From a clash of civilizations to a new Ottoman Empire
by
DOĞAN KOÇ*

In some cases, an issue becomes a problem and requires the president to take it to his agenda, such as health care in the United States and the Kurdish problem in Turkey. Both US President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have had to include these problems on their agenda because these are problems that affect the people and require solutions.

But sometimes, external actors set the agenda or push presidents to deal with an issue important to them. First, they present the issue as an important matter that the government needs to pay attention to. Second, they produce prophecies. And third, they produce analyses and evidence that support their prophecies. In the media, they underline and exaggerate cases that support their analyses. In this process, they prepare public opinion for a desired policy. And finally, they ask governments to produce policies according to their prophecies. Thus, these prophecies become self-fulfilling.

Huntington’s theory

Samuel Huntington's theory of a clash of civilizations was one such theory, produced to set a certain agenda for the executive branches of Westerns countries, but especially for the president of the United States. He prophesized that a clash between civilizations and cultures, especially a clash between the Muslim world and the Western world (not the Christian world, but the Western world), was inevitable. The clash was not political but cultural; it was not between states but between cultures.

When Huntington came out with his theory of a clash, it was the '90s. Enough time passed before Sept. 11 for the American public and policymakers to get ready to accept that Sept. 11 was a big sign of this clash between the West and the Muslim world. If you recall the rhetoric of those days right after Sept. 11, it was more than a terrorist attack; it was proof that Huntington's prophecy was true. While US President George W. Bush spoke about a crusade in the United States, in Europe, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was saying that “these people [terrorists] hate our way of life.”

One wonders, if the public and policymakers of the United States had not been fed with the theory of a clash of civilizations, would the United States implement different strategies with regard to the war on terror? More specifically, would the United States have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan? I am not saying that Huntington's (Huntington was not alone in forming this theory, but he was the leading figure) theory pushed the United States to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, but it influenced public opinion and provided a ground for such policies. Since we were in a clash between the Muslim world and the Western world, going into Iraq and Afghanistan seemed not only a perfect policy, but the only option to eliminate the terrorists. However, today, both the American public and policymakers think very differently, though it is too late. Today, except for a few radicals from both sides, no one is talking about a clash between the Muslim world and the Western world.

Similar to a clash of civilizations, a new theory started to appear. Though it has not reached to the level of its predecessor, it seems it will become popular in the near future. It also seems that George Friedman will be a leading figure of this new theory. In his forecast for the next 100 years, he prophesizes that Turkey and Poland will be new super powers in the world along with the United States. He suggests that Turkey will become effective again in former Ottoman territories and beyond. Furthermore, he forecasts that Turkey and Japan will form an alliance and attack the United States.

At first, this may look like a crazy theory, and most people may ignore it (which is the case today). However, if it is supported by other incidents, the American public and policymakers will first question it and later take it as an inevitable fact and become ready to implement policies to protect themselves from this future war.

Turkey: the new Soviet Union?

One wonders if former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' testimonies are intended to support this theory. In her testimonies, she talks about Turkish spies trying to steal secret information from the US government and buying out US diplomats and members of Congress. These were the stories that we heard a lot during the Cold War. Is Turkey the new Soviet Union?

In addition to all these prophecies and forecasts, I forecast that the amount of negative news and issues reported about Turkey will increase in the United States in the near future.

Both Huntington's theory of a clash of civilizations and Friedman's theory of a clash between Turkey (the new Ottoman Empire) and the United States are claims to determine new goals and attempts to influence public opinion within the framework of these goals, rather than realistic evaluations regarding the future.

On the other hand, in fact, Turkey is changing and developing rapidly and becoming a regional and a global actor on the world stage. However, this does not mean that it will clash with the United States. Turkey has been an important ally of the United States for a long time, and it continues to be. It is also true that Turkey is experiencing a transformation in its political and social contexts. But these transformations can be beneficial to both Turkey and the United States. A more democratic Turkey that is ruled by its people through its elected officials will be a more stable ally than a Turkey that is ruled by friendly juntas or elites. The possibility of a friendly junta being replaced by an unfriendly one is a very high risk for the United States to take. The history of the 20th century is full of such examples, and mistakes. No one can guarantee that a friendly junta or elite group is going to remain in power for a long time, but a friendly, democratic Turkey will remain an ally for a longer time.

It is true that Turkey is becoming more effective and more independent in its foreign affairs; however, this is an opportunity for the United States rather than a threat, especially when dealing with the Muslim world. An ally that is credible is more helpful than a puppet that has no credibility in the eyes of the Muslim world.

What Friedman overlooks is that there are several other developing countries that may challenge the United States in a much more powerful way. A strong Turkey that is an ally of the United States may be more helpful to the United States when those challenges appear.