“ Democratic Ballroom Dancing, Round 2 “

by S. Jovian Radheshwar

March 5^th, 2003

Huntington Beach, California

In a verdict that surprised many politicos and pundits globally, the Turkish Parliament narrowly rejected an Aid-for-Basing proposal floated by the Bush administration. This was not a small matter, where a state elected to assert its national identity in lieu of a small, modest concession. Instead, the Turks in the Parliament found themselves in a situation where the overwhelming majority of their countrymen age firmly against war, and by consequence the American request for the basing rights needed to execute a relatively strategic plan for combat. The Turkish MP’s have faced a momentous decision in the last week, and rejected the Aid package, to the tune of $32 billion dollars, in favor of properly representing their countrymen in a democratic fashion. Of course, that’s merely how the Welfare Party is spinning the parliamentary vote, and we cannot ascertain that there were not other motivations at play, mainly due to a lack of available evidence or even theory not caught up in pure speculation. However, at least a few ulterior motivations are possible in this situation, not the least being that the Welfare party maintains effective party discipline, capable of staging narrow votes either for or against resolutions in parliament. If such is indeed the case, the Welfare party leader, Recip Tayyip Edrogan can attempt to nudge the Bush administration a little to obtain an even more generous grant of aid and security assistance.

Aside from this obvious potentiality, the Welfare party has always been interested in asserting Turkish nationalism, in opposition to the more corrupted parties, which it views have been begging for aid from Europe for too long. Certainly, the Turks will continue to try to integrate into Europe, but the Welfare party’s strong stance against the Americans will make it appear as an independent nation with a strong leadership negotiating realistically, and in the self-interest of Turkey. All the while, this serves the dual purpose of appeasing Germany and France, which were most vocal in their opposition to Turkish membership in the European Union at the most recent round of Union enlargement talks last winter. By associating with the Franco-German dovish position, the Turks appear less as a doormat and more as a conscientious modern European nation-state, capable of the other requirements of liberalization states must meet before sending a delegation to Strasbourg. Much as the Israelis keep the hardliner in power to negotiate and punish its enemies, so too the Turks shall strategize. If the US steps up the aid considerably, say by fifty percent, bringing the total near $50 billion, perhaps the Turks acquiesce. To their long term benefit, as holding out in this first round was an essential piece of pre-war politicking. Certainly, it will be difficult to justify the enormity of the Turkish bailout to someone such as myself, but I feel that the administration has done a fairly effective job of abstracting policy costs to the public, and much to our collective detriment; the money will go to Turkey if the administration still wishes it to go there. As I wrote last week, this peculiar scenario reveals to both you and I quite evidently who enjoys more democracy in the current world order.

The Bush administration is going to rather extreme lengths to ensure that (a) war in Iraq occurs soon, and (b) that anything that can be done to ensure “victory” will be undertaken regardless of the costs associated relative to the potential benefits. This suggests that there is more to this conflict than pure American self-interest, as the conservatives seem to think, and even beyond that, when one considers the administration’s foreign policy in a cost-benefit framework, it doesn’t seem that anything but negatives will result. It seems that our policy is bordering on the crippling condition of obsession, whereby the placing of obstacles to the goal are overcome through the exertion of tremendous force or power, depleting those coffers of essence, leaving us lacking at a time of great trouble, such as when the first troops are engaged in urban warfare in the streets of Baghdad, or when the next, seemingly inevitable attack on America occurs. The simple questions of warfare have not been answered this time around, by the administration, nor are they answerable by the experts in the field, who are all, absent a few here and there, a universal chorus of disapproval.

The Turkish government, conversely, is acting in the self-interests of its people, even in the event that they accept the aid-for-basing requests. By standing firm the first time through, the democratic myth is given life, and legitimacy, and the voice of the nation has been taken into consideration in the platonic realm of ideas. It indicates that likely the Turks will accede, and will fight alongside the US, albeit reluctantly. My assumption currently is that the Turks will vote again to authorize forces, will do so, and will manage to convince their own population that the action was in their own best interest. For Ari Fleischer to do the same here, and to not merely rely on his novice debater question dodging would be, I think we can all agree, nothing short of a miracle from the heavens. I urge you all to say no to war, to every person you talk to, as the government certainly isn’t listening, and at least this way we can try and build a civil society amongst ourselves and leave the overgrown infants in the administration to their own war and hatred mongering devices.