Nation-building, Franks and submarines

If, the defense minister recently asked (but later claimed was a "misunderstanding,") the Greeks today existed in the (Turkish) Aegean and Armenians in many parts of Turkey, "could our beloved country have become a nation-state?" Mr Gonul thinks it could not. Therefore, he thinks, the population exchange which forcefully expelled Turks of Greece to Turkey and Greeks of Turkey to Greece in 1920 was a milestone for nation-building.

That might have been bad news for a couple of thousand Greeks and some 20,000 Armenians who have held on to their homes, mostly in Istanbul, despite systematic Turkish efforts to tell them they are not wanted in the Crescent and Star. But the minister probably no longer views them as a threat to our ’one-nation nation’ because they are too few. In his ’correction’ Minister Gönül praised minorities for the richness they give Turkey.

What should we make of Mr Gönül’s words? We understand that he is happy the Turks got rid of most of their Greeks and the Greeks got rid of most of their Turks about a century ago. Since it is too improbable that Minister Gönül thinks the Ottoman Armenians too were exchanged by a Turkish population in Armenia, we understand that he is also happy about the tragic Armenian exodus which today around 20 parliaments deem as genocide (see his words: "...if today the Armenians existed in many parts of Turkey...").

So, we all can be happy because there are no Greeks or Armenians around. It is probably too futile to try to convince Mr Gönül that "the departed" in fact constituted a very colorful fragment of our now one-nation nation. But that may not be necessary anyhow. In the first place, the minister’s definition of a one-nation nation is problematic.

The fact that the Greeks and Armenians had to go has not made Turkey a one-nation nation. For quick proof he can always spread a randomly selected newspaper sheet in which he will confidently find material reminding him of the Kurdish problem. Too bad, Mr Gönül must be thinking that the Kurds are Turks, for otherwise he would not have so cheerfully praised our one-nation nation and, as its double raison d’etre, the exchange of populations and the exodus. Or, can Mr Gönül’s understanding of one-nation in fact be a one-religion nation?

From his words on Greeks and Armenians we cannot understand what Minister Gönül thinks about the Kurds. Too bad, the Kurds were Muslim and therefore could not be catalogued as minority and exchanged with Turks in a neighboring country? That way we would have built a more one-nation nation. Or it was a marvelous thing that we got rid of the Franks and were left with our Muslim brothers? If it’s the latter perhaps the Minister has an explanation for why some Muslim Kurds are at war with Muslim Turks.

But let’s go back to Greeks, since Minister Gönül has other ideas about them. Recently, a columnist for Hurriyet, Fatih Çekirge, asked Mr Gönül about the wisdom of buying new submarines with a price tag of $4 billion "at a time when the world economy is in its worst shape probably since the Great Depression." Here is the minister’s reply: "Some countries to our attention have acquired the same submarines. We must (then) acquire them too."

There is only one country "to our attention" which has purchased the same submarines: Greece. Mr Gönül’s thinking reflects several problematic aspects of Turkey’s security threat perceptions and defense procurement machinery. From the minister’s lines we understand that EU-candidate Turkey considers EU-member Greece as a conventional war threat. Some may argue this thinking is justified, some may think it is not. My point expressed in this column four months ago was:

"...How realistic it is, from a military contingency planning point of view, to expect Greek submarines surfacing near Cyprus to torpedo Turkey-friendly vessels, military and civilian, and Turkish submarines torpedoing Greek-friendly (EU-flagged) vessels around the Mediterranean? The submarine race across the Aegean is not compatible with political realities," (Submarine and You Tube warfare on the Aegean, Turkish Daily News. July 25, 2008).

More disturbingly, the minister is telling us that the Turkish threat-procurement mechanism is built on the idea of "unquestioningly buying the same weapons systems the countries ’to our attention’ buy. Although this is almost like a universal rule, it may no longer be the best method to counter conventional warfare threats. Instead, smart countries buy smart weaponry, instead of reciprocating in an endless and cash-consuming race. The Greeks may be doing the same. It does not mean they are optimally prioritizing their shopping list of weapons systems. Reading Minister Gönül, I thought we are still lucky. Let’s hope the Greeks will not buy a dozen aircraft carriers or 5,000 new tanks or 100 new frigates or a zeppelin.