part time job via online

date: 5/6/2005

part time job via online

as turkey drifts toward islamization, some serious questions arise: is turkey even our ally? is turkish accession to the eu in america's interests? does the justice and development party (akp), which leads turkey's government, threaten turkish secularism? what policy should the bush administration pursue toward turkey? to discuss these and other issues with us today, frontpage symposium spoke to: dr. hans-peter raddatz, a scholar of islamic studies and author of four books, the recent being "die t?kische gefahr?" (the turkish danger?); michael rubin, a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute and editor of the middle east quarterly. he was previously an iran and iraq staff advisor in the office of the secretary of defense. his latest book, eternal iran: chaos and continuity (co-authored with patrick clawson) will be published in june 2005 by palgrave; and daniel pipes, (www.danielpipes.org) the director of the middle east forum and author of miniatures (transaction publishers). raddatz: needless to say that both are connected and in themselves multilaterally structured. it is true, of course, that the us is the world power as such and good relations with it are most important in the long run. on the other hand, however, the turkish government will not be able to negotiate on reforms successfully without at least a basic understanding with domestic islamic voters as well as with international islamic partners, mainly in saudi-arabia. it is continually neglected that akp's first loyalty lies with its orthodox islam version, its good relations to the muslim brotherhood and an extremely important project connected to both: an independent turkish-islamic settlement in germany and at least 10 million turks ready for emigration during the next decade. aside from the so-called reforms which have not been too convincing yet, and turkey's still difficult economic-financial situation, the upcoming accession talks have to be led very carefully. the eu public in general and the german one in particular have become quite sensitive as far as the credibility of turkish officials is concerned. as for your aspect of turkish secularism being jeopardized, one may wonder indeed in how far this country has been secularized at all. the doubts are twofold: turks are ethnic nationals in the first place. there may be negotiable room in islamic questions but there is none as far as turkey's dominant ethnical position is concerned. the connection between state an religion has always been very close, even through the kemalist period. only recently mr. erdogan - an islamist - stressed that he would "pursue the kurds into argentina", should they continue dreaming of their own state. moreover, it is a turkish specialty to keep governmental affairs inside a traditional oligarchy of political parties, big corporations, real-estate tycoons, powerful bureaucrats and leading representatives of islam. so far, the leadership of egalitarian interests has merely shifted from kemalists to islamists without jeopardizing the oligarchic understanding. for the time being, secularism and democratic institutions in the western meaning will certainly stay very weak. only since recently the eu officials have started to grasp the situation beyond their usual "win-win"- horizon, let alone the current german government which is running a distinct pro-islamic if not outright islamist policy. rubin: turkey is a friend. the question is how deep the friendship is. is turkey a friend like canada, britain, and israel are friends? or is turkey a friend like egypt and tunisia are friends? pipes: turkey has been a friend; but i have grave doubts about its future status. let me explain. i see turkey as a uniquely pliable country. what atat?k i see turkey as a uniquely pliable country. what atat?k accomplished, changing so much of the country in fifteen brief years, 1923-38, is a unique development (with the partial exception of the meiji restoration leaders a half-century earlier). he wrenched the country from one way of life and pushed it toward another, with considerable effect. i see recep tayyip erdoðan as the anti-atat?k. he is young enough, clever enough, and popular enough to stay in power as long or longer than atat?k and step-by-step, almost imperceptively, to undo the entire atat?k revolution. we have already seen the fruits of this in his two and a half-years in power: the refusal to help the american- led coalition eliminate the noxious saddam hussein regime, mein kampf becoming a bestseller, and the turkish public having among the most anti-bush attitudes of any population in the world. i do not know where this transformation will end, but if things go as i do not know where this transformation will end, but if things go as they have the past few years, i expect turkey before long to be more in the "foe" category, along with saudi arabia, than the "friend" one. raddatz: our discussion so far has shown that there are widely differing concepts of what secularism basically means. secularism cannot come into existence by an administrational act in a mileu antipatheic to secularism as was tried admirably in turkey by ataturk (mustapha kemal pasha). the mere fact that turkey has separated state and religion officially, has not really changed the attitude towards religiously motivated customs. the recent extremely violent police action against a demonstration of women in istanbul did not look very secular. mr. pipes has made a similar point. as long as we have to register a turkish government led by orthodox islam rules we may doubt a dominant democratic motive. unfortunately, we need to address my indication towards the old antagonism between nationalists and islamists which has hampered constructive policies since the last army intervention back in 1980. the ongoing nation-wide discussion of the so-called "turkish-islamic- synthesis" shows how seriously the turks themselves take their division between old traditions and the necessities of a new democratic order. also mr. rubin takes the matter too lightly if he thinks that the turkish democracy is already a complete affair. if he knew about the pressure on liberal journalists as well as the everyday circumstances in anatolia with arbitrary police action still going on he would think differently. when we concur on secularism as a common agreement on religion being excluded from political decision making in its practical sense, turkey has certainly started to move away from it since the islamist takeover in 2002. this has had some impact on germany as well. contrary to france and england we have a different approach here towards religion in general and the middle east in particular. it is not a short-term zeitgeist indication when the green-left government supports mr. erdogan where it can. there is a serious congruence among the two in anti-us and anti-israel attitudes. i said it before and i repeat it again: the german government is running a distinct pro-islamic policy which on the european scale is starting to stand out as some sort of ideological and unprofessional encumbrance. in other words: as far as secularism is concerned germany is becoming a political problem herself. meanwhile our politicians lack the necessary objectivity and distance they need to judge what we are talking about here. for them turkey is simply a friend regardless of what happens. the more serious result of this kind of selection is the very unsecular accumulation of islamist led ghettos in the big cities where german law has stopped being applied. you can observe demonstrations of islamist organizations in berlin and elsewhere burning the us flag and calling jews "animals" and worse while at least one member of the german parliament is marching with them. meanwhile in the official language the approx.100 muslim women murdered annually are called cases of "honour murders" which may show a somewhat unsecular sympathy with muslim motivations. by the same time erdogan and his foreign minister are pushing their radical mosque organization milli g??h (national vision) with big money indeed. wherever necessary they combine it with their "secular" religion ministry (diyanet) in order to smooth the local german environment. mind you, i do not blame the turks for taking advantage of this very favourable situation, i want to direct your kind attention to the very fact that german policies have a severe problem with democratic rules of checks and balances. the majority interest is simply not on their agenda. when some prosecutors are currently looking into our foreign minister's visa affair of uncontrolled immigration of at least 4 million people as well as his possible involvement in perjury cases attached you might stop talking about "fears". rubin: it would be a mistake to suggest that, because turkey separates religion and government, that there is not a threat to turkish secularism. the very fact that we need to debate the akp's intentions suggests there is. the two basic questions are whether the akp really respects traditional turkish values and whether turkish secularism is strong enough to withstand the akp agenda. the answers to these questions will determine to what degree turkey will remain a friend to the west's democracies. the akp's commitment to secularism is unclear. in may 2004, erdogan pushed an education bill which aimed to ease entry of religious school graduates into turkey's university system, basically allowing them to bypass secular state schools. while erdogan eventually withdrew the bill, its impact would have been enormous. if religious school graduates can enter regular universities, then they can win government jobs and yet never have had a secular, technocratic education. there are other troubling signs. there is nothing wrong with wearing head covering as an expression of religious identity, but not all head coverings are the same. that erdogan's wife and daughter where a style much closer to that promoted by saudi arabia rather than that traditionally worn in turkish conservative circles is worrying. so too is erdogan's choice of advisors. the u.s. department of treasury has frozen the assets of yasin al-qadi because of links to al-qaeda. the turkish newspaper h?riyet has reported that erdogan's closest advisor cuneyd zapsu was a business partner of al-qadi. erdogan's continued reliance on zapsu at a minimum suggests a lack of judgement, and at worse suggests his values are not always consistent with atat?k's legacy. the embrace of conspiracy theories by abdullah gul indicates a basic irresponsibility that is unbecoming not only on the world stage, but which also should be in turkey itself. at present, turkey's democracy is strong enough to withstand threats. but, it's important not to be complacent. the turkish electorate wants many reforms. and the akp is ushering in many in the name of eu accession. but, erdogan's delay in appointing a chief negotiator (besides himself) suggests an insincerity of purpose. there exists a real danger that the reforms will dismantle the system of checks and balances which have always preserved the core values of the turkish state, without replacing them with new checks and balances to protect democracy against all threats, whether the importation of a foreign ideology, an influx of agenda-based foreign capital, or a single party's desire to consolidate its control. pipes: i am pleased to learn that some observers of turkey believe "secularism is strong enough in turkey that it cannot be undone." i see secularism, however, as a work in progress, the cherished ideal of a rather small elite, and as turkey becomes more democratic and less guided by that elite, an ideal that lies in distinct peril. the current burst of antagonism to the united states is of less concern to me, as that could well be transient, the symptom of momentary factors. but i no longer have the sense i first had in 1973, when i lived in istanbul, that turkey is a country apart from the rest of the middle east and muslim world. it appears to be rapidly turning in that direction, becoming increasingly like its neighbors to the east. as for democracy, i expect the islamists who run the akp will ride the democratic process until the day arrives that they no longer find it serves their purpose, at which point they will circumscribe political participation or even terminate it. the people running turkey today are not true democrats, who accept the vox populi, but soft totalitarians who learned their lesson from the failed erbakan prime ministry of 1996-97 and intend not to repeat it. i have full confidence that they will not. fp: ok, so let's crystallize this discussion and everyone put their cards on the table: [1] yes or no, is it possible that when the islamists running the akp feel they are strong enough -- and the circumstances are convenient enough -- they might very well institute an islamic state? is it possible to deny that this scenario is realistic? surely this should be a matter of great concern? [2] what specific policies can the u.s. best pursue vis-à-vis turkey to try to slow its drift toward islamism? [3] is turkey joining the eu in america's interest? if eu membership means more prosperity and stability for turkey does this automatically mean that islamism will be weakened? or could it work against the u.s.? raddatz: our forum seems to lack little from respective argument acknowledgement. otherwise the muslim view of turkish integration into the german society would not veer as widely from reality as it does. clearly we are faced here with a typical elite type of wishful thinking which does not take into account neither german state security warnings nor democratic turkish interests over here. the latter are under severe akp-led islamist pressure and left alone by our own government. also the arab element is represented by the muslim brotherhood which maintains traditionally good relations to akp. we are talking about a very simple and very old question: how successful will the interested parties be in pushing the pro-islamist propaganda down peoples' throats? another old tool in this respect is playing down the influence of the party one wants to promote. if it is the turkish version of islamism, mr. rubin's remarks on its governmental behaviour should be taken quite seriously. mr. pipes brought it to the nitty gritty again: the current turkish policy is bluntly exploiting the eu expansion process on an oligarchic, non-democratic basis. as for the us angle i may add that akp is capitalizing skilfully on the german-french-spanish "axis" trying to develop some sort of "independent" middle east policy. the additional question here is how long the "axis" ideologists will be able to counteract against the us pragmatists, thereby currently producing a growing pro-us opposition in europe anyhow. the difference between the two is obvious: the "axis" needs some marketing concept to import turkey while the us can live with both options - accession or non-accession. by the way, the new opposition does not stop at the mere question turkey yes or no - it goes beyond that and attacks the oligarchic financial interests inside eu which are one of the very reasons for the strong pro-islamist standpoint. rubin: perhaps 85-90 percent of turks object to islamic law, but what people object to is meaningless if checks-and-balances erode. this is more dangerous given the lack of viable opposition in turkey. because parties must achieve a ten percent threshold to win seats in parliament, those that do can win disproportionate power. in 2002, for example, the akp won slightly over one-third of the vote, but took two-thirds of the seats in parliament. most voters cast their lot with the akp as a reaction against the corruption of the establishment. perhaps only ten percent of the turkish population agrees with the ideology of the akp. but, under guise of pleasing its constituency, the akp may pursue policies that impinge on the values that most turks hold dear. the inability or unwillingness of the akp to explain the sudden influx of undocumented money during its first year in office should also raise questions, not only of legality, but also of foreign influence on turkish politics. the akp has been masterful at channeling turkish nationalism. whenever akp diplomacy goes awry, anonymous party officials blame outsiders. one example of akp officials fanning nationalist flames for rather cynical reasons was foreign minister abdullah gul's decision to tell seymour hersh that israeli intelligence and kurdish peshmerga were collaborating in northern iraq. bluntly, gul lied. iranians, turks, and syrian intelligence are active in iraqi kurdistan. but gul created a story to whip of nationalist support for his own policy, in this case a desire to downgrade the turkish- israeli relationship. the akp has set turkey up for a train wreck. the special relationship between washington and ankara is a thing of the past. as mr. raddatz pointed out, there will be a strong nationalist backlash in turkey when the eu talks derail. european racism made turkish accession a long shot, but the akp has also mismanaged its end, whether because of incompetence or by design, i don't know. if european referendums turn turkish membership down, the akp will find it impossible to complain, having made "respect for the democratic will" a mantra after the march 1 vote. if turkey disparages all of its friends, it will be left alone. perhaps erdogan and gul will continue to reach out to russia and the arab world, but they are deluding themselves if they believe that either moscow or damascus and riyadh respect turkey. for washington, turkey will always be a friend but, i'm afraid, an increasingly distant one. fp: dr. pipes, go ahead. in your rejoinder to the other panelists' comments, kindly include what you would say to president bush if he asked you for advice on what policy his administration should pursue toward turkey. pipes: in reply to your questions, [1] i do expect that when the islamists akp feel strong enough and the circumstances are right, they will go attempt to reverse the atat?kist state and impose the shari`a in its full scope. this prospect should be a matter of huge concern. [2] u.s. options are not terribly attractive. one step is vocally to appreciate the military's role in staunching radical islam. a second one is to urge a change in the minimum needed for a party to win parliamentary representation, thus cutting into the akp's huge majority. [3] i used to be in favor of turkey joining the eu but changed my mind in 2003. i now see this as bad for turkey (being more influenced by europe) and bad for europe (its historic identity being further eroded). will prosperity and stability weaken islamism? no; there is no indication that these developments diminish the attraction of radical islam ?just look at its success in the united states, a prosperous and stable country. my advice to mr. bush is to stop pushing the eu to accept turkey as a member; and i would also cool relations with the islamist rulers of turkey. fp: let's start the final round. feel free to make your final remarks. raddatz: like it or not, turkey is quite united against kurds whenever their question comes up seriously. if you take the time and go into kurdish villages - if allowed at all - you may see for yourselves and hear from the people what the result of turkish "minority policy" is. i agree, however, that the us policy merely continuing the old play between radical and moderate parties follows old straits which will not suffice anymore in the future. interestingly, though, the turkish government is railing against the "two-tongued" american language in the kurd case while it stays mute about the saudi-arabian one which is, by the way, one source of the money mr rubin was wondering about. the signs of integration that our domestic prayer-wheels are praising incessantly are very superficial indeed and mainly restricted to the fields of press, tv and film which can be and effectively are designed to quite an extent. integration turkish style in germany means integration into a turkish community, separating itself from the german society and establishing its own legal system under islamic law and akp control. there is an almost tragic absurdity about this. by pushing its distinct pro-islamisic policy further on, the euro-"axis" - mainly germany, france, spain - thinks to set a counter-weight against the us-type of islam pragmatism, thereby only weakening itself in the long run. for those who believe that french muslims are less integrated than others one may mention the french experience with jacobinian thinking which utilizes democratic institutions for installing a radical movement. little by little the moderate forces (i.e. the majorities in europe) start realizing that it is not always "in their interest" to follow elite interests and that the islamic question could grow into an overall european question. as i pointed out in my recent book, due to a well-established pro- islamic ideology in europe and by its sheer demographic weight, turkey does not really need the eu accession to gain an important position in euro policies. what it badly needs, though, are better educated people who play things more convincingly towards the european public. insofar i have to tend towards mr. pipes' view. as long as akp is in power and keeps on fighting freedom of religion and gender equality, turkey's direction will be much more towards sharia than democracy. likewise europe will not be able to solve its migration and islam influx problems without a basic and long-term strategy including the united states. rubin: the special relationship with turkey is over. turkey will still be a friend, but not a partner. can turkey be counted on in the war against terror? no. turkey is rightly concerned about the pkk, but it has become remarkably soft on terrorism both by palestinian rejectionists and iraqi insurgents. it makes the same excuses about hamas and hizbullah that european states once did about the pkk. is turkey a force for democracy in the region? no. why else would the turkish government side with syria against the lebanese people? parliamentary speaker bulent arinc's statement that the national assembly (in which the akp holds an absolute majority) has the power to abolish the constitutional court undercuts the idea that the akp really values democracy. erdogan's intolerance for criticism from even the most mild editorial cartoon increasingly puts him in the same camp as bashar al-asad and hosni mubarak. for the first time, because of conspiracy theories spread by newspapers like yeni safak and pro-akp columnists, the average turk is more anti-american than the average greek. turkey is a democracy and it can chart its own path. whether turkey deserves eu membership and the degree to which america should support it is increasingly moot. france will not shed their fundamental racism. the akp may have sought to curry chirac's support by buying airbuses, but the french government has slapped turkey down. european officials will try to humiliate turkey. ankara is becoming more isolated than it has ever been before. i wonder whether this was the akp's intention all along. erdogan and gul are smarter than they are honest. if the akp can break the alliance with washington, brussels, and eventually moscow, then akp strategists may figure that turks will have no choice but to embrace damascus, riyadh, and tehran. it is a shame that the turkish-american relationship has fallen so far. i fear we are past the point of recovery. pipes: i second michael rubin's conclusions and add two observations. first, while radical islam in many ways parallels fascism and communism (the brutal drive to power, the totalitarian goals, the intent to defeat the west), it differs in one key way ?radical islam rides a wave of international popular support the other movements never had. this creates a dilemma for the bush administration, whose urgent push for democracy turns out to enable islamists to reach power. worse yet, washington is beginning to whitewash the islamists, and even the terrorist organizations among them. the government of recep tayyip erdoðan presents the most advanced and difficult form of this dilemma, however. though many wish to avert their eyes from his islamist background, foreground, and future, that ideology defines his prime ministry. is the u.s. government going to sit by, applauding, as he creates the islamic republic of turkey? second, there was a time several centuries ago when the ottoman padishah, living in istanbul, wrote persian poetry; and the safavid shah of iran, living in isfahan, wrote turkish poetry. i am reminded of that juxtaposition now, when the population of atat?k's secular turkey is ever-more seduced by the sirens of radical islam such as rules in iran; while the iranian population of khomeini's islamic republic ardently wants to shed its islamist regime and live more secular lives such as is possible in turkey. the race is on. unfortunately, islamists at the moment rule both in turkey and iran. the u.s. role should be to change that dynamic, asking how to wean the turks of their islamist proclivities without going through the full islamist experience. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?id=17982&p=1 ...........................000000000

part time jobs near me gas stationWork Experience Weekend jobs provide valuable work experience that can be added to your resume.part-time remote work from home jobs


part time job via online Service Unavailable

Service Unavailable


HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable.