Harvard Political Review: How has Turkey responded to the recent events and uprisings in the Middle East?

Dani Rodrik: Turkey was caught unaware by the Middle East revolutions. Turkey’s relationship with the countries of the Middle East was largely based on a strategy of establishing good relationships with the existing political leadership. To that extent, I think that Turkish leadership was at a loss as to how to respond and they did so in a relatively ad-hoc manner.

HPR: Do you think Turkey would like to see democracy throughout the Middle East, in an ideal situation?

DR: I think ultimately Turkey would like to see itself as a leader in a broadly democratic Middle East. There are a couple of things mitigating against that: Some economic interests with existing governments played a conflicting role. Part of the reason Turkey was behind the ball in Libya was that a significant amount of Turkish investment existed in Libya, and Turkey wanted to ensure the safety of those investments, thus delaying their willingness to be on the side of popular protests.

I think the second important factor that’s going to make it hard for Turkey to lead is that if Egypt does become a democratic country, it is going to be a much more central focus in a democratic Middle East, given its size and importance. Turkey could find itself in competition with Egypt if Egypt, as one hopes, emerges as a robust democracy.

HPR: You published a book in December on the trials of a broad range of individuals allegedly part of the “Sledgehammer plot” to overthrow the Turkish government. You wrote on your blog that you never imagined yourself having to write this book. Is this a sign of how much Turkey has changed recently?

DR: Turkey faces huge problems in terms of its political system. I think it is unfortunately going in an authoritarian direction, just as the rest of the region is going in the opposite direction.

I was hopeful until two years ago that the current government was interested in deepening democracy in Turkey and in strengthening the rule of law. Unfortunately, having watched the ongoing political and military trials closely, it is clear that the rule of law is being systematically undermined and that this would be impossible without the support of the government behind the scenes. Therefore, I see that the government is moving Turkey in a direction that is increasingly authoritarian rather than more democratic. I think the Western media missed this because of Turkey’s story—it looked like a straightforward and appealing narrative of a popularly elected government finally prevailing and enabling the judiciary to address the transgressions of the secular old guard. However, these trials are much closer to show trials.  Look at them closer, and what you find is that the evidence used to lock defendants up ranges from the circumstantial to the demonstrably fabricated. Their real purpose seems to be to demonize the opposition, mobilize domestic support and ensure that state institutions remain under the control of the government for a very long time, rather than to enforce the rule of law.

HPR: Could you describe Turkey’s current political situation in greater detail?

DR: There are three groups you need to consider to understand Turkish politics. The first are the representatives of the old order—the military, and the ultra secular groups of the past, which tended to dominate the universities, state institutions, and the higher courts until recently. This group has been the big loser during the last decade.

That leaves the other two groups in charge. One is the governing party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by Prime Minister Recep Erdogan.

And the third group, which very few people know much about, is a religious network—the Gulen network—directed by an Islamic preacher, Fetullah Gulen, who lives in Pennsylvania. This is a vast network, very wealthy and very influential, which runs an educational and media empire. Its representatives occupy key positions in the national police and the judiciary. The Gulenists and the AKP have made common cause against the old guard. But given that the old guard has now lost its power, it may turn out that the tension between these two groups will come out into the open in the form of direct competition. I see neither Erdogan nor the Gulenists as a force for democracy.

HPR: Does the AKP have an Islamist agenda to turn Turkey into an Islamic state? Is that something that people should fear, either about the AKP, or about the Gulenist movement?

DR: I’m more worried about the Gulen movement, because it lacks transparency and much of the dirty tricks in Turkish politics and judiciary seem to be linked to it. Gulenist police and prosecutors have mounted sham trials under the guise of cleansing the system from coup plotters.  Gulenist media are engaged in systematic disinformation about these trials. These activities are very difficult to reconcile with the moderate, liberal and humane version of Islam that the movement preaches. As for the AKP, I worry less about its Islamist leanings, and more about an ingrained authoritarianism. My worry is less that Turkey will become the next Iran, but that Turkey will become a worse version of Russia, where the media and the judiciary are effectively controlled and manipulated by pro-government forces.

HPR: Do you think the central tenets of your most recent book, The Globalization Paradox—that economic globalization, national sovereignty and democracy are incompatible—can be applied to the current situation of the Turkey and the Middle East?

DR: The Middle East crisis reminds us of the centrality of national governments in people’s lives, in economic, political and social affairs, and of the need to have good governance at the national level.

Despite all the talk about how the world has become “flat” and national borders don’t matter anymore, the well-being of people by and large still revolves around what national governments do and don’t do. The countries that are in the best position to reap the rewards of economic globalization are in fact the ones that have strong, well-governed states and national governments.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

Dr. Tristram Riley-Smith holds a PhD in Social Anthropology from Cambridge University. He works as a civil servant in London, and is the author of The Cracked Bell, which is reviewed in this issue of the HPR.

HPR: Can you briefly explain the background of The Cracked Bell? What motivated you to write it?

Tristam Riley-Smith: First of all, I want to emphasize that this book is not meant in any way as a polemic. Americans can be anxious, I know, about anti-Americanism, and I think the book was given a bad sleeve note. I don’t think the American dream has become a “nightmare” by any means.

It started in 2002, on the River Tweed, with Graham Baker. I had just been posted to the British Embassy in London, and he suggested I should read The Americans, by Gordon Sinclair. Sinclair was also posted to D.C., during World War II. It is a remarkable book, but a little too psychological and anthropological for me. Even so, it gave me the inspiration to collect my own field notes there and make my own observations, and this developed into an aim of trying to help people and Americans understand themselves better.

The Cracked Bell is half a million words about paradoxes, about consumerism vs. beliefs, about new vs. old, etc. Later, a theory emerged for me about the unifying thread of the ideal of liberty in America, how liberty has been elevated, even inflated to the point where it undermines society. This leads to a dispassionate suggestion: liberty is great, but it can produce problems, especially if there is too much of it, and especially too much emphasis on it. The issue is how to balance between liberty, justice, and equality. Of course, everyone faces these problems, but I think America faces them especially.

HPR: How has America’s history made it especially predisposed to these problems?

TR: I am not coming at this as an historian, but from the field of social anthropology. Being a social anthropologist is about participative observation, and looking at the symbolic and the mythical side of the world. So it’s dangerous for me to be an historian, but I would say that, going back to the creation of America, the founding fathers were very influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment. There was the assumption that the pursuit of happiness involved both the individual and his relationship with society.

Ideas like this formed the backdrop to the Declaration of Independence, and were very important for early America. Then in the early 19^th century, a growing cult of individualism developed, not just in America but throughout Europe too. In Britain, this expressed itself in Romanticism, in liberalism, and in something that was positive.

But this changed in Britain as the 19^th century wore on. With Gladstone we see the beginnings of a shift towards socialism, and you had Lord Salisbury, a Tory, instituting grants for the poor. While Britain was moving in the direction of socialism in late Victorian times, individualism was becoming, and has become, more and more powerful and deeply embedded in America. The question, today, is whether this can change. It would be impertinent, arrogant, and improper of me to suggest a therapy. But since the Old World has changed its outlook, and in a way become more left-wing, it must be feasible for America to do the same.

HPR: What about President Obama? What potential does he have to change America’s mindset regarding hyper-individualism?

TR: In both the introduction and afterword to The Cracked Bell, I write that personal reflections tell me it’s hard for an individual to change a culture. Confucius and Montaigne couldn’t change China and France. Russia is still the same place it has always been. Any revolution has been shown to produce the same systems and tropes.

But we need to remember that America is young. It is still a new country. If you look back to the time of King Alfred, he saw many tribes break away from his kingdom and managed to produce a sustained English identity. America today is still inventing itself in a similar sort of way. So perhaps Obama will end up being more of a catalyst of change, rather than a producer of change.

Clearly, America does have an identity, but it is nevertheless one which is still growing and developing with the challenges posed by changing demographics. We are seeing many Hispanics becoming part of the population. On the other hand, this follows waves of Germans and Irish who came before and have integrated. Germans have become more Anglo-Saxon. So this dynamic will continue, and I am tempted to say that the affect on America’s identity will not be as great as the numbers arriving suggest.

HPR: How do you think America’s influence and power will change over the course of this century?

TR: This is a more interesting issue. America needs to take stock and reevaluate. The level of economic competition and cultural influence will be corrected. America used to be much more revered in the world, with good cause to be proud, but today she seems more insecure.

If you look at the Old World, at Europe, society has been divided by deep class divisions, which have been solved either by revolution or with efforts by a ruling class to create safety nets for the less well-off. In America, these same deep divisions exist between rich and poor, but the problem has never quite become so important because of the deep-seated ideal of opportunity. But, this opportunity is an illusion to some extent. If America does go down in the world, and become less economically prosperous than today, how will that affect this optimism? My sense is that it will lead to new tensions.

HPR: But, at the same time, is America’s elevated view of liberty and opportunity not a good thing, in that it heightens our ambition and happiness, even if it’s a little artificial?

TR: Yes, absolutely. Again, I stress that I am not trying to be anti-American here. America is a modern society, but one that is as enfolded by myth, symbolism, and ritual as a tribe in Kathmandu. This is how humanity comes to terms with the world. For America, she is enfolded by the ritual of liberty. Cultural comfort blankets like this create paradoxes but are very sustaining.

HPR: What can Britain take away from America’s focus on liberty?

TR: It’s so hard to look objectively at your own society, especially after looking at someone else’s. I have recognized that Britain looks backwards while you could say that America looks forwards. This is charming but, equally, makes us weighed down by the past. And, of course, we have an extraordinary class system.

I would give as an example the Isle of Lewis, in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. Over the past 30 years, this island has seen a great decline in communal activities and spirit. When I asked recently what’s happened to these traditions, a local man said that he thought Social Security had put an end to it. This has had a big community effect, as well as an economic one, in Britain. It is an example of how a well-meaning thing can engender bad consequences.

HPR: Does this mean the U.K. needs more Thatcherism?

TR: Thatcher looked to the United States to reform her own country, but societies are more complex than this. In America, opportunism is accompanied by the cult of the new. It is impossibly hard to do the same in Britain. I think that Britain should look to the United States as a model for how a society can deal with migrants. We are now witnessing seismic shifts in the diversity of our society, accompanied by the opening of our borders with the European Union.

So there’s a lot of transformation there, and who knows what will happen. But I think Britain can take some lessons from the United States on this front. Meanwhile, Britain has had her own experiment with devolution. On the subject of federalism, I argue that British councils and local government are too weak. But remember that Britain is a very small area; in this way it is incomparable to the United States.

HPR: How will America’s relationship with the European Union change?

TR: America’s own culture is so dominant, because America is so big, that I think the concept of Europe will be regarded only by a political class. I’m not convinced that America will regard Europe as a unified whole. The Anglo-Saxon link remains very strong. The question is whether or not the European Union can achieve more credibility, and not just in America.

HPR: Has America changed a lot in the last 10 years?

TR: There are three main points here. First, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have left America scarred with a newfound sense of vulnerability. This was added to by the natural disasters, most of all Hurricane Katrina and the H1N1 virus, both of which have had a disproportionate effect on the nation’s poor. Lastly, the financial crisis of 2008 nearly brought the economy to its knees and shook America’s confidence in the capitalist system which has been the rallying point for individual opportunity.

Though these have all been serious strains, I think the last decade has shown stresses and paradoxes which were always there. For sure, there are more tests on the way. Global warming is a reality, and no, it won’t go nice and quietly. There’s the question of relations with China, and it’s pretty clear that the Renminbi needs to be valued up. Then you have the Iranian developments.

Most importantly, this is a book that has been written dispassionately. I write it as a big fan of America, who wants to hold up a mirror to the country.

Eli Martin ’13 is a Contributing Writer. This interview has been edited and condensed.

As the allegations go, HP have been bribing officials within the Russian government to secure computer contracts. The American firm, best known for making printers, is now under investigation in both Russia and Germany. BHP, the world’s biggest miner, is under scrutiny for making illegal payments to Congolese and Cambodian officials. While neither case has yet been proven, BHP has already ventured that its employees have been involved with bribery. Although the geographical areas where this appears to be taking place are not unfamiliar with corruption, the culpability of major, established American and British firms should be a little more surprising.

Only last month, four executives from Rio Tinto, the Anglo-Australian mining giant, were convicted of bribery offences in China. Although it is hard to gauge the level of endemic corruption in China – many commentators assert that bribes are simply a fact of life in Chinese business –, the readiness of relatively senior members of the corporation to engage in this behavior should lead us to question how much of the developing world’s financial scandals are the fault of the local people.

Both of these cases, however, are still comfortably put in the shade by BAE Systems’ sustained use of kick-backs to win major contracts. The British arms manufacturer, currently the largest defence contractor in the world, was found to have been paying a wide and unusual variety of bribes to government officials from Saudi Arabia in the now infamous Al-Yamamah case. Included among the sweeteners, paid out of a slush fund, was the offer to ship a Saudi prince’s Rolls Royce across the Atlantic for free. Add to this mix one of BAE’s lobbyists, the wonderfully-named Austrian Count Alfons Mensdorf-Pouilly, who was arrested travelling from his Scottish Castle, and you have a story just about out of John Le Carre.

Far more disturbing was the U.K. government’s reluctance to bring the company to justice. Aware that BAE is a huge domestic employer and contributor to the economy, Tony Blair seemed to have done his best to kill the case in domestic courts and stifle international reaction. In February of this year, BAE was at last fined $400 million dollars by the U.S., but even so senior managers expect to consolidate their position as the world’s top arms company. Downing Street (the U.K.’s White House) successfully sent out the message that some corporations are not only too big to fail, but also too big to be held accountable to the laws that the rest of us obey. The Brits would argue, with good reason, that BAE makes up a crucial component of the U.K.’s manufacturing industry. Saudi Arabia would also likely have retaliated for an investigation of members of its own royal family, potentially doing great harm to future arms and even oil contracts. The question remains, however, to what extent a government is willing to overlook the law when it really matters. In this sense, the BAE example is almost more important than anyone’s gripes over bankers’ bonuses.

Hewlett Packard and BHP will probably not get off so lightly – bribery investigations have skyrocketed in the U.S. over the past 2 years – but the punishment will still be minimal. Western governments need to come down a lot harder and send out a clear message that corruption is simply not acceptable.

Although oil prices are currently holding steady at a little over $80 a barrel, high but not stratospheric, there is a growing concern that the world is heading for a global oil crunch. Not tomorrow, but over the next five years. As Asia consumes an exponential volume of fuel and experts revise their estimations of proven oil reserves, skepticism over the ‘sustainability’ (I know it’s not the first word to come to mind) of our current energy situation increases. When you add this to the potential of the Iran nuclear crisis leading to an unprecedented Middle East conflict, in which the Iranian regime carries out its threat of mining the vital Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. may be in immediate danger of, if not having access to enough oil, then paying astronomical prices for each barrel. Hence, the current rush around the world to secure more reliable sources of energy. Hence, the E.U.’s fast-tracking of the Nabucco pipeline. Hence, the recent furore over the potential of huge untapped Shale gas reserves located throughout America and Europe. Hence, the increasing willingness of the industry’s mega-groups to go to ever greater lengths to drill. Hence, Obama’s authorization of more exploitation.

In an ideal scenario, we would all be driving electric cars and getting our power from the wind farm 10 miles away. But that’s not about to happen. As the developing world continues to industrialize, the world is only getting more addicted to fossil fuels. At the rate the West is fulfilling its clean-energy goals, it will be an inestimably long time before we are even close to abandoning our reliance on oil and gas. In the meantime, we can do our economy and our national security a favor by getting more carbon out of our own territory.

Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geowombats/137786254/

You could argue that the anger felt by both sides of the debate is legitimate given their beliefs on the issue. If you are a passionate believer in the man-made causes of global warming, then you’re convinced that we’re walking headlong into disaster without really wanting to do anything about it. The world as we know it is literally going to come to an end, but it seems like a lot of people don’t care. That’s pretty bad. If, on the other hand, you are skeptical about aspects of climate change, then you think that you’re parents’ hard-earned tuition fees are going towards a cause which you don’t agree with. It’s the same story with adults who don’t want their tax dollars going towards cap-and-trade and renewable energy. It seems like a logical thing to get angry about, so maybe there’s nothing weird or dangerous about having Triple C.

You could also argue that the extremes to which people take their views on the subject ends up doing their cause more harm than good. The IPCC is a good example of this. Having for years grounded their doomsday scenario is statistics such as how the Himalayas’ glaciers will melt in 35 years, they have now been forced to retract that claim. Most glaciologists think that will take at least 300 years at the current rate. In another case,  the U.N’s climate change panel claimed that global warming would cause North African crop production to fall by 50% over the next ten years. It’s this kind of evidence that prompted the a delegate from Sudan at Copenhagen to compare the effects of Western emissions on Africans to the Holocaust. This, too, the IPCC has admitted is baseless. Moreover, it’s this kind of alarmism and blatant exaggeration of facts that today leads only 36% of Americans and 31% of Britons (where the scandal of scientists faking data first erupted) to believe that climate change is definitely happening, and that man is to blame.

Similarly, the Sarah Palins of the world aren’t helping themselves by denouncing evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming as a “bunch of snake oil science” designed to “shut down a lot of our development”. In his book The Real Global Warming Disaster, Christopher Booker comes close to jeopardizing some good points (I know, hate me for it) by tying the E.U.’s enthusiastic early support for green initiatives to its underlying ambition of creating a socialist superstate. There is no doubt that ‘climate denial’ appeals to the conservative instinct, in that it inherently advocates against government intrusion and any effort to penalize big business. Why liberals tend to align so vehemently in the opposite direction is a little harder to pin down. It’s just a great big shame that what should be a genuine scientific debate is so often hijacked by the standard left-right divide in politics.

In the end, the arguments used by both climate change fanatics and deniers have legitimate points, while overall some form of climate change clearly is happening, with the role being played by pollution hard to ignore. The trouble is that the inflamed discourse we’re seeing right now isn’t helping anyone, especially global warming advocates. The sooner we take tempers down a notch, and stop raving that the world will end tomorrow if we don’t take action — as if humans are capable of controlling sea-levels and global temperature down to a tee anyway– , the sooner this debate can move forward.

Last weekend, Harvard’s Model United Nations conference for college students took place for the 56th time, drawing thousands of students from all over the world to Boston Park Plaza. As an uber-important (or not) Assistant Director to the E.U. committee, I got to observe first hand how students acted as delegates from countries they didn’t come from and to debate the possibility of a unified European army. Needless to say, they fleshed out a brilliant resolution to transform the future of the European Union, one that reflected a great deal of compromise from all quarters. And at the end of the slightly-gruelling and sleepless process, everyone is congratulated, and then congratulated again. The non-stop schedule, coupled with an array of talent and vibrant backgrounds shooting from all corners of an overstuffed semi-luxury hotel creates a genuinely-electric atmosphere. When it’s all over, you can’t help but feel like you were part of something special, something that, once again, has to be tragically put off until the same time next year. Then you go back into the real world, work off the emotional hangover, and suddenly find it very easy to dismiss the relevance of the whole thing.

Model UN essentially creates an illusion. It acts as a key conspirator in perpetuating teenage idealism well into the late college years. There is one obvious reason for this. As none of the delegates truly represent the countries they are fighting for in the weekend’s various committees and assemblies, it is always possible to be reasonable, deliberate, and forward-looking. You can justify to yourself the loss of one thing for the gain of something much greater. In reality, representatives from nations like the U.K. and Czech Republic would probably leave bits of themselves strewn across the Brussels assembly before consenting to an E.U. army. At Model UN, provided we first establish a focus group to study the impact of national sovereignty, coupled with exemptions for neutral nations, it’s all kosher. And even if someone does give in to something really disastrous for them, it doesn’t matter because, well, it doesn’t matter. Unlike in the real United Nations, the greatest threat to stability comes from the delegation that may or may not have pre-written a draft resolution (a cardinal sin in the realm of Model UN), as opposed to something along the lines of Iran blowing up the world or climate change killing us all. In the end, it all comes to little more than a great big thank you and a teary kiss. Oh, and the assurance that every delegate will be one those fabled ‘world leaders of tomorrow’.

However, it’s this swell of good-feeling and optimism which may just, ultimately, make these conferences so unavoidably worthwhile. By the end of the weekend, participants have not only debated with each other at great length, but they’ve also had a good time. From the elegant, refined cocktail evening to the noticeably less-refined delegate dance, it’s hard not to adopt an essentially happy, optimistic view of things. For sure, people are able to stumble in to committee at 9 AM the next morning partly because they know they really don’t have to save the world. China is far more likely to give you a hug than take down Google when you’re not looking. As a raving wannabe-intellectual, I can only imagine that it’s got more in common with, say, the Congress of Vienna in 1815, than with any contemporary summit. Nowhere else today could you so easily replicate the atmosphere of overwhelming relief which followed the end of the Napoleonic Wars– just remember to swap the mistress-sharing between Castlereagh, Metternich et al with a few innocent kisses in the Park Plaza ballroom. And in doing this, Model UN clearly builds bridges which the world will need this century. Moreover, because delegates aren’t filled with a devouring sense of seriousness and patriotic allegiance to one’s country above all else, committees can actually come up with pretty good stuff, as they reach that all-important compromise. In short, Model UN is useful because it’s so unlike the real thing.

Maybe, if you replicated this set-up when the world really comes together at crucial moments– e.g. if you replaced Susan Rice (U.S. ambassador to the U.N.) with an accountant from Shanghai and vice-versa, as well as introducing a mandatory drinks’ hour– you’d end up with a better outcome and a better world. It’s easy to knock something as self-congratulatory as Model UN. The trouble is, it’s not obvious why the delegates who go to these things (led of course by an inspired team of Harvard students) would be any worse at solving today’s problems than our real world leaders.

Second, Blair’s statement inevitably focuses attention on America’s own nuclear arsenal, as well as those of its allies. With America and Russia holding an estimated 21,000 nuclear warheads between them (out of a global total of 23,000), it is rightly difficult to tell another country that they can’t have just one. From Iran’s point of view, it is faced down by a collection of hostile nations who are essentially telling her ‘You can’t have the same weapons as us because we don’t like you’. Just to be clear, I am not an Ahmadinejad-sympathizer, and would not in practice be opposed to any action against him. I do think, however, that we need to recognize the moral dilemma of our situation. So long as countries like the U.S., Britain and Israel possess nuclear weapons which are deployed to target just about anywhere in the world (in the case of the first two), the incentive will be out there for others to follow. Although it would be unrealistic to suggest that disarmament on the part of stable nations would ensure a nuclear-free future, it would be less likely that weapons would fall into the wrong hands. Not only did Iran obtain its original atomic know-how from Russia, but Russia’s large (and, in some cases, questionably secured) arsenal also continues to be the only serious cause for concern for those intent on mopping up any so-called ‘loose nukes’. In this sense, working towards disarmament both gives us a sounder platform to stand on and reduces the threat of existing weapons going astray.

A nuclear-armed Iran would serve as the perfect example of the knock-on effect of proliferation. Should Iran succeed in what many believe to be a covert weapons program, the U.S. would have a very hard time stopping her neighbors from doing the same. Towards the end of his appearance last week at the U.K.’s Chilcot Inquiry, Tony Blair, in a rare moment of truth, stated that were Saddam Hussein still in power, he would be now be in a desperate competition with Iran to produce nuclear weapons. Therefore, he argued, a post-Saddam world is a far safer world. However, he did seem to forget that there are other countries in the Middle East who share similar sentiments. And having just let Iran get away with their ‘illegal’ agenda, how could Obama tell the likes of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. not to embark on programs of their own? And unlike Iran, which has yet to convince the world that it is able to build a working bomb, the technology is probably well within their grasp. Perhaps the greatest danger is that Iran’s scheme will result in a post-1945 like arms race. This is precisely the scenario of the book The Nuclear Tipping Point, which examines how a large number of countries (ranging from Japan to Germany) could easily feel forced to “reconsider their nuclear choices”, resulting in a heavily-armed globe. Clearly, this is a situation we must desperately avoid, but it ought also to remind the U.S. of her own role at the heart of past proliferation. For now, the problem is how to kill off Iran’s role in shaping our future. As Dennis Blair knows, this may not be so easy.

Photo credit: Payam’s flickr stream