Rendition: Nothing new under the CIA's sun

Published in Turkish Daily News, 16 June 2008

Thanks to a few amateur plane watchers across Europe, we the mortals, who have no direct access to top secret deals and documents, have caught a tiny glimpse of the CIA's rendition program. Our knowledge of the program still draws from investigations of independent researchers and human rights organizations as well as testimonies of the small portion of detainees who have been released.

We can only speculate on the scope of the CIA's operations, but from what we can be certain of, there are two elements to rendition. The first one is the kidnapping of terror suspects globally by CIA teams or arrests of suspects in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US armed forces or ally Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The captives are held as “enemy combatants” in indefinite and incommunicado detention.

CIA's black sites:

Besides known military facilities where they are imprisoned, such as Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, airbases in Afghanistan, and the British island Dieogo Garcia in the Indian Ocean, there are secret prisons, referred to as “black sites” in official documents, which are run by the CIA in Eastern Europe, Africa and South East Asia with full cooperation or silent acceptance of local governments.

Reprieve, a British human rights group, recently pointed out the existence of military and civilian ships that are used as jails. Reprieve estimates that there are as many as 17 floating prisons wandering in international waters. This was a whispered rumor, but now it is being said publicly with the support of first hand testimonies of released detainees.

However, the most cunning (and immoral) policy the Bush administration has backed is outsourcing torture and imprisonment. In this headache-free approach, an ally country in the Middle East or South East Asia arrests and detains individuals in co-operation with the CIA. The subcontracted countries are already known for their notorious human rights abuses. Therefore, it is not the CIA who tortures or the U.S. Government who violates international law, but a third country (or employees of private security firms) presumes full legal culpability while the U.S. intelligence officers gather “vital intelligence” in “the war against terror.”

Although we have no knowledge of active participation of the United Kingdom in kidnappings, sadly it is clear that the U.K., and Germany, have benefited from the CIA's dirty activities, used the intelligence gathered through rendition and even allowed their citizens to be kept in horrible conditions. We do not know if Turkey has ever been involved in rendition. However, given the tensions that the Iraq invasion caused in Turkey and the refusal of the Turkish Parliament to grant right of passage to American troops heading for Iraq, it would be safe to argue that Turkey have not partaken of this scheme. It is, however, possible that the CIA planes carrying captives have used civilian and military airbases in Turkey without notifying the Turkish state.

Crime by government:

Whether an individual is directly kidnapped and kept by the CIA or by a third country, a captured prisoner has no real legal rights, protection, a clear end to his suffering or a chance to seek justice when it becomes clear that he may have been kept because of a mistake and that he might be innocent. The entire program is a serious breach of international law and denies individuals their most basic and non-negotiable rights in their arrests, detention, grotesque treatment and denial of access to legal representation and fair judicial process.

Their imprisonment in ambiguous lands out side of the U.S. or on floating boats on international waters have removed their access to the U.S. courts, thus any chance of keeping U.S. intelligence agencies accountable for gross human rights abuses they have committed. Alas, last week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees have the legal right to access U.S. courts. What this ruling practically means and whether or not this will apply to all of the ghost prisoners in detention across the world remains ambiguous.

We will never know how many people have been victims of this policy. Reprieve claims that currently the United States is detaining 26,000 individuals without trial in secret prisons. Some of the captives clearly have links to militant Islamist groups or were Taliban fighters or are captured jihadists in Iraq. Some are just kidnapped on the tip of local intelligence agencies, sometimes arrested just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong ethnic and religious backgrounds, or because of name similarities. Some are handed over to American soldiers by Afghan or Iraqi militias and troops just because of cultural, political and personal grudges.

Sadly, none of this is new. During WWII, the United States kidnapped innocent Japanese residents in Latin America, not because of any suspected crime or relationship with Japan's war efforts. They were kidnapped as bargaining chips, simple people to be sold as Japanese officers and spies. When the war ended, a couple of thousand of them were stranded in the United States. They did not have any travel documents and were not allowed to be U.S. citizens. When Bill Clinton was in office, the U.S. Government offered these people an apology, albeit a superficial one with no concrete solution or recompense.

Stop this madness:

To those who believe that human history is a linear march, always towards the good and higher levels and naively hold that we learn (or can ever learn) from the horrors of our histories, what Chuang Tzu noted some 2300 years ago might come as surprising: “The greatest crimes are eventually shown to have been necessary, and, in fact, a signal benefit to mankind.”

So, it seems that Kohelet was right: There is nothing new under the sun. How many times have we watched yesterday's victims turning into today's perpetrators? How many times in the 20th century alone have we acted with great “strength” and moved “beyond good and evil” to “protect our way of life” and to assert our “self-determination,” all at the expense of fellow human beings weaker than us? How many millions have been lost to this Tolkeinic pursuit? And how much more is needed before we stop this madness?

Why Turkish Airlines makes me proud


Published in Turkish Daily News, 2 June 2008

I can't claim to have first-hand experience of all the significant airline companies in the world, but as someone who has traveled widely across the Northern Hemisphere, I can perhaps claim a small sample size, large enough to draw comparisons.

To be fair, Emirates and Singapore Airlines top the list of the best airplanes, best customer service, flight and airport experience. For me, they represent the ideals of world class traveling. The only negative thing about Emirates is the quite small and tight economy class seats, which always feel like settling into a space shuttle ready to take off.

Besides many peaceful and delightful flights with top airlines, I did have my fair share of nightmarish and so-wrong-that-it's-funny ones. Once, I boarded an Aeroflot plane to be greeted by two unshaven pilots with greasy hair and suits and sleepless faces along with their ungraceful airplanes and cabin crew. I don't remember repeating “Our father in Heaven, hallowed be thy name” that much before.

Around the World in 80 flights:

Once, a steward of the Turkmenistan flag carrier slapped my shoulder quite aggressively with no warning or verbal communication as I tried to fit my laptop bag into the only space that was left in the airplane, which had more carpets and giant plastic bags than passengers. She simply wanted me to get out of her way. To her credit, it worked. I kept quiet, ignored eye contact and any expression of ingratitude during the entire flight, even though the food was probably a health hazard and the drink served as “wine” was one of Saparmurat's secret weapons.

Continue Reading "Why Turkish Airlines make me proud"


On an extremely dirty, smelly and chaotic flight between India and Nepal, I watched stewards laughing as they were trying to continue to chat, drink and hold on to any possible stable object they can grab while the plane landed. They were still standing up.

Even on European flights, I have regularly encountered poor airports and customer service and rather rude flight crews that make you feel like you are receiving U.N. aid at a refugee camp rather than enjoying a flight you paid for. Once, I had to wait three hours at London Heathrow after a business-class-in-ticketing-but-economy-in-actuality flight with a Scandinavian flag carrier before walking out of the airport without my suitcase. I simply refused to wait two more hours for the next flight to bring a special tool to open the plane's locked cargo doors. British Airways and Alitalia have always caused me mini anxiety attacks the night before the flight, during the check-in, the flight and landing for similar reasons.

I can add more disturbing stories of travel gone sour, but one of the funniest things ever happened to me was during a flight between Manila and Boracay in the Philippines. The pilots of the 20 seater prop plane kept telling jokes to the passengers and played music from their portable players and speakers. True Pinoy style!

No matter where I was, whether in China, Kuwait, Israel, Egypt, Azerbaijan or Italy, seeing a Turkish Airlines (THY) plane at the airport and boarding one have always given me a sense of security, trust and a chance to take a breath as I sought to run away from tough and intense localities with haunted airports.

In all these years I have flown with THY domestically or internationally, I have not even once had a missing or damaged luggage. Where Emirates staff made me pay huge amounts on many occasions for just 3 or 4 extra kilograms, THY always showed grace. Not even once have I seen a stewardess treat passengers rudely or behave unprofessionally, even though I have witnessed many incidents where even I was convinced that it was ethical to strangle another passenger. To be fair, I have experienced a couple of over confident airport and ticketing staff here and there.

At the corporate level, when global factors of market speculations, increasing oil and production prices along with security fears lead many companies to bankruptcy, cut backs and playing safe, THY kept expanding its fleet, adding further destinations, recruiting new staff, and even opening its own flight school. When its domestic monopoly on flights was eventually broken and THY had to face the challenge of budget travel, it managed to continue to benefit and increase its number of passengers.

Still a serious road ahead:

When most private sector companies struggled to adapt to a global age and rival international giants, THY surfaced as one of the most self-reforming and improving companies in Turkey. One has to only glance into its extremely easy and dependable website, frequent flyer program, co-branded credit card and changing designs to get a sense of its energy and drive to be a major global actor. This is also evident in its new membership in the Star Alliance.

THY still has a serious road ahead to be on the same page as prime league players. It needs to employ more bilingual staff, add destination specific languages to its on flight instruction videos besides English and Turkish, upgrade its catering with better and more international food and invest in serious infrastructure and marketing initiatives abroad. Yet, as THY celebrates its 75th year, I am truly proud of where it is and truly excited about its future. And I promise (Boy Scout's honor), I have no links with THY nor they have any clue about me or this article, but each time I see a red and white tailed airplane, I can't help but smile.

Of Headscarves and Men

Published in Turkish Daily News, 19 May 2008

A major hotel in Tehran welcomes its guests with a large and lighted sign post that states:

“Dear guests, Hijab (Islamic veil) is a magnificent reflection of the culture of Iranian Muslim women. So we appreciate your respect to our own Islamic civilization and culture.”

I first saw this sign some years ago but didn't think too much about it. However, as I have increasingly been fascinated with the discourses used by countries and politicians to communicate their policies and convince others, a familiar object turned into a day-long obsession during a recent trip to Iran. The more I thought about it, the more absurd it started to sound.

Culture or law?:

To be fair, a host country has every right to ask its visitors to respect its cultural norms. For example, given the country I travel in I may decide against wearing shorts and seeking out Martinis. (That's also why I continue to keep Her Majesty's government responsible for allowing pink-roasted drunk English men walk around half naked in the middle of our cities at the first sign of sunshine.) However, a female foreigner visiting Iran need not be reminded of not causing a stir by showing some hair or skin, as it is required and enforced legally to wear a hijab. Thus, the sign post is rather ironic, if not redundant.

On a deeper level, cultural expressions are not codified and legalized practices. They are merely present, followed by some, ignored by the rest. The hijab was made compulsary at a certain point in history, thus it isn't necessarily a natural Iranian way of life. And any women who do not follow the imposed rule will suffer its consequences. Once in Iran, I witnessed the aggression of officials as they were trying to push two young girls into a van. Their crime was to wear sandals and headscarves which didn't cover all of their hair under the hot Persian sun. I hardly slept that night, as the innocent expression on the faces of the arrested girls occupied my mind.

Although headscarves are cultural expressions in rural areas across North Africa and the Middle East, the moment the political sovereign intervenes and dictates their use, it ceases to be cultural and turns into political regulation. In other words, it is the men-with-beards that have defined for the Iranian women how they should dress and live, claiming to do so to protect their "virtue" and culture.

Just north of Iran, in the land of my birth and first kiss, men-without-beards also decide how women should dress or express themselves. Unlike Iran, the arguments in Turkey are not about protecting women's "virtue" or some mythical essential culture but politicization of headscarves. It is said that in principle men of power have no problems allowing women to wear what they wish, but they are only limiting the access of women to education and work because headscarves have turned out to be political symbols.

There are serious problems in this line of thought just as in culture-talk in Iran. First of all, so what if something is used as a political symbol? We live in a democratic country which constitutionally gives the individual the right to political expression by voting, joining political parties and running for elections. Thus, to ban headscarves on the basis of their political nature is to contradict our very own political system.

Iran and Turkey, similar?:

More importantly, if the headscarves have turned out to be political – in other words, if the women who wear them started demanding equal rights and treatment – it is not because of Islam and Islamism. It is the sovereign who has banned the headscarves. Thus by entering the personal sphere and trying to regulate religious practices that transcend domestic politics, men have first made headscarves political and then sought to legitimize their sovereignty on the grounds that they are now political symbols.

Just as watching Iranian women arrested for not dressing up properly breaks my heart into pieces, to witness hundreds of thousands of women denied entry to university, or forced to remove their headscarves in humiliation, breaks my heart. Both in Iran and Turkey, men have defined what "virtue" is or how a woman should live, and sought to impose their ideas, all along declaring that they are the true liberators of women. Year 2008! Women still stand naked in this part of the world, ready to be dressed (or undressed) and led as men wish.

The problem with 'modern' Turks is... they are outdated

Published in Turkish Daily News, 08 April 2008

The English word “modern” has made its way into colloquial Turkish and is used interchangeably with its direct Turkish equal, “çağdaş,” which literally means “of the era.” Though the word “modern” in English still maintains the connotation of something that is up to date, such as a modern kitchen, it also signifies something belonging to modernity and modernism as the social condition and philosophy, which dominated late 19th and most of the 20th century.

In many ways, the “modern” is really no more “çağdaş.” We live in a completely different social condition, shaped by a completely different philosophy. Therefore, if I were to compliment an intellectual with the word “modern” today, it would be more of an insult. I would be suggesting that his or her ideas and reactions are passé and naïve, if not backward. Similarly, when a building is called “modern” in architecture, it refers to the concrete lumps of the previous century, which were built with the ideals of managing human beings as effectively as possible while maximizing cost and benefit, with no consideration of aesthetics and quality of life whatsoever.

Outdated Enlightenment:

Interestingly, when the word “modern” is used in Turkish, it is always a complement. Its unique use as a positive adjective includes a “modern person” and “modern society.” However, when we look at what a person must believe or do in order to be called “modern,” an irony surfaces. What is described as a “modern” outlook in Turkey is often nothing than the banal repetition of outdated Enlightenment ideals. Some of the “modern” myths that linger among us in their full pride are:

* A country can only survive if it is a homogenized nation state that has to assimilate any different identity into a well-defined single type. Any element of difference -- language, ethnicity, religion and opinion -- is a threat to its existence.

* Citizens are part of a foolish herd that must be led, controlled and managed for their own sake, even against their own wishes.* The goal of education is to produce non-questioning and easily controllable citizens.

* Religious beliefs belong to the “dark ages.” If only we have more education and science, they would die out and everyone would be atheists. For now, we should make sure that it is limited to personal space.

These “modern” beliefs were, in fact, the glimpse of heaven promised by the “çağdaş” men of the 19th century. Yet, where we stand today is far from the anticipated Shangri-La.The modern vision is the very reason why the 20th century was one of the darkest ages of history. “Modern” ideals and know-how are two sizes too small for today's ever-obese global reality. As every futile attempt to cover global rips with local patches shows, we can no more share the optimism of the “modern” man who thinks, if only we have the commitment and strength, our future would be bright.

The only one who is not aware of this is the “modern” man. He walks our streets, full of himself, confident of the future that awaits him at the end of his path, like a sleepwalking French man who is consumed by his daydream that his culture, language and values present the pinnacle of human civilization, which everyone else envies or aspires to reach. One must be careful not to honor the “modern” man with the status of the lovable, but naïve, Don Quixote. “Modern” man is often dangerous, aggressive and poisoned by his self-confidence. He is loud and distractive, and if he only has his way, he will easily move beyond good and evil and push his black and white homogenized pill down our throats.

We need less ‘modern' Turks:

It is because we have so many “modern” Turks around that we are distracted from breaking the all-too-human cycles of Armenian-Turkish, Kurdish-Turkish, Secularist-Islamist conflicts. It is because of the “modern” vision that non-Muslims of Turkey have to continue to live in daily fear that at any moment a “modern” man who has the courage to face the challenge may put a bullet in their heads. It is because of the “modern” academics of our nation that Turkish universities, with the noble exception of a handful, are gigantic and distasteful sausage machines that produce non-analytical and démodé “modern” copycats. It is because of the “modern” leaders of our country that we face the risk of turning into an Amish or Hasidic community stuck in history, thinking that a certain previous century, with its aims, dress, language and strategies was the only and ideal ‘pure' and ‘real' moment.

So what we need least are more “modern” Turks. It is time for us to learn to see today's world as it is and not through outdated ideals. We urgently need more “çağdaş” Turks, who are able to look beyond the clichés of a past century and lead our nation to safety in this increasingly bleak age. We need high caliber pioneers, just like Mustafa Kemal was in his “çağ” (era)

Deconstructing old and new 'deep state'

Published in Turkish Daily News , 03 April 2008


For the outsider observing Turkey, the issue of the so-called "deep state" can be quite confusing, if not incomprehensible. Though the media and commentators regularly report their activities and allude to their dark relationships with state officials, often questions of who they are and why they are involved in such activities are omitted along with a deeper analysis as to the nature of their organization and how people are recruited into their ranks.This failure to analyze the "deep state" often leads to wrong conclusions, which attribute the activities of these groups directly to the Turkish State and Armed Forces. It would, in fact, be true to think so if the groups named broadly as "deep state" were like the ones that existed during the cold war and 70s. However, today's ‘deep state' is completely different and more dangerous than the earlier ones.

After the cold war:

Though throughout the centuries rulers had their secret forces to do dirty jobs in order to maintain their power, during the cold war clandestine operations became national policies to fight an unconventional and secretive war with a vicious enemy. Intelligence and security forces worked alongside criminals, capable individuals and groups in secretive operations to send messages, control their societies and counterbalance their enemies' activities. Some elements of this still exist in Turkey and can be seen in the untold stories of how the Turkish armed forces and police force have tried to “solve” the Kurdish “problem.” With the end of the cold war these groups and individuals faced the cold space all alone. State policies, intelligence priorities and social tensions have evolved, making them redundant. Some simply adjusted to the new reality in full melancholy, others turned to becoming mercenaries, providing their expertise for money in the new market of civilian security.

Yet, once one gets used to confronting an archetypal enemy, life gets rather dull when the dragon is dead. So the knights roam the banal streets of our contemporary existence with a dragon-shaped vacuum in their hearts. Since fighting against a giant enemy provides a strong, clear and comforting identity and self-worth, the ex-knights are not only bored but also left in a void. And what value has a knight without a crusade? What's more, the knights have been declared useless once their expiration date has passed. Their mighty and most noble patron no longer needs, wants or employs them. Their societies do not know, value, cherish or care about them. From a firm belief in being the protectors and guardians of their societies, they face the anonymity and darkness of insignificance.

The curse of anonymity, insignificance and passive participation in an aggressive age affects all of us. The ratio of “losers,” who cannot make it or feel safe in this slippery century, increases every single day. For the economically and socially deprived, there is no chance of establishing a singular significance. One option they have is the possibility of being assimilated into a higher cause, with social ties with our ex-knights, whose former titles and relations are seductive for the sensually deprived. When the ex-knights and the deprived meet, their orgies become self-fulfilling and interdependent. They need each other to satisfy each other's deprivations.

Retired officers and protégés:

That is why the new deep "state" is formed by two particular groups: retired or redundant army or security officers and their committed protégés and foot soldiers. Together they make up the gang of final attempts to feel alive, resolute on finding and slaying enemies, in the process saving imagined kingdoms from imagined ills. Since it is almost impossible to clearly pinpoint enemies in this century, unlike during the cold war when one could look at a map and see who was with or against us, mistrust and conspiracy theories, along with a resentment of the “system,” mystify the state as well as its citizens. Everyone and everything is and can be the needed enemy; a nation, composed of zombie-like enemies, that needs to be protected from itself!

They find supporters, especially among mid-management levels of the state structures, in people who are equally “worried” about their nation, but most importantly frustrated with their lack of power or saying they have over the state of affairs, as their hands are tied and mouths are gagged by the state legislation for civil servants, called 657. Where lower and higher ranking civil servants have so much to lose by partaking in “deep state” and their actions are quite visible, middle management can usually find a secretive space where the risk is manageable. This makes the new “deep state” more dangerous than the old one, as the targets and means to deal with them are not controlled or commissioned by the state but are left at the mercy of a groups of thugs with their irrational rationalities. Unlike the old “deep state,” the links of the new ones to the state consist of individuals who are sympathizers and can do only so much for them. Therefore, stopping their activities becomes a difficult task, since these groups are only accountable to themselves.

The post-IRA example:

We have seen a similar pattern following the change in politics in Northern Ireland and the disarmament of the IRA. Yesterday's freedom fighters turned into today's nuisances very quickly, left without financial and social support. Some learned how to cope with the new era and find a safe place in it, but some evolved into thugs, adding a language of higher values to mere criminality and pursuits of money. And not so surprisingly, they also describe Ireland as having been “defeated” from within by weakened politicians who “sold out” their souls. We can show similar examples all across Africa, Latin America and Russia.

If this reading of the new “deep state” is correct, then the new school Turkish deep state, with its funny hairstyles and 60's fashion sense, is the disruptive emanation of the ghosts of a past century. As the global experience of similar ghost sightings show, when there is the political will, even the most “dangerous” ones can eventually be bought, rehabilitated or muted. So the main question isn't how deep their organization is, or what dirt can surface when their heydays are brought into the light. The main question is, does the Turkish government have the political will to do so?

New Turkish curriculum teaches children to be 'sacrifices'

Published in Turkish Daily News, 25 March 2008

Turkishness is hard to maintain, as I always point out. Not only does one have to keep up to date with shifting political moods in Turkey, but also one must share an unchallenged historical and teleological narrative. This constant effort at alignment with the officially sanctioned identities is a difficult process, especially for us Turks who dwell outside of our “motherland.” There is a real danger that we will “give in” to the erosion and, God forbid, loose our Turkishness.

Yet, we have not been forgotten and left alone in our identity problems. In addition to the efforts of our Foreign Ministry, the Turkish Directorate for Religious Affairs and Education Ministry do their “very best” to make sure that we have the resources to face the challenge.
All for the nation!

For example, the Education Ministry recently sent a proposed curriculum to be used in the supplementary schools where expatriate Turkish families send their children on the weekends. It is called “Draft Educational Program: Turkish language and culture lessons for Turkish children living abroad, Grades 1 to 10.” Its cover informs us that it was written in 2006 by a “special commission” in Ankara, formed by two Turkish language teachers, two religious education teachers, one Turkish history teacher, and, last but not least, a “program development expert.”

These seven education “experts” have obviously toiled hard and long considering our problems and developing a new generation of Turks in a foreign country. Amid all the important issues our children might face, they picked up one of the most “important” elements of being a Turk and sought to communicate this through a story to third grade pupils.

The “heart-warming” story is that of Mehmet, once again, but not an ordinary one:

Continue Reading "New Turkish curriculum teaches children to be 'sacrifices'"

Mehmet was 20 years old when he was called in for his compulsory military service. His entire village sent him off to fulfill his duties with great jubilation. During a health check-up, his commanding officer recognized that one of Mehmet's hands was dyed in henna. When the commander asked why this was so, Mehmet told him that he did not know the reason but it was his mother's decision. So the commander asked Mehmet to write a letter to his mother and tell her that the commander wanted to know why she dyed Mehmet's hand.

Since the request for clarification came from the ranks, the mother responded with the following:

“My dear son, we received your letter. We were all happy. You ask about the henna I dyed on your palm. Send my greetings to your commander. I kiss him on his eyes. I pray for blessings. May God give all of you strength! Tell your commander this: We use henna for three different things: We dye beautiful girls, so that they can have a home of their own someday. We dye sheep, so that they can be sacrifices for God. And, my dear son, we dye the brave ones who leave for the army. We dye them, because military service is holy. Your grandfather was martyred in the Balkans and your uncle in Gallipoli. We dyed you because you too will fulfill this holy service to protect your nation.” The curriculum ends the story after the mother's response, informing us that this answer moved the commander deeply and brought him to tears.

From an exegetical point of view, the peak of the story is the symbolic preparation of Mehmet for being a “sacrifice” for our nation. This should set an example for all of our children at the earliest opportunity. The younger we impart this value, the more effective it will be. Thus, a 9-year-old Turkish child living in London should be groomed and prepared to daydream about tanks, bombs and being murdered. He should be raised as a non-questioning sheep, ready to lie on the altar whenever the orders for him to do so arrive.

Yes, their foreign (read gavur) education may be really good at teaching them to be critical thinkers and independent achievers in a global age. Yet, there are some things which a Western education can never give. Thanks to our “expert commission” and the spectacular efforts of our Education Ministry, the missing ingredient in the Turkishness of our children has been supplemented. Sleep well, commissioners of Ankara! You have saved our future!

Turkish Armed Forces and Postmodern War-Management

Published in Turkish Daily News, 17 January 2008

The Turkish and international media gave wide coverage to recent Turkish excursions into and bombings of outlawed PKK targets in northern Iraq.

Most of the commentaries focused on the pros and cons of military campaigns on the fragile state of Iraq, the never-ending ‘final moves' to end PKK terror in Turkey and the rekindling of Turkish-American relations. These are in fact legitimate questions, but there is more that needs to be analyzed.

A key area that has escaped from the critical (and often clichéd) eyes of mainstream commentators in Turkey is why these campaigns have been communicated to Turkish society in the way that they have been. In this article, I want to draw attention not to the military attacks and their results or implications, but to how the Turkish Armed forces have employed and orchestrated cutting-edge public relations tactics.

Old school war-management:

In the good old days, managing societies that were engaged in wars was a lot easier. Since the primary information source was the armed forces themselves, the governments easily constructed stories of heroism, success and sacrifices performed for ‘higher ideals.' The pointless destruction, war crimes and failures could easily be left out in the dark. Society was just a spectator enjoying the unified narrative presented in movie-like news from the front lines. What mattered was that ‘we' were winning and ‘we' were ‘heroes' fighting for a ‘just' cause.

The only alternative source of information was the veterans, who had to choose to play either the ‘hero' with the hope that their sacrifices were in fact worth something, or the reclusive survivor who never spoke about war. And when those returnees refused to choose between these two sanctioned roles and dared to speak against their government's policies and the horrors of war, they were declared mentally or morally impaired and pushed out to the margins.

Thus, it was quite easy to manage one's society in the old days. All you needed to do was report as many successes and heroic stories as possible. However, with the development of independent media and easy access to the production and dissemination of photographs and videos from the front lines, the job of the governments and top generals became more difficult.

The Vietnam War was not more destructive or ‘evil' than any other war. In fact, the 20th century had seen bigger and more fatal wars. Yet, for the first time we were able to see the reality of war right in our living rooms, often contradicting the official euphemisms and stories presented to us. This meant that it was becoming a lot more difficult to lead us into collective hypnosis.

A single image of a young girl, Kim Phuc, screaming with pain from her burns and running away naked from a napalm bombing with a bunch of kids, became a turning point for war opposition. It muted all stories of military success and the idea that the war was being fought for noble causes. Though this signaled the end of traditional war-management, it only resulted in more sophisticated strategies. The new strategy, which was first applied during the Desert Storm campaign, uses the same tool that ended the old strategies.

New generation war-management:

If independent media taught us to mistrust the official narratives and cheap heroisms, it also led us to a fixation on the image and visual stimulation. If the previous problem was lack of information and its boring officialdom, our new problem is information overload and its erotic powers.

In order to compete with other producers for our decreasing attention spans, TV reporting has reduced the content of the information to minimal while maximizing its visual and musical effects. As the minimum amount of information is added on to amazing views of fighter jets, attractive uniforms and ‘cool' war toys, the war becomes a ‘thrill.' The shock-and-awe tactics create a sense of ‘awe' of human technology and its precision. The individual becomes fixed on sexy images at the expense of reality.

The news of bombing is presented with black and white videos supplied by the Air Force, which shows war more like an unreal video game. The more the dose of visual stimulation is increased, the more societies fall into rapture and intellectual numbness. Since we are more focused on the airplane, we have no perception of where the bombs fall, or moreover, of the deaths of the human beings underneath them. The U.S. has employed this style of perception management in its controversial campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan with great success.

It appears that the Turkish Armed Forces have learned more from the U.S. than intelligence and F-16 production. All throughout the north Iraq campaigns, top generals and government officials spoke endlessly about our newly acquired spy, night flight and bombing technologies. Newspapers presented the most attractive military pictures along with details of each bomb dropped and how our pilots are trained. TV channels showed videos of the bombings and real-life satellite images of the camps.

It has indeed been a successful example of war-management. Turkish society has faced minimum ethical dilemmas and found much pride and stimulation in our brand new military toys.

The AK Party, the failure of Islamism and traditional Turkish politics


Published on Nthposition, 8 January 2008

The Armed forces and the hopeful parties who sought to capitalize on their chance for power portrayed the last elections in Turkey as a choice between a secular state and a theocracy. The Western media picked up this rhetoric, and the elections were turned into an archetypal struggle between Islamism and democracy as the Turkish nation was said to be deciding on her 'soul'.

There were signals all along that the things were not what they seem to be. A significant portion of liberals, non-Muslims and ethnic minorities in Turkey voted for the AK Party, which was presented as a taqiya movement with mischievous plans to implement an Islamic state. These groups would face the harshest treatment if Turkey turned out to be ruled under Shari'a law; yet, they chose to take the 'risk' because the AK Party has been one of the governments most committed to addressing issues of human rights and religious freedom in the country.

Many observers abroad feared that with the reselection of the AK Party, Turkey would severe her ties with the West and turn Eastward, which would have significant implications on international security and economic relations. Yet foreign investors and most of the Europeans who hope for Turkish integration into the EU openly supported the AK Party because it has been the most proactive and serious government Turkey has ever had on EU negotiations as well as legislative changes, which led to an increase in foreign investment.

Learned commentators who sought to trace an agenda from the AK Party's long-abandoned roots in the Islamist Refah Party (Welfare Party) read the AK Party's increasing appeal in Turkey as a return or strengthening of the Islamist goals, which were brought to a halt by a soft intervention of the Armed forces on 28 February 1997. Yet Refah Party's successor, the Saadet Party (Felicity Party), and the nationalist-cum-Islamist BB Party (Great Union Party) openly condemned the AK Party as an un-Islamic party which had sold out to the West. Meanwhile, books claiming that Abdullah Gul and Tayyip Erdogan were Jews and Zionists topped the bestseller list.

Similarly, as doomsday scenarios of incompatibility of Islam and Secular Democracy found flesh in mass demonstrations, most of the interested onlookers missed the covered women amidst the 'secular' crowds. A couple of Turkish journalists picked on a middle-aged woman in a headscarf, who had 'naively' responded to the question of whether Turkey would become an Islamic state by saying: "Turkey will remain secular, Inshallah."

Ironically, it was the naivety of the journalists who did not realize that a clash between Islam and a secular state existed only as a prescriptive discourse, rather than as a descriptive reality. Turkish Islam has evolved to such a level that a Muslim could seek the help of Allah to sustain a secular state.

Now, the elections are over: we have a reaffirmed government and a promising new president. Turkey is on the same path as she was a year ago. However, the question of what was really happening in Turkey still needs to be asked. Once again, the developments in Turkey signal new formations of Islam and its relationship to politics.

The AK Party is a newcomer to the Turkish political arena. It won a majority vote in its first ever election on November 2002. Its conservative stand, which reflected traditional Turkey, and its commitment to pursuing full EU membership and economic reform struck a chord with a significant portion of the country. The brand-new face of its leaders presented a way out of the never-ending cycles of Turkish political tail chasings between the 'left' and the 'right'. Its young leadership presented a worldview driven by realpolitik in line with the demands of a global world and the need for modernization, unlike the traditional Islamist appeals for a return to a Golden Age and the establishment of the global rule of Islam in solidarity with the Muslim world.

Many people gave the AK Party the benefit of the doubt for want of any other viable option and as a reaction to the then ruling elite. The exception to the disappearances of the older folk is Deniz Baykal, who remains the ineffective and not-so-loved leader of the opposition party that no longer has a clear political stand. After five years in office, however, the AK Party's performance has matched initial expectations, and it achieved one of the highest elections results ever in the Turkish history.

There are no legitimate signs that Turkey has turned out to be more Islamic under this administration. The legendary misuse of Article 301 - with its courtroom dramas and its fatal attacks on liberal intellectuals and non-Muslims - has been undertaken by the followers of an increasingly dangerous Turkish rightwing nationalism... which is also anti-AK Party.

This may come as a surprise to those who have been shown a Turkey - either by certain groups in Turkey or by clumsy Western journalists - that is deciding between the East and West; Islam and democracy; international openness and national isolation. None of these frameworks are helpful in trying to understand contemporary Turkey. The AK Party represents a new paradigm both in Turkey and for the rest of the world. It can be understood only on its own terms as a unique product of the failure of Islamism, which chased after the utopias of caliphate and umma, and the traditional political structures of Turkey that existed in a bittersweet love triangle of left, right and the Armed Forces.

How I became a 'so-called' Turk?

Published in Turkish Daily News, 3 January 2008
Re-Published in French by Yevrobatsi as Comment je suis devenu un «soi-disant» Turc

Re-Published in Greek by Phileleftheros as Πως μετεξελίχθηκα σε "λεγόμενο" Τούρκο


In his challenging book “Identity and Violence” Nobel laureate Amartya Sen argues that our identities are constructed not only through our own efforts but also by the enforcement of our setting. For example, an Irish man may consider himself ‘white' and can have strong feelings against people with darker skin colors. However, it is only recently that the English have considered the Irish ‘white.' The Irish have been seen in lesser terms than the ‘actual whites.'

The exclusion of the Irish from the noble ‘white' community obviously has nothing to do with color, as one doesn't really get whiter than an Irishman. Whiteness is a social construct and the ‘real whites' are considered so because of their privileged place within the community of ‘whites'.

Recently, I have learned the hard way that ‘Turkishness' too has its own share of social enforcement and exclusion. I have always seen myself as a Turk. Turkish is my mother tongue. I was born and have spent most of my life in Turkey. I am a Turkish citizen. I genuinely love my country and I am committed to its future. All the members of my family are ethnic Turks, with the exception of one grandma who is Kurdish and my great grandmother who was a Greek convert to Islam. All these years I assumed that these were what made one ‘Turkish.'

Yet, my ‘Turkishness' has been challenged. This first happened when I turned 18 and, out of my disillusionment with Islam, I decided to follow the Christian faith. Though none of my family members are devout Muslims, I spent the following 11 years trying to explain that I love my country, do not work for the CIA and have no part in plans to reinstate the Byzantine Empire. My apologetics have not been too successful as since then I regularly hear the rhetorical question; “What kind of a Turk are you?”

As my ‘Turkishness' began to be questioned by my community, I too started losing my attachment to it. I studied in East Asia for three years and then continued my studies in the UK for three more years. Having studied five different languages (and messing them all up) and traveled to more than 20 countries for research or school reasons, I must admit that I love Japanese food and Shusaku Endo more than I love lahmacun (Turkish pizza) and Murathan Mungan.

When fate and academic interest in collective memory, ethnic conflict and transitional justice put me right in the middle of Turkish-Armenian relations, my Turkishness entered a new stage.

A clumsy newspaper called Avrupa Gazetesi – Turkish but printed and distributed in Europe – published a puzzling piece about a conference in which Dr Fatma Gocek and yours truly were going to speak to lobby for the Armenian cause. I only smiled, since I not only did not know Dr Gocek, nor have ever been invited to such an event, I was not even in the UK during that time.

The correction, which Avrupa Gazetesi published, was too late to stop the ripples. Soon, a host of nationalistic websites and e-groups elaborated further with titles such as “A new addition to the list of Traitors” and I was declared to be a ‘missionary', ‘Armenian lobbyist', but most significantly a “so-called Turk”. Thanks to these nationalist groups, I learned that there are two kinds of Turks: Turks-in-essence (özde Türkler) and so-called-Turks (sözde Türkler).

Some advice!

There is a moral to my identity career. First one is practical: if you don't want to lose your ‘Turkishness' please don't follow my footsteps, it would only lead you to anomie and significant loss of social capital.

The second one is theoretical. It appears that ‘Turkishness' is defined by religious affiliation plus historical and political opinion. Though most of these nationalist groups will give wild reactions when being a Turk is reduced to being a Muslim and Islam is seen as what makes us Turks, nevertheless adherence to the official and dominant views seem to be the criteria for judging to what degree someone is a Turk.

Apparently, citizenship, place of birth, mother tongue and personal feelings of the individual towards his or her country means nothing. One's ‘Turkishness' is validated and enforced by a quasi-official criterion and its willing executors, who have the market monopoly.

If this is so, then ‘Turkishness' is an ideology which one assumes through alignment of personal opinion. As ideologies inescapably shift and modify themselves, those who are privileged to be Turks-in-essence have to continually keep up with subtle changes so as not to be kicked off the list. Thus, it is quite tiring to remain a Turk and to maintain the boundaries of ‘Turkishness'. You never know when the next de-selection will be and who will be joined to the ranks of the outcasts.

A Theology of Guantanamo Bay



Philosopher Giorgio Agamben reminds us of the Roman figure homo sacer--the Sacred Man-- who, according to the Roman law, can be killed with impunity but cannot be sacrificed to gods. His biological life is divorced from political life putting him outside of the boundaries of what constitutes a human and what the rights of that human are. He not only does not belong to the realm of the ‘human’, but neither to the reality of the gods. What is not human and what does not have a ‘value’ can not be sacrificed to gods since its sacrifice would defile the sanctity of gods. Thus, homo sacer exists only as a biological body, not as a human. A theology which ascribes such a status inevitably shapes political forms.

During the 19th and 20th centuries a similar systematisation of which biological bodies would be ascribed the status of a ‘human’ was accomplished with the marriage of theological assumptions and the ‘findings’ of science that cemented the difference between biological life and political life. Theologically, there was developed the order of creation, levels of perfection and purity, and at which of these levels the Image of God is expressed in its perfect condition. Out of this cosmic ordering, there emerged the political theology that identified the nation, its security, significance and rights with this stage of advanced human lives, whose superiority has been proved by the shape of their skulls in line with the predetermined intellectual and athletic potential of ‘races’. Thus, Jews, Gypsies, mentally and physically handicapped were nothing but mere bodies that could and should be done away with so that they won’t ‘contaminate’ us.

Now racism—that is, the exclusion of a group on perceived grounds of difference and reasons—shows itself in properties of belonging, not in scientific criteria. You are either with ‘us’ or with ‘them’. But who are ‘we’? The bearers of civilization, justice, advancement, everything that is pure, good, noble, above all ‘we’ are the bearers of the Imago Dei, the Image of God! Who are ‘they’? Political representations of ‘them’, as seen visually in media representations, are whatever ‘we’ are not: evil, destructive, barbarian, uncivilized, backward. “They” are the bearers of the Image of the Devil! Therefore let us unite around a ‘crusade’ against the devil! The reproduction of ‘we’ and ‘them’ in this most common way is a theological one.

‘We’ act politically on such a theology in the never-ending war on terror, an infinite war with no visible enemies but only a theological embodiment of who ‘they’ are. This informs our ‘right’ for pre-emptive strike to secure ‘our way of life’, and in this process we theologically allocate the death tolls as well for which lives we can mourn. Some lives are more worthy to protect, mourn and cover in the media; say one life of ‘ours’ versus 3,000 of ‘them’ that die within a month, as Judith Butler powerfully argues in her book "The Precarious Life". In this disproportionality, what we mourn is the ‘collateral damage’. The ‘sin’ is that we could not live up to the militaristic precision and skill that ‘we’ possess, not the sin that ‘we’ have reduced ‘them’ to biological lives we can kill with impunity.

If one can be killed, since one is really not a human but only that of a biological being that embodies evil, then we can easily place such a being in an ‘indefinite detention’. We don’t even have to call them Prisoners of War, or have evidences of their crimes, or deal with them in the ‘justice’ which we embody. ‘We’ can keep them outside of the political sphere of international treaties, human rights conventions and not grant them even the right of a fair trial. These are all for ‘human beings’ who carry the Image of God, not for those biological bodies that still insist on living and breathing like a ‘human’ while all along who they really are is just the Devil. And the Devil is bad!

Even if now 'we' cannot show anything they have done thus far, since evil is so integral to their ontology they will surely one day do something wrong. Keeping 'them' outside of human community is a price ‘we’ have to pay. ‘We’ do not want to do these dirty and brutal things. President Bush 'wishes' to close down Guantanamo Bay. However, sacrifices have to be made for this ‘just’ war.

Theology enters into the stage at this point and helps us to assume that we live in a 'just' world, in which people get what they deserve and if the natural events do not provide that, those who believe in 'justice' should fight to settle the accounts. Yet, this blurs the deep-seated suspicion that we do not live in a just world, but rather a fallen one, and 'justice' is never met in such a context but remains to be the exclusive property of the powerful, of 'us'. Thus this war is ‘just’ in the sense that it is just for ‘us’ the human beings. This imagined ‘we’ has to be protected at the exclusion of the ‘other’, by the grace and help of God, ‘our’ God. And surely, God is on the side of non-evil and the righteous, isn’t he?

When we turn our eyes to our God, we see his Son who stands in front of the angry crowd, declaring that he came to set the captives free, to restore the sick, poor and sinful, meaning the outcasts, back to human community. We are told he is the one that leaves all of the flock behind to go after the lost sheep and that rejoices when one of the coins which were lost is found and is returned. At the very core of his gospel lies inclusion, restoration and integration of those who have been dehumanized by the religious saints, pure ones, the civilized, ‘we’. Much of his teachings criticise the hypocrisy of those who claim to know and love God when all the while their self-righteousness blinds them from the very core of knowing and loving God.

The core which produces the Good Samaritan. The core which eats and drinks with the 'unclean', sinful, weak and sick. The core which turns the other cheek. The core which chooses to forgive, show mercy and love, rather than wage a campaign of retribution and vengeance. In fact it is this core which Nietzsche despised the most about Christian faith. He saw this Christian reaction towards revenge and retribution to be decadence. That is why he didn't find the Christian notion of God 'noble'. He saw such a God who chooses mercy, forgiveness and inclusion, as unworthy of worship.

Jesus not only declares a completely opposite theology of relating to the 'other' who may have offended us, or may have even harmed us or may do so in the future, but also demands the same attitude from his followers. His imperative brings with it an automatic judgement, one will either hear his voice and follow his call or one will continue to develop a pure and godly 'we'. One will either seek his face in the zone in which dehumanization takes place or amongst 'us' , which is in its worst form when we presume to see his face when we look into the water.

We seek him in vain in our modern-day cathedrals of glory and power and higher values. He is in the prison, with those who are hungry, naked and vulnerable. He warns us that he will hold us accountable, not because we have failed to meet him among 'us', but because we have not run to his image, the image of God, which is in prison, naked and hungry.

Jesus identifies himself not with the powerful--who presume to decide which biological lives will be given the status of a human and thus granted political rights, and which ones will be reduced to mere physical existence—but rather with the despised, with the Homo Sacer. If Jesus were caught living the vicious subversive Gospel today, he would not be on a wooden cross, since the wooden cross no longer symbolizes what it did then: the dishonouring and dehumanization of the individual in the presence of the entire city as a punishment. He would be wearing an orange jumper, living in a cage, dishonoured and dehumanized, in the presence of the entire world who behold all this on the TV screen.

It is no surprise Dietrich Bonhoeffer declared that those who do not speak for Jews have no right to sing Gregorian chants, because failing to do so – failing to stop the dehumanization and death of millions of people in impunity--contradicts the very thing, the Gospel, that the church and Christianity is based upon. When the Church forgets the core which gives birth to her with an eternal imperative to follow, all of her functions, activities and sacraments become a self-judgement and a joke like that of the king who still believes in his majesty while all along the world recognizes that he is just naked.

In a milieu such as this, the church can assume its most usual role. The church can raise funds, do advocacy and organize protests for the release of the inmates, when she recognizes that the answer to our prayers for peace on earth is actualized when she assumes her calling. Yet, this reactive role is only a temporary band-aid to deep wounds.

There is one more thing the church can do that (if she does it) has the potential to literally change the world we live in. Surprisingly, this ‘thing’ is what we speak about the most: to live the Gospel of Jesus. Perhaps it is so familiar that we are now completely blind to its implications to the post-9/11 world we live in.

What is this Gospel? It speaks of love of the neighbour, which requires trust in God and taking the risk to care for the wounded Samaritan. It promotes inclusion of the ‘other’ and the restoration of their dignity rather than exclusion and dehumanization, which Jesus sharply and repeatedly condemned. This Gospel cherishes meekness and vulnerability, of loving and caring and humbling ourselves, rather than Nietzschean visions of great politicians who embody “strength” and “determination” to establish “our security” by moving beyond good and evil. It deconstructs the metaphysical “we” and “them” and unites us in the knowledge of our interdependence, createdness, vulnerability and need of forgiveness in the presence of a Holy God.

The Gospel gives no room for concepts such as “collateral damage” or Machiavellian means. For this Gospel, every human being is precious and every human life is worth living, saving and mourning for. After all, this is exactly why Christ died on the cross. Finally, this Gospel is about forgiveness and reconciliation, rather than seeking revenge and brutal retribution.

Several years have passed since 9/11, and none of us can really say that we now live in a better and safer world. At that junction in time, the Western church had a brilliant opportunity to actualize the Gospel and change the course of history. There is a growing consensus that masculine politics which followed 9/11 are not the solution, and now talks of inclusion, forgiveness, reconciliation and meekness dominate the secular circles. And I wonder why those who have a reason for their hope still keep quiet or are unable to see the profound implications of their faith to such debates…