Connect with us

Middle East

Great Purges Of Tyrants

Zakir Gul, Ph.D.

Published

on

Authors: Zakir Gul, Ph.D. & Dr. Kadir Akyuz*

The pages of history are littered with oppressors, dictators, and tyrants from countries large and small across the globe who share a common trait: paranoia that leads to zero tolerance for criticism, disobedience, alternative ideas,competition and any kind of perceived disrespect from supporters and foes alike. A contemporary example is the president of Turkey, who appears to be following in the footsteps of tyrants who came before him.Stalin, for example, applied the Great Purge not only to wealthy peasants and people who had opposed him in the past but also to comrades and friends, Communist leaders, party members and bureaucrats.In the end, millions of friends and enemies alike were executed or died in labor camps. The motivation for Stalin’s actions, as it often is for tyrants, was a perceived threat to his political power and beliefs. Anyone who challenged him had to be dealt with by any means available.

One such enemy in the mind of Stalin was Leon Trotsky, an ardent proponent of the universality of the struggle for rights through the adoption of Communism on an international scale. Stalin, on the other hand, believed that Communist goals were based on a cult of personality and was not particularly supportive of the international struggle for Communism to the degree that many of the original revolutionaries had idealized as a worldwide revolution. The two men’s philosophical differences mattered less to Stalin than what Stalin believed to be Trotsky’s threat to his power. Stalin could not allow Trotsky, the brilliant architect of the strategies that led to the victories in the Soviet civil war, to live. Trotsky had to flee the Soviet Union to escape Stalin’s wrath and attempts to purge a perceived enemy. Trotsky fled to Mexico, where he was welcomed. Stalin, however, was not satisfied with simply having Trotsky out of the Soviet Union; he had to be eliminated. Stalin did not want a man of such stature and brilliance to be in a position—anywhere in the world—to write and speak about the failures of Stalin and the betrayal of the revolution by Stalin and his associates. At the behest of Stalin, an undercover agent for the Soviet Union’s secret police was sent to Mexico to kill Trotsky. The attempt on Trotsky’s life was successful.

Stalin, however, targeted more than high-profile individuals and forced the internal expulsion of various ethnic groups within the borders of the Soviet Union. Entire populations were subjected to harsh conditions, and large numbers perished on their forced journeys. Opponents were either killed abroad or kidnapped and brought back and executed, while others were placed in the Gulags. One example of Stalin’s attempts to stifle opposition is the well-documented case of a man-made famine intended to subdue Ukraine. The Ukrainians tried to hold onto their religion, their private-property ethos and their identity. Millions died in the famine in Ukraine. To control the Ukrainian population, Stalin used terror strategies such as arrests in the middle of the night, secret sentences, executions and punitive sentences in the Gulags. Tens of millions of Ukrainians perished under Stalin—including not only his opponents but also people who fully supported Stalin and the Communist revolution. No one was safe from Stalin’s state terror.

The military also was not exempt. Large numbers of high-ranking officers were arrested tried and convicted and then shot or, in some cases, sent to the Gulags to die. By the time World War II erupted, Stalin had killed so many high-ranking offices that the ability of the Soviet military to operate effectively had been compromised. This situation worked to the advantage of the Germans, who were able to make incredible progress with their invasion of the Soviet Union. The weakened Soviet army could do little to stop the German army’s initial advances.

Much the same has been happening in Turkey since the failure of a military coup on July 15, 2016, which was unlike previous coups the country has experienced. The July coup attempt left many people wondering how it had happened. The Turkish media, now largely under the control of the Erdogan government, have published numerous controversial claims about the origins of the coup attempt. One of the claims by a pro-government newspaper was that the coup has been orchestrated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.Mustafa Akaydin, a member of parliament from Antalya,questioned the coup and likened it to a theatrical play. Erdogan, on the other hand, called the coup a “gift from God.” and made his reasoning clear.

Erdogan’s response to the failed coup spoke volumes about why he considered the coup to be a gift from God. In the immediate aftermath of the coup, for example,the president declared a state of emergency and announced decrees that started the Great Purge of Turkey. Since the coup attempt, 151,967people were dismissed from their jobs; 133,257people were detained; 64,998 people were arrested; 5,822 academicians lost their jobs; 4,463 judges and prosecutors were dismissed; 189 media outlets were shut down; 319 journalists were arrested; and even human rights defenders, including the director of Amnesty International Turkey. Erdogan’s antidemocratic tactics were not limited to Turkish citizens. For example, Andrew Brunson, an American priest, also was targeted. Constitutional human rights were banned, which allowed for the illegal, illegitimate and inhuman application of laws by the Erdogan government.

The West, however, did not find to be credible Erdogan’s argument that his actions were the will of God and were needed to save the country. Most likely, Erdogan was not pleased with the West’s disbelief—despite a concerted effort to prove his predetermined political claims.Not willing to concede defeat, Erdogan responded with increased anger toward the disbelievers.Now a troubling question remains:What is Erdogan’s next course of action when the results of the first plan were not as expected?

One can look to history for some insights. Because tyrants think only of themselves and will do anything to remain in power, they will not hesitate to kill millions of people if doing so will safeguard their hold on power. Leaders who followed this path include Mao Zdong (or Tse-tung), a tyrant responsible for killing 45 million people in just four years. Stalin is believed to have been responsible for killing 40 million (some sources say as many as 60 million) people. Hitler is another example of a leader who showed no remorse for the mass killing of millions of Jews and others. A tyrant’s paranoia mindset makes everyone an enemy except for the tyrant himself. Even the tyrant’s most loyal supporters will, sooner or later, be the victims of the paranoid leader’s ruthless ambition.

Based on history, the prospects for Turkey look grim. Erdogan’s purge of Turkish citizens may ensnare even more people through massive killings and massacres of his own people if the president continues to be motivated by an obsession with power and a fear of losing that power. Will civilian groups be enlisted to carry out the killings? Is the public speech of well-known mafia leader Sedat Peker, who pledges allegiance to the supreme ruler of Turkey, be the harbinger of such a plan?An excerpt from Peker’s speech is telling: “We will hang them [the others] to the nearest flagstaffs, we will hang them to the nearest trees…I swear…We will continue to hang them in the prisons, as well…We will apply such things [tortures] that were not even seen on the horror movies.”

Peker’s incendiary words and Erdogan’s quest to retain power at all costs—even the lives of his countrymen—need to be met with equal outrage by people who support democracy and human rights and the rule of law. They must not turn a blind eye to what is unfolding in Turkey or believe that the same could never happen to them. Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran ministerwho lived in concentration camps for seven years during Nazi rule, saw firsthand the folly of not speaking up in face of injustice when the injustice is happening to someone else. When the Nazis came for the Socialists, the Trade Unionists and the Jews, Niemöller recalled in the early post-war years, he did not speak out. The consequences of his inaction became clear when the Nazis came for Niemöller. His words were stark: “… —and there was no one left to speak for me.” Remaining silent is not the answer to the deeds of power-hungry tyrants.Today the “someone else” is the Turkish people, tomorrow another someone else, until a tomorrow comes and no one is left to speak.

*Dr. Kadir Akyuz is an assistant professor at University of Bridgeport.

Zakir Gul, Ph.D., is an associate professor in criminal justice at State University of New York (SUNY) in Plattsburgh, where he teaches courses such as terrorism, cyber-terrorism, homeland security and intelligence, transnational crime, and policing and society. Previously, he founded a graduate program on international security and served as the founding director. He also worked in several research centers on terrorism and intelligence, and served as the deputy editor-in-chief of a peer-reviewed journal on policing.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

“Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen.”

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

On August 17th, an anonymous German intelligence analyst who has perhaps the world’s best track-record of publicly identifying and announcing historical turning-points, and who is therefore also a great investigative journalist regarding international relations (especially military matters, which are his specialty) headlined at his “Moon of Alabama” blog, “Long Range Attack On Saudi Oil Field Ends War On Yemen”, and he opened:

Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen. It has no defenses against new weapons the Houthis in Yemen acquired. These weapons threaten the Saudis economic lifelines. This today was the decisive attack:

Drones launched by Yemen’s Houthi rebels attacked a massive oil and gas field deep inside Saudi Arabia’s sprawling desert on Saturday, causing what the kingdom described as a “limited fire” in the second such recent attack on its crucial energy industry.  …

The Saudi acknowledgement of the attack came hours after Yahia Sarie, a military spokesman for the Houthis, issued a video statement claiming the rebels launched 10 bomb-laden drones targeting the field in their “biggest-ever” operation. He threatened more attacks would be coming. 

New drones and missiles displayed in July 2019 by Yemen’s Houthi-allied armed forces

Today’s attack is a check-mate move against the Saudis. Shaybah is some 1,200 kilometers (750 miles) from Houthi-controlled territory. There are many more important economic targets within that range.  …

The attack conclusively demonstrates that the most important assets of the Saudis are now under threat. This economic threat comes on top of a seven percent budget deficit the IMF predicts for Saudi Arabia. Further Saudi bombing against the Houthi will now have very significant additional cost that might even endanger the viability of the Saudi state. The Houthi have clown prince Mohammad bin Salman by the balls and can squeeze those at will.

He went on to say that the drones aren’t from Iran but are copies from Iran’s, “assembled in Yemen with the help of Hizbullah experts from Lebanon.”

He has been predicting for a long time that this war couldn’t be won by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud (MbS). In the present report, he says:

The war on Yemen that MbS started in March 2015 long proved to be unwinnable. Now it is definitely lost. Neither the U.S. nor the Europeans will come to the Saudis help. There are no technological means to reasonably protect against such attacks. Poor Yemen defeated rich Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi side will have to agree to political peace negotiations. The Yemeni demand for reparation payments will be eye watering. But the Saudis will have no alternative but to cough up whatever the Houthi demand.

The UAE was smart to pull out of Yemen during the last months.

If he is correct (and I have never yet found a prediction from him turn out to have been wrong), then this will be an enormous blow to the foreign markets for U.S.-made weapons, since the Sauds are the world’s largest foreign purchasers of those, and have spent profusely on them — and also on U.S. personnel to train their soldiers how to use them. So (and this is my prediction, not his), August 19th might be a good time to sell short U.S. armament-makers such as Lockheed Martin.

However: his prediction that “the Saudis will have no alternative but to cough up whatever the Houthi demand” seems to me to be the first one from him that could turn out to have been wrong. If the Sauds have perpetrated, say, $200 billion of physical damage to Yemen, but refuse to pay more than $100 billion in reparations, and the Housis then hit and take out a major Saudi oil well, isn’t it possible that the Sauds would stand firm? But if they do, then mightn’t it be wrong to say, at the present time, that: “Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen.”? He has gone out on limbs before, and I can’t yet think of any that broke under him. Maybe this one will be the first? I wouldn’t bet on that. But this one seems to me to be a particularly long limb. We’ll see!

Continue Reading

Middle East

The message behind the release of Iranian oil tanker

Mohammad Ghaderi

Published

on

The Gibraltar court ordered the Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 to be released. The tanker was seized by the British Royal Marines about a month ago. 

This verdict was the ending of an elaborate game designed by John Bolton National Security Advisor of the United States and Mike Pompeo, carried out by the Britain government. 

With seizing the tanker, Bolton was trying to put psychological and political pressures on Iran and force other countries to form a consensus against Iran, but he couldn’t fulfill any of these goals. 

Iran’s firm, logical and wise answer to the seizure of Grace 1 (like making solid legal arguments) and the seriousness of our country’s armed forces in giving a proper response to Britain’s contemptuous act, made the White House lose the lead on reaching its ends. 

Washington imagined that the seizure of Grace 1 will become Trump’s winning card against Iran, but the release of the tanker (despite disagreement of the U.S.) became another failure for the White House in dealing with Iran.  

Obviously, London was also a total loser in this game. It is worth noting that U.S. was so persistent about keeping the oil tanker in custody that John Bolton traveled to London and insisted on British officials to continue the seizure of the ship. Their failure, however, clearly shows that the White House and its traditional ally, Britain, have lost a big part of their power in their relations with Iran. 

Clearly, the illegal seizure of the Iranian oil tanker by Britain proceeded by the seizure of a British tanker by Iran and the following interactions between the two countries is not the whole story and there is more to it that will be revealed in coming days. 

What we know for sure is that London has to pay for its recent anti-Iran plot in order to satisfy Washington; the smallest of these consequences was that Britain lost some of its legal credibility in international arena as it illegally captured an Iranian oil tanker. 

The order of the Gibraltarian court revealed that London had no legal right to seize the Iranian oil tanker and nobody can defend this unlawful action. Surely, Iran will take all necessary legal actions to further pursue the matter.  

In this situation, the Islamic Republic of Iran is firm on its position that it doesn’t have to follow the sanctions imposed by the European Union on other countries (including Syria). 

No entity can undermine this argument as it is based on legal terms; therefore, Iran will keep supporting Syrian nation and government to fight terrorism. This is the strategic policy of the Islamic Republic and will not be changed under the pressure or influence of any other third country. 

Finally, it should be noted that the release of Grace 1 oil tanker was not only a legal and political failure for Washington and London and their allies but it was also a strategic failure. Undoubtedly, the vast consequences of this failure will be revealed in near future. 

From our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Middle East

Business and boxing: two sides of the same coin

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

What do a planned US$15 billion Saudi investment in petroleum-related Indian businesses and a controversial boxing championship have in common?

Both reflect a world in which power and economics drive policy, politics and business at the expense of fundamental rights.

And both underscore an emerging new world order in which might is right, a jungle in which dissenters, minorities and all other others are increasingly cornered and repressed.

Rather than furthering stability by building inclusive, cohesive societies both support trends likely to produce an evermore unstable and insecure world marked by societal strife, mass migration, radicalization and violence.

A world in which business capitalizes on decisions by a critical mass of world leaders who share autocratic, authoritarian and illiberal principles of governance and often reward each other with lucrative business deals for policies that potentially aggravate rather than reduce conflict.

No doubt, the planned acquisition by Saudi Arabia’s state-owned national oil company Aramco of 20 percent of the petroleum-related businesses of Reliance Industries, one of India’s biggest companies, makes commercial and strategic economic and business sense.

Yet, there is equally little doubt that the announcement of the acquisition will be read by Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, days after he scrapped the autonomous status of the troubled, majority Muslim region of Kashmir, as a license to pursue his Hindu nationalist policies that discriminate against Muslims and other minorities and fuel tensions with Pakistan, the subcontinent’s other nuclear power.

The ultimate cost of the fallout of policies and business deals that contribute or give license to exclusion rather than inclusion of all segments of a population and aggravate regional conflict could be far higher than the benefits accrued by the parties to a deal.

Underscoring the risk of exclusionary policies and unilateral moves, cross border skirmishes between Indian and Pakistani forces erupted this week along the Kashmiri frontier in which at least five people were killed.

The timing of the announcement of the Aramco Reliance deal in a global environment in which various forms of racism and prejudice, including Islamophobia, are on the rise, assures Indian political and business leaders that they are unlikely to pay an immediate price for policies that sow discord and risk loss of life.

Like in the case of Saudi and Muslim acquiescence in China’s brutal clampdown on Turkic Muslims in the troubled, north-western Chinese province of Xinjiang, the most frontal assault on a faith in recent history, the announcement risks convincing embattled Muslim minorities like the Uighurs, the Kashmiris or Myanmar’s Rohingya who are lingering in refugee camps in Bangladesh that they are being hung out to dry.

To be sure, Kashmiris can count on the support of Pakistan but that is likely to be little more than emotional, verbal and political.

Pakistan is unlikely to risk blacklisting by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international anti-money laundering and terrorism finance watchdog, at its next scheduled meeting in October by unleashing its anti-Indian militants.

Anthony Joshua’s controversial fight with Andy Ruiz scheduled for December in Saudi Arabia, the first boxing championship to be held in the Middle East, pales in terms of its geopolitical or societal impact compared to the Saudi Indian business deal.

Fact is that Saudi Arabia’s hosting of the championship has provoked the ire of activists rather than significant population groups. The fight is furthermore likely to be seen as evidence and a strengthening of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s selective efforts to socially liberalize the once austere kingdom.

Nonetheless, it also reinforces Prince Mohammed’s justified perception that Saudi Arabia can get away with imprisoning activists who argued in favour of his reforms as well as the lack of transparency on judicial proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Saudi Arabia insists the killing was perpetrated by rogue operatives.

What Saudi investment in India and the scheduled boxing championship in the kingdom have in common is that both confirm the norms of a world in which ‘humane authority,’ a concept developed by prominent Chinese international relations scholar Yan Xuetong, is a rare quantity.

Mr. Yan employs the concept to argue without referring to President Xi Jinping, Xinjiang, China’s aggressive approach towards the South China Sea or its policy towards Taiwan and Hong Kong that China lacks the humane authority to capitalize on US President Donald J. Trump’s undermining of US leadership.

Mr. Yan defines a state that has humane authority as maintaining strategic credibility and defending the international order by becoming an example through adherence to international norms, rewarding states that live up to those norms and punishing states that violate them. Garnering humane authority enables a state to win allies and build a stable international order.

Mr. Yan’s analysis is as applicable to India and Saudi Arabia as it is to China and others that tend towards civilizational policies like the United States, Russia, Hungary and Turkey.

It is equally true for men like Anthony Joshua promoter Eddie Hearn and business leaders in general.

To be sure, Aramco is state-owned and subject to government policy. Nonetheless, as it prepares for what is likely to be the world’s largest initial public offering, even Aramco has to take factors beyond pure economic and financial criteria into account.

At the end of the day, the consequence of Mr. Yan’s theory is that leadership, whether geopolitical, economic or business, is defined as much by power and opportunity as it is by degrees of morality and ethics.

Failure to embrace some notion of humane authority and reducing leadership and business decisions to exploiting opportunity with disregard for consequences or the environment in which they are taken is likely to ultimately haunt political and business leaders alike.

Said Mr. Yan: “Since the leadership of a humane authority is able to rectify those states that disturb the international order, the order based on its leadership can durably be maintained.”

What is true for political leaders is also true for business leaders even if they refuse to acknowledge that their decisions have as much political as economic impact.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy