What Turkey can teach us about Iraq
By AaronVB Posted in User Blogs — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From the Diaries...
"A tidy mind may not appreciate Turkey's contradictions." So says Mathew Kaminsky, writing about the culture in Turkey that is simultaneously moving towards European standards of human rights while trying prominent author Orhan Pamuk for remarks he made while outside the country questioning the official Turkish denial of the genocide of a million Armenians and some tens of thousands of Kurds. Yet, for all its oddities and paradoxes, Turkey is one of a kind, the only secular Islamic republic (excluding the experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan). As such, it presents us with an interesting perspective, a crystal ball you might say, on how the democracy in Iraq may evolve.The story of modern-day Turkey begins after World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In 1918 the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the allies and the capital Istanbul was occupied by the British and the French. It was officially dissolved by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, and Turkey did not regain national sovereignty until 1923 after a War of Independence that threw out foreign influences. The capital was moved to Ankara and Turkey was declared a republic with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as its first elected President.
During his reign, Attaturk embarked on a series of aggressive secular reforms that sought to overthrow the old Islamic order and replace it with a Western-style secular state. To that end, he abolished both the offices of the Sultan and the Caliph (the Sultan's chief advisor), suppressed religious brotherhoods, secularized the law codes, introduced the Roman alphabet, and purified the Turkish language of Arabic and Farsi loan-words. He was succeeded by Ismet Inonu, who ruled from 1938 to 1950, and whose chief actions were to keep Turkey neutral in World War II and implement reforms that led to democratic elections in 1950 that forced his Republican's People party from power.
The new party, the Democratic Peak party, disagreed with the aggressive secular agenda of Kemalism, which caused a military coup in 1960 by military officers who feared a return to a traditional Islamic state. The Kemalist regime had also been responsible for the rapid modernization and expansion of the army from 1940-1960, and the Army feared for its power base with the new regime. The Army overthrew the government, executed three of its top ministers, and wrote a new Constitution that promoted aggressive secularism that was approved by popular referendum in 1961. The Army then withdrew from direct political involvement until 1980, when the Army again staged a bloodless coup in response to growing religious violence in Turkey. This time, it declared martial law until 1983 when the ban on political parties was lifted and elections were help under a new constitution.
In 2002, the Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi [AKP], or the Justice and Development Party, won a landslide victory against the secular parties who had been in control of the parliament. The AKP is a strange animal, a moderately Islamist party committed to European integration, free trade, and who is moderately pro-American. As you may recall, the United States was blocked by Turkey from using Turkish soil as a staging ground to invade Iraq from the North, but that was against the wishes of the AKP, who even pushed to include Turkish troops in the operations. Its existence seems to belie the notion that Islam is incompatible with cooperation with the West.
With all that in mind, it is important to note that Turkey is balkanized in ways that resemble Iraq: the mostly secularized and relatively wealthy western half of the country stands in stark contrast to the poorer and far more religious (and also anti-American) eastern provinces, whose relationship is further complicated by Kurdish separatists who maintain strong presences in some rural Turkish towns. Unlike Iraq, the Turks belong almost exclusively (90%) to one branch of Islam: Sunni; as such, religious is not such a major factor.
The real comparison comes in examining the Turkish majority's relationship to the Kurdish minority. The Kurds in Turkey have turned to tactics similar to those being carried about by Zarqawi's terrorists in Iraq. The Kurdish terrorist group, Turkish Hezbollah (unrelated to the Lebanese Hezbollah organization), has carried out targeted kidnappings, murders, and suicide bombings against Western and Turkish targets in Turkey:
Over the last week [November 13th-20th, 2003], the uniquely Eurasian city of Istanbul has been hit by a series of shocking terrorist attacks committed by anti-Western fanatics. On November 17, twin "martyrdom" bombers, each carrying 850 pounds of explosives, detonated themselves outside two separate synagogues in Istanbul, killing 23 and wounding over 300. Less than a week later, a third and fourth team of suicide bombers targeted the British consulate and HSBC bank headquarters, murdering 27 more, including the U.K.'s consul-general, Roger Short. Though this new campaign of violence has its roots in Turkey's domestic Islamic extremist movement, there are clear indications that it is also being inspired, sponsored, and coordinated by foreign elements of al Qaeda.
Turkish authorities have already been able to identify the two men responsible for the first set of synagogue attacks: Mesut Cabuk, 29, and Gokhan Elaltuntas, 22, both from the city of Bingol, approximately 500 miles southeast of Istanbul. At least one of the suicide bombers that struck British interests on Thursday -- Azad Ekinci -- was also known to be from Bingol. Not surprisingly, the predominantly Kurdish Bingol has served as a major center of local Islamic militancy, including for the Sunni extremist group known as Turkish Hezbollah ("Party of God").
The Turkish response is instructive:
The Turkish security apparatus does not take the threat of militant Islam lightly. When a relatively moderate Islamic regime came to power in Ankara a year ago, Gen. Hilmi Ozkok, Turkey's military commander, reassured the public that his army possessed "the will and determination" to crush any "fundamentalist" insurgency. Already, the Turks have identified the dead bombers and have arrested scores of other possible co-conspirators. Still, even after these stern measures, there remains some expectation both in Ankara and Washington that the terror campaign in Turkey may not yet be complete.
We must now compare this to the situation in Iraq. Detractors of the operation claim persistent terrorism from foreign fighters and the Sunni minority threaten the stability of the Iraqi government and state. For some perspective:
The length of the Iraqi insurgency: 2+ years
The length of the Turkish Kurd insurgency: 20+ years
Despite the length of the Kurdish rebellion, Turkey has retained its national sovereignty. It's worth asking the Iraq pessimists what facts they have to justify their doom and gloom. Every empirical example from Turkey to Israel to the United States shows terrorism to be a losing proposition if the goal is to destabilize the government of the target nation. It is also worth noting that the Kurdish rebellion existed even as successive governments in Ankara were thrown out by coups or elections, suggesting even a weak government is not seriously harmed by Al-Qaeda style terrorism.
But what about democracy in the face of terrorism? By all accounts, a long-term insurgency has not prevented a relatively open and successful democracy from continuing in Turkey. The changing-of-hands of power in 2002 is evidence that Turkey has healthy political parties, and the thwarting of the AKP's desire to aid in Iraq, while hurting the interests of the United States, is evidence that the will of minority cannot be trampled over by the majority. The Kurds have not been brought into the political process in a way even resembling the inclusiveness of Iraqi politics, which has probably contributed to the length of the separatist violence, a fact that allows us to hope the democratic process can help ease ethnic and religious tensions.
There is, however, this tidbit:
In Turkey, however, the government is burdened militarily with an expensive effort to suppress a Kurdish insurgency that has lasted 14 years. Politically it has to cope with a policy, born with the Turkish Republic itself, that the national population has a single identity, that of Turks. This policy is contradicted by a considerable part of the population which refuses to surrender their sense of a Kurdish identity. The other policy, also fundamental to the original concept of the republic, is the pursuit of secularism with a concomitant denial of a political role for Islam. After three-quarters of a century, a great many Turks wish precisely for Islam to have a political role.
As the tension in Iraq is religious and not ethnic, it will probably avoid the first issue of national identity, despite the cries of war critics. What is more interesting is the second point about separation of church and state, which runs counter to much of what we in the West feel should happen in Iraq to ensure a stable government. After the ratification of the Iraqi Constitution, critics on the Left and some on the Right were quite dogged in their criticism of the Iraqi Congress's choice to include a large role for Islam in the Constitution. Many on the Left were concerned about women's rights, which have little bearing on the stability of a nation and are thus outside the scope of this article, but another concern was that the more Islam in government there was, the more religious tensions would escalate. On the contrary, and perhaps paradoxically, the Turkish example shows that aggressive secularization is not the best policy in an Islamic nation, and that integrating, to some extent, mosque and state is critical to maintain a sense of national cohesion. This is allegorized in the aforementioned Orhan Pamuk's books Snow, in which a Turkish exile returns to a small rural town to investigate the suicides of several local girls who have been banned from wearing their headscarves, a sign of Islamic identity in public. Those events are fictional, but the point is not: Islam is integral to the identity of nations like Turkey and Iraq in a way the secularized Europeans cannot fathom and even the relatively religious United States has trouble understanding. The best way to ease religious tensions thus seems to be more Islam, not less.
Turkey thus shows us that we can counter the pessimism about Iraq with empirical examples, Turkey is the most convincing example of an Islamic democracy that works. It also shows us that Islam is not incompatible with democracy but is in fact necessary for its functioning in the Islamic world. History is actually on our side in the struggle for Iraq and the Middle East.
I don't believe the ethnic militias in Iraq are long for this world. Whereas the Kurds in Turkey are relentlessly separatist, all three ethnic groups in Iraq are participating in the political process, and as the national army grows the militias as a matter of course will decline in power. The most threatening militias, those of the Sunnis, actually guarded polling places on the last election day. I believe the Sunni separatists will most likely go the way of the Kurds, carrying out some spectacular attacks now and then but doing no real damage.
1. The Kurds are keeping their peshmerga, considering their contributions to the ISF to be loaners. They already have pretty good deals autonomy-wise with both Iran and (less so) Turkey. They might not form a sovereign Kurdistan, but they have options.
My hunch is counter-intuitive: I think the Kurds, if they don't like how hanging out with Iraq is working out, may actually unify with Turkey in return for semisovereign status. Turkey gets oil and (nominally) more territory, a potential war with Turkey is obviated, what's left of Iraq will just have to live with it.
Only hitch: The United States might strongly disapprove. I mean, we do have some pull in-country. :)
- It's going to take some doing convincing the Sunnis that their rights will be honored by a Kurd/Shia-dominated ISF. The scale of Sunni militias may fade, as a result of (my theory) that they will suddenly start seeing the Americans as the best friends they will ever have going forward. (These sorts of reversals are commonplace in the Middle East.) If the Kurds decide to jump the fence, and we decide to object, it will be Sunni soldiers fighting with Americans in a strange twist.
- Strike that, it's a Shia-dominated ISF; the Shia militias are going to roll into the central security forces and form the lion's share of same.
But the Shia are in position to take their ball and go home -- forming their own state -- and based on the numbers, they could tie up a much, much larger Coalition force than the Sunni insurgents currently do, if this is something that we take issue with.
However, I doubt the Shia go this way unless they feel screwed. After all, in a unified, post-Coalition Iraq, they call all the shots. And if that "post-Coalition" part is too slow in coming the Shia may raise the rent, or make their displeasure known.
Everything that I have heard about Iraq says that Iraq is a win only if the Shia go along with it. The problem is that the Shia are less selective about things like separation of church/state and their choice of friends than Americans are.
I've got an idea on that one, too: We might want to consider using good relations with the Shia to get some sort of 'Only Nixon can go to China' thing going with the Iranians.
Figure this: We talk more with the North Koreans than with the mullahs, the DPRK is a much nastier bunch, and the Shia Iraqis are going to be pals with Iran, anyway. We might as well make lemonade from those lemons.
Or not. :)
Saddam was a Sunni and he ran an essentially secular government. The demonstrations
in Iraq have been made up of secular Shi'a and Sunni. Turkey is 99% Sunni. Is
Sunni Islam more likely to embrace a civil form of government than Shi'a? Contrast
Turkey with Iran and its theocracy which is 89% Shi'a. Could the Shi'a majority
in Iraq make it harder to establish a democracy there?
Overall, i think this is an excellent piece, but i would like to discuss a few aspects of it in further detail.
While your discussion on Sunni Islam in Turkey is an apt one, i think you overlook the root causes of the "Kurdish insurgency in Turkey". You mention the 1920 Treaty of Sevres in your excellent historical background of Turkey, but do not mention the significance of this or the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne which explains much of the problems in Turkey.
The Treaty of Sevres promised the Kurds an independent homeland which was then reneged by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne which created the Republic of Turkey as a united country.
The "Kurdish insurgency in Turkey" is grounded in this history. It is also why a "3 state solution" in Iraq was never really discussed. Because Turkey did not want an independent Kurdish state on its borders with significant oil wealth. It argued that it would only increase dissention in its own country. The Bush administration agreed.
So how can we compare this to Iraq?
The Sunnis, for the most part, held power in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. With the ouster of Hussein and the new Iraqi Constitution, the power has shited towards the Shia since approximately 60% of the Iraqi population identify themselves as Shia Muslims. This is how a democratic system should work (more or less).
Again, this insurgency is about power, but its foundations are very different. The Sunnis never had a legitimate claim to power. They may be unwilling to give up this power which prompts the question, Should a discussion on a "3 state solution" be debated again? It would allow the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds to govern themselves independently. The problem with this scenario is how this would effect Turkey and Iran.
Otherwise, the insurency will run its course in Iraq when the Sunni population embraces their role as a minority in Iraq, one that is fully protected by the constitution. This, of course, may take more time and patience on the part of the coalition in Iraq.
"It is also worth noting that the Kurdish rebellion existed even as successive governments in Ankara were thrown out by coups or elections, suggesting even a weak government is not seriously harmed by Al-Qaeda style terrorism."
Granted. I've made the point myself repeatedly. This style of terrorism can influence the electoral processess to a degree, as in Spain, but unless an insurgency is capable of taking and holding territory, then it is incapable of threatening a central regime. Urban style terrorism has always failed to bring down a regime.
That being said, then it should be pointed out that the idea the only the U.S. military stands between Iraq and domination by Al-Queda. As you have pointed out, this is simply not the case.
Further, though, I would like to make a couple of points. First, Turkey's founding is predicated on the mass slaughter of Christians. As someone whose roots are in Eastern Europe, I find the equanimity with which posters on this site, and conservatives in general, treat this fact to be truly remarkable. The last anti-Christian pogrom occurred in Turkey in the 1950's. There is still an ongoing policy of anti-Christian repression that is occurring in Turkey, despite the fact that most Christians have already been pushed out or slaughtered. This is largely ignored by the Bush Administration, of course.
Now, let's expand this discussion to the rest of the Middle East. If Turkey is a model for the rest of the region, then what does that model entail? It entails repeated trips into military dictatorship. It entails economic instability, including a currency meltdown. It entails mass slaughter of minorities, particularly Christians. It entails a horrendous human rights record. It entails the continuing resurgence of Islamist parties, whose attempts at blending Mosque and state seemed to be applauded by conservatives such as yourself.
Since my speciality in undergrad was the Balkans, I have spent a lot of time among Slavs who lived under Turkish oppression. If this is your model for what we are trying to build, then you can keep it.
The blending of Mosque and state means that the testimony of a Christian counts for less than the testimony of a Muslim. The blending of Mosque and state means that Christian churches can't be built or even repaired. The blending of mosque and state means that Christian women have to wear the veil the same as the Muslim ones. The blending of mosque and state means that citizenship has a religious component, something that reformers throughout the Middle East have striven mightily to overcome.
Is this what we are trying to get to? Is that the best you can do? We are trying to get to a situation in which all governments in the Middle East are run by midly Islamist parties?
Thank you for putting these views out there. I wish they were picked up and run on the nightly news on Fox. If so, then perhaps the American people would realize exactly what they are being offered as a policy.
Excellent post glenduerr.
Turkey and Iraq, IMO, are not comparable in any way. The Kurds are not fighting to overthrow the Turkish government. The Kurds are fighting their own Revolutionary War to create their own country. Like the Colonies in the 18th Century, the Kurds have taken the tact of "My enemy's enemy is my friend" and that is why the Kurds have appeared to accept Islamic terrorists into its fold.
According to the CIA, 20% of Turkey, 15%-20% of Iraq, and 7% of Iran are Kurds.
Turkey: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tu.html
Iraq: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
Iran: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
Historically, both Arabs and Turks have hated the Kurds. Both groups have tried to exterminate the Kurds in the past. For the Kurds, it is viewed as a fight for survival.
This understanding is the reason why there are some conservatives like me who fully supported going to war with Iraq, but are fully against trying to rebuild Iraq as a single country with borders a century ago that never made sense to the cultures who live in the region.
Michael Rubin. It was published by the National Review Online. (Not noted as a major left-wing site, so I'm not sure how anyone could claim the below information is leftist disinformation, though someone will surely try.) It would seem that Turkey as an empirical model of 'democracy' in the new 'Islamist' era isn't all that it's cracked up to be:
On June 20, 2005, Nuri Ok, chief prosecutor of Turkey's supreme court of appeals, challenged the Justice and Development party [AKP]'s bylaws which have enabled Erdogan to exert near dictatorial control over nominations for election candidates. On November 30, after several months of AKP stonewalling and refusal to change the unconstitutional provisions, Ok demanded a formal court censure of the ruling party.
Unfortunately, Erdogan's disdain for the independent judiciary has become the rule rather than the exception. His government has ignored several successive supreme-court rulings in the Kent Bank case which declared illegal the government's seizure and subsequent sale of a political opponent's assets. Frustrated with such court rulings against his government, Erdogan has also moved to reduce the retirement age of judges so that he can replace 4,000 out of 9,000 professional civil servants with AKP party supporters.
While the prime minister once trumpeted his government's willingness to enter the European Union, he has since expressed similar disdain for European courts. After the European Court of Human Rights on November 10 upheld the headscarf ban in Turkish universities, he declared, "It is wrong that those who have no connection to this field [of religion] make such a decision... without consulting Islamic scholars." His statements shocked multiple audiences. Not only did he give reason for European politicians to question his commitment to the European Union accession process but, the suggestion that religious law could trump state law rocked the Turkish establishment.
Erdogan has also launched an assault on the Turkish education system. Illegal Koran schools advertise openly in the Turkish press. Turkish investigative reporters say these unregulated schools' curriculum seldom correlates to the traditional precepts of Islam, but rather embraces the Saudi-funded incitement common in the madrasas of Pakistan. While Turkish society has long respected religious education, Erdogan has unraveled the careful controls which long ensured that purveyors of religious hatred did not brainwash young students.
As his frustration grows with constitutional constraints on his agenda, many Turks say that their prime minister's abuse of power has worsened. On October 14, 2005, Turkish police arrested Professor Yjcel Askin, rector of Yuzuncu Yil University in the eastern Turkish city of Van. Askin is well-known in Turkish academic circles for both antagonism to the PKK and efforts to emphasize the division between secular and religious education. The stated reason for his arrest was a question of a financial irregularity related to the purchase of medical equipment for the university. But the arrest followed months of government harassment. The Turkish police had earlier raided his home to seize illicit antiquities -- only to find that he had permits for everything. The government's subsequent decision to hold Askin and other university officers without bail was without precedent. Fifty university presidents protested the government's actions. On November 13, another university officer committed suicide after languishing in prison for three months without a single court hearing, let alone a trial.
Erdogan's assault on Turkey's secular traditions has manifested itself in other ways. On October 9, the mainstream daily Cumhuriyet reported that the Ministry of Health sent "registry information forms" to hospital personnel demanding to know their religious sect. The classification scheme represents a dangerous erosion of the religious tolerance for which Turkey has long been known. In response to the AKP's actions, the Turkish Physicians Union and the Istanbul Chamber of Physicians issued a joint press statement declaring, "They are recording the workers according to their religious beliefs and sects. [This] defies all clear definitions of the constitution on freedom of religion and conscience." The concern is real. Erdogan's administration has systematically discriminated against Turkey's 15-million member Alevi community. The Alevis are a Sufi-influenced Islamic sect and, like the mainstream of Turkish society, and have a tradition of tolerance far broader than the teachings espoused by the AKP's leadership. Despite the AKP's claims to represent Turkish society, the establishment daily Milliyet reported that the party's parliamentary delegation and leadership did not include a single Alevi.
Ordinary Turks -- at least those living outside Istanbul -- are feeling the heat. The government has not only moved to increase taxes on beer, but AKP-controlled municipalities have also moved to ban alcohol altogether. On November 23, opposition Republican People's party [CHP] deputy leader Kemal Anadol said, "If you separate the areas where alcoholic beverages are sold...what you want is Tehran, not Luxembourg."
Let's see - unconstitutional abuse of power, systematic discrimination against minorities, electoral manipulation, the list goes on.
This is what you are hoping for in Iraq?
Very informative. Thanks.
Iraq's leaders need to avoid the same strategic mistake made by the Shah of Iran in the name of modernization. He ignored the religious views of the people in a very religious society, and of course he was not terribly democratic either, so there was no way to peacefully challenge his policies.
Nowhere in this post do I say what should happen in Iraq or Turkey, only what probably will happen in Iraq if the development of the democracy in Turkey is any guide to go by. The closest I come to giving any indication of an opinion on where Iraq should go is in the paragraph on Islam and the state, which you take issue with.
You said:
If Turkey is a model for the rest of the region...
Nowhere do I say Turkey's democracy should be modelled actively in the Middle East. Again, my only point was that Turkey provides an empirical example of how such democracies develop, and is in many ways heartening at least as far as national stability goes. The fact that Islamic nations aren't terribly tolerant of other religions shouldn't surprise anyone, and no reasonable person thought Iraqi or Islamic culture would change overnight as a result of democratization, only that it would be less likely to express its intolerance in the form of terrorism. So far, I have no reason to doubt that is and will be the case.
As far as the oppression of minorities and Christians, does it happen? Yes. Does Islam contribute to it? Certainly. Can we end that as a matter of policy? No. I think Bush has been a little too idealistic on that point, although as I said above, I believe he is right that democratization makes countries less likely to support international terrorism. And while political Islam is distasteful to us, the fact is that it is the rule in the Middle East, and mosque and state will be integrated in some form in any Islamic democracy. If we were to attempt to force that to not be the case as a matter of policy, the resulting government would lack legitimacy in the eyes of many of its citizens. We simply can't afford that.
So, just keep in mind that the post is much more on the descriptive side than the prescriptive side. I don't advocate a Islamist, even a mildly Islamist, government as a matter of personal opinion, but that is what we're going to be dealing with.
Again, I'm not sounding the trumpets to the glory of Turkey's brilliant democracy. Your comment is valuable in that includes a discussion of the problems of Turkey that I overlooked in emphasizing its positive points, and everyone should take a careful look at the article you cite. However, don't accuse me of being a partisan of the AKP, for I would certainly be a target of its policies if your article is anything to go by.
Let's see - unconstitutional abuse of power, systematic discrimination against minorities, electoral manipulation, the list goes on.
This is what you are hoping for in Iraq?
As I said above, I'm not hoping for anything of the sort. I believe Turkey's example gives us some reason to be cheerful at least in the prospect that it is possible to establish a democracy in a Muslim nation. The democracy is of course imperfect in many ways, and the AKP are certainly no saints, but they were elected freely and the transition of power occurred in an orderly fashion. The AKP's strong-arm tactics since then are worrisome, but nowhere do I indicate that Iraq should or will follow the exact path as Turkey, only that Turkey's democracy gives a good sketch of how democracy in a Muslim nation works. Hopefully Iraq can learn from the problems and the positive progress in Turkey while it builds its own democratic society.
Aaron, that just isn't good enough.
The fact that Turkey contributed troops to help us in the Korean War, stood by us during the Cold War, are on the verge of entering the EU all means nothing because their government just isn't as good as some would like. But rest assured. Iraq will be much worse.
33% of the island, followed by ethnic cleansing of the Greeks from its zone of occupation. That those actions almost caused a hot war with another NATO ally, the Greeks. It wasn't as if the relationship between the Turks and the Americans was free of friction.
Look - we keep talking about democracy here in a way that is really mob rule. The mob elects the government, and therefore, the mob gets to decide everything. What about natural law? What about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?' What about constitutional protections?
It appears that we are trying to export procedural democracy (voting for candidates of your choice), but without the ideas of an independent judiciary, inalienable individual rights, and respect for the rule of law.
What appears to be happening in Turkey is exactly what opponents of democracy in the Middle East have long said would happen. You will merge mosque and state, and you will get a repressive regime. Only, this regime will be one that has the 'legitimacy' of having been selected by a majority vote.
Streiff seems to see no problem with that, but I certainly do. The Turkish government has been coddled and defended first by the Brits and then by the Americans since the 17th Century. All of this support has now produced what result? Turkey stood by us in the Cold War - but at what cost then, and at what cost now? The U.S. overlooked the Armenian massacre at the time because of the need to 'bottle up' the Soviet Union in the Black Sea.
At the time we were trading the lives of innocents for a version of 'real politic.' At least that is defensible from the standpoint of American interests. But now, what interests do we have in fostering democracy in a region where the results will likely approximate those in Turkey?
Again, I see repeated over and over again that a Democratically elected regime will be less likely to foster terrorism. We will see that put to the test, and I don't think the results will be encouraging. Support for those who are attacking the 'great Satan' is likely to be a hot campaign issue in the years ahead, as the Democracy train gathers steam.
I would much, much prefer to deal with pro-American, secular dictatorships committed to fostering free market and civil reforms than to see Islamist governments planted all around the region who will use the ballot box to move towards a traditionalist Islamic autocracy that will be anti-American and repressive.
And one last thing, Streiff - do you support Turkey joining the EU? As someone who has residency rights inside the EU, I certainly do not. The inclusion of Turkey would dramatically change the character of Europe and make Muslim domination of Christendom almost a foregone conclusion. Perhaps that is quaint or out-of-date thinking, the Bush Administration certainly believes it to be.
On the other hand, it is incredibly disingenuous for so many conservatives to belabor the lost 'Europe' only to back a policy of including Turkey that will make that process irreversible.
33% of the island, followed by ethnic cleansing of the Greeks from its zone of occupation. That those actions almost caused a hot war with another NATO ally, the Greeks. It wasn't as if the relationship between the Turks and the Americans was free of friction.
Look - we keep talking about democracy here in a way that is really mob rule. The mob elects the government, and therefore, the mob gets to decide everything. What about natural law? What about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?' What about constitutional protections?
It appears that we are trying to export procedural democracy (voting for candidates of your choice), but without the ideas of an independent judiciary, inalienable individual rights, and respect for the rule of law.
What appears to be happening in Turkey is exactly what opponents of democracy in the Middle East have long said would happen. You will merge mosque and state, and you will get a repressive regime. Only, this regime will be one that has the 'legitimacy' of having been selected by a majority vote.
Streiff seems to see no problem with that, but I certainly do. The Turkish government has been coddled and defended first by the Brits and then by the Americans since the 17th Century. All of this support has now produced what result? Turkey stood by us in the Cold War - but at what cost then, and at what cost now? The U.S. overlooked the Armenian massacre at the time because of the need to 'bottle up' the Soviet Union in the Black Sea.
At the time we were trading the lives of innocents for a version of 'real politic.' At least that is defensible from the standpoint of American interests. But now, what interests do we have in fostering democracy in a region where the results will likely approximate those in Turkey?
Again, I see repeated over and over again that a Democratically elected regime will be less likely to foster terrorism. We will see that put to the test, and I don't think the results will be encouraging. Support for those who are attacking the 'great Satan' is likely to be a hot campaign issue in the years ahead, as the Democracy train gathers steam.
I would much, much prefer to deal with pro-American, secular dictatorships committed to fostering free market and civil reforms than to see Islamist governments planted all around the region who will use the ballot box to move towards a traditionalist Islamic autocracy that will be anti-American and repressive.
And one last thing, Streiff - do you support Turkey joining the EU? As someone who has residency rights inside the EU, I certainly do not. The inclusion of Turkey would dramatically change the character of Europe and make Muslim domination of Christendom almost a foregone conclusion. Perhaps that is quaint or out-of-date thinking, the Bush Administration certainly believes it to be.
On the other hand, it is incredibly disingenuous for so many conservatives to belabor the lost 'Europe' only to back a policy of including Turkey that will make that process irreversible.
Your points about Cyprus are conceded. As an American I can't understand why Cyprus is such a hot issue with Turkey. The invasion was probably foolish. That being said...
Look - we keep talking about democracy here in a way that is really mob rule. The mob elects the government, and therefore, the mob gets to decide everything. What about natural law? What about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?' What about constitutional protections?
It appears that we are trying to export procedural democracy (voting for candidates of your choice), but without the ideas of an independent judiciary, inalienable individual rights, and respect for the rule of law.
You're getting into to an old debate over the merits of procedural versus substantive democracy. Personally, I think the idea that we should be exporting substantive democracy is a load of hogwash. It requires us to believe that every people everywhere agree on the substantive ends of democracy; in your case, constitutional protections, an independent judiciary, and so forth. Personally, I think all those things are great. The Turks apparently don't or they'd toss the AKP out on its head. This leads me to cite a very relevant piece by Molly Beutz about this debate:
Focusing on accountability provides the basis for a functional vision of democracy that both attends to questions of social and material equality and structural change and can be applied in a variety of contexts. A vision of democracy as accountability is more robust than a purely procedural definition because it attends to important substantive goals. n105 At the same time, however, it avoids the necessity of a priori agreement on the substantive ends to be achieved by leaving those decisions in the hands of those who are in the best position to make them. n106
[*406]A focus on the ability of citizens to sanction leaders thus avoids the problems of both over- and under-inclusiveness that are often associated with substantive visions of democracy. Democracy as accountability is specific enough to provide concrete political guidance; at the same time, however, it may be less "suspect as a neocolonialist strategy" n107 because it does not require agreement about the substantive ends to be achieved. Nor does democracy "entail the imposition of a specific liberal-democratic worldview that has yet to find general acceptance." n108
As long as the AKP remains accountable to its citizens, i.e. can be removed from power in an election, the domestic policies it pushes are its business. That makes the abuses of power cited below worrisome, but if the vast majority of Turks want a more religiously oriented government, so be it. I'd like Islam to be more pluralist, and I think introducing democracy is the best way to do that, but I'm not going have a heart attack if Islamic democracy is less tolerant than we in the West think it should be. I know I'm walking a fine line here, and some might accuse me of complicity through silence in the genocidal campaigns against the Armenians and the Kurds, so let me be clear: I'm not defending the Turkish government for those actions. I'm just not willing to claim the whole democratic process in the Middle East is "illegitimate" as a result. What the example of Turkey does show us is that the road to democracy is not easy and elements of the old regime persist, sometimes for decades.
With all that being said, you'll note that even as the AKP has been pushing Islamist policies, it has not been financing or contributing to international terrorism, and the AKP has been friendly to the United States. This seems to help my point that democratized Islam is not a threat to the United States, even if we find other aspects of it distasteful or repulsive.
Again, I see repeated over and over again that a Democratically elected regime will be less likely to foster terrorism. We will see that put to the test, and I don't think the results will be encouraging. Support for those who are attacking the 'great Satan' is likely to be a hot campaign issue in the years ahead, as the Democracy train gathers steam.
Simply and empirically not true. Did the Iranian democracy do any such thing? Does Turkey now? Do you foresee Afghanistan and Iraq reopening the Al-Qaeda training camps? I need to see an example of a democratic Middle Eastern regime (few as they are) sponsoring a terrorist attack on the United States before I continue this discussion further.
I would much, much prefer to deal with pro-American, secular dictatorships committed to fostering free market and civil reforms than to see Islamist governments planted all around the region who will use the ballot box to move towards a traditionalist Islamic autocracy that will be anti-American and repressive.
It is sometimes said the best form of government is the benevolent dictatorship. Whoever said that was on to something. However, since we live in the real world, I'd like you to point out an example of such a regime in the Middle East today. I submit to you there are none. The Jordanians and the Saudis have the pro-American part down, but if human rights abuses and theocracy aren't your thing, you should probably steer clear. That leaves...Syria? Egypt? Iran? None of the region's major players fit your description. In fact, as we've seen in recent events, dictatorships tend to produce people who are more radically Islamic than democracies.
And one last thing, Streiff - do you support Turkey joining the EU? As someone who has residency rights inside the EU, I certainly do not. The inclusion of Turkey would dramatically change the character of Europe and make Muslim domination of Christendom almost a foregone conclusion. Perhaps that is quaint or out-of-date thinking, the Bush Administration certainly believes it to be.
I won't speak for Streiff on this, but I think the inclusion of Turkey in the EU would certainly benefit Turkey, and if you think Turkey is overall too repressive and too religious, you really ought to support its inclusion yourself. There's no faster to way to bring Turkey's human rights record up to Western standards than to force it to abide by the EU's human rights laws. I really don't have a dog in that fight myself, so I won't say too much else, except that I think at heart Turkey is more European than it is Middle Eastern, and that I don't believe its inclusion would violate the "Europeanness" of the EU.
You clearly have deep-seated problems with Turkey. That's fine, and you should criticize the government as actively as you can if you care about the future of the country and of Europe. However, I take issue with your conclusion that because democracy in Turkey has flaws and does not meet Western standards of substantive democracy to your liking that somehow the whole project is illegitimate. Your conclusion is not born out by the facts.
Re: At the time we were trading the lives of innocents for a version of 'real politic.'
The Armenian genocide occurred well before the Cold War began and Turkey was admitted to NATO. There was nothing that America (or anyone else) could do to alter the past.
And while we are on the subject of minorities treated barbarously let's recall that our own nation's record is not pristine either (Wounded Knee, Trail of Tears, Washita Creek, etc.)
An Islamic democracy that works? Tell that to the Christians trying to live in Turkey now.
It's not like this Muslim opression of Christians has just popped up, either. I'm 1/4 Armenian, and those ancestors came to this country to avoid being killed in the genocide that took place near the end of WWI (killing over a million, if I remember correctly). An eerie quote from hitler was, "After all, who now remembers the Armenians." Turn a blind eye to this stuff at your peril, free world.
respect for you if you'd just say "Muslims can't do democracy" and be done with it. But you don't. You insist on smearing a thin patina of analysis over what is obviously a very visceral issue with you (we "overlooked the Armenian massacre to keep the Soviets bottled up, how truly bizarre considering the massacres were largely finished before Soviet Union came into being.)
Most of the world doesn't recognize "inalienable individual rights" in the way we do and that includes Western Europe. It certainly includes Singapore and Malaysia and Japan and South Korea.
Get over it. Turkey is a functioning democracy.
It isn't like Europe is part of Christendom anymore so I don't see a lot there to defend if the Euros won't defend themselves.
In September 1922, Mustapha Kemal, the revolutionary ruler of Turkey , led his troops into Smyrna (now Izmir ), which at that time was a predominantly Christian city. While a flotilla of twenty-seven Allied warships - including three American destroyers - looked on, the Turks indulged in an orgy of pillage, rape and slaughter; which the Western powers condoned - eager to protect their oil and trade interests in Turkey - through their silence and by their refusal to intervene. Turkish forces then set fire to the legendary city and totally destroyed it. A massive cover-up followed, by tacit agreement of the Western Allies, who had defeated Turkey and Germany during World War I. By 1923, Smyrna 's demise was all but expunged from historical memory.
The above quote is from SMYRNA 1922: The Destruction of a City, authored by Professor Marjorie Housepian Dobkin. The Armenian and Greek nightmare extended into the early 20's, at a time when the U.S. and Western powers could have helped, but choose not to for purely selfish reasons, which nonetheless, in a 'real politic' sort of way could be overlooked. Immoral perhaps, but at least defensible on a purely self-interested level.
The second round of anti-Christian attacks occurred in the 1950's. From Sergei Trifkovich's book, "As late as 1955, Istanbul's Christians suffered what William Dalrymple called "the worst race riot in Europe since Kristallnacht." Following the last pogrom, Christians have retained only nominal presence in Turkey, completely contingent on the good will of the government in Ankara."
This was well into the Cold War Era and the United States said - nothing.
Turkey has brutalized minorities in recent history, be they religious or ethnic. The Kurds themselves have seen their culture suppressed. The Turks have launched an aggressive war in Cyprus in the past 30 years, and are currently out-of-compliance with 16 UN resolutions.
But - because the population gets to go to the polls this is a democracy? It may be, but if this is the best we can expect out of Islamic democracies, then why exactly are we so afraid of Muslim autocracies?
Now the the army in Turkey seems to be loosening its grip on power, we will see if the AK preserves the democratic framework, or if it will slide out of procedural democracy into something more akin to Iran. That remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen if procedural democracy will take root in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I don't hold out much hope of that. It is difficult to maintain the form if the substance isn't there.
As for Turkey in the EU, I don't think accession to the EU will moderate Turkey's behavior. Quite the contrary, as the Muslim riots across Europe have shown, I think it is more likely that large numbers of Turks would migrate into Europe and demand accomodation. Based on current events, it is much more likely that they will demand their own law and courts, and parallel structures. This is already happening, and bringing in 70 million plus Turks (including Kurds) will only accelerate the process.
By the way, Streiff, many Europeans are fighting the accession of Turkey. But with the U.S. on the side of Turkey, they are facing an uphill struggle. Especially after President Bush proclaimed that Europe can't be a 'Christian only' club. Well, I'm not sure the Pope would agree with that assessment.
Islam, it seems, is compatible with some form of electoral politics. That is proven by Iran and Turkey. Neither have been entirely free, since the Mullahs ultimately call the shots in Iran and Turkey has had a military guardian. But is an Islamic state with an electoral Democracy capable of pluralism, respecting the rule of law, and even basic human rights? That is a question that has never been answered positively. And if that question is 'no' or 'we're not sure' then why are we spending U.S. blood and treasure on this little project of ours?
One last thing, my ancestors are Poles. We never suffered at the hands of the Turks, so I have no personal stake in this. However, I do have strong feelings on the topic given the above information I have communicated. If you'd like to consign my thoughts to simple racial, religious, or ethnic bias, then feel free.
the history. Most of the Armenian genocide was accomplished before 1917 and certainly before the Allies intervened in the Russian civil war in 1918-20. And it wasn't like the "Soviet Navy" was much of a concern then.
I guess I should be stunned that you are able to place the 1950's incidents on the same plane as the Armenian genocide, somehow I'm not.
The Euros have made their bed with the EU, what happens there concerns me not a whit. The idea that we can somehow force them to let Turkey in if they don't want to is just wrong. Their own guilt and repudiation of their own culture will do that.
If the Euros think no more of their heritage and civilization than to do what they've already done then it just isn't my problem.
slaughters of Greeks and Armenians into the 1920's and even 1955. Of course, we could also discuss the suppression of the Kurds and their reclassification as 'mountain Turks' in order to pretend they didn't really exist.
Granted, the U.S. concept of inalienable rights is broader than most legal systems enjoy. Is that to mean that we are not to stand up for our way as model for the rest of the world? Are we to accept these results and say, "Such is life."
We are not talking here, by the way, about a comparison in criminal trials between the 'Anglo-saxon' concept of presumed innocent or the Sallic concept of presumed guilty. We are talking about more fundamental rights of everyday life, such as just being secure in your person and property, or even having your life not threatened.
Turkey could do better than this sorry record. We can't just throw up our hands and say, "Hey, that's Muslim democracy, you know? Can't control those guys, you know?" Well, it shouldn't be Muslim democracy. American soldiers shouldn't have died in Iraq so that Shiite rule could approximate what has happened in Turkey. If they did, then they died in vain.
There are millions of Muslims who are out there, everyday, fighting for greater pluralism and to embrace a more Western-oriented definition of citizenship that leads to equality and the rule of law for all. God be with them. I would like us to be with them as well.
Could Muslims do Democracy under a stable Constitution that provided for both majority rule and minority protection? I think it can, but to be effective such an idea must fall under a metasystem of belief. We have to promote that belief system, not simply shortcut to the ballot box and expect the results to sort themselves out. They probably won't, but then again, we will see in the next couple of years.
But I don't even think procedural Democracy is necessary at this time. I have a great deal of respect for what Jordan has accomplished. It is a relatively free and propserous society. Iraq prior to the 1970's was the most prosperous society in the Middle East. Then there is Egypt, which I think could get better but is still a relatively good place to be doing business. Syria I think is overly demonized, and Lebanon (minus Hezbollah) I think has a bright future (mostly because Democracy is very indirect).
One other thing Streiff, you fall constantly into the same trap I see here all the time. If I disagree with you, then the only possible explanation for it is that I am somehow driven by irrationallity. I have to be a 'Bush hater' or an 'Islamophobe.' Look, I disagree with you. Why do those disagreements have to involve some kind of irrational hatred on my part?
I think you are driven by an intense belief that the only acceptable foreign policy for the US is some kind of "my way or the highway" approach. Where other nations are either our servile chattel of we take our ball and go home. I don't consider that rational. I don't consider that smart. I don't consider that position to be worth considering at all. So when you climb on this particular bloggyhorse you do yourself little credit.
They have a different culture. I happen to think ours is better and therefore I live here, not there. But I don't think we have a right to tell nations that they must abandon their culture. The technical term for that used to be "Imperialism."
And if we make Iraq into Turkey it will be a resounding, unalloyed foreign policy victory.
Of course the majority of killing of Armenians took place prior to 1917. The majority of Balkans atrocities took place then also, in addition to the attacks on Assyrians in what is now Iraq. Those attacks were stopped by the Russian army.
However, the killing extended into the 1920's at a time when the U.S. and former Western allies were normalizing relations with Turkey, and seeking to maintain it in its traditional role as counterweight to Russia (then the Soviet Union).
You have a geopolitical background, why are you muddying this issue? The pre-1917 killings were something that we could do nothing about, the killings that occurred following the Greco-Turkish War in the early 1920's is something we turned a blind eye to. They were extensive, and we did nothing about it. The argument had been put forward that the killings happened prior to the end of WWI. I pointed out that this is not true, the genocide extended on into the 1920's.
Are you arguing the killings didn't happen in the 1920's? Or that the killings were too small to bother with? What exactly is it that you are arguing here?
As for the 1955 incident, it is not equal to the previous genocides. However, it was a massive event that impact tens of thousands of Greeks. There were thousands dead, tens of thousands made homeless. It is no small thing and the United States again turned a blind eye. This was an event that extended into the NATO era, again other posters had given the impression that Turkey's human rights problems were 'old history.'
Again, what are you arguing? That it didn't happen? That we were right to ignore it, or that it was too small to matter?
Then there is the question of the aggressive Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and its continued occupation of that country. When Saddam came across the border of Kuwait, we threw him back out. The rules don't apply to Turkey, however. Is that okay in your mind?
My family, by the way, is fighting the EU tooth and nail. They want no part of it. 'Europeans' is an overly broad brush. The expansion of the EU to the East has brought in a lot of poor countries (Poland included at present, but hopefully not forever). Their votes are for sale. The U.S. is rich, and can afford to buy them. That is the reality. If the U.S. demands Turkey in, then the U.S. will eventually get Turkey in. That is a big, big mistake.
No one is asking for your help in Europe. I'm sure my family and friends on the continent neither want it nor care if you offer it. It would be nice if the U.S. simply refrained from making it worse.
for comparative atrocities. This stuff happens. Sorry it did. If I'd been there in 1915 I would personally have stopped it. If I'd been there in the 1950s, ditto. I wasn't. Mea culpa.
I don't think Turkey's case for Cyprus is any worse than Greece's and at the time I supported the Turks, not only because they used paratroopers but because under Papandreou it looked like Greece was going commie. But to compare, somehow, intervening to protect your nationals (Cyprus) and just swallowing up a nation (Kuwait had as much justification for declaring Iraq it be its missing 18 provinces as Saddam did to declare ownership of Kuwait) is strained to be charitable.
Again, the Euros opened this can of worms by letting 30 bazillion of them into Europe. We may be facing that problem with Mexico, but at least Mexicans are Roman Catholic.
I wish the Euros well but I see no evidence that they believe in anything enough to defend it. Rotten to the core.
It is irrational to tell another country to respect the rights of its minorities? To not slaughter them, to not suppress their languages? It is irrational to demand respect for international borders. It is irrational to expect that if U.S. forces are involved in the creation of a state, then that state should include a modicum of respect for fundamental human rights?
I don't understand this idea of yours. Butchering and suppressing minorities is a 'cultural difference?' Treating minorities who have lived in your borders since before your ancestors got their as non-citizens is just an acceptable form of cultural variation?
Then by what right did we topple Saddam? He gassed his own people. The Turks did worse, but we accept that. He suppressed his people as a dictator. The Turks did as well under successive military regimes, yet they got a pass. Saddam attacked foreign nations. Turkey did as well, but that is all okay. What right do we have to confront tyrants if we don't believe in at least a bare minimum of human rights as granted by having imagio Dei, as Pope Benedict would phrase it?
If it just revolves around national security, then we are back to good old fashioned Republican realism in which we care only about external behavior of a regime, and not its internals. I can accept that as a foreign policy basis. What I can't accept is the idea that we are going to use American blood and treasure to spread a procedural democracy that will could engender the very same afflictions that Turkey has suffered, only on a regional scale.
I'll drop this now. It really surpasses my understanding at this stage. Trying to force another country into our mold is exactly not what I would like to be doing with our time and treasure, but insisting on a modicum of human rights out of nations with whom we have commercial and military relationships shouldn't be beyond the pale.
is probably a pretty good idea.
Suppressing languages? Gaelic, Welsh, Flemish in Belgium, German in Italy, American Indian languages here. If you're going to dredge up century old atrocities at least be consistent in your outrage.
A lot seems to escape you when you so desire. It seems to me you've been whining that Iraq won't look like a Western democracy and therefore the lives lost will have been in vain. Now you say we shouldn't use our "time and treasure" to make countries look like us. Well, you're getting what you want, they won't be like us, so why are you upset when we haven't used our time and treasure to fit them into our mold?
"Once in Cyprus, instead of restoring the state of affairs under the 1960 Constitution and protecting the human rights of all the people of Cyprus, as was her duty and alleged justification, Turkey, despite the coup having collapsed and democratic government having been restored in Greece, on 14 August 1974 massively extended her invasion to occupy 36.4% of Cyprus, driving out well over 170,000 Greek Cypriot refugees and moving her army to the aptly named 'Attila line.'
Wow. A coup on Cyprus makes it look as if reunification with Greece may occur. No one is threatening the Turkish Cypriots. There were no killings going on, no genocide. But the Turks attack, and rather than restoring the Status Quo Ante-bellum (why it is their business to do so is another matter), they stick around and basically set up their own puppet regime at the expense of almost 200,000 Greeks.
Well, that seems to put things in perspective for me. There is nothing that Turkey could ever do, it seems, that would elicit any criticism from you.
On that we part company.
I just don't have your near pathological obsession with the evils of Turkey.
you can do. I would prefer not to try the Iraqi experiment in any other Middle Eastern nations, unlike a large number of my party co-members who seem to think this would be a jolly good thing to do in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. Since we're already up to our neck in Iraq, a bare modicum of human rights is not too much to ask. Since we have military ties to Turkey, I fail to see why insisting on a bare minimum of human rights is out of the question there. We make those demands on Russia and China, after all, don't we?
Sorry, but everything I've been discussing about Turkey is 20th Century or later. I could dredge up the remote past, like you did, but why? 20th qualifies as recent history, and many events occurred during the time that the United States was allied to that country.
You sound like a liberal with a statement like that above about the linguistic suppressions in remote antiquity. You can't go back and dredge up the ethnic cleansing that occurred. If you did, then no borders anywhere would ever be secure. We may as well dredge up the Byzantine Empire, for God's sake.
Everyone got somewhere by taking property from others, and the standard practice was to suppress pre-existing cultures. That should have, however, been left behind in the past. I'd like to think that humanity has progressed at least somewhat since the British crown outlawed Welsh and Gaelic, but then again, perhaps we haven't. It was wrong to do these things, of course, as an Theologian would attest to, and if someone were holding up the Medieval British monarchy as a shining example of governance, then I would be sure to point that out.
Which, if we haven't improved at all since those days, brings up the question - are multi-ethnic and religious states even truly possible?
I never said the Middle Eastern countries have to look like us. I said that there should be a minimum level of acceptable behavior that in the 21st Century should be expected. I don't care if they put limits on the free press, or confiscate guns, or do any other numbers of myriad things. But life and property are fundamental, and if we can't even stand up for those then what good are we possibly doing?
To me, this sounds a lot like cultural relativism. "They are different than we are, so we can't possibly expect them to not oppress citizens of their country! It's their culture after all!"
Let's just drop it. After all, I'm pathological in your opinion and I wouldn't want to expose you to my continued rantings.
By the way, Happy New Year.
is that the violence in Turkey was ethnic not religious in nature. The Turks targetted Greeks and Armenians (and a couple of smaller non-Turkic ethnic groups), not "Christians". They were not seeking to create an Islamic state (rather obviously not since Ataturk was quite insistent on a secular state), but rather an exclusively Turkish one, purged of all foreign elements. Like pan-Slavism and the far more dreadful Nazi racism, this was the heritage of 19th century nationalism, not of medieval religionism. A similar tale should be told about the more recent violence in the Balkans where it wasn't religion but, again, ethnicity that determined who was hating and fighting whom.
... for the most part. I have lived in Turkey for over 4 years (in Istanbul) and have travelled a lot of the nation, except for the SE --and that only because I just haven't gotten there yet.
I can dialog in Turkish (,English and French).
I thank God that Turkey is not Mohammedan. If it were, I would NOT be here. The government is not; the people are not REAL, Koranicly correct Muslims. That is why there is a fairly good form of democracy and hope for Turkey. The Koran does not permit the necessary underpinnings of freedom, as it is known in the more advanced, enlightened Western World. Fortunately for Turks, they recognize what living in a Koranicly correct jurisdiction wquld be like (Saudi Arabia, anyone?) and they are repulsed by it, as Westerners are.
The religious communities that are not Sunni Mohameddan ARE discriminated against in subtle and impeding ways (like refusal to act on permit applications), so while one might maintain that there is religious freedom here, there is certainly not equality of treatment. The national government uses tax money to build superfluous mosques but does not allow churches to be built.
So much for a strictly secular government.
Read:
http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=670
and
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51586.htm
Most Turkish citizens whom I have met are only Mohammedan when they choose to feel defensive, (a lot like quasi-Jews in New York City), or when someone else might be looking. For Turks, it is a cultural identity not a religious one. It's part of the collectivist, group, anti-individualist, herd mentality in which the mother-centered family is the true "god". They know very little of the Koran or the Bible (but a LOT about soccer-WATCHING). By the way, I am a Zionist and a Turcophile! I just wish the progressing reality check would hurry up! They still live in a fantasy world.
I would think there are significant differences between Iraq and Turkey, starting with who kicked out the respective tyrants, and ending with the relative weakness of Kurds in Turkey versus the government in Ankara, as opposed to the overwhelming strength of Kurdish, Sunni and Shia (most of all!) militias in Iraq.
I would mention the Armenians who are no longer in Turkey, but doing so can get a person arrested.
Oh, one more thing: The Turks were the most powerful country in their neck of the wooods. Iraq is not. Leastwise, not yet.