![]() |
![]() |
07/25/08
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
August
06, 2007 There are strong arguments to justify both viewshence the extraordinary importance of what is going on these days in a country that could be more pivotal even than Pakistan for the Wests relationship with Islam. Before he was first elected prime minister in 2002, Erdogan did little to hide his Islamist convictions. His Justice and Development Party and many of his voters were clearly intent on rolling back the frontiers of the secular state built after World War I and letting religious dogma infiltrate Turkeys institutions. But since gaining power, Erdogan has been careful, for the most part, not to give ammunition to the Westernized intellectual elites and the middle classes terrified of Islamization. Instead, he has opened up the economy with astounding results, relaxed some of the authoritarian vestiges of the militarized republic he inherited, and started negotiations for entry into the European Union. Yes, a few months ago he tried to get his foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, whom many perceive as a threat to secularism, appointed president. That triggered a ferocious response from many Turks, especially the militarythe traditional and ruthless guarantor of Ataturks secular legacy. But even though the Turkish electorate vindicated Erdogan at the polls a few days ago by re-electing him, he has signaled that he will seek a less controversial figure to fill the presidency, a ceremonial though influential post. He has also promised further liberalization, something that would make it hard to push an Islamist agenda later on even if this was all a tactical ploy to avoid an early confrontation with the military. Unlike Iran, where the shahs forceful secularism provoked a fanatical Shiite revolution, Turkeys authoritarian secularism has so far led to a sort of Islam lite that could conceivably, if Erdogan and his successors continue along the current path, hold fundamentalism in check through democracy and global economics. That would mark a steep contrast with Syria, Egypt and Algeria, where the weapon against jihadism has been corrupt despotism. Of course, we cannot yet be certain of what Erdogan has in mind. At this stage, nobody knows if Erdogan really wants to reconcile Islam and the West, establishing a worthy precedent in a Muslim world currently caught between the rock of autocratic rule that uses fundamentalism as an excuse and the hard place of an Islamic radicalism that the masses perceive as the only effective opposition. There is certainly a danger that the Turkish government might be using the good will it has generated in many Western quartersincluding the European Unionto finish off the defenders of the secular republic and clear the way for a future Islamization. To judge by his crushing victory and by the fact that the party founded by Ataturk has been reduced to a mere 21 percent of the vote, Erdogans adversaries have already been weakened. So, should the world take the risk of trusting Erdogan? There does not seem to be a better option right now. The military is not a wise alternative and there are so many burning issues in Turkeystarting with the unresolved Kurdish question that could open up another front in the Iraq Warthat any attempt to bring fundamentalists into the government would likely set the nation aflame. In fact, the European Unions initial resistance against Turkeys entry has probably strengthened Islam among many younger Turks tired of being ruled indirectly by a military establishment perceived as an ally of the West through NATO. Every Western-backed authoritarian attempt at stemming fundamentalism in the Middle East has actually fueled radical Islam. Perhaps its time to give this moderate version a chance to prove itself. So far, it has worked through the republican system, embraced democracy and capitalism, and knocked at the doors of the West. That cannot possibly be to Osama bin Ladens liking and it must make some of the Sunni despots in the region nervous.
Charles V. Peña is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute as well as a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, senior fellow with the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute, and an adviser on the Straus Military Reform Project. Full Biography and Recent Publications
William Ratliff is Adjunct Fellow at the Independent Institute, Research Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and a frequent writer on Chinese and Cuban foreign policies.
Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute and Assistant Editor of The Independent Review. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, Evaluator-in-Charge (national security and intelligence) for the U.S. General Accounting Office, and Investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Full Biography and Recent Publications
Jonathan J. Bean is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor of History at Southern Illinois University, and editor of the forthcoming book, Race and Liberty: The Classical Liberal Tradition of Civil Rights.
Anthony
Gregory is a Research Analyst at The Independent Institute. He earned
his bachelor's degree in American history from the University of California
at Berkeley and gave the undergraduate history commencement speech in
2003. In addition to his work with the Independent Institute, he regularly
writes for numerous news and commentary web sites, including LewRockwell.com,
Future of Freedom Foundation, and the Rational Review.
Dominick T. Armentano is professor emeritus in economics at the University of Hartford (Connecticut) and a research fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. He is author of Antitrust & Monopoly (Independent Institute, 1998).
Alvaro Vargas Llosa is director of The Center on Global Prosperity at The Independent Institute. He is a native of Peru and received his B.S.C. in international history from the London School of Economics. He is widely published and has lectured on world economic and political issues including at the Mont Pelerin Society, Naumann Foundation (Germany), FAES Foundation (Spain), Brazilian Institute of Business Studies, Fundación Libertad (Argentina), CEDICE Foundation (Venezuela), Florida International University, and the Ecuadorian Chamber of Commerce. He is the author of the Independent Institute books The Che Guevara Myth and Liberty for Latin America. Full biography and recent publications.
Robert
Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute,
author of Against Leviathan and Crisis and Leviathan, and editor of the
scholarly quarterly journal, The Independent Review. Click
here for a bio on Dr. Higgs, the noted economist and historian.
William Marina is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and Professor Emeritus of History at Florida Atlantic University. David
T. Beito is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Associate
Professor of History at the University of Alabama, and co-editor of
the book, The
Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society. For further articles and studies, see the Center on Peace & Liberty and OnPower.org.
For further information, see the Independent Institutes book on wasteful farm programs, Agriculture and the State: Market Processes and Bureaucracy, by Ernest C. Pasour, Jr.
|
How Government Destroys Moral Character How Would Latin Americans Vote on Nov. 7? Revisiting Iran-Contra: The Nomination of Robert Gates Economic Coercion Is Not an Effective Foreign Policy Tool U.S.Exacerbated Civil War in Another Nation: Somalia Will the Democrats Save Our Civil Liberties? U.S. Escalation Doomed by Shiite Opposition Rebellion Over Iraq: Son Against Father Demagoguery Posing as Scholarship Wasting Billions on Military Spending A Foreign Policy that Only Tarzan Could Love Wilberforce and the Roots of Freedom Another U.S. Escalation in Afghanistan? Containing Iraqs Civil War Is Not the Answer China Returns Fire on U.S. Human Rights Abuses Ratcheting Up Sanctions on Iran Is the Wrong Approach Kudos for Nancy Pelosis Visit to Syria Chertoff Uses Totalitarian Comparisons To Defend War on Terror Missile Defense Obsession Lessens U.S. Security Time for Iraqi Self-Determination Pakistan Is Going Down the Road of the Shahs Iran The U.S. Military Presence in South Korea Is Not a Model for Iraq A Responsibility to Help Iraqi Refugees Accept Reality: Iran and North Korea Will Not Be Denied Nuclear Weapons The Return of Fidel Castro and Post-Fidel Cuba More Intervention Equals More Proliferation Would a Full-Blown Iraqi Civil War Really Be that Bad for the United States? If You Miss the First Time, Try Firing Another 300,000 Rounds
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |