×
Where would your GPS locate Turkey on the political map?
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
An Indian friend once objected to the term "Middle East." "Why, for us it’s the western East," he remarked, half-jokingly. The terms "West" and "East" have always made speeches simpler but sometimes problematic, too.
But we at least should agree that these terms denote more than geographical connotations. Can it be that Turkey belongs to the West and Australia and New Zealand to the East? Is Albania more western than Turkey, or Libya than Israel?
News coverage of the "Obama party" in Turkey showed that the U.S. president confirmed his administration’s perceptions that Turkey belongs to the West. Yes, he said that Turkey belonged in Europe. But what else did he tell an all too admiring Turkish audience?
I’ll come to that. But allow me to ask another question. How did the officials, pundits, analysts and columnists invariably describe President Obama’s visit to Turkey? This was the standard line in every piece of news, commentary or analysis: "É Obama chose Turkey as the first Muslim country to visit since becoming president. É" Is there not something odd here? Why did anyone not say/write/think instead, "Obama chose Turkey as the fourth European country to visit since becoming president?"
How would we all describe the president’s visit if he went to Switzerland instead of Turkey? Obama chose Switzerland as the fourth Christian country to visit? How would we all describe the visit if he went instead to Egypt? There you go! Yes, in the case of Egypt we would describe it as "Obama chose Egypt as the first Muslim country to visitÉ" What about Thailand? Can we think of a line like "Obama chose Thailand as the first Buddhist country to visit"? Now let’s recall the president’s speech in Turkey. Obama talked about where "there’s the most promise of building stronger U.S.-Turkish relations is in the recognition of Turkey and the United States can build a model partnership in which a predominantly Christian nation and a predominantly Muslim nation Ğ a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents. É" There it is!
It is true that the United States is predominantly Christian and Turkey is predominantly Muslim. So far, so good. But what about "a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents?" If Turkey belongs to the West, why did Obama not talk about two Western nations and instead went for the polite term "straddling two continents" instead of just saying a Western nation and an Eastern (Muslim) nation? Or did he mean "a nation that we can locate neither in the West nor in the East but wish it were Western?" Probably the last one.
We all know that having a negligible part of its soil sitting on continental Europe does not make a country or a nation European or Western. Last week, I recalled in this column that Obama was visiting a country where 73 percent of the people think foreigners should not buy property on their soil, 46 percent say they would nod to a military coup if necessary, 69 percent think women should get their husbands’ permission in order to work, 57 percent say the female members of their household never went out with a sleeveless blouse; 70 percent declare they did not read any books in the last three months, and 39 percent support the ruling party Ğ and where in 2009 still a dozen people die and hundreds get injured in election day violence.
Of course, Obama did not want to be rude or anything. Nor does he wish for Turkey to slide further eastward. On the contrary, he is probably determined to reverse Turkey’s drift. In his speech, there was a not-so-veiled message to our ruling Islamists: "One of the great strengths of the United States is that it does not consider itself a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. I think modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles." Now let’s try to decipher: Religion is nowhere in the making of the American state, and the Americans are bound by a set of values similar to the principles on which Atatürk founded modern Turkey. We all know what those principles were. I am certain Obama had been briefed about them all too well. It as not a slip of tongue or ignorance that he felt urged to remind his Turkish hosts that the principles they hate are similar to the ones that keep the Americans bound together. That’s bad news for Turkey’s Islamists. There is this man they cannot easily fool. They need to find new skin for the old ceremony Ğ taqiyya may no longer be the applicable tactic. Before it’s too late, it might be better if they learned that America is not only about religious freedoms. It is also about freedom from political religiosity.
News coverage of the "Obama party" in Turkey showed that the U.S. president confirmed his administration’s perceptions that Turkey belongs to the West. Yes, he said that Turkey belonged in Europe. But what else did he tell an all too admiring Turkish audience?
I’ll come to that. But allow me to ask another question. How did the officials, pundits, analysts and columnists invariably describe President Obama’s visit to Turkey? This was the standard line in every piece of news, commentary or analysis: "É Obama chose Turkey as the first Muslim country to visit since becoming president. É" Is there not something odd here? Why did anyone not say/write/think instead, "Obama chose Turkey as the fourth European country to visit since becoming president?"
How would we all describe the president’s visit if he went to Switzerland instead of Turkey? Obama chose Switzerland as the fourth Christian country to visit? How would we all describe the visit if he went instead to Egypt? There you go! Yes, in the case of Egypt we would describe it as "Obama chose Egypt as the first Muslim country to visitÉ" What about Thailand? Can we think of a line like "Obama chose Thailand as the first Buddhist country to visit"? Now let’s recall the president’s speech in Turkey. Obama talked about where "there’s the most promise of building stronger U.S.-Turkish relations is in the recognition of Turkey and the United States can build a model partnership in which a predominantly Christian nation and a predominantly Muslim nation Ğ a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents. É" There it is!
It is true that the United States is predominantly Christian and Turkey is predominantly Muslim. So far, so good. But what about "a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents?" If Turkey belongs to the West, why did Obama not talk about two Western nations and instead went for the polite term "straddling two continents" instead of just saying a Western nation and an Eastern (Muslim) nation? Or did he mean "a nation that we can locate neither in the West nor in the East but wish it were Western?" Probably the last one.
We all know that having a negligible part of its soil sitting on continental Europe does not make a country or a nation European or Western. Last week, I recalled in this column that Obama was visiting a country where 73 percent of the people think foreigners should not buy property on their soil, 46 percent say they would nod to a military coup if necessary, 69 percent think women should get their husbands’ permission in order to work, 57 percent say the female members of their household never went out with a sleeveless blouse; 70 percent declare they did not read any books in the last three months, and 39 percent support the ruling party Ğ and where in 2009 still a dozen people die and hundreds get injured in election day violence.
Of course, Obama did not want to be rude or anything. Nor does he wish for Turkey to slide further eastward. On the contrary, he is probably determined to reverse Turkey’s drift. In his speech, there was a not-so-veiled message to our ruling Islamists: "One of the great strengths of the United States is that it does not consider itself a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. I think modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles." Now let’s try to decipher: Religion is nowhere in the making of the American state, and the Americans are bound by a set of values similar to the principles on which Atatürk founded modern Turkey. We all know what those principles were. I am certain Obama had been briefed about them all too well. It as not a slip of tongue or ignorance that he felt urged to remind his Turkish hosts that the principles they hate are similar to the ones that keep the Americans bound together. That’s bad news for Turkey’s Islamists. There is this man they cannot easily fool. They need to find new skin for the old ceremony Ğ taqiyya may no longer be the applicable tactic. Before it’s too late, it might be better if they learned that America is not only about religious freedoms. It is also about freedom from political religiosity.
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
