New Turkish Republic: Turkey As a Pivotal State in the Muslim World

by Graham E. Fuller

The first in a series of volumes that examine pivotal states in the Muslim world, this timely work explores how, after a long period of isolation, Turkey is becoming a major player in Middle Eastern politics once again. In fact, by acting independently and attempting to reconcile its constitutionally secular form of governance and vibrant traditional culture, it is now for the first time becoming positively viewed by others in the Muslim world as a state worth watching - and maybe even emulating. As a result, Turkey's dynamic political scene and new search for independence in its foreign policy, however complicating or irritating for the United States today, will nonetheless ultimately serve the best interests of Turkey, the Middle East, and even the West. Drawing heavily on a range of Turkish and Western sources, this multidimensional, lively, and nuanced volume provides an excellent introduction to one of the region's most fascinating and complex countries and makes a highly valuable contribution to the current debate about Turkey and its place in the world.

Genres: History, Political Science, Islam, Middle East, Nonfiction

160 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 2007

About the author

Graham Fuller is an author and a political analyst. He has worked for the United States Central Intelligence Agency, the National Intelligence Council, and Rand Corporation.

Reviews

[Gabrielle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is easy to read and breaks down the political climate in Turkey and its foreign relations as it developed from its establishment in the early 20th century. Fuller's book gives a nice overview of the foreign relations from the Ottoman Empire to predictions of the various directions Turkey can take in the near future with regards to the Middle East, Europe, Russia, United States and the development of its own distinct foreign policy agenda. For those who haven't studied the development of Turkey nor its history or politics, this is a great book to start with.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 1 out of 5]

amazon review

Describes the mission of the current islamo-fascist Erdogan/JDP party of Turkey

The New Turkish Republic (first published in 2008), written by the ex CIA agent Graham Fuller, describes the mission of the current islamo-fascist and pro-US neoliberal Erdogan/JDP government in Turkey.

You can find in this book almost everything the current Erdogan/JDP government stands for:

1) Demolishing Atatürk's secular republic; panislamism instead of Atatürk's secular and multi-cultural nationalism

2) A theocratic monarchy (like Saudi Arabia) under the cloak of "moderate islam" democracy (New Ottoman movement)

3) Wild capitalism and privatization (like Suharto regime of Indonesia): Minimizing and even nullifying worker rights, and ruthless plundering of nature (a religion of concrete, skyscrappers and asphalt), all in the name of economic growth and development

Erdogan/JDP party governs (actually plunders) Turkey since 2002. It could obtain the power in Turkey with vigorous support of US and CIA. A fact which is generally not known: The foreign policy and secret service of USA supported islamists in Turkey since 1948 (Marshall Plan) against all other political forces like secular democrats, left wing, social democrats, pro Atatürk people, socialists, communists etc. All under the cloak of "anti-communism defense"

Nowadays (2016-2017) Erdogan/JDP government seems to have collisions with the foreign policy of USA. I don't know exactly why; maybe due to its interventions in Syria, by supporting radical islamist groups, even after USA (and some European forces) stopped supporting them.

Tunc Ali Kuetuekcueoglu

---

A Turkey rejected by Europe will being the Middle Eastern problem into Europe. Fuller's incisive analysis of this dilemma is truly of great and even immediate geopolitical concern.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

---

quote from the book

The Kemalist View: Turkey's Radical Break with History

The traditional view of Turkey's trajectory reflects the classic foundational ideology of Kemalist - or Ataturkist - Turkey. In its most orthodox form, this view is still embraced by a large, though diminishing, position of Turkish elites; until recently it represented the sole view of Turkish history known to most Westerners. This Kemalist narrative portrays the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 as a radical turning point in Turkish history, taking the country in a dramatic new direction followng the collapse of the decaying multicultural empire of the Ottomans. in this view, the Kemalist period transformed the post-Ottoman state into a westernized, homogenous, ethnically based national-state. Perceived to be a natural part of advanced Western civilization, this new nation-state rejected the backward and repressive nature of its Islamic past.

This westernizing vision was vouchsafed to a Kemalist elite that would shepherd Turkey out o its dark Ottoman past and into a brighter and enlightened westernized future. With Turkey's modern national narrative and founding myth shaped to meet the goals and needs of this Kemalist elite, this vision has been safeguarded by the army, which serves as the primary guardian of the Kemalist legacy. In fact, it is designed to protect the country from any element that threatens a return to an Islamic-based polity or that advocates the promotion of non-Turkish ethnic identities. While committed to democracy in principle, the army's guardianship role has compelled it in the past to intervene in the face of ideological threats. As a result, over the past eighty years, it has periodically acted to restore the country to the path set forth by Ataturk - "democracy on training wheels," as one wag observed.

In the classic Kemalist view, then, Turkey is profoundly committed to facing West, and the Middle East is seen as a dangerous and subsersive force from which Turkey must be protected in order to preserve the purity of Ataturk's westernizing legacy. Many Turks still speak of Turkey's Western "calling," implying an instinctive, near mystical , and inherent Turkish orientation towards Western institutions and civilization. This view of Turkey is also popular in the West for at least two reasons:

(1) It is flattering to the Western self-image, and

(2) it reaffirms a commitment to close Turkish strategic coopreation with the West in fulfillment of the Western political and security agendas.

But what, exactly, is meant by the term "westernization" in the Turkish context? From the earliest days of westernizing reforms in the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire, westernization did not refer to a cultural project as such but rather to the acquisition of the West's power - particular ly for defensive purposes to better fend off the encroachments of Western imperialism. In fact, the history of modernization in the developing world as a whole demonstrates that westernization was generally perceived as a form of modernization and self-strengthening and not as a form of cultural emulation. This was true even of nineteenth-century Meiji Japan, a country that pursued its own quite distinctive form of modernization while consciously preserving its Japanese character. All of this came at a time when the West represented the only extant model(s) of modernization.

Thus, Muslims have worked for centuries to divine the true "secrets" of Western power that have allowed it to dominate the rest of the world. Westerners have flattered themselves in the belief that this whole process shows "they want to be like us," when in reality they want to be "powerful like us." Westernization in this light is really a defensive process, a form of nationalism, a quest for the most efficient means to match the West's success in order to fend it off and to reduce dependency upon outsiders for national security. While this kind of westernization undeniably represents a kind of acknowledgement of the success of the Western model, its adoption became almost a weapon by which to resuscitate local power. Failure to grasp this essential point is to misread much of the history of westernization of the Muslim world.

Even Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's own westernizing process reflected suspicions about Western intentions towards Turkey and its interests. Furthermore, his approach to reform, while filled with vitality during his lifetime, congealed into an -ism after his death. As a result, reforms have been implemented by his successors in ways that Ataturk himself might not have necessarily approved. Significantly, Kemalism has branched into several different schools, including nationalist, leftist, and even Islamic, with each competing ideological school claiming him as its own.

From this perspectice, then, a dual view of the West exists in Turkey, even within the Kemalist tradition. The West is admired as a powerful, advanced, and accomplished civiilization, but it is also recognized as a long-standing source of imperialist aggression that was a key force in the dismantling and destruction of the Ottoman Empire. Western powers even sought to dismember the newly emerging Turkish Republic and might have been successful were it not for Ataturk's brilliant generalship that drove forces from four countries out of Anatolia. Thus, the West is admired more for what it is, including for being powerful, than for what it does in the world.

While there are indeed many elements of truth to this Kemalist view - particularly concerning Ataturk's role as national savior and his bold and visionary role in building a strong new state - it tells only part of the story.

The Historical View: The Role of Continuity in Turkish History

A second view of Turkey's trajectory starts not with the formation of the new Turkish Republic but rather with a much longer reform process that began with the tanzimat (administrative reforms) of 1839. This reform process - which included liberalization, the adoption of many aspects of Western law, a rationalization of administration, exposure to Western techniques of governance, and greater centralization of state power - proceeded with fits and starts through the nineteenth century and into the Young Turk period (1908-1918), World War I, and the early modern Turkish Republic.

This view, accepted by a broad range of foreign scholars, emphasizes with greater historical accuracy the threads of continuity between the late Ottoman Empire and the Kemalist reform period. Proponents of this view point out that the Kemalist reforms - as vital, powerful, and significant as they were - has clear antecedents in the previous century; they did not spring out of nowhere or represent a total about-face in Turkish history. However, this view in no way diminishes the extraordinary impact of Ataturk as reformer and savior. But it seems him as representing the culmination and institutionalization of a long - and well-established elitist bureaucracy and reformist tradition that had its ultimate victory with the republic's formation.

In this view, therefore, the Kemalist reforms are not seen as being totally "revolutionary," particularly given their antecedents that stretched back nearly a century. And Ataturk's import rests not so much on his revolutionary vision but in his skill and ability to codify Turkey's reformist past, to bureaucratize reforms under a committed elite, and to impose them on the new state with extraordinary results. Although the transition from multinational empire to ethnically based nation-state did lead to dramatic shifts in Turkey's borders, structure of government, ideology, and public culture, Ataturk's authoritarian approach was remarkably enlightened for its time considering so many of his contemporaries: Franco in Spain, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in Russia, and Chiang Kai-Shek in China.

This perspective has understandably been less popular amond Kemalist ideologues than historians because it grants importance to pre-Kemalist intellectual, political, legal, psychological, and social reform in an era generally viewed in quite negative terms in Kemalist thinking. Over time, however, educated Turks have increasingly come to recognize that the Ottoman period was not as dark and primative as popularly portrayed in early Kemalist writing, that there were many Ottoman accomplishments and developments about which Turks can be proud, and that modern Turkey need not be cut off from this historic continuum.

The Cyclical/Dialectical View

A third view of Turkey's trajectory, one that I personally espouse, accepts both the centrality of Kemalist institutionalized change and the grand continuity of reformist tradition going back to Ottoman time. But this view believes that the Kemalist reforms introduced a number of authoritarian innovations and forms of discrimination into Turkish political , social, and ideological life; some of these reforms, in light of history, can now be seen as harmful excesses, breaking too sharply and unrealistically with mainstream Turkish culture. In harsher terms, we might say that Ataturk performed a kind of "cultural lobotomy" on Turkey that produced a national amnesia about the country's Islamic and Ottoman past. This was done with the aim of creating a new nationalism through a racially oriented rereading of pre-Islamic Turkish history. (this race-related rewriting of history paralleled similar trends in German, Hungarian, Greek, Iranian, Slavic, Zionist, Japanese, and many other ethnoracial movements of the period.)

As a result, modern Turkish history from 1950 on has demonstrated a gradual process of redressing Kemalist ideological excesses and returning to a more comfortable and "normal" relationship with the nation's prerepublic past. With traditional cultural values gaining strength within Turkey, a new synthesis that married elements from both the Kemalist tradition and the country's Islamic Ottoman past is being created. in turn, this synthesis is beginning to heal three key psychological and cultural wounds from the Kemalist nation-building process. These wounds include:

a. a legacy of authoritarianism that has not been fully abandoned even today by portions of the Kemalist elite and that is represented particularly by the persistence of a major military voice over aspects of national policies

b. the exclusion and suppression of non-Turkish ethnic identities (mainly Kurdish) in the process of building the new European-style and purportedly "ethnically homogeneous" nation-state

c. the vilification of Islam and Islamic traditions implicit in the Enlightenment-driven reforms of the Kemalist period, which alienated huge section of the more traditional social classe s that take pride in their Islamic and Ottoman past, even while accepting the need for reform and change in strengthening the nation, and that are now entering the mainstream Turkish body politic.

This psychological and cultural healing process is being spurred by increased democratization within the country, a growing acceptance of the multiethnic and multicultural character of Turkish society and the place of religion within it, a greater acknowledgement of the country's Islamic Ottoman past, and a better understanding of Turkey's place in the Muslim world. The process is not only well advanced, but it is also psychologically extremely healthy: contrary to Kemalist fears, it will actually strengthen the fabric and resilience of modern Turkish society.

The New Turkey and Foreign Policy

How we perceive today's events, then, depends greatlyon how we view Turkey's past. Will Turkey recommit to Kemalism's full ideological program, with all its strengths and weaknesses? Or are the country's Kemalist roots evolving, diversifing and offering alternative parths of development? Equally important, must Turkey continually bolster and "prove" its Western orientation through fulfillment of Western, and especially U.S., policy preferences? Or is Turkey's identity now strong enough that it can afford to seek an independent path on many key regional issues, particularly when Ankara sees Washington's policies as being unwise or unhelpful to its interests?

In the end, the power and cultural weight of history cannot be denied; it has tugged insistently on modern Turkish culture and society. Although it was mostly unseen and underground during the early Kemalist period, it began to emerge more boldly as Turkey democratized and opened up in the second half of the twentieth century. As a result, the country's Islamic Ottoman past is regaining a position of respectability across Turkish society, to the special satisfaction of more traditionalist religious and conservative circles. In turn, this reemergence is leading to a greater cultural and political balance within Turkey that embraces both the country's extraordinarily rich past and its (sometimes bumpy) EU-bound future. But to fully understand Turkey's present and future trajectory, we must first more fully understand its past.

---

Fuller is an excellent analyst
and you can agree or disagree with all the views and history
within his highly interesting works.

In the end
i think Huntington and Ataturk win out
in the very long game of history and civilization

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent review of the tensions within Turkish politics and society at large. However, the research and writing took place in the early 2000s and have since been overtaken by history. The new afterward, written in 2007, fell just short of the Russian invasion of Georgia, the continued wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2011 Arab Spring, 2013 counter-revolution in Egypt, and the Gezi Park protests and widespread accusations of corruption and journalistic (lack of) freedom in Turkey. Overall, a very good primer for those starting to learn about Turkey.

[Diane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written by a scholar and political commentator on the Middle East, this book is a good introduction to contemporary Turkish foreign policy. The author begins with a brief history of Turkey, from Ottoman times to the present, with an emphasis on how Turkey viewed its regional role. Then, the author discusses in depth Turkey's relationship with each of its neighbors. Finally, he discusses alternative futures for Turkish foreign policy, and provides American policy makers with advice on how to deal with them.

The book is well-written overall, scholarly but not too hard for the average reader with an interest in history or contemporary politics. The author does a good job of trying to get inside the head of the protagonist (in this case Turkish politicians and foreign policy makers), which is useful for a Western audience likely unfamiliar with Turkish history and domestic policy and prone to see every change in policy as the direct result of American policies. The author helpfully breaks Turkish society down into ideological and institional groups (ie Islamists, leftists, the military, etc.) and discusses how each group sees foreign policy.

I did think the author went a little too far in his support of the current Turkish government. While it is all very well to understand their concerns, the author seemed to go overboard in justifying every decision that the government made. Also, I thought the book would have been improved if it had focused more on domestic politics. Although there was some discussion of domestic politics in the course of talking about Turkey's foreign policy, I thought the book could have easily added a chapter just on domestic policy (and at less than 200 pages, the book could have easily accomodated another chapter). In another minor point, the author had an annoying habit of referring to Turkish political parties by their English initials, rather than the more common practice of referring to them by their Turkish initials.

[Jp Bombito · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is a good book to start to learn on Turkey. I must say it dress a clear and apparently complete overlook of the country. You must good be awared that the book is going out of date though, the taking over of the Crimea area in Ukraine and the solidification of Russia's relation with Syria through the actual war changed a lot in the whole portrait. One that reads this must know the actual conflict that emerged in the center of Turkish politics : Fetullah Güllen and Erdogan's new conflict. And of course much more happened.

I think that the author is one of these that believes to know enough to affirm many things with out explaining enough. Of course, the book is an overview of the subject but i believe no one is notorious enough to say things with out a significant intellectual support.

All though, the author uses good images to explain the international relations which makes the integration of the information easier.

[Christia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite the turn of events in Turkey and the larger Middle Eastern region, Fuller's book is still relevant in understanding the Turkish narrative and the impact its historical roots play in Turkey's domestic and international policy. Fuller manages to navigate the complexity of Turkey with ease and clarity, and occasionally utilizes bullet points to ensure the reader understands the core of his message. I confess that the book took several attempts to complete, but this is only because Fuller's messages are so direct and carefully chosen that even a few pages feel like I read 20 pages of a academic textbook.

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very educational on Turkey's strategic positioning over the last few decades with respect to the US and other Middle Eastern states. There is also good discussion on how Turkey is coming to resolve within itself the seemingly irreconcilable poles of religion and secular governance. Written like a strategic brief, in a clear and concise manner with few flourishes -- not 'pretty' writing so to speak but effective.

[Knarik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not counting page 137- with a scetchy representation of Armenian-Turkish as well as Armenia-Turkey-Azerbaijan relations, which betrayed the fact that the author doesn't have enough knowledge of these specific foreign policy issues, the rest of the book was a good introduction to Turkey, its foreign policy and domestic factors which affect it.

[Aleks · Rating 2 out of 5]

Misleading.

[K · Rating 3 out of 5]

Form:
Book is easy to read with short 2nd and 3rd level headlines and is written in a way that is like a handbook for a future CIA officer or foreign policy-maker that will serve in the Near East department of a U.S. organization. Varying levels of detail on each subject based on perceived importance for U.S. interests.

Content:
Author is a person who served as a CIA officer in many Turkic countries including Turkey for many years. He was involved with designing the Turkish political arena and making sure Turkish people somehow repeatedly "elected" Islamists (Abdullah Gul and Erdogan) who has served US interest more than Turkish interest. It is funny but at the same time quite upsetting to read this book as a young Turkish person whose life has been greatly affected by systemic American interventionism by the hands of CIA officers and US "think tank gurus" not just in the neighbouring middle eastern countries but in Turkey too. I don't wanna spoil too much here, but if you are going to read this book, just know that it is a subject of sinister manipulation when it comes to portraying a national ideology (Atatürkçülük- or kemalizm as imperalists like to call it) largely embraced by ~75% of Turks.

The book shamelessly portrays Ataturk and the founding ideology of the Turkish nation-state manipulatively by saying it was deemed to exclude Kurds from the state. From the level of detail and accuracy in most other parts of the book (the parts where reality does not disagree with US interests), you can tell that his false descriptions are not a mere error in judgment but outright manipulation. (He knows what he is doing). In reality, the definition of a Turk in modern Turkey is a person who feels Turkish, or a person who has cultural/ ancestral ties with the peoples of any background who has fought together against imperialist powers (British, French, Italian, Greek) in the Turkish independence war after WW I. Therefore any Turk today from an ethnically Turkish, Kurdish, Laz, Çerkes, or Alevi, Sunni , Şii or other background will tell you they are a "Turk" and we don't have such problems in Turkey. So just like US, French, etc. people of different backgrounds do feel they belong in Turkey, and unlike Western states they do not have complaints about systemic racism.

Summary: If you are an experienced reader who is wise enough to question conflict of interest / motivation for manipulative / subjective writing, I would recommend you pick up this book, especially to see how U.S. perceived Turkey and marketed their handyman the "political islamists" as epitomes of democracy. If you are not a person who can differentiate manipulation from facts on this subject, I suggest you avoid this book and pick up a better , and if possible primary/ direct, historical source.

OH, and BONUS: In this book, Gulenists are portrayed like angels sent by God from the heavens. But in reality they are a cult of immense power and no boundaries of evil things they can do to people who get in the way of their plans (see Ergenekon and Balyoz kumpas davaları). Imagine scientology cult took over U.S and kicked out all patriots from state departments, and planted fake evidences and released fake sex tapes of people that were in positions of power which they wanted to acquire. If you want resources on this subject and if you know Turkish I recommend you check VeryansınTV video series on FETÖ with Mustafa Dönmez.

[Sakanet . · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a great summary of Turkey. Its issues and relationship with neighbors, Europe and America.

[Spencer Willardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book for background information on Turkey for a book chapter that I'm working on. It is good enough as a general introduction to the state of Turkey.