"Zero Hour" of Greek-Turkish Friendship

AIM Athens, August 19, 2000

In January and February 1996, Greece and Turkey found themselves in the verge of war over a tiny barren uninhabited islet (called Imia in Greek and Kardak in Turkish). A conflict was triggered and then aggravated by the media of the two countries through an apotheosis of hate speech and war mongering. Greek and Turkish media made appeals for aggressive if not heroic acts. Prejudices and pejorative terms were used to describe their neighbors. Greek media saw a Western, mainly American, bias in favor of Turkey. On the contrary, in Turkey the West was considered to be pro-Greek since most Turkish media present Greece as the spoilt child of the West. Although the general picture was dominated by the segment of the press, which took a "going-to-war" attitude without much "humiliation" vis-a-vis the "other", few newspapers and journalists in both countries tried to go against the "bellicose" tide. It seemed that on the two sides of the Aegean two feelings reinforced each other. These feelings are the stronger Greece's "fear of Turkey," the keener Turkey's "desire to punish." These are signs of lack of self-confidence and lack of trust in the other country. The media do not function in a void. This crisis illustrated the media's role in the escalation of prejudice and how the two societies are prone to be drawn into such dangerous paths. Yet, this "incident" was quickly forgotten and there were no sustained, efficient and constructive efforts to help change such attitudes of the media, which at any time, can bring the two countries close to a serious conflict. (see articles by P. Dimitrasand and F. Kentel, in "Hate Speech in the Balkans", M. Lenkova, ed., IHF/ETEPE, Athens, 1998)

When Greece and Turkey experienced the tragic effects from the earthquakes last autumn, the negative experience seemed to pave the way for positive experiences amongst the two peoples. A breeze of friendship started blowing across the Aegean Sea, and in spite of many standing debates over territorial water, continental shelves and islets, over the responsibilities for and the solutions to the Cyprus issue, over two different and mutually exclusive histories and myths, the civil and political societies of the two countries started communicating and initiating common projects. It is communication based on "politically correct" discussions in order to encourage, cultivate and maintain conditions for dialogue. We could call this the "zero hour" in the Greek-Turkish friendship, because it has provided the possibility for talking about a future without appropriating the past, in the midst of a trembling present that cannot confront its contradictions.

The breeze of friendship that blows across the Aegean may be a good opportunity for a truly significant change in attitudes and conceptions, so that the past does not weigh over the living present. Nevertheless, so far, "one has the feeling that the contacts which take place are rather superficial and that the dynamics of cooperation wears off in rhetoric and lyrical exaltations, with which it is sought to highlight the good intentions and the mutual friendly feelings. These contacts of course can be useful, but they are not based on procedures which can be lasting." (S. Virvidakis & K. Gavroglou, "The Greek-Turkish Discussions in the Vospore", To Vima 23-7-00) They are based on the absence of a retrospective and critical confrontation of civil and political society in both countries. Yet, solid and non-ambiguous relations between peoples and governments are not build on "zero hour", but on their mutual capacity, as a retired Greek diplomat summed up, "to look back looking forwards." As he explained, "the history of the past years can be positive only if we look at it as critical history" (V. Theodoropoulos, Antalya conference, see below, 21-6-00).

In the midst of a heat wave and in the comfort of a hotel that was near the shore of Antalya, Turkey, some Greek, Turkish and German journalists, together with some diplomats and university professors met together on 22-23 June, in a conference organized by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, The German-Turkish Foundation and the Turkish Journalists Association to discuss "The Role of Media in the Reduction of International Conflicts". The Konrad Adenauer Foundation has been working in Turkey for several years now trying to organize quietly yet persistently for the Turkish civil society projects aiming at the development of a democratic culture. However, absent from this conference were the minorities that are part of the puzzle from both sides. This indicates the organizer's wish of having only "politically correct" debates. These minorities were not there in order to avoid heated debates and explosive confrontations. Also, human rights representatives from both countries were absent, which in such meetings can serve as the independent monitors to scrutinize objectively the debate and to help both sides to reach one another in the name of human rights principles and international standards.

The Greek participants spoke from a point of departure that was favorable to the plurality of opinions. The arguments come from an unambiguously liberal democratic society, whatever its weaknesses may be. More so they had the advantage of a government that is not only favorable to the Turkish-Greek dialogue but often has made steps and taken positions which are far more advanced than the majority of Greek journalists are even ready to accept. Evidence of that were the scare mongering debates in the media before and after the Simitis' government decision to withdraw its veto at the European Union Summit Meeting at Helsinki and accept Turkey's status as a candidate state for admission in the EU. Thus, the Greek participants were talking from a position of force, which allowed them to be more generous not only by not raising what usually are considered sensitive issues for both sides, but also acquiescing to some profound self-criticism and introspection. Admission to stereotyping, hate speech, disguised discrimination against the Turkish minority, ethnocentrism in education, selective protest against human rights violations and non-democratic regimes, crimes of the Greek army in 1920, pogroms of Turkish Cypriots in 1963-64, nationalism and racism did not refer only to the past but often even to the present. Although the interventions by Professor Thanos Lipowatz or Nicholas Voulelis may not have pleased all the Greek participants, no one challenged their arguments.

On the other hand, the Turkish participants were in a profoundly difficult position. Besides those who undoubtedly represented a certain official position, the others were trying to maintain equilibrium between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. It was clear that no one could define this equilibrium with certainty. It was almost inevitable for the Turkish participants to fall in the trap of frequent defensive arguments, and few took the opportunity for self-criticism and introspection. Nail Gureli, President of the Turkish Journalists Association in Istanbul, described the difficulties created by media owners and political power. They significantly limit the freedom of expression in that country. He described the big capital behind the mass media. The mass media cooperate with the political power, the political power tries to have good relations with the owners of the media. Capital defines the liberty of the publishers, and democracy is the victim of this war of interests. The consequences from the increasing concentration of the mass media in Turkey can be observed in most liberal states, including Greece. However, he also added that, in Turkey, there is no pluralism of voices, the media is like an orchestra only with violins. There is no freedom of speech, unions are excluded from negotiations, the media make more and more concessions to political power. Thus, he was describing the conditions of a non-liberal state. As one participant commented in the discussion that followed: "in Turkey journalists are imprisoned but in Greece self-censorship is taking troublesome proportions." (G. Votsis from Eleftherotypia, 21-6-00)

In a nation-wide survey in Greece conducted by MRB in June 1995 shows that 88.1% of Greek public opinion expressed aversion towards Turkey in contrast to 62.7% that expressed sympathy for Serbia (Kathimerini, 11-2-95). Turkey has been perceived as Greece's major (if not the only, until 1989) "enemy". Turks have a very negative image in Greek schoolbooks. They are being portrayed as the "traditional enemies" in ways that "cultivate a climate of dislike and suspicion against them" [conclusions from a UNESCO-sponsored academic research, Kathimerini, 29-5-94]. In fact, even teachers agree that Turks should be portrayed in such a way (survey by Professor Frangoudaki, Ta Nea, 24-6-95). A more recent survey of the Greek public opinion conducted by Metron Analysis in 14 September 1999 shows no substantial change. For example, we learn that 57.5% of Greeks now have a better opinion of Turks while 41.6% did not change their opinion. 51.1% of Greeks hope there would be improvement in the Greek-Turkish relations while 44.2% do not believe that anything will change. As the researchers pointed out, any improvement in the psychological climate was only "circumstantial." They add: "another period of incisiveness, which reminds [us] of interstate relations in the past, suffices to overturn" this climate (Ta Nea, 14-12-99).

Children in Greece generally use the same schoolbooks. In spite of the recent efforts of rapprochement, one observes no significant changes in the way the Greek media portrays Turkey and the Turks. The Greek public generally knows little or nothing about their neighbor. They are only being bombarded by pre-selected information covering "political news" -- conflict-driven information. (see K. Hadjidimos, "The Role of the Media in Greek-Turkish Relations," Robert Bosch Stiftungskolleg fur Internationale Aufgaben Programmjahr, 1998/99). Similarly, as D. Tilic from Agencia Efe explained at the Antalya conference, in Turkey while "love speech may have replaced hate speech" in most media, "all this is not based on background information; it is rather a very simplified presentation which may change if there is no effort to build more solid bridges of communication, contacts and knowledge of Greeks and Greece."

Public opinion is volatile, even if there are no big changes in the attitudes of the people. Similarly, journalists who are favorable to rapprochement today without adopting a new conception of reality can easily go back tomorrow to their old preconceptions. Recently, in 1998, at an international conference, researchers from Greece and Turkey did not hesitate to describe with the bleakest colors the images of the "other" that one can find in the schoolbooks of both countries. As one of them summed up, "the changes that must be introduced in Greek schoolbooks about the image of the Turk, are complex and they presuppose a radical revision of a great part of the Greeks' historical past." (L. Koulapi, "The image of Bulgarians and Turks in primary level history books in the period from 1950-1990", in The Image of the "other"/Neighbor in the Schoolbooks of the Balkan Countries, Center for Research on Schoolbooks and Intercultural Education, 2000) The dominant instruction of history in both countries leads to the reproduction of traumatic experiences, explained at the Antalya conference Iannis Tzanetakos, the then Director General of the Hellenic Public Radio. It is therefore necessary, he added, to rewrite history books. This suggestion, which followed the discussions on the issue by the Foreign Greek and Turkish Ministers, was received negatively by the majority of the Greek journalists. He concluded that journalists, by not supporting such initiatives, have ended up "lagging behind the government itself." I. Tzanetakos was the only one among the Greek journalists present at the conference who accepted to sign the declaration of journalistic standards for reports on the bilateral relations proposed by the Turkish journalists. Apparently, Greek-Turkish cooperation based on mutual trust and confidence has a long way to go yet.

Nafsika Papanikolatos