The Turkey-Pakistan opprobrium

Turkish President Erdogan’s reproach of our war crimes trial and hanging of Maulana Nizami for the crimes did not come unexpectedly. That such denunciation from Turkey should come in the heels of similar criticism by Pakistan was also no big surprise.

After all, Turkey and Pakistan have been on the same wavelength in their attitude towards Bangladesh since the Liberation War.

Turkey had sided with Pakistan forces since the beginning of our independence struggle, offering Pakistan both moral and international support, and did not recognise Bangladesh until February 1974 just before the first meeting of the newly formed Organisation of Islamic Conference in Lahore.

That this recognition happened within days of Pakistan’s recognition of Bangladesh is not a coincidence. It is a show of solidarity of the two countries in international diplomacy.

Pakistan and Turkey were welded together since the birth of Pakistan through a variety of treaties, to promote trade and culture ostentatiously, but mostly to unite these countries with western powers through defense treaties orchestrated by the US to thwart Soviet and communist influence in the region.

The third country that would join this axis was Iran. Close diplomatic and defense ties among three countries began with the Central Treaty Organisation or CENTO, a central Asian association formed in 1955 somewhat similar to South East Asia Treaty Organisation in objectives.

The second, Regional Co-operation for Development, was formed by three countries in 1964 to promote socio-economic development among the partners through collaboration. Unlike CENTO, RCD was not a military alliance, but the three countries were aligned through defense ties with the US and the UK.

CENTO fell apart after the fall of Shah in Iran, and the rise of anti-American forces in that country. RCD also evaporated gradually. But political changes in Iran or even the changes in Turkey from military-led democracy to popular democracy did not make any dent in the Turkey-Pakistan relationship. The Pakistan government, from Ayub Khan through Bhutto, from Ziaul Huq to Nawaz Sharif, has been able to maintain a steady relationship of mutual support and friendship throughout Pakistan’s existence.

This relationship goes beyond the two countries’ similarity in religion (both are Muslim and predominantly Sunni), geographic proximity, and somewhat closeness in culture. There is a bigger similarity, the tradition of a strong and politically active army.

Turkey has had a strong history of army intervention in the government. In fact, until Erdogan was successful in curtailing the army’s role through constitutional changes, no government could last in the country without the army’s blessing and support.

The current Turkish Republic was set up by Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) following World War I who emerged as the country’s political and military leader. He transformed the shrunken and broken Ottoman Empire into a modern nation-state with the help of a newly energised army. In other words, Turkey’s modernisation process was again led by the military.

Although Mustafa Kemal sought to exclude the army from open involvement in politics, and a law was passed to ensure that, he never wanted to remove the army from exercising its influence in politics. He viewed the army as the guardian of the new constitution, which was secular, and the modern state of Turkey. As a result, the army in Turkey practically was in the king-making position, with the civilian government responding to its commands.

In striking similarity, Pakistan has had also a powerful military that came to wield power in Pakistan and dictated its politics for much of its existence. However, unlike Turkey, the military in Pakistan did not come through the front and build a country from the ravages of war.

It came through the back door, through machination and manipulation, and held its sway over the country primarily through force and intimidation.

Unlike Turkey, the Pakistan army not only did not build a new country, but it broke a country. Unlike Turkey, it did not nurture or protect a secular constitution or a secular country, but helped evolve a non-secular idealism and foment radicalism.

I wish the similarities and mutual friendship between Pakistan and Turkey and their military past could explain the latest reproach of our war crimes trial. It is natural for Pakistan to denounce any effort by Bangladesh to hold those accountable for the atrocities committed in the war of our liberation.

It is natural for them because the war of 1971 was never viewed by Pakistan as a struggle for freedom by Bengalis. It was viewed by Pakistan as a foreign-inspired (read: Indian inspired) rebellion of anti-states to break a Muslim country apart.

It was a conspiracy against Muslim Umma by enemies of Muslims. Therefore, all those who have been tried by Bangladesh for war crimes were actually patriots and true Muslims who wanted to defend their country and religion. But why Turkey?

To understand this, one has to read beyond the historical support of Turkey for Pakistan and its original denial of support for Bangladesh.

Turkey’s Erdogan rode to presidency on the shoulders of an Islamist Party that had to change its name to an ambiguous seemingly non-religious party, Justice and Development Party (or AKP in Turkish), adhering to Turkey’s secular constitution.

His political support is still rooted in Turkey’s resurgent Islamic elements who he would not dare displease. By denouncing the conviction and hanging of the leader of an Islamist party, be it far removed from Turkey, he was expressing solidarity not only with Pakistan, an ally, but also for the greater Muslim Umma, whose leadership he aspires for.

In the current world of global diplomacy, it is difficult to denounce a foreign leader and shun a country. We have to maintain our relationship with countries that we may disapprove of for our own image of showing tolerance.

We also have to have a strategy to deal with adverse publicity and a campaign through our diplomatic channels to make other countries better acquainted with what the war crimes were, and why we need to prosecute those who participated in one of the greatest massacres of the past century.