Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Mar 16, 2011 20:42:26 GMT -5
Global anticipation about the current Middle East uprisings against authoritarian rule ranges from confusion and vacillation in Washington to silence in Moscow and division in EU capitals. Before reaching Southeast Europe, let me quote two characteristic opinions in that regard.
Alain Deletroz from the International Crisis Group (ICG) says: “Europe bowed before these dictators, it paid no heed to repression. Europe is bidding to open a new chapter carrying a heavy burden from the past.” And retired Indian Ambassador K. Gajendra Singh from mostly neutral Asia concludes, “There is nothing more sickening than cacophony from Washington to Brussels by its leaders and its abject corporate media shouting themselves hoarse calling for democracy in the region.” All those leaders really deserve great pity -- until yesterday they were supporting all Arab dictatorial regimes for the sake of having secure energy resources but today they have to call for democracy in the Middle East.
The highest officials in the Balkans mostly remained speechless following the Arab peoples’ uprising against their despots. Stjepan Mesic, Croatia’s former president, was the only one who loudly and sincerely said, “I do not believe that my friend Muammar Gaddafi ordered such a massacre!” Had he not been a “former” president, he probably would not have said anything either.
Almost all leading politicians in the region, particularly from countries that previously belonged to Yugoslavia, are following in the footsteps of their predecessors, who extolled Arab leaders to the stars. While the West’s approach to them smelled of a double standard and hypocrisy, the former socialist politicians overlooked the actions of the rulers of the Middle East even when they hanged communists or engaged in ethnic cleansing, using chemical weapons. There was an emotional -- and among the Balkan Muslims even a religious affiliation -- towards Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, or a mutual “dictatorial” understanding, as was recently the case between Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic. The greatest role in that regard was played by Josip Broz Tito and Nasser, the founding fathers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which brought together developing countries with no regard to their political system.
There was great economic interest in such an approach as well. Big projects Yugoslav companies won due to traces of Tito’s non-alignment policy in Iraq, Libya, Algeria, Kuwait, Pakistan and India meant a much better life for thousands of families -- and even hundreds of thousands if we only consider the second half of the last century -- from Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia and Macedonia. A good part of the then Yugoslav and later Serbian military industry supplied the Iraqi army with weapons and ammunition. So far, dozens of Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian companies have made significant revenue from projects they carried out in Arab countries, particularly in Libya and Algeria. Experts and workers being evacuated from war torn Libya over the last few weeks were happy embracing their families, but they also expressed their readiness to return immediately after the situation becomes more secure.
The irony of Balkan-Arab relations
A part of Western European media recall those close Balkan-Arab relations, particularly with Libya, with certain irony. Thus, pictures of Gaddafi with Tito, Mesic and Haris Silajdzic appear in the press. It is also believed that Gaddafi was on the side of Serb butcher Milosevic, and against Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims. No one succeeded, though Gaddafi himself tried, to deny that Serb pilots were among mercenaries fighting on the Libyan government’s side. It has also been disclosed that Kosovo’s new president, Behgjet Picolli, visited Gaddafi last year in his desert tent near Tripoli to try to persuade him to recognize Kosovo’s independence. Gaddafi, however, allegedly replied “Never!” to the recognition, so long as Kosovo remains an “American puddle.”
Due to the monstrous size and scope of the events in Libya, it is understandable that they overshadow the uprisings in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East. They have thus also busied the Balkan countries with the “Libyan factor.” While the media and intellectuals do not hide their criticism of Gaddafi’s dictatorship, officials are still very cautious, expressing hope that peace will soon return to that important country.
Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou phoned Gaddafi to urge him to stop further bloodshed. Also, Libya’s deputy foreign minister visited Athens to explain the situation in his country. Officials in Sofia also refrain from accusing Gaddafi of merciless attacks against the country’s civilian population, keeping in mind that Bulgaria also has important projects there.
Some businesspeople and regional media are recalling positive things Libya achieved during Gaddafi’s long rule. Free medical treatment, education and electricity are stressed as well as the country’s high standard of living. Comparing the situation to that in his own country, a Serbian citizen was quoting as saying, “May God gave us Gaddafi to govern us for 40 years!”
Regarding the overall uprisings and demonstrations in almost half of the Middle East’s countries, there might be among official and unofficial, particularly religious and intellectual circles, unspoken disappointment regarding the very nature of the Arabs’ revolt against their authoritarian rulers. Some of them could be disenchanted because the religious leaders were not seen at the front lines and there were few religious slogans and exclamations of “Allahu akbar.” Instead, there was a good deal of requests for more social justice and human rights -- and especially women’s rights. Others may be disappointed because it was what it was -- there were no calls for a militant version of jihad that would enable them to blame so-called Islamic fundamentalism for all the distresses and troubles that might arise from those revolutionary movements. They do not like another point they missed there as well: the neo-Ottomanism that is being attached to Turkey’s dynamic political, economic and cultural initiatives in the Balkans and the Middle East.
I reflected on something else about Turkey while following the current insurrections in the Middle East. How did it happen that Arabs returned, at least temporarily, to the focus of our Balkan considerations and interests? And how did it happen in these last two decades that the focus on Arabs has been replaced on one side by Europe and on the other by Turkey?
Arab stance on the Balkans
The former Yugoslavia with all of its peoples and creeds had been swearing by the Arabs. Other countries in the Balkans also developed close relations with the Arab world. When aggression started to spread from Serbia to Croatia, and particularly to Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Arabs were nowhere to be found. They looked with crossed arms at what was happening and asked where a Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and a Bosnia with Muslims in such a friendly Yugoslavia suddenly came from. While the whole Western world quickly recognized the new countries, there was no sign of such recognition from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Hafez al-Assad’s Syria.
If somebody carrying a Yugoslav passport arrived in Cairo’s airport, he was immediately allowed to enter Egypt so long as his name did not sound Muslim. Otherwise he was returned to his point of origin or left to spend the night at the airport. Some Arab countries came to their senses only after the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) started, in large part due to Turkey’s initiatives, to issue declarations and resolutions calling on its member states to help their brothers in Bosnia.
Saudi Arabia has been giving good money, but in a selective way. The United Arab Emirates also helped Bosnia, to their credit, but at the same time kept on their territory a representative of Serbia’s military industry. The OIC resolutions did not even help some of them understand who the aggressor was and who the victim. Although Libya recognized Bosnia and, apart from Algeria, was the only country in which Bosnian companies continued to carry out important projects, it harshly criticized NATO’s bombardment of Serbia in 1999. Yasser Arafat’s PLO that same year invited Milosevic to attend Christmas Mass in Bethlehem. He did not go only because Israel warned him that he may be jailed due to an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague.
Unlike Romania, Bulgaria and Albania -- all staunchly communist countries -- the liberal former Yugoslavia developed much better relations and a flow of people and goods with Turkey. There was even a security pact between Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia for a while. However, the affinity of Yugoslav Muslims for Turkey was suffocated until the 1990s because it was deemed a capitalist state and a NATO member. Whether due to the special place Balkan Muslims had in the Ottoman Empire or to the changing political and ideological map of Europe, Turks realized much quicker the nature of Milosevic’s policy in the former Yugoslavia. It is well known how they initiated diplomatic activity at the UN and the OIC in favor of that policy’s victims. Turkey’s proactive mediating role in actual and sensitive issues in the Balkans is also known.
Turkey’s new relationship with the Arab world
In the meantime, Turkey has established a new kind of relationship with the Arab world where half a century ago, at the time of Tito’s NAM and Nasser’s pan-Arab nationalism, there was no place for Turks. Arabs who are now rising up and revolting are speaking about Turkey as a model of the country they aspire for. A special triangle along the Balkan-Turkish-Arab line of solidarity was symbolically established with the evacuation of thousands of workers from Libya following its uprising turning extremely violent.
Bulgarian planes evacuated Macedonian, Serbian, Croat and even Chinese workers. Turkish planes and ships gathered Bulgarian, Bosnian and Serbian workers. All of them, however, hope they will return there soon to continue projects that are of vital importance to their families. In such moments I agree with one of the workers, who said, “Let’s have Turks, but Arabs as well!”
www.todayszaman.com/news-238408-middle-east-uprisings-arabs-and-turks-in-balkan-perceptions-by-hajrudin-somun*.html