Monday, October 29, 2012

Individuals in International Relations


        Do individuals matter in international relations? I think the answer is clearly yes. We live in planet of over 7 billion people, and at first glance it is hard to imagine how one specific individual can make a difference and alter the course of history for the better or, sometimes, for the worse. But history is full of such people, some recent examples are Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Assad in the Middle East. It can be said that most of these individuals are political leaders, but it is not always the case as we can see with Osama bin Laden. I want to go back in history in a little bit, and focus on the aftermath of the First World War. Today marks the 89th anniversary of the foundation of the Turkish Republic (Oct. 29, 1923).  While the Turkish people as a whole won the war of independence, none of it would have been possible if not for Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. I want to focus on his incredible achievements in the aftermath of the Great War, and how he became, in my mind, one of the greatest revolutionaries of the 20th century.

        The Ottoman Empire signed the treaty of Sevres following the end of WWI. The document effectively partitioned the empire. The British held the Bosphorus straits around Constantinople, Iraq and Palestine. The French seized parts of southern Anatolia, and Syria. Italy invaded southwestern Anatolia, and while western Anatolia was initially promised to the Italians, the Greeks were given Smyrna and the surrounding areas with the support of the British. The remaining lands in central Anatolia was all the empire had left. Mustafa Kemal, still a commander in the Ottoman army, was in Constantinople when the British navy sailed in and seized the imperial capital. While the Ottoman government was fully cooperating with the invading powers, Mustafa Kemal was fully aware that the Sultan was very out of touch with his people in Anatolia. He was looking for an opportunity to leave Constantinople and join forces with the Turkish people in Anatolia. He seized the chance when the British ordered the Ottoman government to investigate alleged mistreatments of the Greek people in Sinop. As inspector of the Ottoman army, he set sail to Sinop. Before long it was clear to the Ottoman government that he was not there to investigate. He was stripped of his titles, and he resigned as an army officer. He moved to Ankara, which was strategically the safest location in Anatolia. At perhaps his weakest moment, as he had no legal authority, he was backed up by other influential generals in the region such as Kazim Karabekir, whose forces vowed allegiance to Mustafa Kemal. 

         Meanwhile, the Greeks were on an ambitious military campaign, conquering eastwards from Smyrna, and getting dangerously close to Ankara. Mustafa Kemal quickly created the General Assembly, which granted him emergency powers in order to legitimize the creation of the Turkish army with Mustafa Kemal as the Commander in Chief. He improved relations with the newfound Russian state, which provided the broke Turkish rebels with weapons and supplies. The Italians were reluctant to fight, as they weren't granted the lands they were promised. They cooperated with the Turkish Assembly, along with the French. It was clear that, the Ankara government was the legitimate government in Turkey, not the Sultan in Constantinople. It was also clear that Mustafa Kemal was willing to fight the Greeks, and if necessary the British for independence.

         Initial fights proved catastrophic for the Turkish army, as it was outnumbered, outgunned, and it lacked military discipline. The Greek advance continued, as the Greek army crossed the Sakarya river and camped a few hours out of Ankara. Mustafa Kemal calmly ordered the army to retreat back, and lay low. He assumed full control of the army, while the previous battles were mainly fought by Ismet Inonu. Mustafa Kemal eventually led an offensive to drive the Greeks back. He routed the Greek army quickly as the retreat turned into chaos. As the two armies got closer to the shore, and Smyrna, the Greek army was in full panic, and the Turkish army's confidence was soaring. On September 9th, Smyrna (now called Izmir) was liberated, and Mustafa Kemal turned his attention to the straits. Initially it seemed as if a military confrontation between Mustafa Kemal and the British army was inevitable. However, by the end of the Greek defeat, popular support for the British occupation in Turkey had fallen dramatically, and the British people no longer believed in the cause. The British government did not risk another war, and decided to leave Constantinople (now called Istanbul) to the Ankara government. Treaty of Sevres was revoked, and with the treaty of Lousanne the current borders of Turkey ( with the exception of Hatay) was drawn and recognized by the international community. 

         On October 29th, Mustafa Kemal declared the newfound country a secular republic, returning back the emergency powers to the parliament. He then went on and introduced a series of drastic reforms in order to "westernize" Turkey, such as the introduction of the latin alphabet, the metric system, and the Gregorian calendar. He singe-handedly willed a nation to independence, and changed the course of a people. He did not stop there and made sure that the newfound country would be up par with other modern nations. In my opinion, he is the perfect example for why individuals matter in international relations.







Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Turkey strikes targets in Syria

This sounds like it could lead to some unchartered waters ( no pun intended with the water diary and all)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/world/europe/turkey-syria-tension/index.html?hpt=hp_t2





Let me know what you guys think.

Water Diary



On your chosen day, record your use of the following:

                Water for washing (self, clothes etc – how long in the shower etc) and miscellaneous tasks such as watering plants
                all food and drink consumed
                transportation of any kind
                any durable items purchased

Calculate your water footprint.


For this blog assignment, I calculated my water footprint after recording my daily usage of water using two different websites: the National Geographic Water Calculator, and the Water Footprint Network Water Footprint Calculator. According to the National Geographic calculator my total footprint was 1809 gallons per day, which is below the US average of 2088. My footprint consists of home (75/ 100 US average), diet (1009/ 1056 US average), energy ( 555/700 US average), and stuff (170/ 232 US average). According to the Water Footprint Network my footprint is 2035 meter-cube per capita, which is also below the US average of 2842. It is divided as food (1839), domestic (98), and industrial (98). 

Also focusing on the US average of 2842 meter-cube per capita, 20.2% of which falls outside of the country, is a lot higher than the global average, which is 1385 meter-cube per capita. This is not surprising, in my opinion, because quite frankly everything can be found in excess in the US, and a lot of everything goes to waste everyday, as opposed to certain countries in the Middle East, where water scarcity is a very big issue. In comparison to the US, Turkey has a footprint average of 1642 meter-cube per capita, 21.1% of which falls outside the country. Iraq has no statistics available. Syria has a footprint of 2107, which is surprisingly high  for a Middle Eastern country, that also reflects on the governments inefficient water policies. 15.9% is virtual water in Syria's case, as it falls outside of the country.

To be honest, I never really payed much attention to the amount of water that I've used. Even though I technically am from a Middle Eastern country, water is plenty in where I come from. I never had to think about water scarcity, at the same time I was not surprised that it was below the US average. One thing that stood out in my footprint was the overwhelming dominance of food (or diet), mainly meat. I had no idea that the water used to provide us with fresh and clean meat to eat was that much, and that it would make up for a large majority of my footprint. In the future, I will try to be more careful with my water footprint now that I am more aware of it.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Are all politics local?

The Arab Spring

        Are all politics local? I think ideally it should be. However, so much is dependent on international relations and foreign policy that it is hardly the case that all politics are local. In the United States, a strong case can be made that all politics are local. This is because of the political system the US was built on. There are local and state governments, besides the federal government, that give flexibility to politics in the United States, allowing locals to focus on issues and situations that affect them and them alone, and come up with solutions for it. This is a very elaborate and complicated system that can only work in a very orderly society. For example, it would never work in the MENA, which is anything but orderly. It can be said that it reflects the isolationist approach of the United States from the foundation of the republic until its emergence as a superpower at the end of the second world war. During that period, both the US government and people simply chose to ignore power politics and distanced themselves from Europe. The US government avoided any alliances with European countries, with the exceptions in the two world wars, and people were simply uninterested in the world around them, as they simply focused on local news. That changed, of course, with the US becoming the superpower in the world, and the US felt morally obliged to bring order and democracy to the world (and holding the USSR and communism off). However, even today in local communities people are often unaware of what is happening in the world, as they only care about local issues and politics.

        Taking a look at the MENA, the first thing that stands out is that the MENA consists of many countries with different regime types, whereas the US is a single country with one central government. The MENA has always been a magnet of chaos, and its impossible for an event that happens in one country to not affect another country in the region. One would think about the proximity of the countries at first, but indeed not all countries in the MENA are that close to one and another. It is hard to think that one event that happened in Morroco would affect people in Iraq or Syria. Yet this was the case with the Arab spring, when one revolution sparked another, and then another. This shows in reality that politics cannot be local, even though I feel like it would be much more efficient and beneficial if it were so.


photo: http://pol297thearabspring.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/arab-spring-map.jpg

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Political Identity Infographic

Background 
Hometown

Culture

Coexistence

Democracy

Equality

Freedom of Speech

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The "Others" In Our Community


There are no outsiders.
I spent a long time thinking about who I’d consider to be the “others” in our tiny bubble that is Dickinson. A bubble that is as close as it gets to the “fake” life, away from the problems of the real world. While some of us try to keep in touch with the outside world (and many of us do a decent job at it too), it is hard to deny that we live in a closed and well-protected environment, with people very similar to us, or with people of similar backgrounds to a certain extent. Many stereotypes came to my mind as I thought about the “others”, and as liberal and open-minded as Dickinson might be there are indeed many polarized stereotypical groups within its student body that are acknowledged by almost everyone. After contemplating whether or not I would consider the Greek life at Dickinson to be the others, and then the sports teams, especially Lacrosse, and some other groups, I decided that I did not consider any of them to be the “others”. That did not necessarily mean that I liked all of them, but I did not consider them to be foreign or an outsider to my experience at Dickinson.

I realized that the reason for that was because I, myself, am part of the “others”, even though I often tend to forget. For the last four years, I have lived away from home, in a different country, a different climate and setting, and most importantly a different culture than mine. I never felt unwelcome, or like the stranger, or the “odd-one-out”, necessarily, but when it comes down to it I am a legal alien living on a student visa. As a Muslim student, I belong in an even smaller group within minorities, and while this has not at all affected my life in any way, I think that it has played a crucial role in the way I perceive things, and more importantly, the people around me. I have become much more tolerant, understanding, and caring towards different groups of people, not to say that I was not any of those things to begin with. I have learned to, or lets say improved in letting go of prejudices and viewing people not as Christian or Jewish or Muslim, or gay or straight, or black or white, but rather just as people, and basing my judgment on character traits or simply on whether or not that is a good person. As a result, when I view the “others” in our community, I honestly can say I find no one in particular in that category. The problem, in my opinion, is that while most people are like that here at Dickinson, transferring the same feelings of “neutrality”, so to speak, to other parts of the world, and in this particular case the Middle East and North Africa, proves to be difficult for a variety of different reasons, emotional disdain or animosity in some sense, being one of them.   And hopefully by the end of the semester we all will have taken a huge step forward in that regard.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

The Fall of the Levant

The Great Fire of Smyrna

Lebanon, and Beirut in particular, is what comes to mind when people think of the Ottoman Levant. This is due to the French influence in the region during the Ottoman rule, and the French Mandate in Syria. Indeed, the word levant itself means “to rise” in French, and it is often used for the Eastern Mediterranean, from which the sun rises. However the Ottoman Levant, as a region, covers a much larger area starting from the Aegean coast of Turkey, moving along the Mediterranean coast all the way down to Egypt. Over the summer, I read a book about the Levant called Levant: Splendour and Catastrophe on the Mediterranean by Philip Mansel. In the book, Mansel talks about the three great Levantine ports without which the Levantine identity would not have existed: Smyrna, Beirut, and Alexandria. He separately examines the three cities, going into detail on how they came to be the great financial centers that they were, how they all stood out within the Ottoman Empire as beacons of co-existence, religious, political, and personal freedom, and incredible wealth. He examined the rise of these Levantine cities, and debated whether or not they had always been ticking time bombs doomed for failure, as all three of them were eventually defeated by 20th century nationalism. Smyrna was “made” Turkish, and is now called Izmir. Alexandria was also Egyptianized after the Egyptian independence from Britain. Today, only Beirut is close to its former glory as a multicultural center.

          As it happens, Izmir is my hometown, and I wanted to write about its days as a Levantine port, and a tie between the Ottoman East and the European West. Mansel explains that the rise of the three cities were based mainly on commerce and trade with the West, which increased significantly after the declaration of the Franco-Ottoman Alliance, and the capitulations that were granted to European states. Smyrna (I’ll call it Smyrna instead of Izmir) is located on the western-most point of Asia, on the Aegean coast of modern day Turkey. It is geographically very well protected both by sea and land, to the west there is the island of Chios and to the east, the city is surrounded by a set of mountains that provides natural protection. The city is located around the gulf of Smyrna, which is fed by numerous rivers that brings very fertile land from Anatolia. It has a very temperate climate, typical for the Mediterranean region, all year round. Cotton, and tobacco are (were) the most common agricultural products, which are the main cause of Smyrna’s rise as the commercial capital of the Ottoman Empire. Its location is also very significant strategically, as it faces Greece and the Western world, yet it has a vast hinterland, that is all of Anatolia, that most Aegean ports lacked to be successful. Smyrna, founded by Ancient Greek colonists around 1000 BC, had been an important town throughout the course of its history. As part of the Roman and then the Byzantine Empire, it flourished as a Christian trade town. Its population consisted of mainly of Orthodox Greeks, even after its conquest by Muslim Turks. After the Ottoman conquest, the Sultan forced Muslim people to move there in order to balance the population out. However, Smyrna always seemed to be adorned with Orthodox churches, rather than mosques, which dominated the skyline of the imperial capital, Constantinople. The population of Smyrna was an indication of the power struggle between Turks and Greeks within the Ottoman Empire. Whoever gained more power at a particular time would have the majority of the population in Smyrna, and it would fluctuate back and forth often. The two people co-existed in peace, for the most part, which is the main point of the Levantine synthesis, up until the twentieth century, when Europe was overrun by an extreme wave of nationalism. Turks and Greeks were not the only people who lived in Smyrna, however, French, British, Italian and Dutch residents of Smyrna made up for a big chunk of the population, around 15-20%.  Smyrna was also home to a large number of Jews, and also Armenians. After the Spanish expelled its Jewish population from the Spanish peninsula, the Ottoman Empire received a wave of Jewish immigrants, mainly to the cities of Salonika, Constantinople, and Smyrna. The religious and cultural freedom in Smyrna was incredible, even by Ottoman standards, which allowed people to practice their own religion freely. In the 18th and 19th century, commerce in Smyrna boomed due to its Christian traders, businessman, bankers, and investors. At its height, Smyrna accounted for almost 70% of all Ottoman exports, which was far greater than that of the imperial capital. Along with the boom in trade, Smyrna experienced a huge increase in population, making it the second biggest city in the Empire, trailing Constantinople. Wealthy businessman in Smyrna, which were mainly Christian, were also very interested in the liberalist ideas that had emerged in Europe, and the Enlightenment was clearly felt in Smyrna. Despite its proximity to the capital, Smyrna enjoyed great political freedom. Due to its wealth, it was able to defy direct orders from Constantinople. The Ottoman Sultans, knowing the significance of Smyrna’s trade with the western world, supported and, to some extent, protected the rights of its minorities and allowed room for greater freedom.

The relationship between the Ottoman Empire and the Levantine residents of Smyrna was mutually beneficial, however, as Westerners made a fortune and lived luxurious lives in Smyrna, they also protected Smyrna from foreign invasion when the Empire started to lose power. The island of Chios, right off the coast of Smyrna, had been sacked many times by pirates in the Aegean, who were mainly Venetian, and while Smyrna was also vulnerable to attack because the Ottoman army in Smyrna was virtually non-existent, its residents were influential enough to prevent an attack directly on Smyrna, mainly for their own interest but also in the interest of protecting the Levantine synthesis and the prosperity of Smyrna. 19th century Smyrna is thought to be the first multicultural city in the world, a global center before the age of globalization. However, even as things seemed perfect in the 19th century, the roots of chaos were already in place. When Greece gained independence from the Ottoman Empire, Smyrna was so wealthy that more Greeks migrated to Smyrna than Athens, which was so poor that people would struggle to live a healthy life.  The Greek independence led to a Greek dominance in Smyrna, it remained that way until 1923. Throughout the 19th century, animosity between the Christian residents of Smyrna and the Muslim and Jewish residents of Smyrna increased dramatically. While Smyrna enjoyed incredible wealth, it was mainly in the hands of its Christian residents, and Turkish and Jewish residents lived much poorer lives. This led to violence, sometimes so brutal that the Sultan would have to guarantee the safety of the Christians in Smyrna. At the start of the twentieth century, nationalism had already swept through most of Europe, including the Ottoman Empire, and many minority groups within the Empire had declared independence. The Empire had virtually shrunk to Anatolia and the Middle East, and Constantinople. When the First World War broke out, Smyrna was relieved that the Empire chose to remain neutral, especially its Western European residents. The mood in Smyrna was too calm, in some ways, like the silence before the storm. Yet when the Ottoman Empire entered the war on the side of Germany, very few people could have anticipated what was to come, that perhaps the greatest Levantine city would come to a painful end in flames.

Even after the Ottoman Empire declared war on Britain, France, and Russia, Smyrna’s Western European residents chose to remain in the city and remain neutral. The governor at the time declared neutrality, despite the fact that the Sultan had declared war, Smyrna was using its influence, and political independence. People thought that the war would come and go, Smyrna would remain untouched because the Western Powers would not attack it, and the Levantine life in Smyrna would resume once again. However, Britain and France had made secret arrangements to carve up the Ottoman Empire once the war was over. And playing on the increasing national tensions between the Greeks and Turks, promised Smyrna and the surrounding region to the Greeks (and Italians at the same time). This broke the main component of the Levantine synthesis, co-existence. No longer did Smyrna feel cosmopolitan, Greeks wanted it to be a part of Greece, and Turks wanted to be a part of the Ottoman Empire with a much more Turkish attitude. Things did play out as Britain had planned, and as the Greek army invaded Smyrna, thousands of Greeks cheered on the streets with Greek flags flying everywhere. That was the beginning of the end for Smyrna. It did not take long for violence to escalate. Turks claimed that the Greek authorities were treating them unfairly, there were uprisings that were not very violent at first, but they got much more violent. Meanwhile the Turks had gathered around Mustafa Kemal, and had started an independence movement in the heart of Anatolia, Ankara. Most of the Ottoman Empire was under foreign invasion, including Constantinople. Mustafa Kemal was determined to stop the Greek march into Anatolia, and drive them off completely. Initial attempts at halting the Greeks proved disastrous, and the Greeks marched dangerously on Ankara, however, Mustafa Kemal proved that his defense at Gallipoli during WWI was not just luck. He did manage to halt the Greek army hours out of Ankara, and then went on an offensive to drive the Greeks back. The Greek army, surprised and panicked, burned many small towns as they retreated to Smyrna. The Greek dream of a great Hellenic Empire came to an abrupt end as Mustafa Kemal defeated the Greek army again, right outside of Smyrna. The Greeks were routed, and the upcoming events proved to be disastrous for Smyrna. As the Turkish army reentered Smyrna, hundreds of thousands of Greeks fearing their lives flooded the waterfront trying to escape.

Even though it is said Mustafa Kemal ordered that Smyrna was not to be sacked and the transition back to Turkish rule was to be a peaceful one, things did not turn out that way. The Greek and French Quarters, which were the wealthiest parts of the city, were completely sacked. A few days after the liberation of the city, on September 9th (a national holiday in Turkey), smoke started rising from the Armenian quarters. There are two theories as to how the fire actually started. The Greeks claim that it was the Turkish who had deliberately started the fire and place barrels of oil around town so that it would spread, while the Turks claimed that it was the fleeing Greeks that had set the city ablaze. Regardless of who actually started the fire, the city burned for days as strong winds made it extremely difficult to put it out. As a result the entire Greek, French, Armenian and Christian quarters burnt down, and only the Jewish and Turkish quarters survived. Judging from that, I believe that it is more likely that the Turks had started the fire, but that is up for debate. Smyrna proved to be the largest city ever to be destroyed up until that time (it was before the bombings of entire cities in WWII), and the fire has left marks on so many people, and its devastation is still felt today by not only Greeks or Turks but also by Italians, the French, and the British. After the fire, Smyrna went through huge changes. Most of its Western European residents left, leaving everything they owned behind. The Greek and Armenian populations were forced to leave, which significantly dropped the city’s population. Another wave of nationalism swept through Turkey, and Smyrna (which now was called Izmir). The capital moved from Constantinople (which now was called Istanbul) to Ankara. However, no city in Turkey felt the negative effects of nationalism as much as Izmir. Its foreign residents accounted for everything in the city from banking to commerce, and to almost all of the shops and cafes around town. All the Turks were good at, at that time, was agriculture. Slowly, yet, unfortunately, surely, Smyrna lost its significance as a trade hub. While Izmir accounted for 37% of the trade in Turkey in the 1940’s (which is much less than 70% a century ago), that number has dropped to 13% in our modern day. The city is nothing but a shadow of its former glory.

While most Europeans in the 19th century assumed that it would always be destined for greatness and wealth, time has done its best to prove them wrong. The Levant fell apart completely soon after that. Yet it all started, in my opinion, with the greatest Levantine city of them all. Now, Izmir is almost completely Turkish, with a very small Jewish minority, and a handful of Christians scattered throughout the city. It is the third biggest city in Turkey, with a population of somewhere between five and seven million people, due to a recent immigration wave from within the country (mostly Kurds from the southeast of Turkey). However, it is no where near its potential, and only time will tell if it can live up to it, again.