Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Armenians Must Counter UN Security Council Bids by Turkey and Azerbaijan

    Armenians Must Counter UN Security Council Bids by Turkey and Azerbaijan

     

    SASSUN 2
    Diasporan political organizations and influential Armenians, in cooperation with the Armenian Foreign Ministry, should launch an international lobbying campaign to block Turkey and Azerbaijan from gaining coveted seats on the United Nations Security Council.
    Three years ago, I made a similar plea when Turkey was seeking a seat on the Security Council for the first time since 1961. I urged Armenians worldwide to contact government leaders of their respective countries, requesting that their UN representatives oppose Turkey’s Security Council bid. Regrettably, no such efforts were made and Turkey easily gained a seat on the powerful Security Council for a two-year term (2009 & 2010).
    One advantage Armenians have in being scattered throughout the world is their unique opportunity to lobby the governments of dozens of countries on upcoming issues at the UN. Such a strategy would considerably strengthen the Armenian Foreign Ministry’s UN activities. Diaspora’s political clout and contacts would counter the considerable financial resources Turkey and Azerbaijan provide to many countries to obtain their UN votes. As reported by the Eurasia Daily Monitor, Turkey bribed dozens of third world countries in its successful bid for a Security Council seat in 2009. The Turkish government went as far as contributing $20 million to a number of small nations to pay off their UN membership dues, so they won’t lose their voting rights!
    Encouraged by the results of its previous campaign, Turkey just announced its candidacy for yet another term on the Security Council in 2015-2016, competing with Spain and New Zealand for two open regional seats. Both of these countries are far more qualified than Turkey in terms of fulfilling Security Council’s objectives of contributing to international peace and security. Having just served for two years on the Security Council after the absence of a half-century, Turkey’s hegemonic appetite is now whetted to return to the Council in 5 years, much earlier than its turn!
    For those familiar with Turkey’s long record of human rights violations, repeated massacres of Kurds, denial of the Armenian Genocide, and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus, it is shocking to read the excuses of the Turkish Foreign Ministry for its new Security Council bid: “Turkey is determined to increase its contributions to international peace, security and prosperity, as well as to further its efforts towards strengthening fundamental principles and values such as human rights, democracy and rule of law.”
    Having a seat on the UN Security Council, however, may not always be advantageous for Turkey. Its hypocritical behavior of pretending to be everyone’s best friend risks being exposed, as was the case in 2009-2010 when Turkey was forced to take sides and vote on such thorny issues as the Arab-Israeli conflict and the controversial Iranian nuclear program, antagonizing many of its traditional allies.
    While Armenians have a five-year advance notice to effectively plan their lobbying activities against Turkey’s membership bid, they have only three months to obstruct Azerbaijan’s Security Council candidacy in elections to be held this October. According to knowledgeable sources, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov is globe-trotting to provide financial inducements to dozens of needy countries in return for votes. Mammadyarov urged the Foreign Ministers gathered at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation conference to support Azerbaijan’s first-ever bid for a seat on the Security Council, claiming that his country has a “strong commitment to goals and principles of the UN Charter.”
    Given Azerbaijan’s authoritarian regime as documented by the State Department and other human rights organizations, in particular its lack of democracy, flagrant violations of human rights, and constant threats to use force against the neighboring Republics of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh (Artsakh), it is hard to imagine a country less qualified to serve on the UN Security Council.
    Since Azerbaijan will be competing with Slovenia and Hungary for a Security Council seat, one would think that Baku’s chances are close to zero. However, given Azerbaijan’s lavish vote-buying spree funded by abundant petrodollars, Armenians and their supporters need to work hard in the next three months to channel the UN members’ votes towards either Slovenia or Hungary, and away from Azerbaijan.
    In countering Turkish and Azerbaijani efforts in international organizations, Armenians must be encouraged by the major political setback suffered by Turkey last week, when Armenia and Cyprus blocked the appointment of a Turkish diplomat to the prestigious position of Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The top contenders for that job were Austria’s former Foreign Minister, Ursula Plassnik and Turkey’s Ambassador to Brazil, Ersin Ercin. By blocking Austria’s candidate, Turkey caused a serious diplomatic rift between the two countries. At the end, Ambassador Lamberto Zannier of Italy was unanimously chosen as OSCE’s new Secretary General.
    Armenia and Cyprus must be congratulated for not caving in to Turkish pressures and standing up in defense of their national interests.

  • Sassounian’s column of July 14, 2011

    Sassounian’s column of July 14, 2011

    Prof. Akcam Reveals Turkish Plan to Pay
    Scholars to Deny the Armenian Genocide
    sassounian31
    Prof. Taner Akcam dropped a bombshell during a lecture at the Glendale Public Library last month, when he revealed that a confidential source in Istanbul had informed him about the Turkish government’s scheme to bribe American scholars to deny the Armenian Genocide.
    Dr. Akcam, holder of the Kaloosdian/Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., stated that “the Turkish government is following a very systematic and aggressive policy in the US,” by attempting to cast doubt on the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. Ankara’s grand scheme is to make Turkish denialist claims as widely acceptable as the belief that the events of 1915 constituted genocide. Moreover, through a series of lawsuits in US courts, Turkey and its proxies are trying to present any criticism of denialist scholars and exclusion of revisionist materials from university programs as suppression of “academic freedom.”
    Prof. Akcam, one of the first Turkish scholars to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, related to his audience that during his visit to Istanbul last December, he had a private conversation with a person who had “inside information” regarding the Turkish Foreign Ministry’s activities in the United States on subject of the Armenian Genocide. Dr. Akcam’s confidential source told him that sometime in 2004-2005, an American university professor had met with “authorities connected with the Turkish Foreign Ministry.” At that meeting, the professor told his Turkish hosts that “Turkey didn’t have a systematic program on the academic level with which to counter the claims of an Armenian Genocide,” and that “the genocide claim is well established at this point,” telling them that “there’s very little” they can do “by trying to confront it head on.”
    Dr. Akcam was privately informed that the American professor made the following recommendation to Turkish officials: “The thing you need to do is to dig a ditch in front of all the genocide claims; you need to create doubt by writing scholarly works which will awaken that doubt.” Dr. Akcam interpreted these words to mean that “by producing and encouraging new academic works,” American scholars could “normalize the idea that 1915 was not genocide, just as the belief that it was genocide has become accepted.”
    While it is commonly assumed that the Turkish government provides financial incentives to scholars worldwide to publish articles and books denying the Armenian Genocide, this is the first time that a knowledgeable Turkish insider has confirmed these assumptions. The confidential source told Dr. Akcam that the Turkish Foreign Ministry accepted the American scholar’s proposal and “transferred large sums of money to the US.” The informant revealed to Dr. Akcam the names of American academics who received funds to write books denying the Armenian Genocide, and disclosed that “there are documents signed by their own hand and that these receipts are now in the files of the Foreign Ministry’s records.”
    In his lecture, Dr. Akcam stated that he did not want “to put any academic under a cloud of suspicion.” However, when he connected the information received from his Istanbul source to some recent publications, “a disturbing picture emerges as far as Armenian Genocide research is concerned.”
    Dr. Akcam then referred to Michael Gunter’s recent book, “Armenian History and the Question of Genocide,” as a possible “example of this approach.” The website of the book’s publisher, Palgrave Macmillan, stated: “Although as many as 600,000 of them [Armenians] died during World War I, it was neither a premeditated policy perpetrated by the Ottoman Turkish government nor an event unilaterally implemented without cause. Of course, in no way does this excuse the horrible excesses that were committed.”
    Prof. Akcam further observed that the four academics — Hakan Yavuz of University of Utah, Guenter Lewy of University of Massachusetts, Jeremy Salt of Bilkent University, Ankara, and Edward J. Ericson of Marine Corps Command & Staff College, Virginia — who praised Gunter’s book, “are well known for their denialist position and works regarding the genocide of 1915.” Although Prof. Akcam did not wish to make “an accusation against the book’s writer,” he stated: “the strange similarities between what I was told in confidence in Istanbul and what appears on the jacket cover of that book gave me pause, that’s all.”
    While no one should accuse academics of receiving funds from the Turkish government or its proxies without solid evidence, it would be enlightening if any of them would voluntarily come forward and disclose whether they have been funded by Turkish sources!
  • Armenians Must Counter UN Security Council Bids by Turkey and Azerbaijan

    Armenians Must Counter UN Security Council Bids by Turkey and Azerbaijan

    sassounian3
    Diasporan political organizations and influential Armenians, in cooperation with the Armenian Foreign Ministry, should launch an international lobbying campaign to block Turkey and Azerbaijan from gaining coveted seats on the United Nations Security Council.
    Three years ago, I made a similar plea when Turkey was seeking a seat on the Security Council for the first time since 1961. I urged Armenians worldwide to contact government leaders of their respective countries, requesting that their UN representatives oppose Turkey’s Security Council bid. Regrettably, no such efforts were made and Turkey easily gained a seat on the powerful Security Council for a two-year term (2009 & 2010).
    One advantage Armenians have in being scattered throughout the world is their unique opportunity to lobby the governments of dozens of countries on upcoming issues at the UN. Such a strategy would considerably strengthen the Armenian Foreign Ministry’s UN activities. Diaspora’s political clout and contacts would counter the considerable financial resources Turkey and Azerbaijan provide to many countries to obtain their UN votes. As reported by the Eurasia Daily Monitor, Turkey bribed dozens of third world countries in its successful bid for a Security Council seat in 2009. The Turkish government went as far as contributing $20 million to a number of small nations to pay off their UN membership dues, so they won’t lose their voting rights!
    Encouraged by the results of its previous campaign, Turkey just announced its candidacy for yet another term on the Security Council in 2015-2016, competing with Spain and New Zealand for two open regional seats. Both of these countries are far more qualified than Turkey in terms of fulfilling Security Council’s objectives of contributing to international peace and security. Having just served for two years on the Security Council after the absence of a half-century, Turkey’s hegemonic appetite is now whetted to return to the Council in 5 years, much earlier than its turn!
    For those familiar with Turkey’s long record of human rights violations, repeated massacres of Kurds, denial of the Armenian Genocide, and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus, it is shocking to read the excuses of the Turkish Foreign Ministry for its new Security Council bid: “Turkey is determined to increase its contributions to international peace, security and prosperity, as well as to further its efforts towards strengthening fundamental principles and values such as human rights, democracy and rule of law.”
    Having a seat on the UN Security Council, however, may not always be advantageous for Turkey. Its hypocritical behavior of pretending to be everyone’s best friend risks being exposed, as was the case in 2009-2010 when Turkey was forced to take sides and vote on such thorny issues as the Arab-Israeli conflict and the controversial Iranian nuclear program, antagonizing many of its traditional allies.
    While Armenians have a five-year advance notice to effectively plan their lobbying activities against Turkey’s membership bid, they have only three months to obstruct Azerbaijan’s Security Council candidacy in elections to be held this October. According to knowledgeable sources, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov is globe-trotting to provide financial inducements to dozens of needy countries in return for votes. Mammadyarov urged the Foreign Ministers gathered at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation conference to support Azerbaijan’s first-ever bid for a seat on the Security Council, claiming that his country has a “strong commitment to goals and principles of the UN Charter.”
    Given Azerbaijan’s authoritarian regime as documented by the State Department and other human rights organizations, in particular its lack of democracy, flagrant violations of human rights, and constant threats to use force against the neighboring Republics of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh (Artsakh), it is hard to imagine a country less qualified to serve on the UN Security Council.
    Since Azerbaijan will be competing with Slovenia and Hungary for a Security Council seat, one would think that Baku’s chances are close to zero. However, given Azerbaijan’s lavish vote-buying spree funded by abundant petrodollars, Armenians and their supporters need to work hard in the next three months to channel the UN members’ votes towards either Slovenia or Hungary, and away from Azerbaijan.
    In countering Turkish and Azerbaijani efforts in international organizations, Armenians must be encouraged by the major political setback suffered by Turkey last week, when Armenia and Cyprus blocked the appointment of a Turkish diplomat to the prestigious position of Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The top contenders for that job were Austria’s former Foreign Minister, Ursula Plassnik and Turkey’s Ambassador to Brazil, Ersin Ercin. By blocking Austria’s candidate, Turkey caused a serious diplomatic rift between the two countries. At the end, Ambassador Lamberto Zannier of Italy was unanimously chosen as OSCE’s new Secretary General.
    Armenia and Cyprus must be congratulated for not caving in to Turkish pressures and standing up in defense of their national interests.

     
  • Not taking the Oath is already taking an Oath

    Not taking the Oath is already taking an Oath

    The Turkish Grand National Assembly (the TBMM) with its new members opened with novel crisis in the Turkish political history. Unfortunately the crisis, in brief, reflects the weakness of Turkish democracy due to which unelected deputies can proudly take the oath as “legal representatives (?)”, whereas popularly elected real deputies are even not allowed to have the freedom to come to the TBMM. So consequently, we see two major opposition parties declining to take the oath as a reaction to these anti-democratic occurrences.

    Of course the situations of both opposition parties are different from one another in terms of both the problem they have been confronted by and the way to react against it. However, it’s undoubted that they are right in their attitudes towards the anti-democratic attacks against their members. What seems to be much more anti-democratic is that instead of resolving ones, provoking and heating steps have been made by the majority-party or the AKP. The deputies-chairman of the AKP have brought up every probable precaution that would prevent these opposition parties from continuing their democratic struggles.

    One should never forget the fact that in this sense the attitudes of these opposition parties not to take the oath are already taking an oath, which is made for the sake of real democracy and “national-popular will” as opposed to the general belief associating the loyalty to the will of nation with a formal “oath”.

    I never want that my support for the attitudes of opposition parties is taken to contain partisan biases or anarchic feelings by my readers especially my dear colleagues believing that this attitude could reduce the power of the opposition parties in the parliament. That’s why I preferred to explain my support. First of all one should accept that democratic societies are to recognize the “supremacy of law” which highlights that no public or private activity can be against legal provisions. So I, since I identify myself as a “real democrat”, am also not against any judicial investigation, as far as it’s in line with the universal human rights. However, here we see all the accused are the AKP-opponents who have been imprisoned by highly politicized judicial activities such as the insist on imprisoning despite the inexistence of evidences, inhuman duration of detention, usage of unreal and irrationally “made” evidences, etc.   So these lawless implementations are leading us to have no doubt that this is a politically prejudicial operation conducted by the AKP rather than a rightful judicial investigation conducted by independent judiciary. Simply in order to react this, some of the accused people were proposed as candidates and they were elected. So nobody can take their inalienable right of being popularly elected.
    Another group of commentators and even some of the CHP-electorate claimed that the best way of struggling against this would be the parliamentary struggle. I think this is a simple parliamentary-conservative point of view. Why then? Because everyone knows that the parliamentary struggle provides a single way which I believe is definitely a vicious circle: initiating bills which have always been tried by the opposition parties and rejected by the ruling parties.

    So I believe Turkey, if it demands more democracy, should react anti-democratic activities in non-conservative and a bit more radical ways, because democracy is the only thing ensuring people’s freedom. So in order to manage this reaction process, one should first gain consciousness enabling to see the realities. I think, the Republican People’s Party (the CHP) acted in line with this, which I hope will contribute future change in peoples mind [towards consciousness]. For this, the CHP ought to express its view to the people in the right way. In this process, the consistency is also of a great significance. If you took the oath of democracy, you should be consistent in your belief in democracy, even if no one tends to support you. “Do what you think is right, do it not for the sake of someone but for the sake of the right”


    Edgar ŞAR

    Edgar.Sar@PolitikaDergisi.com

  • Hanging Armenia’s Dirty Laundry in Public

    Hanging Armenia’s Dirty Laundry in Public

     

     

    By Harut Sassounian

    sassounian35

    President Serzh Sargsyan made an important appearance at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg last week. In a whirlwind 30-minute speech, he covered Armenia’s internal and foreign affairs, presenting his country in the best possible light before a distinguished foreign audience.

     

    On the domestic front, Pres. Sargsyan spoke about fighting corruption, holding “fair and transparent elections,” and overcoming “the consequences of the tragic events of March 2008.”

     

    The President then reminded the European Parliamentarians about Armenia’s “shared historical and cultural legacy” with Europe and discussed the ongoing negotiations to resolve the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict. He condemned “the extreme level of Armenophobia and racism” in Azerbaijan, and spoke of the difficulty of making “a concession to the side that is looking for a convenient excuse to shoot at us.”

     

    Pres. Sargsyan went on to accuse the Turkish government of undermining the “normalizaton” of Armenia-Turkey relations “by setting preconditions and failing to honor its commitments, which rendered the ratification of the signed Protocols impossible.” He called on Turkey and Azerbaijan to end the “unlawful blockade imposed on Armenia” and accused Turkey of “not only failing to recognize, but also engaging in a policy of blunt denial of the Genocide of Armenians committed in the Ottoman Empire in 1915.” He pledged that Armenians and all those concerned with crimes against humanity “will henceforth remain focused on the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide.”

     

    After his speech, Pres. Sargsyan spent another 30 minutes answering questions from PACE delegates representing Lithuania, France, Switzerland, Russia, Moldova, Holland, Armenia, and Ireland. Five Azerbaijanis had placed their names on the list of Parliamentarians to ask questions, but none of them did so. The delegates from Turkey had also made a unanimous decision not to question the Armenian President, as reported by Hurriyet Turkish newspaper.

     

    The question that attracted most attention was the one asked by Parliamentarian Zaruhi Postanjyan from Armenia, a member of the opposition Heritage Party. She told Pres. Sargsyan: “Since an authoritarian regime has been established in Armenia and all elections from 1995 on have been rigged,” wouldn’t it be preferable if he organized special and fair elections and then “resigned”?

     

    As the Turkish President of PACE, Mevlut Cavusoglu snickered at the question, Pres. Sargsyan calmly responded that he was well aware of Ms. Postanjyan’s views which she had freely expressed in the Armenian Parliament, on the street and in the media. He added that he was not prepared to hold special elections because it is neither necessary nor constitutionally feasible to organize such elections. He urged Ms. Postanjyan to participate in the next regularly-scheduled parliamentary elections.

     

    Not surprisingly, Pres. Sargsyan’s PACE speech was welcomed by his supporters and criticized by his opponents at home. The most important issue for all concerned should have been whether the President’s impressive words would translate into action in the near future. However, the immediate controversy revolved around the appropriateness of Ms. Postanjyan’s criticism of the President, while on foreign soil.

     

    Some Armenian politicians were of the opinion that it was improper for Ms. Postanjyan “to attack” Pres. Sargsyan in the chambers of the European Council. Others felt that her “harsh words” inadvertently made the President look good, because in a truly “authoritarian regime,” she would have been excluded from Armenia’s delegation, stripped of her parliamentary immunity and prosecuted. In fact, some European Parliamentarians wondered whether Turkish or Azeri delegates would dare to criticize their President at PACE?

     

    American politicians use the expression “politics stops at the water’s edge” to indicate their willingness to set aside internal disputes for the sake of presenting a united front to outsiders. Applying that adage to Armenia, one could question the wisdom of making such disparaging comments before the Council of Europe, regardless of whether one agrees with the President or his policies. Since Armenia is routinely attacked by Turkish and Azerbaijani delegates in international forums, it is unwise to add one’s voice to those tarnishing Armenia’s reputation.

     

    This issue also comes up when some Armenians try to pressure their authorities by taking their internal disputes to foreign governments and international courts. While their frustration is understandable, dragging a foreign entity into an internal dispute detracts from Armenia’s image overseas. In such cases, however, the blame must be shared by the Armenian government for failing to ensure the integrity of domestic courts, thereby forcing citizens to turn elsewhere for justice.

     

    Before making critical comments about Armenia’s leadership outside the country, especially by Parliament members who have ample opportunity to express their views at home, one must weigh the benefits of pressuring the authorities to respect the people’s rights with the damage caused to the country’s international reputation.

     

  • The Sound of Turkey Clapping

    The Sound of Turkey Clapping

    Claire Berlinski

    The Sound of Turkey Clapping

    Thoughts on the recent elections, mostly ignored around the world

    22 June 2011

    Having long before accepted a lecturing assignment on Hillsdale College’s Baltic Cruise, I wasn’t in Istanbul for the June 12 general election. So despite months of following the campaign in minute detail, when it actually happened, I was physically and metaphorically isolated from the mood in Turkey. There was some value to that: contemplating the pale, glassy, silent Baltic Sea puts Turkish hysteria in perspective.

    And hysterical—and ugly—the election campaign was, marked by terrorist attacks, including one on the prime minister’s convoy; the release of sex tapes starring opposition leaders; blackmail; vulgar anti-Semitic rhetoric; insane conspiracy theory upon insane conspiracy theory; a scandal revealing the rigging of college entrance exams; the arrests of more military officers on charges of coup plotting (these arrests have been going on for years); threats by leading Kurdish politicians to set the country ablaze; serious efforts by Kurdish terrorists to do precisely that; growing Internet and press censorship; the last-minute discovery of 10 million new voters on the electoral rolls, only half of whom could even remotely be explained by Turkey’s changing demography; and noise, constant noise. It had become difficult even to imagine five minutes without the sound of loudspeakers blaring from campaign buses, or the prime minister’s bellowing voice, mute only for a few notable minutes when at one rally his teleprompter failed, leaving him staring speechless into the void.

    Yet in the end, the Turkish people spoke. The only deaths related to the election, on the very day, appear to have been of natural causes. Given that this region is not known for its gift for democracy, the world applauded a bit too loudly that an election was held at all. Turkey won the Democracy Special Olympics! It occurred to few foreign observers that going into rapture over the mere fact of an election in the Islamic world was deeply patronizing, the clear unspoken message being, “You’re a credit to your kind.”

    The Justice and Development Party, or AKP, was expected to win, and it did. The AKP increased its take of the vote to 50 percent, a strong showing over the last election in 2007, but did not achieve a super-majority, which would have permitted the prime minister’s party to draft a new constitution on its own. Nor did the party achieve a majority sufficient to take a draft constitution to a referendum with its own votes in parliament. The opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, did better, electorally, than it has since 1977. Overall, owing to the peculiarities of the Turkish electoral system, the AKP actually lost seats in the 550-seat Grand National Assembly, with its numbers declining from 341 to 326. For those hoping to see some limits imposed upon the prime minister’s power, the results were decent, but not great.

    In a gesture either lacking sensitivity to historic resonance or perfectly attuned to it, Prime Minister Erdoğan delivered a victory speech from the balcony of his headquarters in Ankara. His tone was magnanimous. “No one should doubt,” he said, “that we will protect the dignity, faith, and lifestyles of those who did not vote for us.” Shortly afterward, he offered to drop most of his libel suits against private individuals, politicians, and journalists who had insulted him (except the suits against those who were really beyond the pale). The world cheered. Few noted the grotesquerie of the implicit suggestion that Turkish citizens’ right to say what they please is granted at their ruler’s pleasure. Numerous journalists who before the election had been tentatively critical of the ruling party fell quickly into line. No hope of getting rid of them, I imagine they thought, it’s time to fawn. Journalist Mehmet Ali Birand, whose enthusiasms are an excellent guide to Turkey’s power dynamics—whoever has it, he’s for them—summed it up: “Bravo, well done. There is no word to be uttered now.”

    Geographically, the AKP’s electoral hold reached the Aegean. The party gained considerable ground even in the West, the country’s contested territory. Conventional wisdom holds that the economy was, again, the major factor in the AKP’s success. This is likely true, at least up to a point, but one shouldn’t discount the competence of the AKP’s electoral machine in winning votes. The AKP has indeed presided over a long period of economic growth, but Turkey hasn’t become as wealthy as outside media tends to assume. It is still a poor country. Most people here have difficult lives. AKP politicians are good at talking to poor people and making them feel as if they care. The opposition hasn’t mastered this yet.

    Probably, the AKP is now Turkey’s permanent ruling party. Students of politics call it a “dominant party system,” one in which one party consistently obtains twice as much of the electoral pie as the runner-up. That seems to describe Turkey.

    From my distant perspective in the Baltics, I was struck by the rest of the world’s indifference. Few knew these elections were taking place; few cared. It’s widely believed in Turkey that foreign powers are eternally meddling in Turkish politics. Meddling? They’re oblivious. Turkey is a minor curiosity to the world beyond its own borders, at best. Westerners on the cruise asked me, “Are they our friends?” When I tried to explain the complicated answer, eyes glazed over. It might have dismayed me, but after a few weeks of travel, I began to wonder if the indifference didn’t contain its own wisdom. What is Turkey, compared with ruined Russia, with its aging nuclear arsenal, under the control of corrupt, ruthless drunks? Compared with Europe, rapidly confronting the failure of its grand integration project? Compared with America, now fighting three wars and its own economic meltdown? Compared with Iran, surveying its imploding neighborhood covetously, preparing for its new role as regional hegemon? Compared with China, soon to be the major center of Pacific power, if American fears prove correct? Turkey is, in fact, by comparison, just not that important. It is only Turkey that cares about Turkey.

    Yet this message posted by a friend on Facebook still made me feel a flicker of pity:

    To me, yesterday’s elections was not a matter of numbers in the parliament. To me, it showed that as a nation, we don’t have the capacity to choose right from wrong. Yesterday Turkey voted for the guy who cheated in the major exams which would also determine the voters’ kids’ future. They were cheated and they still said “yes.” Turkey voted for a man who believes he has the right to tell you what to read, see or know (internet censorship). Turkey voted for a man whose minister talks of the “female” citizens as “a girl or a woman, whatever” meaning if she is a virgin or not (girl-woman difference, especially in Turkish), meaning if she is a prostitute. She is a “bitch” in the eyes of Erdoğan’s ministers because she speaks, she uses her right to express herself. People complain about using the most expensive fuel but still voted for this guy. People voted for a man who supports three kids in a family when he knows (and will do his best to keep it that way) that these three kids will not have education to question his authority or what he does. To him, all these three ignorant kids will grow up to be his “voters.”

    This picture is to me darker than the number of seats. Because I believe numbers can change but only slightly unless the mentality changes which is impossible when the nation is so blind to see what is going on. And I who says this am nothing more than a 30-year-old translator with a knowledge of literature and history but not particularly of political science, no one smarter than the majority. As a young woman in Turkey, I feel dead when I look at the big picture.

    As of today, Turkey is more f*cked than ever. People who support freedom and rights or issues like education, we will be buried alive here. But who cares, we are dead already.

    No, I wrote back, you’re not dead yet. And since you’re alive, you’ll have to keep fighting. That’s the way it goes in a democracy, and at least Turkey is that, however compromised. It’s the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. That’s all the West ever promised you about it.

    Claire Berlinski, a City Journal contributing editor, is an American journalist who lives in Istanbul.