Guenter Grass’s Notion of Threat Perception
April 5, 2012 § 2 Comments
Günter Grass, the German nobel laureate, is in the news for publishing a poem yesterday declaring that Israel is a threat to world peace and that it is Israel’s nuclear program that is suspect rather than Iran’s. I will leave it to others, such as Bibi Netanyahu, to rail against Grass’s anti-Semitism, nor will I harp on the irony of a former Waffen-SS member who for decades lied about his past accusing Jews of lying about their true intentions and criticizing Israel’s warlike nature. Rather, I’d like to briefly point out some flaws in Grass’s theory of threat assessment.
Grass believes that Israel’s nuclear program and its alleged claiming of a right to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran makes Israel a threat to world peace. In contrast, he finds no proof that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear capability for anything other than peaceful purposes, IAEA assessments be damned. There are two glaring problems with this analysis. First, it entirely ignores threats directed by Iran toward Israel, acting as if Israel has threatened Iran with military action entirely unprovoked. One can debate whether Khamenei and Ahmadinejad’s blustering about Israel and Zionists is merely empty rhetoric (which is my view) rather than a signal of true intentions to nuke Israel given the chance, but there is no reasonable question that the Iranian leadership consistently threatens Israel and its government (this long list of examples via Jeffrey Goldberg is already three years old). States evaluate threats in a number of different ways; Stephen Walt famously listed strength, proximity, capabilities, and intentions as the four most salient factors, and certainly Iran presents a credible threat to Israel based on proximity and intentions, and to a lesser extent based on strength. Just because Israel might be seen as presenting a credible threat to Iran, it does not automatically follow, as Grass seems to assume, that the reverse is not also true. So while Grass may not see Iran as posing any sort of threat to Israel whatsoever, it must be because his command of international relations theory is more highly evolved than the current state of thinking in the field.
Second, Grass’s allegations of Israeli willingness to launch a first strike and his exhortation of Germany not to sell Israel submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons ignores the fact that Israel has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960s and has fought subsequent wars with Egypt and Lebanon along with suffering Scud missile attacks from Iraq, and yet has in every instance exercised restraint and not used its nuclear arsenal. This is not to laud Israel for any special behavior; no nuclear state has utilized its cache of atomic weapons since the U.S. against the Japanese in ending WWII. It is to point out that Israel should not be treated with heightened suspicion or accused of being a threat to world peace just because it is a nuclear power. Indeed, Israel’s history of not using its nuclear weapons makes it less suspect than Iran, which has no similar track record of responsible nuclear behavior.
Grass may think that Israel is wrong for its treatment of Palestinians, or may not like its current government, or maybe he just has a problem with Jews (let’s not forget that he was, after all, a Nazi). His grasp of threats and nuclear behavior, however, do not back up his polemic.
The Pros and Cons of the 1980 Coup Trial
April 5, 2012 § 2 Comments
In what is an amazing scene, General Kenan Evren, the instigator of the 1980 military coup and a former president of Turkey, is being prosecuted in a civilian criminal court for the atrocities and human rights violations that were carried out during the period of military rule. The entire Turkish political establishment is lining up against Evren, with over 500 co-plaintiffs including the CHP, MHP, and BDP, and the prosecution of Evren was paved by a referendum in 2010 that proposed to nullify the constitutional provisions granting Evren immunity for life.
Dealing with the perpetrators of the coup and the subsequent dark era in Turkish history is an important move for Turkey, as only by airing this type of dirty laundry out in the open can Turkey once and for all move past the era of military interventions in politics. The trial is one step on this path, and the scrapping of the 1982 constitution in favor of a new one will finally establish civilian control over the military as complete. That nearly every important Turkish politician, institution, and public figure is of one mind over the Evren trial, and that the military has so far remained quiet, is a great sign of how much Turkish democracy has matured. Prosecuting Evren does not read as a quest for vengeance so much as a desire to grapple with and face an unpleasant reminder of Turkey’s more authoritarian past, and it will make a future authoritarian takeover that much harder to accomplish, whether it emanates from the military or from Turkey’s civilian rulers.
Putting Evren on trial does not, however, come without consequences. I will leave the analysis of what nullifying these types of pacts does to the mindset of the SCAF in Egypt to those who are expert in both Egypt and Middle Eastern militaries and have written on the subject of pacts before (paging Steven Cook on all counts), but it will also affect internal politics in Turkey. Whatever one thinks of Evren and the validity of the 1982 constitution, the fact is that he only consented to returning power to civilians because of the immunity safeguard, and the uncomfortable truth is that the 1982 constitution is still the operative governing document of Turkey until it is replaced. Evren deserves to answer for his crimes, but this smells of mob justice rather than proper procedure. Furthermore, if Evren can be hauled in front of a court to answer for his crimes three decades later and despite his age (94) and bad health, it makes it that much more unlikely that should Turkey suffer an authoritarian relapse, the offenders will agree to leave absent some serious fighting and bloodshed. As unsavory as the golden parachute may be, it serves a distinct purpose, which is to pave the way for smooth transitions to democracy. Finally, while the ultimate objective here may be deterring the military from ever overthrowing the government again, it might have the opposite effect on the mindset of the officer corps. Erdoğan and the AKP have shown no hesitation at going after more contemporary military targets, such as Ilker Başbuğ, and this might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back so that the next time a military coup plot is uncovered, unlike Ergenekon and Sledgehammer it will be based on reality more than fiction.
A Good Example of Strengthening Turkish Democracy
April 4, 2012 § Leave a comment
The AKP has proposed, with the opposition’s backing, to abolish Article 35 of the Turkish Armed Services Law, which is the clause the military has relied on in the past in carrying out coups. This is unquestionably a good move for democracy in Turkey, as Article 35 has been used to justify blatantly undemocratic encroachments into Turkish civilian politics. Much as the way the Bush and Obama administrations have used the Congressional resolution passed after September 11 authorizing all necessary and appropriate force to go after al Qaida as cover for such far flung operations as warrantless surveillance and wiretapping, drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, and trying Guantanamo Bay detainees by military commissions rather than civilian courts, Article 35 has been used in ways outside the scope of protecting Turkey and its constitution. Civilian control of the military and the absence of unelected officials as the ultimate decision makers are both hallmarks of democratic rule, and the abolishment of Article 35 fits squarely into this context. Unlike other moves to hound the military by arresting officers and trying generals based on hearsay and forged evidence, this is one time where the AKP’s battle to bring the armed forces to heel should be cheered by everyone.
Protect the Simit
April 3, 2012 § 1 Comment
There are lots of things I miss about Istanbul. The fresh produce which is incomparable to any fruits and vegetables I have had anywhere else in the world, the stunning views of the sea or the Bosporus or the medieval cityscapes depending on your particular vantage point in the city, the pitch perfect grilled levrek that can be found in a host of back alley lokantas and meyhanes…but the single thing that I long for the most is a proper Turkish simit. I used to eat three or four a day – one or two on my way to catch the bus in Taksim, another mid-morning in Bebek, another one at lunch time, and sometimes a final one on my way back home to Cihangir if there were any simit vendors still hanging around. Despite the fact that they probably all come from the same handful of central bakeries, there were some vendors that always had fresher and superior tasting simits. I made sure to grab my morning simit from the guy selling them on the corner of the driveway in front of the Alman Hastanesi on Sıraselviler Caddesi because the insides of his simits were pillow soft. I also made a trip to the Eminönü docks whenever I found myself in Sultanahmet because, against all odds given that it is a tourist trap, the simit guy right outside the gate for the TurYol ferry always had a great batch. Such a simple thing, and yet such a reminder that the U.S. does not have a street food bread culture that compares. In any event, this bout of nostalgic reminiscence was prompted by a story in Zaman that a body called the Istanbul Simit Tradesmen Chamber is seeking an international patent for the simit in an effort to prevent those devious Greeks from stealing another Turkish national culinary treasure. I fully support this move; it is time to grant the simit the international glory that it so justly deserves!
Hitler News Out of Turkey Is Starting To Become A Weekly Occurrence
April 3, 2012 § Leave a comment
In today’s Hitler sighting, Prime Minister Erdoğan lashed out at the CHP for comparing his government to the Nazis by…comparing the CHP to the Nazis. Erdoğan is understandably upset that Kılıçdaroğlu drew the first Third Reich comparison, but surely the way to express outrage is not by linking Işmet Inönü to Hitler and insinuating that the opposition is the true Hitler loving clique. Let’s just stipulate right now that neither the AKP and Erdoğan nor the CHP and Kılıçdaroğlu are even remotely reminiscent of Nazis and move on. Wouldn’t it be nice if Godwin’s Law remained a hallmark of online arguments only rather than migrating into the real world and the Turkish parliament?
