Section 2:  The Creation of Modern-day Turkey

With the defeat of the Central Forces and the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish debacle on the Russian front in World War 1, the British proceeded to implement this agenda on the Anatolian landmass in particular, after first splitting up the Ottoman Empire. The British aim was to break up the Ottoman by creating and supporting rebellions in each of the Ottoman governorates, separate them from the Ottomans and then subsequently break up the governorates and put arbitrary kingdoms with multi-ethnic factions, each under a British-chosen Sultan.

A critical approach for this destruction was to promise petty Arab chieftains ruler-ship of the entire territory after they won the war, if they went along with the British against the Ottoman Sultan — only to later deceive them. On the Armenian side, the Armenian genocide — which could be seen as the starting point of the Anatolian Breakup — was engineered by the Bad-Cop-British-instigated Sultan to clear Turkish lands out of infidels, an action not in consonance at all with the general history and culture of Turkey. Then they (the Good-Cop-Americans!!) shouted “We have to intervene!”. At this same point in time, the Treaty of Sevres, primarily from Woodrow Wilson’s viewpoint, envisaged the creation of both an Armenian and a Kurdish homeland, sowing the seeds for future conflicts. The Sultan Mehmed VI who was put in Turkey moved so as to make it an extremist-Sunni state which would then be anti-Shia, and who was helped by and helped the British to do this, was overthrown by General Mustafa Kemal Pasha and Turkey was brought to a more neutral configuration. Subsequently, in the Arab context, the British would renege on the Hussein–McMahon agreements cheating out the Arabs, implementing instead the agreements made by Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot—neither of whom were Arabs. Indians to note that this is the same Henry McMahon of Partitioners Inc.!! Why then do we still view the McMahon Line as valid? What mistakes did the Arabs commit? What did the British do to the Arabs? Why do Indians still trust the British after this history?

The Turkish state however differed from the other kingdoms of North Africa, Arabia and Central Asia in that they were the seat of a very large vibrant and dynamic Empire that had lasted several centuries, that had fought several wars with the Europeans and which had imbibed good army training from them. Although by the start of the twentieth century it was not in the best of shapes, they were nevertheless able to mount a resistance to the designs of British and their allies. This resistance was the Turkish Independence Movement which overthrew the Sultan Mehmed VI who was in accordance with the allied design deviating from the established principles of the Ottoman Empire and was moving under British orders to towards Islamic fundamentalism—a process already set in motion by Sultan of the Ottomans Abdul Hamid II.

The Turkish Independence Movement was able to a definite extent able to check mate the European objective of the complete fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire, and succeeded in keeping its heartland, Anatolia, free from European administration (having repudiated the Treaty of Sevres) and establishing firm Turkish rule under the subsequent treaty of Lausanne (1923). The Anglo-American objectives in this regard are clear from the Treaty of Sevres, which they tried to enforce: to keep the area fragmented under Kurds, Greeks, Armenians, and Muslims each protected by a combination of various European countries. But this, as stated above, the leadership of the Turkish Independence Movement was able to avoid under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the hero of Gallipoli.

So then, while at a time most of the other parts of the Ottoman Empire, Central Asia, North Africa were under the rule of British-installed puppet Kings, the Turks were able to have a strong Nationalist rule in their homeland.  Although, it is noteworthy that Kemal Ataturk accepted the reality of downsizing of the Ottoman Empire’s burdens of the Middle Eastern and Egyptian possessions (as the Soviet Union would downsize eighty years later to become Russia).

We should nevertheless note that the fissures which Ataturk was able to hold together, are precisely the points used to keep Turkey under blackmail on most policy issues today. Once in every two decades, the Kurdish question is raised, the Kurds are used for the work of the interests of the Anglo-American combine and then they are ditched again. Raising this bogey of the Kurdish issue has almost become like a golden rule in the geopolitics of the Middle East. (for the reader: What might be the implications of the recent opening of an Indian Consulate in Kurdistan?) Next, the threat of raising the question of the Armenians and the Armenian Genocide, which anyway has been instigated and mediated by the British themselves, is kept dangling – as is the question of the part of Cyprus that was disputed by the Ottomans and the Greeks.

This blackmail permitted Turkey to be used (at least to some extent) to manipulate the Arab politics till 1975, when the Americans figured out a better way to disrupt the Arab Politics by using Wahabism. Although the pressure on Turkey then decreased on this front, the Anglo-American combine still continued to meddle with the Turkish internal affairs, since they wanted to make it a vassal state similar to the other Arab states. This last context makes the current purge by carried out by Erdogan, very hard for the Anglo-American lobby to digest.

Let it also be remarked here that the failure of the Anglo-American combine to use Turkey to turn to fundamentalist Islam and push this virulent brand according to the Anglo-American interests would lead to the Anglo-American lobby to look elsewhere (Saudi Arabia) to get this job done for them. Thus, it is precisely this failure in Turkey that caused Saudi Arabia to turn to the extremist and virulent path. The consequent lessons for India should not be lost on us. If Pakistan were to refuse to allow extremist Islam, what might that mean in the light of this?

Amongst all the secular institutions set up by Kemal Pasha, the most noteworthy of these was the Turkish army, which has played a critical role in maintaining a healthy stability of the nation-state. The Turkish army has played a very critical role in keeping Turkey healthy. A noteworthy quote by a very senior Turkish General Cevik Bir (who played a very critical role and arrest in the 1997 coup and the control of the Islamic danger rising in Turkey): “In Turkey we have a marriage of Islam and democracy. (…) The child of this marriage is secularism. Now this child gets sick from time to time. The Turkish Armed Forces is the doctor which saves the child. Depending on how sick the kid is, we administer the necessary medicine to make sure the child recuperates”. The army has seen to it that secular education is available for all children, they have seen to it that political parties pushing either radical Islamic or radical leftist views were outlawed, they have seen to it that the Tariqas (a multitude of Islamic Sufi orders which often get very cultish and are subject to infiltration by foreigners and undesirable elements) have been kept at a healthy balance, they have ensured that views are not enforced on specified minority religions (e.g. Orthodox Christians, Armenians and Jews, but many are not thus classified). The army frequently discharges officers who involve in radical Islamic movements. They have stepped in to force the government’s hand during times of economic mismanagement and crisis.

The British in particular and the West in general, have since been continuously trying to meddle with this healthy and secular configuration and have attempted to establish their own rule via fundamentalists. At least four concerted attempts have been made in the post WW-II era so far – and in all these four attempts the Turks, with very high credit going to the Turkish Army were successfully able to thwart the designs of the British and their Western allies. Thus, then this realization put the destruction of the Turkish army at high priority on the agenda of the Anglo-American combine.


Part Three