This week's Monday Talk hosts the author of a new book, “Pan-İslamcının Macera Kılavuzu” (Pan-Islamist's Adventure Guide), by Ümit Kıvanç, which hit the bookstores a couple of weeks ago, comprising a critical analysis of former foreign minister and current Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu's book “Strategic Depth,” considered a “masterpiece” in Turkey,
Among the criticism and analysis expressed in the interview, Kıvanç says about Davutoğlu's book: “He does not prove his arguments. He is not scientific. All he tries to do is to disseminate pan-Islamism. It is all right to be pan-Islamist, but this book is far from being deep, contrary to its name: ‘Strategic Depth'.”
In any democratically developed country, Kıvanç's arguments would be covered in the mainstream media, and most probably, government ministers, opposition party leaders and Davutoğlu himself would face many questions about this criticism. None of this has happened in Turkey, yet.
“But what media outlet can have me, somebody critical of the country's prime minister, on their television programs or pages? Is that possible? In any country in the world, if an academic becomes prime minister, and if that academic has an ambitious book that claims to direct foreign policy, and if somebody writes a book which is critical of that book, this becomes headlines or remains in the top news for at least a few days,” said Kıvanç in reference to the restrictions on media freedom in Turkey.
Answering our questions, Kıvanç explained why he found Davutoğlu's book “ideological,” not “academic,” lacking new theories based on objective evaluations, and why his views on foreign policy pose dangers for Turkey.
I'd like to start with the name of your book: “Pan-Islamist's Adventure Guide.” Is there a little mockery in this name about Ahmet Davutoğlu's 560-plus-page-book, which has been much acclaimed in Turkey?
No, indeed, I've taken his book very seriously. With his book, a country can be taken on an adventure, a very dangerous adventure. The reason I called this an “adventure” is that the way through the adventure seems like it is not going to be successful because the capacity of the country is not compatible with the target that the author would like to reach. Davutoğlu's book is an ideological action guide; it is not an academic book that is based on a theory.
What is the goal that Davutoğlu would like to reach at the end?
Davutoğlu would like to establish a “civilization” -- “civilization” is his key concept -- which is based on Islam. However, he does not ask any questions about how this ideal will be realized. He argues that if the Turkish leadership can convince the Arabs that the Ottomans were not imperialists, on the contrary, they were trying to save Arabs from the West's colonial expansionism, then the Arabs would accept Turkey's leadership! Apparently, Davutoğlu believes that Turkey's current leadership can spread pan-Islamism in the Middle East.
You say that his call for action is dangerous. How have you come to this conclusion?
He is well informed, writes well and speaks impressively. Most other leaders of the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) do not seem to have those qualities. Davutoğlu can be convincing for those AK Party people who would not question the basis of his ideas at all. Therefore, he can easily sell his ideas. His ideas are dangerous because his foreign policy ideal is based on conquest, which would be very adventurous and dangerous at this time in the world.
We have not seen those dangers yet; we have yet to see the time that the government will try to distance itself from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIL], and ISIL will blow up cities and people here in Turkey… Turkish leaders think they can control ISIL, but this is dangerous for the country. And there are people in Turkey, Turkish people, who apparently share the same mentality as ISIL.
Let's remember, former Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had said that he had a hard time keeping 50 percent of the voters away from the streets. [In 2013, Erdoğan sought to intimidate the Gezi Park demonstrators as he hinted that his supporters could also take to the streets, saying he was hardly keeping the 50 percent at home.] Isn't all this dangerous? Let's remember the al-Qaeda bombings of November 2003 in İstanbul that left 51 people dead. Did the citizens of Turkey mourn? I think we should have had people queued up for visits of condolence in front of the British Consulate General… What about the innocent passengers who became victims to the bombings while waiting at the bus station in Levent? Did our Muslim citizens show any reactions to the loss of innocent lives?
‘Davutoğlu has typical look of a strategist'
In my last interview, Alastair Crooke, director and founder of the Conflicts Forum based in Beirut, told me that Turkey might become a hostage to ISIL, just like Pakistan did. Do you share this view?
I am afraid Turkey might [like Pakistan], but Turkey's Middle East surroundings are different from the surroundings of Pakistan and Afghanistan. We are likely to see genuine formations in Turkey, too, similar to Pakistan's Taliban.
Let's return to your book and its title: What does Davutoğlu say? Does he tell us anything?
He is looking at everything from strategic and geopolitical perspectives. He defines everything as part of power relations. He evaluates everything strategically and he sees that everything -- people, villages, rivers, forests, etc. -- can be used by the state as instruments. This is not humanitarian at all. This view is typical of a strategist. How can it really be deep? And he does not have an academic viewpoint in his book. He does not prove his arguments. He is not scientific. All he tries to do is to disseminate pan-Islamism. It is all right to be pan-Islamist, but this book is far from being deep, contrary to its name, “Strategic Depth.”
You highlight in your analysis that Davutoğlu emphasized “self-confidence” in his book many times. Does this reach a point of megalomania?
According to Davutoğlu, the reason why the pan-Islamic movement has not been widespread thus far is because nobody has been wise enough to do it, and he implies that he is wise enough, and Turkey should be confident that it can be done. Is that megalomania? I don't know. He does not base his arguments on objective evaluations. Why hasn't pan-Islamism been widespread? What are the reasons for it? What happened to prevent it? Those and more questions need to be asked for an objective evaluation of the issue. Davutoğlu does not ask those questions but tells us that nobody has been wise enough to do it. But if Turkey tries to exert influence in the Middle East, how is Turkey going to deal with Saudi Arabia and/or the United Arab Emirates? Saudis are much richer than Turkey. Why are they supposed to pay homage to Turkey? There are no answers to this question in the book, either.
‘Like the old regime, he continues to glorify Turkishness'
What does Davutoğlu tell us that is different from the old system of Turkey?
Like the old regime, he continues to glorify Turkishness, emphasizes how Turkey should be influential in the Balkans; Turks in Greece and Bulgaria are important; Albanians are important; Turks in Cyprus are important; Central Asia is important to Turkey, etc., same old stories. If he did not, he would not have been allowed to give regular lectures at the military academy at the end of the 1990s. He does not really tell us anything original and says that Turkey should be more influential. But how?
Could you give us an example to his strategic thinking that you emphasize?
In his book, “Strategic Depth,” Davutoğlu wrote: Even if there is no Muslim-Turk left in Cyprus, Turkey would have a Cyprus problem. Those are words that could have been uttered only by the most cold-blooded strategist of the military. But these are Davutoğlu's words. The old system, based on military tutelage, glorified Turkishness by ornamenting it with Islam -- it was Turkic-Islam. Davutoğlu is doing the opposite: taking Islam to the center ornamented by Turkishness. This is pan-Islamism. For pro-Davutoğlu people, Turkishness is not much different from being Muslim. In the Ottoman millet system, the answer to the question of “What is your millet?” was “Islam, Protestant or Catholic, etc.” First and foremost, there is Islam and then Turkishness. So, Davutoğlu does not separate those two from each other.
‘Some people would not listen even if Davutoğlu were to say good things'
You are highly critical of a former foreign minister and now prime minister in your book. What type of feedback, criticism or/and comments have you received?
Nothing. For part of the society in Turkey, Davutoğlu is already bad, so there is no reason for them to hear something analytical, and there is no reason for them to listen, even if Davutoğlu says something positive, something good. On the other hand, for pro-Davutoğlu people, they have nothing to say against my arguments.
Have you had any interview requests from the media about your book?
I've had a couple of interviews, mostly from websites, including K24, the new book review site. But what media outlet can have me, somebody critical of the country's prime minister, on their television programs and pages? Is that possible? In any other country in the world, if an academic becomes prime minister, and if that academic has an ambitious book that claims to direct foreign policy, and if somebody writes a book which is critical of that book, this becomes headlines or remains in the top news for at least a few days. This is what civilization -- Davutoğlu often refers to civilization -- is all about.
Davutoğlu's book has been translated into a few languages…
Serbian, Greek… not many; it has not been translated into German or English. My guess is that Western media representatives who know Turkish, in Turkey, or diplomats have already read the book, and they probably did not see the need for its translation. There are some criticisms of Davutoğlu's book from strategists who said that Davutoğlu did not have well-grounded, objective arguments; he is too emotional.
‘Davutoğlu liberally uses the concept of Lebensraum'
At the end of the book, you have a chapter on Davutoğlu's sources of inspiration. Would you tell us about this?
Let's first remember this: The work that we are analyzing, Davutoğlu's book, does not offer a new theory established with an immense intellectual effort to open up our minds. There is, of course, an intellectual effort, but it is serving his intentions. And the product is: ideological material for the political circles that would like to have an influence in the world. Davutoğlu's sources of inspiration are strategists such as Karl Ernst Haushofer, Halford John Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan and Nicholas Spykman. Those people are gurus of geopolitical strategy. Let's take Haushofer. He is the person who introduced the concept “Lebensraum” [living space] to Adolf Hitler -- a concept Davutoğlu liberally uses in his book. [Lebensraum was an ideology proposing an aggressive expansion of Germany and the German people.] Davutoğlu, as a person who adopts a geopolitical approach, naturally has been inspired by those people.
Do you think Davutoğlu has a vision like Hitler's?
This is something that should be asked to Davutoğlu… I don't think Davutoğlu yearns for a Hitler-like regime, but his ideas point to an authoritarian or totalitarian regime -- President Erdoğan in particular is suitable for that type of authoritarian or totalitarian regime.
Do you expect any conflicts to arise between those two leaders, Davutoğlu and Erdoğan?
I don't because it is not easy to go against leadership and authority in right-wing political parties. In the history of political parties in Turkey, there are not many political leaders who did it. Additionally, the AK Party regime cannot take any cracks; if there are any cracks, it will fall.
‘Obviously, AK Party will win June 7 elections'
We have entered the election period for the June 7 elections. What are your projections?
Obviously, the AKP [ruling Justice and Development Party, AK Party] will win. The main opposition parties in Parliament are following policies to guarantee the AKP's win.
Do you think the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) should enter the election as a party?
It is only the HDP which can make this decision. Of course, we can be critical of its decisions. The HDP leadership now says that it wants to be a party of Turkey. I think the HDP should be in Parliament; if not, there will be really bad things happening in Turkey.
What will happen and why?
There will be conflict and war with the Kurds. Kurds will no longer accept anything less than equal citizenship at this point, but the state still wants to control and dominate. The Gülen community should be aware of those facts, too. Incredibly, they still think that Kurds can be controlled. The Gülen community media still writes: “State negotiates with PKK.” I ask: Who else is the state going to negotiate with?
PROFILE
Ümit Kıvanç
Kıvanç was born in İstanbul in 1956. He has worked for newspapers including Milliyet and Cumhuriyet and with the İletişim Publishing House. He has written columns in newspapers and magazines such as Radikal, Radikal2, Nokta, Taraf and Birikim. He had several books published by the İletişim Publishing House. In the mid-1990s, he started to make documentaries. His latest book, “Pan-İslamcının Macera Kılavuzu” (Pan-Islamist's Adventure Guide), was put out by the Birikim Publishing House.
http://www.todayszaman.com/monday-talk_davutoglus-book-strategic-depth-far-from-being-deep_372116.html
