>> Al-Hayat

UNDER THE PORTRAIT OF ATATURK

Al-Hayat - January 29, 2009 by Ghassan Charbel It was icy cold in Ankara. The heavy fog was reminiscent of the blurry vision in the Middle East and the difficult driving conditions. I remembered George Bush who gathered his papers and left, a man who will not be missed. His policies were catastrophic for his country, the Middle East, and the world. And yet, he inadvertently offered gifts to a few of Iraq's neighbors. He gave them the opportunity to expand on Iraqi territory and in other parts of the region. I also remembered Saddam Hussein. He exhausted the region when he was strong then drained it when the US military machine uprooted his regime. Some scenes would have been impossible or highly improbable without the US adventure in Iraq. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad paid visit to Bagdad. His country took up positions on the Mediterranean, reminding the "Great Satan" of its ability to threaten its most prized interest in the region: the safety of oil and the safety of Israel. It also claimed victory in Gaza. Ahmadinejad sat gleefully at the Doha summit, on the eve of the Kuwait summit. Iran was not the sole beneficiary of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime. Neighboring Turkey also rushed to fill part of the void left when the Arab side of the Turkish-Iraqi-Iranian triangle was crossed out. And yet, Turkey is one thing and Iran is another: different visions; different lexicons; different terminology. Ahmadinejad's rockets stand in sharp contrast to Erdogan's mediation efforts. The former wants Israel to be wiped off the map. The latter encourages it to turn into a normal state in the region by endorsing an independent viable Palestinian State. The former provides Hamas with money and weapons, and the latter tries to ripen its choices - betting on the possibility of ultimately engaging it in the search for peace. From his office, Erdogan did not conceal his fury at what Israel committed in Gaza. He did not hesitate to criticize Western countries for taking no action. He expressed his deep sadness at the division that appeared during the offensive on Gaza, and at the need of Arabs and Muslims for peace among themselves. It seemed clear to me from Erdogan's words that the Israeli attack on Gaza disturbed the Turkish plan. Turkey, which dreams to be a flourishing economic force, considers peace in the region to be vital for its future. Peace and prosperity are its most effective weapons in isolating terrorism - especially if the peace process convinces Islamic forces with national aspirations to lay down weapons and accept the other within the framework of a just and comprehensive peace. Perhaps Turkey, which prefers to consider Iran as a rival, not an enemy, also believes that peace can restore the Iranian role to its normal size after it was inflated following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime and the stalemate of the peace process. Based on this view of its role and the region's need for peace, Turkey contributed to the international troops in South Lebanon in implementation of Resolution 1701. It also sponsored the indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations - whose fifth round was frozen by a mutual decision that was taken during Erdogan's visit to Syria in the aftermath of the war on Gaza. It is also in the same context that we can understand Erdogan's insistence on not marginalizing Hamas that might have erred in firing rockets on the day following the end of the truce. However, Erdogan blamed Israel for its provocation and aggression. When Erdogan speaks, the visiting journalist is bound to remember the speaker's nature and country. He is the leader of a party with Islamic roots in a country with a secular constitution. He is the Prime Minister of a NATO-member country that, despite its relations with Israel, opens dialogue channels with all parties. He is the strong man in a country that has a European dream but is planted in the Middle East, even if it embraces European standards over human rights as well as elections and their results. Under a portrait of Mustapha Kamal Ataturk, Erdogan underlined the importance of engaging Hamas. Ataturk did not take part in the conversation. And yet, hypocrisy prompted me to wonder whether Ataturk himself would turn into a passing chapter of the long Turkish history. I also wondered what Ataturk was doing in Erdogan's republic, and if it was his constitution that managed to ripen the Turkish Islamists who are trying today to ripen other Islamists in the region. It is a delicate and arduous mission, especially that it is taking place amidst fire and difficult driving conditions in the fog.

Segnala questa pagina