The Turkish Fog of Morality

Published in Turkish Daily News, 9 August 2008

In Thailand, I am told, bits of the movies which are deemed too sexual or immoral are not cut out as in other countries, but only blurred. Thus the viewer stares at a misty screen for the duration of the "improper" scenes. This interesting form of censorship, some sort of a fog of morality, ironically mystifies what the viewer cannot watch and eroticizes even the most common and boring expressions of sexuality we have grown accustomed to seeing on the big screen.

A European friend living in Bangkok recently expressed her displeasure of having to watch some scenes of the movie "Sex and the City" blurred. It is quite interesting that although "Sex and the City" has a quite low age certification in Europe, in Thailand, the country that serves as the capital of sex tourism and most crooked sensualities, relatively mild scenes of the movie are deemed "improper"

Coverage of dark rumors:

This disparity between what goes on in broad day light and shown in public, as well as blurring of a scene as a form of censorship, provides us with a quite helpful metaphor in conceptualizing the bizarre show Turkish politics have performed for the last two years.

These have indeed been confusing, polarizing and intense times. Yet, after all that has been said and done, what is new or unheard of with shady political and militant organizations, men in uniforms dreaming of a comeback to direct power, different classes and elites fighting for the upper hand, saucy theories involving foreign intelligence agencies and doomsday scenarios? The only difference is that this time around the battles have been fought in front of Turkish society and the international media. For the first time, perhaps, the dirtiest elements of the futile dynamics of Turkish politics have been exhibited in public and debated ad nauseam. What we always knew but never spoke and named became spoken and named out loud.

There are two reasons why age-old diseases became such public sensations. First of all, freedoms of expression and press have come a long way in this country and led to the unprecedented coverage of dark rumors, which would have meant the end of media outlets and journalists just six or eight years ago. Thus, perhaps for the first time in Turkey, the media has become so fragmented and independent that no particular group could claim absolute control over what was to be made public or what kind of interpretation would be the mainstream or official one.

This positive development has led to the second reason. The same inevitable information outpouring has created an imperative for interest groups to manipulate what is being shown on the screen. If one cannot stop the leak, one might as well try to control the flow or spin the reports towards the desired direction. Enigmatic statements by retired officers, allusions and indirect messages from the politicians, off record and quite broad information given by state officials, leaked memos and phone conversations have completely blurred the scene with a cacophony of partial or misinformation.

Different domestic media outlets have continued to cover Ergenekon and AK Party trials and Laicism versus Islam debates through their own political inclinations and what little "special information" has been given to them by their big brothers. Foreign media have read Turkey through their own domestic lenses of integration of Muslim immigrants, EU accession and unknown future of political and militant Islam.

Just like in the Thai one, the Turkish fog of morality has only resulted in mystifying the mundane power games and political pressures. Both domestic and foreign observers have been captivated and fixated with the blurred colors on the screens. Although the scene that has been censured was nothing sexier than what we have always seen, the viewers' sensuality has been aroused by the showing of a tiny bit of political skin - enough to catch our attention but not enough to satisfy our curiosity.

Just as a brief glimpse of a bra in a business meeting can excite a man more than seeing topless beach goers, the limited information we had access to provided enough sensuality for commentators to imagine wild fantasies.

Mundane and boring:

Turkey was becoming Iran. The same people who were concerned about a sneaky shari'a imposition declared Islam and the Turkish nation to be under attack from Western missionaries, who were after a sneaky mass conversion of Turkey into a Christian nation. President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan were ‘exposed' to be Jews, not "Islamists" as they look to be. "Learned" foreign observers foresaw civil war or an imminent military show down, and declared the notion of a Muslim majority democratic country a myth. In the middle of all of this, we have become children lost in a "forest of symbols,” as Baudelaire put it.

The current episode in the unfolding Chronicles of Türkiye is neither the last battle nor the most dramatic twist we have witnessed in the story of our adolescent Republic thus far. When the current fog of morality is lifted, our arousals cool off and we are able to reconstruct what we have not been allowed to see, we might all be quite disappointed with how mundane and boring the blurred scenes actually were.

Do Western women deserve what they get?

Published in Turkish Daily News, 28 July 2008

Not long ago, when I was still a budding postgraduate sociology student, I was thrilled to see a stand by the Muslim Society in the middle of the tiny road that is the “campus” of the London School of Economics. The stand was attended by a group of Muslim women covered in the hijab, who were asking those passing by to try one on to see for themselves how it felt.

I was fascinated by the creativeness of these women, who, I thought, were trying to challenge misconceptions about Muslim women in the West. I approached them with sincere appreciation and questions about their experiences during the day. After a couple of minutes of conversing, one of the girls told me a story, which shook me to my bones.

A dark story:

She was returning home late via a dark road. Right in front of her walked three white British girls, drunk and wearing miniskirts. A group of British men started verbally abusing the girls and asking them aloud for sexual favors. The drunken girls were rightfully petrified and did their best to run away. Then, my new Muslim friend reflected on the experience and pointed out that the men had not disturbed or said anything to her. She then proceeded with a passionate exhortation that if these girls had been more virtuous -- meaning covered -- they would not have ended up in that situation and that it was for this reason that rape was so common in the West. In other words, Western women were asking for it.

I have in fact heard and read this bizarre idea frequently in the Islamic world, but to face it in the middle of one of the most prestigious universities in the world was mere horror. As I struggled hard to control my temper, I pointed out to her that rape was as common, if not more, in the East as in the West, just as homosexuality, corruption and domestic violence were. I shared with her how the majority of the satellite pornographic channels were geared toward an Arabic audience, and how every computer at every Internet cafe I had used in the Islamic world was full of pornographic images in their browsing histories. In response to this I was told that I had been reading too much propaganda and that these were all lies. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who believes that there are no homosexuals in Iran, would be proud of her.

An Islamophobic liar?:

The worst thing, I continued to argue, was that even though rape is as common in the East as it is in the West, at least a woman has access to justice and protection in the latter. And one of the reasons why rape cases seem common is that actually women can and do report them in the West. I also added that premarital sex, prostitution and use of drugs were equally common in the Muslim world as any other place. Following this rebuttal, another girl manning the stand fell just short of naming me an Islamophobic liar. However, my criticism had nothing to do with Islam, but rather with problems in countries with a dominant Muslim population, which, according to the ladies’ faulty rationale, should have none of the things I pointed out. Having consumed all logic, truth and sincerity, I walked away truly disturbed.

To be fair, we are all vulnerable of falling into the trap of deeply believing in our own moral, cultural and intellectual superiority over those that are not one of “us.” Concepts such as ethnocentrism and logocentrism express inherent attitudes we all have, which blinds many of us to seeing the value of other people we share this fragile planet with. So in one sense to see the West as completely corrupt because it is not Islamic is not too far from the mistakes of those who see Muslims as violence-seeking, uncultured people trapped in the Middle Ages. Being aware of our own failures provides us with empathy towards those in whom we see our own weaknesses. There are serious problems in Western societies and none of us can blindly defend them. However, the problem in the Islamic world is not just that such reductionist and unethical representations of people from developed countries are seen as naked truths, but that they are hardly challenged by fellow mature Muslims.

What needs to be done?:

Whether this can be attributed to a religious cognitive dissonance (the disparity between what one believes about her community and where that community sits on a more realistic scale), a shame and honor worldview (believing that it is more important is to save face and have a good name, while not confessing or honestly acknowledging any shortcoming), or a mere inferiority complex (Muslim societies are often at the bottom of the economic, political and social development lists and hold a deeply internalized belief that they deserve to be at the top, believing they are not there because of the “Evil West,” but at least they can claim to be morally superior), is quite irrelevant.

If Muslims, particularly those living in Europe and North America, want to counterbalance the negative image of Islam brought upon their communities due to actual actions of extremists and less educated co-religionists in far-away lands, the least helpful attitude they could demonstrate is to adorn themselves with languages of perceived moral superiority over a “morally bankrupt” West. They would earn our genuine respect and adoration if they stop preaching feeble apologetic and aggressive sermons to us and actually combat serious social ills that drain the soul of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, and humbly address serious problems their communities have in integrating with Western societies.

Defamation of Islam and denial of human rights abuses

Published in Turkish Daily News, 14 July 2008

Something extremely important has been happening at the highest levels of international diplomacy and human rights mechanisms without much public attention. A series of resolutions, named “combating defamation of religions,” have been passed at the U.N. General Assembly and the U.N. Human Rights Council for the last couple of years following intense lobbying by the Organization of Islamic Conference, or OIC. The resolution was first drafted as a stand against “defamation of Islam” and for obvious political reasons it has been adopted as “combating defamation of religions.” However, the text still singles out Islam and seeks to protect Islam from any accusations of or association with human rights abuses.

Ways nations deny human rights abuses:

At its face value, the resolution asks for mutual understanding, respect and condemnation of racism and marginalization. Leaving aside the important questions of whether respect can be legislated or dictated, whether criticism of a religion counts as a human rights abuse or breach of international law, or whether in fact Islam is in such a vulnerable place that it needs legal shields more than other religions, a further probe may prove that what the OIC is trying to do is not to protect Islam, but its own member states.

Denial of human rights abuses always goes hand in hand with committing them. As Stan Cohen points out, these denials can be literal - i.e. nothing like that happened; interpretive - i.e. something has happened but it isn't what you say it is; implicatory – i.e. it happened but we are not the ones to be blamed. We hear these kinds of arguments all the time. “Our country does not torture, this is a false accusation.” “It is true that the suspects were arrested, but they were not tortured, only questioned.” “We are at war with terrorists, though measures have to be taken, who are you to accuse us?” In the age of global media and nongovernmental organizations, literal denial is almost impossible as sooner or later the truth emerges.

This has made the jobs of governments quite difficult and led them to develop extremely sophisticated arguments that spin and reinterpret the emerged truth. Yet, it seems that the Middle Eastern and Asian governments still favor either literal denial, even though there is solid evidence, or implicatory denial through which they launch an aggressive attack on those who challenge their human rights track record.

It is interesting that these governments have always picked on contemporary Western liberal languages while shamelessly covering the mistreatment of their own citizens. When the liberal analysis focused on ethics of interventionism, these governments accused the U.N., United States and European countries of “interventionism” and disrespecting their sovereignty. When Orientalism was named as a fantasy, any Western government, NGOs, writer or journalist who criticized certain nations, they were accused of essentialism and caricaturing the Middle East as “barbarian.” When Western intelligentsia's sensitivity toward reductionism and racism along with political correctness and fear of further clashes led to at times uncritical endorsement of the language of “Islamophobia,” these governments were quick to use this as a way of covering up their traces.

A religion cannot commit human rights abuses:

So now, the final act of using Western sensitivities for denial of human rights abuses is the seeming call for “respect” and the fight against “the defamation of Islam.” With this argument any criticism of governments and their immoral police and intelligence officers is portrayed, manipulated and represented as an attack on Islam. Given the political climate we live in, none of us would ever want to be accused of such a dangerous “crime.” However, just as literal or interpretive denial might seem smart but very feeble at the first serious counter argument, the arguments of “defamation of Islam” are equally feeble.

A religion cannot commit human rights abuses, since a religion is an abstraction and not a living entity. Human rights abuses are committed by individuals and only individuals are legally culpable. Therefore, if one condemns human rights abuses committed by the Saudi police, what is criticized is not Islam, but particular individuals who live in a certain location and time. In order to get rid of the “headache” created by human rights arguments, Saudi Arabia might declare that Islam is being attacked and defamed. In this way, Islam is instrumentalized to shield against the truth of moral failure of individuals.

The freedom of expression definitely has its limits. We have seen how marginalizing and making reports by the media scapegoats have played a key role in dehumanizing the mass murders of thousands of people in Rwanda and Kosovo. We have to continually fight against racism and its dissemination for the greatest and most absolute ethical imperative: Protecting human life. However, when arguments for limiting freedom of expression contradict the same ethical imperative, we should be speaking and criticizing as loud as we can. If a country or a people abuses its minorities and put their lives at risk, we should (and must) boldly challenge them, even though they might easily argue that our criticism is portrayed as “insulting,” “disrespecting” or “defaming” them. Failure to do so is to willingly sacrifice the living human being at the altar of abstractions, imagined communities and created ideologies.

Rights for all:

Those who read my writings would know; I defend the rights of Muslim women to wear what they wish as much as I defend the rights of non-Muslim women to wear what they wish. I speak about Guantanamo Bay and human rights abuses suffered by Muslims under the “war on terror” as loudly as I can for the same reason I will continue to speak as loudly as I can when Muslim nations commit horrible atrocities. Just as I refuse to accept guilt when my Western friends accuse me of “defending terrorists,” I will forever reject any accusations that I am defaming Islam. I am only, and proudly, defaming a particular political regime and fighting to protect the human.

Fethullah Gülen versus Ayatollah Khomeini?

Published in Turkish Daily News, 30 June 2008

Last week, Fethullah Gülen, the leader of one of the most dynamic and influential religious movements in Turkey, was acquitted of the charge of undermining the secular Republic, which had led to his moving to the United States. Although it is not clear when and if Gülen will ever return to Turkey, an increasing number of Turkish and a small number of foreign commentators are drawing parallels between Gülen and Khomeini and arguing that Gülen’s return might lead to the much-feared overnight metamorphosis of Turkey into an Iran.

A faulty comparison:

From a purely sociological point of view, what I find phenomenal about this comparison is not the theoretical richness it offers us for reading contemporary Turkey in conversation with Iran, or even the content of its analysis, but why this argument is made in the first place. The social context of why it is so fashionable to compare Turkey with Iran, and every now and then with Malaysia, says more about the politics of fear and failures of Turkish democracy than an imagined nightmare that Turkey is about to wake up to. Neither Iran nor Khomeini is a helpful comparison for Turkish politics or the future of political Islam in Turkey. Evoking Iran only pollutes a healthy analysis and encourages extremely reductionist discourses. Leaving aside its political misuse, any comparison between two countries is fundamentally faulty.

The first serious mismatch between Khomeini and Gülen is the overall political context. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 did not happen because of Khomeini or his return. The dynamics of the economy, poor governance and foreign intervention had led to a wide reaction against the Shah’s regime, uniting the voices of leftists, communists, clerics and apolitical middle-class merchants. The eventual clerical manipulation of the revolution and imposition of theocracy were unexpected outcomes of a reaction to a failed political regime.

Today’s Turkey is nowhere near as fragile as Iran was in 1977-79, nor is there such a unanimous or clear-cut feeling of reaction against the rulers of the land, or even a consensus on who is actually at the root of the problem. The fact that the AK Party is in power with 47 percent of the vote makes it impossible to have an overnight revolution or instant change, as Turkish society is divided almost evenly and no group can declare unchallenged dominance.

The second mismatch is seen in contrasting the appeal Khomeini had and Gülen has in their respective societies. Within the political vacuum that lacked a credible and trusted political figure, Khomeini eventually emerged as representing authenticity, faithfulness to Persian culture and values, virtue and humility, in stark comparison to the Shah and his elitist excesses. His political language, with its religious and socialist tunes, connected with the broad revolutionary imaginations of the people. That is why his return to Iran from exile initially appealed to everyone. Similarly, the notions of Mahdi, the anticipated return of the Hidden Imam added a Messianic aura to his arrival in Tehran on a French jumbo jet.

Gülen will not return to a society that is expecting him as the Savior or the true representation of Turkishness or the antidote to current political failures. Although it is true that Gülen’s imminent return would cause tensions, it would only be tensions created by political interest groups which would use his presence for their own ends, rather than a unanimous welcome that would lead to the overtaking of the country. Although the Gülen movement will increasingly become one of the most powerful social and political Islamic voices in Turkey, at the moment there is no evidence that the movement has plans for a concrete recreation of or enforcement of a new political system. For now, the movement seems to be resolved to influence society and politics with a tolerant, conservative and traditional Islamic faith.

The third mismatch is the difference between Shiite and Sunni Islam. One of the questions that has always troubled observers of the Islamic world is why there has only been one Islamic revolution, and that in Iran, a Shiite country, and nowhere else. Although some have unconvincingly argued that the reactionary roots of the Shiite faith have created a more aggressive political theology, this idea completely contradicts different voices and eras in Shiite theology, which have categorically rejected participation in mundane politics.

However, there is an important element of the Shiite faith that always makes it a powerful social force, which is the strong structural relationship and hierarchy between the clerics and their followers. Sunni Islam is closer to Protestant Christianity in its autonomous, scattered and organic nature, whereas Shiite Islam is closer to Eastern Orthodox Christianity with its hierarchical, structured and multiple leadership roles. This is why a single Sunni Muslim leader can never hold the same social power and unquestioned following that a Shiite leader might attract. Thus it would be very difficult for Gülen to exercise power and enforce a vision like Khomeini was able to.

Allow me to put it boldly: The Islamic Revolution of 1979 was only possible due to unique factors enabling it to happen, not because of Islam. Even though it has presented itself in the language of a return to Islam and authenticity, it was the first modern revolution that used modern political concepts, such as the nation state, along with modern tools of social mobilization and participation and previously unknown theological concepts such as the rule of righteous jurist. As the age of such political revolutions has died along with the Cold War, and the global realities make such sentiments almost impossible to actualize, I think it is reasonable to argue that there will never be an Islamic revolution in the Middle East again.

Egypt, a better comparison:

Yet what might happen, in Turkey and across the region, is a strong polarization between Western-style governance (widely referred to as “secular”) and the populist appeal of Islamism amidst the socially and economically depraved masses and disillusioned middle classes and the intense fight for power, control, dominance and influence this would translate into. We already see this in a host of Muslim majority nations, such as Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia.

However, Sunni Egypt is the most likely scenario that Turkey will find itself in, whether in its weak economy, failure of a mature democracy, weakening influence of modernist secular politics, increasing mainstream political participation of Islamist groups, collapse of rule of law and willful breaking of international law. Somehow, I have not come across any comparative analysis of Turkey and Egypt and no fearful column asking whether or not Turkey will become like Egypt. For me this possible outcome is a lot more worrying than the mythical Persian narratives.

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!