I’ve always tried to have an international perspective when doing my analyses; however, I’ve often protected Turkey in my comments. I’m aware that sometimes I’ve used a teacher-like tone, but this is just because of my professional disposition.None of us live in outer space, so when we look at world events, our analyses are frequently influenced by our personal beliefs, our level of knowledge and by already memorized models. Even if we try to get rid of these patterns, we do not succeed all the time, and it’s probably impossible to reason totally independently from our values, anyway. That’s why taking sides in the face of particular events or facts is quite easy; nevertheless, it’s not mandatory to become an intransigent supporter or objector of a particular actor. If one cares about human rights, freedoms, equality, democracy and the rule of law, one must criticize states that don’t respect these principles. This doesn’t mean criticizing that particular state per se or condemning all of its citizens, but only denouncing some of the practices of this state.
Nonetheless, I’ve noticed a tendency becoming evident when I look at the reactions I get to my articles: Every time I write about the Palestinian issue, I get e-mails telling me how justified Israel’s actions are; every time I say that the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia is necessary, I get plenty of e-mails telling me that Turkey is betraying Azerbaijan. I receive judgmental messages from Armenians when I emphasize that Azerbaijan is of crucial importance to Turkey. When I reaffirm that Turkey and Israel must cooperate on certain issues because Israel’s regional isolation is not such a good idea, Palestinians raise their eyebrows. When I demonstrate that the EU has double standards for Turkey, some Europeans, and when I criticize Angela Merkel’s policies, some Germans, send me messages of disapproval. When I talk about the benefits of the EU accession process for Turkey, or when I state that the famous Greek Orthodox seminary in İstanbul must be opened again, I’m disapproved of by some Turks who are convinced that all this will destroy, or at least divide, Turkey. How can I not mention some Pakistanis who send me condemning e-mails every time I say that Kemalism is exploited to endorse authoritarian thinking in Turkey? Every time I criticize Nicolas Sarkozy, his opponents in France congratulate me; every time I approve of some of Barack Obama’s actions, I’m criticized by American neocons: in brief, no one seems to be happy in the end.
Critics are generally very useful in order to learn different ways of reasoning and for their divergent opinions. However, it’s concerning to see that most criticism is derived from the thought that “I’m always right and everything my country does is always correct.” This point of view explains why there are so many conflicts in this world. If we want to live in a more peaceful, stable and just world, we must first admit that no one is always right and that no action is always correct. We must try to create empathy, or at least try to understand other people’s reasons, without patronizing them. Critics are valuable, particularly when they allow comparisons between different mindsets.
I wish a very happy new year to all of you who contribute to my articles with your criticism, inspiring me to think and understand better.
