Who’s Going to Rule the World? Fethullah Gülen?

For much of my longish life I have been hearing tales, historical, contemporary and fictional, about the latest megalomaniac individual or evil empire determined to rule the world. Traditionally the contenders have based their claims on the possession of some kind of superior weapons technology – but times have changed. We are well into the post-modern era, and most predictions of earlier ages about what the world would be like in the year 1984 or 2000 seem naïve and laughable to us now. It is pretty clear that the task of ruling the world has moved way beyond the power of one individual (if that was ever a realistic possibility). The vast military resources of the one remaining global super-power have proved insufficient to rebuild even minor third world states in the US’s own image. So now we have nothing to worry about, right? We can get on with the job of lighting up our own small corners with iPhone 4s and Galaxy SIIIs without fear of global annihilation.

Uh-uh, sorry folks. I’ve got bad news. There’s a new battle shaping up, and it’s about the enemies within.

One reason I enjoy living in Turkey is that I don’t feel so much like crying when I read the local news. Back in New Zealand, before heading to work, I used to listen to a morning roundup on the radio of what ‘they’ were doing to my beautiful country. I confess, there was a time back then when the idea of joining some revolutionary band of bomb-throwing anarchists began to have some appeal. Now, however, from a distance of some 17,000 kilometres, I find I can read news of events in the Land of the Long White Cloud with more objectivity, and the tears don’t flow as once they did.

Let me give you an example of the madness, though, from my own field of professional interest. The National (read Tory) Government in New Zealand, in its 2012 budget, announced its intention to save $43 million by putting the lid on teacher recruitment. The inevitable result of this, of course, would be a steady increase in class sizes in schools around the country. Luckily, the government has a select band of tame ‘education experts’ who can be called upon to explain why this won’t be a bad thing. One of these, a Professor John Hattie, has apparently conducted research showing that class sizes are not a major factor in student learning. As far as I can learn, Professor Hattie’s research has not involved any actual time spent teaching actual kids in actual classrooms – he has been an ivory tower academic since 1975. Not sure I would take my car to be repaired by an ‘automotive expert’ with no hands-on experience, regardless of how many years he’d been studying the theory, but that’s just me.

Well, there are experts and consultants, it seems, and you can count on these guys to back each other up. One of the latter, a Dr John Langley, was quoted as saying, "If I had a choice of putting my child into a class with a poor teacher with twenty kids or into a class of thirty kids with a good teacher I'd go for the latter. It's as simple as that." Reassuring to know the government has access to people with such incisive problem-solving ability, and New Zealand taxpayers can feel satisfied that Dr John well deserves his no doubt generous consultancy fee.

These days New Zealand has a system of proportional system for electing representatives to its legislative assembly. The system was instituted in 1996 in response to overwhelming public dissatisfaction with the old first-past-the-post, two-party system such as exists in the UK and the US. Unfortunately post-modernism has insinuated its way in here too. The several small parties that manage to win the occasional seat in the legislature are run mostly by fringe lunatic refugees from the far right or left of the two main parties. The main role of these minor participants seems to be putting forward outrageous proposals which the government can proceed to implement in slightly modified form after the initial public anger has died down.

One of the more fanatical of these minor political groupings is a coterie of doctrinaire libertarians known by the acronym ACT, arguing with religious fervour for deregulation, privatisation, flexible labour markets and reduced taxes for the wealthy. And one of the more significant achievements of these neo-liberal economic geniuses has been the move to privatisation of the prison system. A recent editorial in the New Zealand Herald observed that, ‘Something is clearly awry when a Government proclaims the economic benefits of a new prison’.  Nevertheless, Auckland’s oldest prison has already been outsourced to private management, and a newly built facility soon will be. The group to which the NZ Government is entrusting the care and security of its criminals is a multi-national outfit name of Serco – which a Guardian journalist has described as ‘. . . probably the biggest company you’ve never heard of.’  OK, come on, you may say. Leave aside your left-wing socialist prejudices and tell us how they are doing. Well, a recent report on the first eight months of Serco's management produced the following findings:

‘ . . .  as well as two prisoners being wrongfully released, the British firm had failed to meet 40% of its performance targets and was fined $150,000 after a prisoner escaped.

Targets for random drug testing and prisoner management plans were also not reached.

Annually, Serco can earn up to approximately $3 million in incentive payments, but instead it is having to pay for under-performing.

On top of the $150,000 fine it got after prisoner A. F. escaped, it was fined $25,000 for accidently releasing an inmate early and $50,000 for failing to file progress reports.

Another $25,000 fine is pending for releasing another prisoner early.’

In spite of these criticisms, the government is standing by its decision. Corrections Minister Anne Tolley said ‘ . . . there needs to be some improvement, but she also described it as a "bedding in" period for Serco’.

Well, once you have accepted handing over prisons to the private sector you have pretty much overcome, or chosen to ignore, all the arguments that can be mustered against privatization. So it is hardly surprising to see the free-marketeers turning their attention to schools and teachers. Unfortunately, private sector education has been around for a long time, and has often been associated with elitism, poor teaching, violence, and dubious educational standards. But even supposing they do find a good establishment, the wealthy resent having to fork out high tuition fees in addition to paying taxes, some of which are used to finance state-sector schools. So, our privateers have come up with a system which allows organisations to receive government funding for a school, while at the same time getting a special deal allowing them to avoid much of the normal regulation and overseeing. It’s called the Charter School system.

However, again unfortunately, there seem to be glitches in the system. In 2009, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University in the US, produced a report stating that ‘17% of charter schools reported academic gains that were significantly better than traditional public schools; 46% showed no difference from public schools; and 37% were significantly worse than their traditional public school counterparts’.

Fethullah Gülen

Now, if you have read this far, you may be wondering what all this has to do with my topic, which, you will remember, was ‘Who’s going to rule the world?’ But I assure you, I hadn’t forgotten. I want to redirect your attention to those figures in the CREDO report, and in particular, the ‘17% of charter schools [reporting] academic gains that were significantly better than traditional public schools. A Turkish colleague of mine recently sent me the link to a ‘60 Minutes’ documentary looking into the connection between some very successful charter schools in Texas, and a certain reclusive expatriate Turkish citizen by the name of Fethullah Gülen.

I watched the documentary with interest, because I have been hearing this gentleman’s name in Turkey for some years, generally spoken in tones of fear and loathing that suggest some kind of hybrid monster cloned from the DNA of L Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Attila the Hun and the Ayatollah Khomeini. I was hoping for some conclusive evidence of evil-doing, since I was assured that Americans were now seeing Fethullah Hodja in his true colours. The programme, then, I have to say, turned out to be something of a let-down. The presenter, a long-serving correspondent for CBS with a big reputation as an investigative tele-journalist, visited schools supposedly associated with the Gülen ‘movement’, and tracked the elderly Hodja to his secluded residence in the Poconos, a mountainous region in north-eastern Pennsylvania.

She and her camera crew spoke to school administrators and students. As far as I could see, they learned that:

• The school administrators are normal-looking, secular and articulate.
• The students are bright-eyed, bushy-tailed kids who love their school.
• The schools are among the most highly rated in the country in terms of academic success.
• There is a waiting list for entry exceeding the total capacity of the schools.
• There is no religious education taking place, and certainly no observable Islamic character.
• Curriculum focus is on mathematics and science.

They were unable to interview the Hodja himself since, apparently, he has been ill for some months and rarely appears in public. His representative assured the interviewer that he takes no direct interest in the running of the schools. The most sinister information emerging from the programme was the presenter’s comment that some people in Turkey believe Gülen and his ‘movement’ have a ‘secret agenda’ though the details weren’t made clear – one assumes that’s because otherwise it wouldn’t be secret.

Undoubtedly the activities of the ‘Gülen movement’ are beginning to arouse interest beyond the shores of the Hodja’s native Turkey – however there seems to be some debate about the nature of these activities.

My Apple Desktop Dictionary defines a movement as: ‘a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas: the labor movement’, or the cubist movement.

Merriam-Webster Online suggests: ‘a series of organized activities working toward an objective; also: an organized effort to promote or attain an end, eg the civil rights movement’.

Two questions seem to arise here: Does a ‘movement’ require a leader in the sense of a person who takes responsibility for organizing and coordinating its activities? And, is a ‘movement’ good or bad, according to the definition?

Addressing the first question, it seems to me that the key factor in a movement is a concept or philosophy, rather than a ‘leader’ in the normal sense of the word – a concept such as: that labour needs to organize to counteract the power of employers; that human beings deserve equal rights before the law regardless of race; the use of ‘multiple perspective and complex planar faceting for expressive effect’ in a work of art. Participants latch on to an idea formulated by an initiator or trend-setter and the movement takes on a life of its own which may be quite independent of that person. Subsequently leaders may emerge but again, the movement continues or dies out more or less regardless of the existence or activities of those persons. Think of Martin Luther King or Pablo Picasso. As for the second question, in general, movements tend to be, to a greater or lesser extent, revolutionary, in the sense that they are usually a reaction to the prevailing status quo, and their appeal is that they offer some kind of new approach to what is perceived to be an existing problem. I guess they will ultimately be judged according to which side of the fence the judge is sitting on – or alternatively, by their results. ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits’ (Luke: 6, 43) has always seemed to me a good criterion to use in evaluating any group or individual.

So let’s get back to the Gülen Movement. First of all there is an official website. You won’t find the ‘hidden agenda’ of course, because that would, of necessity, be hidden. But you will find a very fascinating and comprehensive source of information about the man, his beliefs and goals. According to the brief bio, he ‘is an authoritative mainstream Turkish Muslim scholar, thinker, author, poet, opinion leader and educational activist who supports interfaith and intercultural dialogue, science, democracy and spirituality and opposes violence and turning religion into a political ideology. Fethullah Gülen promotes cooperation of civilizations toward a peaceful world, as opposed to a clash’. On this website you will find poetry and articles about education, the rights of women, the link between virtue and happiness . . . and other interesting topics too numerous to mention. You will find that Gülen cites as a source of his inspiration the 13^th century Sufi mystic Mevlana Jalal al-Din Rumi, renowned for his inclusive philosophy of love and peace. 

Wikipedia will tell you, not surprisingly, that the Gülen Movement is inspired by the teachings of Fethullah Hodja. A key concept is the Turkish word Hizmet, meaning service, which connotes using your talents for the common good without looking for personal reward. On the other hand, Gülen does not discourage followers from making money through business – merely encourages them to use some of their energies to help the less fortunate. 

A recent Time magazine article  wrote about a meeting with members of the Gülen Movement in the eastern Turkish city of Diyarbakır. In an economically disadvantaged region of the country with a large Kurdish population, local businessmen have been raising money for the foundation of elementary schools and public reading rooms. While the article does say that ‘many Turks view the Gulen Movement with suspicion’, on the face of it, you’d have to think that the fruits of its efforts seem quite positive, even laudable.

According to another website called ‘Gülen Inspired Schools’,  there are over a thousand such schools around the world, including 130 in the United States. Independent audits suggest that these schools produce excellent academic results, ranking them among the most successful in their respective countries. Interestingly, administrators deny any control by the Hodja, or a central body associated with him, unlike, say, Catholic Church-run schools. Investigators have found no evidence of religious teaching, Islamic or otherwise. On the contrary, Gülen has been quoted as saying, "Studying physics, mathematics, and chemistry is worshipping God," and the common thread running through the schools seems to be a curriculum focusing on these modern subjects.

Sounds ok, on the whole, what do you think? Still, I have to confess I found one or two negatives in my searchings. An article in the New York Times in 2006  reported that some of those Texas schools had been allegedly giving construction contracts and making other favourable deals with firms ‘connected to’ the Gülen movement. More seriously, Mr Gülen himself was apparently put on trial in 1999 for ‘attempting to overthrow the government.’ Still, when you consider that the present Prime Minister of Turkey served prison time in those days for a similar offence, you’d have to think that the legal criteria must have been somewhat more stringent than we would expect in the US or New Zealand. In his younger days, the Hodja also apparently fell foul of the military authorities after the 1971 coup in Turkey, being arrested, tried and convicted. Not surprising, then, that he chooses to reside in the USA – although Turkish courts did clear him of all wrong-doing in 2008.

Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your patience in reading so far. I’m not here to be an apologist for Fethullah Gülen or any political or religious ideology. I merely want to outline the philosophies and fruits of two movements, and ask you to consider who you would prefer to see ruling the world.

God or Mammon?

On the one hand, let me present bottom-line accounting, out-of-control free-market capitalism, as championed by Wall Street bankers, multi-national corporations and the so-called mainstream media. Key elements of this ideology are: privatisation of state-owned enterprises, belt-tightening (especially for the middle and lower socio-economic classes), welfare cutbacks, labour-market flexibility and outsourcing of manufacturing to countries with lower wage costs. MBA management courses churn out white-colour clones who can manage any enterprise, without needing to know anything about the activity of the industry they are managing. Governments are hijacked by corporate and financial interests with no personal morality or patriotism whatsoever, whose only belief is in the power of money to buy whatever they want, and a philosophy, if you can call it that, based on a firm sense of personal entitlement to rape the planet of its resources and exploit its people wherever they may be. Reduced taxes for the wealthy are an important tool in economic management. Why should the tax-payer pay for schools, hospitals, post offices, railways, electricity supply, relief for the the unemployed and disadvantaged? The tax-payer's money is needed to bail out the banks when they have finished milking ma and pa small investors, superannuation funds, poor borrowers – and there’s no one else in the capitalist system to defraud.

On the other hand, let’s postulate a group of people with a personal morality based on religious beliefs, and a philosophy founded on a concept of altruistic service to the community. A group of people who operate without the need for a centralised bureaucratic structure, their operations inspired by a teacher with a vision of a better world and directed by their own confidence in the truth of his message. A group of people who, in spite of their lofty ideals, do not divorce themselves from the real world, but rather work within it, using their knowledge, skills and resources to provide educational opportunities and support to young people in their communities.

In the end, I guess, life choices are never so simple. I don’t imagine you will get the opportunity to cast a vote directly for one or the other. But I like the sound of this:

Along the winding road to The Truth
A hero, all selfishness banished,
The key to the mystery of creation in his heart,
Weaves his way through time to reach his goal.

Moving ever upwards he breathes the air of eternity;
He has met with Khidr: he knows the way.
And to fellow wayfarers he gives the good news of dawn;
A message of hope in a night of choking darkness.

In his hands burns a torch; he spreads light everywhere
And he brightens the Way for all who would follow;
His ascent radiates peace and serenity;
His amber fragrance permeates every atom of creation.

Wherever he treads finds life and becomes green:
The hills and valleys, plains and mountains are all dressed in color:
And on every breeze is borne the perfume of spring;
Blossoms appear, flowers burst into life, trees are quickened.

His mind nurtured ever by eternity,
And everlasting melody flows from his lips:
All he sees is the richly colored tapestry of life to come,
The belief in which is part of his every being. 

Rescuing Constantinople, liberating Istanbul and de-bunking history

History, Henry Ford apparently actually said, is more or less bunk. It seems he and I have moved closer together over the years. I was always led to believe that he was claiming the one hundred percent bunkishness of history, and I disagreed most fervently. Now I gather he qualified his statement with that ‘more or less’, and I find myself increasingly coming round to the same opinion.

Let me give you yet another example. On Tuesday 29 May, Turks celebrated an event they know as the ‘Conquest of Istanbul’ (İstanbul’un Fethi). Some four and a half months later, they will celebrate another occasion they remember as the ‘Liberation of Istanbul’ (İstanbul’un Kurtuluş’u). The second of these dates is always a holiday for the school children of Turkey’s largest city, while the former is not.

Recent excavations related to the construction of Istanbul’s new underground Metro system have put back the date of the first human settlement on the site of this ancient city to around 6,500 BCE. That makes a whole lot of history, doesn’t it! So you can understand Turkish school kids experiencing some difficulties remembering exactly what happened when. The task is complicated, however, by the fact that there seems to have been some tinkering by authorities to ensure that school history books present the approved version.

Getting back to those two dates above, it surprises me anew every year to find how many of my Turkish students seem to think that 6 October was the day when Turks ‘liberated’ Istanbul from the Byzantine Greeks. In fact, what happened was that, after Mustafa Kemal and his Turkish nationalist army had chased the modern Greek forces out of Anatolia in 1922, British and other allied troops that had been occupying the Ottoman capital since the end of the First World War, decided to up sticks and head for home.

Turkey's most expensive film to date

I guess when you’re a kid at school, having an official day off is always going to be a powerful reason for remembering a date – so perhaps it’s a good thing that Prime Minister Erdoğan has stated his intention to make 29 May a public holiday in future. In that case, kids next year are much more likely to learn that the date will mark the 560^th anniversary of an earlier Tuesday, when the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II led his victorious army into the Byzantine Greek capital of Constantinople after a seven-week siege in 1453. Perhaps some of the confusion will be cleared up too, if the name of the celebration is altered to recognise the self-evident fact that the city didn’t become ‘İstanbul’ until after it had been conquered – some would say, until long after.

Perhaps it’s not so much history itself, but our knowledge and understanding of it that is ‘bunk’. And just possibly the reason is that certain ‘authorities’ have vested interests in fostering misunderstandings. When you compare what the average Turk knows about the history of Constantinople/Istanbul with the knowledge most of us in the West have, you perhaps get a better sight of the problem.

The event of 29 May 1453 is generally referred to in Western histories as ‘The Fall of Constantinople’. Some writers credit the influx of Greek scholars fleeing the city as a key element in the Europe Renaissance. Some consider the Islamic takeover to have been the spur that prompted Columbus and others to launch themselves across the Atlantic in search of India. The successful employment of gunpowder and cannons against the medieval world’s best-fortified city is often taken to mark the end of the Middle Ages. These claims are interesting, and undoubtedly debatable, but I will leave the debate to more able scholars. Of more relevance to my immediate purpose is the oft-heard claim that the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottomans was ‘a massive blow to Christendom’. It has even been said to mark ‘the end of the Roman Empire’. 

Now I don’t know what you were taught when you were at school, but I have a pretty clear memory of being told that ‘Rome fell to the barbarians’ in 476 AD/CE. The main authority for that precise date seems to have been the 18^th century English historian, Edward Gibbon. I also have hazy memories of Christians having been thrown to lions, but I can’t remember if these were sourced from the same book or the same teacher; nor do I have a clear memory of whether the barbarians were God’s punishment for what the Romans did to the Christians, or if they were just an unfortunate coincidence.

What I definitely do not remember being told was that, 140 years before the German upstart Odoacer deposed the resident Roman Emperor Romulus Augustulus, an earlier emperor, Constantine, in response to the declining importance of Italy, and the rising importance of Asia Minor, had established a ‘New Rome’ at the mouth of the Bosporus Strait. While it was clear that, at some point, those ‘old Roman’ citizens had given up feeding Christians to lions, and transformed themselves into good Catholics, I do not remember its being made clear that the ‘Roman Empire’ continued in the east for another thousand years until finally laid to rest by that 21 year-old Ottoman sultan on that fateful Tuesday in 1453.

So why the confusion about the end of the Roman Empire? I guess part of the problem stems from the fact that those ancient ‘Romans’ used the name of their capital city as the basis for naming their empire – as if the British Empire had instead been known as Londonian. A second source of confusion is that the conferring of ‘Roman citizenship’ was used as an instrument of control and government, and was not restricted to residents of Rome itself, or even Italy. As a result, citizens in Constantinople, and elsewhere in Asia Minor continued to think of themselves as ‘Romans’ long after the fall of the city of Rome and its western Empire – and long after they had ceased speaking Latin and had reverted to the use of Greek. That’s why modern-day Turks still refer to their Greek-speaking citizens as Rum, and their church as Rum Ortodoks.

However, we can’t just blame the ancient Romans and Greeks for the confusion. Europeans have always had problems defining their relationship with their eastern cousins. For a start, there was bitter competition in the Middle Ages between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople. Doctrinal differences related to such issues as the Holy Trinity, the true nature of Jesus, and what sort of bread to use for the Sacramental Feast were the ostensible reason – but perhaps more important was the envy of Roman Popes for the temporal power of the Eastern Church. Papal attempts to resurrect the western Roman Empire in holy guise made it impossible to accept the existence of a rival in the east – which henceforth became known as ‘Greek’. In 1054 the Eastern and Western Churches finalised their split in what became known as The Great Schism, and relations went from bad to worse.

Around this time, traders from the Italian cities of Venice, Genoa, Pisa and Amalfi began setting up shop across the Golden Horn from Constantinople. Of course, both sides derived benefits from the arrangement, while at the same time friction also developed. Locals resented the accumulating wealth and arrogance of the foreigners, especially when their mutual rivalries broke out into violence. Resentment came to a head, apparently, in April 1182 when the local population went on a festive spree of riot and murder, known to historians as the Massacre of the Latins.

Latin revenge, however, was not long in coming. Roman Popes had been unleashing crusading knights eastwards for a hundred years, partly in response to appeals from the Eastern Emperors for help against the spread of Islam. The fourth and last of these crusades was, it seems, something of a fiasco. Shortage of funds for the journey obliged participants to render military services to the Doge of Venice. Subsequently they found their way to Constantinople, which they proceeded to besiege and sack in April 1204, installing a Latin Emperor of their own. Somewhere along the way, they seem to have lost sight of the main purpose of their venture (viz. fighting Muslims), and very few of their number managed to engage with any.

When those Latin Crusaders sacked, looted and destroyed the capital of their eastern rivals, subjecting its citizens to three days of rape and murder, the Pope of the day, the ironically named Innocent III, who, one assumes, had sent them in good faith to fight Saracens, Turks and other assorted infidels, was apparently somewhat upset, and gave their leaders a sound telling-off. Nevertheless, after piles of booty from the pillaged imperial capital began to appear in Rome, it seems the Pontiff found it in his heart to forgive his errant knights, and allow them back into his church. Today, visitors to St Marks Cathedral in Venice can see the copper statues of four prancing horses that had stood over the main gate of the Hippodrome in Constantine’s New Rome for nine centuries – just the most famous of the looted treasures.

The Greeks did succeed in winning back their capital some fifty-odd years later, but by then irreparable damage had been done. The Byzantine Empire (as it came to be called in later years) had been mortally wounded. By the time the young Ottoman Sultan Mehmet decided to add Constantinople to his growing empire, there was, in fact, very little of Imperial Rome remaining outside the city walls. Nevertheless, capturing the ‘Queen of Cities’ was not an easy task. Apart from the Fourth Crusaders, Persians, Arabs, Slavs, Bulgarians, even Vikings, had assailed the mighty walls on many occasions without success. This time, however, the Ottomans were determined, and laid their plans well. Even so, had ‘Christendom’ really wanted to stave off that ‘massive blow’ to their power and prestige, and turn back the Islamic Ottoman threat, you would think they could have made a little more effort.

Now, with the Ottoman forces massed outside those walls, might have been a good opportunity for the Western Church to show a little temporal solidarity – but they didn’t. Pope Nicholas V did, apparently, make a half-hearted call for another Crusade, but the call fell on deaf ears. Apart from a few hundred Genoese and Venetians with a financial interest in supporting their Greek patrons, the last descendants of Imperial Rome were left to fight their final battle alone. As history records, their valiant defence was at last broken, and Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror entered the city that would become his own capital.

History, at least the western version, is a little quieter on the aftermath of the conquest. As we mentioned above, the victorious Latin knights rampaged for three days through the city of their Christian cousins in 1204. To be fair to the Crusaders, a three-day mayhem of killing and looting was the standard reward for an army that had been put to the trouble of besieging and capturing a walled town. England’s noble King Henry V, according to Shakespeare, gave the French defenders of Harfleur a final warning:

Take pity of your town and of your people,

Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;

Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace

O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds

Of heady murder, spoil and villany.

If not, why, in a moment look to see

The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand

Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;

Your fathers taken by the silver beards,

And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,

Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,

Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused

Do break the clouds . . . (Henry V, III, iii)

So we may be surprised to learn that the Muslim Ottoman Sultan called off his ‘blind and bloody soldiers’ after one day of such sport. He also allowed the Greek Orthodox Patriarch to maintain his seat in the new Ottoman capital. According to one source, ‘As a strange side-effect of the Muslim conquest, the doctrinal integrity of eastern Christendom was preserved: instead of the compromises with the Vatican that might otherwise have been inevitable, the patriarchate was able to hold to its view on the issues, such as the nature of the Trinity, that had led to so much bitter argument.’

And there he can be found to this day, ministering to his flock from his sanctuary in Istanbul, largest city of the Turkish Republic, with its ninety-nine percent Muslim population: Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch and Archbishop of Constantinople, First Among Equals in the Eastern Orthodox communion. History, if not one hundred percent bunk, at least needs careful watching.

The Circassian Genocide – I’m a Caucasian too!

I was out and about last Sunday, showing a couple of friends from New Zealand around various parts of the city, and my eye was drawn to posters on a subway wall in Karaköy. The text was in Turkish, of course, so it meant little to my visitors, but it was announcing a demonstration planned for 21 May to commemorate the 148^th anniversary of the ‘Circassian Genocide’. Participants will apparently congregate in the big square of Taksim, whence they will march down Istiklal Avenue to the Russian Consulate. There, no doubt, they intend to request politely that Vladimir Putin and his government apologise, and perhaps make some restitution for the displacement, deaths and expropriations that took place in the years leading up to that date in 1864.

Circassian Genocide anniversary poster

I did mention this matter briefly in a previous post, but I have to confess, I wasn’t aware at that stage of the full ramifications. Well, I wouldn’t presume to claim even now that I’ve got everything worked out, but it’s an interesting business for sure, and its effects are still being felt in a part of the world most of us have heard of – though we might have trouble locating it on a map. Anyway, let’s plunge in and see where we end up.

First of all, I’m not much of an expert on Russian history, so I did what I usually do when I feel the need to improve an area of weakness – I ‘googled’ ‘Russian Empire’ and read a few of the suggested sources. Interestingly, none of them made any mention of invading or conquering the Caucasus or Crimean regions. The nearest they came was references to several wars with the Ottoman Empire as a result of which territory was gained and the Empire was expanded southwards.

Now, you can’t really blame the Russians for wanting to expand south and west. I’m sure Russia is a lovely country, but it’s not blessed with harbours and access to warm water seas. Accordingly, in the 18^th century, Tsar Peter the Great succeeded in wresting access to the Baltic from Sweden and established his new capital, St Petersburg. Another Russian ‘Great’ by the name of Catherine continued the drive south towards the Black Sea, and here, it seems, lie the roots of our problem with the Circassians. Most of the Ottoman imperial expansion had been completed a hundred years earlier, and undoubtedly not all of the conquered peoples were totally happy with the new situation. Nevertheless, the Ottomans did allow certain freedoms to their subjects, among them, freedom of language and religion. The Russians, on the other hand, were, evidently, somewhat less accommodating. Lands in the path of their southward expansion were populated largely by Muslims with distinct languages and cultures, and clearly this was not in keeping with the grand plan of a Russian-speaking, Orthodox Christian empire.

I don’t want to get sidetracked from my main subject, but the first people to suffer from the Russians’ grand plan were the Crimean Tatars. Crimea had been part of the Ottoman dominions since the 15^th century, and its inhabitants were mostly Turkic speaking Muslims. After the Russians’ military defeat of the Ottomans in the 1770s, they proceeded to annex Crimea and colonise it with Christian Slavs. It has been estimated that, over the next century, two-thirds of the Tatar population abandoned their homes and emigrated to various parts of the Ottoman Empire, many of them perishing on the way. 

We may imagine that word of this had reached the Tatars’ near neighbours in the Caucasus area, and when they saw signs that the Russians were aiming to move in their direction, they decided to resist. Some resistance they put up, in fact! The Caucasus War, also known as the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, lasted from 1817 until 1864 (the year referred to on those posters we mentioned above). The Circassians were the most organised, most determined and most militarily capable of the Caucasian peoples and their struggle bore the brunt of the Russian invasion. These people, who call themselves Adyghe, are considered to be the indigenous natives of the Caucasus region. In fact their resistance was such that the Russians were unable to subdue them by force of arms alone. The preferred method became a policy of clearance – burning of villages and killing or driving out the Muslim inhabitants. The author, Leo Tolstoy, served with the Russian army in the Caucasus, and the experience seems to have been the catalyst that turned him from a life of wealthy idleness to one of creativity, spirituality, pacifism and renunciation of privilege. One of his quoted observations:

"It had been the custom to rush the auls [mountain villages] by night, when, taken by surprise, the women and children had no time to escape, and the horrors that ensued under the cover of darkness when the Russian soldiers made their way by twos and threes into the houses were such as no official narrator dared describe."

Another contemporary observer, a British consul by the name of Dickson, also reported: "A Russian detachment captured the village of Toobah on the Soobashi river, inhabited by about a hundred Abadzekh [a tribe of Circassians], and after these had surrendered themselves prisoners, they were all massacred by the Russian Troops. Among the victims were two women in an advanced state of pregnancy and five children.

At such a distance of time it is not possible to arrive at an absolute figure for the death toll. Some Circassian historians claim a figure of four million; official Russian reports say perhaps 300,000. Less partisan sources suggest somewhere around a million and a half. Undoubtedly, apart from those killed during the war itself, huge numbers perished as a result of forced migration. Thousands died of hunger and disease after being driven from their villages; thousands more on the Black Sea beaches as they waited for Ottoman ships to ferry them away. More still were drowned when overcrowded vessels sank in passage, and more again after reaching the sanctuary of Ottoman territory in the insanitary conditions that prevailed there. The land, dwellings and possessions they left behind were taken over by Russians, Ukrainians, Armenians, Cossacks and Georgians, brought in to repopulate and ‘Christianise’ the area. Once again, we may imagine the feelings of anger and resentment these events stirred up, not only in the survivors and refugees themselves, but in the people of the Ottoman areas who listened to their tales of atrocities and suffering, and had to provide for them.

Who else knew what was going on in the Caucasus? Why do we know so little about it? These are pertinent questions. I came across an interesting source while researching this issue: an archive in the National Library of New Zealand, of a newspaper called The NZ Spectator and Cook’s Strait Guardian. In the edition of 17 August 1864, was an article reprinted from the London Times of May 9, based on a report dated 28 April, from Constantinople (Istanbul):

“Official information has been received here of the capitulation of Vardar, the last stronghold of the Circassians, and of the consequent submission of all the tribes. I had occasion in a previous letter to refer to the flood of immigration which was pouring into the Turkish dominions from the Caucasus, and to the defeats which had been experienced by these gallant mountaineers; and although there could be no doubt at that time that the cause of the Circassians was hopeless, there was not sufficient ground for anticipating the extraordinary movement which has since developed itself, and which threatens, unless immediate relief and succour be obtained, to degenerate, as regards these poor people, into an awful disaster. Whether this movement is to be attributed to a panic consequent on defeat, or to the hatred inspired by the Russians, it is rather difficult to determine; but there is no doubt that the three tribes known as the ‘Shabsoukhs’, Oboukhs’ and ‘Abazehs’ have determined to abandon their country to a man, and take refuge in Turkish territory. Already the outflowing tide of emigrants is so great as to place the Turkish Government in the greatest embarrassment. 27,000 of these unfortunate creatures, in the most utter destitution, have poured into Trebizond (Trabzon). The privations of the voyage in a most inclement season have produced disease of the very worst kind among them, which is not only committing fearful ravages in their own famished ranks, but it is extending to the local population. Typhus and smallpox are raging at Trebizonde, and the place is threatened with a famine. The Turkish government is willing and anxious to receive the fugitives, and incorporate them into its own population, but the movement has been so sudden and so extensive that it has been impossible to make provision for the hosts that are daily pouring in. It is calculated that no less than 300,000 will, in the next two to three months, seek shelter in this country . . .”

The British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Sir Henry Bulwer, presented reports to the Prime Minister of the day, Earl Russell. In one such report, dated April 12, 1864, he said:

“The continued advances of the Russians in Circassia, and the ill-treatment experienced by the natives from the Russian troops, have led to an almost complete emigration from the country: 25,000 have already reached Trebizond, and others are attempting to escape in small boats at every risk. The conglomeration of vast quantities of these people, who have no industrial habits, threatens the health and peace of any one locality, and the loss of life which is occasioned by their hazardous attempts to escape from their conquerors is shocking to humanity. The Turkish Government is therefore about sending vessels to Trebizond to remove the emigrants thence, and place them in different parts of the Empire; and it is also in negotiation with the Russian Chargé d’Affaires here, in order to be able to adopt some measures by which those unfortunate people who, after the most heroic attempts in defending the country where they were born, are at last obliged to abandon it, may be able to seek an asylum with safety in the Ottoman dominions.”

It seems reasonably clear, then, that the British Government of the day, and the literate public of remote New Zealand were aware of the events unfolding in the Caucasus region. Perhaps we can excuse their lack of action to alleviate the suffering of the Circassians, or to exert diplomatic pressure on the Russians. White settlers in New Zealand in those years were also engaged in forcefully driving the indigenous Maori people from their land, and suppressing their attempts to defend their way of life. The United States government was doing the same to its Native Americans, and the Redcoats of the British Empire were here, there and everywhere demonstrating to local peoples that resistance to the civilising benefits of empire was useless. It was a scant six years since the Brits had brutally put down what they liked to refer to as ‘The Indian Mutiny’. In the circumstances, it would have been difficult to act self-righteously.

Detailed map of the Caucasus region

Why we have ‘forgotten’ the Russians’ treatment of the Circassians is less easy to explain, when we seem well able to ‘remember’ the Greeks and the Armenians. Could it be that we find it easier to attribute brutality to Muslims than to Christians? Or perhaps Armenians were better able to draw attention to their cause by the use of terror tactics. Who knows? Whatever the case, Russian ethnic cleansing of its Muslim subjects did not end in 1864. In 1943 and 1944, Josef Stalin forcefully ‘relocated’ hundreds of thousands from the Caucasus and Crimea to remote and desolate parts of the Soviet Union, Siberia, Kazakhstan and elsewhere in Central Asia, resulting in untold deaths. 

Those Circassian demonstrators in Taksim on 21 May will be commemorating the 148^th anniversary of their final defeat by the Russians – but the legacy of those days continues well into the 21^st century. The population of modern Chechnya is 94 percent Sunni Muslim, and their struggle for independence continues. In neighbouring Dagestan, Ingushetia and North Ossetia, the situation is similar. It is unlikely, however, that Mother Russia will let her Caucasian children go, taking their wealth of oil, natural gas and other minerals with them. It is equally unlikely that President Putin will apologise to the Circassians and offer restitution for their past sufferings. After all, it was pre-Revolutionary Tsarist Russia that did the deed.

Protecting Turkey’s Treasures - Budgie-smuggling, and how to stop it

As a footnote to my previous post, I would like to draw your attention to a news item that emanated from New Zealand this week. A German tourist had apparently been caught trying to smuggle four endangered jewelled geckos (lizards, if you like) out of the country. A District Court Judge in Christchurch sentenced the tourist to four months in prison. The NZ Government’s Minister of Conservation welcomed the decision, but said that she was currently working on a Bill which would increase the penalty for taking protected wildlife to a fine of $100,000 or six months in prison.

I trust the German government will be fully supportive of New Zealand’s right to protect its unique wildlife and send a warning to others who might be inclined to engage in such smuggling. I would further hope that Mrs Merkel and her colleagues may go further, and consider what they might do to clamp down on their wealthy unscrupulous citizens who make this illegal trade possible. Increased taxes for the ultra-rich, for example, might help to distribute some of their surplus Euros so that they have less to spend on endangered wildlife from New Zealand.

Antiquities smuggled from Turkey

Who knows, if the Germans start the ball rolling, other nations with obscenely rich citizens may follow suit. It may not benefit only New Zealand and other countries losing their vanishing flora and fauna. There might be a flow-over effect for countries like Turkey, whose archeological riches are also targeted by the amoral super-rich.

Until they do, however, perhaps the Turkish Government could take a leaf out of New Zealand’s book, and look at harsher penalties for smugglers of antiquities. Andrew Finkel was drawing analogies with Turkish Ottoman ancestors – so maybe they could consider a touch of bastinado for small-scale offenders, working up to impalement, or hanging on the hook for more serious offences. I suspect making an example of one or two culprits might well reduce the trafficking.

More Bad Press for Turkey

I am indebted to friends abroad who often send me articles from newspapers in the US, the UK and elsewhere. Despite the wonders of the Internet, it’s easy to lose touch with the Western Hemisphere, and especially how its media perceive their problematic Turkish neighbour.

Exhibition at the British Museum

A recent article I received deals with a squabble that apparently arose between the Turkish Government and officials at the British Museum who recently hosted an exhibition entitled ‘Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam.’ It seems the dispute arose over a First Century CE stele with a sculpted depiction of King Antiochus I Epiphanes in the British Museum collection. The Turkish Ministry of Culture claims that the stele was illegally exported, and wants it returned. To make the point, they refused to authorize the loan of a royal camel saddle for the Hajj exhibition. In fact, more than that, they are actually targeting other museums in Europe and the United States who, they claim, have priceless artifacts that should be returned to Turkey.

Followers of this blog will know that I have written on this issue on two previous occasions, and I don’t intend to go down the same road again. I have written at some length on the subject of which European cities one should visit to see treasures from Pergamum, Ephesus, Constantinople, Troy and other cities of the ancient world located within the boundaries of the modern Republic of Turkey. More recently, I wrote about one noteworthy instance where a museum in Berlin had seen fit to return a disputed Hittite sphinx.

What interested me about this particular article, more than its subject matter, was its tone, which was highly critical of Turkey, its government and its people – in fact vituperative and spiteful might be better words to use than ‘critical’. In the first place, the writer says that the Turkish government’s action re the veto is a mistake. Well, ok, he is entitled to his opinion. However, he goes on to criticize the budget allocation to tourism marketing of Turkey, comparing it to ‘a sultan’s ransom’ – as if there is any connection between the two issues, and sultans have any relevance to the modern Republic of Turkey.

The writer then goes on to suggest that the Turkish government should give up trying to repatriate ‘long-lost’ treasures, and instead focus on more careful management of what remains within their borders. No doubt museums in the West holding disputed classical treasures would be very happy if the issue could be so easily swept under the rug – but that is unlikely to happen. In a final snide swipe, the writer accuses Turks of ‘wallowing in cultural nationalism’ in their attempts to have stolen artifacts returned.

I can’t say whether Turks in general, are more prone to cultural nationalism than people of other nations, not having done the exhaustive research that, one assumes, lies behind this generalization.  I can say that they may have more reason than most to be proud of the richness and diversity of their culture. However, this diatribe in the New York Times did prompt me to check out the writer, a certain Andrew Finkel. The International Herald Tribune gives the following brief resumé: ‘Andrew Finkel has been a foreign correspondent in Istanbul for over 20 years, as well as a columnist for Turkish-language newspapers. He is the author of the book “Turkey: What Everyone Needs to Know.”’

Perhaps one thing his readers need to know about Mr Finkel is that, shortly before this article appeared, the Turkish newspaper, Today’s Zaman, which had been publishing his column for more than four years, terminated his employment. Again, I can’t say conclusively that Mr Finkel’s perception of Turkey has been adversely affected by this experience, but it is possible. Publicity for his recent book about Turkey quotes Joost Lagendijk, former joint chairman of the Turkey-EU Parliamentarians’ delegation and Senior Advisor at the Istanbul Policy Center of Sabanci University as saying: "There are only a few people in Turkey who can combine the critical eye of the outsider with the compassion of the insider. Finkel is one of them."  I have to say, ‘compassion’ is not a word I would use to describe that gentleman’s recent writings about a country which seems, on the whole, to have treated him well. Still, the question remains, does he have a valid point?

First, let it be said that Mr Finkel does concede Turkey’s right ‘to protect its own archaeological heritage from thieves’, and its ‘obligation to recover objects smuggled abroad.’ However, he rather undermines this concession by going on to emphasise what he calls ‘the deplorable state of cultural management at home’ and ‘the destruction by treasure seekers around Turkey’s major archaeological sites.’ Leaving aside the question of whether words such as ‘wallowing’, ‘deplorable’ and ‘destruction’ can be considered ‘compassionate’, or even neutral, I would like to consider the matter of Turkey’s ‘cultural management.’

Recently I had cause to visit the head office of the Social Welfare Department (SGK) in the area of Istanbul known as Unkapanı. It lies on the main thoroughfare, Atatürk Boulevard, which runs from Yenikapı, or Newgate, on the Marmara Sea walls built by the Roman Emperor Theodosius, passing under the 4^th century aqueduct of the Emperor Valens, before crossing the Golden Horn to the old (but newer) European quarter of Galata/Pera. On the hill above the SGK office, major restoration work is being carried out on the Pantokrator Monastery, known to Turks as Molla Zeyrek Mosque. Ah, those Turks! I hear you say. Is nothing sacred? The monastery became a mosque, however, when Sultan Mehmet II conquered Constantinople, which means its history as a mosque began about fifty years before St Peters Basilica in Rome was even built! Still, to be fair, it was a Christian monastery before that, constructed by order of the Byzantine Emperor Ioannis Komnenos in the early 12^th century. But again, if my calculations are correct, its life as a Muslim place of worship is at least two hundred years longer than its Christian period.

Anyway, it is being restored, and for sure, not before time. I can’t see the local community being able to fill its vast spaces on the holiest of Islamic Fridays, so my hope is that at least part of the complex will be set aside as a museum. How much the bill will be for restoration is another question. Three-year renovations of the Süleymaniye Mosque complex nearby are said to have cost $US15 million  - and that building was half the age and in reasonable order to begin with.

A short distance down the boulevard from the SGK office stands what looks like a retaining wall of some antiquity. In fact, it is what remains of a Roman cistern, originally built to supply water to the baths and fountains of Constantinople. In any other city in the world, such an edifice would probably be housed inside a glass dome, and be one of the tourist highlights. In Istanbul, it is one of dozens of such cisterns, some of which have been restored, many of which remain to be discovered.

These few examples serve to draw attention to the unique and problematic nature of the archeological wealth of Istanbul. In the first place, the ancient city of Constantinople was surrounded by walls with a circumference of some twenty-two kilometres, most of which have survived to the present day. Within these walls lies an area containing riches beyond the wildest dreams of a thousand archeologists. One reason these riches survive is that Istanbul did not see the kind of industrial and metropolitan development that took place in European cities from early modern times. Another reason is that, rather than destroying the holy places of the people they had conquered, as was done elsewhere, the Ottomans allowed those people to continue using them, or at worst, converted them to their own use.

We have been speaking here of Istanbul, the largest and best-known city of Turkey – a country with a land area larger than any in Europe except Russia. In the south east of this ancient land, near the city of Şanlıurfa, a remarkable discovery has recently been made. Archeologists working on the mound of Göbeklitepe have uncovered a complex of temples dating back twelve thousand years. The remarkable thing is that these temples predate by a considerable margin the oldest known towns, meaning that we have to totally revise our concept of the development of human civilisation. In the subsequent twelve millennia, more diverse civilisations have come and gone in this cradle of human development than in any other comparable area on the planet.

To get to the nub of what I want to say, within the boundaries of modern Turkey, there lies a potential museum of nearly eight hundred thousand square kilometres. We could move all the people out tomorrow, and let in all the archeologists from all the universities and museums of all the civilized nations of the Western world, and there would probably be enough excavation, restoration, preservation and museum-building work to last several lifetimes, and place severe strains on the budgets of their governments. Turkey is not a rich country, and I don’t think it deserves Andrew Finkel’s use of the word ‘deplorable’.

I’m not sure exactly what that gentleman means when he speaks of treasure-hunters causing ‘destruction’ around Turkey’s major archeological sites. I have visited a good number of these sites, and I have not seen anything on a scale to warrant the use of such an emotive word. What I would say, however, is that there are people in Turkey who are unfortunately only too happy to profit from the hunger of rich collectors and private museums in the West for relics of ancient civilizations. I once read an article in a local newspaper posing an interesting moral question on the problem of corruption: who is more guilty, the one who takes the bribe, or the one who offers it? One might rephrase the question a little, and ask, who is more guilty, the poor treasure-hunter, or the rich collector who pays a huge sum in a foreign auction house for a valuable artifact without caring whence it came and how?

So I have to say, I feel Andrew Finkel’s article was a tad unfair. However, in view of his recent sacking, perhaps we can understand an impulsive eruption of bile. We might, however, expect a rational person to consider that a newspaper with whose editorial policy he does not agree, is not necessarily representative of the nation as a whole. We might therefore expect him to regain some compassion for the country which has provided him with a livelihood for twenty years.

Somewhat surprisingly, then, it seems that Mr Finkel’s compassion for Turkey has been replaced by a new attitude of negativity and invective, beyond what might be accounted for by one unhappy experience with an employer. In a more recent article in the New York Times, entitled ‘No More Mr Nice Guy’ the compassionate gentleman lambasts the Turkish government for what he perceives as a failed foreign policy. Some people consider Andrew Finkel a competent journalist. His former employer at Today’s Zaman praised his work, even after the parting of their ways. I can’t say that I have read much of Finkel’s canon, but if these two articles are a fair sample, I would criticize him on the following grounds.  His writing is slanted, relies on emotive rhetoric rather than sequential logic, is heavy on assertions without substantiating evidence, and employs selective reporting techniques, logical non sequiturs and analogies of dubious validity to present his subject in a bad light.

Let’s take a look at his critique of Turkey’s foreign policy. He begins with an outline of Turkey’s on-going strategic significance, formerly as a bulwark for NATO and Western Europe against Soviet expansion, and more recently playing a role in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans. There is just the hint of an implication that Turkey may not have received full credit for loyalty to its Western allies. The majority of the article, however, is taken up with a mocking attack on the ‘zero problems with neighbours’ policy pursued by Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu: Turkey would try to build bridges with neighbouring authoritarian states while encouraging them to reform. It sounds rather like the admissions policy for new members of the European Union, but it’s ok for the EU, apparently. Anyway, what about Finkel’s other criticisms?

• The AK Party government sought to redefine Turkey’s international role. Well, why not? Maybe the West would like Turkey to be a puppet for them, but that nation has a proud history of independence. If the EU wants Turkey as a member, they have had fifty years to issue an invitation.
• Davutoğlu’s ‘zero problems with neighbours’ policy failed. ‘Failed’ is a strong word. But Turkey has to live in this region, and they can’t afford to enter neighbouring countries with guns blazing. Building bridges sometimes works, and it’s almost always worth a try.
• Turkey refused to allow the US to invade Iraq through its borders. Maybe some Americans and certainly a lot of Brits would be happier if their governments had been a little less gung-ho about invading Iraq.
• Pandering to Turkish voters. Is this even worth answering? Who can come to power in a democratic country without doing a certain amount of this? Certainly not Presidential hopefuls in the USA. However, maybe US and other Western leaders actually prefer dealing with autocratic rulers who don’t have to answer to their people.
• Washington saw Turkey’s policy as appeasement. In fact Turkey was among the first to support regime change in Egypt. The USA, for its part, had been funding Hosni Mubarak’s military for years.
• Seemed to be supporting regimes that oppressed their people. I have dealt with the hypocrisy of Western powers on this issue in an earlier post. But to give another quick example, France and Italy were Muammar Ghaddafi’s main oil-buying customers before they decided to bomb him.
• Relations with Israel deteriorated, Cyprus never improved, failed to make friends with Armenia. Again, I have dealt with these issues elsewhere, but, to summarise: Israel’s behaviour in Palestine and the West Bank is contrary to United Nations recommendations, and Israel’s intransigence is meeting with increasing international criticism, not just from Turkey. Similarly, the UN has made at least two proposals to settle the Cyprus issue which have been accepted by the Turkish side and rejected by the Greeks. As for Armenia, the state itself seems inclined to compromise with Turkey over the ‘genocide’ question. Most of the ongoing unpleasantness is generated by radical elements in the Armenian diaspora, encouraged by vote-seeking politicians such as France’s Sarkozy.
• Turkey tried to negotiate a compromise over Iran’s nuclear programme. Some of us are seriously worried that ‘hawks’ in the US want to invade Iran next. Come on, guys! Haven’t you killed enough people in this part of the world? And why shouldn’t other countries have a nuclear programme? Why should Israel be the only local regime with nuclear capability?
• Tried to work with Libya and Syria – but gave up. What can you do? Sometimes your best efforts at peace-making don’t work. Does that mean you shouldn’t try? Is there something wrong with being receptive to events and amending a policy that wasn’t bearing fruit?
• ‘Zero problems’ is on its last legs and relations with the US have improved. I, for one, hope that the Turkish government continues to pursue an independent foreign policy, attempting to influence despotic neighbours with its successful blend of democracy and Islam. And I sincerely hope they don’t allow their territory to be used to facilitate an American invasion of Iran.

To be quite honest, I’m somewhat amazed that Andrew Finkel managed to work as a journalist in Turkey as long as he did, at least while drawing pay from the Turkish media. To paraphrase the thesis statement in his article about ancient treasures, Andrew Finkel and other Western journalists and politicians should focus on the hypocrisy of their governments and people at home, before criticising too harshly a nation doing its best to keep the torch of freedom and democracy burning in a part of the world where few others have achieved success.