Author: Interview by Orkhan Sattarov, head of the European office of Vestnik Kavkaza An influential German expert on the Middle East, Islamic scholar Professor Udo Steinbach talks to Vestnik Kavkaza about the phenomenon of Islamization and the situation in Turkey.
- Mr. Steinbach, what, in your opinion, can explain the phenomenon of Islamization, which is observed all over the world, from the Caucasus to the countries of the "Arab Spring", as well as in Europe, particularly in Germany, where the third generation of migrants from Muslim countries turn to the Islamic religion and often in its radical form?
- It is true that the phenomenon of Islamization of the population is now observed all around the world - in Turkey, Central Asia, and in the Arab countries. Iran is a special case, since the Islamic revolution occurred there already in 1979, and it is very interesting to see where it would lead the country. But in general, it should be noted that the Islamic world is in search of its own identity. Take, for example, the Arab countries. Many call the political processes that are taking place the "Arab Spring." I believe this interpretation to be incorrect. Essentially, we're talking about the third Arab revolution. This is the third attempt to position itself in the Arab world - politically and culturally. The first Arab revolution occurred immediately after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the region. A second Arab revolution took place in the era of Nasser, and lasted throughout the 1950s and 1960s, until the Revolution of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 1969. In their youth, they too initiated their revolutions driven by idealism, but with time they became mired in corruption and repressions. And in the wake of the current, third revolution, once again a new younger generation comes to power. They removed Mubarak and others from their way and now they are wondering in which direction to go, which model should they follow - a French, German or some other model? Now in Arab societies there is a double discourse: on the one hand, about the constitution and democratic principles, rule of law and so on. On the other hand, about Islam. But they are talking not about a paramilitary radical Islam, but about Islam as a way of self-identification. This question motivates people, also here in Germany. Of course, it is a long-lasting and dangerous process. Because everywhere there are radical military Islamists who are trying to reinstall themselves in central politics. So far they have not succeeded either in Libya, Tunisia or Egypt. But they are trying to return. This is a very sensitive process, which I am following with great interest, because I always believed that jihadist Islamism is a dead end. Islam is a factor of self-determination, which, however, in some cases, is dangerous because it might lead to the return of radicalism.
This is also largely true of European Muslims. In subsequent years, we will see attempts to combine the principles of pluralism and a legal state with Islam as an identification tag. And if we are to point the finger at Muslims, discriminate and marginalize them, then we are on the completely wrong track. We must simply accept the current situation, where people of a different culture, a different religion, are here. We must learn to co-exist together. Given the migration situation in Europe, we just need to make compromises on both sides.
- What future do you see for political Islam? How compatible is it with democratic principles? - We have the examples of Turkey and Iran. In Turkey already in the late 1990s it was repeatedly made clear that Islam plays an important cultural role in the community. But an Islam which leads the country back to Sharia law has simply no chances of survival. And the current model works well in Turkey, because by promoting Islam it also accepts pluralism, leaving the road to Europe open, although not as openly as in the past, as well as providing access to the old zone of influence in the Islamic world - although it should be also noted that Turkish policy has become a complete disaster in the past two years.
Speaking about Iran, I must say that the Iranian revolution was in fact stolen by the mullahs. At the beginning it was an Iranian revolution, which later evolved into an Islamic revolution. I believe that the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue to exist in the future, but more as a shell. In the next four years, after President Ahmadinejad leaves, and if the West abandons its threats against Iran in the form of sanctions, it will be possible to find a way to co-operate with Iran. Thus it would be possible to gain access to those forces in Iran that, regardless of the factor of the Islamic Revolution, are still ready for a new form of synthesis of Western modernism with Islam. Iranian society is ready for it, and despite
suppression by the government, the desire for pluralism, for self-expression, is clearly felt in its dynamic culture.
Generally, before the so-called "Arab Spring" or "Third Arab Revolution," as I call it, I believed that in the entire Middle East region and neighboring states there were only two dynamic societies - in Turkey and Iran. All the others seemed to be in a state of hibernation. But as you see, I strongly underestimated the Arabs.
- You have said that Turkey's foreign policy over the past two years has become a disaster. What led her to this disaster?
- The so-called foreign policy concept of Foreign Minister Davutoglu based on the principle of "zero problems with neighbors" led to it. Let's just say that, most likely, Davutoglu has not read Bismarck, who said that in politics there are no friends, only interests. And the whole concept of Mr. Davutoglu, "zero problems with neighbors" is contrary to Bismarck's phrase. Turkey at all costs was improving relations with Gaddafi in Libya and Bashar al-Assad in Syria, abolished visa regimes with neighboring countries, etc. But overall Turkey has been unlucky - at
one point Gaddafi disappeared, and relations with Assad were utterly spoiled. The Turks tried to play the card of the Turkish-Armenian "Zurich Protocols," but then Azerbaijan threatened to stop investing in Turkey, and the whole show came to an end. Ankara was trying to mediate in the Israeli-Syrian negotiations, but Israel did not consider it necessary to let Turkey know about the start of the military operation "Cast Lead", although just a few days before that the Israeli defense minister was on a visit to Ankara.
Yes, Turkey is a regional power, it also has deep historical roots in the Arab region starting from Ottoman times, which it cannot abandon. But at the same time, Turkey should not forget that it is vulnerable. Ankara needs to reconsider its strategy in the fast-changing situations in Central Asia, the South Caucasus and the Middle East. The Turks should define their own interests, and decide with whom they have to unite in order to maximize the realization of these interests. In my opinion, Turkey's way to the realization of its interests in the South Caucasus, as well as in the Balkans and in the Middle East, is through close cooperation with Europe. And then, of course, I must say that this is a problem of European as well as Turkish politicians: we just lost sight of each other. And now we need to find and develop an acceptable form of cooperation in order to achieve our common interests.
