Whose mill does the tension between the current alliances carry water for?

I would like to share with you my observations on whose mill the tension between the current alliances in Turkey, which is trying to overcome the earthquake trauma, carries water for whose mill.

When we look at the energy production and supply centres of the ancient world, we see that the countries with which we are brothers by blood/race and religion/Islam are conflict zones. Except for the Gulf countries, most of them are poor and continue to get poorer because of the actual and/or proxy wars in these regions. 

Hatay is very strategic in this respect and is physically crushed due to the earthquake. Based on my article on the late Cemil Meriç, who was born in the region, I would like to ask whether it is possible to read the tension in our country as being solely between the People's and National Alliance, since the duty of the intellectual is to protect the rights of Turkey first. Again, in the words of Cemil Meriç, "The true intellectual is first of all responsible for shouting out the rights of his country to a hostile world.  It is to defend the whole of his country against all countries without being an ideologue or demagogue of this or that class."

- Is it possible to evaluate it independently from international politics and global actors?

The recent debates have once again shown the extent of the anger and resentment against Turkish Nationalists in general and Turkish Nationalists in particular, who see their ideal/idealism as bringing Turkey to the level of contemporary civilisation and who are trying to achieve this in different lanes without breaking them. Considering that two members of the counter-alliance, who say that they are fighting against the People's Alliance, have been in charge of the main group they are directly fighting for years, and the other party is already a kind of "father's hearth", it is impossible not to see that this anger and resentment is in the position of sharp vinegar. There is no point in dwelling on these issues now, because once the dust settles, then we need to talk about them.

The point I want to draw attention to here is that the debates in our country cannot be considered independent of international politics and global actors. The first premise of my reading of political philosophy in the context of the history of Islamic thought is that from the earliest periods, governments have used religious arguments as a means of legitimacy. Apart from the system put forward by the Arab and Persian intellects, the Turkish intellect and the vision of Islam established uninterrupted sovereignty in the ancient world with the Ghaznavid, Qarakhanid, Seljuk and Ottoman Turks. 

Considering that the Republic of Turkey has also inherited this accumulation, it seems to me that it would be naive to think that the developments in the last projection of the structure that has dominated the current energy supply and production centres for centuries are far from international connections. 

The longest lasting of the Islamic states was the Ottoman Empire with 622 years, the Indian Mughal Empire for 330 years and the Umayyad Caliphate of Quruba for 277 years. The Safavid State, founded by a Turkic tribe in Iran, collapsed 185 years before the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman-Safavid conflict was legitimised on the basis of sect (Sunni-Shiism). So what was the justification for the Ottoman war with the Mamluks, who were Sunnis and called al-Dawlet al-Turkiyya?  The issue should be considered together with the political economy of that period. By reading the period in terms of the Mediterranean and trade routes.

The era of readings on the Muslim-Christian, east-west tension is over; you are not going to start with the Ukraine-Russia conflict, both of them are Christians, moreover they are the same sect; you are not going to start with the sects, or rather the religious imaginations of the Western states that helped Ukraine, are you?

Let's go back again; in the 14th and 15th centuries, Europeans had developed a habit of consuming luxury goods such as rare spices imported from Asia. The spread of Islam, especially the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, was also the event that ushered in the age of discovery in Europe.  In 1517, the Ottoman conquest of Egypt disrupted direct trade with Far East Asia and necessitated the need for Europeans to find a new trade route. 

In this context, the Portuguese reached the Cape of Good Hope in 1488. Within ten years, they established a centre of power in the Indian Ocean. In 1492 Christopher Columbus sets off westwards to India and reaches America. 

In 1789, the Netherlands invaded the Indian subcontinent through the Cape of Good Hope and France under Napoleon invaded Egypt (1798). As a result of Columbus's constant westward endeavour to find another route to India, the American continent became one of the occupied territories. Western countries gradually began to colonise North Africa, the Middle East and Eastern countries; the continuous weakening and eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire accelerated this process.

As a result of the technological advances and discoveries initiated by the Spanish and Portuguese explorers in the 15th century, the first colonial movements and the formation process of capitalism, which followed the industrial revolution that emerged in England in the 18th century, had begun. Until the 17th century, this process continued under the name of mercantilism, and in the second half of the 17th century, with the participation of England, France, the Netherlands and Germany, colonialism in Northern and Central Europe began to spread rapidly all over the world. Here, England and France sometimes came together and sometimes clashed with each other. Later, Italians, Russians and Portuguese became partners in this sharing. 

- And the British mind comes into play!

Now visualise the Ottoman map and the map of the Mughal State in your mind, who dominated those regions after the 18th centuries? Britain, more precisely Great Britain; the state mind that somehow continues this with around fifty countries that are members of the Commonwealth today. 

- Where are the USA and the EU in this international conflict? 

Starting in the 1980s and with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the same projects under the name of globalisation and the new world order began. Because globalisation can be defined as the process of creating a global market by eliminating all economic barriers and integrating markets in order to ensure the free movement of capital around the world. Under the leadership of the USA, institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and GATT are global institutions organised to regulate the world economy as a whole. 

Today, the world is witnessing the US attempts to establish a global hegemony after the collapse of the Soviet Union (1991). In order to take control of energy resources such as oil and natural gas and energy routes, and to be close to Russia and China, the US wants to implement policies in the region that will allow it to control the Middle East. 

Its main goal is to dominate in Eurasia and the Middle East and to maintain its oligarchic hegemony in the world with all elements of imperial power. 

- The Struggle of Global Powers in Iraq, Syria and the South of Turkey

Now think about Hatay, Urfa, Gazi Antep and Adıyaman region, Syria and Iraq, which have become very sensitive due to the earthquake, together with Russia-China-Iran and Turkey; do the interests of the USA, EU and UK overlap or diverge in this region?      

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia, as a constituent element, withdrew into itself, regrouped and started to formulate its policies as "Neo-Eurasianism". It is known that Eurasianism periodically overlapped with the civilisationalist philosophy of history of Arnold Toynbee and Oswald Spengler in Europe and had various common points. The Eurasianism movement, which lost its influence after the 1930s, forms the theoretical background of Russia's political and economic recovery and is shaped within the framework of Aleksandr Dugin's views. Today, it can even be said that it is the ideological infrastructure of the foreign policy pursued by Russian foreign policy after the first decade of the 2000s.

- Let us return to Britain again: 

Great Britain dominated the entire Indian peninsula in the early 18th century. They conquered Egypt in 1882 and Sudan in 1889.  At the end of the century, the Dutch captured the whole of the East Indies. 

France captured Algeria in 1835, Tunisia in 1881 and Morocco in 1912. Russians expanded towards Central Asia. Italy occupied Libya in 1912.  After World War I, the British and French duo took possession of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire. 

Recall that the leader of France constantly travelled to African countries and declared that he was uncomfortable with the presence of China and Turkey in the region. I. Alivey recently made a harsh statement on France's colonial mentality. 

Recall also the visit of the US Secretary of State/Prime Minister to Germany, where Pahlavi's son was invited to speak at the democracy session of the NATO meeting. 

Then the Secretary-General visited our country, visited Hatay and travelled to Central Asia. There, the leaders of the Turkic Speaking States, who had lived under the USSR for 80 years and felt the breath of China on their necks at every moment, called for help for Ukraine. 

What upset me the most was when he went to Uzbekistan and stated that they would donate 25 million dollars for English education and donate books in the country that took the harshest measures against the group that attempted the coup in 2016. To see that once upon a time these activities were organised out of the pockets of the citizens of our country...

Look at the historical foundations of the maps of Russia and Ukraine and see why Turkey has been successful in playing an active role in this tension. As the saying goes, if you dig up Russia, you will find Turks, Kipchak Turks and Tatars to a significant extent. Consider that Germany and China are developing economically and that China will soon overtake the USA. And the revival of the Silk Road by railways, of course, there is a main line, and there are lines going over the Black Sea and lines going over South Turkistan, that is, Afghanistan. Wherever you go, the land says that these were once the Turkish Homeland, and these are the places where Turks still live. 

- The Effectiveness of Turkish and British Minds

Turkestan, i.e. Inner Asia, and Turkey, i.e. Asia Minor, have been dominated by Turkish and British minds for centuries. The struggle of the Turkish mind against the Chinese mind goes back to Tonyukuk. Everyone knows that the transformation of Russia from a small kingdom into a world state started with Emir Timur's destruction of the Golden Horde, a Turkish State. In other words, the Turkish and Russian Minds have been active here for centuries. 

Well, is it possible to say that the American, German and French Minds, the Russian and British Minds are also Western, therefore their goals are the same? Looking at the places their leaders go and the statements they make, it does not seem so, there are conflicts between them again, as in history. 

If you ask what England's privilege is, they say that it is due to the fact that it eliminated the Middle Way in the West, the two extremes, namely the supremacy of the monarch and the Pope. In other words, this work goes back to Heinrich IV -Pope Gregor VII's Canossa I in 1077, known as Canossa I and Canossa II. 

If we briefly recall what the "Middle Way" or "3rd Option" is, we can say that it is England's creation of an essentially pragmatic philosophy that is a mixture of secular and metaphysical principles. In other words, with Henry VIII's establishment of Anglicanism as the official denomination, the authority of the Papacy was rejected, and with an edict issued by Queen Elizabeth I in 1563, the government was represented by the church, the king and the queen.  The language of worship was also changed from Latin to English. 

Philosophically, this was justified by Roger Bacon, who was highly influenced by Ibn Sina and regarded him as the greatest philosopher after Aristotle. For this philosopher, please remember the articles on "Is Metaphysics Dry Rhetoric and Babble?" in "A Breath of Philosophy". 

As the scholar who established the dualism of the English way of thinking without any otherisation, he is the one who established the balance between mystical enlightenment and inner experience leading to religion and observation leading to true science, that is, to experimental sciences. The important thing is to keep it in balance in a dualistic structure, but not to reduce one to the other. According to Aliya Izetbegovic, this is the true expression of the British mentality. 

The importance of this lies in the fact that while an empiricist in continental Europe became an atheist, John Locke, the theorist of this in England, was able to make the concept of God the central point of the theory of morality. By transferring this to politics, England revitalised democracy. 

Conclusion: 

Friends, brothers and sisters, the world is big, the streets are narrow, let's be able to look each other in the eye and face when we meet one day; I say let's share ideas about our country and solution proposals without offending each other. It is useful to act with caution by paying attention to the historical accumulations of the Russian, Chinese, British Mind, the German, French Minds in the European Union and the position of the USA. Therefore, instead of expressions that fuelling the conflict environment in our country, we need to think on the basis of international balances, and unless we know the backgrounds of those who tell us - which seems very difficult at the moment - we need to calm down and reflect. Because there is nothing consistent about opening wounds in our souls that are difficult to close while trying to repair the material damages of the physical tremors caused by the earthquake.