Tweet
Taraf, Turkey
Aug 17 2013
The West and the Issue of 'Double Standards'
by Murat Belge
[Translated from Turkish - KMP]
The posture the Prime Minister took in the aftermath of the Gezi
incidents partly took the form of "criticizing the West." When he
started speaking this way frequently, all of his supporters started
"coming out of the bush." Take, for example, [Minister of State]
Mehmet Simsek. I have always said that I do not know much about
economics but, from what I understand, Simsek knows his subject well
and is doing a good job. In the past, he did not meddle with political
issues. Nowadays, he immediately responds to comments by [Richard]
Dawkins, an atheist, about the low numbers of Nobel Prize winners from
Islamic countries - which I think are words of "warning." [Simsek]
constantly refers to something called "the West's great game" in these
responses.
What is this? Is it always the "West" that is doing or organizing what
is and is not happening in the Islamic world? What are the Muslims
doing then? When was this "game" planned? Who planned it? In which
incidents do we see clues of this "game"? For example, did someone go
and persuade Khomeini to order "the killing of Salman Rushdie"? Or,
did Khomeini himself come up with the idea of issuing this entirely
uncivilized fatwa? What do Simsek and his colleagues think about this
fatwa? Do they think Khomeini was right? If they do, is it "the West's
great game" that is making them think so?
Yesterday, the press reported accusations levelled against the West by
the Prime Minister's son in connection with Egypt.
If the posture taken by the West with regard to Egypt is an example of
"double standards" - which I think it is - there are also situations
where such double standards by the West serve our purposes. We say
many things when we think we have the opportunity but it would not be
bad if we thought about this aspect of the issue also.
The West tolerated the "Islamist" sector - including Khomeini, Bashir,
and Usama - within its own bounds. However, when it saw some fanatical
Muslims (who eat the livers and hearts of their enemies) in the
so-called "opposition forces" in Egypt and Syria, it started thinking:
"Wait a minute. Might the 'status quo' have been better than this?"
Ultimately, you may find this position wrong and criticize it but you
cannot argue that it is entirely "irrational."
Obama, the current US President, may be following general American
custom and saying "we should be cautious about this coup." However, he
is certainly not rejoicing over the killing of more than a 1,000
people in the streets. I can imagine him saying "these are such savage
people," and "this is such an outrage" when he talks to his wife and
children.
That same Obama has used "double standards" on the Armenian massacres
with the same reasoning of "foreign policy requirements." This is what
I mean when I say "the other side of the coin." Obama (like all US
presidents) has shown with sufficient clarity and explicitness that he
does not question the truth of the massacres. However, he has not
supported efforts to get a resolution enacted by Congress to this
effect. Why? Why do you think? On one side, there is Turkey with a
population of more than 70 million, a NATO member, a longtime ally,
and so forth. On the other side, there is tiny Armenia. In other
words, this is one of the biggest instances of "double standards." Who
benefits from it? Turkey!
The West has perpetrated every form of outrage in history. However,
there is another West that has criticized these outrages more than
anyone else. That is why we should avoid referring to the "West" as a
monolithic object. That is simply not true.
We talked about the "Armenian massacres." A horrible event, but it is
not the only one. The events that occurred during the Greek War of
Independence, the Serbian uprising - for example, "Chele-Chule" - the
suppression of the Bulgarian uprising that maddened Gladstone, and so
forth. These are all part of history. Would you like a Turkish
stereotype built on or consisting of only these? You probably do not
but that "Turk" is in circulation in the world. The way to erase that
bad image is not to create a "West" that is similarly assembled. That
requires, realism, objectivism, decency, and respect for facts.
Raising the volume of opposing gramophones will not save the world.
That would require turning off the gramophones and ensuring that
people talk to each other.
Aug 17 2013
The West and the Issue of 'Double Standards'
by Murat Belge
[Translated from Turkish - KMP]
The posture the Prime Minister took in the aftermath of the Gezi
incidents partly took the form of "criticizing the West." When he
started speaking this way frequently, all of his supporters started
"coming out of the bush." Take, for example, [Minister of State]
Mehmet Simsek. I have always said that I do not know much about
economics but, from what I understand, Simsek knows his subject well
and is doing a good job. In the past, he did not meddle with political
issues. Nowadays, he immediately responds to comments by [Richard]
Dawkins, an atheist, about the low numbers of Nobel Prize winners from
Islamic countries - which I think are words of "warning." [Simsek]
constantly refers to something called "the West's great game" in these
responses.
What is this? Is it always the "West" that is doing or organizing what
is and is not happening in the Islamic world? What are the Muslims
doing then? When was this "game" planned? Who planned it? In which
incidents do we see clues of this "game"? For example, did someone go
and persuade Khomeini to order "the killing of Salman Rushdie"? Or,
did Khomeini himself come up with the idea of issuing this entirely
uncivilized fatwa? What do Simsek and his colleagues think about this
fatwa? Do they think Khomeini was right? If they do, is it "the West's
great game" that is making them think so?
Yesterday, the press reported accusations levelled against the West by
the Prime Minister's son in connection with Egypt.
If the posture taken by the West with regard to Egypt is an example of
"double standards" - which I think it is - there are also situations
where such double standards by the West serve our purposes. We say
many things when we think we have the opportunity but it would not be
bad if we thought about this aspect of the issue also.
The West tolerated the "Islamist" sector - including Khomeini, Bashir,
and Usama - within its own bounds. However, when it saw some fanatical
Muslims (who eat the livers and hearts of their enemies) in the
so-called "opposition forces" in Egypt and Syria, it started thinking:
"Wait a minute. Might the 'status quo' have been better than this?"
Ultimately, you may find this position wrong and criticize it but you
cannot argue that it is entirely "irrational."
Obama, the current US President, may be following general American
custom and saying "we should be cautious about this coup." However, he
is certainly not rejoicing over the killing of more than a 1,000
people in the streets. I can imagine him saying "these are such savage
people," and "this is such an outrage" when he talks to his wife and
children.
That same Obama has used "double standards" on the Armenian massacres
with the same reasoning of "foreign policy requirements." This is what
I mean when I say "the other side of the coin." Obama (like all US
presidents) has shown with sufficient clarity and explicitness that he
does not question the truth of the massacres. However, he has not
supported efforts to get a resolution enacted by Congress to this
effect. Why? Why do you think? On one side, there is Turkey with a
population of more than 70 million, a NATO member, a longtime ally,
and so forth. On the other side, there is tiny Armenia. In other
words, this is one of the biggest instances of "double standards." Who
benefits from it? Turkey!
The West has perpetrated every form of outrage in history. However,
there is another West that has criticized these outrages more than
anyone else. That is why we should avoid referring to the "West" as a
monolithic object. That is simply not true.
We talked about the "Armenian massacres." A horrible event, but it is
not the only one. The events that occurred during the Greek War of
Independence, the Serbian uprising - for example, "Chele-Chule" - the
suppression of the Bulgarian uprising that maddened Gladstone, and so
forth. These are all part of history. Would you like a Turkish
stereotype built on or consisting of only these? You probably do not
but that "Turk" is in circulation in the world. The way to erase that
bad image is not to create a "West" that is similarly assembled. That
requires, realism, objectivism, decency, and respect for facts.
Raising the volume of opposing gramophones will not save the world.
That would require turning off the gramophones and ensuring that
people talk to each other.