Voice of - Ataturk Society of America · 2018-11-26 · Spring’06 Voice of Atatürk3 Hudai...

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE ATATÜRK SOCIETY OF AMERICA | SPRING 2006Voice of

IN CELEBRATION OF THE 125TH ANNIVERSARY OF

ATATÜRK'S BIRTHDAY

2 Voice of Atatürk � Spring’06

4731 Massachusetts Ave. NWWashington DC 20016

Phone 202 362 7173Fax 202 363 4075E-mail [email protected]

www.ataturksociety.org

Executive Board

PresidentTimur Edib

Vice PresidentFiliz Odabas-Geldiay

TreasurerMirat Yavalar

SecretaryIlknur Boray

Board of Trustees Hudai Yavalar, Chairman, Founding President

Adm. William J.Crowe Jr.Prof. Ali DogramaciProf. Talat HalmanProf. Suna KiliHon. Greg LaughlinDr. Andrew MangoHon. Richard PerleOrhan Tarhan, Past President

Prof. Behram Kursunoglu, Former Trustee

Recipients of Atatürk AwardsPeace & Democracy AwardSenator Robert C. ByrdRichard HolbrookeAdm. William J. Crowe Jr.

Secularism & Democracy AwardThe Turkish General StaffOrhan Tarhan

Science is Guidance AwardProf. Behram Kursunoglu

Universality of Civilization & PeaceAwardProf. Bernard LewisDr. Andrew Mango

Education & Modernization AwardProf. Turkan Saylan

The AtatürkSociety of America

MembersBulent AtalayNilufer CulhaFerhan Kilical

ASA MISSION STATEMENT

The Atatürk Society of America (ASA) is an independent non-profit organization foundedin Washington DC in 1995 with the objective of promoting Atatürk’s political legacy.

ASA understands Atatürk’s political philosophy to be:� Sovereignty belongs to the people. People alone administer people. Public sovereignty

cannot be shared with any other authority, including a religious authority.� Rational education ensures absoluteness of public sovereignty rationality in politics.� Science leads to progress. Doctrines, including religious ideologies, hinder progress.� The contemporary civilization is the common heritage of mankind. All nations must

participate in it through progress. The universality of civilization means peace at homeand peace in the world.

Towards this objective the ASA organizes scholarly lectures, provides research fellowships,develops a resource and reference center, and makes representations regarding the impor-tance of Atatürk’s political philosophy for international prosperity and peace.

Voice of

Managing Editor Design byFERHAN KILICAL SITKI KAZANCI

Published Quarterly by the Atatürk Society of America, 4731 MassachusettsAve. NW Washington DC 20016. ISSN 1544-0966

POSTMASTER: The Atatürk Society of America, 4731 Massachusetts Ave.NW Washington DC 20016Application to Mail at Periodical Postage Rates is Pending at Washington DC

and addititonal mailing offices. Articles related to Atatürk or his priciples are

welcome and should be accompanied by the name, address, and resume of the

author (not to be published). Articles are accepted only in an electronic for-

mat. Copyright 2006 by ASA. Printed in the U.S.A.

Spring’06 � Voice of Atatürk 3

Hudai YavalarChairman, Founding President

As we enter the fifth month of 2006 and Atatürk Society ofAmerica’s (ASA) 11th year, I want to take this opportunity tothank all of our members and supporters for their tireless effortsover the years on behalf of the organization and its ideals. ASA

continues to forge ahead, increase its membership, reflecting the renewedinterest in the organization and its mission of spreading the vision andideals of Kemal Atatürk. We elected a new board in January, headed byPresident Timur Edib who took the helm from departing MetinCamcigil. We thank Camcigil for his service and for successfully lead-ing the organization for six years.

As we ponder the situation of unrest in the Middle East, and contem-plate how the world would have been different if Atatürk’s reforms hadbeen implemented in the Middle East and the region, we note that overthe years, many organizations, authors, and others recognized thetremendous leadership qualities of this historic figure, and worked toproperly honor him.

This year we will honor the 125th anniversary of Atatürk’s birthday,and we will commemorate it at the historic House Cannon Caucus room on Capitol Hill with oneof Atatürk’s most well known supporters, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Soon after he became Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich in 1994, while addressing GOPAC(The Republican Political Action Committee), offered Atatürk’s reforms as an example of how enor-mous change is possible with inspired leadership.

” In the mid-1920’s Kemal Atatürk was in the process of modernizing Turkey. He was faced withan enormous problem. The Ottoman Empire had collapsed, the Turkish people had been drivenback within the boundaries of what is now modern Turkey, they had an enormous crisis of psychol-ogy, they were a backward country and yet they knew that their future lay in modernization andunderstanding the European world and the industrial world better.

And he reached the conclusion after considerable deep and painful thought that writing in thelanguage pattern they had written in no longer would work, and that they had to change literally thebasic script of their language to a western script. He then decided that the only way to make thatchange was to do it suddenly and decisively, that if you tried to do it over a ten year period, the elitewould learn it, no one else would learn it, and you rapidly would have a two tiered society, and youwould have an enormous social division. A very poor country, with very few resources, less thanours. Their Gross National Product was less than our federal department of education.

He said we have to enlist every educated Turk, and we have to turn the nation into a classroom.And in six months time they transformed Turkish society. It is one of the great heroic acts of the20th century. It was done without violence, without secret police. It was done without locking peo-ple up. It was done by an act of inspired emotional and moral leadership by someone who wasregarded as the savior of the nation and who people genuinely believed would give them a chancefor a better future.

Atatürk is the reason that Turkey is in many ways the most modern of all the Islamic countries,and the most open to new ideas and new opportunities despite its tremendous internal pressures.”

Atatürk was also revered in international organizations. In order to commemorate a previousmilestone, the 100th anniversary, in 1976 UNESCO members were given a recommendation that“All of the projects UNESCO works on today originate from Mustafa Kemal.” The suggestion wasthat on his 100th birthday the 152 members of UNESCO should celebrate Atatürk at the same time.

From the Chairman

continued on page 4


Suddenly, the Swedish delegate stood up and said:“There are many statesmen in the world, are

we going to celebrate all of their birthdays thisway?” To these sarcastic words, the Russian dele-gate jumped up to his feet, pounded the table withhis fist, and said the following to the delegates from152 member countries:

“Maybe our young delegate will remember thatAtatürk is not just any world statesman, forgetcommemorating him for one year, every countryshould look to him for a solution to every prob-lem.” Mustafa Kemal is the one who can inspirethese words. What happened next? For the firstand only time in UNESCO history, there were nodissenting votes, nobody abstained from voting,and 152 countries signed the resolution. On theday of the signature, the Swedish delegate took themicrophone and said:

“I have examined Atatürk, I apologize to all ofthe countries and will be the first to sign.”That magnificent document says;

“Who is Atatürk; he is a superior individualwho made efforts on the path of internationalunderstanding, cooperation, and peace. Areformer who realized extraordinary reforms, aleader who fought against colonialism and expan-sionism, the unequivocal statesman who wasrespectful of human rights, a pioneer in worldpeace, and who never made the distinction ofcolor, language, religion, or race throughout hislife, the founder of the Turkish republic.”

His work and philosophy, I would argue, areeven more relevant and significant today. Had hisprinciples of secularism and democracy spreadlike wildfire through the region, would we have thecurrent situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? I doubtit.

In addition to the new look for our newsletterand the May 19 commemoration with SpeakerGingrich, we held an April 26 panel discussion atGeorgetown University, titled “Atatürk’s Reformsas a Response to Radical Islam.”

As Atatürk Society, our responsibility is to forgeahead and spread the message, principles and phi-losophy of one of the most revered leaders of the20th century. We abide by his adage “Peace athome, peace in the world.”

continued from page 3


Timur EdibPresident

Welcome! On behalf of the entire Board of Directors, I wel-come you to the Atatürk Society of America and our refor-matted Voice of Atatürk. I am honored to have been elect-ed as the President of this wonderful organization as we

enter our second decade of providing a platform for the promotion ofAtatürk’s principles and vision for world peace. I need to say that I could-n’t be happier about working with such a dynamic, energetic and com-mitted Board of Directors. Each member brings their own uniqueinsights and experiences, each has already given more of themselves thanI could have expected, and all are equally committed to the need to pro-mote the life work of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. I would also like to takethis opportunity to thank our Past President, Mr. Metin Camcigil, for hisyears of service to this Society. It is my sincere hope that I will continueto receive his counsel during my term and continue to build on his workand vision.

During my term and under my stewardship, we will work to continue the work of my pred-ecessors, to continue to integrate new ideas and new technologies for furthering the objectivesof our Society, and above all to continue to be a strong voice promoting Atatürk’s legacy. In thecoming year, the Atatürk Society of America will work to increase our outreach to other organ-izations throughout the World, and will continue to build strategic alliances with other associ-ations committed to Atatürk’s principles for promoting world peace.

As we celebrate the 125th anniversary of Atatürk’s birth, Let us remember his accomplish-ments during the 20th Century, and help others understand that through Atatürk’s principlesfor reform, we can continue to find equality and peace in the 21st Century. Only in a truly open,democratic and secular society can there be true peace. We must all work to ensure the absoluteright of equality for women, and we must strive for promoting an enlightened society by foster-ing literacy and education throughout the world.

Atatürk’s gift to humanity is without parallel. As De Vinci was to art, and Einstein was tomath, Atatürk was to social science. Atatürk created a commonality of purpose, without rely-ing on anything more than an understanding of the basic principles of humanity. He empow-ered and motivated the individual to give all of themselves for a common cause, by respectingboth one’s history and one’s future. Without invoking God, without invoking guilt, withoutinvoking fear, without invoking hate, Atatürk established a nation almost a century ago thattoday remains as a model for the world to follow. Sharing this legacy is why I decided tobecome the President of this Society. I ask for your continued support and trust in the comingdays and years, as we work to share not only our history, but to keep our promise to Atatürk.Together, we can keep Atatürk’s legacy alive, and we can help bring world peace.

Welcome and thank you.

President’s Comments


Anzac Day Commemorative Service

On April 25, 1915, theAustralian and New ZealandArmy Corps landed on

Anzac Cove at Gallipoli Turkey at4:29 am. This landing has beencommemorated ever since inAustralia, New Zealand andTurkey. This year, just like in theprevious years, a commemorativeservice was held at the WashingtonNational Cathedral in Washington,DC to remember those who madethe supreme sacrifice both in theDardanelles campaign and in sub-sequent conflicts. The serviceincluded prayers, hymns and aspeech by New ZealandAmbassador Roy Ferguson.Turkish Cellist Efe Baltacigil wasamong the performers. AtatürkSociety of America was represent-ed at the service by Vice PresidentFiliz Odabas-Geldiay, ChairmanHudai Yavalar, and Treasurer MiratYavalar.

ASA News


Historical Gazi High School in Izmit, Turkey was among many buildingsthat were damaged in the earthquake of August 17, 1999. The rebuildingof the High School has been completed. The new Library at the school is

a gift from the Atatürk Society of America. ASA also donated books and com-puters to the library.

"Atatürk's Reforms asa Response to RadicalIslam"

On April 26, 2006 Atatürk Society ofAmerica organized and held a PanelDiscussion at Georgetown University,

Washington DC, titled: "Atatürk's Reformsas a Response to Radical Islam". The panel was moderated by Timur Edib,President of the Atatürk Society of America;Panel speakers were Prof. Bulent Atalay, anASA Board member who teaches at thePhysics Department of University of MaryWashington; Prof. David Cuthell, Directorof the The Institute for Turkish Studies; andProf. Clive Foss, History Department,Georgetown University

After a brief introduction by Timur Edib,each panel guest took turns talking aboutdifferent aspects of Atatürk's Reforms andtheir effects in Turkey and in the MiddleEast. Prof. Cuthell talked about the currentaffairs of the country and the history of theRepublic in general. Prof. Atalay, afterexplaining the reforms in order, emphasizedthe conditions the country was in during theimplimentation of these reforms. And Prof.Foss did a comparative analysis of the imple-mentation of some these reforms in Iran andEgypt.

As the speakers discussed, Atatürk'sreforms in the fields of law, education, econ-omy and society paved the road towardsnew traditions of secularism and the separa-tion of religion and state. Atatürk believedthat in order to reach the level of moderncivilization, continuous renewal and pro-gression were necessary. Today, as a result ofthis philosophy and the great achievementof laicism, Turkey represents the model ofpolitical and social development for thefuture of Muslim countries. This broughtthe panel discussion to the question of: " Inthe context of the Middle East today, can welook at Atatürk's reforms as a model to bringpeace to Middle East?" This very complexand challenging question was also presentedas the starting point of an essay contestwhich is a branch of this panel discussion.The purpose of the essay contest is toencourage good research and strong writingskills. After each panel guests' presentations,the floor was opened to questions.

ASA donated gardening tools and machinery again this year to thegroundskeeping facilities of the mausoleum of Atatürk at Anitkabir inAnkara. ASA has made the same type of donation in the past to help main-tain and beautify the mausoleum grounds.


A LOVE STORY LENT A HELPING

HAND BY KEMAL ATATÜRKMy father, General Kemal Atalay, the Undersecretary of Defense, had taken his annualholiday so that he could be with us. I was visiting my parents with my wife and two veryyoung children. Just three years earlier on a visit to Washington, DC my father had seenour daughter, Jeannine, then not quite a year old and just beginning to walk.

Reflections

By Bülent Atalay

June 23, 2005, the cruise ship, CrystalSerenity, on which I am serving as aspecial topics lecturer, docks inThessalonica, Greece’s second largest

city. At the turn of the 20th century, as“Selanik,” it was the Ottoman Empire’s sec-ond largest city. The streets of the ancientcity are poorly laid out; there is no gridwith a north-south and east-west bearing.Like most old cities, it has evolved accord-ing to the natural topography of the land,with a citadel perched on its acropolis.Worse yet all the signs are in Greek, andalthough, as a physicist, I know the letters

and can sound out the words, I have noidea of their meaning.

My wife, Carol Jean, and I, along withtwo friends from the Serenity, Stephen andLinda Young, are in search of Atatürk’sbirthplace, 17 Apostolou Pavlou, locatednext to the Turkish Consulate. To get ourbearings, we drive up to the acropolis ofThessalonica, where the ancient Byzantinewalls still stand, restored; but with timerunning out to return to the ship, we arenearing a frenzied state. Quite suddenlywe happen upon a young boy, an appren-tice to an automobile mechanic, who sens-es our frustration, and in lucid English,asks if he can help us. When we tell himthe address, he responds that he does notknow the place himself. But then he strollsover to his boss. They discuss our plight.When he returns, he tells us that they willlead us in their own pickup truck.

The distance turns out to be no morethan a mile through serpentine streets, butit takes twenty-minutes to negotiate thedistance through the virtually impenetrablerush-hour traffic. Then as Stephen shoe-horns the rental car into a tight spot, Ijump out and begin a mad jog up thestreet, in search of Number 17. Midway upthe next block, perhaps a hundred yardsaway, is the two story frame house that Ihave seen in faded, old pictures, the upperstory cantilevered over the lower, evocativeof the 19th century houses one sees inIstanbul. Atatürk’s house at last! And thenarrow street, where my grandfather,Ismail Hakki, as a young boy, played withMustafa Kemal, his closest childhoodfriend, who would go on to rescue Turkey,

then set on a seemingly inexorable courseto disintegration. A grateful parliament ofthe republic he created would later bestowon him the appellation, Atatürk, “Father ofthe Turks,” then proceed to retire the titlepermanently, lest someone else try to adoptit.

Later that afternoon the Serenity sailseast, on a course south of the AthosPeninsula, with its colorful monasteries.Early in the morning the following day theship slows down to allow a pilot to boardand guide us up the Dardanelles. I stand onthe top deck, surveying the magicalpanorama. Sailing up the 46-mile straits, itis impossible not to be moved by the spiritof these hallowed lands, witness to spectac-ular drama. On the starboard side, and notmore than a few miles away, lie the ruins ofTroy, the legendary city destroyed in themid-13th century BC by the MycenaeanGreeks. Almost eight hundred years laterthe Persian King Xerxes lashed his shipstogether, creating a pontoon bridge, andcrossed the Dardanelles on his way toinvading Greece. And another hundredyears later still Alexander the Great repaidthe favor, constructed his own pontoonbridge, and crossed over to Asia, taking thefirst step in his relentless bid to conquer theworld. Six hundred years ago the Ottomansbegan their isolation of Constantinople bystretching chains across the straits. Finally,a mere one hundred and seventy years agoat the same spot the Romantic poet LordByron, an exceptionally strong swimmer,crossed the Dardanelles, known for itstreacherous currents. Consumed with clas-sical Greece and its fertile mythology,

Atatürk’s birthplace at 17 Apostolou Pavlou, main-tained by the Turkish Consulate in Thessalonica.


Byron was reenacting one of Leander’s noc-turnal crossings, in order to visit his lover,Hero, living on the other side.

On the portside, the Western shore,stand prominent monuments of the Turks,the French, and the British, honoring anunknown soldier lost in the GallipoliCampaign. The land is literally pock-marked with numberless trenches. It ishere that hundreds of thousands of troops—Turkish and ANZAC — faced each otherin 1915. And when it was all over, a halfmillion young troops, evenly dividedbetween the two sides, had lost their lives.The smoke of battle — bullets and cannonshells — turned the sky opaque at midday.Perhaps because of the shared misery, thetwo sides came to respect each other to thepoint where, it is said, a daily coffee andsmoke break would take place, allowing thesoldiers to climb out of their bunkers inrelative safety. But when they returned, if asmuch as a hand showed, it would be shotoff.

Oxford educated poet, Rupert Brooke,was here. Having romanticized warfare inhis earlier poetry, he died not in battle, buton the way to battle, of sunstroke just twodays before the Battleship Hood deliveredthe troops to the area. “Rupert Brooke isdead… [his] life has closed at the momentwhen it seemed to have reached its spring-time." wrote Winston Spencer Churchill, inhis obituary for the young poet. Andindeed, Churchill, then First Lord of theAdmiralty, who had originally master-minded the scheme — to sail up theDardanelles, take control of Istanbul, andthen strike at Germany from its “softunderbelly.” The failed campaign led toChurchill losing his job.

On the facing hills on the portside, onesees a flat white figure — an image createdin limestone of a soldier clutching his riflewith one hand, signaling his comrades tofollow him into battle with the other. Nextto it, spelled out in limestone markers, onesees Atatürk’s immortal words, “PauseTraveler. This is where the heart of anation stopped, and from the smolderingashes sprung a new nation.”

And then one also remembers thedeeply comforting, profoundly graciouswords with which he addressed the families

of the fallen Aussies and Kiwis:

Those heroes that shed their blood andlost their lives... you are now lying in thesoil of a friendly country. Therefore restin peace. There is no difference betweenthe Johnnies and Mehmets to us wherethey lie side by side here in this countryof ours... You, the mothers, who senttheir sons from faraway countries wipeaway your tears; your sons are now lyingin our bosom and are in peace. Afterhaving lost their lives on this land theyhave become our sons as well.

— Kemal Atatürk

Atatürk’s poignant message is inscribedin the Turkish Monument to the UnknownSoldier in Gallipoli, and it is inscribed onthe Atatürk Memorial in Canberra. It is nowonder that in distant Australia, there isstill a sense of kinship for Atatürk and theTurks — enemies, but fellow witnesses tothe unspeakable horrors of trench warfare— and, conversely, a resentment of theBritish politicians who sent a generation oftheir young men to fight and die in a landhalf-a-world away. For the Turks, theAustralians, and the New ZealandersGallipoli would forever be regarded as themoment when they gained their nationalidentities.

Through the generations, my family hasdemonstrated an almost idolatrous admira-

tion and affection for Atatürk. His picturesabounded in my parents’ home in Istanbul,although only in one picture is my father,then a young second lieutenant, seen withAtatürk himself. Certainly a unique, iconicnational hero, he made a small, but criticalcontribution to my family. He served ascatalyst in the marriage of my own motherand father.

THE DRIVE DOWN THE PENINSULAI have been through the straits, as well ason both storied shores many times, but thevisit just the day after seeing Atatürk’sbirthplace in Thessalonica makes the expe-rience of sailing the straits on this occasionutterly unforgettable. I remember a visit in1967, when Carol Jean and I, accompaniedby my mother and father, drove down theGallipoli Peninsula from Istanbul. Myfather, General Kemal Atalay, theUndersecretary of Defense, had taken hisannual holiday so that he could be with us.I was visiting my parents with my wife andtwo very young children. Just three yearsearlier on a visit to Washington, DC myfather had seen our daughter, Jeannine,then not quite a year old and just begin-ning to walk. This time in Turkey he wouldmeet our son, Michael Kemal Atalay, whohad just turned one and was beginning towalk. But on this excursion to Canakkale,we left the children with my grandmotherat the army resort in Fenerbahce, Istanbul,which we were using as home base. And itwas on our lengthy drive down theGallipoli Peninsula that my father first toldus the story of his father, Ismail Hakki, andthe family’s “Atatürk connection,” how heand my mother met, and the circumstancesof their marriage.

My grandfather fought in those trenchesfor eight months, through the better part of1915. A photograph was taken of his battal-ion during a break in the action.Immediately after the cessation of hostili-ties and the withdrawal of the ANZACS, hebriefly traveled to Edirne (RomanAdrionople) on assignment, and whilethere, on January 1, 1916, had a photo-graph taken of himself. He inscribed onthe back of the photograph in old Turkish(right-to-left), “To my dear aunt, I havesurvived eight months of action in

Image of a pair of bullets that collided in the air.The bullets were discovered by a farmer, plowinghis fields decades after the war. Naval Museum,Canakkale.


Gallipoli. I will soon leave for the EasternFront, there to face the Arabs and theirrecalcitrant English leader.”

Just before leaving for the Eastern Front,he visited the small town of Biga, lying tothe east of Çanakkale and Troy. He went tosee his young family, ensconced in thetown since shortly before the war began.There were his wife and three young chil-dren, two years apart in age – the oldest, adaughter; the middle, a son; and theyoungest, another son — my father,“Mustafa Kemal”— named after IsmailHakki’s childhood friend, and in accordwith his wishes. (Last names were notintroduced into Turkey until 1934. It canmake genealogical research a hopelesslydifficult task.)

After only a day or two with his family,however, Ismail Hakki had to leave again,this time to fight on the Eastern Front.There he would die, fighting against theArabs and their “recalcitrant” Englishleader, T. E. Lawrence, who would becomeknown as Lawrence of Arabia. My grand-father’s body would presumably be interredsomewhere in southeastern Turkey.According to the tradition prevailing in thefamily, Atatürk had his aide-de-camp carrymy grandfather’s handgun and sword backto Biga and presented to my grandmother,along with Atatürk’s promise that after thewar he would find the family and see totheir needs. But even before the warended, my grandmother and her children

moved to Istanbul, where they could gethelp from close relatives.

ALIN YAZISI (FOREHEAD INSCRIPTION)Growing up in Kadiköy on the Asian sideof the Bosporus, my father and his olderbrother, Muammer, both aspired to maketheir careers in the military, following inthe footsteps of their late father. Just a fewweeks apart they reported to the militaryrecruiting office, had their interviews, tookthe military college’s entrance examination,and they both passed. My father presentedsome dubious documentation showing himto be two years older than he actually was.When they underwent physical examina-tions, my uncle passed with flying colors;my father, however, was told that he suf-fered from a heart murmur and could notbe admitted. His hopes dashed, he stag-gered around dejected, tears streamingdown his cheeks. After wandering listlesslyfor some time, he found himself at a ferrydock. The ferry was just pulling away fromthe dock. My father used to say, any othertime, he would have just jumped onto theferry, as he had done numerous timesbefore, but that day it was not be — it wasnot “written on his forehead!” That day itwas not his fate to take the ferry and gohome. He was a lifelong believer in fate –“If it is written on your forehead, it willcome to pass,” he would always say. He saton a bench on the pier, utterly disheart-

ened. Then suddenly an elderly gentlemanappeared, and sensing my father’s despair,stopped and queried, “What is the matter,son?”

My father answered that he had alwayshoped to become an officer, but he wasdenied admission to the academy. Theman appeared genuinely sympathetic.Attempting to console my father, heremarked, “There are so many differentprofessions, and a good looking, clean cutyoung man like you should be able tobecome or do anything you set your mindto. You could become a doctor, an archi-tect, or even a diplomat. You have a distin-guished demeanor.” My father, his voicebreaking, responded, “My greatest wish inthe world was to become a soldier, just asmy father had been.” Without raising hiseyes from the ground, he continued, “ButI’ve just been told that I am suffering froma heart murmur that will keep me out ofthe academy.” He still had the x-ray film ina folder tucked under his arm, which theolder man suddenly noticed. At this point,the man revealed to my father that he wasdoctor — a professor at the medical school.“May I see the film,” he asked. Thenremoving the film from its sleeve, he held itup to the sunlight, and studied it for a fullminute, squinting, scanning. Then, with asmile, he told my father, “Let’s go togetherto the hospital.”

When they got to the hospital a medicalboard was in session. That did not stop theold man. He barged into the room, myfather right behind him. Again, heremoved the film from the sleeve and heldit in front of a light box. “Gentleman,” heannounced, “…you have made the samemistake again. There is nothing wrong withthis young man’s heart.” He went on toexplain their misdiagnosis. To make hispoint, he placed his stethoscope on myfather’s chest and listened for the character-istic sounds of a heart murmur. “There isno swishing or whistling, beyond the nor-mal ‘Lub-Dub’ sound.” He reiterated,“Classic misdiagnosis!” It turned out thatthis remarkably kind man was in realityone of the most senior physicians on themedical school faculty and a one-timeinstructor to most of the other physiciansin the room.

It was in 1990 that I first came across the photograph. Carol Jean and I had visited the Naval Museum inÇanakkale as we had just started out on our drive to Troy. In the crowded group portrait my grandfatheris standing in the back row, wearing a dark fez, and identified by the dark oblique line. In the photo-graph’s caption, we could read his identity Istibarat Binbasi (Communication Officer, Major) IsmailHakki.” (Right) Ismail Hakki (1881-1916). Photograph dated January 1, 1916.


The peaks and valleys of that day’s emo-tional roller coaster ride — missing theferry, meeting the professor of medicine,having the faulty diagnosis corrected, andbeing admitted into the military college —“were all written on his forehead!”Thereafter, my father would always have anabiding admiration for physicians, andespecially for those in cardiology. He livedinto his nineties, and he spoke with burst-ing pride of his grandson, Michael KemalAtalay, who would earn combinedMD/PhD degrees at Johns Hopkins in car-diac imaging, in advent of doing medicalinternship at Harvard as “Dr. Dr. Atalay.”

Built in 1845 on the Asian Shore of theBosporus, the military college, Kuleli, is anunusually prepossessing building thatderives its name from the two prominentflanking towers (Figure 4). The years at theacademy were successful for both brothers.They enjoyed their time, they studied hard,and they made lifelong friends. Manywould also accompany them in their risethrough the military ranks. Both brotherswere successful athletes, starters on theschool’s soccer team, my father as left wing,his brother as the high-scoring center for-ward. Father would often speak of hisbrother, about his extraordinary prowesson the soccer field. But in academics it wasmy father who would excel and leave amark. He graduated in the class of 1930.Not long afterwards, at an engagementparty for his close friend, Nüzhet Bulca, he

would meet the guest of honor, none otherthan Kemal Atatürk, the beloved President.

As my father recalled the memories ofthat day thirty years earlier, Carol Jean andI remained transfixed. My mother, who, ofcourse, had known the story all along, wasjust happy that I was learning about it. Butthen I interrupted, asking rhetorically, “Youtold him then that you and your brotherwere the sons of his oldest friend, IsmailHakki?” “No, I couldn’t…” he said, “I did-n’t want any favoritism. If Atatürk hadfound out who I was, he might have takenme as an aide, and I would never have beenable to prove myself.” (He was modest. Hewas shy.)

A few years later he would take theexaminations that would gain him accept-ance into the Army War College and thestatus of Kurmay. He could now realistical-ly aspire to attain the highest ranks in thearmy. �

The writer, Bulent Atalay, is a professor ofphysicist and an artist. The article about hisfamily’s connection to Atatürk is excerptedfrom a book that he is writing as a testimo-nial to his late father, Orgeneral KemalAtalay. His website appears athttp://www.bulentatalay.com

The Kokdemir Family; My parents meetingat the officer’s club; A second meeting withAtatürk.

Kuleli, on the Anatolian Banks of the Bosporus, seen in a 19th century engraving.

MILESTONESAPRIL..........................April 01,1921

2nd Inönü War Victory..........................April 03,1930

Acceptance of Women’s Rights to EnterLocal Government Elections.........................April 10,1928

Accepting the Principle of Secularism tothe Constitution..........................

April 15,1931

Foundation of Turkish History Institution..........................

April 20,1924

Recognition of New Constitution..........................

April 23,1920

Opening Day of the Turkish Parliament..........................April 23,1920

National Sovereignty and Children’s Day

MAY..........................May 19,1919

Atatürk’s Visit to Samsun and His FamousSpeech Declaring the Independence War..........................May 19,1919

Remembrance of Atatürk; Youth andSports Day

JUNE..........................June 01,1928

Acceptance of New Law to Ban the UseArabic Letters..........................June 12,1937

Atatürk’s Donation of Personal Assets tothe Turkish Nation..........................June 21,1934

Acceptance of New Law RequiringSurnames..........................June 21,1919Amasya Speech to Gather People for theIndependence War


Speeches - Anzac Day

Address by His Excellency Roy Ferguson

New Zealand Ambassador to the United States

Anzac Day Commemoration, Washington

National Cathedral, Washington DC

Tuesday, 25th April 2006

Ngaa mate, ngaa aituaaHaere, haere, haereKi te hunga ora,Teenaa koutou,katoa The dead and those we mourn today.Farewell their spirits, farewell, farewell.To the living, greetings to you all.

At hundreds of ceremonies at home, in Turkey, inEurope and throughout the world, Australians andNew Zealanders mark this most sacred day in theirrespective histories. It is a privilege and an honour

for me to address this gathering in this magnificentCathedral.

Ninety one years ago in the early morning, 13 ships car-ried the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps – theAnzacs – towards a landing on the Turkish coast. Furthernorth the 1st Australian Division were already ashore. Onone of the ships a 24 year old New Zealand mill hand fromMangapehi, Richard Ward, wrote in his diary “this will nodoubt be the greatest day in our lives”. These words con-veyed the expectations and confidence of young men fromthe far-flung outposts of Empire. They were part of a boldstrategy to seize the Dardanelles, knock Turkey out of thewar and relieve pressure on the Western Front. They weredetermined to write a new page in the history of the Empire.At the same time they were proud to be New Zealanders orAustralians.

The reality, we all know, was very different. The day didnot turn out as expected. The ANZACs landed on an impos-

sibly rough piece of terrain and were met by a highly profes-sional Turkish Army. By nightfall Richard Ward would bethe only unwounded senior non-commissioned officer in hisCompany. He was promptly promoted to Lieutenant andmade acting Company Commander. When he called the rollon 26 April he found only 34 out of the Company strength of226. Individual leadership and initiative at all levels madethe difference between success and failure in those first fewdays at Gallipoli.

In the nine months that followed, the Australians and NewZealanders experienced the horrors of trench warfare; thechaos, the disease, the human sacrifice and despair. Youngmen from the farms and cities became professional soldiers -by trial and error – and at great cost. The ANZAC legendwas born as Australians and New Zealanders lived andfought side by side. As the Australian historian CEW Beanwrote of one set of battles early on in the campaign:

“Day and night Australians and New Zealanders hadfought together on that hilltop. In this fierce test each saw inthe other a brother’s qualities. As brothers they had died,their bodies lay mingled in the same narrow trenches, asbrothers they were buried. It was noticeable that such smalljealousies that had existed between Australians and NewZealanders in Cairo vanished completely from this hour.Three days of genuine trial had established a friendshipwhich centuries will not destroy”.

Amidst defeat there were moments of unforgettable brav-ery; for New Zealanders we remember Chunuk Bair andthose three days from the 8th August 1915 when ColonelMalone and the Wellington Battalion held the heights thatoverlooked the ultimate objective; the straits of the Narrowsdown below. But the summit was recaptured by the Turks.And four months later the campaign was over when theANZACs were evacuated.

It may seem strange that a military defeat should play sucha large part in the history and identity of two countries. And


in our commemorations we shouldnot forget that over 21,000 Britishsoldiers died at Gallipoli; 10,000Frenchmen; 1,500 Indians and 50 fromNewfoundland. Or that at least 87,000Turks died defending their homeland.

Part of the reason Gallipoli holds such a specialplace in our history was undoubtedly the staggering lossesthe ANZACs suffered. Over half the Australians who foughtbecame casualties and 8,700 died. For New Zealand the pro-portion was even worse; nearly 90% became casualties and2,700 were killed. This was a dreadful toll for any nation, butparticularly for two countries with such small populations.A generation of our finest young men were gone. Few fami-lies would not have been affected.

It was a loss of innocence, the first blooding of youngnations. Yes Australians and New Zealanders had foughtearlier in the South African wars, but this was the first intro-duction to the horrors of twentieth century war and for themen, part of their first great overseas experience.

Out of these terrible sacrifices a new sense of nationhoodwas born; for Australians, for New Zealanders and for theTurks. Kemal Atatürk, became the founder of modernTurkey. Between the Antipodeans and this ancient land ofTurkey there grew a profound respect. Atatürk summed upthe reconciliation in his famous words:

“Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives…you are lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore restin peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies andthe Mehmets to us where they lie side by side in this countryof ours…. You the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now liv-ing in our bosom and are in peace. Having lost their lives onthis land they have become our sons as well”.

Alas it was not to be the last experience of war forAustralia and New Zealand. The horrible carnage of theFirst World War was succeeded by the even more terriblerealisation that this was not, after all, to be the war that

ended all wars. Again and again for therest of the century, in another world war

and in conflicts in the Pacific, Asia andin the Middle East, New Zealanders and

Australians have fallen in defence of othercountries’ integrity and their own values and

ideals. In Gallipoli we had come of age. We hadbeen confronted with the stark reality that our remotenessdoes not isolate us from the tide of world events. We realisedthat even small countries can make a significant difference.And so as the years have passed we have accepted unhesitat-ingly the responsibilities of good international citizens.

In the twenty-first century we face the scourge of a differ-ent but no less fundamental threat; that of global terrorism.The call to service remains.

ANZAC Day is a time to remember and reflect. Thosewho know warfare best; those who have taken part do notcelebrate war on occasions like this. On the contrary, theydwell on more fundamental values to do with the meaning oflife itself. And so should we. Courage, comradeship, respon-sibility to others, duty to country and to the principles wevalue, endurance and a dogged determination to do the bestwe can through the most testing and frightening of trials;these are the qualities we should celebrate on ANZAC Day.This is the heritage we should cherish.

Here in Washington we recall the bonds that were forgedwith the men and women of the American armed forces;firstly on the Western front – and then in countless otherbattles down the years, to preserve a world of freedom andchoice.

We remember with gratitude all those who have served.We remember today those who continue to serve; whether inIraq, in Afghanistan or in our own neighbourhood in theSolomon Islands .

For freedom and all its virtues can be lost by simple indif-ference.

But who, remembering the ANZAC story, will stand byand allow that to happen?�

The ASA Executive Board has launcheda campaign to donate to local librariesbooks on modern Turkey. The Boardwas motivated by the oft observed fact

that local libraries and school or universitylibraries are very poor on up-to-date books onTurkey. ASA members are expected to respondenthusiastically to this campaign.

Members are invited to order the four bookscurrently available to ASA for a donation of$90, including shipping and handling, anddonate them in turn to the libraries in theirneighborhood. They will, of course, benefitfrom tax deduction.

The books are AAttaattüürrkk, by Andrew Mango,TThhee AAttaattüürrkk RReevvoolluuttiioonn, by Suna Kili, TTuurrkkiisshh

WWoommaann, by Ayse Cebesoy Sarialp.You may also wish to donate to your

community library books on modernTurkey you may have in your own libraryand may not need any longer. By taking partin this campaign you would be supportingthe better understanding of Turkey by thepublic.

A Campaign to Donate Books to Libraries


INTERVIEW WITH ATATÜRK BIOGRAPHER,

ANDREW MANGO Andrew Mango served as the head of the Turkish department of the BBC news agencyfor 40 years. During this time, Mango observed the developments in Turkey. He recentlywrote a biography of Atatürk.

Interview

Mango, the second Englishman towrite a biography of Atatürksince Lord Kinross, is standingon the political experiences of

Atatürk. Mango, who wrote regarding thestate of Atatürk’s reforms and democracy inTurkey today, had said he will write thestory of a political movement rather than alife story. According to Mango, the Atatürkbiography that Lord Kinross wrote,although widely read in England, was writ-ten 30 years ago and no longer reflectsTurkey, because, as well-known historianActon Lorel says, “history is always con-temporary history”. The writer describesthe aim of his book by asking the ques-tions, “What was Atatürk’s vision? Whathappened? How did it happen?”

Mango answered Cumhuriyet’s questionslike so:

You said that your aim in writingAtatürk’s biography is to find his vision.What do you think Atatürk’s vision was? Certainly, Atatürk was envisioning a mod-ern country. There is a one word responseto the question of where such a countrywas: France. France was always an examplefor Turkish intellectuals. French culturalsecondary schools had been established.The only foreign language Atatürk knewwas French. The French revolution andrepublic were examples for Atatürk.Human rights, a united state, a single lan-guage, and the removal of regional differ-ences were all factors that affected Atatürkas he was establishing the Turkish republic.It is not surprising that France was taken asan example. In that period, thinking of a

civilized country,France was the sin-gle example, andwhen envisioning aphilosophy thatwould form thefoundation of a rev-olution, it wasFrench positivism.British positivism isexperimental, andGerman positivism

is more romantic. French positivism is def-inite, it will prove true. French values wereuniversal values. In taking France as anexample, Atatürk took a universal valuesystem and had it adopted by the Turkishpeople. Turkey was never France, it couldnot be.

You are looking for the answer to thequestion of what the state of the Turkishvision is today. The radical religiousmovements and developments in a direc-tion similar to that are almost completely

oppositional to Atatürk’s vision. What doyou see as the primary reason for thesedevelopments?I’m at the beginning of my research; never-theless, if you ask me, the primary agent isthe population boom. The phrase Atatürkrepeated most, “modern civilization level”,was not just describing an intellectualframe. It was also aiming at a level wherepeople live in a way that brings materialsatisfaction. With the population boom,reaching this level has become very com-plicated. The population is not booming inCankaya or Levent, it is booming in lessdeveloped areas.

Today, in some circles, criticizing Atatürkis interpreted as evidence of readiness toget into the political arena. By the sametoken, Atatürk is often accused of being adictator. What is your evaluation of this?Beyond a certain point I do not take thesecriticisms seriously because these allega-tions come down to anachronistic mis-takes. For instance, questions like, “Was

Atatürk a democrat?” areasked. These types of crit-icisms bring to mind astatement by Mussolini:directing the Italian peo-ple is both difficult andunnecessary. During thatperiod, establishing a rep-resentative democracywas not possible and wasnot necessary.Representative democra-cy, in that period, wasstuck in a corner ofnorthern Europe. Those

Atatürk was envisioning amodern country. There is a

one word response to the ques-tion of where such a countrywas: France. France was alwaysan example for Turkish intellec-tuals. French cultural secondaryschools had been established.

””

””


that accuse Atatürk ofbeing a dictator forgetthat in Europe, duringthat period, there weredictators everywhere. Forthat period, Atatürk wasnot a special case.However, there wereimport differencesbetween them. No dicta-tor that came about dur-ing that period was laterembraced. Embracingthem would be an eccen-tric act. The exact opposite occurred inTurkey. The interesting thing was thatthose who embraced him were the youths.As a matter of fact, the youth were like asocial class in Turkey. Not only the genera-tion that reformed, but the generation afterthem adopted Atatürk's reforms. For exam-ple, after Inonu became president and triedto take Atatürk’s picture off of the money,the youth protested. When Karabekir’sbook criticizing Atatürk came out, theministry banned it due to pressure fromthe youth. There is a group that embracesAtatürk now as well. We call them “theenlightened”. Evaluating Atatürk as a dicta-tor is wrong. In my opinion, as the Englishsay, he is a “founding father”. Instead ofcomparing him to Hitler or Mateksas, heshould be compared to George Washingtonor Petro.

In addition to his being embraced, anoth-er way that Atatürk should be separatedfrom Dictators is that he worked to trans-fer the newly formed republic that headopted.Right. Some get bored and turn away fromreforms. But there is no place to turn backto because as Atatürk said, “civilization isone”. Manners of living differ, but civiliza-tion is one. It is interesting that Atatürkwould make this point because other dicta-tors spoke of other civilizations. For exam-ple, Hitler mentioned the “German civiliza-tion”, whatever that means. Or, Metaksaswould speak about a “third civilization”, theHellenic civilization, the Byzantine civiliza-tion, and a third civilization that he wouldform. It is certainly funny, because there isonly one civilization on earth and every

society, as their possibilities allow, con-tribute to this civilization. Like the SunLanguage theory, approaches that fall out-side of this understanding are also littletricks. These came about as a way to givethe Turkish people the morale to contributeto civilization. For instance, didn’t Atatürkknow that the new alphabet was the Latinalphabet? In actuality the purpose was forTurkey to integrate with this one civiliza-tion.

Since there are developments contradic-tory to reform, is there something thatAtatürk or his establishment missed?Atatürk and his advisors thought that ifindividuals were educated in a clear andcomplete manner a modern country couldbe created. However, educating people isnot enough. Organization is very impor-tant. There is a subject that stands on mod-ern anthropology today. In the past, thewest was ahead because of access to knowl-edge. Today distribution of knowledge iscompletely provided, but the West is stillrelatively stronger. Today, modern anthro-pology is investigating why the West isahead. The reason forthis is being able tomake organizationswork. An establishedgovernment, the settle-ment and foundation ofall types of organiza-tions, and the function-ality of these organiza-tions, is ensured notthrough the efforts ofindividuals but by socie-tal norms. This is the

ability that Turkey lacks. This deficiency of Turkey has empoweredthe stance of religious movements inopposition to reform. However, France,who serves as an example for Turkey, isalso facing this danger.Today there are two major fronts againstTurkey’s secular system; the radical reli-gious, and the divisive front. France experi-enced this war also. Political parties dividedalong the lines of being either secular oranti-secular. In the last period, conservativeparties’ attempts to increase aid to religiousschools were met with reactions and wereprevented. At the same time divisivenessbecame a significant problem for France.Regional differences were lifted, and a uni-fied state was established. Attempts weremade to erase local dialects. There was adesire for the same language to be spokeneverywhere. In fact, there is an examplefrom a minister responsible for educationthat the English mock. The French educa-tion minister said, “I want to feel that inevery school in France, every child in everyclass is turning the same page of the samebook at the same time”. When this quotewas repeated, it was mocked. The problemsFrance faced are being faced by Turkeytoday.

What would you say about the countryyou have been observing for 40 years?When you don’t know a country very wellis it easy to describe. But if you have beenliving in a country for 40 years, yourfriends and acquaintances come to mindand it becomes more difficult to say some-thing. The only thing I can say is thatTurkey is a country that is changing veryrapidly. �

If you ask me, the primaryagent is the population

boom. The phrase Atatürk repeat-ed most, “modern civilizationlevel”, was not just describing anintellectual frame.

””””

Today there are two majorfronts against Turkey’s sec-

ular system; the radical religious,and the divisive front. Franceexperienced this war also. ””””


NATION BUILDING-THINKING LIKE

ATATÜRK

The latter day nation building operations, whether conducted under the UN auspices orby a U.S. lead coalition, seem to concentrate on the introduction of constitutional democ-racy. Such operations assume that any multi-ethnic or sectarian society can or must livein a pluralist system.

Opinion

By Metin Camcigil Former ASA President

Strangely, the notion of nation build-ing did not develop, as one mightexpect, together with the UN’sTrusteeship concept right at the

UN’s inception. It started a little later as anoffshoot of the UN’s peacekeeping opera-tions, after the 1956 Suez crisis. It is alsoindicative that it did not become an inter-national concern during the disintegrationof the Soviet Union but did during that ofYugoslavia. This note reviews the nationbuilding methods used thus far with that ofAtatürk.

The latter day nation building opera-tions, whether conducted under the UNauspices or by a U.S. lead coalition, seem toconcentrate on the introduction of consti-tutional democracy. Such operationsassume that any multi-ethnic or sectariansociety can or must live in a pluralist sys-tem. Since the Western communities aregoverned by pluralist systems they considerwhat is good for them must be good for allothers. Yet historical and cultural peculiari-ties of some fractious societies may notallow pluralism. The insistence on theintroduction of pluralism may in factdestroy some cultures by protracted vio-lence and/or circumspect oppression with-in fractious societies under the disguise ofdemocracy. Democracy strengthens tribaldifferences for example in Afghanistan, andsectarian feelings in Iraq.

We also seem to forget that democracydid not yet reach its perfection. There arestill outstanding shortcomings in the plu-

ralist democracy. The contemporary civi-lization has been searching for ways to cor-rect the wrongs of the democratic systemsince the mid 19th century. Great architectsof democracy like Stuart Mill (On Liberty1859, On Representative Government1860), wrote, “the will of the people, more-over, practically means the will of the mostnumerous or the most active part of thepeople; the majority, or those who succeedin making themselves accepted as a majori-ty; the people, consequently, may desire tooppress a part of their number; “

De Tocqueville (Democracy in America1840) was concerned with the difficulty inreconciling individuality and liberty withdemocratic equality. He saw a great threatto liberty in democracy and democraticdespotism: “the power of public opinion tosuppress unpopular views”. (W. Ebenstein,Introduction to Political Philosophy,Rinehart, 1952)

The influence by religious fundamental-ists on public opinion, elections and onpolitics, as practiced by big businesses, is aperfect example of this pervasive problemin today’s democracies. Education of themasses will have to precede an idealdemocracy.

As civilization progresses more respectfor international law between nationswould be expected. And yet, the age-olddiplomatic rule of “comity of nations”(comitas gentium) seems to have been for-gotten on the library shelves. The age oldbullying methods between nations stillseem to be the currency in internationalrelations. We condescendingly inculcateworldwide civility, tolerance, equality, free-

dom, and human rights. We are obliviousto the fact that none of these values andnotions can be instilled by force. They arenot enforceable, but teachable. Use of forceonly creates a counter force, an unintendedand mostly undesirable antithesis.Germany is a good example in history ofthe adverse effects of external imposition ofthe concept of liberalism. French liberalideas entered Germany with theNapoleonic invasion. Hence, Germans dis-credited liberalism as a national enemy.That sentiment became the source ofHegelian authoritarianism in Germanyleading to two WWs. This example in his-tory can explain today’s reactionary feelingsin the Muslim societies against the domi-nance of western culture in the contempo-rary civilization. At any rate, the termdemocracy implies the rule by and for thepeople, so it has to be brought about by thepeople. Democracy cannot be introducedby fiat.

The UN’s nation building success in theBalkans is due to the fact that the nationswith distinct national identities withinYugoslavia were artificially kept togetherunder a federation. The disintegration ofthe federation achieved certain nationalunity in the newly formed states. The UNoperation was not to maintain a multi-national Yugoslav unity. Conversely, in theU.S. intervention in Afghanistan and Iraqthe situation is diagonally opposite of theYugoslav case. The U.S. intervention ulti-mately became one of nation building bytrying to hold together these societieswhere there is no national identity, and tomaintain law and order where there is no


national unity. Iraq being an artificial state its people

has no commonness of history or of eth-nicity that could help them form a nationalidentity or unity. Iraq was “created” in 1920as a result of Britain’s manipulations overthe spoils of WWI. As it is in other parts ofthe world also in the Middle East we aresacrificing lives and precious resources toclean up the messes left behind by thediplomatic manipulations of the retreatingBritish Empire in the 19th and 20th cen-turies. We may not have had the Iraq issuetoday if Britain had not gone againstAtatürk’s vision during the formation of theTurkish Republic. Atatürk’s objective indefining the Turkish Republic’s nationalborders was to secure continuous peace byensuring national unity within the bordersas well as in the limitrophe countries.Population exchange between Turkey andGreece was the implementation of this pol-icy. Atatürk insisted during the Lausannepeace negotiations not to separate theKurdish areas of Mosul and Kerkuk fromthe bulk of the Kurdish nation included inthe new Turkish boundaries. Unlike Britainhe was not after the oil reserves of the area.Oil was not the top priority in those days,particularly not for Turkey, which did noteven have economic awareness or infra-structure to be concerned with oil extrac-tion. Historical records have proven thatAtatürk had no territorial greed because ofhis concern over seeding the seeds offuture conflicts between neighboring coun-tries. Had Atatürk’s advice been heeded byBritain, Iraqi Kurds would not have beenused, as Atatürk feared, for instigatingunrest and terrorism in Turkey.Unfortunately Atatürk’s great vision waslost to the British paltry machinations.

The Turkish Republic did not inheritanything from its predecessor Empire,except for a treasury and a population dev-astated with five wars and innumerableuprisings instigated by foreign powerswithin the last forty years of the Ottomans.The Republic created everything anewfrom defining its boundaries to establishingthe state authority, economy, etc. This wasa real nation building, if there ever wasone. It is also noteworthy that everythingwas achieved without any foreign aid,

advice, or interference, unlike today’s prac-tices, and at the same time with the burdenof repaying the Empire’s heavy internation-al debts. The rise of the new Republic wasmade possible basically by a solid nationalunity.

Atatürk’s nation building was based onthe European ideas and events developedduring the period preceding him and dom-inated his era. Nationalism championed bythe European countries for the purpose ofdisintegrating the Ottoman Empire in thesecond half of the 19th century constitutedalso the basis of the Turkish independence.Atatürk was the product of his period. Hispolitical philosophy was formed in the mil-itary of the decaying Empire. He formed afirst hand knowledge of the sufferings andemotions of the soldiers coming from theheartland. His utmost objective became theelevation of a neglected people fromnaught to pride, to give them an identity, areason and hope for life, peace and pros-perity and to give them a chance to controltheir own future. Being aware of the factthat an ethnic nationalism would be ablock rather than help in building thenational unity and identity he became out-spoken in denouncing the ethnic national-ism of the Union & Progress Party. On theother hand, he was aware that a nationalidentity was indispensable to building thenational unity, which in turn was funda-mental to building the nation.

Ironically, nationalism was born inEurope and was spread worldwide by polit-ical and/or by military means but becameundesirable by the Europeans themselvesafter the brutal application of the Germanethnic nationalism in the heart of Europe.The emergence of the European Union fur-ther necessitated the elimination of nation-alism from their vocabulary altogether.However, despite the bad rap that Germansgave to nationalism and despite the EU,national identity persists in the politicalstructure of the majority of countries.Many countries in the EU still have toresolve their own nationalist problems, likethe Flemish in Belgium, Corsican andBasque in France, Basque and Catalan inSpain, Irish in England. By simply discred-iting nationalism the EU wishes for theseproblems to go away.

Another indispensable element in nationbuilding is a strong leadership that canrally and secure the national unity. Theleader necessarily has to come from withinthe society concerned in order for the lead-ership to be respected and effective. Anyextraneous attempt to assert authority in acountry by military power or economicimpositions will only create or strengthenlocal religious, ethnic or ideological feel-ings. Where there is no national unity andleadership such notions will contribute toand may even hasten the disintegration ofthe country.

Prof. H. Ozdemir in his book titledAtatürk’s Leadership Secrets (Baskent Un.2006) lists the following among the leader-ship qualifications of Atatürk *:

1- Having a rational objective, andbeing courageous. Quoting Prof. S.Sinanoglu, Turkish Humanism,Turkish History Institute, 1988,“Civilization for Atatürk was unique,as it was for the Philosophes of theenlightenment period. He saw thecivilization as the result of political,social, legal, economic, mental,moral, and cultural advancement.Since the civilization marks the ulti-mate point of human advancement,and there cannot be two mostadvanced points, societies fallenbehind that point are deprived of civ-ilization relative to the delay theyincur.”

2- Devotion to the country and to thenation.

3- Receiving legitimacy from the nation,from the national representatives.Quoting Atatürk, “When I landed inSamsun in May 1919 I had no powerat all. I only had a strong moralpower filling my soul, whichemanates from the high qualities ofthe Turkish nation. I set to workbelieving in that national power.”

4- Planning for peace as well as for war.Quoting Y.K.Karaosmanoglu’s obser-vation made at a lecture on Nov. 10,1953 that the Turkish Liberation Warhad two phases “I consider thereforms as the second phase of ourLiberation War. We can call it the


phase fought without arms. BecauseM. Kemal fought to eliminate thepast, to win the battle for renovationand civilization.”

5- Sharing thoughts with the nation,and listening to the nation. “He trav-eled in the country 448 times within15 years between 1923-1938, an aver-age of 30 travels a year with the con-temporary transport means avail-able.” Quoting Atatürk, “I convenedthe people in appropriate places. Itold them to freely ask me questions.I spoke six, seven hours to answer thequestions.”

6- Staying one step ahead of time armedwith the knowledge of the past.Quoting Norbert von Bischoff,Ankara, 1936 “Life is superior to doc-trine. Laws are made and changed bythe people. This motive has been thebasic principle of the pragmaticdemocracy of Turkey.” Prof. ErnstHirsch, Atatürk Research Center

Journal, 1997, “Kemalism is more ofa political movement than a specifictype of regime. The point of depar-ture was not an ideology. There wasno guiding theory or pre-meditatedphilosophy.” Quoting Atatürk, “I amnot bequeathing any dogmas, frozenand molded principles. … To claimto have found some unchangeablerules is to denounce the dynamism ofreason and science.”

7- A realist and reasoned nationalism.Quoting Atatürk, “What I mean by anational policy is to work towards thenation’s and the country’s happinessand development with our ownpower and within our own borders,not to pre-occupy and hurt thenation with unrealizable haphazarddesires; we also expect a mutualfriendship, human and civilized atti-tude from the civilized world.”

8- Competing with the civilized worldin all fields. Quoting Atatürk,

“Nations vary, but civilization is one.A nation needs to participate in thissingular civilization if it were toadvance. … We cannot isolate our-selves. We will live in the contempo-rary civilization as an advanced andcivilized nation. This can be achievedwith science and technology.”

Atatürk remains the sole leader in history,who built a nation against all odds andwith enduring success. Atatürk is stillrevered 68 years after his demise by thenation he built and became stronger andmore prosperous than the one he left.Therefore, his method of nation buildingmust be the paradigm. Whenever the inter-national community makes attempts tonation building it will need “to think likeAtatürk”. There is a saying in Norwegianwhenever rational and clear thinking isneeded, “To think like Atatürk”. On his125th birthday we need not only think ofhim, but also think like him.April 2006 �

ASA Membership FormMembership in ASA is US $50 for a calendar year or for a portion of it. Students pay US $10. Married persons may also register their spouse as fullmembers without additional membership fee. Members' rights include attending the annual General Assembly meetings, voting for and serving onthe Executive Board, receiving the quarterly bulletin, Voice of Atatürk. Active participation in ASA activities is encouraged.

To become a member please fill out the form below and mail to: Atatürk Society of America, 4731 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC 20016

LAST NAME FIRST AND MIDDLE NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

PHONE FAX

EMAIL

Annual Fee: ___________ �� Family �� Individual �� Student

Donations for:

�� Atatürk Research Fund: ___________ �� Donation for Voice of Atatürk: ___________ �� Donation for Other: ___________

Total: ___________

Make sure your check is payable to Atatürk Society of America, 4731 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC 20016Phone: (202) 362 7173 Fax: (202) 363 4075


WHAT ATATÜRK TAUGHT USBoth the Turkish people and other Middle-Eastern people must study and learn whyAtatürk made his reforms in Turkey.

By M. Orhan TarhanFormer ASA President

The genius of Mustafa KemalAtatürk was to define the condi-tions of Europe’s superiority toother nations and to use these

same conditions to convert the Turkishsociety from a backward, Illiterate,Islamic society to a progressive, literate,and laic nation. He thus saved Turkeyfrom becoming non-survivable like theOttoman Empire. He taught us that sur-vivability in the modern world for anynation requires: (a) rational thinking andbehavior, (b) exclusive secular education,(No religious schools) (3) complete sepa-ration of church and state (laicism), and(4) a democratic government system,among other things. He expressed that bythe motto: “Sovereignty belongs uncondi-tionally to the people”. These findings aretimeless truths that any society shouldlearn and apply. This lesson was alreadyproven clearly by the end of Atatürk’s life(1938). Still it was not correctly under-stood and learned by many Turks and bythe world at large in the last 70 years.

This misunderstanding was partiallycaused by the fact that socialists hijackedAtatürk’ s Party, the People’s RepublicanParty, after his death and started to propa-gate many socialist ideas as Atatürk’sideas. While Atatürk had no ideology,they invented something called Kemalismwhich fixed Atatürk’s party platform ofthe 1930’s as a new ideology. ActuallyAtatürk wanted to have constant changeand progress to be always fit to survive inthe modern world. Thus, Atatürk wasnot a Kemalist.

In Turkey, the generation who put itslife in line to fight to get the basis onwhich the Republic was founded is nowslowly dying out. Before the last of themcloses his eyes, the young generation has

elected a religious government that cameto power by promising that it will respectthe principle of laicism. But this Islamicbunch can promise anything and do noth-ing, because Islam allows somethingcalled “takkiyeh” that says that it is allright to lie and cheat, as long as it is forthe good of Islam. These people whocame to power have also sworn on theirhonor to respect and implement thereforms of Atatürk when they were admit-ted to the Turkish parliament. They can-not serve what they consider the good ofIslam and their word of honor at the sametime and they seem to prefer servingIslam. The government of Prime MinisterRecep Tayyip Erdogan is now busy sys-tematically dismantling Atatürk’s reforms.He is making Turkey increasingly less sur-vivable in the modern world. The countrywill still go on for a while with the inertiaof the half-forgotten Atatürk revolution,and then, Heaven forbid, crumble like theOttoman Empire.

It is regrettable that the other Muslimnations in the Middle East created fromthe disintegration of the Ottoman Empiredid not see how Turkey was improvingitself and was making itself survivable inthe modern world using Atatürk’sreforms. I think many of them saw thechange in Turkey, but did not like laicismand the discarding of the Sharia.. It wasvery important for them to train theirmale children in the learning of the Koranin stead in a secular high school, not totrain the female children at all, and mar-rying up to four wives.

That is how and why the Middle East iswhat it is today. It is mostly their choiceand their decision. But those choices anddecisions are usually the products of thekind of education these masses receive. Ifthey go to religious schools, they will keepon sticking to the Saria, to the Koranschools, and of course to abject poverty,

because Koran training does not trainthem to do any money-earning jobs..Only if they go to secular schools, wherethey get a rational scientific educationhave they a chance to chose Atatürkreforms. Apparently they were too few ofthese secular schools and too few of thosewho chose Atatürk’s reforms.

Thus, the only long-range possibility ofrescuing these Muslim societies fromabject poverty, is to wean them from theirreligious schools and to put them in secu-lar schools where they can get a rationaleducation with science and technology,and get the ability to think rationally andthe capability of working in some money-producing jobs. Once the connection ofsecular schools with money-producingjobs is discovered, probably most peoplewill start abandoning their Koran schoolsand join the secular schools. Only when asociety has a majority of secular schoolgraduates, can that society want to haveAtatürk’s reforms.

Both the Turkish people and otherMiddle-Eastern peoples must study andlearn why Atatürk made his reforms inTurkey. Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, andArabia were part of the same OttomanEmpire. Atatürk’s reforms raised Turkey toa higher level than the others. TheAtatürk’s Revolution is only 80 years old.If Turks and every body else would learnand understand why Atatürk’s reformswere necessary, then they certainly wouldnot allow their leaders to lose their surviv-ability (as the Case of Turkey) and theywould urge their leaders to win their sur-vivability for the first time as in the case ofall other Arab countries.

People don’t read history, even recentevents that are just 80 years old. That isdangerous for them. The Americanphilosopher Santayana said that thosewho don’t learn history are condemned torelive it. �

Opinion

In The Eyes of the World. . . . . . .

GAZI MUSTAFA KEMAL ATATÜRK, THE GREATEST

STATESMAN“I obtained information concerning Mustafa Kemal from someone who

knows him very well. When talking with Foreign Minister Litvinov of the

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, he said that in his opinion, the most

valuable and interesting statesman in all of Europe does not live in

Europe today, but beyond the Bosphorus, he lives in Ankara, and that

this was the President of the Turkish Republic, Gazi Mustafa Kemal

Atatürk.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America

. . . . . . .

THE GENIUS OF OUR CENTURYThe centuries rarely produce a genius. Look at this bad luck of ours, that

great genius of our era was granted to theTurkish nation.

David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

. . . . . . .

ATA'S DEATH IS A GREAT LOSS“Atatürk's death is not only a loss for the country, but for Europe is the

greatest loss, he who saved Turkey in the war and who revived anew the

Turkish nation after the war. The sincere tears shed after him by all class-

es of people is nothing other than an appropriate manifestation to this

great hero and modern Turkey's Ata.”

Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

. . . . . . .

A LEADER WITH GREAT UNDERSTANDING“Mustafa Kemal was not a socialist. But it can be perceived that he is a

good organizer, with great understanding, progressive, with good

thoughts and an intelligent leader. He is carrying out a war of independ-

ence against those plunderers. I am believing that he will break the

pride of the imperialists and that he will beat the Sultan together with

his friends. ( 1921 ) “

Vladimir llyich Lenin, Leader of the Russian Revolution

. . . . . . .

HOW CAN I NOT ADMIRE HIM?“Pasha, how can I not admire you? I established a secular government in

France. This government was overthrown by the priests with the help of

the Pope's representatives in Paris. While you got rid of the Caliphate

and established a secular state in the true sense of the word. Within this

fanaticism, how did you make this society accept secularity? The great

work of your genius was to create a secular Turkey. (1933)”

Edouard Herriot, Former Prime Minister of France

. . . . . . .

TURKEY CAN BE PROUD OF ITSELF“In the life of a nation it is very seldom that changes to such a radical

degree were carried out in such a short period of time... Without a doubt,

those who have done these extraordinary activities have earned the

attributes of a great man in the complete sense of the word. And

because of this, Turkey can be proud of itself.” (31 October 1933)

Eleutherios Venizelos, Prime Minister of Greece

Voice of - Ataturk Society of America · 2018-11-26 · Spring’06 Voice of Atatürk3 Hudai...

Documents

Transcript of Voice of - Ataturk Society of America · 2018-11-26 · Spring’06 Voice of Atatürk3 Hudai...