[/penci_blockquote]
[penci_blockquote style="style-3" align="none" author=""]
[penci_blockquote style="style-3" align="none" author=""]2.12.2010.
Wikileaks και Αχμέτ Νταβούτογλου, Εναλλακτικές
Κοσμοθεωρίες
Π.Ήφ. Το βιβλίο στο οποίο παραπέμπει το άρθρο που ακολουθεί
κυκλοφορεί σε μερικές εβδομάδες και πάλιν από τις Εκδόσεις Ποιότητα. Έχει και
αυτό προταθεί από εμένα πριν από δύο χρόνια. Αποτελεί το επιστημονικό κείμενο
που βρίσκεται πίσω από το “Στρατηγικό βάθος”. Τώρα, εκτιμώ ότι θα πρέπει να
τύχει πολύ προσεκτικής μελέτης. Όχι μόνο από τους ειδήμονες που σίγουρα θα το
βρουν ως ίσως το πιο πρωτότυπο βιβλίο σύγκρισης της Ισλαμικής με την
μοντερνιστική πολιτική σκέψη και κοσμοθεωρία. Θα πρέπει να διαβαστεί και από
όσους είναι καλόπιστοι και όχι εντεταλμένοι να καταπολεμούν μανιακά την ελληνική
αποτρεπτική στρατηγική και με ακόμη μεγαλύτερη μανία να επιχειρούν μαζί με
ξένους να επιβάλουν στους ελληνοκύπριους και τουρκοκύπριους ένα παρά φύση γάμο.
Όπως έγραψα και στον ίδιο τον Νταβούτογλου σε προσωπική επιστολή που του
έστειλα και που θα δημοσιοποιήσω κάποια στιγμή, ο λόγος για τον οποίο πρότεινα
τα βιβλία του για δημοσίευση στα ελληνικά είναι επειδή οι διακρατικές σχέσεις
στερούμενες πολιτικό ορθολογισμό οδηγούνται σε πόλεμο. Και μπορεί, του έγραψα,
να κάνετε πλιάτσικο εις βάρος της Ελλάδας κατά παράβαση της διεθνούς νομιμότητας
και των ζωτικών της συμφερόντων, αλλά, με ζεϊμπέκικα και κουμπαριές των
Παπανδρέου και Καραμανλή (και τις ανοησίες των Κυπρίων), η Τουρκία και Ελλάδα θα
οδηγηθούν σε πόλεμο και δεν πρέπει να υποτιμά τι σημαίνει κάτι τέτοιο (και) για
την Τουρκία. Για να το πω και διαφορετικά, εκτιμώ από καιρό ότι εμείς πάσχουμε
πνευματικά ανίατα και διολισθαίνουμε στο τέλμα. Αυτό που έγραψα στον
Νταβούτογλου και εκτιμώ ότι είναι βάσιμη πρόβλεψη, είναι πως συμφέρει την
Τουρκία να μην κάνει πλιάτσικο εις βάρος των Ελλήνων. Κάποια στιγμή θα βρεθούν
με την ράχη στον τοίχο και κανείς ας μην υποτιμά τι συμβαίνει σε αυτές τις
περιπτώσεις. Τι παθαίνουν δηλαδή ο ηττημένος αλλά και “νικητής” και ο αμυνόμενος
και επιτιθέμενος.
Hiding in Plain Sight
You don’t need to get your hands on secret cables to learn
that Turkey’s foreign minister has a radically different view of the world than
American diplomats. Just read his dissertation.
BY MICHAEL KOPLOW | DECEMBER 2, 2010
As the explosive, ongoing release of
hundreds of thousands of State Department diplomatic cables shows, official
Washington is anxious about the direction that Turkey’s government is taking the
country — and particularly the influence of Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu,
long credited as the architect of its foreign policy. And judging by the
academic-turned-international-strategist’s doctoral dissertation, they have good
reason to worry.
The first batch of cables, published by
self-described whistle-blower organization WikiLeaks on Nov. 28, express the
unvarnished concerns of U.S. diplomats regarding the ruling Justice and
Development Party (AKP), which has recently improved Turkey’s ties to Iran and
Syria and engaged in a high-profile war of words with Israel following the
botched Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla in May. One November 2009 cable
says that U.S. officials were “wondering if it could any longer count on Turkey
to help contain Iran’s profound challenge to regional peace.” Another cable
quotes a Turkish government official saying that Davutoglu exerts an
“exceptionally dangerous” Islamist influence on Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan.
But the U.S. diplomatic corps shouldn’t
have had to wait for recent events to reveal to them the transformations that
Davutoglu had in store for Turkish foreign policy. His doctoral dissertation,
completed in 1990 at Istanbul’s Bogazici University and later revised and
published under the title “Alternative Paradigms,” yields some important clues
about his intellectual influences and guiding political philosophy.
The dissertation, written in English and
buried in a neglected corner of the university library’s reference collection,
is esoterically titled “The Impacts of Alternative Weltanschauungs on Political
Theories: A Comparison of Tawhid and Ontological Proximity.” It is a dense,
298-page tome regarding the different ways in which Western and Islamic
political thought justify political authority and conceive of political
institutions and actors. Foreshadowing Samuel Huntington’s famous “clash of
civilizations” thesis, its main argument is that the divisions between the
Western and Islamic world stem from an irreconcilable chasm between the
philosophical and political traditions of the two civilizations, and that both
sides can justifiably view the other as being ideologically intransigent.
As Davutoglu writes in his introduction:
“The fundamental argument of the thesis is that the conflicts and contrasts
between Islamic and Western political thought originate mainly from their
philosophical, methodological and theoretical background rather than from only
institutional and historical differences.”
Islamic revivalism in the Middle East,
Davutoglu contends, cannot be explained through sociological or economic
reasoning. His work systematically lays out the vastly divergent paths taken by
the two intellectual traditions, which he believes lead to important differences
concerning both state and society.
Davutoglu traces the arc of Western
thought on secularism, demonstrating that secularism is not a modern
characteristic of Western civilization, but a persistent element in Western
thought and institutions dating back to the pre-Westphalian era
that has simply been reshaped in the modern age.
Similarly, Davutoglu shows that the
Islamic idea of tawhid, or the oneness of God, is not only a theological
concept, but informs a practical theory of the unity of all aspects of life, as
opposed to the secular division of matters belonging to “church” and “state.” In
Islamic political theory, according to Davutoglu, it is “almost impossible to
find a political justification without reference to absolute sovereignty of
Allah.”
The bulk of Davutoglu’s dissertation is a
dispassionate analysis of political theory. However, there are a number of
places where he tellingly reveals his thoughts on the irreconcilability of
Western norms and institutions within Muslim societies. In one chapter, for
example, Davutoglu asserts that Muslim societies historically have not accepted
Western-style procedural or institutional state legitimacy, which depends on a
nontheological view of morality and legitimacy, because they are firmly
entrenched in a political culture centered on religiously driven values.
Similarly, Davutoglu also dissects the
differences between Western economic models, which he characterizes as seeking
to distribute resources with maximum efficiency, and Islamic religious-cultural
views, which he argues are more concerned with using economics to establish
social stability and justice. He observes that Muslim societies will not be
transformed by “imposed institutional transformation strategies directed by a
Westernized political elite” and argues that Islamic cultures segmented by
religious identity could not coexist with the socioeconomic class divisions that
are inherent to Western institutions and societies.
Davutoglu is more explicit about his views
on the compatibility of Muslim societies and Western state institutions in his
concluding chapter. He describes the Muslim world as a “very impressive and
consistent civilizational experience,” and asserts in the very next sentence
that an “Islamic all-inclusive weltanschauung [worldview] … is absolutely
alternative to the Western weltanschauung rather than complementary.”
Davutoglu attributes Muslim societies’
resistance to secularism to this fundamental difference, arguing that “scholars
and politicians who omit these fundamental differences will continue to be
puzzled by the increasing critical response of Muslim societies.” In the
dissertation’s concluding paragraph, addressing the Western challenge to the
Muslim worldview, he warns that “the oppressive institutional transformation
strategies being exercised against Muslim societies cannot overcome this
irreconcilability.”
Davutoglu doesn’t make any specific
reference to Turkey throughout his dissection of Western institutions and Muslim
societies. However, the recent history of his country — where a Westernized
political and military elite imposed Western institutions by force, going so far
as to launch multiple successive coups when it perceived a threat to the secular
order — could not be far from his mind.
Of course, like any foreign minister,
Davutoglu is now driven more by his country’s strategic concerns than by
philosophy. Turkey’s foreign policy makes sense from the standpoint of its
national interest without having to resort to ideological explanations, and a
non-AKP government would likely continue many of the same policies — from
seeking to expand Turkish influence in its near abroad to increasing economic
ties with oil-rich Iran.
Nevertheless, Davutoglu, while primarily
aiming for the realist goal of turning Turkey into a regional hegemon, is
clearly pessimistic on the ability to bring Muslim societies in harmony with
Western institutions — and there is every reason to expect that this belief
influences his views on Turkey’s stalled accession bid to the European Union and
its relationships with Iran, Israel, and Syria. As long as Davutoglu is still
directing things in Ankara, there are likely to be many more distressed cables
from U.S. diplomats in our future.
——————————-
http://wikileaks.antibaro.gr/cable/2010/01/10ANKARA87.html
[/penci_blockquote].