Tweet
Neighbors Need Each Other's Ashes
By ALI H. ASLAN
Zaman, Turkey
Dec 8 2004
Last week, when U.S. -Turkish relations were tense because of the
controversial operation in Fallujah, Turkish Ambassador to Washington
Faruk Logoglu was a guest at a live broadcast on C-Span, one of
the most respected news channels in the United States. During the
program called the "Washington Journal," where listeners are able to
ask questions on the phone, two people brought Iraq and Fallujah to
the agenda.
While Bush administration were being criticized by the Turkish public
because of Fallujah, these American citizens put the blame on Turkey
for what is happening there. "If Turkey had allowed the U.S. 4th
Infantry Division to enter Iraq through its territory, Fallujah would
not have been the central base for insurgency and terror."
This was not the first time I heard this argument. It is particularly
widespread in military circles. As a matter of fact, one of those who
called Ambassador Logoglu, was a former member of the 4th Infantry
Division. Logoglu tried to show his American collocutors the full part
of the glass in relations between the two countries, particularly on
Iraq. Just as his American counterparts in Turkey do...
Public diplomacy, which is aimed at explaining official policies to
peoples and creating a positive image about one's country, is one
of the indispensable elements of international relations. However,
despite efforts by both parties since the Iraq war process, serious
difficulties among others have been experienced in the public diplomacy
aspect of U. S. -Turkish relations. The big difference of opinion on
Fallujah, constitute a dramatic example to that.
In the US public opinion, Fallujah operation is mostly portrayed as a
means of fighting against terror and securing the upcoming elections.
As for Turkey, the matter is often viewed from the angle of human
rights and civilian casualties. The differences of opinion stem mostly
from the manner which the governments and the media reflect the issues
to their publics. "Strategic partners" normally confer with their
public policies as well. The lack of a strategic partnership between
the United States and Turkey, at least on Iraq, is obvious since
reactions against Fallujah have turned into such a diplomatic crisis.
It all started when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan brought
Fallujah to the agenda, during his phone call to U. S. Vice
President Dick Cheney, to convey his congratulations over the
elections. The stunned White House was further saddened because the
phone conversation was leaked to the Turkish public. The chairman
of the Turkish Parliamentary Human Rights Investigation Commission,
Mehmet Elkatmis of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), likening
what is being done in Fallujah to "genocide," tested the limits
of patience. Our guys had the "You cannot prevent people from
talking" approach. Americans, on the other hand, viewed the incident
as follows: Parliament is under the control of the ruling party; if
the government wishes, it could shape the discourse. Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul, perhaps unaware of the scope of the problem, concurred
with Elkatmis' remarks on his return from an overseas trip. However,
he later put reservations on the expression "genocide." This was the
right attitude. Don't we expect the same attitude from the U. S.
administration when the so-called Armenian genocide is brought to
the agenda in the U. S. Congress?
Today, the U. S. has the same nationalist reflexes on Iraq similar
to our sensitivities on Armenian and Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
issues. Even those who are aware of their mistakes do not like them to
be pointed out to them by putting a finger in the eye. The politicians
of both countries, in particular, should make their rightful and
democratic criticisms in a manner that would not pave the way for an
international crisis and fuel hatred. Otherwise, mutual indignations
could increase, open deep wounds in public conscience and even the
most successful public diplomacy may not be able heal them.
Besides, excessive emotional outbursts do not serve the purpose
of helping Iraq. They weaken the hands of those, already limited
in number, who defend our views in Washington. They also shake the
Americans' trust in us more, reduce the chance that they would listen
our advice and thus correct their mistakes.
The significance Turkey gives to regional neighborhood and the empathy
it feels for the sufferings of the Iraqi people deserve appreciation;
however, whether we like it or not, we need good relations with the
United States, our possible neighbor in the foreseeable future. As
expressed in a Turkish saying, "A neighbor needs even the ashes of
a neighbor…"
--Boundary_(ID_4VabWICHUdCa+9fLiR0rQw)--
By ALI H. ASLAN
Zaman, Turkey
Dec 8 2004
Last week, when U.S. -Turkish relations were tense because of the
controversial operation in Fallujah, Turkish Ambassador to Washington
Faruk Logoglu was a guest at a live broadcast on C-Span, one of
the most respected news channels in the United States. During the
program called the "Washington Journal," where listeners are able to
ask questions on the phone, two people brought Iraq and Fallujah to
the agenda.
While Bush administration were being criticized by the Turkish public
because of Fallujah, these American citizens put the blame on Turkey
for what is happening there. "If Turkey had allowed the U.S. 4th
Infantry Division to enter Iraq through its territory, Fallujah would
not have been the central base for insurgency and terror."
This was not the first time I heard this argument. It is particularly
widespread in military circles. As a matter of fact, one of those who
called Ambassador Logoglu, was a former member of the 4th Infantry
Division. Logoglu tried to show his American collocutors the full part
of the glass in relations between the two countries, particularly on
Iraq. Just as his American counterparts in Turkey do...
Public diplomacy, which is aimed at explaining official policies to
peoples and creating a positive image about one's country, is one
of the indispensable elements of international relations. However,
despite efforts by both parties since the Iraq war process, serious
difficulties among others have been experienced in the public diplomacy
aspect of U. S. -Turkish relations. The big difference of opinion on
Fallujah, constitute a dramatic example to that.
In the US public opinion, Fallujah operation is mostly portrayed as a
means of fighting against terror and securing the upcoming elections.
As for Turkey, the matter is often viewed from the angle of human
rights and civilian casualties. The differences of opinion stem mostly
from the manner which the governments and the media reflect the issues
to their publics. "Strategic partners" normally confer with their
public policies as well. The lack of a strategic partnership between
the United States and Turkey, at least on Iraq, is obvious since
reactions against Fallujah have turned into such a diplomatic crisis.
It all started when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan brought
Fallujah to the agenda, during his phone call to U. S. Vice
President Dick Cheney, to convey his congratulations over the
elections. The stunned White House was further saddened because the
phone conversation was leaked to the Turkish public. The chairman
of the Turkish Parliamentary Human Rights Investigation Commission,
Mehmet Elkatmis of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), likening
what is being done in Fallujah to "genocide," tested the limits
of patience. Our guys had the "You cannot prevent people from
talking" approach. Americans, on the other hand, viewed the incident
as follows: Parliament is under the control of the ruling party; if
the government wishes, it could shape the discourse. Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul, perhaps unaware of the scope of the problem, concurred
with Elkatmis' remarks on his return from an overseas trip. However,
he later put reservations on the expression "genocide." This was the
right attitude. Don't we expect the same attitude from the U. S.
administration when the so-called Armenian genocide is brought to
the agenda in the U. S. Congress?
Today, the U. S. has the same nationalist reflexes on Iraq similar
to our sensitivities on Armenian and Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
issues. Even those who are aware of their mistakes do not like them to
be pointed out to them by putting a finger in the eye. The politicians
of both countries, in particular, should make their rightful and
democratic criticisms in a manner that would not pave the way for an
international crisis and fuel hatred. Otherwise, mutual indignations
could increase, open deep wounds in public conscience and even the
most successful public diplomacy may not be able heal them.
Besides, excessive emotional outbursts do not serve the purpose
of helping Iraq. They weaken the hands of those, already limited
in number, who defend our views in Washington. They also shake the
Americans' trust in us more, reduce the chance that they would listen
our advice and thus correct their mistakes.
The significance Turkey gives to regional neighborhood and the empathy
it feels for the sufferings of the Iraqi people deserve appreciation;
however, whether we like it or not, we need good relations with the
United States, our possible neighbor in the foreseeable future. As
expressed in a Turkish saying, "A neighbor needs even the ashes of
a neighbor…"
--Boundary_(ID_4VabWICHUdCa+9fLiR0rQw)--