15 Haziran 2009 Pazartesi

Geert Mak: “Turkish and European radicals are encouraging each other!”

Right before Dutch Queen Beatrix visited Turkey this year, he attracted a great deal of attention for her comment "In the long term, it is not only Turkey that needs Europe, but Europe which will need Turkey. “If we exclude Turkey, that is when all hell will break loose.” Keep in mind this was no regular person making this comment. Shortly after, the Netherlands held their traditional Book Week between March 14 and 24, during which a book on İstanbul's Galata Bridge brought Turkey onto the popular agenda in the Netherlands. The book, called “De Brug” in Dutch, meaning “The Bridge” had one million copies published, with 20,000 of these in Turkish. Passed out free to readers on the occasion of Book Week, copies of “De Brug” were soon hard to find. Tracing a picture of İstanbul with his pen, describing the city from the Galata Bridge, Dutch writer Geert Mak has brought İstanbul into the homes of people all over the Netherlands. We spoke with Mak, one of Holland's most prominent writers and someone who believes in the strategic importance of building a bridge between the Middle East and the EU by way of Turkey. Our conversation touched on “De Brug” on Turkey and on the Netherlands.

Mak is one of the Netherland's most prominent journalists and writers. He has a following that hangs on to every line he has written, especially those about city life. When the Dutch Book Foundation came to him with a request that he write something that they could pass out as a gift during their traditional Book Week, he decided to write about İstanbul's Galata Bridge. This was, after all, a bridge which Mak says “struck me with its very identity and being the first moment I saw it.” In “De Brug” Mak, who travelled constantly back and forth between İstanbul and Amsterdam to write the book, makes a series of interesting analyses about relations between the West and the East, and how about Turks, despite their difficult conditions, move with the dynamism that lives inside them, not giving any concessions on their pride. And so here we go, let us cross Geert Mak's bridge together:

Let's begin with your book's title, “De Brug” or “The Bridge.” What does this symbolize?

Hasn't İstanbul always been a bridge? Just as Turkey lies between Europe and Asia the Galata Bridge also joins two shores of İstanbul. But more than being a bridge, the Galata Bridge is a living organism. It is not just a symbol, but a reality. As are the dreams, fears, and expectations of those spend their lives on it, working, fishing, walking over it.

How did 'De Brug' actually come about?

Between 2005 and 2006, in different spurts of time, I spent about six weeks in İstanbul. The majority of this time was spent on the Galata Bridge and in the area around it. I struck up conversations with people, talked to the people fishing, the various sellers, and the passing youth. I hung out in the small coffee and tea houses. I became friends with almost everybody around. Meanwhile, I also had a great guide at that time. He was a young Turkish student. We spent a lot of time together, engaged in lots of debates. We were literally like a micro-version of the EU and Turkey together. The debates we had, especially during the time of the caricature crisis, even if they appeared to resemble the clash of civilizations thesis, actually wound up teaching us both a lot.

In a sense, the book also became a bridge between you two.

Yes, it did. We learned so much. Like one Western philosopher said, the real clash in the world is not between cultures, but between feelings. To this point, right now, China and Asia are full of hope. The Islamic world, especially the Arab world, is full of hopelessness and widespread anger and the feeling of being wounded, hurt. As for the West, it is full of fear. The Americans are full of an aggressive fear, while Western Europe is full of a nostalgic, passive fear. They are afraid of the future, afraid of "others," and afraid of losing their identities in a chaotic world. I saw similar things atop the Galata Bridge: belittlement, fear of not being able to face problems, fear of upholding pride and the kind of poverty which wounds people.

In that case, what do you believe needs to be done to conquer these multi-faceted fears?

The most important step we can take is just getting to know one another. After that, we need to fight against [cultural] myths and assumptions. In both the West and the East, we need to struggle against certain "frozen ideas." There are a few of these circulating in the world right now and they are really very dangerous. And the number one thing responsible for fear these days is these "frozen ideas." When people get to know the world outside their own, their fears are diminished. In my own circle, I see many people who are afraid of the world outside their own. What's more, there is such a bombardment of information these days, it makes everything more difficult. And when politicians emerge onto the stage, hoping to use these fears to their advantage, peoples' concepts of what has actually happened get even more difficult to understand. We need to understand, but of course understanding does not mean loving everything that others do. For example, when people from Turkey come to my city, Amsterdam, they are shocked by the sexual freedom. As Dutch, we are used to it. On the other hand, people from Scandinavian countries see the human body as something which should be open; they are used to this way of seeing things. This has become a part of their culture. There is no embarrassment about nakedness. This is how it is in the Netherlands, too. The openness of the body is sometimes exploited to the ultimate degree, has been degenerated. Sometimes this is reduced to people being belittled and many people are not comfortable with this. On the other hand, there were many non-Muslims that I spoke to when in Turkey who were uncomfortable with the controversial caricatures. This was not a discomfort rooted in religious sensitivities; many people's pride was hurt by this [Danish] stance. An indispensable condition of healthy relations is paying attention to cultural differences and sensitivities.

In mutual relations between Turkey and the EU, Turks often complain that Europeans look down from above on Turks and ignore the cultural and historical values of the Turks in doing so.

Yes, we Westerners need to accept that other peoples' familial, cultural and historical values are important for them. Four hundred years ago, we had similar attitudes. Pride and honour are important, and the West needs to understand this. On the other hand, within the framework of Turkish-EU relations, I want to draw attention to another matter. There is a dangerous coalition that binds nationalists on both sides [Turkey and the EU]. For example, in the cases opened against Orhan Pamuk, Elif Şafak, and the assassinated journalist Hrant Dink, what was at issue was not really the content of their writings. These cases, opened by nationalistic lawyers, were really reactions to Europe, using these writers as tools. The goal is to distance Turkey from the EU. And they receive enough of a reaction from Europe to prove them right. At the same time, we have here in the EU right-wing politicians and nationalistic politicians. Like Geert Wilders, who makes comments like “There is no place in the EU for Turkey, they have no freedom of expression, and Turkey is not Europe.” And I personally, within the framework of mutual relations, when words like "genocide" come up in arguments over the Armenian genocide, refer to this word as the "G word." While Turkish nationalists shout out, "You cannot use this word!" Dutch nationalists scream, "You cannot use anything but this word!" This, in the end, is the same kind of politics, serving the same purpose. I'm sure politicians like this would all have a great time if they went on holiday together.

Like with the Armenian allegations of genocide, what you mean to say is don't push too many sensitive buttons.

Yes. Ok, these are subjects which need to be attended to, but should not be rushed. Leave the historical process to follow its own road. I hate the fact that on both sides, politicians are mixing history and politics together. I am calling out to both Turkish and Western politicians: Get out of this arena, please! History is not something that should be connected with national legends. History is a discipline which requires serious research about things which have happened. Meanwhile though, we should be able to comfortably discuss and debate it. Just as every family may have its own black sheep, every country may have its own dark spots. To this end, the Netherlands did very bad things in Indonesia, and it was not easy for regular Dutch people to swallow this truth. What I mean to say is this: For a society that feels "good" about certain periods of its history, it is easier to look at its own past. For example, it used to be a complete taboo in Spain to talk about the civil war period. But now, grandchildren have begun to ask their grandparents about what happened. This is what is meant by growing up, maturing as a society. Approaching history as it should be approached, not trying to suppress it. Just as there is something called "pride," there is also something called "OK, let's face reality!" I want to call out to Turks that they need to look at history more coolly. And when they are examining their own history, no one should force anyone, politicians should not stray into the arena of history. Historians on both sides should open all their archives and should allow everything to be discussed and debated. Meanwhile, I am aware of the spreading feeling among Turks that "something happened, but what?" A series of painful events occurred, people were in pain. These things need to be known and I think the fact that pain was experienced needs to be accepted. There can be debates on topics like how many people died or how they died, but the important aspect is for societies to look history in the eyes and to face events from the past and not to be ashamed to do so. Myths have to be shoved aside and history must be approached honestly.

Can we return for a moment to EU-Turkey relations?

I want to reiterate that I place a lot of importance on the changes going on in Turkey. Just as EU membership turned out to be very crucial for Spain and Ireland, so too will it be important for Turkey. And at the same time, this is an EU membership which is important for Europe itself. Europe is forgetting some things. I guarantee you that in 25 years we will be begging Turks to immigrate! To wit, when I was doing my research on the Galata Bridge, I saw lots of girls and boys. They were simultaneously working, under difficult conditions, and studying at school. I saw an incredible dynamism. We could apply what I saw on the bridge to Turkey in general. There is an incredible dynamism in Turkey. Europe needs this dynamism because Europe is tired and growing older. Another factor to consider is the Turkish military. It is a very strong military. Europe needs this military. There are also all sorts of geopolitical reasons. Europe needs a stable bridge reaching out to Asia and the Middle East. The worst thing that could happen would be to leave Turkey out.

What would happen?

After being excluded from the EU, Turkey's modernization period would be shelved for awhile. Yes, Turkey would be an honourable country still, but a closed society. The atmosphere where things could be debated freely would disappear and tension would spring up in all areas. Terrible things happened in the past in Europe but Western intellectuals never gave up on freely debating and discussing these events. This is a strength which gives great flexibility to societies and which nourishes creativity. The ability to debate freely allows you to be able to make the right choices for the future. Societies need this in order to find their correct balances. In short, if Turkish relations with the EU break off, Turkey, rather than being a regional strength which balances its immediate surroundings, will likely turn into a radical and nationalistic country. If you look at the region it's in, you can guess which factors might lead to this. Still, I have hope in the changes and transformations going on in Turkey.

20 May 2007, Sunday, Todays Zaman

Ali Çimen, AMSTERDAM

Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to read the interview in its original newspaper format
Click here to read the interview in Dutch
Click here to return to main menu

Hiç yorum yok:

Yorum Gönder