It’s doubtlessly no coincidence that it was Sadrazam Resit Pasha whose signature graced one of the empire’s most important reform projects, the Tanzimat Fermani (the Administrative Reforms Decree). He had served as Turkish envoy to both London and Paris, and was the head of Foreign Affairs before he declared the reform package. If there is one thing to be expected from a diplomat, it is that he or she will not join ranks with those who wish to see his or her own country isolated, distanced from the rest of the world, or grow apart from universal values like democracy. It may be accepted in other fields of bureaucracy, but for diplomats, who are the first people to be addressed by global reactions to undemocratic moves in their nations, there could be nothing so odd as looking warmly on this sort of path taken by their country.
During periods when a country strays from democracy, the diplomat who represents that country finds that his or her country falls instantly in ranking. This also affects that envoy’s own place among his or her counterparts. Contrary to what may be expected, the biggest concessions are generally made at such times. Let’s not forget that it was during its Sept. 12 coup that Greece returned to NATO without paying anything in return, such as support to Turkey’s EU bid.
It was within this framework that I was imagining our diplomats as the most natural allies of democracy in Turkey. But I found myself disappointed by the anti-democratic behavior of former Ambassador Onur Öymen, currently deputy chairman of the Republican People’s Party (CHP). Former Ambassador Gündüz Aktan’s article in Tuesday’s Radikal newspaper also added to my disappointment.
Aktan, who sketches a reasonable nationalist profile in his writings, contributed a piece entitled “The limits of journalism” in which he targeted Milliyet newspaper’s Washington representative and columnist Yasemin Çongar. The reasoning for targeting her was interesting: The message contained in her articles and columns was that Washington was currently not looking on the enemies of democracy in Turkey with warmth.
Çongar, with her strong-willed democratic stance as displayed throughout the April 27 cyber-coup period, is just one of our valuable colleagues who have become the subsequent target of certain factions. What has clearly happened is that Çongar’s voicing of Washington insider views of opposition to the possible closure of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), or a direct intervention in democracy have made Aktan and those who hold views similar to his uncomfortable.
Aktan criticizes the US authorities who gave background statements to Çongar of not following diplomatic courtesy. He also saves sharp criticism for Çongar’s role as the messenger for these statements, noting, “The intermediary, while delivering someone’s views, is unable to keep them from being affected by her own views.” It’s as though Aktan is saying that all of Washington is in support of a coup, and Çongar is misrepresenting this stance, or as if the US had not already openly made its stance plain or many other journalists had not already written the same thing.
In the meantime, it should be noted that “background” reporting, in which sources’ names are left anonymous as a ground rule, are one of the indispensable features of diplomatic news reporting. And there is no doubt that Aktan must know this well. Certain statements that would not be in fitting with “diplomatic courtesy” to announce through official channels can be made public through disclosures to reliable journalists. There is nothing in this widespread journalistic practice that pushes the limits of either “diplomatic courtesy” or “the limits of journalism.” And what’s more, this is a style of reporting also used, perhaps if not as much as in the West, in Turkey. Aktan must remember certain headlines like, “The young officers are uncomfortable,” or “The military is not pleased.” The reason for this method not being used very widely in Turkey has to do with the lack of accordance here with principles like “off-the- record” or “background.”
So if Çongar has, despite the notorious reputation of the Turkish media, managed to gain the trust of an American authority enough that they are willing to give Çongar “background” statements, this is something that deserves our praise, not our reproach. Meanwhile it should be mentioned that our reporter in Washington, Ali H. Aslan, is another colleague who keeps standards at the same levels as Çongar.
It is disappointing to see sometime try to teach the “limits of journalism” to a quality reporter such as Çongar, who is representing the Turkish media so successfully abroad, simply because she relays information that may not serve their purposes. No matter which ideological fabric they may arise from, we need to protect those rare free-thinking members of our society. There are those in this category whom we were not able to protect from being targets, such as Uğur Mumcu and Hrant Dink. And there others, like Hasan Cemal, who have literally been made unable to even go out into the street without police protection. And then there are others who have had to move abroad to escape such pressures.
In his column Aktan indicates the belief that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) administration would “easily sacrifice Turkey’s own vital interests for its own much-less-important interests.”
I wonder if Aktan, who is displeased with Çongar’s pro-democracy articles, is himself uncomfortable with the importance the AK Party has placed on the EU process, a process meant to carry Turkey’s economy and political situations to more universal standards?
I am very curious how Gündüz Aktan, as someone who knows the world well, thinks that a nation that cannot stand free thinking and democracy will ever be able to reach “the level of a modern civilization.”
