Customer Reviews

Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds

5 star:		(45)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(17)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Thank you, Mr. Kinzer.

To all reading this, please buy this book if Turkey or world cultures interest you.

I've heard Turkey and Turks called everything from genocides to barbarians to philistines to militarists and just as easily, I've heard the country brushed off as if it's just another fragment of a nation, a third-world country. The problem is that Turkey is only half-known, and Turkey is half-sure of what it must do.

The book makes clear all the difficulties of Turkey and its search for a place in the sun. Yes, there were massacres of Armenians after their support of Russia in WWI. Yes, there have been several military coups that tortured thousands of people. Yes, the Kurdish wars were terrible and kept secret by the government. But what were the circumstances of these events? Kinzer answers all, taking the right people to task for the crimes in Turkey's past.

The wonderful thing is that Kinzer doesn't shy away from the awful realities, the eccentricities, and the outright pitfalls of Turkey's quirky system. He tells it all how it is, but he obviously loves the country all the same. He just hopes it will fix its flaws as he knows it can.

I am of Turkish descent but this book written by a non-Turkish American thoroughly deepened my appreciation for the country. If you're attracted by the book at all, follow your instincts and pick it up.

You can learn a good deal about Turkey from this book but it suffers two weaknesses. One is the heavy-handed prescriptions for Turkey which the author voices repeatedly; while much of the analysis seems cogent, there is an almost-arrogance in the idea of an American reporter telling the Turks how they should fix their nation. The second is the almost total omission of any discussion of the role of women in the culture --- a critical and profoundly interesting question as the country finds its way between East and West.

A truly modern Turkey governed by the rule of law would raise the Turkish people to levels of
prosperity and self-confidence they have never known before. Despite the country's political and
psychological underdevelopment, it has the resources to become a towering power. If it can
liberate
itself from its paralyzing fears and embrace true democracy, it will also serve as a magnetic
example of how the ideals of liberty can triumph over enormous obstacles. By adding moral
strength to its military strength, Turkey could become a dominant force in the Middle East,
encouraging peace and pulling Arab countries away from the social backwardness and feudal
dictatorship under which most of them now suffer. It could exert a mighty and stabilizing
influence westward to the Balkans and eastward to the Caucasus and Central Asia, becoming the
key power in a region that is strategically vital, overwhelmingly rich in oil and other resources, and
now ruled mostly by tyrants who are dragging it toward chaos.
-Stephen Kinzer, Crescent & Star

Though we pay obscenely little attention, Turkey is an extraordinarily important nation and its future
may go a long way to determining whether Islam and democracy can ultimately co-exist in one
nation. Geographically and politically, Turkey occupies a unique position, squeezed between Europe
to the West and the Islamic world to the East. Though traditionally Muslim, its great revolutionary
leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, upon taking power in 1922 and establishing a Republic, reoriented the
nation towards the West, toward the values of the Enlightenment and the institutions of secular
democracy. But still today, despite the continuing devotion of Turks to the person and ideas of
Ataturk, it remains an open question as to whether the democracy can endure.

Stephen Kinzer was the NY Times correspondent in Turkey for four event filled years and his passion
for the country and its people is infectious. In conversational but admonitory style he manages both
to educate Westerners as to the history and cultural richness of Turkey while also honestly depicting
its internal problems, many of them unresolved, and firmly prodding Turks to deal with them, as a
great nation must.

One very effective device Kinzer uses is a series of brief interludes each dealing with one element of
Turkish life. These include : the fez; raki, the national drink; the nargile, or water pipe; the nation's
three favorite sports--camel fighting, oil wrestling, and cirit (a form of jousting); the literature of
Nazim Hikmet; and the romantic endeavor of swimming the Bosphorus. These quick chapters provide
a rich and fascinating texture to go along with the history.

The hero of the story is very much Ataturk, who at least in Kinzer's portrait seems to have been one
of the most remarkable national leaders of the 20th Century. Like Peter the Great in Russia and the
Shah in Iran, which not coincidentally are the two other equally troublesome Eurasian democracies,
he found it intolerable that his people should be so far behind the West in terms of technology, wealth
creation and self governance, and so, using dictatorial means, he imposed Western institutions an an
often reluctant populace and tried eliminating persistent vestiges of the Ottoman past. That the
Republic endures, is allied with NATO, has a strategic partnership with Israel, and is on the verge of
entering the EU is testimony to his success. But the too frequent necessity for the armed forces to step
in and depose governments, the oppression of the Kurd minority, and the very real fear of a takeover
of government by radical Islamicists, illustrates just how tenuous the democracy remains.

Kinzer is extremely optimistic about Turkey's future and feels that it can afford to face its past more
honestly than it has--including such issues as the Kurds, Cyprus, and the Armenian massacre--and can
take the risk of loosening the Kemalist grip on society, the military backed determination of Turkey's
elites that no threat to Kemal Ataturk's legacy will be permitted. I certainly hope that he is right,
though I'm not as confident.

Even as this book hits the stores, Turkey has decided to allow the United States to operate out of
Turkish airbases in the war on terrorism. Once again, Turkey is proving itself to be a far more
important ally than we in the West give it credit for. Hopefully Stephen Kinzer's excellent book will
educate many Americans as to the unique and potentially vital role in world affairs that Turkey, with
its uneasy blend of democracy and Islam, may play in the coming decades. We have a far larger stake
in the outcome of Turkey's internecine struggles than we seem to realize.

GRADE : A-

"Crescent and Star" is a very intriguing, accessible, and passionately written overview of Turkey, with special emphasis on its struggle to emerge as a democratic state. While some have complained that this book is "shallow," I think that's being overly harsh, since, with all the history and varied cultures that have defined modern-day Turkey, copious volumes could still be written that would provide new insight.

Author Stephen Kinzer should be credited with producing a fluidly written and I daresay exhilirating introduction to this fascinating nation that, as the subtitle suggests, literally and symbolicallly stands between "two worlds." Kinzer comes across as a sort of "cheerleader" for Turkey and the Turkish people, not hiding his hopes that this tradition-steeped nation reach its potential to become the world's first Islamic democracy. And why shouldn't he cheer? The implications of Turkey attaining this goal are nothing short of staggering.

As Kinzer points out, Turkey is faced with the challenge of forging a secularist, free, multicultural, and economically strong nation. It's enticing destiny is not to become another United States, but to achieve a world stature that will in certain ways exceed that of the United States. The U.S. became the world's poster-nation for freedom, in large measure, because its history was forged in a relatively short time, unencumbered by centuries-old antagonisms. You often hear that peace is hopeless in the Middle East because of the anciently rooted antagonisms that continue to fester. Kinzer shows glimmers of hope that Turkey, while never dismissing nor forgetting its history, may just be capable of breaking free of its oppressive grasp. This is something the U.S. never had to overcome. Turkey's success would forever put to rest the argument that Middle East nations are incapable of peace because history works against that goal. Turkey would be the first to show that, while history defines what a nation is, a nation can nevertheless become the author of its own history, making it hopeful.
It is this perspective that Kinzer lays out, and it is easy to understand why he is so enamored with it. After reading
"Crescent and Star," you will be too. You will also understand why those who are committed to perpetuating the sad and worn out legacy of violence and extremism will continue to hope that Turkey does not succeed.

The book is basically structured around a variety of themes that Kinzer believes either speak to Turkey's present day dilemmas or are indispensable to understand the notion of being a citizen of Turkey. Some of these themes are the achievements and cult of Ataturk, interplay between the military and political circles, the Kurdish problem, the status of religion, human rights matters, the 1999 earthquake, relations with Greece and Turkey's future potential. Interspersed with these themes are vignettes about life in Turkey, touching on such subjects as the art of raki drinking, Gallipoli, nargile smoking, Turks in Korea, Bosphorus, Nazim Hikmet, cirit, wrestling, and the author's interrogation by security forces in SouthEast Turkey.
One common theme that emanates from the book is the pleasure Kinzer has derived from having lived in Turkey and his conviction that Turkey is capable of achieving so much more. At the same time he feels compelled to "show the way" on issues that Turkey needs to resolve to achieve that promise. While many of Kinzer's diagnoses and assessments are accurate and realistic, not all are. I believe his analysis is especially deficient and superficial in his treatment of the threats Turkey faces. His view is that the threats Turkey faced during its founding are basically all gone and Turkey should now go all the way in terms of being magnanimous with its neighbors in solving its bilateral problems, owning up to issues in its recent and more distant past and opening up the society internally. He also consistently voices the opinion that the ruling classes in Turkey, politicians and the army brass, are quite paranoid about blowing up unfounded fears to restrict the opening of the society. I believe this premise is flawed; the least so by the fact that three of the four countries (other than Afghanistan) identified as terrorist countries in the world today are Turkey's direct neighbors. And the ones that are not mentioned in this count are Greece, Bulgaria, Russia and Armenia, all of whom have for decades worked openly or secretly to undermine the Turkish society and nation. There is not a single other country in the world that faces a geography like this. I wonder whether Americans would feel their country faced no threats if both Canada and Mexico were fomenting terrorist activities in the U.S. and Japan, Germany and Russia were funding, training and organizing terrorist activities inside the U.S.!
Turkey has also clearly faced an armed insurgency for the past 20 years, explicitly funded, trained and protected by foreign powers including Greece, Armenia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Germany, Belgium and France among others. Kinzer's analysis of the PKK matter is therefore somewhat superficial. His assessment of the Armenian issue is also very superficial, one-sided and void of any real research. His treatise does not go any further than repeating known propaganda. You can get as clear and as unbiased an opinion of the matter as you would if you covered the Sep 11 tragedy by only reflecting to Al Kaida and Taliban's perspectives! I believe Kinzer is much closer to the mark in his treatment of Ataturk, corruption in political circles and the impact of the earthquake in the Turkish psyche. I am sure that some of the public policy and security measures that have been in place in Turkey for some time must have gained a whole new respect in Kinzer's eyes, when viewed in the context of the recent security precautions and measures U.S. has felt compelled to adopt, all the way to military tribunals.
The delight of the book is in the slice-of-life vignettes, or "meze" sections, as Kinzer calls them. Here Kinzer is very effective in describing the tone of the country, its people and heritage.
Overall, the book is useful in presenting to the reader a summary of all major issues on Turkey's agenda in the last decade.

Having traveled to Turkey numerous times for both business and vacation (I generally spend two weeks each summer in Istanbul and Bodrum), I thought Kinzer did a spendid job of describing the crossroads Turkey is at. In the aftermath of September 11th, the book is particularly relevant, as it examines what is frequently being referred to as the "model" for a secular Islamic state.

The book is also an easy read for anyone interested in Turkey and its important future role in Middle East/Central Asia-Western relations, as it provides an excellent view into the various internal and external conflicts Turkey has had to address, without becoming too bogged down in a detailed history. Although at times fairly critical of the Turkish government and military, generally, the captivating spirit and culture of the Turkish people shine through.

The vignettes that precede each chapter about the author's experience with Turkish culture - swimming the Bosphorous, enjoying raki (the Turkish national drink), attending olive oil wrestling and camel fights, and even spending a night in a Turkish jail - add a wonderful personal and human touch to the book.

All in all, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Turkey and/or current affairs in the Middle East/Central Asia.

Readers who find Thomas Friedman's books insufferable will find much to annoy them in Stephen Kinzer's book on Turkey. Kinzer is another New York Times correspondent who is able to make glib assertions about peoples and conflicts moments after arriving in a country.

Here he is on the Kurds: "Kurds are poor, share a collective memory of rebellion and have used guns to solve their problems for as long as there have been guns (P. 111)." Here he is on the Middle East: "Since time immemorial, leaders in the Middle East have nurtured a culture of power and confrontation. Winners take all, losers are annihilated and compromise is considered a sign of weakness (p.133)."

A further annoyance is the writing. It is clichéd and uninspired: Abdullah Ocalan is described as a "Marxist firebrand;" the Kurdish conflict is "Turkey's festering wound;" the Black Sea is "cool, verdant and alpine."

Also like Friedman, Kinzer is careful to emphasize the fact that he (the New York Times Correspondent) has access to all the movers and shakers. We learn that in the summer of 1999, he had lunch with Foreign Minister Ismail Cem "at a fashionable restaurant in Ankara." A few days later in Athens, Kinzer meets Cem's "Greek counterpart, George Papandreou." Neither man has anything profound to say, but since Kinzer is a Times correspondent, they will talk to him; and since they have talked to him, why not write it down?

Kinzer has written books on Nicaraqua and Guatemala and, according to the dust jacket, is now the Times national cultural correspondent in Chicago. Further, he has "covered more than fifty countries on four continents." So perhaps he has spread himself a little thin. At least in this book it seems that way.

For a more substantial and less egocentric view of contemporary Turkey, try "Turkey Unveiled: A History of Modern Turkey." Or better still, keep looking and maybe you will find a good book about Turkey written by a Turk.

This book serves as a useful introduction to Turkey and the problems, hopes, challenges, etc., of the country and its people. However, Kinzer's views on democracy in Turkey, in which he repeatedly (dare I say, repetitively) claims that the Turks are "mature enough" for real democracy if only the leaders of the country would let them express it, for example, are patronising and completely lacking in scholarly analysis. One might disagree with him, or one might agree with him, but one would find it difficult to find evidence in the book supporting his biases, especially that Turkey must look toward the West, that Turkey must face up to Armenia and the Kurds, that (as he cites someone saying, having expressed an inability to argue with him) "Turkey is a very faulty democracy with [...] a megalomania that has given it the idea that it is a global power, as if size and population and weaponry rather than democracy and human rights and social peace are what makes a state powerful." (page 211). If not other statement in the book lacked sound historical support, this one does. After all, Rome, China (Current and past), Spain in the 16th century....were all powerful with neither democracy nor human rights. While one might agree with his theses, his presentation of them fails to support them, which makes them useless (how could one argue with one of Turkey's generals with such a quote as the one above, if he claimed that Turkey needed the military, not human rights?). So, in short, read it for information, but look elsewhere for profundity.

In the "Crescent & Star", Stephen Kinzer provides the reader with a flavor of daily life as well as some of the political issues facing Turkey today, such as:  the Kurdish problem, human rights, the role of the military, Ataturk's legacy of a western styled secular republic, Turkey's relations with its neighbors, political aspects of Islam and so on. The Meze (slices of life) sections offer in vivid color such subjects as: Raki drinking, Nargile smoking, swimming across the Bosphorus and others.

Meze sections are excellent as Kinzer observes Turks  with empathy and interest. He manages to jump over cultural hurdles when he drinks Raki and smokes Nargile with them. Stories on oil wrestling, the Korean expedition and Cirit are also insightful and entertaining. Also, Kinzer deserves special credit for devoting an entire meze segment to poet Nazim Hikmet whose works will be universally celebrated this year on the anniversary of his 100th birthday.

It is in his political analysis, however, that Kinzer is weak and appears to be arrogant, illustrating a lack of  knowledge and understanding of the history of the Turkish Republic. To praise Adnan Menderes as a secular democrat  is totally off the mark. Menderes' pro-Islamic actions betrayed Kemal Ataturk's legacy of a modern secular state.

Having pandered for votes from the religious right, it was pay-back time and Menderes began demolishing established secular reforms immediately after winning elections in 1950. It took him less than thirty days to convert ezan (five times daily call for prayer for Muslims) from Turkish back to Arabic! (Ezan had been practised in Turkish since 1928)

Beginning with this event, the direction of the young Republic was changed and the secular movement stalled. (Today, Islam is still practised in Arabic only by all Islamic communities and nations around the world. In Turkey, the Kuran was translated into Turkish but its use was never implemented).

In January 1954, Menderes ordered the highly successful Village Institutes program abolished, denying people in rural communities their source of "Western" education. In a style befitting Nero or Caligula, he ordered streets lowered and buildings wrecked around Istanbul mosques (Muslim religious temples) in order to enhance their visual might and power!  

Menderes committed more tragic errors, including 5-6 September, 1955 show-of-force event when he unleashed his goon squads against the Greek community in Istanbul. Again Kinzer misses the mark when he does not pin this disaster on Menderes.

In 1959 Menderes gained "Prophet" or "Messiah" status among his Islam-fed followers as he walked off unhurt from the plane crash in London en route to attend a conference on Cyprus. Upon his return to Turkey he believed he was invincible and his government became more corrupt and reckless

During the ten year period from May 14, 1950 to May 27, 1960, the Menderes regime allowed limitless freedom to Islamic forces to build a political infrastructure which to this day threatens to divide Turkey. Under the official layer of secular democracy, lies a reactionary Islamic force that is trying to take control over the Turkish nation.

A clear understanding of secularism and Islam is essential for evaluating any issue in Turkey today because the clash for power between these two polarized forces involves everyone and will eventually determine the success (read survival) or failure of the Turkish Republic.

To emphasize the significance of secularism for the continuation of the present State, last year President Ahmet Necdet Sezer (who was previously Chief Supreme Court Justice) declared that secularism would be defended at all costs.

Exhibiting this lack of political understanding only weakens Kinzer's case as well as his unsolicited advice when he admonishes many senior government officials for being weak and narrow-minded. His bland  summaries on  terrorism by the Kurdish PKK organization, the Armenian issue and relations with Greece equally lack substance. Moreover, Kinzer's harsh treatment of the military could mislead the reader about the reality of military's role as defender of the secular state and its constitution.

Contrary to what Kinzer claims, during the Menderes regime, the military had remained outside of politics and allowed the democratically elected government run the country. Since the top echelon of the military was supportive of the civilian rule, however flawed, the coup d'etat  was planned and staged on May 27, 1960 by a cadre of young officers.

It is likely that the military will continue with its mandate to safeguard the secular Republic until Turkey becomes irrevocably a complete, secular democracy.  With ongoing democratic reforms, a progressively growing strategic alliance between Turkey-USA-Israel and the increase in the compulsory education from eight to twelve years, Turkey will continue in its westward course. Only with a strong, secular military can Turkey fulfil its role in Nato, defend its borders, fight against terrorism and have any hope for making further progress.

Still, as a native of Istanbul, I would like to congratulate Kinzer especially on two of his accomplishments: Firstly, writing an interesting book on Turkey that raises issues which require careful analysis and debate; and secondly,  swimming across the Bosphorus in good time, a feat which many have tried (including me) but failed to achieve.

Turkey will go down as one of the most important countries of the 21st Century as it is both the most successful example of a secular country with an Islamic majority population and because its location makes it a bridge between Europe and the Middle East. Kinzer provides a good snapshot of Turkey and obviously has great respect and affection for the country. This usually translates into a good book, though one that falls into a personal narrative or interpretation a bit too frequently.

The book is a solid introduction to modern Turkey and how the father of the country, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, dragged it kicking and screaming into modern times and towards a Western orientation. Kinzer also provides the reader a good introductory picture of how secularism is lived and enforced in the present day.

The accounts of Turkey's socio-political issues are also quite good. The reader is left with an understanding of both internal issues, such as Turkey's stance towards Armenians and Kurds, as well as external issues, such as Turkey's relationship with its archrival Greece.

The least persuasive aspect of the book is Kinzer's take on the military's role in the enforcement of the country's secularism. Contrary to popular belief, such enforcement is not meddling with politics, but is instead the constitutional role of the military. Certainly this goes against the grain of most secular societies' civilian control over the military. However, as Turkey is hands down the most successful secular country with a Muslim majority, one should be very hesitant to tinker with it. After all, if it's not broken, don't fix it.

Despite this, Kinzer argues that the military should loosen its enforcement of secularism to allow more democracy to flourish. Certainly a nice concept, but there is too little discussion of the unfortunate currents of fundamentalist Islam that exist within the country and which just might knock secularism off its perch. Kinzer was the Istanbul bureau chief for the New York Times and, while this certainly makes him qualified to write on Turkey, it also opens him up to a criticism that could be made of many Times reporters, specifically that they assume the masses have the same values as the educated journalistic elite (or can be "enlightened" to adopt those views). This is a mistake journalists make time and again in the U.S. and I had the strong feeling reading this book that the same mistake was being made but towards a different society, in this case Turkey.

Perhaps it would be better for the military to loosen its grip, as Kinzer suggests. The problem I am focusing on in this review is that Kinzer has not made a solid enough argument for it. Instead he suggests a rather radical adjustment to the Turkish system with an analysis that left me, not necessarily in disagreement, but instead unconvinced. His position is simply conclusive in nature without the necessary support to prop it up.

Obviously an author is allowed to throw his take into the mix. Despite some questions over his policy suggestions, however, I recommend this book to gain a good understanding of an important player on the world stage.