The great powers and the water dispute in the Middle East: A prelude to the six day war

The definition of Turkish nationhood after the founding of the Republic has been evaluated and labelled very differently by various scholars. The classical view paralleled the official representation of Republican policies in describing Turkish nationhood as being based on a civic and territorial understanding of nationality. More recent and much more critical scholarship, which enjoys a near-hegemonic position in the study of Turkish nationalism today, claims that the official definition of Turkish nationhood has a clearly identifiable mono-ethnic orientation, manifest in a series of policies and institutions. This article argues that the definition of Turkish nationhood as manifest in state policies is neither territorial nor mono-ethnic, but rather ironically for the adamantly secular Turkish republic, the definition of Turkish nationhood is mono-religious and anti-ethnic, in striking continuity with the Islamic millet under the Ottoman Empire. The reason critical scholars perceive Turkish nationhood as mono-ethnic might stem from the dichotomous view of nationalisms as civic versus ethnic, a dichotomy that has recently been repudiated by some of its erstwhile proponents. Supremacy of the religious over ethnic categories in Turkey, as a historical legacy of the Ottoman millet system, might be applicable to most post-Ottoman states in the Islamic Middle East and North Africa, in contrast to the interplay of ethnicity and religion in Western Europe. This view of Turkish nationhood is confirmed by a dozen interviews that the author conducted with members of the political and intellectual elite of different ideological orientations in Turkey. It is then demonstrated how the new efforts at reformulating modern Turkish identity with reference to Ottoman and Islamic conceptions lead to new inclusion–exclusion dynamics with the Kurds and the Alevis, suggesting that a truly inclusive reformulation has to follow secular and territorial principles.     

The war in Georgia and the Western response

This article considers Western, and most particularly American, policy towards Tbilisi in the Russo-Georgian war of August 2008. The article does not accept the view of Russian leaders that the United States actively promoted the Georgian attack on South Ossetia. It does, however, argue that Washington's alliance with Georgia was sufficiently close to make President Saakashvili believe he would receive American support in the event of war with Russia. The war, however, was not in America's interest since it threatened its position in the South Caucasus and provided Russia with an opportunity to re-emphasize its growing power in the world.     

The Indian army in the present war

Tibet, Record of a Journey. By Alan Winnington. Published by Lawrence and Wishart, Ltd., London. 1957. Pp. 235. 1 coloured plate and 27 illustrations; sketch maps under each cover with author's itinerary. 25s.     

Africa and the war on terror

An analysis of the links between weak states and terrorism; strategies to combat the spread of terrorism in countries where populations may be vulnerable; and a look at Africa's situation in the US's war against terror.     

Weather modification and war

Abstract

Although the cost already borne by the people of Indochina in terms of human deaths and injuries is staggering, still more suffering awaits them as a consequence of the lingering effects of the new use of an old weapon — environmental warfare — on a scale never before seen. Throughout the war, the United States systematically attacked the ecosystem through intense application of herbicides, large-scale bulldozing, attempted creation of firestorms, and the incredibly concentrated bombing, which cratered vast areas and repeatedly damaged the dikes in North Vietnam. This has created irreversible damage to the environment. In addition to serving the announced purpose of denying cover to the insurgents, it has become clear that the environmental warfare has had a more sinister purpose: to destroy the social structure that supports the National Liberation Front by removing millions of people from their ancestral homes and packing them into more easily controlled areas, such as urban slums and refugee camps.