Tweet
Yes We Can! Part I
Asbarez
Jan 15th, 2010
BY HENRY D. ASTARJIAN M.D.
Some dream of it, many don't! When contemplated, many say it is
impossible! When brought to focus they give you a hundred reasons as
to why it is a losing proposition; the faint hearted freeze at the
thought; The ones who have guts to face the issue, don't have
leadership, yet the leadership of the major political parties do not
even have it on their radar screen! Or if they do, they tremble before
its challenges! The issue on their political platform like Maurice
Ravel's Bolero, is repetitious, rhetorical, and aimless. Yet they
manipulate the emotions of their audiences by uttering the cliché
rhetoric `Miatsial Azad Angakh Hayastan' (United Free Sovereign
Armenia). This is the topic which generates all that is mentioned
above, and it is the height of hypocrisy. People would not tolerate it
anymore; the political Parties would lose whatever credibility they
have left - which is less than that of the Congress of the United
States- and the legitimacy of their leadership would further
deteriorate to incredulity.
Miatsial Azad Angakh Hayastan!
The concept is right, the cause is legitimate and just, the task is
difficult, and to some, who are oblivious to the vagaries of the
political situation, it is unrealistic at best. These are people who,
given a successful project will give you ten reasons why it will not
succeed.
The situation of all these factions is fully understandable; Armenian
Diaspora, though fully recovered physically, is severely traumatized
psychologically to a degree that mere mention of Turkey generates
hatred, disgust, and anger. Even the third generation Diasporan
Armenian, talks about their ancestral home in `Turkish Armenia', and
recant the stories of horror, death and destruction that the Turks and
some Kurds, mostly of Zaza tribe, have inflicted upon its innocent,
most valuable citizens, the Armenians, the Assyrians, and of late the
Kurds.
To these people, Turkey is a giant; it is a member of NATO, it is
indispensable in implementing the policies of the United States in the
region, it is an ally of Israel, it is a counterbalance to Iran, and
can check Syria anytime. It has a unique strategic land mass, which
enables her to control the Black sea despite the international
treaties regulating naval passage. For all these reasons, and more
Turkey is untouchable.
This is how Turkey looks from outside! What is inside is another
matter. Kemal Ataturk's pronouncement of Turkey being `Independent,
layik, and democratic' has completely failed. Turkey is neither of
those; Turkey may be relatively independent, but is neither secular
nor democratic. One man one vote does not make democracy, and I am not
even talking about Jeffersonian democracy; democracy is a way of life,
which Turkey does not have, makes no effort to achieve, and can not
achieve even if its rulers desired it, though they don't.
Claimed secularism is contrary to the realities of Turkish society,
which is Islamist, it is Islamist, it is Islamist, despite Turkish
official denial. And the dominant sect is the Naqshbandi branch of
Islam., which is now in power. This sect has many branches, of which
the Golden Chain Naqshbandi-Haqqani, globally headed by Sheikh Nazim
al-Qubrisi of Cyprus, is the most influential in Turkey. To this sect
belong Necmettin Erbakan ( The mid 1990s Prime Minister of Turkey who
was tried and convicted for embezzlement, stashing 140 kilos of gold,
later pardoned by his ally, President Abdullah Gul), Recep Tayyip
Erdogan (Turkey's Prime Minister), and Abdullah Gul (Turkey's
President).
It is this clique which has been elected by Turkey's people,
admittedly in a democratic way. So, if Turkey is secular, how did
these Naqshbandi Islamists come to power?
The year was 1993. In a rally in Berlin, sheikh Nazim al-Qubaisi was
introduced as the lead speaker. A long white bearded, turbaned man
with bulged eyes ascended the podium acknowledging the thunderous
applause of the audience, by glorifying God: `Allaahu Ekber', which
echoed `Allaahu Ekbar' in the huge stadium, by their pronouncement,
you could tell they were not Arabs. He was the epitome of the sheikhs
and mullahs of the Ottoman era Turkey, who preached in mosques during
the Friday Prayers, calling for the annihilation of the infidel
Armenians and Assyrians, and asserting the supremacy of Islam, as
being the Deen-ul-Haqq (The legitimate religion) and the Khalif, the
Khalif of All Muslims.
His speech spewed rhetorical flame asking the audience to win the
battle against the infidels. To me he looked and behaved like the
Ottoman General, who rallied his troops at the gates of Vienna, before
being soundly defeated.
In the audience, seated in the front row, were non other than Erbakan,
Erdogan, and Abdulla Gul; the present top brass of Turkey.
This situation does not sit well with the Kemalists, especially the
military hierarchy. Their prophet is the Free Mason Kemal Ataturk
whose orientation was secularism European style. To achieve that he
beheaded hundreds of sheikhs and mullahs, like Sheikh Qubrusi
including Kurds. The mere existence and strong presence of the
Islamist government is a prime indication of the death of Kemalism.
For some wishful thinkers, it is morbidly wounded, but not quite dead
yet; for them Ataturk remains to be their prophet, yet for the
Islamists the real prophet is Mohammed, and rightfully so.
There exists bitter enmity between the Army, the guardian of Ataturk
doctrine, and the Islamist government, which is the true
representative of the people. The army, the guardian of the faith, has
ruled Turkey with iron fist, since the inception of the `Secular
Republic'. They continue to muzzle free speech; hundreds of
journalists, including our Hrant Dink, have been tried and convicted.
Utter criticism of the government is construed as `Insulting
Turkishness' requiring punishment. This is none other than Pavlovian
control of the mind Turkish society is thus split. Turkey's society is
even more fragmented; Kurds and their non-Kurdish sympathizers, on one
side, and the establishment on the other.
This clash of faith and philosophy is Turkey's Main dilemma, and might
be cause for its transformation to another entity, especially when the
Kurdish Cause is entered into the equation. Could the condition be
changed?
This is Turkey to which the corrupt Armenian Government is cow-towing,
trashing the Nations interests. See you next week!
Asbarez
Jan 15th, 2010
BY HENRY D. ASTARJIAN M.D.
Some dream of it, many don't! When contemplated, many say it is
impossible! When brought to focus they give you a hundred reasons as
to why it is a losing proposition; the faint hearted freeze at the
thought; The ones who have guts to face the issue, don't have
leadership, yet the leadership of the major political parties do not
even have it on their radar screen! Or if they do, they tremble before
its challenges! The issue on their political platform like Maurice
Ravel's Bolero, is repetitious, rhetorical, and aimless. Yet they
manipulate the emotions of their audiences by uttering the cliché
rhetoric `Miatsial Azad Angakh Hayastan' (United Free Sovereign
Armenia). This is the topic which generates all that is mentioned
above, and it is the height of hypocrisy. People would not tolerate it
anymore; the political Parties would lose whatever credibility they
have left - which is less than that of the Congress of the United
States- and the legitimacy of their leadership would further
deteriorate to incredulity.
Miatsial Azad Angakh Hayastan!
The concept is right, the cause is legitimate and just, the task is
difficult, and to some, who are oblivious to the vagaries of the
political situation, it is unrealistic at best. These are people who,
given a successful project will give you ten reasons why it will not
succeed.
The situation of all these factions is fully understandable; Armenian
Diaspora, though fully recovered physically, is severely traumatized
psychologically to a degree that mere mention of Turkey generates
hatred, disgust, and anger. Even the third generation Diasporan
Armenian, talks about their ancestral home in `Turkish Armenia', and
recant the stories of horror, death and destruction that the Turks and
some Kurds, mostly of Zaza tribe, have inflicted upon its innocent,
most valuable citizens, the Armenians, the Assyrians, and of late the
Kurds.
To these people, Turkey is a giant; it is a member of NATO, it is
indispensable in implementing the policies of the United States in the
region, it is an ally of Israel, it is a counterbalance to Iran, and
can check Syria anytime. It has a unique strategic land mass, which
enables her to control the Black sea despite the international
treaties regulating naval passage. For all these reasons, and more
Turkey is untouchable.
This is how Turkey looks from outside! What is inside is another
matter. Kemal Ataturk's pronouncement of Turkey being `Independent,
layik, and democratic' has completely failed. Turkey is neither of
those; Turkey may be relatively independent, but is neither secular
nor democratic. One man one vote does not make democracy, and I am not
even talking about Jeffersonian democracy; democracy is a way of life,
which Turkey does not have, makes no effort to achieve, and can not
achieve even if its rulers desired it, though they don't.
Claimed secularism is contrary to the realities of Turkish society,
which is Islamist, it is Islamist, it is Islamist, despite Turkish
official denial. And the dominant sect is the Naqshbandi branch of
Islam., which is now in power. This sect has many branches, of which
the Golden Chain Naqshbandi-Haqqani, globally headed by Sheikh Nazim
al-Qubrisi of Cyprus, is the most influential in Turkey. To this sect
belong Necmettin Erbakan ( The mid 1990s Prime Minister of Turkey who
was tried and convicted for embezzlement, stashing 140 kilos of gold,
later pardoned by his ally, President Abdullah Gul), Recep Tayyip
Erdogan (Turkey's Prime Minister), and Abdullah Gul (Turkey's
President).
It is this clique which has been elected by Turkey's people,
admittedly in a democratic way. So, if Turkey is secular, how did
these Naqshbandi Islamists come to power?
The year was 1993. In a rally in Berlin, sheikh Nazim al-Qubaisi was
introduced as the lead speaker. A long white bearded, turbaned man
with bulged eyes ascended the podium acknowledging the thunderous
applause of the audience, by glorifying God: `Allaahu Ekber', which
echoed `Allaahu Ekbar' in the huge stadium, by their pronouncement,
you could tell they were not Arabs. He was the epitome of the sheikhs
and mullahs of the Ottoman era Turkey, who preached in mosques during
the Friday Prayers, calling for the annihilation of the infidel
Armenians and Assyrians, and asserting the supremacy of Islam, as
being the Deen-ul-Haqq (The legitimate religion) and the Khalif, the
Khalif of All Muslims.
His speech spewed rhetorical flame asking the audience to win the
battle against the infidels. To me he looked and behaved like the
Ottoman General, who rallied his troops at the gates of Vienna, before
being soundly defeated.
In the audience, seated in the front row, were non other than Erbakan,
Erdogan, and Abdulla Gul; the present top brass of Turkey.
This situation does not sit well with the Kemalists, especially the
military hierarchy. Their prophet is the Free Mason Kemal Ataturk
whose orientation was secularism European style. To achieve that he
beheaded hundreds of sheikhs and mullahs, like Sheikh Qubrusi
including Kurds. The mere existence and strong presence of the
Islamist government is a prime indication of the death of Kemalism.
For some wishful thinkers, it is morbidly wounded, but not quite dead
yet; for them Ataturk remains to be their prophet, yet for the
Islamists the real prophet is Mohammed, and rightfully so.
There exists bitter enmity between the Army, the guardian of Ataturk
doctrine, and the Islamist government, which is the true
representative of the people. The army, the guardian of the faith, has
ruled Turkey with iron fist, since the inception of the `Secular
Republic'. They continue to muzzle free speech; hundreds of
journalists, including our Hrant Dink, have been tried and convicted.
Utter criticism of the government is construed as `Insulting
Turkishness' requiring punishment. This is none other than Pavlovian
control of the mind Turkish society is thus split. Turkey's society is
even more fragmented; Kurds and their non-Kurdish sympathizers, on one
side, and the establishment on the other.
This clash of faith and philosophy is Turkey's Main dilemma, and might
be cause for its transformation to another entity, especially when the
Kurdish Cause is entered into the equation. Could the condition be
changed?
This is Turkey to which the corrupt Armenian Government is cow-towing,
trashing the Nations interests. See you next week!