Tweet
Turkish Daily News
March 28 2005
Flags and beyond
Monday, March 28, 2005
Opinion by Doðu ERGÝL
There's never a dull moment in Turkey because the agenda changes
almost daily, at the latest weekly. That's why diplomats, journalists
and academics are never bored in this country. The latest issue is
the surge of nationalistic feelings sweeping through the land in the
form of flag waving at places ranging from home windows, moving cars
and office buildings to TV screens. (At the corner of every TV screen
is a flag as instructed by the highest official who sets the
boundaries of proper -- read this as patriotic -- action in TV-radio
broadcasting.) What is happening? Are we under siege of an alien
power or mobilizing for a near and present danger of occupation?
There may be several million people in Turkey who would give a
positive answer to both these questions; however, a more realistic,
although simpler, answer is that two Kurdish youngsters aged 12 and
14 desecrated the national flag during Nevroz demonstrations in
Mersin last week.
Every high-ranking government official reassured the nation that we
will crush the enemies of the flag and the country. A declaration
from the General Staff once again expressed the resolve of the army
to "shed its blood to the last drop" in defense of the sacred values
of the republic including its flag. Any wretched enemy of the
country, the Turkish nation and the flag should tremble in fear faced
with such a show of force and determination. However, the extent of
this massive reaction and nationalist reflex ought to be understood
in order to grasp the reasons why such an outburst took place in
Turkey at this point in time.
The Turkish political culture that shaped what we call "national
education" has taught two things to the citizens, starting from a
very young age:
1- The nation is a monolithic body born out of individuals who are
in harmony and in solidarity with each other. There is no
differentiation among social cohorts, so no conflict of interest.
2- The nation is an organic part of the state, created and led by
it, and all rights, obligations and privileges emanate from it. Hence
we are not only nationals but also nationalists. Any one who deviates
from the officially charted (and learned in school) code of conduct
does not deserve to be a citizen.
The outcome of this political culture is unquestionable obedience
to the state and nationalism as the reasoning of the average citizen.
It is very hard to either denounce or transcend the reasoning and
mode of behavior of the average man. The behavior of the average man,
in turn, is both shaped, checked and demonstrates itself in the
crucible of collective sentiments rather than individual rationale.
In general, emotions lead collective behavior rather than critical
reason. This phenomenon is very evident nowadays in Turkey. As the
government is facing difficulties in the international arena and
blurring its EU perspective, collective behavior based on emotion is
emerging and replacing rational choices that were required in
preparation for EU membership. The end result is nationalistic
outbursts and the rise of rather harsh ethnic nationalism and
distrust of the "others."
There are obvious factors that aggravate the situation. There is a
growing number of people in this country who believe that the EU is
making it harder for Turkey to join. The argument is not that
irrational: Turks voted in favor of the Annan plan for a united
Cyprus, but the Greeks were awarded with EU membership although they
did the opposite. Now Turkey is pressured to accept Greek Cyprus to
be the lawful representative of the island state, although it was the
Greek Cypriots that betrayed the expectations of the international
community as well as those of the Turks on the island. That is too
much to accept.
Furthermore, unauthorized political bodies such as parliaments,
municipal councils, etc., are adopting resolutions regarding the
acknowledgement of an Armenian genocide committed at the turn of the
20th century in the Ottoman Empire and are holding the Turkish
Republic, founded long afterwards, responsible for the unfortunate
events of the past. Knowing that if grudges of the past had ended
with compensation of the victims, the world map would drastically be
altered, Turks find this hypocritical. Furthermore, anyone who is
familiar with international law knows that "genocide" is a legal term
and has to be decided by a special court of law such as the
International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice.
Additionally, the U.N. Genocide Convention does not by its terms
apply to acts that occurred prior to Jan. 12, 1951. It is not
retroactive; therefore no legal, financial or territorial claims can
be made against any individual or state under the convention. Yet
Turkey is put under psychological and political pressure that
reflects on its citizens as a state of siege expediently used as an
excuse to deny Turks membership in the union.
The souring of feelings on the European front is coupled with
relations with the United States. The secular-nationalist camp
believes that the AKP's rise to power is due to the U.S support of
"moderate Islam" that was planned to contain the surge of radical
Islam. For the seculars there is no moderation in a religious
political movement except momentarily and when it feels weak.
Secondly, for the bulk of the Turkish people, the U.S. has spoiled
the Kurds of Iraq to the point of virtual independence, and this fact
has put into motion its like in Turkey. They believe that sooner or
later Turkey will face a Kurdish movement demanding autonomy first,
independence later. The banners flown by the Kurds in Diyarbakir and
other eastern towns during Nevroz celebrations last week on which
"democratic confederalism" was written came too early to substantiate
these suspicions. The desecration of the flag and calls for
confederation kindled the nationwide reaction against the Kurds
together with condemnation of American policies blaming Turkey for
American losses in Iraq. Islamists in Turkey and elsewhere, including
a large part of the AKP constituency, blame the United States for
invading Islamic lands and disrupting the lives of Muslims by
imposing its political will and culture on these people. The leftists
thrive on the so-called "Western imperialism" for their survival.
There are not many left who would evince different sentiments and
offer a different political position.
The flag debate came at this very special conjuncture when Turks of
different cohorts and leanings felt threatened and denigrated by
similar elements. They showed a concerted and united reaction by
using one of their mutual symbols of identity: the national flag.
Mind you, this is not only a symbol of the republic. It is also the
flag of the Ottoman centuries under which all Ottoman nationalities
lived together. Hence, flag waiving is not only a sign of social and
psychological solidarity but also a yearning of political unity that
goes back in history.
These are all understandable; however, the events are a harbinger
of three developments that need to be pondered:
1- The public is taken with anti-EU rhetoric that borders on
broader anti-Westernism;
2- Forces of the status quo (or in general those who resist change)
have started to raise their voice and become more visible on the
political scene as the "nationalist front";
3- The military, which was keeping silent and only involved in
professional matters, started making an entry into the political
realm. The opportunity provided by celebrations of the Battle of
Çannakale during World War I and the Nevroz celebrations, which
emphasized once again that there is an unsolved "Kurdish problem,"
caused us to hear that the army has a say over the evolution of
events in this country.
What if these developments are not halted and these problems are
not resolved by October, when the day of accession talks knocks on
the door? The AKP will find a much more difficult Turkey to rule.
Does it have the statecraft and breadth of vision to succeed? That
will soon be seen.
--Boundary_(ID_HH90SzcdSz2fQ62AUiIOkA)--
March 28 2005
Flags and beyond
Monday, March 28, 2005
Opinion by Doðu ERGÝL
There's never a dull moment in Turkey because the agenda changes
almost daily, at the latest weekly. That's why diplomats, journalists
and academics are never bored in this country. The latest issue is
the surge of nationalistic feelings sweeping through the land in the
form of flag waving at places ranging from home windows, moving cars
and office buildings to TV screens. (At the corner of every TV screen
is a flag as instructed by the highest official who sets the
boundaries of proper -- read this as patriotic -- action in TV-radio
broadcasting.) What is happening? Are we under siege of an alien
power or mobilizing for a near and present danger of occupation?
There may be several million people in Turkey who would give a
positive answer to both these questions; however, a more realistic,
although simpler, answer is that two Kurdish youngsters aged 12 and
14 desecrated the national flag during Nevroz demonstrations in
Mersin last week.
Every high-ranking government official reassured the nation that we
will crush the enemies of the flag and the country. A declaration
from the General Staff once again expressed the resolve of the army
to "shed its blood to the last drop" in defense of the sacred values
of the republic including its flag. Any wretched enemy of the
country, the Turkish nation and the flag should tremble in fear faced
with such a show of force and determination. However, the extent of
this massive reaction and nationalist reflex ought to be understood
in order to grasp the reasons why such an outburst took place in
Turkey at this point in time.
The Turkish political culture that shaped what we call "national
education" has taught two things to the citizens, starting from a
very young age:
1- The nation is a monolithic body born out of individuals who are
in harmony and in solidarity with each other. There is no
differentiation among social cohorts, so no conflict of interest.
2- The nation is an organic part of the state, created and led by
it, and all rights, obligations and privileges emanate from it. Hence
we are not only nationals but also nationalists. Any one who deviates
from the officially charted (and learned in school) code of conduct
does not deserve to be a citizen.
The outcome of this political culture is unquestionable obedience
to the state and nationalism as the reasoning of the average citizen.
It is very hard to either denounce or transcend the reasoning and
mode of behavior of the average man. The behavior of the average man,
in turn, is both shaped, checked and demonstrates itself in the
crucible of collective sentiments rather than individual rationale.
In general, emotions lead collective behavior rather than critical
reason. This phenomenon is very evident nowadays in Turkey. As the
government is facing difficulties in the international arena and
blurring its EU perspective, collective behavior based on emotion is
emerging and replacing rational choices that were required in
preparation for EU membership. The end result is nationalistic
outbursts and the rise of rather harsh ethnic nationalism and
distrust of the "others."
There are obvious factors that aggravate the situation. There is a
growing number of people in this country who believe that the EU is
making it harder for Turkey to join. The argument is not that
irrational: Turks voted in favor of the Annan plan for a united
Cyprus, but the Greeks were awarded with EU membership although they
did the opposite. Now Turkey is pressured to accept Greek Cyprus to
be the lawful representative of the island state, although it was the
Greek Cypriots that betrayed the expectations of the international
community as well as those of the Turks on the island. That is too
much to accept.
Furthermore, unauthorized political bodies such as parliaments,
municipal councils, etc., are adopting resolutions regarding the
acknowledgement of an Armenian genocide committed at the turn of the
20th century in the Ottoman Empire and are holding the Turkish
Republic, founded long afterwards, responsible for the unfortunate
events of the past. Knowing that if grudges of the past had ended
with compensation of the victims, the world map would drastically be
altered, Turks find this hypocritical. Furthermore, anyone who is
familiar with international law knows that "genocide" is a legal term
and has to be decided by a special court of law such as the
International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice.
Additionally, the U.N. Genocide Convention does not by its terms
apply to acts that occurred prior to Jan. 12, 1951. It is not
retroactive; therefore no legal, financial or territorial claims can
be made against any individual or state under the convention. Yet
Turkey is put under psychological and political pressure that
reflects on its citizens as a state of siege expediently used as an
excuse to deny Turks membership in the union.
The souring of feelings on the European front is coupled with
relations with the United States. The secular-nationalist camp
believes that the AKP's rise to power is due to the U.S support of
"moderate Islam" that was planned to contain the surge of radical
Islam. For the seculars there is no moderation in a religious
political movement except momentarily and when it feels weak.
Secondly, for the bulk of the Turkish people, the U.S. has spoiled
the Kurds of Iraq to the point of virtual independence, and this fact
has put into motion its like in Turkey. They believe that sooner or
later Turkey will face a Kurdish movement demanding autonomy first,
independence later. The banners flown by the Kurds in Diyarbakir and
other eastern towns during Nevroz celebrations last week on which
"democratic confederalism" was written came too early to substantiate
these suspicions. The desecration of the flag and calls for
confederation kindled the nationwide reaction against the Kurds
together with condemnation of American policies blaming Turkey for
American losses in Iraq. Islamists in Turkey and elsewhere, including
a large part of the AKP constituency, blame the United States for
invading Islamic lands and disrupting the lives of Muslims by
imposing its political will and culture on these people. The leftists
thrive on the so-called "Western imperialism" for their survival.
There are not many left who would evince different sentiments and
offer a different political position.
The flag debate came at this very special conjuncture when Turks of
different cohorts and leanings felt threatened and denigrated by
similar elements. They showed a concerted and united reaction by
using one of their mutual symbols of identity: the national flag.
Mind you, this is not only a symbol of the republic. It is also the
flag of the Ottoman centuries under which all Ottoman nationalities
lived together. Hence, flag waiving is not only a sign of social and
psychological solidarity but also a yearning of political unity that
goes back in history.
These are all understandable; however, the events are a harbinger
of three developments that need to be pondered:
1- The public is taken with anti-EU rhetoric that borders on
broader anti-Westernism;
2- Forces of the status quo (or in general those who resist change)
have started to raise their voice and become more visible on the
political scene as the "nationalist front";
3- The military, which was keeping silent and only involved in
professional matters, started making an entry into the political
realm. The opportunity provided by celebrations of the Battle of
Çannakale during World War I and the Nevroz celebrations, which
emphasized once again that there is an unsolved "Kurdish problem,"
caused us to hear that the army has a say over the evolution of
events in this country.
What if these developments are not halted and these problems are
not resolved by October, when the day of accession talks knocks on
the door? The AKP will find a much more difficult Turkey to rule.
Does it have the statecraft and breadth of vision to succeed? That
will soon be seen.
--Boundary_(ID_HH90SzcdSz2fQ62AUiIOkA)--