Strange affinities in the Syria context

As the crisis in Syria drags on, interesting relationships, alliances and attitudes are beginning to come to light. Figures or organizations you would never expect are having interesting meetings because of Syria. We are learning of kinships, among left- or right-wing organizations, of the Baath regime's interesting supporters, kinships we had somehow never noticed until now. These are interesting kinships of the kind that make one say, "What else shall we see in this three-day world."

That the criticism or accusation of Baathism, which was earlier never taken on and was kept a long way off, no longer even bothers many of the quarters subjected to this accusation is, beyond being interesting, a cautionary state of affairs. One of the cautionary cases is the emotional or ideological closeness of the Turkish left to the Baath regime. This closeness could be understood at the outset through opposition to the designs of America or NATO on Syria, but even at this stage it could not have been expected to turn into a defense of a bloodstained dictatorship, whatever it does, even if it massacres its own people.

As time goes by, we are witnessing the Turkish leftists embracing the Assad regime with all its faults and merits. As we said before, what is interesting and grave is that they do not fail to believe the reports of massacres said to have been carried out by Assad; on the contrary, they see these massacres as a normal right, and believe that the Syrian people subjected to this massacre deserve it. Unfortunately, this attitude, expressed in timid language at first, is increasingly developing toward writing itself, with all its fanaticism, on the Assad side of the fight between the Baath regime and the opposition in Syria.

This closeness that has come to the fore is gradually turning the anti-American argument too into an unnecessary, secondary and in fact laughable rhetoric. Besides, it is becoming clearly understood as time passes that America and Israel apparently have not had much of a problem with the Assad regime in Syria.

In fact, if it could continue its dictatorship in this state, if it kept carrying out its massacres quietly in a way the world would not hear, then even if the Assad family stayed in power for a century, it would be of no concern to either the US or the EU.

Ahmet Davutoğlu's demand at the UN Security Council for the creation of a buffer zone in Syria is the most justified and most realistic measure possible at this stage. That Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on behalf of the US, while also criticizing the foreign policy of his own president Obama, said this proposal was a fantasy shows, on the one hand, that the US is in no hurry at all on Syria and that its views on Assad are in fact not what we thought. (Wasn't Turkey supposedly acting as a subcontractor of America, and therefore of Israel, in its Syria policy?)

Thank God, it is by now clear enough not to need explanation that Turkey is following an entirely policy of its own on Syria. An even clearer sign of this is that this policy is, this time, being labeled as idealism. Ahmet Altan has criticized Turkey's Syria policy, targeted by the Taraf newspaper with the headline "Alone in Syria," with a powerful but strange literature.

Unlimited rhetoric can be made about the gap between realities and ideals. It does not suit Altan at all to try to destroy a politician who has dreams, ideals, principles and claims with a story he has constructed. Let us say this much: thanks to his extremely powerful rhetoric, Altan, who cannot be rivaled in persuading people of stories that have no connection with the world, does the greatest harm to himself. Because with that rhetoric he can persuade himself as much as anyone, even more than anyone, and build an unshakable world around himself without even noticing. Rhetoric and ideology are intertwined; they feed and support each other.

So, does literature give a person assurance against ideology, against the delusions of ideology that lift one off from realities? And does that powerful literature provide any refuge against the harms of one's own ego? Undoubtedly this is an important matter that must be dwelt on on another and separate occasion, but we have been watching with sadness that recently the quality of Altan's literature is operating in the vise of a bombast that produces nothing but shallow propaganda. What he writes is not criticism of the government or anything of the kind; if it were, he would continue to deserve every kind of respect; on the contrary, it is opposition in every case. And he makes that so-called powerful literature of his a tool for everything he opposes.

At this stage, let us remind Altan, who took up his pen with enthusiasm over the US's leaving Turkey alone, of a point that escaped his attention. The old Altan would never have missed such a thing. The person named Martin Dempsey, who is said to have found Turkey's proposal in Syria unrealistic, is the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a general. Moreover, in this statement Dempsey did not only say that he found Turkey's proposal unrealistic; he also gave a thorough dressing-down to his own president, that is, Obama. We would have expected the Ahmet Altan we know to see this before a Turkey "alone in Syria." Does this scene, which does not suit US politics at all, not at all resemble military tutelage? Shouldn't what Obama ought to do about this general have interested Altan more?

We would have expected Altan to see more of the hypocritical bargaining attitude America displays in leaving Turkey alone in the face of the massacres of children and the elderly civilians in Syria, and to make those who do not feel the repulsiveness of this attitude feel it more with his pen. The sensitivity that Turkey displays "alone" against these massacres is in essence a sensitivity to be proud of. To extend from here to rational-self-interested foreign policy analyses and to count Turkey's losses is the last thing that would come to a conscientious mind.

Rhetoric and literature are ultimately performances realized through choice. Even the most powerful rhetoric cannot cover up who has chosen what in this process. The reality of the blood spilled of innocent people, children, the elderly sweeps away all rhetoric.