• Type:
  • Genre:
  • Duration:
  • Average Rating:

Month: July 2017

Britain and the Creation of Pakistan

Following the end of the Second World War, Britain lost it’s position as the number one power of the World.

British rule was confronted by popular anti-colonial movements that proved too powerful for Britain to counter and lacked the ability to deploy military force.Although Whitehall tried for as long as possible to hold on to India, officials eventually came to the realisation that, as in Palestine, the game was up.

Knowing that formal colonial rule would soon be over, British policy-makers sought to salvage what they could for the post-colonial future.

In 1886 a famous conference took place by the Aligarh movement. The conference made a point of not supporting the Indian National Congress, the organisation of Indian nationalism.

In 1906, the movement’s representatives, largely landowners from the Muslim nobility, asked the viceroy, Lord Minto, for special political representation for Muslims in new provincial legislative councils announced by the British.

On 20 December the same year the Aligarh movement gave birth to “the Muslim League”, whose first article was ‘to promote among the Mussalmans of India, feelings of loyalty to the British government’.

The League was looked on favourably by British officials; then Labour MP and future prime minister, Ramsay Macdonald, wrote in his 1910 book, The Awakening of India , that the leaders of the League ‘were inspired by certain Anglo–Indian officials, and that these officials pulled wires at Simla [the colonial ‘summer capital’ in northern India] and in London and of malice aforethought sowed
discord between the Hindu and the Mohammedan.’

By the 1930s the idea of a separate ‘Pakistan’ – meaning ‘land of the pure’, gained ground within the Muslim League.
Over the next ten years, Lord Linlithgow, worked with Muslim League leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, to try to counter the Congress Party’s demand for full Indian independence from British rule but to no avail.

Whitehall had long opposed demands for Indian independence of any description, but the popular power of the nationalist movement led by Gandhi, coupled with Britain’s weakened postwar position,
made the end of the Raj inevitable by the mid-1940s.

By then, crucially, the British realised that, post-independence, Indian nationalists would withdraw India from the Commonwealth and deny Britain military and political influence in the region.

It was at this point that London sought to detach the northwest part of the country to establish a separate Muslim state.

In 1940 backed by the British secretary of state for India, Lord Zetland, the Muslim League adopted the Lahore resolution, declaring as its official policy the establishment of a separate Muslim state in northern India.

The proposed state of Pakistan was strategically located, bordering Iran, Afghanistan and China, and close to the southernmost areas of the Soviet Union – the site, indeed, of the nineteenth century Great Game.

Britain now deliberately set out to partition India to achieve important strategic objectives in the area.

By 1947, the British military chiefs of staff had become enthusiastic proponents of Pakistan, seeing its creation as providing several valuable functions, including obtaining air bases in the new territory and ‘to ensure the continued independence and integrity [of] Afghanistan’.

‘The area of Pakistan’, the chiefs noted, ‘is strategically the most important in the continent of India and the majority of our strategic requirements could be met.’
Britain would also be able to ‘increase our prestige and improve our position throughout the Muslim world, and demonstrate, by the assistance Pakistan would receive, the advantages of links with the British Commonwealth.’

Field Marshall Montgomery, now the chief of the imperial general staff, noted that it would be ‘a tremendous asset’ if Pakistan remained within the Commonwealth, since ‘the bases, airfields and ports
in northwest India would be invaluable to Commonwealth defence’.

A document in his papers provides a precise analysis of Pakistan’s strategic importance, post-independence: “The Indus Valley, western Punjab and Baluchistan [the northwest] are vital to any strategic plans for the defence of [the] all-important Muslim belt … [and] the oil supplies of the Middle East … If the British Commonwealth and the United States of America are to be in a position to defend their vital interests in the Middle East, then the best and most stable area from which to conduct this defence is from Pakistan territory. 35 [is] the keystone of the strategic arch of the wide and vulnerable waters of the Indian Ocean.”

In 1947 the partition of colonial British India into two new states, India and the Muslim state of Pakistan, involved massive population transfer and a bloodbath: up to a million people lost their lives in
the communal violence that accompanied partition.

The Times heralded Partition Day, 15 August 1947: In the hour of its creation Pakistan emerges as the leading state of the Muslim world. Since the collapse of the Turkish empire that world, which extends across the globe from Morocco to Indonesia, has not included a state whose numbers, natural resources and place in history gave it undisputed pre-eminence. The gap is now filled. From today Karachi takes rank as a new centre of Muslim cohesion and rallying point of Muslim thought and aspirations.

Two years after partition, its key proponent, Field Marshall Wavell, made an address to the Royal Central Asia Society, outlining the strategic importance of Central Asia and the Persian Gulf.
Wavell stated that the next great struggle for world power, if it takes place, may well be for the control of these oil reserves.’ These regions might be the battleground not only for the material struggle for oil but also ‘of the spiritual struggle of at least three great creeds – Christianity, Islam, Communism’. Therefore, ‘the Western powers must surely be in the Middle East.’

The partition of India had immediate terrible human consequences. With an estimated 20 million people crossing the new border in both directions, in search of new homes, there was an almost total breakdown in law and order, and massive violence in the border areas.

The above is an extract taken from the book ‘Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam’ by Mark Curtis

Indonesia Government Bans Hizb ut-Tahrir

The Government of Indonesia has banned the Indonesian chapter of the global Islamic movement.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is an Islamic political and intellectual movement that calls for the Caliphate.

On 12th July 2017, President Joko Widodo issued a decree allowing authorities to disband organisations.

A week later, the Government has announced the ban of the movement.

The movement condemned the ban and said it “will not remain silent”, vowing to challenge the decision.

“This is tyranny. The move is an arbitrary action aimed at disbanding Hizb ut-Tahrir”, said Ismail Yusanto, a spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia.

A recent Pew Survey from May 2017 found that 72% of Indonesia favours making Shari’ah the official law of their country.

The group has been banned by other autocratic states, but this has increased its influence and reach in those countries.

Indonesian legal experts have said this is the first time such an organisation has been banned “without due process of law”.

Over 2,000 people from other Islamic groups protested against the order, denouncing the government as “tyrannical”.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is believed to be active in 50+ countries across the Muslim world, Asia and the West.

Muhammed Al-Fatih and the Conquest of Constantinople

This video was based on an excellent article by the Lost Islamic History 

Prophet Muhammad ﷺ  promised his followers in the Arabian Desert that they would one day conquer the most powerful and legendary city of the day, Constantinople. For centuries, it seemed like an impossible task. The city is incredibly well-defended, being a peninsula with a giant wall on it’s land side that deterred most conquerors. The city was laid siege to by Muslim armies during the Umayyad Caliphate, but those sieges were unable to defeat her mammoth walls.

When the Ottoman Empire sprang up in the early 1300s as a small Turkish beylik in Western Anatolia, it threatened the security of the Byzantines and their capital, Constantinople. By the time Sultan Mehmed II takes the throne in 1451, the Ottomans have expanded to control land in both Europe and Asia, thus surrounding the city of Constantinople. Sultan Mehmed made it his goal from the moment he took the throne to finally capture the legendary city. He ordered the building of a fortress on the Bosporus Strait, north of Constantinople to control ship movement in and out of the city. To honor the Prophet who declared the Muslims would conquer Constantinople, Mehmed had the fortress built in a way that it’s shape spelled out “Muhammad” in Arabic when seen from above.

On April 1st, 1453, Mehmed and his Ottoman army of over 100,000 soldiers arrived at the walls of Constantinople. The sight that greeted them must have been terrifying. The inner walls of Constantinople were 5 meters thick at their base and 12 meters high. 20 meters away from the inner wall was the outer wall, which was 2 meters thick and 8.5 meters tall. These walls had never been conquered in history, and numerous previous sieges by the Ottomans as well as the Umayyads during the caliphate of Mu’awiya in the 600s attested to that.

In addition to the walls, the Byzantines had a giant iron chain installed in the Golden Horn, a small inlet to the north of the city. This would prevent a navy from sailing to the weaker northern coast of the city and attacking from there. The Byzantines had a clear defensive advantage before the battle began. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, the Byzantines were confident of their impending victory. Especially once additional soldiers and commanders were sent from the Italian city-state of Genoa.

Mehmed offered the defenders the option to surrender and remain in possession of their property, lives, and families in peace, but this offer was refused by the Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI. Thus, Mehmed began the attack on the city on April 6th. Despite the best effort of the Ottoman soldiers, and the bombardment of the world’s biggest cannons, the city held out for weeks. On April 22nd, Mehmed ordered the Ottoman navy to be carried over land to bypass the chain in the Golden Horn. Over one night, 72 ships were carried over land and put into the Golden Horn, threatening the city from the north.

It seemed that the battle of the city would soon be over as the Ottomans clearly had the upper hand. On May 28th, Mehmed halted all attacks and allowed his army to spend the day praying to Allah for victory. The next day, on May 29th, the army began a final assault on the city walls and before the morning was over, the walls were conquered and the city was taken.

Perhaps the most important part of this historical event was Mehmed II’s treatment of the defeated Byzantines. He did not kill the residents of the city and in fact encouraged them to stay in Constantinople by absolving them of taxes. He insisted that the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate stay in the city and rule the Christians of the city on his behalf. While to the rest of Europe, the idea of religious tolerance was a foreign concept, Mehmed followed the Islamic principles on treatment of non-Muslims and gave religious freedom and rights to the Christians of Constantinople. His abilities in battle and his virtuous qualities earned him the nickname “al-Fatih” or “the Conqueror”.

The 1994 Rwandan Genocide

It was an unparalleled modern genocide, an attempt to exterminate an entire people in 100 days. And in the years that followed the killing of some 800,000 Rwandans in 1994, political leaders have expressed their regret at an international failure to stop the violence.

Bill Clinton, United States president at the time, admitted last year that if the West had intervened earlier to stop the killing, mostly by Hutus against Tutsis, 300,000 lives could have been saved.

The violence began with the killing of Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, when his plane was shot down above Kigali airport on 6 April. Within hours, violence spread from the capital across the country, and did not subside until three months later.

Ahead of the 20th anniversary of the genocide, last week declassified diplomatic cables were released by the National Security Archive at George Washington University which showed that the US, Britain and the United Nations were explicitly warned that a “new bloodbath” was imminent in Rwanda.

Rather than increasing the power of the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda (Unamir), the governments of John Major in Britain and President Clinton in the US were considering rowing back the peacekeeping effort, according to the cables.

The diplomatic messages showed that on 25 February 1994, the Belgian foreign ministry had expressed “alarm” at the worsening security situation in Kigali. Lode Willems, the Belgian ministry’s chief of staff, wrote to Paul Noterdaeme, the country’s ambassador to the UN, describing Rwanda’s “significant deterioration” and asking for greater UN powers to act. The UN mission in the country could not “firmly maintain public order” and had “a serious credibility problem”, Willems added.

But in reply Noterdaeme said that both the US and UK were opposed to action. “Not only are the United States and the United Kingdom against it, they may even, according to their delegations, withdraw Unamir altogether in case of difficulties… There is a financial logic behind this: the United States never wanted more than 500 men for Unamir,” wrote Noterdaeme. The UN, he added, was against intervention in the former Belgian colony and “not inclined to adjust the rules of engagement”.

Three months after the cables were sent, in May, UN members agreed to increase the contingent of troops to 5,000. They were not deployed for a further six months – by which time the killing had already stopped.

While John Major defended his decision not to send troops to Rwanda – he told MPs in July 1994 it was “simply not practicable” for the UN Security Council to become the “policeman of every part of the world” – Mr Clinton was apologetic on a visit to the country in 1998. “We did not act quickly enough after the killing began,” he said.

“We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe havens for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide.” Next month a series of events will be held to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the genocide. Kwibuka20, translated as “remember20” asks the world to ensure that “such an atrocity can never happen again”.

The Conspiracy Of The Young Turks

The Conspiracy Of The Young Turks

The Young Turks was a coalition of various reform groups that led a revolutionary movement against the Ottoman Caliphate led by Sultan Abdülhamid II, which culminated in the establishment of a constitutional government and eventually the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel

Become a KJ Patreon so we can produce more and better content
https://www.patreon.com/kjvids

Sign up to our website and submit video suggestions:
www.kjvids.co.uk

Like our Facebook page for exclusive updates:
https://www.facebook.com/KJVids

Follow us on Instagram for our one minute vids:
https://www.instagram.com/kjvids2016

Follow us on Twitter to be informed when we post:
https://twitter.com/kjvids2016

Mansa Musa – The Richest Man That Ever Lived

Meet Mansa Musa – The Richest Muslim That Ever Lived

According to historians, the richest man to have ever lived was a Malian Muslim named Mansa Musa

With an inflation adjusted fortune of $400 billion, Mansa Musa I would have been considerably richer than the world’s current richest man, Carlos Slim, who ranks in 22nd place with a relatively paltry $68 billion.

His country’s production of more than half the world’s supply of salt and gold contributed to Musa’s vast wealth, which he used to build large mosques that still stand today.

Musa ruled over Mali from 1312 till 1337 and caught the attention of Europeans and Arabs after his renown Hajj to Mecca in 1324.

As a devoted Muslim, Mansa Musa prepared his pilgrimage soon after he took his position from Abu Bakri II in 1312.

Learn More – https://www.kjvids.co.uk/mansa-musa-the-richest-muslim-that-ever-lived/

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel

Become a KJ Patreon so we can produce more and better content
https://www.patreon.com/kjvids

Sign up to our website and submit video suggestions:
www.kjvids.co.uk

Like our Facebook page for exclusive updates:
https://www.facebook.com/KJVids

Follow us on Instagram for our one minute vids:
https://www.instagram.com/kjvids2016

Follow us on Twitter to be informed when we post:
https://twitter.com/kjvids2016

Turkey’s Geopolitical Strengths

Article from Stratfor

Core Geography

Modern Turkey straddles the land bridge linking southeastern-most Europe with southwestern-most Asia. In modern times, nearly all of Turkey’s territory lies on the Asian side of the divide, occupying the entirety of the Anatolian plateau — a thick, dry and rugged peninsula separating the Black and Mediterranean seas. Modern Turkey, with its Asiatic and Anatolian emphasis, is an aberration. “Turkey” was not originally a mountain country, and the highlands of Anatolia were among the last lands settled by the Turks, not the first.

The core of Turkey is not composed of the high plateaus and low mountains of Asia Minor. Instead, the Turkish core is the same territory as the core of the Byzantine Empire that preceded it, namely, the lands surrounding the Sea of Marmara. This lowland (called Thrace on its European shore) is not home to a vast, fertile plain like the middle of the United States, nor is it cut by a wealth of navigable rivers like Northern Europe. Such lowlands ease the penetration of peoples and ideas while allowing a central government to spread its writ with ease. One result is political unity; rivers radically reduce the cost of transport, encouraging trade and thus wealth.

The Sea of Marmara region has none of these features, but the location and shape of the sea, in many ways, encourages political unity and the creation of wealth. In terms of political unity and agricultural production, the region’s maritime climate smoothes out its semiarid nature. Similarly, its position on the flanks of the mountains of Anatolia grant the sea-hugging lowlands access to a series of broad valleys that rise at a grade insufficient to make agriculture difficult but sufficient for the cooler, higher air to wring out rain — thus watering the entire valley structure. Additionally, those extreme western Anatolian valleys are broad enough that they give rise to relatively few independence-minded minorities; central authority can easily project power up into them. Combined with the flat lands on the European side of the sea, the result is a sizable core territory with reasonably reliable freshwater supplies — and one that remains part of a singular political system because of the maritime transport on the Sea of Marmara. It may not be a large, unified, well-watered plain — split as it is by the sea — but the land is sufficiently useful that it is certainly the next best thing.

In terms of trade and the capital formation that comes from it, by some measures the Sea of Marmara is even better than a navigable river. Access to the sea is severely limited by two straits: the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. In some places, maritime access to the Turkish core is a mere mile across. This has two implications. First, Turkey is highly resistant to opposing sea powers. For foes to reach the Turkish core they must make amphibious assaults on the core’s borderlands and then fight against an extremely determined and well-equipped defending force that can resupply both by land and sea. As the British Empire learned famously at Gallipoli in World War I, such an approach is a tall order. Second, the geographic pinches on the sea ensure that Marmara is virtually a Turkish lake — and one with a lengthy shoreline. This complete ownership has encouraged a vibrant maritime trading culture reaching back to antiquity and rivaling the economic strength of nearly any river basin. As a result, the core of Turkey is both capital-rich and physically secure.

The final dominant feature of the Turkish core region is that, while it is centered around the Sea of Marmara, the entire region is an important tradeway. The Sea of Marmara links the Aegean (and from it the Mediterranean) Sea with the Black Sea, granting Turkey full command of any trans-sea trading and providing it with natural, nearby opportunities for economic expansion. Turkish lands are also in essence an isthmus between Europe and Southwest Asia, allowing Turkey nearly as much dominance over European-Asian land trade as it enjoys over Black-Mediterranean sea trade.

This is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing in that the trade that flows via the land route absolutely must travel through Turkey’s core, granting Turkey all of the economic benefits of that trade. Combined with the maritime tradition this land grants to its inhabitants, the Ottomans and Byzantines both managed to dominate regional — and in many cases global — trade for centuries. For example, partnership with the merchant cities of Italy’s Po Valley granted the Turks exclusivity over European-Asian trade for centuries.

As with all isthmuses, however, the land funnels down to a narrow point, allowing large hostile land forces to concentrate their strength on the core territory and to bring it to bear against one half of the core (with the other half being on the other side of the sea). This is precisely how the Mongols’ Turkic cousins — the forebearers to today’s Turks — dislodged the Byzantines. In short, Turkey’s core is more vulnerable to land invasion than sea invasion.

Geopolitical Imperatives

  • Establish a blocking position in Anatolia.
  • Expand up the Danube to Vienna.
  • Develop a political and economic system to integrate the conquered peoples.
  • Seize and garrison Crimea.
  • Establish naval facilities throughout the eastern Mediterranean.

Many empires form after a country has already consolidated control over its local geography. For example, once England consolidated control over Great Britain, it was logical for it to expand into an empire (in large part because there was nothing left to do at home). There was nothing that required England to do so, of course. The empire obviously enriched England and made it more secure, but even if England had remained limited to Great Britain, it would have been a powerful, successful and secure entity.

This is not the case with the Turks. The Sea of Marmara offers many advantages, but it is neither a large region nor one without regional competitors. Reduced simply to Marmara, the Turks lack both strategic depth and a large population. They can limit their access to the world within their mini-Mediterranean, but in doing so they invalidate many of the economic benefits of that sea. The Marmara region thrives on trade; isolationism greatly circumscribes that trade, and with it the Turks’ options. And if the Turks turned inward, that would restrict trade between Asia and Europe, virtually inviting a major power to dislodge the plug.

Addressing these shortcomings forces whoever rules the Marmara lands to expand. Just as the Japanese are forced to attempt expansion to secure resources and markets, and as the Russians are forced to attempt expansion to secure more defendable borders, the Turks find themselves at the mercy of others economically, politically and militarily unless they can create something bigger for themselves.

Establish a Blocking Position in Anatolia

Before the Turks can expand, they first must secure their rear, and that means venturing into Anatolia. As noted earlier, the Sea of Marmara region is a rich, unified, outward-oriented region. But none of this is true for the rest of what comprises modern-day Turkey, namely, the Anatolian Peninsula.

Anatolia is much dryer and more rugged than the Marmara region, starkly raising the capital costs of infrastructure and agriculture. While it is a peninsula that would normally generate a maritime culture, its coastline is smooth, greatly limiting the number of good ports. Mountains also rise very rapidly from the coast, so unlike the Marmara region, there is little hinterland to develop to take advantage of the maritime access. There are notable exceptions — the flat coastal enclaves of the Antalya and Adana regions — but the norm is for an extremely truncated coastal identity. Anatolia’s valleys are also higher, narrower and steeper than those at the peninsula’s western end. This encourages the development and independence of local cultures, thus complicating the matter of central control. Taken together, Anatolia is as capital-poor, parochial and introspective as the Sea of Marmara region is capital-rich, worldly and extroverted.

Because of this, the Turks had little interest in grabbing all of Anatolia early in their development; the cost simply outweighs the benefits. But they do need to ensure that natives of Anatolia are not able to raid the core and that any empire farther afield cannot use the Anatolian land bridge to reach Marmara. The solution is creating a blocking position beyond the eastern end of the valleys that drain to the Sea of Marmara and the Aegean. The specific location is unimportant, but by most measures, it is better to have that block very close to the western end of the peninsula, no more than one-third of the way down the peninsula’s length. For as one moves east, Anatolia becomes higher, dryer and more rugged; one certainly would not want to move past the 36th meridian, where the Mediterranean abruptly stops and Anatolia fuses with Asia proper, since this would expose the Turks to more and more land-based rivals.

The strategic benefits of this block are nearly unrivaled. Just as Anatolia is difficult to develop or control, it is equally difficult to launch an invasion through. A secure block on Anatolia starkly limits the ability of Asian powers to bring war to Turkey, which can use the entire peninsula — even if not under Turkish control — as a buffer and be free to focus on richer pastures within Europe.

Expand up the Danube to Vienna

The Danube Valley is the logical first point of major expansion for the Turks for a number of reasons. First, at only 350 kilometers (220 miles) away from the Marmara, it is the closest major river valley of note. Second, there are no rival naval powers on the Black Sea. The Black Sea is too stormy to sustain a non-expert navy, most of its coast is rugged and its northern reaches freeze in the winter. Only the Turks have ice-free, good-weather, deep-water ports (mostly on the Sea of Marmara) that can maintain a sustained competition in the region, practically handing naval superiority to them. Consequently, it is extremely easy for the Turks to leverage their naval expertise to support initial gains in the eastern Balkans. (Water transport is far more efficient than land transport, whether the cargo is commercial or military in nature.) Third, the Danube is a remarkable prize. It is the longest river in the region by far and is navigable all the way to southern Germany; ample tracts of arable land line its banks.

There are also four natural defensive points the Turks can use to make defense of any conquered territories more efficient. The first lies in modern-day Bulgaria. The Balkan Mountains that cross central Bulgaria from west to east and the Rila and Rhodope mountains of southwestern Bulgaria effectively sever extreme southeastern Europe from the rest of the Continent. The Turks could simply march from Marmara, travel up the Maritsa River valley, fortify what is now the city of Sofia, and slice off and digest a chunk of territory nearly as large as the land surrounding the Sea of Marmara — all without having to worry about forces intervening from outside the immediate region.

The second point is where the Black Sea nearly meets the Carpathians, just north of the marshy Danube Delta, the site of modern-day Moldova. This location — often referred to as the Bessarabian Gap — allows the Turks to concentrate forces and hold off any force that might seek direct access from the Eurasian steppe. Combined with support from Turkey’s naval acumen and the natural defensive nature of the Danube Delta, this is a priceless defensive location.
The third point lies in the Danube Valley itself, on the river where modern-day Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria meet. At this point, Romania’s Carpathian and Bulgaria’s Balkan Mountains impinge upon the Danube to form the famous Iron Gate, a series of stark cliffs and water hazards that inhibit the passage of both land and maritime traffic. Securing this location prevents the advance of any western Balkan power. Holding the second and third defensive locations allows the Turks to easily command and assimilate the fertile regions of modern-day northern Bulgaria and southern Romania.
The final — and most critical — defensive point is the city of Vienna, located at a similar gap between the Carpathians and the Alps. If Vienna can be secured by the Turks, then it plus Bessarabia allow for an extremely efficient defense against any northern European power or coalition. Between Vienna and Bessarabia lay the expansive Carpathians, a European mountain chain rivaled in its impassability only by the Alps.
The problem is getting to Vienna. Unlike the pieces of land that the Turks could obtain piecemeal to this point, the Pannonian Plain lies between the Iron Gate and Vienna. The Pannonian Plain alone is larger than all of the territory seized by the Turks to this point combined and are crisscrossed by a series of useful rivers — of which the Danube is but one. It is most certainly a prize worth holding in its own right.
But it is not unoccupied. Its nearly unrivaled fertility has traditionally hosted a large population. Local powers — capital-rich and more than capable of putting up their own defense — hold sway there and would have to be subdued. Moreover, the region possesses a number of internal barriers — both water and mountain — that inhibit military maneuvering and encourage the independence of several different ethnicities (in the modern age, these include Croats, Serbs and Hungarians). Complicating matters, the eastern edge of the Pannonian Plain gives way to Transylvania, a region unique for its mix of mountains, isolated plains and rivers, providing the geographic oddity of a well-funded and populated mountain fastness. The combination of capital richness from the plains and waterways and political fracturing from the other terrain features makes the Pannonian Plain a potential imperial kill zone — particularly since any Turkish operations there have to flow through the Iron Gate and since northern European powers are just as aware of the significance of Vienna as the Turks are. Vienna is not simply a strategic fortress; it is also a door that can swing both ways.
In the end, this fourth strategic blocking position proved to be just out of reach for the Ottoman Turks, with two massive, multi-decade military campaigns failing to secure the city. Consequently, the Europeans were able to bleed the Ottoman Empire in the Pannonian Plain, sowing the seeds for the empire’s withdrawal from Europe and eventual fall.
Develop a Political and Economic System to Integrate the Conquered Peoples
Like most empires, the Ottoman Empire expanded quickly enough that it had to develop a means of dealing with its success. While it was unable to ever capture Vienna, simply reaching the point that it could attempt to capture Vienna meant that it had already taken control over vast tracts of territory. In fact, the Danube region below the Iron Gate already granted the Ottoman Turks useful land roughly five times the size of the useful land in the Sea of Marmara region. The Pannonian Plain, had it been completely secured, would have doubled that area again. It also would have been the most fertile land of the entire empire.
The problem with the Sea of Marmara region was that it could not simply displace its conquered peoples even if it wanted to — it lacked a population large enough to restock the lands that would be emptied by such a maneuver. The conquered lands were too vast to be made productive simply by relying upon the labor of Turks, who lacked the manpower to work, or even manage, the territory they controlled. Unlike the Russians, who were numerically superior to their conquered populations and could rule through brute force, the Turks were only a plurality. The Turks needed these people both to make the conquered lands productive and profitable and to man and even lead its armies. The relative dearth of Turks meant that the conquered populations had to want to be part of the empire. The key here was not exploitation but integration.
The result was the world’s first truly multiethnic governing system (as opposed to a multiethnic empire). Pre-existing local authorities were granted great freedom in managing their populations so long as they swore fealty to the empire. Suzerainty relationships were established where localities could even collect their own taxes so long as they paid a portion to the center and deferred to the Ottomans on defense and foreign policy.
Entire sections of cities were preserved for different ethnic groups, with Muslims governed by Islamic law and local laws holding sway elsewhere. Religions different from the Turks’ dominant Sunni Islam tended to be respected, and local religious leaders often were granted secular legal authority to augment their positions. High-ranking officials — not simply at the local level, but also at the imperial level back in Istanbul — were regularly selected from subject populations. By tradition, the grand vizier — the second-most powerful person in the empire — was never a Turk. And the most potent military force the empire boasted — the Janissaries — was comprised almost exclusively of non-ethnic Turks. The Turks were very clearly in charge. If Turkish/Muslim laws ever conflicted with local/Christian legalities, there was no doubt which code would dominate. But the fact remains that Istanbul forged a governing system that granted its conquered peoples solid reasons to live in, work with, profit by and even die for the empire.
Not all conquered populations were treated equally, however. As one might surmise from the order of the Ottoman expansion, not all lands in the Balkans were considered prizes. The plains of the Danube basin formed the economic and even intellectual core of the empire, but there is far more to the Balkans than plains. The Balkan Peninsula has no small number of mountains — and mountain people, with the most notable being the Greeks, Albanians, southern Croatians, southern Serbs and western Bulgarians. (The last two groups have since split to form the Montenegrins and Macedonians.) These people did not live in the fertile plain regions that the Turks coveted, and their largely mountainous territories tended to be more trouble than they were worth. Developing the regions economically was a thankless task, and the security concerns of such mountains were the same in the Balkans as they were in Anatolia. The Turks saw little need to integrate these mountain people into Ottoman society, and Turkish treatment of them was far more in line with how other empires of the era treated their conquered populations. Such people could still ascend in Ottoman society, but by doing so, they tended only to prove the rule.
Seize and Garrison Crimea
The lands of the Danube are the only territories that can be gained easily and profitably by any entity based on the Sea of Marmara. After this point, the question becomes one of a proactive defense, namely, what forward positions can the Turks take to prevent other regional powers from threatening the Turkish core at Marmara or its territories in the Balkans? Vienna, if it can be captured, solves the problem of the North European Plain. That only leaves two possibilities for would-be rivals: the Eurasian steppe and the Mediterranean.
Solving the Eurasian steppe problem is the easier — and by far cheaper — of the two. The Eurasian steppe is the center section of the vast plain that stretches nearly without break from Bordeaux, France, to Tianjin, China. A range of powers, from Spain, France, Germany and Poland to Russia, Mongolia and China, have bled for centuries attempting to dominate this space; it is simply a realm in which Turkey lacks the population to compete. To limit the ability of this super-region to interfere with Balkan, Black Sea and Anatolian affairs, the most effective strategy is to ensure that whoever rules the Eurasian steppe — traditionally Russia — is always on the defensive. The single most valuable piece of territory for achieving this end is the Crimean Peninsula.
This is because Crimea (roughly the same size as the Sea of Marmara region) is connected to the mainland by a mere 6.3 kilometer-wide isthmus, meaning that a single fortification can hold off a mass attack relatively easily. Crimea also splits the northern Black Sea into two pieces, breaking up most military or commerce possibilities for whatever power holds the Black Sea’s northern shore.
And Crimea greatly impinges on the drainage of the Don River, one of the very few navigable waterways in the Russian sphere of influence. The water between Crimea and the Don’s delta is the Sea of Azov, a brackish waterway that freezes in the winter (along with the Don in its entirety in most years). Relatively limited Turkish military facilities in Crimea can therefore easily destroy any seasonal Russian naval force that attempts to break out of the Don. Shipbuilding until very recently was largely impossible under ice conditions, so the Russians would only have a few months to prepare while the Turks could simply shuffle their larger and better-trained forces around their all-warm-water ports as needed. Such command of the river’s mouth means that any trade trying to travel from the river to the Black Sea must abide by whatever rules the masters of Crimea set.
Finally, using Crimea as a base allowed the Turks to regularly raid anywhere in the northern Black Sea coast. The Turks were able to cause enormous damage to Russian assets wherever they chose, yet depart the field before the Russians could bring their slow-moving but numerically superior land forces to bear.
Establish Naval Facilities Throughout the Eastern Mediterranean
Turkey’s final imperative is to replicate the Crimean strategy in the eastern Mediterranean. There is no single magic location here as there is in the Black Sea, but there are additional locations in the eastern Mediterranean region that are worth seizing for economic purposes. Naval facilities in the Aegean — culminating in the island of Crete — provide a degree of security for the Turkish core at Marmara. Add in the island of Cyprus and the Turks would hold every major potential maritime base in the region, enabling them to seize operational control of the Suez region, the Nile Valley and Mecca and the rest of the Hijaz beyond it. Once the eastern Mediterranean is secured, Turkish eyes turn to the Sharik Peninsula (modern-day northeastern Tunisia), Malta and Sicily to block off access to the eastern Mediterranean altogether.
However, unlike the Ottoman’s Danubian expansion, the benefits of any Mediterranean expansion are not self-evident, and unlike the Crimean occupation, it is not cheap. The Danubian expansion was organic. One asset led to a geographic plug, which led to another asset and to another plug (and so on). The processes built upon each other until the Turks had layer upon layer of geographic barricades, each supplied with local food, capital and soldiers. Crimea allowed the Turks to inflict a maximum of disruption on the Russians for a minimum cost in resources.
The eastern Mediterranean is a far more hostile — and less rewarding — place than the Danube, and there is no single spot like Crimea. The Aegean islands have small populations and few resources and require outside supply. Unless they all are held, a foe could use them in an island-hopping strategy to approach the Turkish core. Cyprus has a larger population than the Aegean islands, but its relative lack of arable land means any force there will be an occupation force; it is not a territory worth integrating politically and economically. As such, it will face rebellions, just as any of the Ottomans’ mountainous provinces regularly did. And should control ever be lost, so too would be any provinces that depended upon such naval support (like North Africa).
The extremely mobile nature of naval warfare means that reliable power projection in the eastern Mediterranean is a dubious proposition unless all of these islands are held. And even if they are all under unified Turkish control, any empire built upon those naval bases would then be utterly dependent upon those naval bases for supply. Via the Levant the Turks could establish land-supply routes to Mecca and Cairo, but such land routes were far slower and more expensive than maritime supply. And the inland desert nature of the Middle East held two additional complications. First, pushing inland would be even worse on the cost/benefit scale than the mountain regions the Ottomans already held. Second, the thin coastal strips meant that most supply routes needed to hug the coast anyway, making those routes vulnerable unless Turkish regional sea power was ironclad.
In the eastern Mediterranean, a large (hence expensive) military force was required simply to attempt to create an empire, whereas the Danube region was rich enough in farmland, capital and population to defend itself. Therefore, the Danube portion of the empire grew organically, whereas the Mediterranean section suffered from imperial overstretch.

The Other Ottoman Territories

There are many regions near the Sea of Marmara that have limited utility but which the Ottoman Empire absorbed nonetheless.

Much of this territory was in the western and southern Balkans. Regions such as today’s Bosnia and Greece were made imperial territories largely because there was no other power competently competing for them. Once the Turks had advanced into the Pannonian Plain, these regions were largely cut off from the rest of Europe, allowing the Turks to move against them at their leisure. Many pieces of this region had some use — Bosnia, for example, served as a useful trade corridor to Europe — but overall they were too mountainous to enrich the empire. These regions simply fell into the Ottoman lap because they had no other place to fall. And as the Ottomans fell back from the Danube, these regions broke away as well.

Others, like the area that currently comprises southern Ukraine, turned Ottoman strategic doctrine on its head. Normally, Crimea was used to disrupt Russia’s southern holdings with irregular raids on the Russian-held coast. But once the decision was made to hold the coast in the mid-16th century, the Russians — with their far larger population and army — could return the favor. Such expansions bled the Turks dry and contributed to their imperial overstretch and fall.
Similarly, neither the Caucasus nor Mesopotamia served large-scale strategic or economic purposes for the Turks. In addition to being mountainous and somewhat arid, and therefore of questionable economic use, neither boast navigable rivers and both lie on the wrong side of Anatolia. Developing the region required large financial transfers from other portions of the empire. Any serious effort in the Caucasus would pit the Ottomans directly against the Russians in a land competition that the less-populated Turks could not sustain. Any large-scale commitment to Mesopotamia would put Turkey into direct competition with Persia, a mountainous state that Turkey could reliably counter only if the empire’s other borders remained quiet (which only rarely occurred). Supplying garrisons in either was problematic even in the best of times, and once the Russians captured Crimea in 1783, sea supply routes to the Caucasus were no longer assured.
Mesopotamia could be supplied only by land. Conflict occurred regularly with both regional powers, and while the Turks certainly did not lose every battle, the additional exposure gradually whittled down Turkish strength.
North Africa is a viable addition to the empire only if naval supremacy of the eastern Mediterranean is already achieved, while exploitation of the Nile — for all its riches — is utterly dependent upon a strong naval command. Unsurprisingly, with the exception of the western Balkans, all of these territories were acquired later in the Ottoman advance, and were among the first provinces surrendered.
The central point is this: Much of the territory gained late in the Ottoman period was gained late for very good reasons. These later acquisitions added very little to the empire in terms of economic strength but drained Istanbul’s coffers considerably, in terms of development and defensive costs, simply by being held. It is not so much that these regions were useless. While Mesopotamia and the Caucasus did expose Turkey to the Persians and Russians, they also helped contain Persian and Russian power, so “less useful” should not be confused with “of no use.” But these regions could only be effectively dominated if the rest of the empire could support the effort in terms of soldiers and money; unlike the Danube region, these territories did not pay for and maintain themselves. Once the Europeans were able to eject the Turks from the Pannonian Plain and ultimately from the Balkans altogether, most of the economically profitable pieces of the empire were gone, leaving the empire with only the costly bits.

The Modern Era: Same Neighborhood…

Modern Turkey faces two considerable obstacles in its development in the modern age: Its routes for expansion are difficult and the nature of the Turks has changed.

First, the expansion challenges. Turkey chose to isolate itself from the world after losing everything so completely in the First World War. Its empire gone, the Turks needed to find a different raison d’etre and there simply were no options available. The Ottoman Empire was successful because it had been able to leverage its geography for economic gain — the land bridge between Europe and Asia and the Turkish Straits were the global trade nexus for 300 years. Not so in the 20th century. Deepwater navigation allowed Europe to access the Far East directly and resulted in the rise of the Americas, turning the Eastern Mediterranean from the crossroads of global commerce to an isolated backwater. And that was only the beginning.

The twin disasters of defeat in World War I and the Great Depression were brutal to a people who were accustomed to wealth and respect. Ankara managed to stay out of World War II, but largely because none of the belligerents chose to involve it. The last thing the Allies wanted was to risk Nazi control of the Turkish Straits, and the last thing the Axis wanted was the Anatolian land war that would have been required to hold the straits.

In 1946, Turkey’s slim menu of options narrowed to one: Western alignment. The Soviet Union had risen as much as Turkey had fallen during this period and by the end of World War II had stationed troops on Turkey’s Caucasus and Balkan borders. Soon Moscow had military advisors in Iraq and Syria. Far from being at the center of global commerce, Turkey found itself surrounded by some of the least dynamic and most closed economies in the world, at the crossroads of nothing. The only possible opening to wealth was in economic integration with Europe, but the Turks’ traditional route for that integration — the Danube — was now an internal Soviet waterway. Any economic development the Turks were going to do had to be funded solely by the Marmara region, and lack of proximate trading partners meant any trade could not be under terms imposed by Ankara. Against this sort of economic and security backdrop and with the Soviets backing rebel forces within Turkey, it is no wonder that Turkey became a sort of Western protectorate, first joining NATO and later joining the equivalent of a free trade area with the European Union. It simply had no other viable options.

With the end of the Cold War, Turkey’s neighborhood evolved again, this time into a form reminiscent of the early days of Ottoman expansion. In the final years of the Cold War, the Soviets went from influencing — if not outright controlling — most of Turkey’s borders to simply disappearing. In that same period, no fewer than seven local wars erupted in the Balkans and Caucasus, while the Americans launched Desert Storm against Iraq. The ossification of the Turkish neighborhood was gone, replaced by shattered geography in which multiple major powers were now seeking to craft their own spheres of influence.

Today, Russia is resurgent in the former Soviet Union, the European Union is debating whether to absorb all of the Western Balkans (or just the choice bits), and the Americans and Persians are arguing over what the power balance in Mesopotamia will be. In all of these questions, Turkey is seen a secondary player at best. The Europeans have long considered Turkey a spent force with its most glorious role in the European project perhaps to be an energy transit state. Russia’s resurgence has, in part, targeted Azerbaijan, the one piece of the post-Soviet space where Turkey had made some degree of progress since 1992. Only the United States envisions a role for Turkey beyond its borders, and even that role is thought of in Washington as a proxy position for American interests, first in Iraq and second in the broader region. For a power with such a grand imperial history, such rapid-fire changes are humbling and aggravating in roughly equal measure.

Yet Turkey not only still exists, it also is about to reappear on the global scene. The Turks’ quiescence of the past 90 years has been the case only because the region’s political geography shifted into one that constrained Turkey’s options and limited its contact with its neighbors. However, the constellation of forces that created that containment shattered at the end of the Cold War. Turkey is now free to re-engage its immediate neighbors and (perhaps more important) those neighbors are free to re-engage Turkey. The world of 2010 has presented Turkey with a neighborhood that can overwhelm it with disturbing ease should the Turks not end their isolation, and just as in the early Ottoman days, the Turks have realized that they must expand or die.

So re-emerge they shall, but it will not be easy, and even the obvious choices for expansion pose challenges and risks. For one thing, the Balkans is home to no fewer than 12 major indigenous ethnicities, to say nothing of the hyphenated groups such as Bosnian-Serbs and Greek-Albanians. With the notable exception of the Danubian Valley, the Balkans is crisscrossed with mountain chains, forests and peninsulas, creating a mess of a region in which no single local power can dominate the others. Nearly every one of the 12 ethnic groups has made a bid for supremacy, and those who have not have all sought favor with an outside power which has become involved in the region. Every group has major and multiple axes to grind with nearly every other group, and most groups are even split among themselves over who sided with whom and when. The result is a local geopolitics that is thorny to the point that it can kill — and has killed — empires. And it is not without empires even today. The entirety of the Balkans are EU and NATO members, applicants or protectorates, sharply limiting Turkey’s ability to reclaim its former realm. And this is the “best” part of Turkey’s neighborhood in terms of a low cost-benefit ratio.

Then there is the Caucasus, home to not only the Georgians, Armenians and Azerbaijanis — who have no shortage of disrespect for each other — but also the Russians and Persians. The two major mountain chains of the Caucasus are home to literally dozens of smaller groups, many of which are constrained to tiny mountain redoubts. The most infamous of such groups are the Chechens. Compared to the Balkans, land in the Caucasus is harsher, the mountains higher and steeper and the opportunities for wealth more distant. The Caucasus is neither perched on the edge of one of the world’s richest continents nor is it a way station on a transcontinental trade route like the Balkans. Instead, the Caucasus suffers from close access to the Eurasian steppe, which has brought the Caucasus endless waves of invaders. There are very good reasons why this is one of the last regions to which the Ottomans ever expanded.

Finally, there is the region upon which the Turks are likely to focus their attention in the next few years: the Levant. The geography is ostensibly simple — a thin coastal strip backed by a mountain chain — but the key word here is ostensibly. There are multiple ridges in the Lebanon Mountains, and the fact that the Jordan River drains not to the coast but instead to the land-locked Dead Sea massively complicates the region’s ethnic structure. Tiny Lebanon alone is home to no fewer than 18 recognized sectarian groups, to say nothing of the diverse politics that wrack the lands that today comprise Syria, Jordan and Israel. Sea power can dominate the coastal strip (as the Crusaders did), and alliances with some local groups against the others can even allow for limited power projection inland. But this region can never truly be conquered. There are too many groups with too many interests clashing with too many other factions. And unlike the Balkans, the Levant has no clear economic artery nor even reasonable barriers that could isolate any one section of the region from the rest. The mountains are just not high enough, with the Euphrates granting a broad and wide corridor so that the powers in Mesopotamia and Persia can play the Levantine game from time to time.

And unlike the Balkans or Caucasus, there are no overwhelming powers in the Levant. The Americans are leaving, Persia lacks the ability to project power beyond its immediate neighborhood and Israel has no interest in expanding its territory. But there are reasons for the relative lack of great-power interest. The entire combined Middle East, from Morocco to Iran, boasts an economy that is but three-quarters the size of Spain spread over a region larger than all of Europe. The region is a convenient place for the Turks to cut their teeth and ease their way back into the international arena after a 90-year hiatus, but it is not a region the Turks can use to fuel a return to greatness. The cost-benefit ratio is simply too high. It is a cost that the Turks are extremely familiar with, since some of the debris of empire in the region is debris from their own former empire.

…Different Turkey

The second challenge limiting modern Turkey’s development, that the nature of the Turks has changed, is due to shifts in the country’s political geography.

Modern Turkey holds very little of the territory that has historically fallen within its sphere of influence. Crimea was lost to Russia in the late 18th century, the Balkans were carved away bit by bit in the 19th, and finally its Arab territories fell away in the early 20th. Turkey retains only a single piece of non-core territory: the Anatolian Peninsula.

Unlike the rest of the territories that Ottoman Turkey or the eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire held at their heights, Anatolia is of questionable use. It lacks usable rivers like the Balkans and clear strategic value like Crimea. It is not a road to a greater prize like the Levant. It cannot even reliably feed itself as Mesopotamia can. Farther east on the peninsula, the land becomes steeper, drier and rockier, even as the valleys shrink in size. In short, all of the benefits of the core Marmara region steadily wither as one moves east before disappearing altogether as the land merges with the Caucasus and Persia. Given Anatolia’s aridity, elevation, steepness and neighbors, developing the region requires a mammoth expenditure of resources for very little return.

The marriage of the capital richness of the Sea of Marmara with the capital poverty of Anatolia — locked away from the world for 90 years — has changed Turkey and the Turks radically.

First, it has created a balance-of-power issue, which did not exist during imperial days. Since modern Turkey was shorn of the bulk of its empire in 1920, capital generated in the Sea of Marmara region largely lost the ability to invest in locations other than Marmara and Anatolia, and the trickle that remained after the Ottoman fall all but dried up during the Cold War. Over the course of three generations, the Turks have steadily made Anatolia their own, investing in infrastructure, education and slow-but-steady urbanization. As Anatolia developed, it not only generated its own merchant class but also steadily expanded its presence in Turkey’s bureaucracy, police forces and military. By the 2000s, combined Anatolian cultural and economic strength had matured sufficiently to challenge the heretofore-unassailable hold of the Sea of Marmara region on Turkey’s political, cultural, economic and military life. It would be an oversimplification to say that the current disputes between Turkey’s secular and religious factions are purely geographic in origin, but it is an equal oversimplification to assert that they are purely based on the secular-religious split. The two overlay and reinforce each other.

Second, Turkey’s cultural outlook has evolved so substantially over the past three generations that the Ottoman Turks might not even recognize their modern brethren. The Ottoman Turks, like the Byzantines before them, were an extremely cosmopolitan and confident culture. Their easy access to the maritime and trade possibilities of the Sea of Marmara region — combined with the security granted by the sea’s very limited access points — gave the Turks easy access to capital and the ability to easily and cheaply protect it.

Expansion into empire only entrenched this mix of openness and security. The greater Danube basin brought the Turks into contact with productive region after productive region, yet Ottoman Turkey lacked the demographic strength to simply displace the locals and repopulate the land with Turks. The solution was to integrate the peoples of the valuable territories into Ottoman society. The Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs and Hungarians may, of course, dispute the assessment, but these nationalities enjoyed more social and economic rights than any other subject peoples until the onset of democracy as a governing system in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Eventual expansion to Crimea, the Nile and Mesopotamia only deepened this inclusiveness.

But that world ended for the Turks 90 years ago. Since then, they have been left with the rump of Anatolia, a zone with an arid climate and rugged topography that has more in common with Greece or the Caucasus than the Danube basin. The land held few fertile regions (only a pair of small coastal plains in the south), no navigable rivers and a relative dearth of other resources. Unlike the Danube region, where the Turks needed the active participation of the local populations to make use of the land, in Anatolia there was little useful land in the first place. As a result, there was little reason to grant political or economic concessions to non-Turkish populations. By extension, a lack of political integration predominated. Turkey’s relations with the Kurds and Armenians of Anatolia were far more similar to its more hostile relations with the Greeks or Montenegrins than they were with the more favorably received Romanians or Bulgarians.

The end result of this transformation from an “imperial” political geography that included the Danube to a “republican” political geography that was limited to Anatolia is that Turkey is no longer the multiethnic polity it once was. The Turkish political demographic has shifted from a proactively multicultural governing system to that of a dominating Turkish supermajority that attempts to smother minority groups out of public life. This change in mindset from “dominant but inclusive” to simply “dominant” is reflected across the political landscape well beyond the issue of interethnic relations.

Consequently, modern Turkey is divided internally, is no longer predisposed to political compromise and lacks the natural routes for economic expansion that made it great in its previous incarnation. Moreover, the global trade that fueled its expansion in the past has moved away from the region. Simply put, Turkey is no longer a land of united, rich and worldly traders, as the Ottomans were. Ninety years of absence from international affairs have forced the Turks to find cultural refuge in the Anatolian Peninsula. This experience transformed them into a people with characteristics more similar to those of the insular Greeks than the more open Romanians.

And the split isn’t simply between Turks and non-Turks. Internally, there is a deep, and perhaps unbridgeable, split within Turkish society between the “secular” faction of the Sea of Marmara region which sees the country’s future in association with Europe and the “religious” faction of the Anatolia which wants to pursue relationships with the Islamic world. (It is worth noting that neither of these definitions is absolute. There certainly are secularists within Anatolia and there are devotees of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) within the Marmara region — for example, the AKP holds the Istanbul mayoralty.)

Both groups have any number of advantages and disadvantages. The Marmara group — typically referred to as the secularists — is heir to Turkey’s historical legacy. They control most of the trade with Europe and from it most of the country’s income and merchant activity. They dominate both the courts and the military and are credited with the large-scale development that has driven Turkey over the past three generations. But both the NATO alliance and the European Union, organizations that are far too strong for the Turks to break, block their link to the country’s former imperial territories, thus limiting this faction’s power base to Marmara alone. Marmara was not enough for the Ottomans, and alone it will not be enough for the secularists.

The Anatolian group — currently represented by the AKP — increasingly controls the country’s political life, and with the rising population of Anatolia vis-a-vis the Marmara region, it increasingly holds the hearts of the people as well. Where the secularists embrace the military and Occidental aspects of Turkey’s Ottoman past, the Anatolians embrace the religious and the Oriental characteristics. After all, the Ottomans held the Islamic Caliphate for centuries. That link has allowed the Anatolians to extend their influence throughout the entire Islamic world. But despite efforts to forge economic links to the broader Middle East, the simple fact remains that there is little to reach to economically (with the possible exception of Israel, which is politically problematic for an Islamic-rooted group like the AKP).

And so Turkey rages with a power struggle between two groups of different geographies, neither of which holds a vision of the future relevant to the political geography of the present.

Pakistan court assesses PM Nawaz Sharif wealth claims

Read original article on the BBC or read a quick summary below;

  1. Pakistan’s Supreme Court is considering corruption allegations against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, amid mounting pressure over his family’s wealth. The move comes after investigators said his family had failed to account for the source of its financial assets.
  2. The probe began when the Panama Papers leaks linked his children to offshore companies used to buy London flats. This fuelled suspicion the companies were used to launder ill-gotten wealth, claims Mr Sharif strenuously denies.
  3. He says the properties in London were acquired legitimately and that he personally does not own them.
  4. But the issue is turning into a major challenge to him. Opposition groups accuse his family of using their political influence to amass wealth by unlawful means and are calling on him to resign.
  5. So far Mr Sharif has refused, calling the investigators’ report a compilation of “allegations and assumptions”. His decision to stay in power was endorsed by the federal cabinet last week.

 

Who killed Zia Ul Haq?

Zia ul-Haq was born into a middle-class family in 1924 in India. After completing his education at home, he enrolled at St. Stephen’s College in India.

Choosing a career in the British army, he joined the Royal Indian Military Academy and then served with British troops in Burma, Malaysia and Indonesia during the latter part of World War II.

After the partition of India into India and Pakistan in 1947, Zia joined the Pakistani army.

He attended two military schools in the United States which included Fort Knox in 1959 and the U.S. CGSS at Fort Leavenworth in 1963.

Zia was on active duty in Kashmir during the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, and after it he was promoted to colonel.

In 1969 he was made a brigadier, and for two years he was adviser to the Royal Jordanian Army in their conflict with Palestinian guerrillas.

Under the government of Prime Minister Z.A. Bhutto, Zia advanced rapidly within the army ranks.

In 1975 he was promoted to lieutenant-general and in 1976 was appointed as army chief of staff, chosen over several more senior officers.

But Bhutto underestimated Zia. Accusations by opposition leaders that the prime minister’s party had manipulated the results of the March 1977 parliamentary elections led to widespread public demonstrations and violence.

The military, headed by Zia, stepped in on July 5, 1977, to impose martial law and deposed Bhutto in a bloodless coup.

Zia suspended the 1973 constitution, dissolved the National Assembly, banned political activity and declared himself president in 1978. He purged politicians associated with Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party.

Bhutto was implicated in a case concerning the assassination of a political opponent’s father, and in April 1979, despite international protests, Zia had him executed.

Bhutto’s execution made Zia unpopular, the economy was in trouble, and in November 1979 Islamists burned the American embassy in Islamabad.

Zia’s days seemed numbered, but on Christmas Eve 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and the United States reversed its long opposition to Pakistan and began aiding Zia’s regime to help it fend off Soviet agression.

Zia’s Islamization program tempered criticism of his military regime.

Soviet intervention in Afghanistan resulted in a revival of U.S. strategic interests in the region and in an economic and military aid package of $3.2 billion to Pakistan.

During the conflict, Zia helped smuggle U.S. supplies to the Soviet-backed Afghan rebels and allowed them to operate training bases in Pakistan

In December 1984 Zia abruptly called for a referendum to determine support for his Islamization policies. The referendum passed overwhelmingly, and Zia considered it a mandate to remain as president for another five years.

In 1986 Benazir Bhutto, daughter of the executed president, returned to Pakistan after two years of self-imposed exile and started to organize the opposition.

Prime Minister Mohammed Khan Junejo led efforts to exert more civilian control over the military.

IIn May 1988, Zia fired Junejo and his 33-member cabinet and dissolved the National Assembly.

Bhhutto declared that her Pakistan People’s Party was “ready to go to the people.”

On August 17, 1988, Zia was on a secret mission to a desert area in eastern Pakistan, meeting U.S. Ambassador Arnold Raphel for a demonstration of the M-1 Abrams tank.

With an American military attache and 27 Pakistani advisors, Zia and Raphel boarded a C-130 plane to return to the capital.

Within minutes after takeoff, it exploded, killing everyone aboard. The crash was suspicious.

But Pakistani and American investigators failed to confirm the plane had been bombed.

Experts speculated about which of Zia’s many enemies might have assassinated him.

The Soviet Union, the government of India, Bhutto’s People Party and Zia’s own military all came under suspicion, but no culprit was ever found.

Reference

http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/south-asian-history-biographies/mohammad-zia-ul-haq

5 Famous Military Coups

Since as far back as biblical times, coups d’état have been a common way of seizing power for those lacking suitable royal blood and democratic sensibilities. In contrast to revolutions, which are mass uprisings, they take place abruptly and involve only a small group of high-ranking, military-backed officials. From Napoleon to Pinochet, here are five leaders who, in classic coups, deposed the existing regime and took charge themselves from one day to the next.

Learn more and see references here – https://www.kjvids.co.uk/5-famous-military-coups/

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel

Become a KJ Patreon so we can produce more and better content
https://www.patreon.com/kjvids

Sign up to our website and submit video suggestions:
www.kjvids.co.uk

Like our Facebook page for exclusive updates:
https://www.facebook.com/KJVids

Follow us on Instagram for our one minute vids:
https://www.instagram.com/kjvids2016

Follow us on Twitter to be informed when we post:
https://twitter.com/kjvids2016

Scroll to top