Tweet
Yeni Safak, Turkey
Aug 21 2013
Are We Exporting a Regime?
by Yasin Dogan
[Translated from Turkish]
One of the charges levelled by groups that did not like the Welfare
Party [RP] was that the party was "importing regimes". Narratives were
formulated to suggest that the RP was planning to import regimes from
Iran or Saudi Arabia to establish an Islamic state and to introduce
sharia law. The Kemalist papers who came out with headlines such as
"Mullahs to Iran" at that time today operate as welcoming centres for
Iranians and report in prominent locations the views of every Iranian
who opposes the [Turkish] government.
Those who raised a clamour about the threat of reactionism in domestic
politics used to interpret foreign policy based on their "phobia of
Islamization." The mindset that raised such totally unfounded
allegations was, over time, pushed to the margins of Turkish politics.
What are the concerns and phobias of this group today? What ideology
or regime is the AKP [Justice and Development Party] trying to export?
Turkey's secular and democratic character did not change with the AKP
government. On the contrary, its democratic image was even more
enhanced. The only change was that the AKP turned Turkey's face to
both the East and the West even as it emphasized Turkey's character as
a Muslim country.
We know that some EU countries that cannot stomach Turkey's
prospective membership in their union perceive Turkey's Muslim
character as a problem. The wrongheadedness of these countries that
view the issue with religious fanaticism rather than the universal
values of the EU is already noted frequently.
European countries that wanted to exclude Turkey on charges that "it
is not democratic" [in the past] revealed their true intentions when
this problem vanished and pointed at the Muslim character of the
country.
Conversely, Muslim countries of the Middle East were accustomed to
rejecting Turkey because of its secular nature. These countries were
more perturbed by Turkey's combined Muslim and democratic identity
than by the West. The truth is that Turkey has no intention of
exporting Islam to the West or secularism to the East. On the other
hand, it has an opportunity to make an appeal to the Muslim world with
a democratic image. Indeed, this is precisely the cause of uneasiness.
The reason for the intolerance for even the partial democratization of
Egypt is that a new parameter has entered the Middle East - in other
words the will of peoples has begun to be given importance.
Countries that are perturbed by Turkey's regional influence initially
tried to create uneasiness by promoting Turkey as a "model" or
"exemplar" country with great fanfare. These portrayals, which
provoked Arab sensitivities and pride, were aimed at creating
antipathy against Turkey. This is why the AKP government constantly
reiterated that it does not see itself as a model or exemplar but that
it is open to friendly and fraternal collaboration. The circles that
in the past spread propaganda in Turkic republics to the effect that
"Turkey is acting as an elder brother" tried to deploy a similar
propaganda in the Middle East.
That was followed by attempts to arouse Arab concerns even more
through attributions of "neo-Ottomanism." Turkey is obviously proud of
its past and cannot ignore the mission imposed on it by history.
However, it certainly has no romantic yearnings of carrying the past
to the present or to make other countries follow its lead. Attempts
were made to twist references to the historic nature of relations in
this context.
Allegations of an "axis shift" in foreign policy did not find much
resonance because of Turkey's ability to maintain strong relations
with the United States and the EU.
Those who criticized the overtures formulated as part of the approach
of "zero problems" in foreign policy have taken the exact opposite
position today. Turkey's efforts to deepen its relations with Russia
was seen as a problem. The overture to Armenia was seen as a problem.
Rapprochement with neighbours ranging from Georgia to Greece was seen
as a problem. Both cooperation and friction with Israel were seen as
problems. The overture to African countries was seen as a problem.
Efforts to establish relations with Libya and Egypt were seen as a
problem. The opposition saw every effort Turkey made to reach out to
any region of the world and to establish good relations with anyone as
a problem. The mindset that wanted to Turkey to become introverted
wanted a foreign policy of passivism, surrenderism, and zero
relations. Those who criticized Erdogan for meeting with Al-Qadhafi
subsequently censured him for issuing an ultimatum to Al-Qadhafi. The
truth is that Turkey was well-intentioned and right when it extended
its hand of friendship and it was right when it screamed the truth and
expressed its indignation. Those who criticize Turkish foreign policy
are unable to find fault with the correctness of Turkey's narratives.
Those who criticize the evolution of the government's foreign policy
must also see how the opposition has evolved. Turkey is acting out of
not romanticism or emotionalism but a sense of ethics that seeks
rationalism and that is mindful of realpolitik.
Aug 21 2013
Are We Exporting a Regime?
by Yasin Dogan
[Translated from Turkish]
One of the charges levelled by groups that did not like the Welfare
Party [RP] was that the party was "importing regimes". Narratives were
formulated to suggest that the RP was planning to import regimes from
Iran or Saudi Arabia to establish an Islamic state and to introduce
sharia law. The Kemalist papers who came out with headlines such as
"Mullahs to Iran" at that time today operate as welcoming centres for
Iranians and report in prominent locations the views of every Iranian
who opposes the [Turkish] government.
Those who raised a clamour about the threat of reactionism in domestic
politics used to interpret foreign policy based on their "phobia of
Islamization." The mindset that raised such totally unfounded
allegations was, over time, pushed to the margins of Turkish politics.
What are the concerns and phobias of this group today? What ideology
or regime is the AKP [Justice and Development Party] trying to export?
Turkey's secular and democratic character did not change with the AKP
government. On the contrary, its democratic image was even more
enhanced. The only change was that the AKP turned Turkey's face to
both the East and the West even as it emphasized Turkey's character as
a Muslim country.
We know that some EU countries that cannot stomach Turkey's
prospective membership in their union perceive Turkey's Muslim
character as a problem. The wrongheadedness of these countries that
view the issue with religious fanaticism rather than the universal
values of the EU is already noted frequently.
European countries that wanted to exclude Turkey on charges that "it
is not democratic" [in the past] revealed their true intentions when
this problem vanished and pointed at the Muslim character of the
country.
Conversely, Muslim countries of the Middle East were accustomed to
rejecting Turkey because of its secular nature. These countries were
more perturbed by Turkey's combined Muslim and democratic identity
than by the West. The truth is that Turkey has no intention of
exporting Islam to the West or secularism to the East. On the other
hand, it has an opportunity to make an appeal to the Muslim world with
a democratic image. Indeed, this is precisely the cause of uneasiness.
The reason for the intolerance for even the partial democratization of
Egypt is that a new parameter has entered the Middle East - in other
words the will of peoples has begun to be given importance.
Countries that are perturbed by Turkey's regional influence initially
tried to create uneasiness by promoting Turkey as a "model" or
"exemplar" country with great fanfare. These portrayals, which
provoked Arab sensitivities and pride, were aimed at creating
antipathy against Turkey. This is why the AKP government constantly
reiterated that it does not see itself as a model or exemplar but that
it is open to friendly and fraternal collaboration. The circles that
in the past spread propaganda in Turkic republics to the effect that
"Turkey is acting as an elder brother" tried to deploy a similar
propaganda in the Middle East.
That was followed by attempts to arouse Arab concerns even more
through attributions of "neo-Ottomanism." Turkey is obviously proud of
its past and cannot ignore the mission imposed on it by history.
However, it certainly has no romantic yearnings of carrying the past
to the present or to make other countries follow its lead. Attempts
were made to twist references to the historic nature of relations in
this context.
Allegations of an "axis shift" in foreign policy did not find much
resonance because of Turkey's ability to maintain strong relations
with the United States and the EU.
Those who criticized the overtures formulated as part of the approach
of "zero problems" in foreign policy have taken the exact opposite
position today. Turkey's efforts to deepen its relations with Russia
was seen as a problem. The overture to Armenia was seen as a problem.
Rapprochement with neighbours ranging from Georgia to Greece was seen
as a problem. Both cooperation and friction with Israel were seen as
problems. The overture to African countries was seen as a problem.
Efforts to establish relations with Libya and Egypt were seen as a
problem. The opposition saw every effort Turkey made to reach out to
any region of the world and to establish good relations with anyone as
a problem. The mindset that wanted to Turkey to become introverted
wanted a foreign policy of passivism, surrenderism, and zero
relations. Those who criticized Erdogan for meeting with Al-Qadhafi
subsequently censured him for issuing an ultimatum to Al-Qadhafi. The
truth is that Turkey was well-intentioned and right when it extended
its hand of friendship and it was right when it screamed the truth and
expressed its indignation. Those who criticize Turkish foreign policy
are unable to find fault with the correctness of Turkey's narratives.
Those who criticize the evolution of the government's foreign policy
must also see how the opposition has evolved. Turkey is acting out of
not romanticism or emotionalism but a sense of ethics that seeks
rationalism and that is mindful of realpolitik.