The New York Times Has Stayed "American"
Published in Milliyet
(Turkey) on 23 April 2011
by Güneri Cıvaoğlu (link to original)
(Turkey) on 23 April 2011
by Güneri Cıvaoğlu (link to original)
Translated from
by Dayla Rogers.
Edited by Mark DeLucas.
The New York Times ran its coverage of Turkey’s Supreme Elections Council’s decision to veto the applications of candidates of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party parallel to the street protests of the “Arab Spring.” This is a first for the New York Times, which is among the globe’s five most influential newspapers. There is dangerous potential here. World opinion watches with sympathy as the people of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Syria flood into the streets and clash with police in efforts to overthrow despots in what are known as the “Arab Spring” uprisings.
Though it may have its flaws, it is unjust and fallacious to draw a parallel between Turkey’s 65-year-old democracy and the despotic nations of the Arab world.
This could sway world opinion to sympathize with those who cause rock throwing, Molotov-cocktail-hurling, official organization-destroying, effigy-burning and demagogic activities in Turkey.
Litmus Test
In the writing itself it was admitted reluctantly that Turkey’s democratic model inspired the “Arab Spring” and that Erdogan has transformed the country into an “economic dynamo.” But then the author claimed that “the results [of the election] will be a democratic litmus test for Erdogan…”
That is to say that just as the paper of a litmus test turns either blue or red in order to indicate whether a chemical is basic or acidic, his response to the drive of the new Kurdish party is taken to indicate whether he is a “democratic” or an “undemocratic” prime minister.
The author claims that “Whereas in the past, the main force behind this impetus has been a bloody guerrilla war, it is now a campaign of civil disobedience,” and continues on, writing, “The demands call for the right for Kurds to be educated in their own language and the freedom to use it in the political arena…”
According to the author, “acts of civil disobedience are not just about Kurdish issues, but the entire process of democracy in Turkey.”*
A politician affiliated with the BDP that the author spoke with claimed, “Forty years ago blacks and whites in America could not eat together. Now the president of your country is black…” Now it is clear that Kurds want to be seen as the “black people” of Turkey. But 72 years ago, a person of Kurdish descent was appointed as president. Later, people of Kurdish descent served as presidents, prime ministers and cabinet members. So this is not the issue. The challenge is to get all citizens working together equally to weave a democracy with all the organizations and rules that support human rights.
*Editor's note: The author of the article does not in fact say this. Mehmet Ali Aydin of the BDP is quoted in the article: “Our struggle is not just for our rights, but to bring democracy to Turkey.”
Though it may have its flaws, it is unjust and fallacious to draw a parallel between Turkey’s 65-year-old democracy and the despotic nations of the Arab world.
This could sway world opinion to sympathize with those who cause rock throwing, Molotov-cocktail-hurling, official organization-destroying, effigy-burning and demagogic activities in Turkey.
Litmus Test
In the writing itself it was admitted reluctantly that Turkey’s democratic model inspired the “Arab Spring” and that Erdogan has transformed the country into an “economic dynamo.” But then the author claimed that “the results [of the election] will be a democratic litmus test for Erdogan…”
That is to say that just as the paper of a litmus test turns either blue or red in order to indicate whether a chemical is basic or acidic, his response to the drive of the new Kurdish party is taken to indicate whether he is a “democratic” or an “undemocratic” prime minister.
The author claims that “Whereas in the past, the main force behind this impetus has been a bloody guerrilla war, it is now a campaign of civil disobedience,” and continues on, writing, “The demands call for the right for Kurds to be educated in their own language and the freedom to use it in the political arena…”
According to the author, “acts of civil disobedience are not just about Kurdish issues, but the entire process of democracy in Turkey.”*
A politician affiliated with the BDP that the author spoke with claimed, “Forty years ago blacks and whites in America could not eat together. Now the president of your country is black…” Now it is clear that Kurds want to be seen as the “black people” of Turkey. But 72 years ago, a person of Kurdish descent was appointed as president. Later, people of Kurdish descent served as presidents, prime ministers and cabinet members. So this is not the issue. The challenge is to get all citizens working together equally to weave a democracy with all the organizations and rules that support human rights.
*Editor's note: The author of the article does not in fact say this. Mehmet Ali Aydin of the BDP is quoted in the article: “Our struggle is not just for our rights, but to bring democracy to Turkey.”