Yugoslavia syndrome

If, for the sake of satisfying some cultural expectations of some people with "different" ethnic or cultural background, Turkey agrees to compromise the "national integrity" concept, can Turkey manage to maintain its "territorial integrity"?

Turkey’s top general, Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ, was speaking to a group of reporters in Washington last week. The top general was there for the annual meeting of the Turkish-American associations, an event that brings together every year some top civilian and military executives, as well as leading businessmen from Turkey with their American counterparts. Stressing that Yugoslavia was divided into seven new republics following a change in its unitary system of state, Başbuğ said Turkey's "national integrity" could not be changed to resolve the Kurdish problem.

While what we may define as the "Yugoslavia syndrome" or "disintegration phobia" has always been buried deep in the back of the brain of many Turks, this was the first time a top general was making a direct reference and warning Turks that if, like the former Yugoslavia, the country compromised its "national integrity," it may not be able to maintain its "territorial integrity."

Red lines

Naturally no one can say for sure whether Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will discuss the issue with his Serbian counterpart, Mirko Cvetkovic, later this month if the two, as expected, meet on the sidelines of a ceremony marking the inauguration of the new Acropolis museum. We do not know either whether Erdoğan discussed the issue with Serbian President Boris Tadic when they met last week during a meeting in Kishinev, Moldova, of the heads of states of the Cooperation Process in Southeastern Europe. But perhaps it is high time for the political authority of Turkey to try to learn how the process of disintegration started in the former Yugoslavia after the death of the legendary Joseph Broz Tito; how ethnic groups who lived together in great harmony became so fierce enemies; and how neighbors mercilessly butchered their neighbors with different ethnic or religious backgrounds.

Perhaps rather than talking with some ambivalent rhetoric devoid of any noteworthy preparation that promises a resolution to each and every domestic and foreign problem of the country Ğ be it constitutional reforms; the Southeast, or Kurdish issue; the Alevi complaints; the Halki seminary and other problems of the Christian minorities; the Armenian problem; or the Cyprus problem Ğ and landing each time any such initiative in a deadlock because what steps ought to be taken were not calculated well beforehand, the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government must give up this ambivalent mind-set, engage in pluralistic preparation through engaging not only the political opposition but the civilian and military bureaucracy as well and come up with a tangible national consensus that can afford bitter resolutions for the country’s bitter problems without hurting its national integrity.

There is a rather interesting phenomenon in today’s Turkey. While it is rather rare to see a national consensus on any major issue in this country, today there is a rather interesting and strong national consensus on a variety of issues, including the need to make comprehensive democratic amendments in the Constitution and take some radical moves with the aim of resolving the Kurdish problem and bringing an end to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, separatist terrorism problem. Despite the established consensus on all these important areas, however, naturally there are different priorities, preferences and opposing perceptions that are required to be eradicated through a comprehensive dialogue before any action can be taken.

Whose responsibility is it to launch such a dialogue? Can we expect such an initiative from the opposition, the NGOs, universities, the judiciary or the military? Naturally, the government must take the lead with an inclusive and firm understanding of the "national red lines" including "national integrity" rather than burying itself in a majoritarianist obsession and wasting time and energy about whether it is impudent to use the AKP abbreviation when referring the ruling party.