Tweet
Turkish Daily News, Turkey -
10 Mar 2005
Semih Idiz: On and on it goes, where it stops everyone knows
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Officials in Ankara may be angry with Hansjorg Kretschmer, the EU's
outspoken representative here. But Ambassador Kretschmer doesn't act
in a void. He reflects the mood in EU capitals. The feedback that
Ankara got from Monday's Troika meeting should have made this
patently clear. The shocking display of police brutality against
women in Istanbul over the weekend, on the other hand, showed that
Ambassador Kretschmer has a point.
We have a saying in Turkey: "He who speaks the truth will be driven
out of nine villages." We say this for those whose remarks reflect
unsavory truths that people don't want to hear. The government would
do well to approach the remarks by the EU's representative as some
kind of an "early warning system" rather than trying to make them
disappear with angry ripostes.
The truth is that we Turks -- let alone Europeans, not all of who
are sincere by any means in this -- are asking if the government is
really up to the task as far as Turkey's EU process is concerned. It
seems that Turkish right-wing nationalism, which has always had an
anti-reformist streak, is proving to be a harder nut to crack than
assumed. There can be no other explanation for the foot-dragging by
the government in the area of human rights.
Human rights continue to be considered by ultra-nationalists in
Turkey -- including former ambassadors who are present-day
politicians in supposedly social democratic parties -- as "a means
used by the wily West to undo our country." Let us also recall that
rioting police -- and I don't mean "riot police," even though those
who were rioting at the time were riot police -- had marched
illegally in Turkey only a few years ago, chanting, "Down with the
EU!" and "Death to human rights!" It's all there in the Turkish
papers of the day if anyone is interested.
After the display of unspeakable brutality against boisterous, but
nevertheless harmless, women in Istanbul over the weekend, one would
have expected the government to act immediately on its own, and not
because of the public outcry in Europe, in order to weed out those
responsible. One would have expected this because of the government's
self-professed "reformism" and supposed vow to "show zero tolerance
to ill-treatment and torture."
But this was not to be. We saw the almost instinctive approach come
into play here once again. This was the traditional attempt to make
excuses for policemen who are clearly driven by feelings of vengeance
and to shift the blame onto the victims of their anger. In other
words, the Kafkaesque, "if you are being tortured or beaten by the
state, there must be a good reason for it" argument was apparent once
again.
This alone is enough to vindicate those skeptics who argue
knowingly that it is all very well to enact laws and utter fancy
words relating to these, but the proof of sincerity will always rest
in the sphere of implementation. In other words, the sphere that
Turkey has historically failed in.
The famous "Gulhane Hatti Humayunu," or the "Imperial Edict of
Gulhane," was proclaimed in 1839. Among other things it also foresaw
equality between races and religions and was the first effort by the
declining Ottoman Empire to modernize itself socially in order to
drag itself out of the morass that it had fallen into as a tyrannical
and theocratic eastern monarchy. It failed miserably because there
was no real desire in the ossified imperial state apparatus to
implement it. Instead, the "interference by foreign powers" argument
was used as far as back as then to evade the responsibilities that
this edict pointed to.
In 1856, after the Crimean War against Russia during which the
British, French and Ottoman Empires were allied, "Turkey" -- as it
was designated by the Europeans then -- was invited to join the
"Concert of Europe." Again the historic opportunity to modernize and
democratize -- to the extent that was possible in any country in
those days -- was squandered. In 1908 the "Young Turk Revolution"
aimed to end the brutal tyranny of Abdulhamid and was hailed by
Turks, Armenians and Greeks alike. It did not take long for that
revolution to deteriorate into a modern-day ultra-nationalist tyranny
under which all of these peoples of the empire suffered greatly and
without exception.
A historic moment of hope emerged for Turks with the advent of
Atatürk and his truly reformist program, which courageously made
Turkey take a quantum leap forward in order to catch up with the
civilized world. That hope was eventually overshadowed by traditional
political and social cynicism after his death, when government after
government proved that old habits die hard in Turkey.
In 1963 Turkey signed the Ankara Agreement with the EEC. Today we
are in 2005, and it needs no imagination to understand the
opportunities squandered by successive Turkish governments over the
four decades since that signing. In 1999 Turkey was "re-accepted" as
a candidate for EU membership. A visibly elated Prime Minister Ecevit
came back from the Helsinki summit proclaiming that Turkey would be a
member in three to five years. But he lost his EU enthusiasm
overnight, and it was only towards the end of his turbulent term in
office that he suddenly remembered the EU and the reforms needed for
this perspective to mature.
Given such a history it is natural for skeptics to wonder now if we
are merely seeing a repeat of all this. In other words, is the
Erdogan government reverting to the traditional habit of appeasing
conservative and ultra-nationalist elements deeply embedded in the
state apparatus rather than showing the leadership necessary to bring
European standards to Turks?
How, for example, can the government justifiably explain the
attempts at trying to protect the policemen who pumped a 12-year-old
kid with 13 bullets -- in what many jurists say is a clear-cut case
of extrajudicial killing. How, for example, can this government
explain why its knee-jerk reaction was -- and continues to be -- an
effort to come up with excuses for the brutal policemen who
mercilessly beat up a women?
If the Erdogan government is truly sincere about being "reformist"
-- and serious doubts have emerged over this -- it should stop trying
to protect people who act as if Turkey is a police state, and --
what's much worse -- get away with this with impunity. If this does
not bother the government, then it must be true what some people say
when they argue that this EU business is merely a game being played
for political gain by the AKP at the expense of the sincere
expectations of a large number of Turks. In that case there is only
one song for us Turks to sing: "On and on it goes, where it stops
everyone knows~E"
--Boundary_(ID_GLoXtsCaOQAkAfSQsQ7Ntw)--
10 Mar 2005
Semih Idiz: On and on it goes, where it stops everyone knows
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Officials in Ankara may be angry with Hansjorg Kretschmer, the EU's
outspoken representative here. But Ambassador Kretschmer doesn't act
in a void. He reflects the mood in EU capitals. The feedback that
Ankara got from Monday's Troika meeting should have made this
patently clear. The shocking display of police brutality against
women in Istanbul over the weekend, on the other hand, showed that
Ambassador Kretschmer has a point.
We have a saying in Turkey: "He who speaks the truth will be driven
out of nine villages." We say this for those whose remarks reflect
unsavory truths that people don't want to hear. The government would
do well to approach the remarks by the EU's representative as some
kind of an "early warning system" rather than trying to make them
disappear with angry ripostes.
The truth is that we Turks -- let alone Europeans, not all of who
are sincere by any means in this -- are asking if the government is
really up to the task as far as Turkey's EU process is concerned. It
seems that Turkish right-wing nationalism, which has always had an
anti-reformist streak, is proving to be a harder nut to crack than
assumed. There can be no other explanation for the foot-dragging by
the government in the area of human rights.
Human rights continue to be considered by ultra-nationalists in
Turkey -- including former ambassadors who are present-day
politicians in supposedly social democratic parties -- as "a means
used by the wily West to undo our country." Let us also recall that
rioting police -- and I don't mean "riot police," even though those
who were rioting at the time were riot police -- had marched
illegally in Turkey only a few years ago, chanting, "Down with the
EU!" and "Death to human rights!" It's all there in the Turkish
papers of the day if anyone is interested.
After the display of unspeakable brutality against boisterous, but
nevertheless harmless, women in Istanbul over the weekend, one would
have expected the government to act immediately on its own, and not
because of the public outcry in Europe, in order to weed out those
responsible. One would have expected this because of the government's
self-professed "reformism" and supposed vow to "show zero tolerance
to ill-treatment and torture."
But this was not to be. We saw the almost instinctive approach come
into play here once again. This was the traditional attempt to make
excuses for policemen who are clearly driven by feelings of vengeance
and to shift the blame onto the victims of their anger. In other
words, the Kafkaesque, "if you are being tortured or beaten by the
state, there must be a good reason for it" argument was apparent once
again.
This alone is enough to vindicate those skeptics who argue
knowingly that it is all very well to enact laws and utter fancy
words relating to these, but the proof of sincerity will always rest
in the sphere of implementation. In other words, the sphere that
Turkey has historically failed in.
The famous "Gulhane Hatti Humayunu," or the "Imperial Edict of
Gulhane," was proclaimed in 1839. Among other things it also foresaw
equality between races and religions and was the first effort by the
declining Ottoman Empire to modernize itself socially in order to
drag itself out of the morass that it had fallen into as a tyrannical
and theocratic eastern monarchy. It failed miserably because there
was no real desire in the ossified imperial state apparatus to
implement it. Instead, the "interference by foreign powers" argument
was used as far as back as then to evade the responsibilities that
this edict pointed to.
In 1856, after the Crimean War against Russia during which the
British, French and Ottoman Empires were allied, "Turkey" -- as it
was designated by the Europeans then -- was invited to join the
"Concert of Europe." Again the historic opportunity to modernize and
democratize -- to the extent that was possible in any country in
those days -- was squandered. In 1908 the "Young Turk Revolution"
aimed to end the brutal tyranny of Abdulhamid and was hailed by
Turks, Armenians and Greeks alike. It did not take long for that
revolution to deteriorate into a modern-day ultra-nationalist tyranny
under which all of these peoples of the empire suffered greatly and
without exception.
A historic moment of hope emerged for Turks with the advent of
Atatürk and his truly reformist program, which courageously made
Turkey take a quantum leap forward in order to catch up with the
civilized world. That hope was eventually overshadowed by traditional
political and social cynicism after his death, when government after
government proved that old habits die hard in Turkey.
In 1963 Turkey signed the Ankara Agreement with the EEC. Today we
are in 2005, and it needs no imagination to understand the
opportunities squandered by successive Turkish governments over the
four decades since that signing. In 1999 Turkey was "re-accepted" as
a candidate for EU membership. A visibly elated Prime Minister Ecevit
came back from the Helsinki summit proclaiming that Turkey would be a
member in three to five years. But he lost his EU enthusiasm
overnight, and it was only towards the end of his turbulent term in
office that he suddenly remembered the EU and the reforms needed for
this perspective to mature.
Given such a history it is natural for skeptics to wonder now if we
are merely seeing a repeat of all this. In other words, is the
Erdogan government reverting to the traditional habit of appeasing
conservative and ultra-nationalist elements deeply embedded in the
state apparatus rather than showing the leadership necessary to bring
European standards to Turks?
How, for example, can the government justifiably explain the
attempts at trying to protect the policemen who pumped a 12-year-old
kid with 13 bullets -- in what many jurists say is a clear-cut case
of extrajudicial killing. How, for example, can this government
explain why its knee-jerk reaction was -- and continues to be -- an
effort to come up with excuses for the brutal policemen who
mercilessly beat up a women?
If the Erdogan government is truly sincere about being "reformist"
-- and serious doubts have emerged over this -- it should stop trying
to protect people who act as if Turkey is a police state, and --
what's much worse -- get away with this with impunity. If this does
not bother the government, then it must be true what some people say
when they argue that this EU business is merely a game being played
for political gain by the AKP at the expense of the sincere
expectations of a large number of Turks. In that case there is only
one song for us Turks to sing: "On and on it goes, where it stops
everyone knows~E"
--Boundary_(ID_GLoXtsCaOQAkAfSQsQ7Ntw)--