Good read from Jim. The "get" today has been excellent!
TKS [ jim geraghty reporting ]
[ archives | email ]
SOME TURKS RESPOND TO THAT CRITICAL WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED [02/22 02:56 PM]
Recall that Robert Pollack Wall Street Journal op-ed about rising anti-Americanism in Turkey:
The intellectual climate in which [the U.S. ambassador is] operating has gone so mad that he actually felt compelled to organize a conference call with scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey to explain that secret U.S. nuclear testing did not cause the recent tsunami.
Never in an ostensibly friendly country have I had the impression of embassy staff so besieged.
Some Turks are responding. Here is Ekrem Dumanli, executive editor in chief of Zaman Online:
Similar articles much harsher than the one in WSJ have been published in some Turkish newspapers in response. Pollock's article was transformed into fuel for the fire by some. Is it the solution? The publication of such a harsh article by a newspaper like the WSJ, a world class brand, and the reactions raised do nothing to solve the problems between the two countries; nothing can be gained from this…
This much is clearly true: Turkey-US relations are on a tough test. It is known that tension has been growing for a long time. This tension dates back to the March 1, 2003 motion related to deployment of American forces in Turkey...
Actually, as his column progresses, Dumanli starts to sound like a media critic. Somebody get this man a blog!
The duty of the media is to explain incidents to readers objectively. That's why it cannot ignore the problems. The media has a responsibility to share the information it obtains with the public, just as it has a responsibility to confirm how credible the information is. For editorials, the same sensitivity is at issue. Maturity in style and attitude when analyzing issues is essential for responsible journalism. If the goal is to burn bridges between the two countries, it is not hard to find speculative subjects. Provocative information is all around us. False and incorrect information, exaggerated interpretations, provocative statements, hurtful articles, anger evoking images, and hatred inducing photos… During such difficult times, both politicians and the media have historic levels of responsibility.
We must accept that conspiracy theories have an incredible attraction for a significant segment of society that approaches this kind of information with a great deal of excitement. When this is the case, those with a lust for circulation and ratings approach issues with passion. And we must accept that the world has never seen the intense bombardment of information as it sees today. The best "open intelligence" is conducted everyday. The power houses try to mold public opinion by spreading false information. The media is in the middle of a psychological war…
If the media sticks to its principles, society will not face such big problems. Is it hard to research the accuracy of each news story; is it hard to ask about information from a third source; is it hard to cross check news using several sources?
Dumanli concludes, “US policies, particularly those related to the Middle East, are tracked with concern here. The reason is very clear: a neighboring country is at war and it contains the risk of spread. The fear of the people is this. It may be a mistake to interpret the concerns of the people, or even their rage, as Anti-Americanism. With its accumulation of history and culture, it can be said that the Turkish nation, in general, does not feel hostility towards any society. It is impossible that a country that has been sympathetic to Americans up to yesterday can lead in Anti-Americanism today. The Turkish people have not forgotten that Americans helped Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. The nation also remembers that Americans returned the PKK's leader to Turkey…”
Meanwhile, over at Turks.us, Dogu Ergil writes:
A recently published book in Turkey titled “Metal Storm” preceded this insulting article. Two young men, Orkun Uçar and Burak Turna, authored this instant bestseller. The book is a political fiction based on a scenario whereby U.S. troops stationed in Iraq clash with a Turkish military unit, leading to an all-out war between the United States and Turkey. While Turkey is bombarded and invaded by the U.S. Army, a Turkish spy retaliates by detonating two briefcase-sized nuclear bombs in Washington D.C. and New York City. The book is not only selling much better than expected, it is also received as a possible scenario, a political manifesto that satisfies the psychological mood and desire of Turks to vent their sentiments against American politics in their part of their world where words of morality and action do not fit. Indeed, Turks are suspicious of American political and military intentions in the Middle East as well as their own country. They feel indignant because of the insulting and highbrow attitude of American diplomats since the rejection of the resolution by the Turkish Parliament to allow the passage of American troops into Iraq through Turkey, back in March of 2003.
He explains a bit about the split between the nationalist and religionist right, and the right and left secularists, and points out that right now, all of these groups have converged on one political agenda: “suspicion of and resistance to American policies.”
Ergil, who is critical of U.S. policies in some sections but appears to genuinely want better U.S.-Turkish relations, concludes:
What can be done? Starting from the government, leaders of all social formations, civilian or official, must be aware that if they do not reverse their systematic negative influence (indoctrination for some of them) on their followers, anti-Americanism may reach pathological levels. This would not only isolate Turkey but would weaken her hand in her relations with the EU as well. Turkey's sensitive economic balance that could be struck with so much misery and hardship can be easily disrupted again. Conversely, the U.S. administration must turn to itself and ask why its policies have alienated even the most loyal and grateful of its allies, including most of the European countries, and start making some amendments. Morality cuts both ways. What is morally right and legitimate for the Americans may be quite the opposite for others. This is the dilemma that the present American administration must see and share with its people. Otherwise, this socio-pathology may lead all of us to intractable conflicts and balkanization of the North Atlantic Alliance at a time when the world needs more sanity, understanding and solidarity.
By the way, I’ve spoken to some folks who are more familiar with Turkey who say that while Pollack’s article wasn’t factually inaccurate, it was definitely only one side of the story – if you go looking for anti-Americanism in a foreign culture, you’ll find it. Whether it is actually growing or dominant is another story.
ANOTHER ACCOUNT OF TALKING ABOUT AMERICA OVERSEAS [02/22 01:58 PM]
My buddy Marshall Manson of the Center for Individual Freedom shares his tale of talking to America with some sometimes-critical foreigners:
My wife and I just spent a few lovely days with some friends in London.
In general, I was struck by the Brits' willingness to be skeptical of their own understanding of the U.S. Our friends (more about them in a minute) and virtually everyone we met in pubs and elsewhere around London were far more interested in hearing our take on our President — and trying to understand better why we support him — than in bashing America. So, as far as dealing with people who slander the U.S., we didn't really have to worry about it. No one did.
But on Saturday night, over a few pints at the neighborhood pub, we found ourselves discussing America's role in the world. Our two British friends would both qualify as liberals by the U.S. definition. They support a large and active government and a generous welfare state. Despite their political leanings, however, they were extraordinarily open-minded and, I think, were mostly interested in asking questions about the U.S. and its international policies and hearing the answers from a source other than the oh-so-biased London newspapers. They knew that the information they were getting about the U.S. wasn't quite right, and they were hungry for a better understanding.
As the evening wore on, most of the questions centered on George Bush. They generally saw Bush as an out-of-control cowboy. We explained that while the President has certainly been cast in that light, he sincerely believes in the course he's taken and that he's not some dictator bent on empire. Our friends argued that the U.S. (and for that matter, anyone else) cannot force democracy on another nation. We agreed, but pointed out that lately most people in Afghanistan, Iraq and elswhere seemed to be choosing democracy when allowed to actually make that choice. We aregued that America's actions ought to be viewed as simply allowing Iraqis, Afghans, Ukranians, and others to make their own choices, rather than having their choices made for them.
By the end, I wasn't sure if we had brought our friends around, but I certainly do think they are less likely to view America as pursuring a new world empire, with George Bush as emperor. A small step, yes. But a step nonetheless.
So what to make of this exchange? First, political discussions really do go better over English beer than the terrible stuff that's brewed here in the States. Second, that most non-zealots do seem to realize that they're not getting the whole the story about America. Third, that, at least in Britain, most people don't hate Americans. They worry that the U.S. is becoming too big and too powerful. (We didn't run into anyone who put it quite this way, but the idea of a balance of power is hundreds of year old, and ingrained in us all. No one wants a bully on the block.) Fourth, we didn't meet a single person — not one — who didn't say either that they had been to America and loved it or that they wanted to go over soon. Perhaps that's the most compelling insight of all.
So, how do you speak to an Anti-American? I guess, like anything else, it depends. If the other person is ready to listen, you've probably got a good chance of showing them that the situation is different from the way they understand it. Honesty and sincerity go along way, too. In our case, I think it aided our case that there are a number of places where we disagree with the President, and we were willing to say so.
If you've got a zealot, make it your top priority to ensure the knife doesn't come out of the sheef, because the thing about zealots is that you can't really persuade them of anything anyway.
The accounts I'm getting from TKS readers suggest that most foreigners' views of the U.S. are a little more nuanced than some polls and media coverage would suggest.
Could it be that many foreigners' view of America is a little more complicated than we have been led to believe?
nationalreview.com |
