Özal's secret book

Do you know about the book titled “La Turquie en Europe” (Turkey in Europe) written by Turgut Özal in 1988?

The Turkish version of the book was never published. It was printed in England in 1991 in English (Turkey in Europe and Europe in Turkey).

Özal presented the book to the EU Council of Ministers during his application for permanent EU membership.

It would not be wrong at all to look for the answer to why the book was not translated and published in Turkey within the content of the book itself.

The foreword of the book was written by Geoffrey Lewis, a Jewish-born professor at Oxford University. He was a researcher of the Turkish language. His most well-known work was “Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success.” It is also interesting that he was presented with the “Republic of Turkey Order of Merit” in 1998 for his contributions to Turcology.

Özal dedicated his book to “the peoples of Europe and the Turkish people who belong to them.”

The purpose of its writing was to draw attention to a multicultural structure by explaining that many civilizations have existed throughout history in the Anatolian geography.

Anatolian civilizations were covered starting from 3000 B.C., and after describing the Hatti, Luwian, Hurrian, Hittite, Lydian, Lycian, Urartian, Carian, Phrygian, Trojan, and Cretan civilizations, extensive space was given to the Ionian and Hellenic civilizations.

There is no emphasis on Turkish origins regarding any of these ancient civilizations.

In the 7th chapter of the book, which concerns the Turks, it is claimed that Turks in Anatolia constitute 10% of the population. (p. 119)

The Anatolian Seljuk State, which had a great influence on Anatolian civilization, was not included among the cultural origins of Anatolia. It could only find a place for itself between the lines in one chapter.

According to the book, the Hittites are also of Indo-European origin.

After stating that his purpose in writing the book was to correct a mistake that had been made, Özal says: “The lasting mistake made regarding Anatolia is that Anatolia has been subjected to an ethnicity-focused evaluation... It is the evaluation of Anatolia as if it were the homeland of the Turks and the Ottomans.” (p. 46)

“There are 70 mother tongues living in Anatolia to this day. Both the Eastern Roman and Ottoman Empires, as universal states, were built upon existing cultures.” (p. 47)

“The question that needs to be answered is not whether the Turks, who have lived in these lands for more than a thousand years, will claim the heritage of the ancient Anatolian civilizations or whether they will take the path of integration with the Western World according to the criteria of claiming the Greek and Ionian civilizations inherited by them.” (p. 50) After saying this, he explains that Greek civilization was also inspired by Anatolian civilization.

The most interesting part of the book is the 9th chapter, where the structure and institutions of the Ottoman Empire are described.

After noting that the effects of Byzantium on the Ottoman Empire have been much debated among Western historians, Özal summarizes as follows: “The book gives extensive space to the subjects that in the 16th century, Turks saw themselves as the heirs of Rome; that Roman and Ottoman institutions and Ottoman laws were inspired by Rome and Byzantium; that Fatih Sultan Mehmet’s famous Kanunname (Code of Law) was adapted from Byzantium; that administrative titles, state titles, and job descriptions were taken from Constantinople; that Greek names were Turkified and used (ferman, sancak, etc.); and even that the veil used by women was taken from the Eastern Roman Empire. According to Özal; the financial system, architecture, measurement system, and even the structure of religious institutions were taken from Byzantium.

Some Turkish writers also accept these claims, acknowledging that Byzantine protocol rules and customs, the costumes of the Sultan’s processions, and even words like “alay” (procession) and “efendi” (master) are of Byzantine origin.

According to the Byzantine scholar Torga, “Fatih Sultan Mehmet is more Byzantine than the Byzantine Emperor himself.”

Furthermore, according to Torga, “Byzantine civilization continued its sovereignty as the Muslim Roman Empire by forming an alliance with Islam.” (p. 141-142)

Özal continues by multiplying these examples in his book.

“Turkish culture was formed by synthesizing the cultural accumulation of ancient Anatolian civilizations with ancient Greek philosophy, extending from Plato to Aristotle, and the philosophy of monotheistic religions.

Therefore, the new synthesis represents a combination of Central Asian, Islamic, and Greek rationalism with the humanist mysticism of Anatolia. (167-168)

Since Byzantine culture is accepted as a part of Western civilization, it is clear that, based on the similarities between the Eastern Roman and Ottoman Empires, Ottoman culture is also a part of Western culture... (p. 169)”

The message emerging from these narratives is that the Turk has no place in the cultural accumulation of Anatolia. Anatolian culture is a synthesis of ancient Anatolian civilizations and Greek culture, in which the Turk has no place. There is not even a mention of the Turk. There is no such thing as Turkish culture anyway. Greek culture, which forms the strongest of the building blocks of Western civilization, is also the strongest of the building blocks of the Ottoman Empire. In that case, Özal says, we are no different from you. In fact, we are more “you” than you are.

Thus, the Turkish identity, excluded from the Ottoman identity, is reduced to merely a “subculture” group within a multi-national, multi-cultural, and pluralistic structure.

Explaining that the Westernization movement in the Ottoman Empire and the reforms associated with it brought about a loss of identity due to the influence of Western currents of thought, Özal points to the emergence of Pan-Islamist and Pan-Turkist movements as evidence of this. (p. 254)

It is explained that movements of European origin, such as nationalism, and currents of racism began to become influential in Europe as well.

The final chapters of the book are devoted to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey and the revolutions. However, the Revolutions “were copied from the West, were accepted only by a small elite group, and could not provide a lasting contribution to civilization.

The alphabet revolution not only left the people ignorant for a certain period but also severed the ties with the past. (p. 262)

In his book, Özal took care to reflect his views through foreign writers.

For example, while quoting the words of former Italian Foreign Minister Sforza, “Atatürk not only sidelined religion but also mocked the Islamic traditions from which his people had drawn strength for centuries,” he also included Toynbee’s words: “The reform process caused the Turks to lose their own souls.” (p. 282)

It is emphasized that Mustafa Kemal severed Turkey’s ties with the Ottoman Empire and Islam. (p. 351)

What message did Özal give to Europe with this book?

His first message is that the Ottoman Empire was a universal empire that was compatible with European civilization, had a multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-national, and very brilliant past, and led Islam in Muslim countries. Just like Rome and Byzantium, the Ottoman Empire was also a Universal Empire.

His second message is that the Republic of Turkey, founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, displayed a despotic administration that crushed the people’s beliefs and ethnic identities under “secularism and nationalism.”

According to Özal, Atatürk compensated for the illegitimate practices caused by radical secularism in a society where the Islamic religion had formed the backbone of culture, law, and even politics for years with his “charisma.” (p. 277)

Another message of the book is this: Turkey has now changed, religion has been liberated, and ethnic identities have attained a structure that prioritizes multi-cultural, multi-identity democracy, just as it was in the Ottoman Empire.

Thus, the Ottomanism message given by Western politicians, thinkers, and writers was also reinforced.

The neo-liberal, conservative, decentralist, and pluralist politics of the 1980s are ready with the Ottoman model.