1711) Open Reader's Letter To The Observer : A fight for the soul of the new Turkey

To: reader@observer.co.uk
Ref: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0..2084583.00.html
A fight for the soul of the new Turkey
May 20, 2007, “The Observer” by Andrew Anthony

Dear Sir,

Subject article is impaired by considerable bias, distorting some realities and gives only one side of the story, presented in the journalistic style to satisfy the expectations of the reader rather than being objective, viz:

Orhan Pamuk, may have won the Nobel Prize after considerable support from various outsiders, appreciative of his slanderous declarations (without any evidence or logic) instead of his literary works, advertised with large fanfare but unread by most Turkish readers, owing to the adverse style of his writing and the too many mistakes in what he writes about! You butter him with the praise “most esteemed literary son” of Turkey, but strangely, with few exceptions of certain Soros supported institutions, he is not much esteemed in his own country, which would have liked to be proud of him, but cannot do so after his several nervous TV interviews and inconstant declarations, wearing the lamb skin of victimization, freedom of speech and similar diversions, when he knew that Turks in Paris or Switzerland, had no freedom of even speaking the TRUTH.

The reasons why he was given this great prize, is disproved by the majority of the people for the ethical details it involved. If it was not for the mastership of Maureen Freely who translated his books into English and deserves the real credit, it would have been even harder to “time up his orchestrated prize winning”! You have even criticized the dress and neckties of the state police, given the job to guard him, against an attack by some other lunatic like Samast. In short, you wrote, what you wanted it to be and excite your readers, even if it was untrue or exaggerated!

You refer to the unfortunate killing of Hrant Dink, without giving any hint that he was a wedge between diaspora (Dashnaks) and the Istanbul Patriarchate and he was more a mouthpiece of ANCA in USA which supported his paper. The people of Turkey have expressed their deep sympathy by rallying in a hundred thousand on the street for this idiotic murder by a fanatic, or others using him, and miss to say why he was called to the court. In one of his unfortunate speeches, he used the wrong expression trying to explain something intended for good but nevertheless publicly said that the “noble Armenian blood will fill the veins emptied of poisonous Turkish blood”!

Despite this blunder, he was acquitted by the Court, but of course for some stupid fanatics, it added a this one only murder of an Armenian by a Turk, but you fail to indicate more than 130 terrorist acts between 1973-1983 whereby Armenian ASALA criminals have killed more than 40 diplomats whose crime was being a Turk, and have injured and killed an equal number of other people who happened to be in the wrong places at that times. Why is Sir, that you do not mention any of these or another Turkish Armenian who torched himself in Istanbul in protest of the murders of ASALA terrorists. If you did not know the other side of the coin, you should have kept. silent!


Regarding your butter spread for AKP and Mr. Gul, please read “Turkey and Holy Cow Democracy” by Orhan Tarhan http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp/articleD=27574 which speaks the true story from a much wider and truthful perspective. You seem to criticize the Turkish Army, founder and protector of the Turkish Republic and all her modern institutions, which was obligated several times to put back the politicians who have derailed democracy with the laws they make to keep themselves in power. A similar critical experience is just happening, a “mild-Islamist” (mildly pregnant !) party who was supported by only 25% of the qualified Voters (or only 34% of those who went to the poll boxes), through the present trickery laws of threshold and voting for complete lists drawn up by party leaders only, have obtained 70% of the seats in the Parliament.

By defending this unethical lame democratic system leading to Hitler or Khumeyni style dictatorships, you are not only interfering the rights of sovereignty of Turkish citizens and their trust in the constitutional secularism, giving full protection and liberty of personal religious practices, but keeps religion and religious signs out of all State and Administrative institutions including Education (other than the official schools of divinity). Sir, Republic of Turkey has abolished the Caliphate back in 1924 and we don’t want to be guided by Koranic rules, spoken by clergy classes, assuming the representation of God ! Sir, are we to deal in intelligence and science or into bigotry and holy myths? Your vulgar slander that “the secular demonstrations were orchestrated by military” is a baseless lie that only dupes can imagine !

Yet, this sharp conclusion of yours should be no surprise since you mentioned the reliability of your information from turncoats such as Calislar and Yurdatapan, which needs no other explanation. (Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you what kind of person you are… goes the Turkish saying). Such characters, appearing as defenders of human rights for "selected humans and places", are so cut out from the community that they would be scared to face ordinary intellectuals in any panel discussion. They would talk only to you and alike to complain about their country, they hardly contribute anything for…

Regarding your comments involving Mr. Samim Uygun, who is a much liked and respected personality in all surroundings he has been part of, what apparently told you is no surprise and would be endorsed by the majority of Turkish intellectuals. While you speak of “freedom of speech”, you degrade Mr. Uygun for “hating AKP” (like about 55 millions of Turks out of 70)! The article Holy Cow referred above, gives the full story regarding why AKP team and their pro-EU-USA policies are not endorsed by the nation. It is paradoxical that the Western democracy you seem to take as a standard, has shown no concern at all about the ethical means this power of representing Turkey has been acquired and is being held, without support of 75% of the nation! Sir, Mr. Uygun has shown you a typical Turkish hospitality and sincerity, thinking that you are neutral and intelligent enough!

I am under the impression that you have not only joked about his hospitality, but by only talking to some 7 – 10 adverse persons,( instead of reading some 7-10 books about Turkey), you jumped into immature conclusions, ending up in such a review full of mistakes, prejudices and slanders recalling: The irony is that you seem to have been in Turkey several times as a journalist, but prefer to look into matters unilaterally, even distorting if not hiding the other half, which must be presented to your readers. In short Sir, you remind of the following excerpts, of some politicians a century ago. If you want the exact references, next time that you are in, I will gladly provide, if it would be too cumbersome for you to find out. :

“At the age of 86 Mr Gladstone emerged from the retirement at Liverpool to make a last speech against the unspeakable Turk “

“Lloyd George went further, he did not know what the Turks contributed either to culture, to art or to any aspect of human progress”.
"Bryce did not mince his words. He believed that the Turkish Government deserves to die”!

Conclusion: Sir, in your words written with alike impressions a century later, it seems that the sovereign preferences of Turkish nation should be substituted by one of the above British observations/


Fortunately some other writers with more objectivity, like “Peter Peterson, THE GUARDIAN, May 21, 2007 – EUROPE MUST LET TURKEY IN” wrote the opposite, of your fictionalized partial travel memoirs ! Sir, in your profession, it is not ethical to `speak only the parts you like to please only your readers'.

Yours cordially

Sukru S. Aya - Istanbul
May 24, 2007