Tweet
TURKEY AND FRANCE HITTING TRUE AND FALSE NOTES
by Gokhan Bacik
Today's Zaman
Dec 26 2011
Turkey
When things become "national causes," writing about them is hardly
easy, for a huge emotional cloud has settled on them. For Turks,
the Armenian issue is something like the "Palestinian cause" for Arabs.
Therefore, with minor exceptions, the Turkish way of handling the
Armenian issue is very melodramatic.
Indeed, it is normal for the Turkish government to react to noise from
France on this subject. No matter what the historical facts, how this
issue is being handled by the French parliament is totally depressing.
There is no doubt that what the French parliament did is totally
wrong. However, endless talk on how the French are mistaken is a waste
of time. How Turkey deals with the issue is much more important. And
I am not sure that the Turkish government's way of dealing with it
is correct.
First, Turkey should not even intimate economic boycotts and the like.
There are many Turkish companies that prosper in projects with
their French counterparts. Governments have no right to punish
investor citizens for political reasons. Instead, it is a duty of
governments to protect the economic interests of their citizens,
even amidst political crises. Indeed, the political punishment of
business interests in Turkey may alarm prospective foreign investors.
The Turkish politicians' discourse in this instance should be analysed
carefully. Actors use political discourse to persuade, not to deter.
So "reminding Sarkozy of his father's wrongdoings in Algeria" makes
no sense. Worse, such a discursive method may even ricochet. Besides,
it is not politically polite. Similarly, it is not wise for the Turkish
government to declare that from now on Turkey will work at publicizing
the French atrocities of the past in the various African countries.
Other states should not be given the impression that the cost of
rapprochement with Turkey is tension with France. In any case, such
strategies contradict Turkey's own thesis of "leaving history to
the historians."
There is a French-language university in Turkey. Like Mustafa
Kemal Ataturk himself, most secular modernist intellectuals
were/are Francophones. Kemalism itself can be defined as a result
of French-style modernization in Ottoman Turkey. Unlike the Irish
or American Enlightenment, the French one was very elitist and
anti-religious. This was adopted rigorously by the architects of
Turkish-Kemalist modernization. And this tableau presents, albeit with
sundry differences, in countries like Algeria, Tunisia and Senegal.
Therefore, Turkey should not underestimate France's capacity of
generating soft power. Instead of unrealistic agendas like "making
known French atrocities everywhere," Turkey should devise more
sophisticated long-term strategies that increase its soft power in
many countries. Doing that, Turkey would become a country that can
implement proactive strategies to manage various issues, instead of
being its present reactive self that is led by the initiatives of
competing countries.
The recent developments in France once again confirm that Turkey
should solve this problem through direct dialogue with Armenia.
Paradoxically, the "genocide business" is not a lucrative theme for
Armenia. While other states intervene, Armenia's isolation in the
region will increase. Without an effective connection with Turkey,
Armenia has no realistic alternative to painful isolation.
As academics, we always warn our students against stereotyping
analyses, conspiracy theories and generalizations. However, here
is one simple question: Why are the many states that support the
Armenians with regard to the events of 1915 totally silent on the
occupation of Azerbaijani territory by the Armenian state? The answer,
even though it may sound like a stereotyping response, is as clear as
this: double standards. Or, for potential critics, let's put it as a
theoretical construct - one that extends Kant's "democratic peace"
theory, which posits that democracies rarely go to war against one
another: When it comes to "the rest," Western democracies assume the
legiti macy of being inconsistent, unfair and, of course, selective.
by Gokhan Bacik
Today's Zaman
Dec 26 2011
Turkey
When things become "national causes," writing about them is hardly
easy, for a huge emotional cloud has settled on them. For Turks,
the Armenian issue is something like the "Palestinian cause" for Arabs.
Therefore, with minor exceptions, the Turkish way of handling the
Armenian issue is very melodramatic.
Indeed, it is normal for the Turkish government to react to noise from
France on this subject. No matter what the historical facts, how this
issue is being handled by the French parliament is totally depressing.
There is no doubt that what the French parliament did is totally
wrong. However, endless talk on how the French are mistaken is a waste
of time. How Turkey deals with the issue is much more important. And
I am not sure that the Turkish government's way of dealing with it
is correct.
First, Turkey should not even intimate economic boycotts and the like.
There are many Turkish companies that prosper in projects with
their French counterparts. Governments have no right to punish
investor citizens for political reasons. Instead, it is a duty of
governments to protect the economic interests of their citizens,
even amidst political crises. Indeed, the political punishment of
business interests in Turkey may alarm prospective foreign investors.
The Turkish politicians' discourse in this instance should be analysed
carefully. Actors use political discourse to persuade, not to deter.
So "reminding Sarkozy of his father's wrongdoings in Algeria" makes
no sense. Worse, such a discursive method may even ricochet. Besides,
it is not politically polite. Similarly, it is not wise for the Turkish
government to declare that from now on Turkey will work at publicizing
the French atrocities of the past in the various African countries.
Other states should not be given the impression that the cost of
rapprochement with Turkey is tension with France. In any case, such
strategies contradict Turkey's own thesis of "leaving history to
the historians."
There is a French-language university in Turkey. Like Mustafa
Kemal Ataturk himself, most secular modernist intellectuals
were/are Francophones. Kemalism itself can be defined as a result
of French-style modernization in Ottoman Turkey. Unlike the Irish
or American Enlightenment, the French one was very elitist and
anti-religious. This was adopted rigorously by the architects of
Turkish-Kemalist modernization. And this tableau presents, albeit with
sundry differences, in countries like Algeria, Tunisia and Senegal.
Therefore, Turkey should not underestimate France's capacity of
generating soft power. Instead of unrealistic agendas like "making
known French atrocities everywhere," Turkey should devise more
sophisticated long-term strategies that increase its soft power in
many countries. Doing that, Turkey would become a country that can
implement proactive strategies to manage various issues, instead of
being its present reactive self that is led by the initiatives of
competing countries.
The recent developments in France once again confirm that Turkey
should solve this problem through direct dialogue with Armenia.
Paradoxically, the "genocide business" is not a lucrative theme for
Armenia. While other states intervene, Armenia's isolation in the
region will increase. Without an effective connection with Turkey,
Armenia has no realistic alternative to painful isolation.
As academics, we always warn our students against stereotyping
analyses, conspiracy theories and generalizations. However, here
is one simple question: Why are the many states that support the
Armenians with regard to the events of 1915 totally silent on the
occupation of Azerbaijani territory by the Armenian state? The answer,
even though it may sound like a stereotyping response, is as clear as
this: double standards. Or, for potential critics, let's put it as a
theoretical construct - one that extends Kant's "democratic peace"
theory, which posits that democracies rarely go to war against one
another: When it comes to "the rest," Western democracies assume the
legiti macy of being inconsistent, unfair and, of course, selective.