July 23, 2007
Turkey, Pakistan and western foreign policy
Lord Salisbury, a British prime minister of the imperial age, once remarked that a great deal of strategic confusion can be caused by "using maps with too small a scale". This warning should be remembered when comparing Turkey and Pakistan - two very different countries, thousands of miles apart.
But the fact remains that - viewed from Washington or London - Turkey and Pakistan do present similar problems. They are both pro-western, non-Arab, Muslim countries. They are both front-line states, bordering countries where the US and its allies are fighting a war. (Turkey borders Iraq and Pakistan borders Afghanistan, in case you had forgotten.) In both countries, the nightmare scenario for the west is a takeover by Muslim fundamentalists. And in both Turkey and Pakistan, the military has traditionally presented itself as the bulwark against extremism.
Turkey and Pakistan are also both going through periods of real political turmoil. But that is where the comparison stops. Viewed from the west events in Turkey - although cause for anxiety - look a great deal more promising than the goings-on in Pakistan.
If it is inevitable that Islam will be a force in politics in Muslim societies then the AKP - which has just won a smashing victory in the Turkish elections - looks about as good as it gets. There are those who still worry that a radical agenda lurks beneath the apparent moderation of the Erdogan government; the attempt to make adultery illegal a couple of years ago was a bit of a shocker. But basically the Erdogan government has pursued a pro-European, democratic, tolerant and economically liberal agenda, which has delivered rapid economic growth. The biggest current concern for the Americans is that the Turks will invade northern Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels. But it is secular nationalists in the army who are pushing hardest for that course of action. It is also the threat of a military coup, aimed at the AKP, which currently looks the biggest menace to one of the few successful democracies in the Muslim world.
By contrast, things are looking distinctly dodgy in Pakistan. At least in theory, Pakistan is a better ally in the war on terror than Turkey. The Turkish parliament famously refused to allow America to invade Iraq from Turkish soil. But Pakistan under General Musharraf (and also under enormous American pressure) offered staunch support for the overthrow of the Taliban. And yet in which country is al-Qaeda re-establishing its bases? Pakistan. And in which country are the intelligence services suspected of maintaining ties with the very people that the US is fighting next door? Yes, Pakistan again.
There are also few signs of the emergence of a Pakistani equivalent of the moderate Islamists of the AKP. Islamism in Pakistan is a much more frightening prospect - featuring Taliban-style fundamentalists and regular suicide bombings. The military are also still much more deeply entrenched in politics than they are in Turkey. Pakistan still has a general in charge - who justifies his presence partly because of the threat of militant Islam. Pakistan’s democrats, too, look much less promising than their Turkish equivalents. One of the great successes of the AKP is that it has offered a path to the top for ambitious members of the Turkish middle class. But Pakistan’s main democratic parties are still very feudal in nature.
It is at this point that one has to return to Salisbury’s remarks about maps and remember that - for all the intriuging similarities - Pakistan and Turkey are very different places. But I wonder whether - looking at the political situations in both countries - there are any general lessons for western policymakers?
The primary lesson western policymakers need to recall — or learn — is that Muslim countries are inherently different, just as countries where the majority of the population ascribes to another faith. It often seems that Westerners don’t define or distinguish between Islamists, Muslims, fundamentalists. Such broad brush strokes lead to policy failures as surely as using maps with too small a scale.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 24th, 2007 at 7:03 am | Report this commentContrasting Pakistan and Turkey
Musharraf likes to cite Turkey as a role model (obviously, with himself as Pakistans Ataturk). But he wont be flattered by Gideon Rachmans take:
Posted by: INI Signal | July 24th, 2007 at 9:26 am | Report this commentThe biggest current concern for the Americans is that the Turks will invade northern I…
As somebody from a Middle Eastern and Muslim heritage, I think a lesson for the Western policymakers would be not to take Lord Salisbury’s statement at face value.
It is entirely frustrating to see the sweeping generalisations made about “Muslims” somehow implying that they are a monolithic mass whose sole lodestar is their religion.
Admittedly, part of the confusion is caused by certain Muslim groups who put themselves forward (mostly without any legitimacy) as spokesmen and representatives for Muslims. (A good example is the group of mainly Pakistani British Muslims who call themselves by the inflammatory title of the “Muslim Parliament” whereas nobody elected them and they have no mandate from, or power over, the Muslims in general.)
To try to look at the differences (or similarities) between Turkey and Pakistan through the prism of their common faith is as absurd as trying to ascribe the differences between Spain and England to the differences in their religious denomination or the religiosity of their populations..
In fact, different Muslim nations are in different stages of economic, social and political development and those differences are based mainly on geographical, historical and cultural experiences of those nations which are frequently independent of their Islamic faiths. For example, Iranians are very much influenced by their pre-Islamic culture and have, to a large extent, adapted Shia Islam as an Iranian religion. Many Muslim nations (e.g. those in North Africa and the Indian sub-continent) are very affected by their colonial legacy and some Muslims (e,g, the Indonesians and Malaysians) have only been converted for about 3 centuries and their version of Islam is significantly different to the older heartlands of the faith.
As for economics, the oil producing Arab nations and their societies have changed massively since the discovery of oil.
I could go on but to sum up, comparing Muslim nations with each other needs to take in a host of factors of which religion is relatively an insignificant one. In this way, analysing Muslims is not different to analysing others.
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2007 at 11:21 am | Report this commentThe lesson which I wish western policy makers would get is that citizens of countries with large numbers of Muslims, do not have any grand designs of disrupting anyone else’s homeland security situations. Turkey’s success is rooted in indigenous leadership of its national affairs. Pakistan has more in common with Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan: abdication of governance to foreign invasion forces, with puppets as titular heads of State. It is only asinine to recognize a usurping General simply because he dangles Osama’s head just beyond your grasp. Pakistan can become another Turkey if only Musharraf is confined to the barracks, with free and fair elections.
Posted by: Dr S Banerji | July 24th, 2007 at 12:54 pm | Report this commentThey say that people usually live up to the name their parents give them. But as I was reading your latest “Good news,” it occurred to me that you certainly do not. They named you after one of the most cunning of the old testament commanders, Gideon. He chose his men by watching they way they drank river water. Only those who kept one hand on their weapons while drinking were chosen. He valued preparedness at all times and led the fight for his people. You do neither. As a FT columnist you are an opinion maker which means you have a leadership position. However, you use it to reduce vigilance rather than to maintain it.
Nor do you try to fight for your people. Instead, you try to convince them that they should learn to live with their terrorizers. Your column which is your sword is not raised in their protection but on behalf of their enemies. For regardless of the validity of your argument, their can be little doubt but that your column is useful to those Iranian leaders who argue that it is safe to continue to develop nuclear weapons and damaging to those who argue it is not.
And, no, you are not Rachman. Rachman means merciful and you are not. You write: “I do not think it will happen. Even if it does, there is on consolation, I will not be around to admit that I was wrong.” Or perhaps I am wrong. Your are merciful but your mercy is so minutely focused as to encompass only your own reputation. If so, beware, you may just be wrong and alive. The first nuclear bomb may not be detonated in London but elsewhere, most probably, in New York or Tel Aviv and you will not only have to admit you are wrong but will have to live with the knowledge that your column helped bring death and destruction to the children of those who survived a previous attempt to incinerate them.
Posted by: Dr. Judith Klinghoffer | July 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pm | Report this commentDear Dr. Klinghoffer,
I only wish to say the following two words to you:
“Mordechai Vanunu”
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2007 at 5:22 pm | Report this commentDr Klinghoffer has a point (even if conveyed a bit eccentrically). Are you not blurring the line a bit between writing for the column and writing for the blog? You have much more responsibility when writing for the former - and the humour is less appreciated.
Posted by: PL | July 24th, 2007 at 7:19 pm | Report this commentDear PL,
I think Dr. Klinghofer was answering Mr. Rachman’s article (published in yesterday’s FT but not published in the blog). Therefore, the lines are being blurred by Dr. Klinghofer who should have, more properly, written a letter to the FT and not posted under a blog topic irrelevant to the article.
To: Dr. Klinghofer:
I very much like you to analyse “Mordechai Vanunu” in the light of your analysis of “Gideon Rachman”. Thank you.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 25th, 2007 at 9:14 am | Report this commentPresumably Dr Klinghoffer is a very firm advocate of military action against Iran.
As the Iraq experience has shown, taking military action can lead to a host of unintended negative consequences. In Iran’s case, I believe it would merely serve to increase the urgency of its quest for nuclear weapons.
Instead, I think a guaranteed way to ensure Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme would be to get Israel roll back its own nuclear programme.
Wouldn’t you agree Dr Klinghoffer?
C
Posted by: Carlito | July 25th, 2007 at 2:10 pm | Report this commentPresumably Dr Klinghoffer is a very firm advocate of military action against Iran.
As the Iraq experience has shown, taking military action can lead to a host of unintended negative consequences. In Iran’s case, I believe it would merely serve to increase the urgency of its quest for nuclear weapons.
Instead, I think a guaranteed way to ensure Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme would be to get Israel roll back its own nuclear programme.
Wouldn’t you agree Dr Klinghoffer?
C
Posted by: Carlito | July 25th, 2007 at 2:11 pm | Report this commentWoah Dr Klinghoffer! And do people still think only Islam has fundamentalists?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 25th, 2007 at 5:26 pm | Report this comment