Istanbul: A Modest Proposal

2 Nov

 

            An earlier version of this short essay was published a few days ago in Al Jazeera English online as an opinion piece. My most trusted Turkish friends felt that it grossly exaggerated Istanbul’s credentials as a possible future world capital, and in deference, I will tone down some of the language, and call attention to some problematic features of the Turkish political landscape that should not be ignored in proposing such a status for Istanbul. At the same time in the Swiftian nature of ‘modest proposals’ to be immodest! I think it was an American comedian who said “if you haven’t gone too far, you haven’t gone far enough.” Or when Jean-Paul Sartre at the end of his life was asked about what he regretted most about his overall public role, he responded, to the effect that he had sometimes been too cautious, not sufficiently extreme. Norman O. Brown, who did much in the 1960s to inspire the study of human consciousness, once said in the course of a lecture that in psychoanalysis “only the exaggerations are valuable.” It is in this spirit that I continue to believe that Istanbul has the most to offer the peoples of the world as a global capital, but I would welcome a debate on whether the idea of a global capital is a sensible idea given the nature of globalization and if it is, whether there are preferable alternatives to Istanbul. Of course, one idea would be to neuter the idea of a global capital by choosing an uninhabited island mid-ocean, but I would imagine that almost no one would feel connected to such a place, any more than they do to such existing sterile national capital startups as Brasilia and Canberra.            

 

            The idea of a global city has a long lineage with deep roots in the pre-modern world. Indeed it seems correct to observe that global cities existed before national cities, preceding the formation of the modern state. A global city is most often associated with being a center of world trade and finance, but usually such a city also possesses strong cultural and touristic resources that attract visitors. Thinking in this manner explains the persisting tendencies is to view the hierarchy of global cities from a West-centric perspective: London, New York, and Paris placed in the first rank, with cities such as Tokyo, Geneva, Sao Paulo, New Delhi, Hong Kong, Singapore, Berlin, Rome, Shanghai, Istanbul, and Los Angeles treated as forming a second tier. Of course, such rankings are quite arbitrary, shift over time, reflecting new patterns of economic and political relationships that exhibit the ebb and flow of world history. Such urban centers as Rome, London, Alexandria, Baghdad, Vienna, Venice, and Athens were definitely primary global cities during their respective heydays.

 

            But there is a new phenomenon that is especially associated with economic globalization and the main technological innovations of the past century that has given rise to such designations as ‘the digital age’ or ‘the networked society.’ This radical compression of space and time in the world creates a natural inclination to find, designate, and establish someplace as ‘the center of the world,’ as the ‘world capital.’ Of course, the claim and perception of being ‘the world capital’ is both a social and political construction that is connected with the realities of global leadership, sometimes reinforced by cultural preeminence, and normally narrated in an inherently subjective and self-centered interpretation of the flow of history, however the self is defined. In the end such a designation is bound to be controversial, and likely contested.

 

            Of course, from a mainstream realist international relations perspective we can think geopolitically of the world capital as a reflection of the prevailing distribution of hard power at a give time. Thus in the bipolar world of the Cold War it was Washington and Moscow. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it became Washington alone. Some are now insisting that a new bipolarity is or will shortly be upon us, and even anticipate a new cold war, designating Beijing to be a world capital more or less equivalent in status to Washington. And for those who believe, and hope, that a more polycentric world is emerging, and would be desirable, then perhaps, in addition to Washington and Beijing, one might add Delhi, Rio de Janeiro, Berlin, and even Jakarta, if the European Union moves forward, maybe Brussels, and possibly Cairo as well but only if Egypt is able to find stability and regain its former regional stature.

 

            Of course, all existing cities in the 21st century are contained within a particular state, and are subject to its authority, and share its destiny. In the past there have been some ‘international cities’ without any national affiliation, and there are today in our world several successful city-states, and many states smaller in population and area than the largest cities. Proposals have been made in recent decades to establish Jerusalem as an international city, not only because such a step would contribute to a sustainable and just peace between Israel and Palestine, but because of its sacred and historical belonging to all three of the Abrahamic religions.

 

Most globally ambitious cities in the modern world, then, have this dual identity, as situated within a territorial state and yet striving for a measure of internal autonomy. As a result, cities often develop a split national personality that combines loyalty and antagonism, the latter often fueled by the deep-seated tensions between cosmopolitan urban space and the more provincial hinterland, as well as by national politicians who shift resources from the city to the countryside in their quest for votes, or sometimes, to reduce gaps in standards of living. These tensions on occasion give rise to frivolous suggestions of secession for cities that seem at odds with the ethos of the country as seems to many to be the case for New York City. It is called by its fiercest critics ‘Sodom-and-Gomorrah-on-Hudson’ and by its most loving devotees as simply ‘The Big Apple.’ Some New Yorkers have daydreams of being a city-state, and many Midwesterners would be happy if the dream came true. It is much more common for secessionist movements to become serious political projects for territorial communities comprising a minority ethnicity or religion that claims a political and legal right of self-determination. Restive urban minorities may riot on occasion and vent their dissatisfaction, but their imaginary rarely includes a scenario of formal disaffiliation. Singapore is a rare exception to this pattern, split off from the British colony of Malaya at the moment of independence. More common is the experience of Hong Kong, being reabsorbed by its powerful Chinese neighbor.

 

            A focus on cities is one way of circumventing the tendency to view sovereign states as the only political actors worth theorizing about in international life. It is true that states have an identity based on governance over a defined space that is recognized in diplomatic circles, as well as enjoying the prerogative of granting or withholding citizenship. The primacy of states as international actors is reinforced by membership rules and procedures for international institutions, especially the United Nations, that confer special and often exclusive status on a political community that qualifies as a sovereign state. In contrast, the terminology of ‘global cities’ is assigned without any agreed criteria or conferred status, lacks diplomatic relevance from the perspective of international law, and the idea that there exists one or more ‘global capital’ is no where referenced on standard world maps and remains a completely constructed category of status, identity, and desire. No government would be foolish enough to proclaim its main city as the capital of the world, although the United States came close to doing so during the springtime grandiosity of George W. Bush’s presidency. Proponents of a certain leadership role for a given state may for a variety of reasons be tempted to put forward the claim of providing the world with a capital city. It would follow from the very real geopolitical ambition to be at the ‘center’ of global policy formation and implementation, to have control over a disproportionate share of the world’s resources, and to boast of offering visitors the most exciting cultural and touristic experiences.

 

            Part of the appeal of the global capital is precisely this separation of status from statehood, and more specifically from the calculus of hard power. Cities, unlike states, have police forces but no armies, although some cities have local guard or militia units, none in modern times possess or aspire to possess force capabilities to project hard power beyond city limits. Cities generally lack an arsenal of heavy weapons, do not have foreign policies, and enjoy only secondary diplomatic representation. Embassies are in capital cities however remote and small, while consulates are in cities no matter how large and influential. In Brazil, for instance, foreign ambassadors resent being posted to Brasilia, the planned and somewhat isolated and artificial capital city, and greatly prefer living in such stimulating urban environments as Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro. Cities are simply places where lots of people live, work, enjoy nightlife, have access to extensive financial services, and engage in a range of cultural and economic activities. What, then, motivates a city to be treated, even symbolically, as a political actor, and more grandly, to put forward the claim to be the potential or actual global capital?

 

Some assertions along these lines are deliberately extravagant or are merely intended to call attention to past glories, without any serious political intention to project power. The interior Chinese secondary city of Dengfeng, for instance, claims not only to be the center of the world but the center of heaven, as well, and indeed in past times it has served as the national capital for nine Chinese dynasties. Dengfeng’s self-assertion as a city whose provenance extends beyond China and beyond any given time period, is part of its charm, and lends traditional and spiritual significance to the very metaphorical idea of there being such a reality as the center of the world, much less heaven. Such an idea resembles in certain respects the geographical seats of the great world religions that do indeed possess a centrality for the more devout among the faithful as illustrated by the great pilgrimages to Rome to visit the Vatican or the haj as the obligatory journey taken by devout Muslims to their most holy site of worship.

 

            In my view, such a claim on behalf of cities should be understood as partly a site of struggle between two types of adherents. On one side, those who adhere to the old geopolitics that continues to believe, always somewhat misleadingly, but recently more grotesquely so, that history is principally made by those who prevail in warfare, and little else. Such a belief is usually coupled with the Weberian insistence that it is the sovereign state that establishes its identity by its possession over a monopoly of legitimate force. On the other side, are those who view history through a soft power rainbow optic in which culture, political vitality, religious identity, and ethics shapes and forms what unfolds, and eventually yields a cosmopolitan urban outcome despite being out gunned on the battlefield, or succumbs and endures the tragedy of alien domination. Cities, more than countries, can be analogized to magnets or force fields where people go to strike deals, to be entertained and well fed, to add pleasure, cultural enjoyment, and to enjoy greater privacy in their lives, to discuss their problems and receive guidance, chase dreams, and entertain hopes about the future, to be educated, to be inspired by art and artists, and of course, to be protected by municipal government against violent crime and natural disasters.

 

            There was a period not many years ago where there was a notable interest in cities as independent political actors on the global stage. There were many conferences organized around the theme ‘x city and the world.’ I attended a series of annual gatherings bearing the title ‘Yokohama and the World’ that brought together thinkers and civil society actors from many foreign countries and regions. These meetings were a pet project of the governor of the Japanese prefecture, and the discussions were vibrant and suggestive, blending wishful thinking, advocacy, and an assessment of trends. The underlying perspective was one in which it was presupposed that what was good for Japan was not necessarily good for Yokohama, that cities might have separate interests and different priorities from those of national political leaders, and that especially the national capital was subject to many distorting pressures divorced from service to the human interest or the wellbeing of Yokohama’s citizenry. The global city as distinct actor, complicated by its formal subjugation to the territorial order of sovereign states, suggests that people living in a particular city might not share the postulates of territorial nationalism, and were not nearly as inclined to include hard power in their political imaginary. The idea of a world order that was basically constituted by the principal cities of the world depicts an alternate pathway to peace, sustainability, justice, and world order that is at fundamental variance from the preoccupation of sovereign states with national security. In the Yokohama setting, for instance, there was a much greater willingness to engage positively with China than was then the case for the Japanese government located in Tokyo, reflecting a web of national and international considerations. Should we not favor a network of global cities as creating a non-territorial approach to global policy that might be much more attuned to global needs and desires, especially if cities could gain wealth and prestige while contributing to the further intermingling of civilizations and thereby laying the foundations for a more peaceful and sustainable human future.

 

            In the pre-modern world cities were much more prominent than in modern times when sovereignty, nationalism, citizenship, bounded territoriality, and statehood organized political life. Socrates felt that death was preferable to being exiled from Athens the city that he loved, and exile was often seen as the worst punishment that could be inflicted. Even Machiavelli centuries later, rarely celebrated for his tenderness, expressed a romantic attachment to his native Florence: “I love my city more than myself.” In the course of the transition to modernity there were many instances of resistance on the part of cities that did not want to get swallowed by these larger political communities established in every instance by conquest. Most of us remain unaware of the deep connections in the past between political violence and the constituting of larger ‘legitimate’ political communities. The relationship between state-building and war that is so fundamental to the securitization of world politics is, in other words, neither new nor without deep roots in the histories of every sovereign state and all major cities.

 

            But with the revival of city-states such as Singapore and Hong Kong, and the success of several micro states, we can observe a far weaker linkage between security and hard power, as well as the rebirth of the medieval idea of community viability. These political entities become secure by being useful to others, viable and vibrant for themselves, and generally enjoying ‘zero problems with neighbors,’ but not by being able to extend territory and control of resources by conquest. Although this portrayal must be expanded to admit that most modern states did originate with cities that did expand for the sake of food security and wealth or to provide their city with security against marauding neighbors or the vagaries of weather. Nevertheless, this experience of the past is suggestive of how it might be possible to transform the political imaginary of states with respect to their most fundamental reason for existence, inducing more dedication to the security of people (‘human security’) less to the security of governments (‘national security’).

 

 

            I believe that the idea of proposing a global capital is a defensible endeavor, even if seen only as laying the groundwork for the future, if we take into account the degree of integration that has been achieved by markets, by globally constituted battlefields, by changing geopolitical patterns, by struggles to generate global policy that is commensurate with such collective goods problems as climate change and nuclear weaponry, by global travel and globalization of political identity and the dispersion of families throughout the planet by migration and forced displacement.  Of course the choice of this city rather than that one is political, economic, ethical, and even aesthetic and hedonistic.

 

 

            My initial sense of which candidate cities offer the most plausible site of the global capital is rather pluralist. For instance, if our outlook is  geopolitically oriented according to the logic of hard power realists, then the argument for choosing Washington to play that role seems rather obvious despite its recent experiences of relative decline. Yet if the speculation is more normative, connected with human values, then we would probably pick New York, especially because aside from the being the headquarters of the United Nations, it is a most notable global city from the perspective of ethnic diversity, finance, and cosmopolitan culture, although its short lifespan, vulnerability to extreme weather events, and Westcentric orientation limits the quality of its candidacy given 21st century post-colonial realities. New York and Washington also suffer from the role of the United States as the gatekeeper for access, which in the post-9/11 world has made entry problematic for many of those invited to perform culturally or participatein political or academic conferences.

 

            London also could be considered, having the advantage of a long lineage, rich tradition, as well as finance and culture, and the birthplace of the English language. Until very recently a case could be made for Brussels as the hub city for the European Union, as well as NATO, and giving expression to the idea that the world we live in is mainly responsive to economic and military power (an inversion of the 9/11 attacks that targeted the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as the two pillars of the American world role). Brussels could also be championed as a precursor of a post-statist world order that is constituted by regional groupings, but its Western identity and association with the extensive European overseas empires and colonial crimes are fatal handicaps in our post-colonial world that bases notions of legitimacy more and more on de-Westernizing claims of civilizational identity.

 

            I find none of these candidate cities as sufficiently endowed with the combination of features that might justify christening its as the capital of the world. But I do have a promising candidate provided it can overcome some present obstacles: Istanbul. This may seem surprising, because although achieving a much higher profile in the last decade, Turkey as a state is not viewed as belonging to the top tier of countries in the world, including among emerging states, its currency is not much valued beyond its borders, and its language spoken only in its own country, among a few nearby Turcoman minorities, and some central Asian countries that gained independence a couple of decades ago when the Soviet Union fell apart. As well, Turkey has some severely troublesome domestic problems for which no near-term solution seems forthcoming, especially its inability to accommodate the grievances of 12-15 million Kurdish minority, important international unresolved issues such as its relationship to the Armenian diaspora, its various tensions with Israel, Greece, Cyprus, Syria, and Iran, and its dysfunctional, yet abiding and severe, internal polarization between those who governed during the Republican Era, and those who have run the country since 2002.

 

            There are more serious issues as well that make Istanbul’s candidacy problematic in many quarters precisely because it is such an integral part of the Turkish state. The central question is raised: ‘Should the sins of the state be visited upon the city?’ It is not an easy question. And what of the sins of the city? Istanbul has had a spectacular building boom in recent years, with shopping malls and upper income restaurants and hotels, and an overall atmosphere that may not be conducive to a fulfilled life for the majority of inhabitants that must struggle with the ordeals of living and working in a city of rising living costs, unhealthy air, and limited resources for human satisfaction unless one is the recipient of a large salary.

 

            How then can Istanbul be seriously considered in our search for a global capital? I would point to several factors. Increasingly, Istanbul is a city of choice for those international travelers in search of touristic fulfillment, and it rarely disappoints visitors despite its awesome traffic that clogs streets well past midnight and its polluted air. It has also become a secure and acceptable place to hold the most delicate diplomatic discussions, whether involving such regional issues as Syria and Iran, or wider concerns about Afghanistan and Africa. Istanbul has without fanfare also taken steps to emphasize its rising importance: with Spain it jointly administers the UN project on ‘Alliance of Civilizations’; it held recently a very high profile inaugural session of the World Economic Forum; and it also has become a favorite non-European meeting ground for a variety of UN sponsored events.

            Istanbul is convenient to reach for global gatherings, Turkey is a permissive gatekeeper with respect to visitor access automatically issuing visas for a small charge, and Turkish Airlines was recently selected as the best in Europe. Important, also, is the fact that Turkey is not Europe psychologically, even if a small part of its territory is treated as being in Europe. Turkey’s Asian identity is not just a geographic description, but is far more a cultural and religious imprimatur. It has been given greater recent authority by the European Union’s rejectionist response to the Turkish application for membership. Many comment that Turkey has been fortunate to remain outside the EU during the current Euro-crisis, but more than this, if Turkey had become a member it would no long be perceived as favorably by many non-Western constituencies. Turkey also has gained economic and political credibility at a time when so many important states have either been treading water so as to remain afloat. It has also pioneered in achieving a stable interface between secular principles and religious freedom, moving away from the ‘over-secularization’, to borrow the designation from Ibrahim Kalin. This rigid version of being secular dominated the Turkish political scene during the long period of Kemalist ascendancy that ended in 2002 with the control of the Turkish government shifting to the AKP as a result of electoral victories. It is necessary to account of such factors as Istanbul can not be separated from its embeddedness in the Turkish reality.

 

            But is not such acclaim for Turkey irrelevant to the advancement of Istanbul as global capital? One of the distinguishing features of the Erdogan leadership has been to shift the attention of the country and the world to Istanbul, just as Ataturk had strongly believed that a truly modern Turkey would need to repudiate its Ottoman past and so deliberately moved the capital city to Ankara as part of a fresh break with history for the young republic. For the AKP the re-glorification of Istanbul is a way of reviving pride and the traditions associated with the pre-republican era. This is not a crude form of neo-Ottomanism, but a realization that Istanbul was a treasure trove of cultural and religious eminence unmatched elsewhere, and a subtle reminder, through its extraordinary mosque architecture, of its former stature as the home of the Islamic Caliphate. As well, Turkey geopolitically and geographically provides a unique set of linkages between Europe and Asia, Europe and the Middle East, Europe and Africa, and offers the world a more cosmopolitan understanding of the Mediterranean world. I would also mention the degree to which Turkey’s most celebrated author, the Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk, has been inspired by the imaginative excesses of Istanbul as a city. Pamuk is sometimes referred to as ‘the biographer of Istanbul’ because his great The Black Book and his memoir of growing up in the city so brilliantly capture the magic and mysteries of Istanbul, which has attracted millions of hearts and minds around the world, endowing the city with an almost mystical identity for many of us. Tell me a city other than Istanbul that has exerted such an influence on our collective imaginations? Some might answer feebly ‘Venice,’ recalling Thomas Mann’s great story ‘Death in Venice’ as well as the haunting novel, The Comfort of Strangers, set in Venice by Ian McEwan, but the charisma of Venice is as a place of menace and degeneracy, although its exotic beauty is unquestionably one of the urban wonders of the world.

 

            What enhances Istanbul’s candidacy, in my judgment, is the degree to which this Turkish worldview has been recently articulated in a clear manner. More than any other current political leaders, those who have spoken for Turkey during the last several years have understood and expressed the need to bring a change about the way in which security and power have been achieved in modern international relations, while at the same time not losing an appreciation of the resilience of the old ways, however anachronistic, during this agonizing period of global transition. This innovative renewal of Turkish influence has been rooted, to an unparalleled extent, in soft power geopolitics stressing the mutual benefits of peace, trade, cultural achievement, ciilizational pride, and dialogue.

 

            True, Turkey’s preferred orientation has recently been significantly readjusted to take account of a series of unexpected developments arising from the aftermath of the Arab upheavals, especially in neighboring Syria.  Despite Turkish foreign policy being confronted by hard power challenges within its borders and region, Ankara’s underlying commitment to a new paradigm of world order has not been abandoned. The Kurdish challenge, the Syrian internal struggle, tensions with Iran have led to a dramatic modification of the earlier flagship promise of ‘zero problems with neighbors,’ but even this seemingly unrealistic goal, if sensitively and contextually considered, retains its essential wisdom, which combines principle associated with maximizing peaceful relations with states and their peoples and promoting mutually beneficial interests. As Foreign Minister Davutoglu has repeatedly stressed, when a neighboring government commits atrocities against its own people, then Turkey sides with the people, not the government that has discredited itself. When the zero problems approach was first proclaimed, it might have prevented future confusion, if this qualification had been made explicit.

 

AKP detractors, whether Kemalists within or Israelis without, have done their best to discredit the Turkish approach to foreign policy. Undoubtedly the new challenge is complex and difficult: How to strike a new balance amid the turmoil of the region that has so far made fools of us all! Yet I am convinced that Turkey continues to do its best to increase the prospects for soft power geopolitics while undertaking the necessary prudent steps to avoid dangerous vulnerability to those political forces that continue to rely on hard power solutions for conflict, including the perpetration of mass violence against their own people.

 

            Considering Istanbul as a possible future capital of the world can be interpreted as a side-effect of the advocacy of soft power geopolitics. It also responds to the receptivity of Turkey as a state willing to provide the peoples of the world with a safe haven for dialogue, negotiation, empathy, and the satisfactions of a post-Western world civilization. We are also recognizing the geographical and geopolitical location of Istanbul as a crossroads connecting several civilizations and religious traditions. Such a proposal can be dismissed as a wild exaggeration of the Turkish role in the world or as a perverse instance of wishful thinking, but it is put forward partly in response to an interpretation of integrative trends in our globalizing world, and also as an expression of the kind of flourishing future that will most likely be of most benefit the peoples of the world.

 

   

About these ads

14 Responses to “Istanbul: A Modest Proposal”

  1. rehmat1 November 3, 2012 at 5:06 pm #

    I bet Abraham Foxman will claim that proposing Muslim Istanbul as future world capital is bordering ‘anti-Semitism’ – because that designation is reserved for Jerusalem according to several Zionist documents. Furthermore, Turkey has already lost its leadership of the Muslim world by play a puppet for US-NATO on Syria.

    In April 2010 – Elie Wiesel ran a full-page advertisement (estimated to cost in the range of US$500,000) in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and New York Times on behalf of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to shore-up his declining popularity among Jews living outside Occupied Palestine and world political leaders. It was also a booster to World Jewish Congress (WJC) President Ronald Lauder’s open letter published a day earlier in the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Lauder wrote in the letter:” Why does the thrust of this administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talk? After all, it’s the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate”.

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/04/20/wiesel-i-shall-never-lie-about-jerusalem/

  2. Di E November 4, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    I can’t imagine half of the world’s population, namely women, supporting a Turkish city as their notional world capital. When I visited there some 30 years ago the Turkish culture had a significant misognynistic aspect, it was not safe for a western woman to walk in the streets unprotected by a man. I can’t imagine it has changed so much since then?

    • fasttimesinpalestine November 7, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

      I’m a thirtysomething American woman living in Istanbul now, and I walk alone, including at night, all the time. I’ve never felt the least bit threatened or harassed. (It is annoying, though, how people don’t let all the passengers get off the Metro before they start getting on.)

      • Richard Falk November 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

        Thanks for this comment, which corresponds with my impressions and those
        of my wife and our daughter, both of whom are Turkish. We spend several
        months each year in Istanbul, and find among the safest cities in the world,
        including for women walking alone at night.

  3. peripamir November 4, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    The first thought that comes to mind is that the idea of making ANY city a future capital of the whole world is an impossible task as it would need to embody features that are universally representative.

    But even assuming Istanbul were to be a city which a majority of the world population could somehow “embrace”, is it realitically possible to disassociate cities from the states they occupy?

    I don’t believe so. With all it’s geographic, architectural, cultural and historical charm, it is inconceivable to think of Istanbul with an identity that is other than “Turkish”.

    This being the case, it is hardly fitting for a city that is in a state which is today ruled by a government that is committing extremely serious human rights abuses to be considered for such an exemplary global role.

    In fact I am surprised that when citing some possible political drawbacks, Richard failed to mention the most obvious one, namely, the erosion of democracy in the form of growing political authoritarianism embodied in the person of the PM, erosion of civil rights such as freedom of thought, expression, assembly, lack of an independent judiciary and other troubling legal irregularities which are sowing the seeds of future conflict.

    Thus to propose such a role for a city in a country in the throes of such serious domestic political turmoil is a very grave oversight. Turkey’s case has attracted the attention of several foreign bodies in recent months, all of which have delivered damning reports. These include the OSCE, European Union, Human Rights Watch, Committee for the Protection of Journalists, to name just a few. Turkey today has over 8000 freedom of expression cases pending at the European Court of Human Rights. It has more journalists and writers in prison than any other country in the world ! And, to top it all, the intractable Kurdish problem is tearing the country apart and creating an extremely unstable future for all of its citizens. The most recent manifestation of this is the hunger strikes carried out by close to 700 Kurdish political prisoners for the past 53 days which the PM does not even acknowledge! All demonstrations in support of their cause and demands (education in their native tongue and the right of their leader in prison to have access to his lawyers) have been banned. In fact, the govt does not tolerate any demonstration for any purpose considered to be critical of its policies in any way. All attempts are brutally repressed with tear gas, pressurized water and arrests.

    In terms of foreign policy, a potentially highly destabilizing regional problem can flare up by virtue of the Turkish govt’s open assistance to the Syrian rebels, and the deterioration of its relations with practically all of its regional neighbours.

    The national rift Richard speaks of, as inflamed by the AKP government, is not only between former and actual ruling elites, but embraces the entire population and so, is much harder to defuse or to dismiss.

    It is a mystery to me as to how any independent observer can deny the severity and implications of this polarization which is growing more explosive by the day, as foreign observers have begun to acknowledge.

    So Istanbul can hardly offer the “haven” to world citizens Richard speaks of. Not before Turkey resolves its critical domestic and foreign policy issues and becomes a functioning and stable democracy, which today, it is not…

    So perhaps as Richard states at the outset, “over exaggeration” is a tricky tool as it risks discrediting the proposal altogether.

    • rehmat1 November 5, 2012 at 9:26 am #

      Interestingly, while Turkey was in bed with Israel – no western media outlet blamed Turkey for its human rights abuses. We are told that women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia – but no journalist will dare to tell us that women are not allowed to sit next to men in buses in certain areas on Jerusalem. In New York, within Orthodox Jewish popolated areas – women are not allowed to drive or share footpath with men.

      http://rehmat1.com/?s=women+cannot+drive+in+new+york

  4. peripamir November 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    PS. To respond to the lady above, as someone who lives in Turkey, the situation regarding the status of women is somewhat mixed. I wouldn’t say that it’s particularly unsafe for ladies to walk unescorted these days, but it’s still definitely a male-dominated society. And the struggle of women to break free of the shackles of male domination has unfortunately increased the rate of domestic violence against women dramatically in recent years.

  5. rehmat1 November 5, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    What about 100,000 Eastern Jewish youth killed by Zionist Jews by experimenting high doses of radiation? Get hold of Israel Channel 10 2004 documentary “RADIATION 100,000″

    Bob Nichols, a coresspondent with the San Francisco Bay View newspaper, in an article, titled ‘Did the IOF Bomb Jews?’ has stated that the Zionist entity bought over 100 of GBU-28 of 5,000 lb weaponized uranium aerosol bombs from the US with the permission of the US Knesset (Congress). These WMDs were used by the 30,000-strong Jewish army during the last days of the 34-day invasion of Lebanon in Summer 2006. Since no bomb was dropped on the Jewish quarters in Beirut where around 500 Jews still live, it’s no crime in the ‘civilized’ West. However, the real story began after the defeat of the Jewish army.

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/09/01/can-jews-kill-jews/

    • Fred Skolnik November 6, 2012 at 4:19 am #

      Allegations by people as biased as you are, are not facts, but even when you find something that looks incriminating you get it wrong. The film you are talking about did not say that 100,000 Eastern Jewish youth who supposedly underwent these so-called experiments died but that some of them did. The truth is that X-ray treatment for ringworm was an accepted procedure throughout the world at the time and that maybe10,000-15,000 Sephardi and Ashkenazi children were treated this way with accepted dosages. Not everything you read is true, and certainly not this crazy story about uranium aerosol bombs. You are grasping at straws and will always find them in the lunatic press. And by the way, re your “In New York, within Orthodox Jewish populated areas – women are not allowed to drive or share footpath with men,” the link to your blog, where you elaborate, shows that you really don’t understand what you read. New Square is not in New York City, “north of Time [sic] Square.” It is a hasidic community in the town of Ramapo in New York State. And what goes on there is not state-sanctioned as in Saudi Arabia.

      • Rabbi Ira Youdovin November 7, 2012 at 3:34 pm #

        Prof. Falk

        Some time ago, you announced a tightening of restrictions on what was suitable for posting on your blog. Since then, at least some of the angry rhetoric on all sides has dissipated, making for fewer responses but more interesting ones.

        In light of this, I must ask why rehmat1 continues to enjoy what appears to be unrestricted access. As the new rules bar my characterizing him as an anti-Semite, I’ll say only that the myriad allegations he hurls at Jews and Israel are taken from the playbook of traditional anti-Semitism: i.e. Jews control everything, Jews slaughter non-Jews, Jews hatch sinister plots against good Christians and Muslims, etc. Moreover, he appears to have an obsessive need to blame virtually everything on the Jews.

        This obsession inflicts substantial damage to the quality of discussion. For example, your recent, and interesting, post on Istanbul elicited several comments questioning whether (1) the nations of the world would ever agree to a single global capital? And (2) whether a city with Istanbul’s current social problems would merit consideration? Both of these raise serious issues that merit discussion. Indeed, you note in your prologue that criticism from trusted Turkish friends persuaded you to revise the article as it first appeared on Al Jazeera.

        Then rehmat1 intruded with an unprovoked swipe at Abe Foxman of the ADL and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel. He followed up with additional posts giving a totally wrong picture of an Orthodox community in America, and libelous accusations of Jews killing other Jews with Nazi-style medical experiments.

        Finally, Fred Skolnik weighed in to correct rehmat1’s distortions. But by then, the earlier and potentially constructive discussion on Istanbul had died. Of the eight comments posted on the Istanbul thread, three by rehmat1, half are taken up with a sidebar having no relevance to your original essay.

        When you announced new restrictions, you noted that what constitutes defamation is a subjective judgment. So it’s fair to ask, why do you believe that rehmat1’s posts are not defamatory? Do you agree with them? Do you believe they have a kernel of truth? Is this another example of “constructive imbalance”? (The Jews get such good reviews that they deserve a bit of libel now and again?)

        Some word of explanation would be helpful for those of us who don’t understand this blatant deviation from your own rules and standards.

        Finally, lest my views be dismissed as responding to your nominating a Muslim city as the future Global Capital, I hasten to note that I love Istanbul (although at the moment, it can be described as a Global Capital of traffic jams!) The last time I was there was as part of an interfaith delegation sponsored by Fethullah Gulen’s Niagara Foundation. In addition to spending delightful time in Istanbul, where I delivered a paper to an international and interfaith conference, we toured the country meeting with local leaders to demonstrate that folks of different religions and ethnicity could work together. Our final stop was Marden, said by some scholars to be the biblical Haran where Abraham and his family may have lived. It was a great trip.

        However, your praise for Istanbul was so over-the-top glowing that I must ask—gently and somewhat facetiously— whether you wrote it as a gift to your wife, a Turkish American whom I told is a wonderful woman who merits the gift? And if you did, it’s by no means a bad thing.

        Rabbi Ira Youdovin

      • Richard Falk November 7, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

        Dear Rabbi Youdovin:

        First of all, thanks for this constructive message. What you propose with respect to constructive and civil discourse is precisely what I am trying to
        achieve. I have denied access to quite a number of posts including several from Rehmati, but sometimes I have not been able to monitor before a response is posted, and then I am reluctant to remove. Other times I may not be sufficiently sensitive to the offensive content. I find that on occasion it is a fine line between substantive criticism and offensive material, but I will try to do better.

        Actually, because some of the more serious respondents to the Istanbul blog did not want to be part of a polemical atmosphere they sent their reactions in the form of email messages.

        With respect, Richard

  6. monalisa November 6, 2012 at 12:52 am #

    Dear Richard,

    I don’t think there will be in the near future any global “world city”.
    What I think is that those cities will be known and counted for whose economy and monetary markets are in the position of more attractions and more stability.
    Said this I think that the Western cities like New York, London and Frankfurt will slowly within other cities and all in all the global Western domination and Western controlled economic/monetary markets will shift to the East. We can already see Singapore in the light and New Delhi and China and India would be prominent in my opinion. Maybe Russia will make it too. Russia and China aren’t indebted so much as Western countries in general.

    The future will be much more diversified as it is at the present – I think that and hope it too.

    Istanbul holds the beauty of a historic city together with its modernization and therefore is unique.
    It goes without any doubt that Turkey showed a very good record of its economic development the past ten years and the economic rate is much higher as in the other dominating Western countries. This counts for the extremely good economic politique foresight of acting politicans and will surely positively acknowledged by other countries/powers and should add to its stability too.

    However, I don’t share your viewpoint of the “soft power” of Turkey. It is one of the NATO-member states and therefore – as it can be seen nowadays – doesn’t hold any soft power. The Syrian rebells have been granted – finally officially acknowledged after brought into the open by an acknowledged Western news agency – by USA at least 25 millions Dollar of support (it could be even more, who knows?). This shows where the way goes .
    Turkey with its meddling into the internal struggle of Syria isn’t something to neglect as a prevalent NATO-support when rebels are “acknowledged” and the state power is dismissed.
    What is done and what is said by politicans are different pairs of shoes.

    Sorry. that’s my viewpoint in this case.

    Take care of yourself,

    monalisa

  7. Sad April 1, 2013 at 2:52 pm #

    Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I actually enjoyed reading it, you might be a great author.I will always bookmark your blog and will eventually come back sometime soon. I want to encourage continue your great work, have a nice afternoon!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » Istanbul: A Modest Proposal - November 5, 2012

    [...] Go to Original – richardfalk.com [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 10,001 other followers

%d bloggers like this: