Making sense of false media reports on Turkey

Published by Today's Zaman, 6 October 2011

I have never been interested in conspiracy theories or respected those who promote them.

So perhaps this article is the beginning of my own decline, but increasingly I am observing an interesting pattern of implausible news reports about Turkey emerging in the world media at critical junctures.

The first odd report that caught my attention was in a British newspaper, the Telegraph, which claimed that Iran had given $25 million to the Justice and Development Party (AKP) for its election campaign. While the Telegraph did not cite any sources, other than a “Western diplomat,” rumors among UK foreign policy circles pointed to Israeli sources. The amount that was said to have been given by Iran was peanuts compared to the riches of the business constituency backing the AKP, which was set to win the elections with or without Iran’s financial support. The claim was also made at a time when the Kemalist state elite were looking under every rock for pretexts to shut down the AKP, but none of these groups took this golden opportunity to bash the AKP. Eventually, the Telegraph issued an apology for the false report.

The second dubious case involves reports citing Pakistani intelligence sources as saying that a Turkish F16 pilot had joined al-Qaeda. Pakistan denied that it had ever discovered such a thing. The symbolism of the news was powerful, as it seemed to indicate that the army -- once the stronghold of secularism in Turkey -- and its most elite units were now becoming Islamists. Ironically, the same staunch secularism ensured that no Islamist or even a devout Muslim could ever have made it that far in the Turkish military. To this day, the number of Turks known to be involved in international terrorism is minuscule compared to the number of British, American, Pakistani, Somali and Saudi citizens known to be.


The third one was just last week. According to reports, the Turkish state tried to make a secret pact with Syria and pledged Turkish support to end the rebellion in the country if President Assad ensured that a quarter of ministerial posts would be given to members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Supposedly, Bashar al Assad’s refusal of the deal led to the recent “dramatic worsening” in relations between the two countries.

The same week, there was also news in the Cypriot press that Israeli jets threatened a Turkish vessel searching for natural gas sources in the Mediterranean. Both Israel and Turkey denied that such a skirmish happened. Given the precarious nature of relations between the two countries lately, if such a thing were to happen, Turkey would be sending its entire navy.

In all of these news reports, we see a subtext which attempts to show Turkey as an Islamist country that supports terrorism and has close links with rogue regimes, with a dangerous and sinister agenda to attack Israel and undermine the West. Leaving aside the epistemological problems in justifying the validity of such claims, the main question is who would want to promote such an image, and why? These reports almost always pop up at moments when Turkey is making unusual foreign policy decisions, or finds itself at odds with the interests of particular countries. Sometimes they are the products of sloppy journalism and commentators who see the world through their own ideological lenses.

The other possibility, equally plausible, is that an official spin doctor or a think tank pundit is trying to frame a particular image of Turkey for Western policy makers and public opinion. Misinformation, propaganda and setting the tone and language of the news are common tools used by governments and intelligence services. Some of these reports originate from various anti-AKP circles in Turkey, while some come from anti-Turkish circles in the US and EU and the Middle East. Even Syria tried to disseminate news that Syrians seeking asylum in Turkey had been raped and tortured. The desired outcome, no matter who is pursuing it, is to limit Turkey’s growing influence, undermine its foreign policy initiatives and imprison Turkey in the camp of “evil” countries, which need to be punished, isolated and not granted what they seek.

The bad news is that the average reader, who is exposed only to a small portion of unfolding events in the world, remains vulnerable to being easily manipulated by such news. The good news, however, is that the complexity of the international media, with its multiplicity of sources and technologies, makes such attempts fragile and weak. Ultimately, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn said, one word of truth shall outweigh the whole world.

Hudson Institute Talk: Defection from Islam

Hudson Talk: Defection from Islam from John on Vimeo.

Ziya Meral provides an overview of treatment of apostates in Muslim-majority states and communities today and explains why the issue of conversion from Islam is one of the most contentious issues in the Islamic world today. He presents the socio-political and cultural factors that lead to persecution. He notes that the issue of apostasy is often debated in abstract, especially in debates on Islam and democracy, but he says it is first and foremost an over looked human rights abuse committed by states.

Reflections from Tahrir square tonight























Unpublished Blog notes

I am currently in Cairo. Over the years, I have come to love this country and it's people with all of it's complexities. And the experiences of tonight brings home all the good and the bad.

When I heard the news that Copts were protesting by the television studio near Tahrir square, I thought about how much things have changed here. Copts protesting was unheard till very recently. The church leaders have always refused it, mostly out of fear and Copts never thought their exclusion will end anyway.

As I walked towards the area, it became clear that the protests have turned violent. Smoke was everywhere, and people were running and shouting. Then came the military in their riot gears, firing rounds and tear gas. Soon, I had my own share of the gas and joined running crowds.

Muslims were marching with Christians, defending rights and protection for all Egyptians. A Muslim told me that he is here to defend Christians. Then picked up empty shells on the road and showed them to me.

Protesters grouped by Tahrir square, and the military police sent more troops. More rounds.. More tear gas.. Then, a water cannon truck got stopped by crowds and torn down.

A young girl ran to me and asked me if I was a foreigner, I said I am. In perfect English, she asked me to run and go to any hotel I can enter. She said its not safe. And when I asked "what about you?", she said "this is my country. I will be here." Her genuine concern for me but disregard for her own life moved me deeply.

Eventually, I walked away from the area as my eyes burnt and I kept coughing.

Tonight, I saw first hand what I have been writing about and researching in Egypt for years now. Coptic youth are even coming against the Church's demands for calm and are now demanding a life equal with their Muslim compatriots. Since the impeachment of Mubarak, their situation only got worse. You can watch a TV debate I partook on the topic here!

But tonight, I was also reminded that the deep human longing for freedom and dignity are universal and inherent to all of us, whether Muslims or Christians or atheists. When it is denied, people will eventually raise their voices.

Now, the Egyptian media is playing a dangerous game and some army officials are asking Egyptians to defend their army. The reports make it look like only soldiers got killed and wounded, so as to signal the blame on protesters for escalation of the problem. It just goes to show, the Revolution is not done yet, but it is in the making.

The Giant Blind Spot of Human Rights NGOs

Published on Huffington Post UK Blog, 2 October 2011

Last week, a frantic panic dominated a handful of small advocacy groups about an Iranian Christian Pastor who has been facing death penalty for simply converting from Islam to Christianity. Their efforts started bearing fruit when the White House, US State Department, British Foreign Office and Foreign Secretary, France and EU issued public statements condemning his treatment.

Then, a host of media outlets including the Fox News, Guardian and Telegraph picked up on the statements by officials and highlighted the fact that more than 250 Christians were arrested in Iran since 2011, just for simply practicing their faith and exercising the fundamental freedom of conscience, thought, religion and belief as enshrined by the Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It was only after his case dominated international media, became a frequent topic in twitter and thousands signed up to groups on Facebook, did the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issue basic statements on their websites condemning his treatment. You know something is really wrong when a major human rights group pick up on a human rights concern after governments, mainstream and social media do with simple statements.

Sadly, lack of interest shown to Pastor Youssef's case by the big actors of human rights world is not a one off failure. It highlights a major blind spot that is raising serious questions about the work of mainstream human rights organisations. As a researcher focusing on the human rights issues in the Middle East and an advocate who has worked with various non-governmental and governmental bodies focusing on such issues, I have faced two bitter realities over the years.

First, persecution and exclusion of people on the basis of their religious affiliations and practices is one of the most common forms of human rights abuses in the world today and it is only getting worse as the notions of clash of civilizations and religious politics dominate the global arena. Second, issues surrounding freedom of religion and belief are rarely covered by mainstream human rights organizations, rarely reported by the international media, often ignored by local and international bodies and remain to be the least studied and developed aspect of human rights.

This has puzzled me for many years. According to the Pew Research Centre's August 2011 report, "Rising Restrictions on Religion", restrictions on religious practices and beliefs rose significantly between 2006 and 2009 in 23 countries, decreased in 12 countries and remained unchanged in the remaining 263 countries. Since the countries that restrict religions, the report states that " more than 2.2 billion people - nearly a third (32%) of the world's total population of 6.9 billion - live in countries where either government restrictions on religion or social hostilities involving religion rose substantially over the three-year period." While we, the activists, are over zealous in picking up every unknown and even the smallest of issues under the sky, we seem to be completely blind and mute to the sufferings of 2.2 billion people.

I believe that there are multiple reasons for this. The first one is that human rights groups face limitations from their mandates and resources, thus they can't be involved with every issue in every country they monitor. While this is understandable to a certain degree, the disproportional coverage of issues they pick and the no-cost of including religious freedom issues in their country reports lead us to ask further questions.

The second major reason is the blatant ignorance on part of individuals based in the West, who see religion as a matter of private belief, which are held by uneducated and often radical masses. While none of these are empirically based truths even in the West (please don't tell it to Richard Dawkins), religion remains to be one of the most important social factors and sources of identity in the world. Since British universities rarely even teach sociology and politics of religion, human rights departments rarely have experts studying or courses teaching these issues, a generation of jet setting activists and diplomats roam the world in utter blindness.

The third reason is the fear factor. Organizations and diplomats who notice the fast growing problem feel completely out of their depth and worry about being branded as campaigners against particular religions if they pick on religious persecution in a country. But if someone points to the persecution faced by individuals in India or Saudi Arabia, one does not attack Hinduism or Islam, but the failure of those states in upholding human rights and protecting their citizens. The lack of academic and policy research on religious freedom law and advocacy is paralysing even the most willing activists.

The fourth and the deepest reason is human psychology and tribalism that only sees the importance of human rights for people like themselves. People with certain political, cultural, religious and sexual orientations tend to only advocate for human rights for people like themselves, ignoring the suffering of other people who don't share these.

Sadly, through out the years, I have been in countless meetings and read countless human rights documents where human rights abuses were picked up or ignored according to the personal likes and dislikes of those advocating for them. I saw leftist and liberal Westerners dismissing suffering of conservative and religious individuals, Christian groups only caring for suffering of fellow Christians at the expense of turning a complete blind eye to the suffering of those of other faiths. And in return, I saw Muslims, Baha'is and Jews doing the same only for their own co-religionists and atheists just picking up cases like that of Salman Rushdie.

It is high time for human rights academics, researchers and advocates to put their biases, blind spots and arrogance that goes with them on the table and stop ignoring suffering of millions of people, just because they hold religions and beliefs other than themselves.  In the age of polarization and exclusion, religious freedom has become the litmus test measuring the extent of our commitment to human rights for all. Sadly, most of us are failing this test dramatically.

Tell me what you ask About Turkey, I'll tell you who you are

Published on Huffington Post UK Blog, 29 September 2011

Ever since Turkey's AK Party emerged, foreign observers have been asking one primary question; is Turkey becoming an Islamist nation and turning against the West? Each election result and each bold foreign policy decision have been analyzed through this worry.

The assumptions of this common question signal the new Orientalism that projects onto the world its own narrative and interprets and responds to events through it's own logocentrism. Political and social changes in the Muslim-majority states are read and analyzed through the prism of Western interests and anxieties over security. Just like in the story of the fisherman who had to let go of the bigger fish he caught because the frying pan he had at home was too small, in the same way the reality that does not fit into the shape of this lens is left out and seen as irrelevant.

For this very reason, Western observers simply could not grasp that what we were witnessing with the AKP was a new phase in the dynamic history of the relationship between politics and Islam. With a sharp break from its roots in modern political Islam that dominated the 20th century, the AKP formulated a pro liberal market, pro Europe, pro globalization and pro democracy framework that also seeks to uphold personal piety and morality with no desire to base the country on religious creeds. The AKP's mindset and constituency can be likened to Calvinists and Reform Christianity that modernized Northern Europe and played a major role in the making of the USA. They share similar political theologies and religious mobilization.



While commentators have not given up on their urge to see sinister Islamist agendas under every rock, the die-hard Islamists within Turkey and the wider Muslim world continue to see the AKP as a diluted form of Islamic activism. After all these years, the initial worries that Turkey was turning Islamist still look as distant as they were when the AKP won its first election, yet such commentary is still alive and kicking in the mainstream international media.

When the Turkish government finally realized that Turkey did not have any tangible foreign policy, except being a NATO and US ally, and that the aggressive nature of globalization required Turkey to adopt to a multi-polar world and diversify its interests, it had to act dramatically. Turkey simply had no other choice but to shift gears and become proactive in maximizing its scope of influence and business partners.

This triggered a new wave of worried commentary. Turkish rapprochement with Syria and Iran as well as with Hamas were amplified on global screens, as the fish that fits the intellectual frying pans, but the bigger ones such as attempts to normalize and enhance ties with Greece, Armenia, Iraqi Kurdistan, Lebanon, Egypt as well as Russia, Balkans, Latin America and Africa were left back into the river of partial perception.

The developments were read as just another "evidence" of Turkey turning its face away from the West, without any mention of what or whom Turkey was turning its face to. Not so surprisingly, there was also hardly any mention of the fact that the AKP has been the most committed party to pursue EU membership in Turkish history.

In actuality, Turkey has just been attempting to be an independent actor with multiple ties, using the complexity of its identity and affiliations to advance its national interests. Observers were merely finding evidences for their own preconceived ideas, thus concluding what they set out to conclude.

The ironic truth is that the questions asked about Turkey tell us more about those who ask them rather than the realities of Turkey and its foreign policy choices. If commentators want to make sense of on going moves by Turkey in the international arena and substantial social and political changes in the country, they must let go of old school perspectives and allow Turkey itself to show them its own mindset, questions and ambitions. Only then they can find genuine clues in assessing where Turkey is heading.

Public talks in September and October 2011

September 09: I am speaking at the "Liberty and Tolerance in an Age of Religious Conflict" conference along with a group of leading Muslim, Christian and Jewish thinkers and activists at the Berkley Center of Georgetown University, Washington DC.

September 10: I am speaking alongside Arik Ascherman; Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights and Rana Husseini; Muslim author of Murder in the Name of Honor at a dinner event with the title "How Muslims, Jews and Christians Pursue Peace Together",8:15 p.m.-10:30 p.m. at the Truro Church, Undercroft 10520 Main Street, Fairfax, VA 22030

September 27: I will be speaking alongside Dr Nazila Ghanea of Oxford University and H.G. Bishop Angelos of Coptic Orthodox Church at the Labour Party conference official side event in Liverpool chaired by Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, addressing the question "Will religious freedom survive the Arab Spring?"

September 29: I will be giving a lecture on current social and political changes in the Middle East and North Africa at the Radley College, Oxfordshire, UK.

October 11: I will be speaking at a conference in Cairo which will bring together Egyptian amd Turkish intellectuals to discuss common concerns and developments in both countries. The confernce is organized by the American University in Cairo and Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.

October 15: I am giving a talk with the title "Arab Spring and Social Media" at the Christian New Media conference held at City University London.

October 26: I will be giving a talk with the title  "Domestic and foreign policy challenges in Turkey and Implications for investors" at the Turkey: A World of Opportunities forum in London, organized by the Middle East Association.

My new book in Turkish is Out

Dear readers,

I am pleased to announce that my new book in Turkish, The Idiot: Nietzsche face to face with Dostoyevsky, has just been released by Kaknus publishing in Istanbul. It will shortly be available in most major bookshops across Turkey.

The book is a comparative study of Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky's life, thoughts and belief through Nietzsche's (mis)use of Dostoyevsky's novel The Idiot. Nietzsche uses the novel's main character as a type to deconstruct Jesus, but in the process misreads Dostoyevsky. What surfaces is a major clash on truth, God, morality, ethics and salvation of humanity between the two giant prophets of 20th century.

The book ends with a chapter on what reading Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky means in today's world and what we can learn from both of them.

Regards,

Ziya Meral

Public Talks in September

September 09: I am speaking at the "Liberty and Tolerance in an Age of Religious Conflict" conference along with a group of leading Muslim, Christian and Jewish thinkers and activists at the Berkley Center of Georgetown University, Washington DC.

September 10: I am speaking alongside Arik Ascherman; Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights and Rana Husseini; Muslim author of Murder in the Name of Honor at a dinner event with the title "How Muslims, Jews and Christians Pursue Peace Together",8:15 p.m.-10:30 p.m. at the Truro Church, Undercroft 10520 Main Street, Fairfax, VA 22030