Turkey Analyst,
vol. 3 no. 8
26 April 2010

WHAT THE COLUMNISTS SAY

Turkish-Kurdish tensions are a growing concern among the commentators in Turkey.  One particular article, entitled “The punch” by Yılmaz Özdil in Hürriyet (a daily which announces in its caption that “Turkey belongs to the Turks”), stirred a major, heated debate. Özdil excused the attack against Ahmet Türk, the former leader of the Kurdish Democratic society party (DTP), and was accused of hate mongering by non-nationalist commentators. The critics saw parallels to how the nationalist circles had reacted to the assassination of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in 2007. There is a general apprehension that Turkey is in dire straits.

ÖZDIL: THE PUNCH
For sure, nobody’s nose should bleed, writes Yılmaz Özdil in Hürriyet.  And by all means, hunger should be eradicated in Africa. Poverty should be done away with. Nuclear arms should be disposed of. The list can be prolonged. We can appeal to “reason”.  And we can even state that we “deplore” what has taken place. But such bloated words will be of use to no one, not even to confused girls. Instead, we should start by posing questions:  why is it perceived as an act of “racism” to attack the party leader if it’s deemed a “democratic right” to open fire on and kill the children of this country?  If mines are democracy, then how come the punch becomes fascism? Let’s face it: the individual who landed his punch on the nose of Ahmet Türk like the “hammer of justice” translated the sentiments of a lot of people in this country. The ridiculous “opening” has exculpated the terrorist, and by so doing it has turned the brigand into a hero on the other side.

ÇANDAR: THE OGÜN SAMASTS OF THE MEDIA
Cengiz Çandar in Radikal compares the attack against Ahmet Türk with the assassination in 2007 of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Indeed, the similarities in the both cases are striking: The very same lot who back then exhorted us to empathize with Ogün Samast, the murderer of Hrant Dink, is now seeking to “legitimize” the assault on Türk. These people are the shame of our media.  The attack against Ahmet Türk is the 2010 version of the 80 year long aggressiveness against the Kurds. We are now more or less able to gauge who was behind the assassination of Hrant Dink. A lot of people can now see who was behind the assassin Ogün Samast. The assault on Ahmet Türk took place right before the eyes of the very same security forces in Samsun, who posed for a photo in front of a Turkish flag together with Ogün Samast.

ÖZEL:  THE PUNCH HAS FAR REACHING IMPLICATIONS
Soli Özel in Habertürk describes Ahmet Türk as perhaps the most respected and experienced of Kurdish politicians. In a climate in which primitive emotions reign, when it has proven impossible to take the necessary steps to ease tensions, the attack on Türk inevitably has implications that go far beyond the individual act of violence. It is the common understanding of those who have insights into the Kurdish issue that a young generation has come of age that has lost faith in politics, that sees violence as the only solution and that is looking to the south of the border. Mentally, Turkey is rapidly disintegrating. It is no exaggeration to say that the Kurdish opening has turned into a bad joke. Nothing illustrates the government’s lack of a principled democratization project better than the pitiful state of the openings. In short, the Kurdish opening has been sacrificed to the government’s cowardice. It has created a huge disappointment among the Kurds, while mistrust and anger has swelled among the Turks. This makes for a dangerous mix indeed for Turkey.

AKYOL:  TERRIBLE SIGNS OF AN APPROACHING DANGER
Taha Akyol in Milliyet asks if Turkey is headed towards ethnic confrontation. The heinous attack on Ahmet Türk is the latest of the indications that we indeed face that risk. Turkey risks succumbing to what political scientist Martin Lipset once termed “the fascism of the lower classes”.  Although Ahmet Türk appealed to calm, violence nevertheless erupted in different cities. The moderate, reasonable approach of Türk is sharply contrasted by the ethnic nationalist rhetoric of Selahattin Demirtaş, the “appointed” leader of the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP).  Demirtaş has made statements that are horrifyingly provocative.  He warns that “our patience is running out” and that “the Black sea, the Aegean and the Sea of Marmara as well will flood in that case”.  Demirtaş threatens to “extinguish the AKP from this geography”, in a clear reference to a geographically delimited “Kurdistan”. Yet if some cities of the country is to form part of a “Kurdistan” will not all the rest then become a “Turkistan”?  How can one be so irresponsibly blind to the consequences of the rhetoric of extinguishing someone from the geography? We would face something far worse than Yugoslavia went through.

İDİZ: THE TURKS ARE INDEED XENOPHOBIC
Semih Idiz in Milliyet comments the BBC survey that reveals that xenophobia is widespread in Turkey. The survey has served to remind us of something of which we are already well aware, although that reality is not publicly recognized:  Xenophobia may exist in other countries as well, but when it comes to this we are “the champions”.  In fact, we don’t need surveys like this to be reminded of this reality; it’s enough to listen to the conversations around us. We are dealing with a social pathology. The question is why we are in this state. A social psychologist may respond that xenophobia fulfills the function of covering the Turks “own ignorance and social inadequacies”.  A related fact is that the more you become western, the more you adhere to the universal values of the West, the more you will be scorned; because that implies that you have somehow “sold out” Turkey.  That is another aspect of our pathological state of mind. Yes, Turkey is in many ways a country that is misunderstood internationally. But if we want to improve our standing, we Turks will first need to get to know the world better as well and shed our own prejudices.

© Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center, 2010. This article may be reprinted provided that the following sentence be included: "This article was first published in the Turkey Analyst (www.turkeyanalyst.org), a biweekly publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center".

The Turkey Analyst
The Turkey Analyst is a publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Joint Center, designed to bring authoritative analysis and news on the rapidly developing domestic and foreign policy issues in Turkey. It is published weekly, and includes a topical analysis, as well as translations and summaries of selected Turkish news reports. It is edited and compiled under the supervision of Svante E. Cornell, Halil M. Karaveli, and M. K. Kaya.

The analyses appearing in the Turkey Analyst are often written by the three Editors. The Turkey Analyst occasionally publishes signed guest analyses.

The Joint Center
The Joint Center was created in 2005 through the merger of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, and the Silk Road Studies Program, at the Stockholm-based Institute for Security and Development Policy.

The Turkey Initiative
The Joint Center launched a Turkey Initiative in 2006 in order to improve understand of Turkish domestic and foreign affairs in Europe and the United States.

To Subscribe:
To subscribe to the Turkey Analyst email announcements, please contact Martina Klimesova with an email containing "subscribe Turkey Analyst" in the subject line.