New Anatolian, Turkey
May 26 2006
Greeks, Turks: All in the language
Yavuz Baydar
[email protected] May 2006
Bad news is that incident over the Aegean brought death and sorrow.
It brought massive material loss. But still, the fact that the crisis
has been toned down very wisely by the leaderships in Ankara and
Athens, is giving hope for the future.
Another good news is that we, some 100 Turkish and Greek journalists,
will meet in Istanbul, June 9-11, to continue to discuss ways to
create a common ground to disperse hatred, fear and misunderstanding
amongst our peoples, with the participation of the new Greek Foreign
Minister, Dora Bakoyannis.
Whenever crisis occur – or reemerge – between these two neighbours,
(and there were many of them) old emotions flare up. History itches
in the memory. A lot of people can not help feel pessimistic. Will
this friction never end? they ask.
They might be right. There are many problems that remain unsolved. On
the official level, that is. But, once you start looking into the
civilian layers of the perceptions, you see a more hopeful picture.
Greeks, belonging to a smaller country – in terms of population and
size – feel fear, in general.
Turks, mostly indifferent to issues like Cyprus, Aegean, air space
etc because they have much higher priorities as unemployment,
poverty, violence in the agenda – feel in the end of the day,
perhaps, mistrust.
Greeks can not understand why Turks have not Greco-Turkish relations
so high up in the agenda, and most Turks can not comprehend why
Greeks blow things up `out of proportion’ and make a fuss every time
something happens.
Simply put, it is like that. Thie type of frame of mind is common in
conflicted regions and they are actually not impossible to overcome.
But, we have a serious problem, commonly shared by two countries:
How the media covers developments, matters and issues, that have to
do with the relations between Greece and Turkey. Media has been THE
problem for some time now, and, as the latest incident proved, it
still is.
As a keen observer of the media landscape, I will suggest that,
although Turkish media has been jointly responsible in escalations of
tension in some earlier cases, this time it was the Greek media’s
turn the heat up, with some papers venting fury to the point of
provocation. Meanwhile, as I noted in an interview with the Greek TV
channel Alpha, Turkish press toned it down, treating the story very
calmly, with very few, careful comments in the mainstream.
We know that in conflicts between neighbours, dose of nationalism
plays a crucial role, squeezing the governments into a corner. Both
Greece and Turkey have been known for their staunch nationalism, and
the media plays a key part either for moderation or confrontation.
Nationalism is particularly present in some Greek media outlets, and,
I will claim, it is more apparent than in Turkish press, which shows
these tendencies almost only when violence related to Kurdish
separatism escalates.
It is not only that the Greek media almost always chooses to act
hawkishly when incidents as dogfights take place.
Take the minority coverage. Greek media has very little minority
coverage, if any, of the Turkish-Muslim minority in Western Thrace,
or others. When a female candidate for the elections as governor for
Xanthi – a historic settlement of the Turkish Muslim Minority in
Northeastern Greece – gave an interview for a Turkish daily recently,
it occupied the Greek press for days whether she had uttered the word
`turkish’ (as part of her identity) or not!
While the Turkish press once upon a time was criticised and ridiculed
for not using `Kurdish’ as a word to identify a person who speaks
Kurdish and calls himself/herself `Kurd’, Greek press, unfortunately,
still seems to defy EU standards of respecting individual and group
rights! In Turkey, if a person identifes herself as Armenian or
Alawite he/she is allowed and mentioned in the press as such; but in
Greece, large segments of press refrains systematically from using
`Turkish’ when referring to its minority. Sadly, although some
130.000 people in Greece speak Turkish and feel `Turkish’, this is a
taboo in Greek press. From the EU point of view, this is utterly
remarkable.
I do make many exceptions amongst the papers and colleagues, of
course. My point is, as a journalist sincerely eager for a better and
bright future for our children in Greece and in Turkey, to give some
food for thought to my colleagues. There are professional ways to be
much less high-strung, more `easy’ on these matters. Press should not
follow the `official discourse’, it must lead in its `civilian’ way,
with a bold, lucid, courageous language.
Yes, the language.
Many of our common problems are there, waiting to be solved.
You may have read one Greek reader’s letter to Ilnur Cevik. In that
letter I was perplexed by the `official’ tone that came from a
civilian.
When I was interviewed by Alpha TV – I do not know how much of it was
aired – I said the following: `When you play a deadly game
delibarately, you know the probabilities of death. Most unfortunate
is that a human being died, his family suffering for a stupidity.
Milliaosn of dollars went down tghe drain for nothing. For what? For
two male cats trying to mark their territory! Why do we not think
about our children, their children? Why can we not imagine, that
maybe year 2020 the entire Aegean will be without borders? Why do we
not think that the EU process will solve, whether the parts want it
or not, all the problems?’
Now, let me take an article by Stavros Lygeros, in Kathimerini, to
reach a conclusion. There, again, I am struck by the
confrontatioanlistic rhetoric, `you are the bad one, not us’ type of
argumentation.
I will try to respond to him, below each paragraph.
Lygeros writes:
`Ten years after Prime Minister Costas Simitis declared his intention
to improve ties with Turkey, it is unclear what progress has been
made and what prospects exist. Turkey never loses an opportunity to
stress – in words and deeds – that its expansionist goals remain
unchanged. Even when Ankara needed Greek and Cypriot approval in
order to embark on accession talks with the European Union, it not
only failed to show any good will but intensified its provocations.
The Turks have never hidden their intentions. After the EU approved
the launch of talks, Ankara said it would not change its stances on
Cyprus and the Aegean..’
My note:
There is a remarkable progress that has been made, for those who want
to see. Latest project on the pipeline through Thrace is one;
purchase of a large Turkish bank by a Greek bank is another. Exchange
of students are very successful and contacts between the
municipalities increase. These sort of developments are helping a
gradual but continous change. More will follow.
`Expansionist’ is an old fashioned rhetoric. In the EU context –
Greece is a member, Turkey is a negotiating partner – this definition
has no meaning. You can not `expand’ violently, as you negotiate an
EU membership. Therefore, `Turks’ can have, logically, no such
`hidden’ intentions. NATO and Athens also confirmed that the incident
in the Aegean was not a `provocation’.
As for Cyprus, I believe we have more questions to Papadopoulos,
President of Cyprus, and to the Greekcypriot voters, than to Erdogan.
No to Annan plan, yes to `No solution’ and massive `no’ amongst the
Greekcypriot youth to living together with Turkcypriots (around 70 %)
do not help much to encourage Turks to `change their stance’, do
they?
Lygeros writes:
`Tuesday’s collision in the Aegean was statistically predictable. But
it also brings back to the fore the hostility of Turkey’s
expansionism in the Aegean. Athens has been pursuing an approach of
`detente’ with Ankara but this cannot be a substitute for policy. If
relations are to be improved, there must be good will on both sides.
But all evidence shows that Ankara’s provocations and coercive
diplomacy will not disappear. Good relations would benefit both
countries, not just ours. This should be self-evident, but
unfortunately is not.’
My note: Again, we meet terms like `expansionism’, and
`provocations’. The author claims that `all evidence shows that
Ankara’s provocations and coercive diplomacy will not disappear..’
What evidence? We do not know. He is right that good-will is required
from both sides. But good-will has a lot to do with the way one
analyses the developments.
Lygeros writes:
`Certain commentators maintain that Greece could achieve a detente by
indirectly yielding to Turkish demands and making some apparently
painless concessions. But this stance assumes the existence of
unequal terms in Greek-Turkish relations and will only serve to
intensify Turkish hostility.’
My note: The end paragraph of the opinion article in Kathimerini is
actually highlighting the point I am trying to make: that without a
basic knowledge of conflict resolution, the confrontation will
continue even in press. Naturally, this sort of argumentation has its
twin in Turkish press, reflected from time to time, whenever tension
is visible.
But, this is not the way. The more we, as journalists both in Greece
and Turkey, realize, in sincerity, that the EU process, however
painful and bumpy it may be, is possibly the most effective tool to
neutralize all sorts of ill intentions and vicious plans.
The sooner we see it, the better.