The French disconnection

The resemblance between France and “old Turkey” is striking. One similarity regards their attitudes towards history. The French government is attempting to construct a “historical truth” for its citizens, who are not considered capable of making up their own minds about the events of the past.

I know this Jacobin attitude very well from the Kemalist experimentation in creating a “new nation” with a constructed history and identity. But France is the birthplace of imposing “good” on the minds of the “folk,” down in the streets. From this perspective, the rulers thought they knew what to believe and how to think better than ordinary citizens.

It is not a simple coincidence that French President Nicolas Sarkozy told Turkey not to interfere with French beliefs. So President Sarkozy thinks that he or Parliament is in a position to pass a law that regulates people's beliefs in any history or faith and punishes those who do not subscribe to the official belief.

This is obviously nonsense but makes perfect sense given the Jacobin legacy in France that seems to be experiencing a revival under Sarkozy's presidency.

The French Parliament, with a ridiculously low level of participation (only around 50 members of Parliament were in attendance when the bill was approved), has attempted to construct an “official belief” on the Armenian massacre of 1915.

The bill describes the 1915 massacre of Armenians as “genocide” and allows for the punishment of those who express a contradictory opinion. So France has moved into an era where it punishes the beliefs that contradict its officially imposed belief. This certainly reminds me of the Inquisition, fires, stakes and the Middle Ages.

There can be no official belief or official history in open and democratic societies. People are free to explore, experience and expose different claims to truth.

A democratic state cannot attempt to hold a monopoly on historical interpretation. Democracy is about plurality of interpretations. Only totalitarian states claim to monopolize interpretations and control people's minds.

The French Parliament has gone too far to discredit its reputation. This has been done while Turkey, despite its authoritarian state tradition, has come to face its past. Only two weeks ago Prime Minister Erdoğan apologized in the name of the state for the massacre of the Dersim people in 1937-1938. This is certainly a move forward towards confronting Turkey's troubling past.

It should also be remembered that Prime Minister Erdoğan, while referring to past atrocities directed at non-Muslims including the Armenians, stated in May 2009, “Through fascist approaches, we forced many non-Muslims to leave this country.” He asked, “Did we do any good?”

While Turkey seems to be abandoning its “official history,” it is really ironic that France is writing one for itself. It is up to the French people to decide whether they silently accept the Parliament's intervention in their freedom of expression. It is, after all, primarily the French citizens whose freedom of expression is severely violated by their Parliament's decision. If the French people accept that their government is in a better position to think and pass judgment on their behalf, it is fine for me.

Regardless, the French attitude neither helps the Armenians who suffered nor the Turks who do not acknowledge their suffering. We can right the atrocities of the past not by labeling them but by discussing them. Calling them genocide is the shortest way to close the debate.

I wrote some time ago: “Anyone who wants to close the debate on what happened to Armenians in 1915 should start by describing the events as genocide. They are, of course, free to speak as they wish. But if Turks are expected to be part of this debate, then a more constructive approach is needed. This requires avoiding language that closes the debate when, in fact, a lively discussion has already been going on.”

A war America lost

American troops left Iraq last week. President Barack Obama declared that the objectives in Iraq were accomplished.

This I do not agree with. The occupation of Iraq was a big mistake by the US, led then by a neoconservative gang. The cost of the war was high for the US. Five-thousand died, 30,000 were injured and over a trillion dollars were spent.

All these may still be bearable losses, but when we look at the Iraqi side, the scope of destruction goes beyond one's imagination. The number of dead is said to be at around 1.2 million. Those who fled from their homes numbered 2 million. These figures tell us the extent of the human cost the Iraqis had to bear.

While credit for the removal of Saddam Hussein certainly goes to the US, moral and political responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis falls on the US as well.

Despite this heavy human cost and financial burden, the US did not get what it wanted.

The occupation has handed the power in Iraq to Shiite groups, a scenario of power-sharing that the Americans would have never considered prior to the war. Given the historical and theological relationship between Iraqi Shiites and Iran, it will now be very difficult to prevent the influence of Iran on Iraqi politics. Even Shiite elements that are relatively distant from Iran come under the pressure of pro-Iranian groups, as both derive their legitimacy from the teachings of Shiites, heavily influenced historically by Iranians.

After the US left Iraq, the rising power in the region is certainly Iran. The occupation of Iraq only facilitated the spread of Iranian influence in the region, and particularly in Iraq. Did American policy-makers envisage such an outcome, detrimental to their regional standing in the Middle East?

While the central government of Iraq has to a very large extent fallen to Shiites, the country appears divided along sectarian and ethnic lines. Once Iraqis fail in power-sharing among the Shiites, the Kurds, and the Sunnis, the country may fall to pieces. Thus the occupation has resulted in a new power configuration that shakes the feasibility of Iraq as a state. Will such a divided Iraq serve American interests in the region? I doubt it.

As a result of the war, the US also lost support worldwide. Before and after the invasion of Iraq, mass demonstrations were held in different parts of the world. Anti-Americanism hit its highest levels. This was not only a phenomenon in the Middle East among Muslims but was seen all over the world, including in Europe and Latin America. America lost its soft power once it used its hard power against Iraq. The global standing of the US suffered tremendously as the war dragged on, with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties and the revelation of atrocities committed by American troops against civilians and prisoners. Only recently has the US begun to recover from its dark decade of anti-Americanism fueled by the Iraqi occupation due to worldwide affinity for President Obama.

The US also lost some of its allies. The unilateralism of the Bush administration alienated US friends in Europe. Those who supported the American war in Iraq, like Tony Blair of Britain, lost their own political battles at home.

Moreover, relations with Turkey were severely damaged as a result of the war. At some point, this even took the form of hostility. The trust between the two sides at the governmental level disappeared. Many in Turkey believed that the neocons in Washington had plotted with their Turkish supporters against the Turkish government to end the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) rule. Moreover, anti-Americanism rose to a record high among the people of Turkey. The relationship between the two sides was repaired only after the US started to contemplate withdrawal from Iraq.

In short, the occupation of Iraq shows the limits of using military power, even for a superpower. Iraq will continue to haunt America in the Middle East and the world at large.

Reforming Europe, abandoning Turkey

Looking at the economic crisis that led a number of member states to the brink of bankruptcy, some question the future of the European Union.

Whether the EU is an effective institutional framework for dealing with economic crises and bringing prosperity to its citizens may be debated, but it is premature to question the EU’s future.

The EU is the Europeans’ most ambitious project in modern history. I don’t think it will easily be given up. It is a zone of peace and prosperity despite the presence of some countries shaken by recent economic crises.

For the anti-EU circles, there is still no ground to celebrate. The union is not passé. Criticism of the EU should not underestimate the ability of the EU to overcome challenges and adapt itself to changing circumstances.

It is a union bringing together different national interests, styles, and identities. We always hear about how difficult it is to make decisions in such a big and diverse community. But we see that the union is capable of making speedy and fundamental decisions concerning itself.

Just take last week’s European Council meeting in Brussels as an example. Amid a debate on the future of the EU and the failures of its economic institutions and policies, European leaders decided to enhance integration, not loosen it. Within three months a new union treaty is going to be prepared to tighten financial management within the union.

This decision means that the current crisis will not lead to the disintegration of the union, as argued by some. On the contrary, it will trigger further integration within Europe.

This reaction of the EU to the crisis tells us an important characteristic of the union; namely, that is able to understand the change in the environment and respond accordingly.

There is indeed a history of this. Just think of the union treaties made since the end of the Cold War. Starting with Maastricht and moving on to Amsterdam and Nice, and now to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has been more flexible, responsive and changing than it is given credit for. What we have is a union that has made four “constitutions” in the post-Cold War era, and agreed to make a new one.

This tells us about the EU’s ability to renew itself in the face of crisis, and also its flexibility to change despite a heavy Brussels bureaucracy and diverse membership profile. This is so, I think because the Europeans are still convinced that peace, prosperity, and liberty will best be brought about by European-level cooperation that requires working together instead of going on their own.

Compare the EU’s responsiveness to the changing circumstances in terms of coming up with a new set of rules and norms to Turkey. We have been ruled by a military-made Constitution since 1982. There were numerous amendments introduced since then, but we failed to make a new one despite overwhelming public demand. Even now it is rather doubtful if the new Parliament will reach an agreement on a new democratic constitution.

In trying to catch up with the EU, Turkey sped up its reforms since the late 1990s, strengthening its democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. But as of today, the EU lost its role to push Turkey for democratic reform not only because Turkey reached a point at which it does not need an external stimulus for democratization but also because the EU is no longer willing or cares to play such a role.

Such thinking prevails on both sides and neither serves the interests of Turkey nor those of Europe. I hope Turkey won’t be an abandoned or failed case of Europeanization as a result of ignorance or false confidence.