haGalil onLine, Germany
Sept 23 2005
Heviya Auerbach:
The Dialogue and Liberties of Civilizations
Contributions to the II. International Conference “EU,Turkey & the
Kurds”, Bruxelles – Kurdish writer Mehmed Uzun presents jewish exiles
Erich Auerbach and Walter Benjamin to the conference participants.
by Mehmed Uzun
Everybody seems to be looking at the topic from their own perspective
when it comes to question of the Turkey, European Union and the
Kurds. I would like to look at this topic in terms of dialogues and
freedoms.
It is possible to provide over thousands of examples corresponding to
liberties and dialogues of civilizations. However I, being a writer
will provide a different example. I am now working an a novel. The
name of this novel, which I am writing in Kurdish, is Heviya Auerbach
in Kurdish. In other words, Auerbachs Hope, in reference to Erich
Auerbach, the writer of one of western literature’s most important
works, Mimesis.
Born in 1892 Berlin, the linguist and literary historian Auerbach, a
German Jew, was forced into exile when the Nazis came into power. In
1935 the Nazis amended a racist law called “Zum Schutz des deutschen
Blutes” in order to ‘protect the German blood’. Consequently,
Auerbach who was teaching at the time as a professor in linguistic
and literacy was sacked forrn his teaching post in Marburg
University. Due to ever vocal and aggressive intent of the Nazis he
fled to Istanbul, Turkey in order to save his life.
During this time in the Republic of Turkey, the founder of the
republic and its absolute guardian, Chief Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, was
in the process of westernizing the country. Because of these efforts,
in Istanbul, Dar‑ül Fünun an education centre used during the
Ottoman era was shut down and in its place founded was the Istanbul
University.
Many Jewish academics who fled from Nazis found themselves working
within his newly formed university.
With aid from his close friends who he met in Germany Auerbach and
his family was able to settle in Turkey as a political refugee and
begin working as a professor of East Philology in Istanbul
University. Like other political refugees, Auerbach was obliged to
sign a formal government document; while residing in Turkey, it was
made clear that he was not allowed to involve himself in politics and
was barred from commenting an politics. He could not criticize the
politics of Turkish state. Auerbach stayed in Turkey until 1946, and
then moved to USA where he carried an with his academic work until
his death in 1957.
My novel is principally about Auerbachs life in Istanbul. This is
indeed a highly interesting one; excluded from a political life,
viewing everything from far, like a spectator; a life living in a
tight knit community of fellow emigrants sharing social, cultural and
intellectual relationships of a typical exile life. I also lived in
exile for many years. Therefore I understand that for the life of an
exile, the things that carry importance are anxiety, skepticism,
susceptibility and observations. They compare everything to their
country of exile and always analyze their life as an exile. How can I
carry on with life? How can I free myself from being a forgotten
nobody? Who am I? What do I have? What is the difference between my
life as an exile here and the citizens of this country? Do we have
similar or shared experiences? These sorts of questions are
plentiful, they are questions which never escape from the mind of
intellectual who lives in exile.
We know from his letters to his friends that the recluse Auerbach was
preoccupied with his books and files in his home in Bebek in the
Bosporus. Around him were Ottoman Kings, Sultans, Viziers and
Palaces, mansions, beach homes, Mosques and Minarets which would read
calls to prayers belonging to Sultanahmet and King, differing codes
and practices, struggling to understand discussions, old steel
merchants shouting their trade in Turkish and Ottoman, Turkish baths,
fishermen, the deep loneliness. Auerbach was always reminded of
these. On top of the worries such as anxiety, skepticism,
susceptibility and observations from these learning’s, Auerbach wrote
an indispensable novel in western literature called Mimesis.
Full of sadness, yearning, pain and loneliness in his life as an
exile and although he faced many obstacles with persistence and
patience, Auerbach was able to devote himself and his life to his
writing, which would then build the foundation of East and West
relations.
For those interested in understanding western civilization it is
imperative to read the book Mimesis which was produced in the heart
of the eastern civilizations that is Istanbul.
So why do I refer to Auerbach? My plight is completely opposite to
that of Auerbach’s. I am of Eastern origin from a Muslim family whose
ancestors trace back to Mesopotamia. I am product of Aegean,
Anatolian and Mediterranean cultures. In 1997 I fled from Turkey and
emigrated to West and settled as a political refugee in Sweden. Like
Auerbach I also lived the life of exile, I was intellectual trying to
stay alive and establish a path for myself. I became literacy writer.
Meeting the west, living in the west and writing modern Kurdish
novels enabled me to pursue a life for myself. I would have always
viewed things through an eastern culture and my writing would not
have been as successful as it is if I had not met the west.
The meeting point of all cultures, religions, languages,
civilizations is between the east and west. Don’t we recall dialogues
of languages, religions, civilizations and cultures when we talk
about civilization, history of man and deep root of world literature?
If there was no dialogue between us, would we be able to comment an
civilization, the history of man and world literature? In my opinion,
from the civilization of man until the present day, all the richness
and heritage is a product of the dialogue among us. To get
acquainted, to encounter, to meet, to observe, to compare and to be
together is always productive, efficient and fruitful. If I was to
comment an the history of literacy in world literature, the Gilgamesh
Saga and Homers Epic Poems are examples of the product of this
meeting of civilizations.
Obviously between the west and the east, the Christians, the Muslims
and Hebrew world, there have been great and bloody wars, disasters
and confrontations. However with regards to humanity, universally
everything is accelerating because of the integration of
civilizations and cultures. This is applicable to all religions,
cultures and languages as they recognize, rneet each other and share
sources with each other as has happened in religious texts.
I would prefer looking at European Union, Turkey and the Kurdish
question from this angle. There is no need to deceive ourselves with
regards to Turkey, although there are a number of’ special
similarities. Turkey is not a western country. Turkey’s established
values, its cultural heritage, past, history, societal memory and
other such things are very different from western world. It is
difficult to say that the republic of Turkey has provided any
advancement for civilization, but Turkey as a country belongs to both
the Islamic and Ottoman civilizations. However, in the Islamic world,
Turkey is the closest country to the west.
The establishment of a positive relationship between the European
Union and Turkey and gradual course of becoming a respected member is
the norm of historical human dialogue. The differences between the
civilizations which are coming together should be seen ultimately as
part of the whole.
The union of such different is exciting, as such a dialogue will
create great opportunities that humanity cannot imagine and it will
enrich and strengthen our human heritage. It will rid us of our
mutual prejudices, lessen conflicts that arise from bad customs and
practices and increase the mutual human values.
I feel that the European Union‑Turkey project will be a great
chance for both sides. The European Union however, needs to prove and
show that it is not a wealthy Christian club, but is a modern,
democratic project. Turkey must also prove that it has capacity,
maturity and mentality to join such a civil, modern and democratic
dialogue.
3. However there is serious problem facing such a dialogue, this is
the character of the regime in Turkey. There is a truth, which is
circled around but never declared. This truth is that the Turkish
regime is militarist and ultra nationalistic. All criticism and
compliments aside, those are the fundemental chracters of the state
since the establishment of the Turkish Republic.
On this note, I must refer back to Auerbach. On 3rd January 1937,
Auerbach wrote a long letter from Istanbul talking about his thoughts
and observations of current affairs to his friend Walter Benjamin who
lived in exile in Paris. Within this letter in one section Auerbach
describes the regime as a “fanatical nationalism which is always
turning back an Islamic culture, an imaginary Turkish fundamentalism
observing Europe with abhorrence and admiration and at the same
taking the path of European civilization to shoot them with their own
arm. The result is a nationalism which had breached its limit and
which result in the destruction of its character”.
No other person can provide such an honest analysis of the chaotic
structure of the Turkish regime. The regime was in the past like this
and continues to be so today. Unlike in Europe, there has never been
a powerful aristocracy in Turkey (even during Ottoman Empire)which
would defend the continuity of historical heritage with a European
style Bourgeoisie or liberal social movement or a democratic civil
bureaucracy. There have always been two dominant powers in Turkey;
the Ottoman dynasty and the Armed Forces. Once the Ottoman dynasty
which was removed, there remained only one major power, the Armed
Forces, Pasha’s and the Generals. The Republic was formed by them,
and in all areas the true power remained with them. The leaders of
the Republic were with the Army and their control remains intact to
this day. Whenever someone has tried to loosen the control of the
Army through politics or the society, they were brought back into
line through hardship and violence. Three Army Junta’s have occurred
where as always the army carried out stiff surveillance and
inspection of civilians, Prime Ministers, ministers and
intellectuals, who were sometimes executed. Presidents, Prime
Ministers and dissenters were exiled to other regions, hundreds of
thousands of people were detained and the laws were always amended
according to Army’s will.
The Turkish Armed Force’s missions, position and how it expresses
itself does not compare with other European countries. In the western
world, the Army is always a government instrument, a component of
state bureaucracy, a tool of the democratically elected, parliament,
president or the ministers, which is government controlled. However
the Situation in Turkey differs; an paper it is like any in the
Western world but not in reality. In reality the Army is higher than
any elected institution. In Turkey the Army view itself as the
guardian, the protector and regulator of the state, the people and
the national sovereignty of the state. Under this principle, the
concluding last words always remain with others instead of the
rightly elected people who never regain any political respect. As a
result of this their political ideas and proposals are never carried
out to their wants or wishes. For example the Prime Minister Recep
Tayip Erdogan recently surprised the masses and carried out a very
positive political rise by visiting the biggest Kurdish city of
Diyarbakir. In this visit, like a true statesmen he admitted that a
solution to the Kurdish problem must be found and acknowledged that
the past governments did many wrongs but promised that his
administration would find a solution to this longstanding problem. On
this matter, the first reaction came fron the Army; everyone should
only preach the generally sanctioned politics. Following Erdogan’s
visit to Diyarbakir, violent confrontational fighting erupted all
over Turkey and more so in the Kurdish regions. In conclusion the
excitement generated by the Diyarbakir and the speeches made by the
Prime Minister were suddenly made insignificant.
The Army has its own political doctrine and it is compulsory for
everyone to abide by their chosen politics. The political opinion of
the Armed Forces is militarist in order make the Army the dominant
power. For this reason the political language of regime is not one
that is democratic but rather a militaristic and ultra nationalistic
regime.
The basic rules of governing the lives of people revolve around the
principles of aggression from enemies (internal and external),
defence, the nation and citizens.
The spirit of this Single‑minded system is governed by Ultra
nationalism. Since its beginning an excessively violent nationalism,
official views, thoughts and feelings have taken hold. With
Auerbach’s terms Turkey is not in peace with its history, it has an
unbalanced nationalism that has no roots. For it to exist it is a
necessity to stay alive and active towards the enemy, it should
always resort to violence and national vigilance. If the hazards from
internal and external forces cease to exist the Array will generate a
bogus threat for it to endure. To generate new threats, the roles
given to Kurds, Armenians and Greeks are that of internal enemies and
its neighbor’s external enemies.
As I have mentioned official views of Kurds in Turkey are one of deep
hatred, and their phobia of Kurds is evident; ultra Turkish
nationalism is nurtured by their abhorrence of Kurds.
Europe knows too well the devastation that Ultra nationalism and
militarism causes as it has experienced them the past 100 years.
In spite of everything, it is proven that Turkey’s
mind‑boggling political stance an the Kurds has been a pure
failure. The problem of the Kurds has always remained the Achilles
heel for Turkey. While the Kurdish problem in Turkey remains
unresolved in a civilized and democratic manner, it is evident that
it will remain frail, unequal and anti‑democratic.
It is evident that it is a major problem for Turkey to give the Kurds
unrestricted rights. What must be done is the question. Although it
might seem like a paradox, in my view, the European Union must do two
things:
The European Union must never desert Turkey; should not eliminate its
Support an the democratic powers in Turkey, and the Kurdish
nationals. If the European Union betrays the democratic struggles,
rights and freedoms in Turkey then it would be betraying the basic
core principles of what the European Union exists for. The forefront
of the European Unions agenda with Turkey should be to always be in
dialogue, always promote the path to a more democratic Turkey and to
achieve the position of a civilized partner within the organization.
Therefore its relationship with Turkey should not work in an
opportunist fashion and Linder no circumstances as I have mentioned
turn a blind eye to the two cancers that is militarism and Ultra
nationalism. In my view the European Project is not about the
development of the industries and laicism but combines the progress
of civilization, democracy and free will. If the West stands only for
secularism and technical development, then we could See the face of
colonialism, racism and fascism once again. But my understanding of
Western civilization is its splendid rights, freedoms, equality,
brotherhood and its focus an humanism. You do not achieve
civilization through bombs, blades and tanks, but through equality,
the freedom of the citizen and the mechanisms which provide rights.
With this the European Union should not betray the relationship with
Turkey and should not view the individual, absolute tyrant that is
the Army in a favourable way.
For these reasons the European Union and Turkey should continue to
convene, for the European Union to save Turkey from tumbling into the
murky world beyond its borders, to not accept the current condition
of Turkey, to move hand in hand to help Turkey achieve a country
which is governed by the rule of law, democracy, and humanity through
open dialogue.
Civilization is freedom, democratic dialogue required for future
civilizations.