Russian
Imperialism Meets Delusions of Ottoman Grandeur
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the first of
your friends to like this.
Slightly edited version of an article originally published
under the title "Russian Imperialism Meets Illusions of Ottoman
Grandeur."
|
Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) says he doesn't understand why
Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) intervened in Syria, since
Russia "does not even border Syria."
|
In a 2012 speech, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, then foreign
minister, predicted
that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's days in power were numbered and
that he would depart "within months or weeks." Almost three and
a half years have passed, with Assad still in power, and Davutoglu keeps
on making one passionate speech after another about the fate of Syria.
Turkey's failure to devise a credible policy on Syria has made the
country's leaders nervous. Both Davutoglu and President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan have lately resorted to more aggressive, but less convincing,
rhetoric on Syria. The new rhetoric features many aspects of a
Sunni Islamist thinking blended with delusions of Ottoman grandeur.
On December 22, Davutoglu
said, "Syrian soil is not, and will not be, part of Russia's
imperialistic goals." That was a relief to know! All the same,
Davutoglu could have been more direct and honest if he said that:
"Syrian soil will not be part of Russia's imperialistic goals
because we want it to be part of Turkey's pro-Sunni, neo-Ottoman
imperialistic goals."
Erdogan's rhetoric on Syria blends
Sunni Islamist thinking with delusions of Ottoman grandeur.
|
It is obvious that Davutoglu's concern is not about a neighboring
territory becoming a theater of war before it serves any foreign
nation's imperialistic goals. His concern, rather, is that neighboring
soil will become a theater of war and serve a pro-Shiite's imperialist
goals. Hardly surprising.
"What," Davutoglu asked Russia, "is the basis of your
presence in Syria?" The Russians could unconvincingly reply to this
unconvincing question: "Fighting terror, in general, and ISIL in
particular."
But then Davutoglu claims that the Russian military hits more
"moderates" (read: merely jihadist killers, not to be
mixed with jihadist barbarians who behead people and cheerfully
release their videos). Translation: more Islamist targets and fewer ISIL
targets.
A legitimate question to ask the Turkish prime minister might be: What
is the basis of "moderate" Islamists' presence in Syria?
Could the basis be the religious bond? Could Prime Minister Davutoglu
have politely reminded the Russians that the "moderate"
fighters are Muslim whereas Russia is not? But then, one should ask,
using Davutoglu's logic, "What is the basis of the U.S.-led Western
coalition's airstrikes in Syria?" Since when are the Americans,
British, Germans and French Muslims?
In Turkish thinking, there is just one difference between non-Muslim
Russia's presence in Syria and non-Muslim allies' presence: The
non-Muslim Russians seriously threaten the advancement of our pro-Sunni
sectarian war in the Levant, whereas the non-Muslim allies can be
instrumental in favor of it. Hence Turkey's selective objection to some
of the non-Muslim players in Syria.
For Davutoglu, only countries with
regional ambitions convergent with Turkey's have the right to tamper in
former Ottoman lands.
|
Earlier in 2015, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said
that he found it difficult to understand what Russia was doing in Syria,
since "it does not even border Syria." By that logic, Turkey
should not be "doing anything" in the Palestinian territories,
Somalia, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan or any of the non-bordering lands
into which its neo-Ottoman impulses have pushed it over the past several
years. By the same logic, also, Turkey should be objecting to any allied
(non-Muslim) intervention in Syria, or to any Qatari or Saudi
(non-bordering) intervention in the Syrian theater.
In the unrealistic imperial Turkish psyche, only Turkey and the
countries that pursue regional ambitions convergent with Turkey's can
have any legitimate right to design or re-design the former Ottoman
lands.
Such self-righteous and assertive thinking can hardly comply with
international law. The Turks and their imperial ambitions have already
been declared unwelcome in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and
Iraq. Nor would such ambitions be welcomed in any former Ottoman land to
Turkey's west. But if, as Turkey's Islamists are programmed to believe,
"historical and geographical bonds" give a foreign nation the
right to design a polity in another nation, what better justification
could the Russians have had for their post-imperial designs in Crimea?
When they have a moment of distraction from their wars against Western
values, the West, Israel, Jews or infidels, the Sunni and Shiite
Islamists in the Middle East fight subtle-looking (but less subtle than
they think) and cunning (but less cunning than they think) wars and proxy
wars, and accuse each other of pursuing sectarian policies. Turkey's rulers
are no exception.
Burak Bekdil is an Ankara-based
columnist for the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News and a fellow at the
Middle East Forum.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment