My impression is that Turkey, overall, did not get such bad press internationally. Of course, the prime minister’s vocal criticism of Israel was condemned in the US by neocons and unconditional supporters of Tel Aviv. It also drew ire from a few commentators in more mainstream publications. Just as anticipated was the White House’s “disappointment,” whose long term implications have yet to emerge, given that Ankara had diverged from the line Washington hoped it would follow both in its attitude toward Israel and its rejection of UN sanctions against Iran. A different response would have been surprising.Some critics have identified what they see as a dangerous shift of axis, assuming that Ankara was drifting away from a West firmly anchored in an immovable position, and moving toward Islamic fundamentalism. But for all the voices warning of impending doom, there have been plenty of more Turkey-friendly observers who have sensibly placed the recent events in the broader context of shifting political tectonic plates around the globe and the steady decline of the West’s power to dictate policy, in line with the decrease of its economic hegemony.
What many foreign friends of Turkey are expressing, however, is concern at the style rather than the substance of Ankara’s response to recent events. The emotional political speeches that followed the Mavi Marmara incident clearly captured the domestic mood and made a huge impact on public opinion in Turkey and across the Middle East.
But in recent days I have personally heard several people, who cannot be counted as Justice and Development Party (AK Party) opponents, express deep unease about the populist tone the prime minister chose to adopt, which they believed risked whipping up nationalist and religious sentiments already heightened on the issue of Gaza. Not only could it cause a backlash internationally, they felt, but they would also make it harder for the government to pursue its democratic opening, particularly with respect to the Kurdish issue, at home. Nor did they find the “holier-than-thou” attitude, suggesting that Turkey alone was sensitive to human rights violations in Gaza, particularly helpful.
A clear distinction should be made between those who systematically reject any AK Party endeavor and attempts to produce constructive criticism, but it is not always evident that the government is sensitive to these nuances. After more than seven years in power, ruling party politicians should have developed a thick skin: Elected politicians represent the electorate, and it is the media’s duty to scrutinize their actions. Labeling any critical voice a lackey of the Israeli lobby is not the most efficient way to win over doubters.
The Turkish public may have become accustomed to the confrontational style that has become the norm in Turkish political circles. Politicians routinely shout at each other across the Parliament floor, dismissing other’s views out of hand. This political polarization sadly has its pendant in the deep societal divisions revealed by the latest Konda survey, published over the weekend in the Radikal daily. In international politics, nations can be just as ruthless, but they are expected to be more subtle and diplomatic in the way they express their views.
Turkey, now perceived as a rising power, is in a position to make decisions more independently based on its own interests. But, as the prime minister rightly pointed out, no issue in the world these days is of purely national interest. Political leaders, even when they address their local constituencies, are also heard and judged abroad. As we have seen, years of hubris, dismissal of criticism and an “either with us or against us” attitude have largely contributed to discredit US policies in the region. Turkey rightly wants to promote a more nuanced approach, but diplomacy style and attitude often count as much as substance when it comes to creating perceptions.
