‘Window to the Future’

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2342

Newsweek: Expect to hear a lot more of the name Ahmet Davutoglu. The former university professor who became Turkey’s foreign minister last year is the man behind Ankara’s landmark new diplomatic outreach, including a previously unimaginable rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia and a new warmth with Syria.

Some Western analysts are dismayed at these developments, interpreting them as a sign that Turkey is turning East at the expense of the West. The mild-mannered Davutoglu typically gets angry at these suggestions, saying these comments come from those who begrudge Turkey its expanding role in the region.

Yet while Davutoglu is no stranger to Turkish politics—he began serving as chief foreign-policy adviser to the ruling AKP in 2002—he remains something of a cipher, even in his home country. To remedy that, NEWSWEEK’s Turkish-language partner, NEWSWEEK Türkiye, recently examined the forces that shaped Davutoglu and how he is changing relationships with Turkey’s neighbors in the Middle East, the Balkans, and the Caucasus.

Some of the highlights from the magazine’s comprehensive profile, written by Yenal Bilgici with reporting by Semin Gümüsel and Nevra Yaraç:

Davutoglu risked the deadly Izmit earthquake to save the manuscript of his signature book, Strategic Depth: Turkey’s International Position, which lays out the conceptual framework for what he now calls his “zero problems with neighbors”policy. When the shaking started on Aug. 17, 1999, he managed to flee his endangered Istanbul home unharmed—but then ignored warnings of aftershocks to dash back into the house and eject the computer disk containing his years of work. Now in its 30th printing, the book brought him national and international recognition.

The foreign minister is a somewhat reluctant politician. After Turkey’s ruling AKP won the elections of 2002, he turned down requests to serve in the government and opted instead to continue his university work while serving as an adviser to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Five years later, he was on the verge of a full-time return to academia when rebels from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) attacked the Daglica military post in Turkey’s eastern city of Hakkari, killing 13 soldiers. “I cannot leave now,” Davutoglu told his inner circle. Instead, he stayed on to take up the position of foreign minister and facilitate recent agreements aimed at granting long-denied rights to the Kurdish minority and ending two decades of attacks by the PKK.
The peripatetic minister went to 13 countries in October alone, raising Turkey’s diplomatic profile to its highest level in years. Indeed, Davutoglu won unprecedented praise in Arabic media, like the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, where a columnist begged the foreign minister to help solve Lebanon’s problems as well. “You carry ideas, aspirations, solutions, and medicine in your luggage,” wrote the columnist. “You are the window to the future.”

Davutoglu may be known for his temperate demeanor, but he has little patience with Ankara’s political elites and their unassertive approach to diplomacy. “These rootless elites are conditioned to not being noticed and not taking initiative rather than coming to the front and being decisive during critical periods,” he wrote in an uncharacteristically sharp tone in Strategic Depth. “They think of being passive as a safer and risk-free policy.” These criticisms, writes Bilgici in NEWSWEEK Türkiye, are a beginner’s guide to understanding Davutoglu and his policy. The second pointer to his character: the minister’s constant use—and embodiment—of the term “self-confidence.”

Davutoglu is also known for his work ethic and self discipline. A family friend told NEWSWEEK Türkiye that, while working on his book, the professor once spent three straight days without leaving his chair. A former student says Davutoglu believes that sleeping eight hours a night is a luxury. “We do not have the right to sleep this much,” he frequently told the student.

Davutoglu’s conscientiousness manifested itself at a relatively early age. As a high-school student at the prestigious Istanbul High School for Boys, where he was taught by German teachers who had come to Turkey during World War II, he presented his teachers with ambitious reading lists of dense philosophical and scientific works that he thought would serve him well in the future. His instructors advised him and his friends to go out and play ball for a while instead. Davutoglu took the advice to heart; even after he’d become a professor, he continued to play soccer with his students (as a highly regarded forward), right up until he was appointed foreign minister.

While honing his soccer prowess, Davutoglu was refining his language and academic skills too. In addition to the German learned in high school, he took all-English programs to graduate from the economics and political sciences department of Bogazici University. He learned Arabic while studying on a scholarship in Jordan, worked on his doctoral thesis at Cairo University, and learned Bahasa Malaysia while a professor at Malaysia’s International Islamic University. His thesis, a comparative analysis between Western and Islamic political theories and images, was published in 1993 by American University Press with the title Alternative Paradigms: The Impact of Islamic and Western Weltanschauungs on Political Theory. Davutoglu’s postdoctoral work included critiques of the theories of Samuel Huntington (clash of civilizations) and Francis Fukuyama (end of history).

Colleagues say that Davutoglu’s oratorical skills are equal to his writing ability. “There is no one the minister cannot make drop their guard in 10 minutes,” one high-ranking team member told NEWSWEEK Türkiye. One example: when Ankara refused to allow U.S.-led forces cross Turkish territory for the 2003 invasion into Iraq, a local Jewish leader came over to read Davutoglu the riot act. The visitor initially said he could only stay 10 minutes—partly because he needed to prepare for a fast the following day—but ended up spending three hours with Davutoglu after being won over by the minister’s erudite discourse about Jewish culture, history, and the background to the upcoming fast. Next time, the Jewish leader said, he’d like to stay for the day.

Davutoglu is not without his critics, who have accused him of double standards for criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza while failing to condemn the approach of a fellow Muslim—Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir—in Darfur. But even those who don’t support him see him as a statesman who is both a thinker and a doer. And right now, he’s the talk of more than just Ankara.

Find this article at
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224713

Triumph of the Turks: Turkey is the surprising beneficiary of U.S. misadventures in the Middle East.

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2341

Newsweek: Archibald Wavell himself could scarcely have imagined how horribly accurate his prediction would prove to be. Having watched in dismay as the victorious European powers carved up the Ottoman Empire after World War I—”the war to end war”—the British officer commented that they had instead created “a peace to end peace.” And sure enough, the decades since have spawned a succession of colonial misrule, coups, revolutions, and an epidemic of jihadist violence. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 could be viewed as a last-ditch attempt by the world’s sole remaining superpower to impose order on the region. Instead, the net result was to create a power vacuum, leaving Iraq too weak to counterbalance its neighbors and threatening to destabilize the whole map.

Turkey, the old seat of Ottoman power, did its best to stay out of that fight, refusing even to let U.S. forces cross Turkish soil for the 2003 invasion. Still, it’s the Turks—not the Iranians, as many observers claim—who are now emerging as the war’s real winners. In economic terms Turkey is running neck and neck with Iran as Iraq’s biggest trading partner, even as most U.S. businesses sit helplessly on the sidelines. And in terms of regional influence, Turkey has no rival. The country’s stern-faced prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is working to consolidate that strength as he asserts Turkey’s independence in a part of the world long dominated by America. Next week he’s in Washington to meet with President Obama, but only a few weeks ago he stood shoulder to shoulder with his “good friend” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran and defended Iran’s nuclear program.

That’s only one example of the behavior that’s disturbing many of Turkey’s longtime NATO partners. Among the biggest worries has been the souring of ties with Israel, once Turkey’s close ally, over the military offensive in Gaza earlier this year that human-rights groups say killed more than 1,400 Palestinians. Erdogan walked out of the World Economic Forum in protest over the deaths, and recently scrapped a decade-old deal allowing the Israeli Air Force to train over Turkish territory. At the same time, the Turkish prime minister has repeatedly supported Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, claiming he couldn’t possibly be guilty of genocide in Darfur because he’s a “good Muslim.” Right now there are “more points of disagreement than of agreement” between Washington and Ankara, says Philip Gordon, Obama’s point man on Turkey at the State Department.

What scares Washington most is the suspicion that Ankara’s new attitude may be driven less by the practical pursuit of Turkey’s national interest than by thinly concealed Islamist ideology. Erdogan has always denied mixing religion and politics, but his ruling Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish initials, AKP) has been investigated repeatedly by Turkey’s top courts on charges of undermining Turkey’s constitutional commitment to a strictly secular state. But official policy notwithstanding, Turkish attitudes toward Europe have displayed a marked cooling over the past five years, and a corresponding rise in hostility toward Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund. “No one in the government has made any attempt to reverse rampant anti-Americanism in Turkey,” says Kemal Köprülü of the independent ARI think tank. “The government cannot admit it, but most decision making in foreign and domestic policy simply doesn’t take Western values into account.”

On the other hand, Turks could be excused for thinking that Western decision makers don’t always lose sleep over Turkish interests. During the Cold War, Washington did anything necessary to stabilize the region and keep the Kremlin from gaining ground, often backing nominally pro-Western despots like the Shah of Iran and the Turkish generals who seized power from civilian governments three times in as many decades. The result was a disaster for America; it ended up with unreliable allies who were hated by their own people. In Turkey, the cumulative anti-U.S. resentment peaked in 2003 when the Bush administration pressed Ankara to let U.S. forces invade Iraq through Turkish territory—a plan that was derailed only at the last moment by a parliamentary revolt.

That was the low point of Turkey’s relationship with the United States. But it was also the start of Turkey’s rise to economic recovery and regional influence, and the beginning of a new kind of relationship with Washington. Indeed, Turkey’s new standing in the region has a chance of transforming the country into something far more valuable to Washington than a subservient tool or proxy. The Turks say they’re seeking to become what Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu calls a “partner to solve the region’s problems.” Whatever ambitions they may have harbored in earlier years, it’s only in this decade—especially since 2002, when Erdogan and the AKP came to power—that Turkey has had the economic and political strength, as well as the military presence, to fill such a position.

Turkey’s economy has more than doubled in the past decade, converting the nation from a backwater to a regional powerhouse. At the same time, its financial focus has moved closer to home: Turkey now conducts more trade with Russia, Iraq, and Iran than it does with the EU. Energy politics have also favored the Turks, who find themselves astride no fewer than three competing energy supply routes to Europe—from Russia, from the Caspian, and from Iran. Years of reform and stability are paying off as well. Ankara is on the verge of a historic deal with its Kurdish minority to end an insurgency that has left 35,000 dead in the past quarter century. In turn, Turkey is making peace with neighboring countries that once supported the insurgents, such as Syria, Iran, and Armenia. The principle is simple, says a senior Erdogan aide who’s not authorized to speak on the record: “We can’t be prosperous if we live in a poor neighborhood. We can’t be secure if we live in a violent one.”

The advantages keep compounding. Thanks to judicious diplomacy and expanding business ties throughout the region, Turkey is close to realizing what Davutoglu calls his “zero-problems-with-neighbors policy.” The new stance has boosted Ankara’s influence even further; the Turks have become the trouble-ridden region’s mediators of choice, called in to help with disputes between the Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah, between Iraq and Syria—even, before Erdogan’s outburst in Davos, between Israel and Syria. Speaking at a recent press conference in Rome, Erdogan expressed little hope that Turkey could do more for Syria and Israel. “[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu doesn’t trust us,” he said. “That’s his choice.” But others in the region still welcome Ankara’s assistance: Turkish diplomats are excellently trained in conflict resolution.

That can scarcely be said for Iran. The Tehran regime remains paralyzed by infighting and is far from loved in most of the Arab world. Saudis in particular think back fondly to the Ottomans facing off against the Persians, not to mention their feelings about Sunni Turks versus Shiite Iranians. “Saudi Arabia is welcoming the new Turkish comeback,” says Jamal Khashoggi, editor of the influential Jidda daily Al-Watan. Not the least important part of the charm is that Erdogan’s government has a distinctly Islamic (and by Saudi lights, a distinctly Sunni Islamic) coloration—”even if no Turkish officials would say that publicly, because it is politically incorrect,” says Khashoggi.

Still, the Turks believe they’re wise not to play an antagonistic role, and officials in Ankara insist that Erdogan’s warm words to Ahmadinejad are no more than atmospherics. At base, they say, Turkey shares the West’s goals regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions; it’s just doing things in its own way. “We have been dealing with [Iranians] for centuries,” says the Erdogan aide. “We show them the respect and friendship they crave. Would our being hostile to Iran do anything to solve the problem of their nuclear program?” When the International Atomic Energy Agency offered Iran the option of exporting most of its low-enriched uranium in return for French-made fuel rods in October, Erdogan offered Ahmadinejad a deal (apparently with Washington’s blessing): Iran could store its uranium in Turkey rather than send it to a non-Muslim country.

Tehran ultimately said no, but the effort demonstrated that Turkey is prepared to do its part to keep the region peaceful and safe. Ankara insists that its new friendships in the region are no threat to its longstanding ties to the West. “NATO is Turkey’s strongest alliance, and integration with Europe is the main objective of Turkish foreign policy,” insists Davutoglu. “But it doesn’t mean that because of these strong ties, we can ignore the Middle East, we can ignore Asia, Central Asia, North Africa, or Africa.” The world has changed radically since the fall of the Ottomans, and Turkey is unlikely ever to regain the imperial power it wielded for 350 years, from Algiers to Budapest and Mecca. But as the world tries to move, at last, beyond the 90-year-old peace that ended peace, no other country is better positioned to pick up the pieces.

With Sami Kohen in Istanbul

Find this article at
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224676

How America Will Fall To Islam

http://faithfreedom.org/islam/how-america-will-fall-islam

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Schools will instruct pupils on the
"religion of peace," Islam. Now Islamic speakers are invited into
school systems to teach faculty and principals about the goodness of
Islam.

Mosque clerics will be regarded the same as the Methodist minister down the street. After all, a cleric is a cleric.

Liberal
groups such as the Episcopal Church, Unitarian-Universalist Society,
and United Church of Christ (Congregational) will look upon Islam as a
world religion among religions, thus deserving equal space with
Christianity and Judaism.

Local clergy associations will welcome Muslim clerics into their fellowship.

Liberal
politicians will champion Islam as compatible with America because they
will believe the lies on 4000 Muslim web sites. After all, America
welcomes all equally.

Theologically conservative leaders
such as Billy Graham’s son, Franklin Graham, will be black listed for
publishing factual books exposing Islam as a violent cult. He already
has suffered such. He has been silenced by the liberal element in the
United States.

Politicians and religious liberals will
regard "peace religion" Islam as being highjacked by "insurgents" and
"terrorists" rather than realizing that all Muslims are aligned with
the same killing passages replete in the unholy book, the Koran.

Schools
will set aside rooms for Muslim prayers during school hours. Airports
will follow suit. Independent living residential communities will
follow suit. Just as they have chapels, they will have mosque centers.

Public
buildings will provide prayer rooms for Muslim prayers just as a local
athletic building in New Jersey has done so for Muslim sports figures
there.

Newspapers’ religion pages will place mosque
advertisements for meetings and so forth right alongside the
advertisements for churches. They will also provide regular feature
articles on Islam as a "peace religion," just as the local city paper
already does where I live.

The sharia will become legal fare
in most countries, including America. This Koran-based judicial system
that enhances murder and maiming as well as discrimination against
females will be set aside as proper for the Muslim community.

Islamic
professors will pepper the universities and colleges throughout the
nation, propagating the message that Islam is a "peace religion." They
will likewise blackball Christianity and Judaism, as is presently the
fashion. This takes place presently.

Religious colleges that
are theologically liberal will have Muslim instructors and personnel on
staff in order to give the public relations image that they are open to
all beliefs.

Chapel services on theologically liberal
religious-oriented campuses will have Muslim speakers to balance out
theologically liberal "Christian" preachers. Already at Bates College,
Lewiston, Maine, the campus chapel is decorated with flag banners of
all world religions, including Islam. The banners hang from the
sanctuary ceiling.

Islamic so-called holy days will be
legitimatized as holidays necessitating celebration and days off from
work throughout the nation

Islamic symbols will decorate our stamps..

Islamic authors will become popular in "reading America."

Peace themes focusing on Islamic actors will be placed in television sitcoms.

TV series such as "Sleeper Cells" will become passe and regarded as out of date and out of fact.

Legislation will be passed stating that anything truthfully negative about Islam will be regarded as a "hate crime."

Certain Islamic personages will run for political offices and will win their elections. This takes place now.

The National Council of Churches will welcome Islam into its membership.

Liberal
seminaries such as Harvard Divinity School will baptize Islam as a
legitimate religion among world religions, just as HDS does already in
its world religions building / courses.

It will become posh for Islamic speakers to be featured on talk shows and at book forums in local communities.

The
Koran will be placed alongside the Bible in hospital chapels, just as
it already is placed in the chapel in the city hospital near where I
live.

The headscarf used by Muslim women will become
fashionable for non-Muslim women in America. Already the headscarf clad
young women appearing in various advertisements on the Internet.

Advertisements will include in their human figures not only whites and blacks and Hispanics but also obviously garbed Muslims.

"Jihad"
will change its meaning from murder and maiming to improving the inner
self, just as it is now defined on the Council for American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) lying web site.

Muslims will establish
charitable causes to which the public will be asked to contribute,
moneys used to enhance Islam and thereby overtake the nation.

Christians
and Jews will be relegated to a lower status than Islam. Christians and
Jews will be informed to be quiet, hold no meetings or seminars
teaching the facts about Islam, and squelch any preaching against Islam.

Political
liberals such as "Rev." Jesse Jackson will come to the fore as comrades
of Islam, presenting Christianity and Islam as monotheistic religions
of common foundation. It will become posh for Islam and Christianity
and Judaism to be presented as the three great monotheistic religions
of the world, thus giving Islam equal footing with the other two
religions.

There will be much talk about all three religions having Abraham as "the father of the faith."

Regarding Islam as a killing cult will expose the offender as committing a "hate crime."

University and college commencement addresses, particularly those on the state level, will feature Islamic speakers.

Islamic killers in America will be regarded as an anomaly and embarrassment to Islam as the true "religion of peace."

Sunday school curricula in liberal denominations will feature Islam as a legitimate world religion.

Islam
will become a highlight article feature in theologically liberal
publications. Already such articles have appeared in the Harvard
Divinity School Bulletin.

Islamic literature will be
distributed widely freely throughout the nation, similarly to such
literature distributed by Moonies at airport terminals.

Koran
killing passages will be rephrased so as to erase the Koran
killing-passages just as such quotes are changed on the Muslim Public
Affairs Council (MPAC). These changes will appear in the American
publication of the Koran placed in public buildings.

Government
agencies, particularly in Washington DC, will cower before Muslim
demands just as they did as set forth in the article above.

Muslims
elsewhere on the planet will cause such mayhem that America will fear
such coming to this country and therefore will give Muslims anything
they want in order to keep the blood from flowing our USA streets

What Americans Need to Know About the Copenhagen Global Warming Conference

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/sr0071.cfm

by Ben Lieberman

Special Report #71

Abstract: In December, the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet in Copenhagen to work on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. U.S. negotiators should refuse to sign any climate change treaty that does not include meaningful participation by China, India, and other major developing nations or that would harm the U.S. economy or threaten U.S. sovereignty. The 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will be held in Copenhagen in December. It is the most important international conference on global warming since the 1997 Kyoto conference that produced the Kyoto Protocol. As the U.S. and other delegations prepare for this conference, the American people need to know that, in addition to harming the U.S. economically and environmentally, a new global warming treaty would threaten U.S. sovereignty. Why Is the Copenhagen Conference Important? The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect in 2005, is the major global warming treaty currently in force. Under the treaty, the nations of Europe as well as Japan, Canada, and most other developed countries committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- chiefly carbon dioxide from fossil fuels -- which are blamed for global warming. Generally, these nations are supposed to reduce emissions by 5 percent below 1990 baseline levels by 2012. The U.S. has not ratified the treaty. China, India, and other developing nations have ratified it, but are exempted from any obligation to reduce emissions. Notwithstanding questions about the seriousness of global warming, the Kyoto Protocol has failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and has had no effect on global warming. Because the Kyoto Protocol's provisions will expire in 2012, Kyoto proponents have identified the Copenhagen conference as the critical meeting for extending and expanding the treaty's targets and timetables beyond 2012. Copenhagen is also seen, especially by Europeans, as an opportunity to force the U.S. to join the other developed countries required to reduce emissions. Hopes of achieving this end rose considerably when President Barack Obama took office. The President will be under pressure to keep his promises to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions. What Will Be Different in Copenhagen? The representatives of the nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol and who see it as a success that should be extended have long identified Copenhagen as crucial to the future of global warming policy. Their main objective is to expand the emissions reduction targets set in Kyoto. They also seek to make these stringent targets binding, verifiable, and enforceable and to apply them to the U.S. for the first time. They hope to achieve more meaningful participation from the developing world. However, these goals will make it difficult for many individual nations to agree to any treaty in Copenhagen. U.S. negotiators should stand firm in protecting American interests and not sign any treaty just for the sake of signing a treaty. Is the Kyoto Protocol Worth Extending? No. Even aside from the growing doubts about the seriousness of the global warming threat -- the Kyoto Protocol or any other putative global warming solution is only a solution to the extent that a genuine problem exists in the first place -- the Kyoto Protocol has failed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.[1] Emissions are increasing in several signatory nations. In several more countries, emissions are declining more slowly than emissions in the U.S., which ironically is not a party to Kyoto.[2] For example, according to U.N. data, the U.S. reduced emissions by 3 percent from 2000 to 2006, while the 27 European signatories increased their emissions by 0.1 percent.[3] Germany's emissions declined by only 1.7 percent, while Canada's emissions rose 21.3 percent.[4] European Environmental Agency data show that emissions increased in Austria, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain in the decade after the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.[5] One key reason for compliance difficulties in Europe has been the tremendous cost of reducing emissions, estimated at $67.75 billion to $170.84 billion through 2008.[6] Despite these high costs for their inadequate efforts to reduce emissions, these European nations claim to want to enact much tougher targets in Copenhagen. Further, Kyoto's exemption for developing nations has proven a far greater oversight than originally believed because these emissions, especially from China, have increased far faster than had been anticipated in 1997. For example, the Senate Byrd-Hagel Resolution warned that developing-nation emissions would exceed those of the developed world "as early as 2015."[7]According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, it happened in 2005.[8] Was the U.S. Correct to Stay out of Kyoto? Yes. The U.S. was correct to refuse to participate in this demonstrated failure, particularly because it would have damaged the U.S. economy. An analysis by the Energy Information Administration put the cost of U.S. compliance at up to $400 billion annually.[9] Beyond the high costs, the Kyoto Protocol has no effective enforcement mechanism: Nothing has happened or will happen to the developed nations that are not in compliance, and developing nations have no obligations. However, U.S. law is unique in that a ratified treaty can have the same status as domestic legislation. Thus, unlike the rest of the world, American businesses would have been forced to comply with U.S. obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, the U.S. Senate recognized the pitfalls of this approach even before the Kyoto Protocol. The 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution, which passed 95-0, warned the Clinton Administration not to sign any treaty that exempted the developing world or would harm the U.S. economy. The resolution clearly stated that the Senate would not ratify any such treaty.[10] The subsequent Kyoto Protocol violated both conditions, which is why the President never submitted the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. The Senate's guidelines remain a policy that the Obama Administration should follow in Copenhagen. Given that emissions from developing nations are increasing far faster than emissions in the developed world and that no nation has found a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without incurring serious economic harm, the Administration should firmly adhere to these guidelines during the negotiations in Copenhagen. What Are the Economic Concerns? The goal of the Kyoto Protocol, the building block for Copenhagen, is similar to the purpose of the Waxman-Markey global warming bill, which narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June, and of the Kerry-Boxer bill being considered in the U.S. Senate. All three would set limits on emissions from fossil fuels -- the coal, oil, and natural gas that provide America with 85 percent of its energy. Such limits would act as a large energy tax, driving up the energy costs of individuals and consumers, forcing them to use less energy. More stringent emissions targets would require even larger increases in fossil energy prices to further discourage their use. A Heritage Foundation analysis of Waxman-Markey found that this energy tax would have serious implications throughout the economy. For a household of four, energy costs (electric, natural gas, gasoline expenses) would rise by $436 in 2012 and by $1,241 by 2035, averaging $829 over that period.[11] Higher energy costs would increase the cost of many other products and services. Overall, Waxman-Markey would reduce gross domestic product by $393 billion annually and by a total of $9.4 trillion by 2035.[12] An initial analysis of the Senate bill finds comparable costs.[13] Beyond the increased costs imposed on individuals and households, the Waxman-Markey bill would reduce employment, especially in the manufacturing sector. The Heritage analysis estimates that net job losses would exceed 1 million on average annually through 2035,[14] even after accounting for the overhyped green jobs. Analyses from the Brookings Institution, National Black Chamber of Commerce, and other institutions found roughly comparable effects.[15] Assuming proponents of a Copenhagen treaty want targets at least as stringent as those in the Waxman-Markey bill -- a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 baseline levels in 2020 up to an 83 percent reduction by 2050 -- U.S. compliance costs would be similarly high. Would the Environmental Benefits Be Worth It? No. First, there are growing doubts about whether global warming really is the crisis it was claimed to be heading into the 1997 Kyoto negotiations.[16] For example, global temperatures have leveled off since then.[17] However, putting the scientific doubts aside for a moment, the Kyoto approach seems unlikely to slow global warming effectively. One scientific study estimated that, even if the treaty reached its targeted emissions reductions, it would reduce the earth's future temperature by about 0.07 degree Celsius by 2050 -- an amount too small to make any difference and impossible to verify because natural variability is far greater.[18] Obviously, more stringent targets at Copenhagen would reduce the temperature more, but not by much, especially if developing nations were still exempt from emissions reductions. Is U.S. Sovereignty at Risk? Yes. Kyoto has no international enforcement mechanism with any real teeth. To actually reduce emissions, any successor treaty coming out of Copenhagen would need an effective enforcement mechanism. Domestic U.S. enforcement of the treaty, if ratified, would be problematic enough, but any binding international enforcement provisions would create additional serious problems. Compliance with such a treaty would require massive changes to the U.S. economy, and U.N. bodies would decide many of the details of those changes. For example, one way to comply with Kyoto or subsequent treaties is to purchase so-called offsets to carbon dioxide emissions. Offsets allow regulated entities to pay others to undertake projects that presumably reduce emissions globally, such as paying landowners to plant trees or bankrolling the installation of solar panels in poor countries. In many cases, companies find offsets cheaper than actually reducing their own emissions. However, these projects have been subject to fraud. For example, some offset projects have not actually reduced emissions, while others involved industrial facilities with unnecessarily high initial emissions for the purpose of profiting by lowering them later.[19]Currently, the Clean Development Mechanism under the U.N. decides which offset projects are acceptable. Thus, unelected international bureaucracies would control this critical aspect of a climate treaty, which would have significant implications for the U.S. economy. The largest sovereignty threat is that a subsequent treaty may create an international enforcement authority to determine whether signatories -- including the U.S. -- are in compliance with the treaty provisions and to deal with perceived violations. For example, a non-U.S.-controlled body could decide whether American companies must shut down coal-fired power plants. The Administration should avoid signing any such treaty because it would seriously infringe on U.S. national sovereignty. What Do China and Other Developing Nations Want from Copenhagen? Led by China, the developing world clearly prefers the Kyoto approach, particularly the exemption from emissions reductions.[20]Developing nations recognize the tradeoff between economic development and emissions reductions, and they have chosen economic development. These nations want any agreement in Copenhagen to continue Kyoto beyond 2012. While insisting on continued exemptions, the developing world is demanding that the developed nations undertake stringent new emissions reductions beyond Kyoto and provide massive aid to assist poor countries in voluntarily reducing emissions. What Will Likely Happen in Copenhagen? The Copenhagen conference has been billed as the next major global warming deal, with strong new emissions reduction targets that are binding and enforceable. Yet despite the buildup for more than a year, political and economic realities will likely influence its outcome for the better. The rift between the developed and developing world is still wide. For the most part, developed nations have recognized that the whole process is futile without meaningful involvement by major developing nations, but China, India, and others have refused to agree to such provisions. The prospect for massive aid packages from the developed world is also proving to be a nonstarter among the nations expected to pay the bill. There is also the growing realization that the Kyoto Protocol is a failure and therefore not a good model for Copenhagen. Finally, the obvious harm of imposing such costly measures in the midst of a global recession has also slowed momentum. Thus, Copenhagen presents an opportunity to change the direction of the post-Kyoto debate. What Should the Administration Do? The Obama Administration, although far more in favor of a global warming agreement than the Bush Administration, has acknowledged many of these realities, including the fact that domestic legislation is stalled in the Senate and unlikely to be enacted before the Copenhagen conference. U.S. negotiators at preliminary meetings have stated that they expect China and other major developing nations to undertake new obligations and that any agreement will not include massive wealth transfers to poor countries. Thus, the distance between the U.S. and developing world positions is still significant. The U.S. team has also admitted that the Kyoto approach has proven problematic, suggesting that climate change policy may need to focus more on domestic provisions enacted by each nation than Kyoto-style multilateral agreements. At a minimum, U.S. negotiators should comply with the provisions of the Byrd-Hagel resolution and refuse to sign any climate change treaty that fails to include meaningful participation by China, India, and other major developing nations or that threatens to harm the U.S. economy. They should also refuse to sign any treaty that would threaten U.S. sovereignty. This will likely mean no new treaty from Copenhagen, but negotiators should not agree to provisions that will harm the U.S. solely for the sake of signing a treaty. Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. [1]. Press release, "UNFCC: Rising Industrialized Countries Emissions Underscore Urgent Need for Political Action on Climate Change," U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, November 16, 2008, athttp://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_ advisories/application/pdf/081117_ghg_press_release.pdf (December 11, 2008); U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "International Energy Annual 2006," Table H.1co2, athttp://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls(December 11, 2008); Open Europe, "Europe's Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Isn't Working," August 2007, athttp://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/etsp2.pdf (December 11, 2008). [2]. U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2008 Inventory Reports and Common Reporting Formats. [3]. Ibid. [4]. Ibid. [5]. European Environment Agency, Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2007 and Inventory Report 2009, May 27, 2009, p. 16, Table ES.7, at http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european- community-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2009/european- community-ghg-inventory-2014-full-report.pdf (November 10, 2009). [6]. Matthew Sinclair, "The Expensive Failure of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme," TaxPayers' Alliance, October 2009, athttp://www.taxpayersalliance.com/ets.pdf (November 10, 2009). [7]. S. Res. 98, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. [8]. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,International Energy Outlook 2009, pp. 109-117, athttp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html (November 2, 2009). [9]. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and the Economy," October 1998, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html (November 13, 2009). [10]. S. Res. 98. [11]. David Kreutzer, Karen Campbell, William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, "The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. 09-04, p. 2, athttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda0904.cfm. [12]. Ibid. [13]. David Kreutzer, "EPA's Economic Analysis of the Boxer-Kerry Cap and Trade Bill," The Foundry, October 27, 2009, athttp://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/27/epa%e2%80%99s- economic-analysis-of-the-boxer-kerry-cap-and-trade-bill (November 10, 2009). [14]. Kreutzer et al., p. 2. [15]. Warwick McKibbin, Pete Wilcoxen, and Adele Morris, "Consequences of Cap and Trade," Brookings Institution, June 8, 2009, athttp://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2009/0608_climate _change_economy/20090608_climate_change_economy.pdf (July 9, 2009), and David Montgomery et al., "Impact on the Economy of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454)," CRA International, May 2009. See also Nicolas Loris, "Cap and Trade: A Comparison of Cost Estimates," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2550, July 20, 2009, athttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2550.cfm. [16]. See Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Heartland Institute, June 2009, at http://www.heartland.org/publications/ NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf (November 10, 2009). [17]. See Craig Loehle, "Trend Analysis of RSS and UAH MSU Global Temperature Data," Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 7 (2009), pp. 1087-1098. [18]. T. M. L. Wigley, "The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and Climate Implications," Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 25, No. 13 (1998), pp. 2285-2288. [19]. Open Europe, "Europe's Dirty Secret." [20]. David Fogarty, "Senior G77 Members Protest Steps to Change Kyoto Pact," Reuters, October 7, 2009, at http://www.reuters.com/article/ GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59623R20091007 (November 10, 2009).

The Fallacy & Danger of Equating Islam with Other Religions

http://islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=255:the-fallacy-danger-of-equating-islam-with-other-religions&catid=86:bill&Itemid=58

Wednesday, 18 November 2009 07:37 Bill Warner

Many well-meaning Westerners and infidels tell us that Islam is just an ancient religion with outdated ethical concepts like many others, or that Islamic scriptures contain violence passages as does other scriptures. Why such judgement is fallacious and what it entails to the future of our civilization???

---

Did you ever hear this argument?

Ancient religious texts like the Koran contain outdated ethical concepts. The Old Testament has brutal laws and violent passages. As a result Christians and Jews don't follow them. Muslims are the same as Christians and Jews; they pick what works and reject what doesn't work. Why should Islam be considered any worse than other religion or cult?

The short answer is that Islam is not similar to anything else, including religions such as Christianity. As far as the Koran having any outdated ethical concepts, that is impossible. According to Islamic doctrine, the Koran is perfect, eternal and universal. It does not contain the slightest error since contains the exact words of Allah. Hence, it can never be outdated.

Also, the Koran is a derivative book. Every idea in the Koran, with two exceptions, can be traced to earlier works. The two novel ideas in the Koran are that Mohammed is the last prophet of god and that violent force, jihad, can be used to harm those who don't agree with Mohammed. Violence against kafirs (unbelievers) is systemic in all of Islam's texts and forms a central theme.

Yes, the Old Testament has violence, but there is no real parallel to the Koran and Islam. Look at the numbers. The violence in the Old Testament is limited to a few verses. The violence in the Koran against the kafir (unbeliever) takes up 61% of the text. Every mention of the kafir is brutal, condemning, pejorative, hateful and threatening. The Hadith, the Traditions of Mohammed, has 20% of its text devoted to jihad. The Sira, Mohammed's life, has 70% of the text about Mohammed as prophet devoted to jihad.

These numbers show that the analogy between the violence in the texts of the Jews and Christians is vastly overdrawn.

The next suggested parallel between Islam and Christians is that both pick and choose from their texts. Every Muslim believes that the Koran is perfect down to the last letter. It does not have a single error. This makes it very difficult to ignore.

But a Muslim does have a way to make choices that a Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Hindu cannot. Islam has dualistic ethics. Muslims are all brothers and to be treated as such. But there is no Golden Rule and a Muslim may choose to treat the kafir badly or well, depending upon the situation and needs. That is the nature of dualistic ethics.

Dualism also allows the choice of the Meccan Koran or the Medinan Koran. When Mohammed was in Mecca, he was weak and attempted to get along with the Meccans. This gives us the verses of tolerance. Later, in Medina Mohammed had power and the Koran became cruel and vicious towards any person who denied Mohammed. So every Muslim has the choice of tolerance and coexistence from the Meccan verses, or any of the physical violence or hatred found in the Medinan Koran.

There is another choice that a person who claims to be a Muslim can make. They may choose to be a kafir by ignoring an Islamic doctrinal point. It is very odd, but people assume that every action by one who calls them a Muslim is pure Islam. But the Koran condemns Muslims who make choices to imitate kafirs. This condemnation extends to those who choose to apply the Golden Rule to kafirs.

So there are three kinds of Muslim, depending on their choices: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim and kafir Muslim.

There is a great danger in trying to understand Islam through Christianity or any other Western idea or concept. The underlying assumption is that Islam is similar or has parallels to kafir culture. This means that Islam does not need to be studied, because it is "like" some kafir concept or institution such as freedom and Christianity. This idea is false and has no supporting facts to prove it. Islam is sui generis, unique, and without parallel.

Islam stands entirely on its own with a separate logic, reasoning and ethical system. Islam must be studied on its own. In the end this means understanding the themes of the Koran and the life of Mohammed found in the Sira and the Hadith.

Why is Islam worse than any other religion or cult? Simple, it is not a religion, but a complete civilization that has a political doctrine of annihilating and subjugating all kafir civilizations. This doctrine had been put into action for the last 1400 years and has caused the deaths of 270 million kafirs.

Islam has annihilated entire civilizations. Take Afghanistan as an example. Before, Islam invaded the civilization of Gandharva, it had been peaceful for four centuries and was wealthy. Buddhism flourished and great art was produced. Then came Islamic jihad and Ghandarva was destroyed down to the last work of art and the last Buddhist. Today we have the armpit of the world-Afghanistan, an Islamic nation based upon Sharia law and Islamic politics. Buddhism and Gandharvan culture have been totally destroyed.

The political theory of Islam and its results correlate 100%. Of course, there are some harmful and creepy cults, but, measured by results, they are not in the same league as political Islam. Islam is the ultimate civilizational predator and should receive most of the attention.

Today we have two choices in viewing Islam. We can see it as based upon its doctrine and history or we can choose to see it on the basis of multiculturalism-all cultures are equally valid. But Islam denies that all cultures are equally valid. Islam insists that it is superior all other cultures. All cultures are not equally valid and all other cultures must submit. It is the will of Allah, and it is Sunna (the way of Mohammed). What is odd is that tolerant multiculturalists defend the Islamic monoculture so much.

This means that we also have two other choices. Will kafirs ignore the threat of total destruction or go on pretending that Islam is similar to other cultures? Will we foolishly apply the Golden Rule to a civilization based on dualism and hope to create an Islam that respects kafirs and treats them well? But Allah hates kafirs and it is Sunna to immigrate, deceive and make the kafirs submit little by little.

Choices: will we choose life or death for kafir civilization?

---

This article (title changed) appeared in Political Islam website.

Brigitte Gabriel Blasts Political Correctness

Iran’s leaders explain the rules of why, when, and how rape and torture should be used.

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/islam-sanctions-rape-and-torture-of-prisoners-yes-islam/

Stand With Israel: Sign the Petition Against the Goldstone Report

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2306

Stand With Israel: Sign the Petition Against the Goldstone Report

Honest Reporting: The United Nations Human Rights Council spends a great deal of time condemning Israel while ignoring real human rights abuses. Now, the U.N. General Assembly has approved a Human Rights Council resolution endorsing the one-sided, biased report of Judge Richard Goldstone accusing Israel of “War Crimes.” The General Assembly recommended that the resolution should now be considered by the U.N. Security Council. Act now to prevent the Security Council from approving this resolution.

Please sign the petition at the end of this short video that will be sent to President Obama and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council urging them to veto this biased resolution.
Even if you have already signed, you can still help by forwarding this e-mail to a friend who may not have seen it.

Click Here

TURKEY: Re-Writing The Middle East?

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2304

ISTANBUL (IDN) - In a record time, Turkish diplomacy has managed to put together several pieces in its Middle East puzzle — in fact it has struck strategic deals with three key regional players: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. A new ’quartet’ has been formed. The question is what kind of music can it play?

The Turkish shift towards the Middle East jumped visibly to the news earlier this year, when Prime Minister Recep Erdogan walked out of the World Economic Forum in Davos, to signal his strong protest against Israeli massive attacks on Gaza, which killed around 1,500 Palestinians, many of them civilians, for which the UN charged Tel Aviv with war crimes.

Shortly after, Turkey was invited to attend Arab League’s Foreign ministers meetings as an active observer. The Arab League comprises only the 22 Arab countries.

Last summer, Ankara accepted a challenging plan, promoted by Damascus, to form a new Middle East bloc between Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria itself.

As a starter, and in spite of its threatening drought, Turkey agreed to Syrian and Iraqi petition to maintain the volume of waters (500 cubic meters per second) pouring from its mountains into River Euphrates which flows through its two neighbours.

In September, Erdogan announced the cancellation of the annual joint military manoeuvres with U.S. and Israeli troops. The reason, according to Turkish prime minister, is that his country does not want Israeli war fighters, which killed innocent civilians in Gaza to fly its skies.

In October, Erdogan embarked in a tour through the tree capitals of the new ‘quartet’.

TURKEY-SYRIA: SANS FRONTIERS

In Damascus, he implemented what Syrian Foreign minister Walid Al Moalem characterized as a “historical event”– opening borders between Turkey and Syria, abolishing entry visas, and liberalizing road transport between the two countries.

In addition, Turkey and Syria signed over three dozens of co-operation agreements, ranging from energy to security, defence, water and, of course, political mutual support.

Turkish Foreign minister Ahmed Davutoglu said in Damascus that relations between Syria and Turkey have a “great strategic and economic relevance”.

“These relations are a must as we share the same geography,” he said, adding that “there is a symbolic importance to our relation with Syria: no barbed wires, no mines, no gates, but open borders.”

And Syrian Defence minister Ali Habib announced the participation of his country in joint land military manoeuvres with Turkey. “We agreed to run bigger, more comprehensive joint military exercises” in the future.

TURKEY-IRAQ: WATER, ENERGY AND PKK

Shortly after, Erdogan went to Baghdad. There the two countries signed 48 agreements and memorandums of understating, covering a wide range of issues, from energy to water passing andsecurity.

In Baghdad, Erdogan underlined the firm determination of Turkey to combat the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which according to him, uses the North of Iraq as a backyard base, He stressed that the PKK is a movement that threatens both Turkish and Iraqi security.

In a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, Erdogan told reporters that Ankara hopes that trade exchanges between the two countries would increase four-fold to reach 20 billion dollars a year.

Reacting to Al Maliki’s insistence on the need that Turkey increases water flow to Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, which an Iraqi official spokesman estimated at 440 millions cubic meters per second, Erdogan announced that his country will raise this volume to 550 million meters per second.

Erdogan and Al Maliki also agreed to launch negotiations to regulate exports of Iraqi natural gas to Europe through Turkey. It is still not clear if the Iraqi gas will pass through the European Nabucco pipeline project.

The Nabucco project will link Turkey with Austria through 3,300 kilometres crossing Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. It costs 7.9 billion dollars and is expected to be operational by the year 2015. The project aims at reducing European dependence on Russian gas.

Moreover, Turkey and Iraq agreed to reactivate oil pipelines projects between the two countries, as well as the construction of railways linking Iraq to Europe through Turkey.

TURKEY-IRAN: NUCLEAR, GAS, AND POLITICS

Then Erdogan went to Tehran, where he did the same things aimed at strengthening ties as he did in Damascus and Baghdad, and expressed clear understanding towards Iran’s stand vis-à-vis the West in relation to the Iranian nuclear programme.

Erdogan agreed with President Mohamoud Ahmadynijad, whom he called “a friend” to promote trade exchange and do it in their respective local currencies.

In Tehran, Erdogan signalled that Iran is a “friend nation” and reiterated his blames to Western countries for what he called “unfair” and “hypocritical” positions regarding Iran nuclear intentions.

Then he characterised as “act of madness” an eventual Israel attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

With Syria, Iraq and Iran, Turkey set up high-level strategic co-operation councils.

ALL WINNERS?

Once this new Middle East quartet has been agreed upon, what can it do?

So far, all four members of the bloc would be benefiting.

Syria manages to produce a new breach in the tight siege imposed by former White House occupant, who added it to his list of “evil axes”.

In addition, Damascus enjoys full Turkish support and readiness to mediate with Europe, the U.S. and eventually Israel again. It also ensures its much-needed water supplies from Turkey.

Iraq is having dangerous divergence with its Kurdistan region, which wants to enjoy full self-rule, bordering independence, and keep all oil resources and revenues for the Kurds.

Keeping good relations with her powerful Turkish neighbour will help it both harness Kurdish independence aspirations, ensure water provisions, and mediate with Syria, which Baghdad accuses of harbouring Iraqi former Baath party elements, responsible according to Baghdad of fuelling massive attacks in its lands.

Iran could not welcome more the Turkish overture. It helps Tehran break the international isolation imposed by former U.S. administration, which listed it, as well as Syria, on its “axes of evil”.

In exchange of its support, Tehran offers Turkey to explore natural gas in Southern Fares field, against 50 per cent of all gas extracted from it, which Turkey can use and even export.

With this, and in addition to its energy agreements with Iraq, Turkey will become a key energy transportation channel to Europe, but also an exporter.

At the same time, Tehran would not fear that an eventual Turkish strong presence in the region would threaten its own plans. In fact, Turkey is not an Arab country.

In the cases of Syria and Iran, the fact that Turkey is an important member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and ally of Washington and London, could not be more comforting. In fact, Turkish voice is not only heard in the NATO, U.S. and UK, but also listened to.

Turkey also benefits. With its Middle East growing influence, Ankara can offer to Europe a good channel of communication with conflictive Middle East.

This can help Ankara strengthen its arguments for either a European Union membership, to which it aspires, or a significant ‘privileged partnership’ which European big powers offer it instead of fully joining the EU club.

Parallel to all that, a new, strong role and influence in the Middle East proportionate to Ankara’s wide, rich markets, big investment opportunities for its development, and a solid corridor to also oil-rich but under-developed Central Asia countries, are among so many others benefits.

A quick look at a statement by Erdogan on October 29 during his visit to Tehran may help understand better. “Turkey has never neglected any of its neighbouring areas, from Palestine to Lebanon to Syria and Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan”, he said. In fact, Erdogan arrived in Tehran from Islamabad.

There, Erdogan addressed the Pakistani parliament. “Turkey and Pakistan are two influential countries in the region and they will continue efforts to bring comprehensive peace.”

In this first time ever that a foreign high official addressed the Pakistani parliament, Ergodan said: “The remedies are in hands of the countries of the region . . . not outside.”

WHAT NEXT?

This is another question altogether.

If the new quartet pretends to exercise political muscles in the Middle East, it would be strongly exposed to the risk of demolition by the current strongest player on Earth, the U.S.

If instead the four countries are content with enjoying mutual benefits and playing a low-profile game, that might be more than enough to survive.

But George Orwell, in his 1984 masterwork, explained that those who hold power are never happy with having it — they need to show it. (IDN-InDepthNews/09.11.2009)

* Fareed Mahdy is special correspondent of IDN-InDepthNews Service

Copyright © 2009 IDN-InDepthNews Service

Related IDN links:
TURKEY: Playing Smart - Both EU and Middle East Games
http://www.indepthnews.net/news/news.php?key1=2009-10-12%2011:39:19&key2=1

IDN Middle East Analysis:
http://www.indepthnews.net/area2.php?key=MM

Resurrecting the Caliphate

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2302

AntiWar: The “trial” of the former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic began last week before the Hague Inquisition. Karadzic himself boycotted the proceedings, arguing that he had no time to prepare a defense (the indictment was finalized October 19, though the ICTY had 14 years to do it). The Inquisition’s response — imposing counsel on him and adjourning till March 2010 — was not a surprise. Karadzic has already been convicted by the Western media, but a show trial has certain rules it must follow, even if the Inquisition gets to write its own. With the Inquisition already beginning to misrepresent what dubious evidence it has offered, the railroading of Radovan Karadzic looks set to proceed apace come spring.

At that time, if he is allowed, he may resort to quoting a most unlikely defender: Turkey’s foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

A Neo-Ottoman Minister

A scholar who has influenced Turkish foreign policy since 2002, and became the country’s chief diplomat in May this year, Davutoglu has pursued what his critics have labeled a “neo-Ottoman” foreign policy. He speaks of “historical depth” of Ankara’s relationship with the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East, and argues that conflicts in these areas originate in their separation from the Ottoman Empire.

In mid-October, immediately after a trip to Iraq, Davutoglu flew to Bosnia, where he opened a conference titled “The Ottoman Legacy and the Balkans Muslim Communities Today.” His opening remarks, quoted extensively in the Sarajevo weekly BH Dani on October 23, went virtually unnoticed in the West. However, as Davutoglu also met with Serbia’s foreign minister, Vuk Jeremic, a Serbian magazine for political analysis dug up the article from Dani and published it on their website. Davutoglu’s speech ought to be alarming not just to the Serbian public and the West, but to all Turks committed to preservation of Kemal Ataturk’s vision of a secular state — if any remain.

The “Golden Age”

On October 11, Davutoglu had met with the U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and his Armenian counterpart in Zurich, Switzerland, and signed a protocol to restore bilateral ties. By his own admission in Sarajevo, though, he spent more time with Clinton talking about the “Bosnian issue” than about Armenia.

To the surprise of some Western diplomats at his “drop-in,” he retorted, “We didn’t drop in, we came to Bosnia on horseback.”

At the conference in Sarajevo, Davutoglu explained his view of the Balkans. The region is a geopolitical “buffer zone,” and a crossroads of economic and cultural interaction between Europe and Asia, Baltics and the Mediterranean. Such a region, he argued, “has two possible destinies in history. One is to be the center of world history, and the other to be a victim of global conflict…”

And what an amazing coincidence, it was precisely during the Ottoman Empire’s peak that the Balkans was “at the center of world politics.” The 16th century, he argued, was the “golden age of the Balkans. This is a historical fact.”

Why, without the Ottoman Empire, Mehmed-Pasha Sokolovic would have been a peasant instead of a Grand Vizier, and Kavalali Mehmet Ali-Pasha would have stayed in his native Albania instead of establishing modern-day Egypt!

He didn’t bother with trifling details, such as that Sokolovic was seized by force from his family as a child and turned into a Janissary, or that Ali-Pasha established Egypt by rebelling against the Ottomans. But with this “golden age” as his point of departure, Davutoglu’s conclusion sounds perfectly logical:

“Now is the time for reunification. Then we will rediscover the spirit of the Balkans. We need to create a new feeling of unity in the region. We need to strengthen regional ownership, a common regional conscience… It all depends on which part of history you look to. From the 15th to the 20th century, the history of the Balkans was a history of success. We can have this success again.”

And again, later in the speech:

“The Ottoman era in the Balkans is a success story. Now it needs to come back.”

Davutoglu doesn’t specify as to how. But when he talks about “reintegrating” the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East, and how Turkey is a “safe haven and homeland” for Bosnian, Chechens and Albanians, it isn’t hard to fill in the blanks. What Ahmet Davutoglu wants is to resurrect the empire of Mehmet el-Fatih and Suleiman the Magnificent.

The Dark Age

What Davutoglu and his Muslim audience saw as the “golden age” was the Dark Age for everyone else. Vlad the Impaler isn’t a national hero in Romania because he cruelly dispatched his enemies, but because those enemies were mostly Turks. The Ottomans destroyed the Byzantine Empire, which had carried on in the East for a thousand years after the fall of Rome itself. They obliterated the medieval kingdom of Bosnia, depopulated vast swathes of present-day Croatia and Hungary, nearly exterminated the Serbs from Kosovo… Ask the Croats, Hungarians, Serbs, Romanians, Bulgarians, Armenians or Greeks what they think of the Ottoman “golden age” and their answer will probably be too vulgar to print.

Yes, Mehmed-Pasha Sokolovic rose to prominence in the Ottoman hierarchy, and he wasn’t the first or the last Janissary to do so. But he also remembered his roots — something the Janissaries were emphatically not supposed to do. The legacy of this is the legendary Bridge on the Drina, and the restored Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church (to which he appointed his brother, Makarije). A far more typical Janissary, and another Grand Vizier, was serasker Hurshid Ahmed-Pasha, the general who built a tower of Serbian skulls after a battle in 1809.

Rejecting Ataturk?

Davutoglu’s Ottoman nostalgia isn’t simply another dream of greatness most politicians are prone to at times, but stands in direct opposition to the Kemalist ideology that is the foundation of modern Turkey.

Kept artificially alive by the European powers throughout the 1800s, the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed following its defeat in the Great War. It was Mustafa Kemal, a German-trained Army officer, who organized resistance to the British and French plans to partition the Empire’s heartland. Under his command, the Turks emerged victorious out of a conflict with Britain, France and Greece (resulting in the destruction of Greek communities in Asia Minor that had existed since antiquity), and established the Turkish Republic in 1923.

The Republic has rested on six pillars of Kemalist ideology ever since: republicanism, secularism, populism, revolutionism, nationalism and statism. Nationalism, for example, explains Ankara’s view that everyone who speaks Turkish is a Turk, and there is no such thing as a Kurd. Hardly a foundation for “multiculturalism,” is it?

Kemalism has been enforced by the Turkish Army, which has often threatened a coup and made good on the threat several times. However, Turkey is now ruled by the AKP, a party that in 2008 almost got banned for its “anti-secularist” (meaning, Islamic) leanings. Party chairman Recep Erdogan is currently the Prime Minister, and Davutoglu’s former boss Abdullah Gul is the President of Turkey.

Echoes of Izetbegovic

Davutoglu’s claim that under the Ottomans the Balkans used to be the “center of the world” while now it is but a victim of power politics sounds eerily like the argument of Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic, who in his 1971 manifesto, “The Islamic Declaration,” wrote this:

“Turkey as an Islamic country used to rule the world. Turkey as an imitation of Europe represents a third-rate country.”

One very important distinction here is that the Ottoman Empire was not “Turkey,” but an Islamic Caliphate. One cannot talk about some sort of Ottoman resurrection without dealing with the Islamic aspect of the Empire. Davutoglu doesn’t address this directly, but merely talks about a shared “cultural heritage” and “multicultural coexistence.”

Then again, so did Izetbegovic. For years, he had the West believe that he was a multi-cultural democrat, rather than an advocate of establishing a Caliphate “from Morocco to Malaysia.” After his death in 2003, several men have competed for the political leadership of the Bosnian Muslims, but the religious leadership has remained in the hands of Mustafa Ceric, Izetbegovic’s Grand Mufti. Ceric openly talks about how “Turkey is our mother” and “Mehmet el-Fatih is our father.”

So, when Ahmet Davutoglu speaks in Sarajevo about how he feels at home, how Sarajevo is “ours” (Turkish) and “Turkey is yours,” and how Turkey’s vital interest is ensuring “your [i.e. Muslim] ownership of Sarajevo and Bosnia,” it isn’t hard to reach the same conclusion as Radovan Karadzic did in 1992: something is seriously wrong with a picture of the country that has no room for over half of its (Christian) population.

Karadzic acted on this realization by mobilizing the Bosnian Serbs for war, and opposing the creation of the Muslim-dominated Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina by the force of arms. Now countries that have engaged in naked aggression themselves have dubbed this “aggression” and “genocide” and put Karadzic on trial at a “court” they illegally established and control.

Davutoglu, meanwhile, goes about the business of resurrecting the Caliphate.

Erdogan says he favors Bashir over Netanyahu

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2301

Erdogan says he favors Bashir over Netanyahu

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan denies that Sudan’s President al-Bashir is responsible for genocide in Darfur, saying that “a Muslim couldn’t do such things”. I wonder if Erdogan would deny that the shooter at Ft. Hood was a Muslim? One important distinction between Islam and Christianity is Islam’s lack of the sacred act of confession of sin. Thus throughout the Islamic world, there is, as seen here, a frequent denial of sin rather than acknowledgment. This is in fact one of the looming obstacles to Islam’s ability to ever truly self reform as so many optimists long to see. Beyond this, Erdogan’s comments are grossly inaccurate. Muhammad himself oversaw the slaughter of entire Jewish villages, actually commanding the beheading of between 700-900 men in one day. Muhammad’s immediate successors slaughtered far more than Muhammad. Khalid Bin Walid al Makhzumi, the general of the Muslims army under Abu Bakr slaughtered a few thousand Persian Christians and Zoroastrians in one day. However, the extreme inaccuracy of Erdogan’s comments are not the real issue here. It is the deeply revealing nature of his comments that is so troubling. Within just the past few weeks, Erdogan accused Israel of war crimes against humanity: The very charges that The International Human Rights Commission has applied to al-Bashir. So while Erdogan expresses the idea that a Muslim could not commit genocide (even if they have - ala George Orwell) this is in contrast to the Jews that are inherently guilty of such (even if they are not). Muslims are incapable of doing great evil, while the Jewish people are innately evil. This is anti-Semitism of Hitlerian depth coming from a man that President Obama will receive to the White House in just a few weeks. The fact that this man is supported by a wide margin of Turks is also deeply troubling.

YNET: Turkish prime minister says he would be more comfortable talking to indicted Sudanese president than to Israeli premier. He denies Bashir is responsible for genocide in Darfur, saying ‘a Muslim couldn’t do such things’

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday denied that Omar Hassan al-Bashir was responsible for genocide in Darfur and said he would be more comfortable talking to the indicted Sudanese president than to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the state-run news agency Anatolian reported.

“I wouldn’t be able to speak with Netanyahu so comfortably but I would speak comfortably with Bashir. I say comfortably “What you’ve done is wrong”. And I would say it to his face. Why? Because a Muslim couldn’t do such things. A Muslim could not commit genocide,” Anatolian quoted Erdogan as saying.

During joint press conference with French counterpart in Paris, FM Davutoglu says, ‘All countries that seek peace are our strategic allies, including Israel of course’

Turkish government officials said Bashir would not attend an Islamic summit in Istanbul as planned, after the European Union raised objections to his visit.

Bashir, against whom the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity in Sudan’s Darfur region, had announced plans to attend a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on Monday.

“We have learned that he is not coming,” a Turkish government official told Reuters on condition of anonymity, without elaborating. Other Turkish officials, visibly relieved at the news, also confirmed that Bashir was not attending.

The ICC indicted Bashir in March on seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but stopped short of including a charge of genocide. The United Nations says as many as 300,000 people have been killed since conflict erupted in Darfur in 2003, although Sudan rejects that figure.

Fraught ties
Erdogan’s comments could further damage Turkey’s already fraught ties with Israel, which have deteriorated since Israel’s offensive earlier this year in the Palestinian Gaza Strip.

Turkey, which has deepened economic ties with Sudan, has not ratified the statute that established the ICC and had said it had no plans to arrest Bashir.

The mainly Muslim country, which is seeking EU membership, had come under pressure from Brussels and international human rights groups to drop Bashir from the guest list.

Campaigning group Human Rights Watch had said that NATO member Turkey’s international image would “plummet” if Ankara did not bar Bashir’s entry.

Bashir has travelled to African countries since his arrest warrant was issued by the ICC in March.

Iran’s anti-American President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose country is engaged in a standoff with the West over Tehran’s nuclear program, arrived in Istanbul on Sunday to attend the one-day OIC meeting.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in his first trip abroad since his re-election was announced this week following a fraud-marred ballot, also arrived earlier on Sunday and held bilateral talks with Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul.

Western powers are seeking to exert pressure on Tehran for concessions on its nuclear program, and Ahmadinejad could use the summit to undermine efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic.

Meanwhile Sunday, Syrian President Bashar Assad said that if Turkey wished to help his country, it must maintain good relations with Israel. Assad told Turkish newspaper Hurriyet that Ankara had been successful in mediating between Jerusalem and Damascus for eight months and had conveyed an important message to the West.

“Turkey must maintain good relations with Israel, otherwise how can it fill a significant role in the peace process?” he said.