It is hard to believe it has just been 20 years since “neo-Ottomanism” hit the stage in Turkey. At that time, a Western official described Turkey as a bridge between East and West and as an example that proved the compatibility of political Islam with democracy. He was wrong.
As American officials and diplomats, up to and including President George W. Bush, sang Turkey’s praises, then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was already laying the groundwork for his policy of “neo-Ottomanism”, the belief that Turkey should lead all the successor states of the Ottoman Empire.
The peoples whom the Turks subjugated over the centuries did not remember their experience as fondly as Turkish nationalists did.
The idea had been germinating for a while. The influential but often antisemitic Turkish journalist Çengiz Candar coined the term in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse; he now serves in Turkey’s parliament. In 1993, Candar explained, “I think Kemalism makes Turkey turn in on itself. The time has come to reconsider the policy.” A decade later, Ali Bayramoğlu wrote in the Islamist daily Yeni Şafak that the partisans of “neo-Ottomanism…are increasing every day”.
The signs of Erdoğan’s true belief were always there, even at an early stage, for anyone who cared to look. On September 5, 2003, Khurshid Dalli warned in the United Arab Emirates’ daily al-Bayan that Turkey’s support for “neo-Ottomanism” was extremely sensitive, especially when oil and gas could fuel “historical nationalist sentiments” moving beyond the mere rhetorical. On July 11, 2004, for example, the Bulgarian independent daily Trud criticised Erdogan’s demands that Bulgaria preserve its Ottoman heritage. “Erdogan’s arrogant behaviour in Sofia left no illusions about the development of Turkish policy toward Bulgaria… The direction is neo-Ottomanism,” columnist Ognyan Minchev wrote.
The problem with neo-Ottomanism was always two-fold. First, the peoples whom the Turks subjugated over the centuries did not remember their experience as fondly as Turkish nationalists did. Second, the Ottoman domains did not extend eastward toward Central Asia.
Azerbaijan, for example, was never part of the Ottoman Empire, let alone Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan. Here, though, Erdoğan just tweaked history by conflating neo-Ottomanism with pan-Turanism, the belief in unity for the Turkic peoples.
Wherever history did not support Erdoğan’s ambitions, he simply turned to Islamism, investing heavily in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and putting a Turk at its helm.
While the Saudi monarchy bases its legitimacy upon its role as custodian of the two Holy Mosques in Mecca and Medina, Erdoğan’s next step is to present Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman as an unworthy custodian; then he will demand the internationalisation of Mecca, Medina, and the Haj under a Turkish-dominated body such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
Turkey today is not only a force for Islamism and instability in the region; it is an ideological incubator that expands its methodology outward.
In effect, neo-Ottomanism is and always was a cover for Turkish irredentism and a cover for its efforts to sponsor Islamist terror.
Turkey today is not only a force for Islamism and instability in the region; it is an ideological incubator that expands its methodology outward. Turkey’s support for Hamas, for example, presaged its more open support for Kashmir-based terrorism, for example.
In 2020, Erdoğan spoke before a joint session of the Pakistan parliament to reciprocate a visit by Prime Minister Imran Khan to Turkey. Erdoğan thanked the Pakistani people for their help during Turkey’s war of independence (never mind that Pakistan did not exist at the time). “It was Çanakkale [Gallipoli] yesterday and Kashmir today; there is no difference between the two,” Erdoğan said, declaring that Turkey would always stand with Pakistan in its illegal quest to seize Kashmir.
Pakistan has increasingly looked at Turkey for inspiration. The parliamentary speakers of Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan meet trilaterally to emphasise their solidarity. Pakistan sees the West’s tolerance for Turkey’s Islamism and irredentism as a sign that it too can get away with murder.
As Western countries excuse Turkey’s occupations of northern Cyprus, northern Syria, and parts of Iraqi Kurdistan as just manifestations of neo-Ottomanism, expect Pakistan to follow suit, all the more so to backfill what is essentially an artificial and accidental state with historic validity.
Many artificial states link themselves to past empires to claim legitimacy retroactively. The Palestinians claim descent from the Canaanites, never mind the absence of genetic link. Uzbekistan lays claim to Tamerlane (Amir Timur). The Lebanese claim they are the modern-day Phoenicians. It would not be surprising under such circumstances to see Pakistani strategists tie themselves retroactively to the Mughal Empire, one of the great gunpowder empires of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.
With Turkey successfully getting Western apologists and useful idiots to rationalise its neo-Ottoman drive, expect Pakistan to more forcefully enunciate the language and rhetoric of neo-Mughalism.
True historians would understand that the Mughal Empire was Indian. Millions of tourists flock to its former capital in Agra. Nearby Fatehpur Sikri was its capital for 14 years. Delhi, of course, was its capital for more than two centuries until the British Crown formally transferred India into a colony. However, between 1586 and 1598, the Mughal capital was at Lahore. That may be enough for Pakistan’s Islamist strategists, who care little for truth in history, to claim special legitimacy for Pakistan’s expansionist aims.
Pakistan has sought—unsuccessfully so far—to convert Afghanistan into a satrapy. Its land grab of a portion and terror sponsorship in the rest of Kashmir also signals its imperialistic quest. So too does its latest fantasy of Khalistani separatism in Indian Punjab, with Pakistan having driven minorities out of its own Punjab.
Pakistan will, of course, continue its drive against India. The Islamists at Pakistan’s helm see Hindus as second-class citizens with no right to equality, let alone rule. With Turkey successfully getting Western apologists and useful idiots to rationalise its neo-Ottoman drive, expect Pakistan to more forcefully enunciate the language and rhetoric of neo-Mughalism to give a framework to its terror strategy and Hinduphobia.
Just as Italy and Japan imitated Germany in the run-up to World War II, and Mao Zedong learnt from Joseph Stalin as the Cold War erupted, so too do revisionists and rogues today lean on each other for ideas and inspiration. When Islamabad takes inspiration from Ankara, terrorism thrives, democracies suffer, and the world becomes far less safe.
Published originally under the title “How Turkey’s ‘Neo-Ottomanism’ and Pakistan’s ‘Neo-Mughalism’ Are Clear and Present Danger.”
