Hakkımda

FİRUZ DEMİR YAŞAMIŞ Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi’ni bitirmiştir (1968). University of Southern California’da planlama (kentsel ve bölgesel çevre) ve kamu yönetimi yüksek lisans programlarını bitirmiştir (1976). Siyaset ve Kamu Yönetimi Doktoru (1991). Yerel Yönetimler, Kentleşme ve Çevre Politikaları bilim dalında doçent (1993). Başbakanlık Çevre Müsteşarlığı’nın kuruluşu sırasında müsteşar vekili. (1978-80) UNICEF Türkiye temsilciliği. (1982-84) Dünya Bankası’nın Çukurova Kentsel Gelişme Projesi’nde kurumsal gelişme uzmanı. (1984-86) Çankaya Belediyesi’nin kurumsal gelişme projesini yürütmüştür. (1989-91) Yedinci Kalkınma Planı “Çevre Özel İhtisas Komisyonu”nun başkanlığı. DPT “Çevre Yapısal Değişim Projesi” komisyonu başkanlığı. Cumhurbaşkanlığı DDK’nun Devlet Islahat Projesi raportörü. (2000-1) Çevre Bakanlığı Müsteşarı (Şubat 1998 – Ağustos 1999). Sabancı Üniversitesi tam zamanlı öğretim üyesi. (2001-2005) Halen yarı zamanlı öğretim üyesi olarak çeşitli üniversitelerde ders vermektedir. Şimdiye kadar ders verdiği üniversiteler arasında Ankara, Orta Doğu, Hacettepe, Fatih, Yeditepe, Maltepe ve Lefke Avrupa (Kıbrıs) üniversiteleri bulunmaktadır.
Blogger tarafından desteklenmektedir.

Translate

Toplam Sayfa Görüntüleme Sayısı

EVİM: ARKEON, TUZLA, ISTANBUL, TÜRKİYE

EVİM: ARKEON, TUZLA, ISTANBUL, TÜRKİYE
EV

Bu Blogda Ara

1 Haziran 2025 Pazar

 

 

“The Four Pillars of the Umma: Arabs, Turks, Kurds and Persians”

 

Prof. Dr. Firuz Demir Yasamis

 

 

 

Arab Thought Forum

International Conference on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amman, 22 July 2018

Le Royal Hotel

 

 


 

Looking at the title of this one-day round table, I see three main concepts which form the overall picture of the area concerned.

The first concept of “Umma” is directly related to Islam, our religion.

The second concept indicates “ethnic and nationalist” breakages: the Arabs, the Turks, the Kurds and the Persians (or, Iranians) living in the Middle East.

The third concept is being a “pillar” which denotes to the essential foundations of inter and intra regional relations and, again, indicates the main decision makers in terms of politics, economics, religious, diplomacy and foreign relations of the main countries taking place in the region.

All these concepts direct me to think about the excessively complex and war-like conditions in the Middle East.

In this context, the first question that comes to my mind is this: Are the pillars accurately spelt out? Or, are there other main players that deeply affect the region such as Israel, Egypt, the USA and Russia?

My second question is related to Islam as it relates to the concept of Umma. Yes, all these nations/ethnic groups are Muslim. However, there are sectarian and theocratic differences among them ranging from Sufism to Selefism, to secular systems and systems based upon Islamic Shariah. The question to be answered here is this: Would it be politically feasible and realistic to expect that the deeply rooted differences can be resolved ad consolidated?

The third question to be answered is related to the political systems of the main pillars of the region. The political systems in the region change from monarchic systems, to republican ones, to parliamentarian systems and the presidential systems. Then the question is this: How realistic is to expect that these differing political systems can be peacefully merged into each other or at least can cooperate effectively together?

Another important question is related to the global nature of the international relations. It is obvious that Islam may provide an umbrella or may be seen as the common denominator for the main pillars mentioned earlier. However, all these pillars have global ties namely, military, political, ideological, commercial and economical with the other nations of the World. In most cases they are not the sole owners of their own sovereignty. Even the concept of sovereignty has changed its meaning nowadays. There are other role players which do have powerful impacts on national decision making procedures in the region. These pillars cannot decide alone but they have to take other role players interests into consideration. If so, would it be reasonable to expect that conflict resolution/management systems can be set up effectively to secure the peace, stability and democracy in the region to avoid the immitigable and adverse impacts of political confrontations.  

The last but not the least question is related of the conflicts of interests among the four pillars. All of the pillars of Umma have their own political, economic and religious conflicting issues within their own national borders. It is also not possible to deny that all main pillars do have drastic conflicts of interests among themselves. 

Additionally, there are many differences and inequalities in terms of GNP level, richness of natural resources, level of development, employment and unemployment conditions and literacy and educational level among these four main pillars.

Consequently, the Umma has four pillars indeed in the region.

However, all these pillars are not identical with each other in terms of shape, color, height, thickness and strength.

Now, after all, finally the real last question comes to my mind: Would it be possible to imagine and expect that a stable, brotherly, peaceful, orderly and long-lasting political life and international relations can be established and sustained on the table supported by these pillars?

Hiç yorum yok: