, had made it a museum.

All this fits into Erdogan’s version of secularism, or “post-secularism.” In contemporary philosophers’ and definition, “post-secularism” allows religious values and symbols in the public space, so long as it insured equality, freedom and pluralism.

Actually, the Western liberal brand of secularism, which quarantines religion into the private sphere, is a unique invention of the West. It was devised to rid society of Christian fanaticism, which had exploded in Europe during the “Wars of Religion.”

“’Secular’ itself is a Christian term,” the eminent Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor explains, “that is a word that finds its meaning in a Christian context.” He adds that the Western concept of secularism “doesn’t travel well and should not be imposed on other cultures.”

In fact in almost none of the non-Western societies, including democratic ones, religion or religious values are completely rinsed out of the public space, as it’s done in Western and Northern Europe – and as Ataturk and his Kemalists struggled to do in Turkey for nearly eight decades. In Erdogan’s “Muslim secularist” Turkey, religious values and symbols are visible in the public space, but their adherents are not nearly as brutal and repressive as are today’s Hindu nationalists in India, known as “the world’s largest democracy,” or right-wing Jews in apartheid Israel, which the West calls “the only democracy in the Middle East.”

Erdogan’s crackdowns on his political opponents – thousands of them – has negated many of the freedoms he recovered from the authoritarian Kemalist regimes and the coup-prone Turkish military.  I hear, too, that financial corruption has infected his family and party. Erdogan fatigue has crept into swathes of Turkish society.  I won’t be surprised if next month’s election marks the end of Erdogan’s tumultuous political career.

But the “Muslim secularism,” or “post-Islamism,” which he has established in Turkey, will, I believe, remain his enduring political and social legacy in Turkey. I was struck to note that Kilicdaroglu, Erdogan’s Kemalist rival in the presidential election, co-sponsored the bill in the parliament that allowed Muslim women to wear headscarves in public institutions. Kilicdaroglu, too, has an Islamist party in his six-party electoral alliance!

On his campaign trail, Kilicdaroglu has been trying to court the conservative Muslim vote. Many of these Muslims hate many Kemalists’ drinking habits. Ataturk died of cirrhosis of the liver due to heavy drinking, and his critics criticize him for partying around the “raki [alcohol] table.” The Kemalist presidential candidate has vowed to steer clear of those “at the raki table.”

Erdogan’s “Muslim secularism” has all but replaced Kemalism in much of Turkish society.

  • Mustafa Malik, the host of this blog, researched Turkish-European relations in Turkey and five Western European countries as a journalism fellow for the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

Ukraine: Russia resists NATO trap

An adventure, for sure! But to what end?

Joe Biden had an arduous 10-hour train ride through Ukraine into Kyiv to become the first American president ever to venture into a war zone not under American occupation or control. The Ukrainian capital had been under continual Russian bombardment.

Before Biden entered Ukraine, though, Washington had alerted Moscow about his visit. So it was actually a low-risk high drama.

The event that highlighted his Eastern European trip was a speech he gave on Tuesday to nine members of Eastern NATO countries. In it the president declared that he was there to show American support not only for Ukraine but also for “freedom of democracy at large.”

“Democracies of the world,” he asserted, “will stand guard over freedom today, tomorrow, and forever. …  There is no sweeter word than freedom.  There is no nobler goal than freedom.  There is no higher aspiration than freedom…. What is at stake here is freedom.”

In fact the project to disseminate freedom and democracy is what had, ostensibly, propelled America into the defense of Ukraine and, for that matter, NATO’s unbridled expansion that triggered the Ukraine-Russia war. Critics have, however, called that mission an “empire-building” one (journalist Elizabeth Drew was the first used the phrase).

That mission had been conceived in the 1970s by a group of American intellectuals who abhorred traditional American conservatism and also the Vietnam-era pacifism and leftist radicalism. Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, Norman Podhoretz,  Donald Kagan and others were wedded to different concepts of liberal democracy, and they believed that America should go about promoting freedom and democracy in the world.

A second generation of intellectuals and activists who shared their views also were committed to market capitalism, and they believed, moreover, that it was America’s historic destiny to disseminate this ideology through, if need be, the use of military power. Hence they also espoused U.S. military and economic dominance over the world. The leading lights of these “neoconservatives,” as they came to be known, included Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Robert Kagan (son of Donald), David Wurmser, Frederick Kagan (son of Donald) and Elliott Abrams.

The demise of Soviet communism and the unraveling of Eastern European Communist states convinced the neocons of the veracity of their views and got them excited about their mission, which became a major topic of American intellectual and media discourse in the early 1990s.

In their writings and talk show appearances the neocons argued that a democratized world would be one of peace because democracies, in their view, would never go to war against one another. Democracy, according them, was also an antidote to terrorism because 9/11 and other acts of Muslim terrorism stemmed from “the almost complete absence of democracy in the Middle East.”

The neocons formalized their agenda in a rendezvous in 1996 in which they adopted what was called the Project New American Century (PNAC). Most of them Jewish, the PNAC prepared a report for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on resolving Israel’s security challenges based on the use of Western ideas and American military force. One of their specific prescriptions was to overthrow the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, then the most vocal Arab leader against the Israeli occupation of Palestine. They tried, unsuccessfully, to get Presidents George HW Bush (Papa Bush) and Bill Clinton to get Saddam knocked off.

Spreading freedom

Wolfowitz became secretary to then U.S. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in the Papa Bush administration and he got Cheney imbued with the idea of empire-building through the neocon mission. Their big moment came when George W. Bush (Baby Bush) – a totally blank slate in foreign affairs – was elected president in 2000. Cheney became the head of the Baby Bush transition team and he and Wolfowitz stuffed the new administration with a host of diehard neoconservatives.

As always, the American foreign policy establishment and news media had little grounding in trans-Mediterranean societies, especially Muslim societies. They were mostly mesmerized by the neoconservative ideas of spreading freedom and democracy in the Arab world.  Leading neocons, especially Perle and Wolfowitz, became a feature on American TV talk shows. I was among a minority in the American news media who, while believing in freedom and democracy in general, were skeptical about spreading these ideas through the use of military power. I was also concerned about liberal democracy’s market economic version, which spawned economic injustice and inequality. I believed, too, that in order for  political institutions to work they needed to evolve in each society and adapt to its cultural environment.

On the morning of Dec. 10, 2002, an audience at the Center of Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) auditorium in Washington was waiting for Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (now president of Turkey), to give a speech.  I had been scheduled  to  interview the Turkish leader after his speech, after which he would go on to meet Baby Bush at the White House. Wolfowitz, then U.S. deputy defense secretary, entered the room, flanked by three or four other people, and nearly half the room burst into applause.

A man in his mid-50s, wearing a blue jacket and a solid red tie, was sitting next to me in the second row. He asked another person who this acclaimed visitor was but didn’t get an answer. When he turned to me and asked the same question, I whispered light-heartedly: “He’s going to start a democratic revolution in the Muslim world. Paul Wolfowitz.”

The man gave me a dirty look. “Do you have a problem with having a democratic revolution in the Muslim world?” he shot back.  The neocon mission to spread freedom and democracy in the world had become quite popular in America.

The neocons saw 9/11 as a golden opportunity to launch their project. Saddam was an Arab dictator among a half-dozen others. His harsh rule included the brutal suppression of a secessionist Kurdish uprising in the mid-1970s with the support of then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. With the help of zealous American media, the Baby Bush administration anointed Saddam an Arab “Hitler” and a stumbling block to the democratization of Iraq.  They also accused the Iraqi leader of possessing weapons of mass destruction and having links to Mohammad Ata, one of the 9/11 terrorists. All these charges would eventually prove concocted and blatantly false.

As president-elect, Baby Bush had appointed Cheney the head of his transition team. Cheney and his one-time secretary Wolfowitz crowded the new administration with neocons. The neocons got Baby Bush and his national security adviser (later secretary of state), Condoleezza Rice, excited about democratizing Iraq and through it the Muslim Middle East and eventually much of the rest of the world.

“Iraqi democracy will succeed,” Bush declared in his 2002 State of the Union address, “and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran, that freedom can be the future of every nation.” Not just that, the president added that “the establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.”

In Iraq, Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and mostly Sunni Kurds were the major contenders for power. The latter two groups collaborated with the American invaders to replace Saddam’s Sunni Arab regime. As Sunni Arabs resisted the U.S. invasion, the Americans got the Iraqi military and bureaucracy cleansed of  most Sunni Arab elements, who were also subjected Shiite Arab pogrom in many Shiite-majority areas. A group of youth from among these persecuted Sunni Arabs launched the anti-U.S. terrorist outfit called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Meanwhile, on Oct. 26, 2003, Wolfowitz paid a visit to Baghdad to see for himself the outcome of his “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” The U.S. deputy defense secretary was greeted by a group of Sunni Arab guerrillas with some 20 rockets fired from a home-made launcher at Al Rasheed Hotel, where he was staying. One 11th-floor room of the hotel was destroyed. Part of the ceiling collapsed. A door was blown off. And smoke engulfed part of the hotel. As hotel staff and American security personnel hurried him out of the hotel, Wolfowitz declared in a shaken voice: “These terrorist attacks will not deter us from completing our mission.”

The mission to transform Iraq into a liberal democracy remains unfulfilled. The invasion and a decade-long American occupation has pretty much unraveled the Iraqi state. The three Kurdish-majority northern provinces have all but seceded from the state, and the rest of the state reels from the belligerency of multiple Iraqi and Iranian guerrilla groups. Nearly 1 million Iraqis and more than 4,000 Americans perished in the Iraq during the war, which has become a Shiite pseudo-theocracy.

In 2003, as America’s war raged in Afghanistan (as also in Iraq), I had a conversation with the neocon Zalmay Khalidzad, an immigrant from Afghanistan whom I had met at the Rand Corporation, a Washington think tank.  (Khalidzad would later become the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.) He had been among the signatories to a letter the neocons had written to Clinton calling for the overthrow of Saddam.

I reminded Khalidzad that his native Afghanistan had been an extremely backward county, which had never tried democracy. Could the Afghans work out “liberal democracy” the neocons’ professed mission? I asked.

“It may take some time,” he replied. “But there should be no problem, really. The America will always support them.” The Americans have returned home, being soundly defeated by the Taliban, which they had overthrown, and Afghanistan has revived its old obscurantist Islamic theocracy.

Ukraine imbroglio

Among those who were alarmed by the neocon agenda to democratize the world through the American military might were the Russians, especially  Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Soviet leaders joined their European and American counterparts to decide a reunified Germany’s niche in the world. East German Prime Minister Hans Modrow wanted a reunified Germany to be a neutral state unattached to any security bloc. Gorbachev and his Foreign Minister, Eduzard Schevardnaze, were skeptical of the idea. The havoc wreaked by Nazi Germany to Russia during World War II was fresh in their minds. They wanted the new, unified Germany to become part of a multi-state security structure. West Germany had been a NATO member, but when NATO wanted the reunified state to retain the membership of the alliance, they balked. They were concerned that the Western defense alliance might begin to expand eastward to countries that had been in the Russian sphere of influence.

Gorbachev sought an assurance from the Western leaders against NATO’s eastward expansion as a condition for Germany’s inclusion into the alliance. A host of Western statesmen, including Papa Bush and then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl gave him that assurance. “Not one inch eastward,” declared James Baker III, Bush’s secretary of state, on Feb. 9, 1990.

In the ensuing neoconservative hullabaloo about the democratization of the world and expansion of the  American hegemony the commitment given to the Russians was forgotten. NATO began to rake in one cluster of Eastern European countries in 1999 and then another in 2004. In April 2008, at its Bucharest summit, the Western military alliance declared that it would next bring in Georgia and Ukraine. Moscow was alarmed. The two countries are at Russia’s doorsteps and the Russians saw the proposal as a Western scheme encircle Russia militarily. Russian President Vladimir Putin denounced the move “a direct threat to Russia.”

As NATO ignored his warning, Putin, in 2014, invaded and annexed the Crimean peninsula and also the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. Both territories are inhabited by a plurality of Russians, who had been agitating for political and cultural autonomy. The current Russian invasion of Ukraine, launched last February, is intended to prevent Ukraine’s accession to NATO.

This past Tuesday, when Biden – a Cold War retiree committed to the neocon mission – vowed to spread freedom and democracy; Putin, in Moscow, reminded the Russians that the war in Ukraine was not about Ukraine, but “about Russia’s national security.” He vowed to continue the war as long as it took. He declared, specifically, that Russia would hold on to the Donbass region and help the Russian-speaking people there to continue “fighting, defending their right to live on their own land, to speak their native language.” I can’t imagine Putin, or any other Russian leader, returning Donbas, let alone Crimea, to Ukraine again.

It’s hard to believe that the war can be sustained very long. Ukraine has lost 100,000 lives in the war. About  16 million Ukrainians have been uprooted from their homes. Up to 18 million Ukrainians, 40 percent of the of the country’s population, will need some sort of humanitarian aid in the coming months.

According to the World Bank, Ukraine’s economy contracted by 35 percent in 2022, and as many as 60 percent of Ukrainians are expected to end up below the poverty line.

The Russian economy is 10 times that of Ukraine. The cost of the war to Russia is minor in comparison. Indeed the Russian government has sought to project a business-as-usual picture of life for the average Russian citizen. The International Monetary Fund has upgraded its estimate of Russia’s economy, and now predicts a fall of GDP this year of only 3.4%, compared with an estimated drop of 8.5% in April this year.

Ukraine is carrying on its war mainly with Western arms and money – worth $40 billion worth so far, $30 billion of which from the United States. Meanwhile, Europe is reaching the limits to its military and financial support Ukraine. The Biden administration is pretty much the main source of support for Ukraine. But the administration is leery about escalating the military support, fearing provoking Russia into using nukes or getting into a direct conflict with the United States.

On top of it all, the Republicans, who control the House of Representatives,  are already resisting  U.S. aid to Ukraine. And both major Republican presidential candidates, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump, are vocally opposed to further U.S. commitment to the Ukraine war.

At some point, the parties have to talk seriously about peace. China and India are sending feelers for that. While Ukraine and America have announced that complete withdrawal of all Russian troops for Donbas – and even Crimea – is a precondition for peace negotiations, that would be a non-starter for the Russians.

To end the war, whenever that happens, the Ukrainians will face a choice: To cede the Russians at least part of Donbas and forget about Crimea; or let Russia wreck their country, leaving the rest of it independent, democratic, and maybe part of NATO.

That would, of copurse, be a better outcome for the neocons than that of their 20-year-long war in Afghanistan. They’ve lost all of that country to the Taliban, who have turned it into the world’s most radical theocracy! Jeffrey Sachs (“probably the most important economist in the world,” Time.) has called Ukraine “the latest neocon disaster.”

  • Mustafa Malik, the host of this blog, is an international affairs commentator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

India: ‘Democratic theocracy’

I WAS BORN in the hill town of Haflong in India’s Assam state. Surrounded on three sides by forests and hills, Haflong looks somewhat like Innsbruck, the lovely Austrian city, also flanked by hills.

Last week I got a call from a Muslim friend in the Assamese town of Nagaon, where my father taught at an Islamic seminary. “Come see the kind of hate that Himanta and Modi have fed to Hindus,” said Munim  (I’m reserving his last name to keep him out of trouble with Hindu nationalists.)

Himanta Biswa Sarma, Assam’s chief minister, belongs to the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The BJP and other Hindu nationalist groups have been carrying on a relentless anti-Muslim pogrom to marginalize Muslims, the largest religious minority, and replace the once-secular India with a Hindu Rashtra, Hindu theocracy.

“Two days ago, my niece came home from school, crying,” Munim said. A Hindu boy had grabbed the breast of the pretty, 15-year-old girl and said, “Say, Joi Shri Ram,” hail Lord Ram.  Ram is a Hindu god. When Hindu nationalist vigilantes swoop upon a Muslim, they often make him or her chant “Joi Shri Ram,” while beating up the victim.

A week before, Munim’s niece had given the boy an earful for pinching her in the buttock.

“Did you report this to the police?” I asked Munim.

“Police?” my friend laughed. “They are Himanta’s lackeys.” They would arrest him, branding him a “Pakistani terrorist.” Mostly Muslim Pakistan is the archenemy of the neighboring mostly Hindu India.

I live in Bangladesh and continually travel down memory lane in my native India, visiting friends and relatives and having medical checkups. The anti-Muslim pogrom raging there makes me wonder how long it would take the Hindu nationalists to turn the country into what American sociologist Peter Berger called a “democratic theocracy.” The campaign to subjugate or drive out Muslims, 14 percent of the Indian population, has overwhelming support among Hindus, who make up 80 percent.

On April 10 I was chatting with a progressive Hindu friend in his living room in the Indian city of Mumbai. Suddenly a news bulletin flashed on his TV screen, saying, “Muslim extremists” had attacked a group of Hindus in Kilgore in Madhya Pradesh state.

The story unfolded in the Indian media in the following days. Some Hindus had chanted anti-Muslim slogans and played an anti-Muslim song at a mosque in Kilgore, where Muslims were praying. Muslim youth around the mosque responded by throwing stones, slightly injuring several Hindus. Before any investigation into the incident could start, the Madhya Pradesh home minister, Narottam Mishra, announced: “The houses from where the stones were pelted will turn into rubble.” Soon 16 houses and 29 shops belonging to Kilgore Muslims were burned down while Hindu crowds cheered.

 Lynching, slapping and flogging Muslims in public and demolishing Muslim homes and businesses without legal authorization have become the norm in India.

India is a multi-national country where ethnic and religious communities enjoyed wide autonomy under loosely administered kingdoms and empires for millennia.  When the British colonial empire dissolved in India 76 years ago, the country was reorganized into a “nation-state” to run through a majoritarian democracy.  A British Cabinet delegation had proposed a confederation of what had been “British India” to allow Hindu- and Muslim-majority provinces wide autonomy to let their religious and ethnic communities live their cultural and social lives relatively freely and comfortably. Indian leaders turned down the Cabinet Mission Plan.

The secular democratic institutions introduced by India’s Western-educated founders (Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel) often clash with Indians’ community life and religious values. Westminster-style democracy has now allowed Modi’s virulently anti-Muslim BJP to come to power in New Delhi and use the unconstrained institutions of a majoritarian democracy to persecute and marginalize Muslims.

Secular democracy hasn’t taken root in Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist societies, either. But, as Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor has pointed out, Hindu nationalists are more ruthless than most other religious bigots. They are “people without any piety at all,” he said, and hence their persecution of the Muslim minority has been so brutal.

Democracy is the inevitable destiny of non-Western societies, and I’m hoping that globalization and global pressures for human rights will eventually infuse tolerance toward minorities in Indian and other non-Western societies.

  • Mustafa Malik, the host of the blog After the Clash,  worked for nearly four decades as a reporter, columnist and editor for American newspapers and as a researcher for two American think tanks.

Will Turkey get booted out of NATO?

Turkey’s decade-long belligerency with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad dictatorship appears to be approaching a denouement, leaving Turkey and the United States at loggerheads over Kurdish militants’ fate in northern Syria. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president, supported the ill-fated Arab Spring uprising against Assad and led a faction of Syrian opposition forces to overthrow the brutal dictator.

Recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a phone conversation with his Turkish counterpart and signaled that he’s making progress in pushing for meetings between lower-level Turkish and Syrian officials, and finally between the presidents of the two countries.

Erdogan had wanted to launch a ground offensive against the Kurdish militants in northern Syria, whom Ankara views  as anti-Turkish terrorists.  Russia, and especially the United States, opposed his move. The Biden administration has warned the Turks sternly against any land invasion against the Kurdish People’s Defense Units (YPG) because the U.S. has been using the Kurdish militia to fight Islamic State terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

Ankara considers the YPG a branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has been fighting Turkish armed forces for 38 years to carve out an independent Kurdish statelet in the Kurdish-majority southeastern Turkey.  The United States and the European Union, too, brand the PKK a terrorist organization. So America, Turkey’s NATO ally, is hard-pressed to explain the YPG’s links to the PKK, and hence, in 2015, gave the Kurdish militant group a civilian façade. It got the YPG  to rename itself Kurdish Democratic Forces (SDF) and had some Arabs enrolled in the organization.

In Turkey, “the Kurdish problem” seems intractable.  During three research trips, I found out that many Kurds there want wide “autonomy” for Turkey’ Kurdish-majority area.  They grumble about Turkish “persecution” of Kurds and suppression of their cultural rights. Kurdish intellectuals also castigate the “betrayal” by Western powers who, at the end of World War I, had promised them a state of their own but later reneged on it and split their territory among four states, including Turkey and Syria.

Among everyday Turks, anti-Kurdish sentiments run high, mainly because of continual Kurdish terrorist attacks. Six Turkish opposition parties have forged an alliance known as the “Table of Six” to challenge Erdogan and his party at the elections set for June, but they all support Erdogan’s plan to drive the YPG militants out of a 30-kilometer Syrian strip on the Turkish border. They know opposing his fight against the YPG would be politically suicidal.

In August 1998 Erdogan, just fired as mayor of Istanbul, told me in one of my interviews, that the Kurdish problem stemmed from ultra-liberal Turkish governments’ insensitivity to the Kurds’ “cultural rights.” It could be resolved in an atmosphere of Islamic “brotherhood,” said the deposed Istanbul mayor, then an Islamist activist.  He was packing his belongings in cardboard boxes to leave the mayor’s office and prepare to go to prison. He had been given a 10-month sentence (commuted later to four months) by a secularist court for reciting an Islamic poem at a public meeting.

 In 2012, as Turkish prime minister, Erdogan engaged Kurdish militants in a “peace process.” After three years of arduous negotiations, he stopped the talks, realizing, he said, that the Kurdish militants won’t give up on their secessionist plans.

Biden has been openly hostile to Erdogan since before coming into the White House. He apparently shares many other Americans’ and Europeans’ antipathy for Erdogan because of his long association with Islamists, although the Turkish leader has since dissociated from the Islamists and leads a secular conservative political party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP).

During the 2020 U.S. presidential election campaign, Biden denounced Erdogan as an “autocrat” and proposed that the United States help Turkish opposition parties “take on and defeat Erdogan” at the next Turkish presidential election.

Erdogan is unlikely to back down on his widely publicized plans to drive the YPG militants out of a Syrian “security belt” along the Turkish border, especially in an election year. A peace deal between Ankara and Damascus could facilitate his plan.   But Erdogan’s brazen defiance of U.S. warnings against an assault on the YPG would enrage  Biden, and probably NATO.  There’s speculation in Washington that Biden administration could then try to kick Turkey out of NATO. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are already calling for it.

Without Muslim Turkey, though, NATO would overtly become the military arm of the white-Christian West. In that case, China would be spreading its security umbrella over much of the rest of the world. Chinese President Xi Jinping has just returned from a significant trip to Saudi Arabia, after calling for an “independent Palestinian state.”

Would Biden want to rip the world into two rival armed camps? And would other NATO members go along with it? I’m hoping to see cooler minds nudging him and Erdogan back from the precipice.

  • Mustafa Malik is an American researcher and retired journalist, who conducted fieldwork in Turkey and five European countries as a journalism fellow for the German Marshall Fund of the United States. He researched the outlook for Turkey’s accession to the European Union.