1. "Kofi's True Colors" (New York Post, March 16, 2005 )
2. "The Sick Man of Europe" (The Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2005)
3. The ignorant Annan
QUICK-OFF-THE MARK: THE NEW YORK POST
In yesterday's dispatch (Annan bow at Arafat's grave sparks outrage), I mentioned that to my knowledge, virtually no other paper in the world other than the New York Sun had drawn attention to the bow by Kofi Annan at Yasser Arafat's grave, or the irony of Annan coming to the region specifically to commemorate 6 million dead Jews and then paying his respects to the greatest Jew killer of this generation.
In fact, the New York Post ran an editorial about the matter a day before the New York Sun did, as the writer of that editorial, a long-time subscriber to this email list, points out to me. I attach that editorial, "Kofi's True Colors," below.
QUICK-OFF-THE MARK: THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
In yesterday's dispatch (Mein Kampf is a bestseller in Turkey for second month in a row), I attached a piece from the Los Angles Times about growing anti-Semitism in Turkey.
An editorial page editor at the Wall Street Journal (one of several senior editors and writers at both The Wall Street Journal and The Wall Street Journal Europe who subscribe to this email list), points out to me that the Journal ran a story by Robert Pollock on the subject last month, which caused an uproar in Turkey.
I attach that article, "The Sick Man of Europe," below.
Both pieces in the NY Post and Journal are well worth reading, although perhaps the title of the Journal piece is a little unfair given the fact other European countries have similar problems.
-- Tom Gross
THE IGNORANT ANNAN
A senior journalist based in Jerusalem – also a long-time subscriber to this email list – points out the following:
Tom, the quote from Eckhard in your NY Sun story could use some analysis:
A spokesman for Mr. Annan, Fred Eckhard, responded to the Sun yesterday: "Kofi Annan is secretary-general of an organization made up of all nations, and so he could not be in the region without also paying a call on the new president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. Arafat's grave lies within the compound of the president's residence, and the secretary-general, like every international visitor to the residence, paid his respects at Arafat's resting place."
The reality is this (even though my editor would never allow me to point this out):
1. The Mukata is the office, not the residence, so Annan didn't even know where he was going.
2. Other leaders - Blair, Condie, for example - passed the grave without laying a wreath.
3. Annan could have met Abu Mazen at his own home or his other office across town and avoided the grave altogether.
"KOFI'S TRUE COLORS"
Kofi's True Colors
New York Post
March 16, 2005
Aren't diplomats supposed to have tact? Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the United Nations and someone who should have some sensitivity, clearly needs sensitivity training.
As part of his trip to Israel to attend the opening ceremonies for the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial's new museum in Jerusalem, Annan on Monday went to the grave of Yasser Arafat in Ramallah, and laid a wreath of flowers on the tomb.
So let's get this straight: Annan travels to the Jewish state to attend a ceremony for a museum that commemorates Jewish victims of mass murder, and a day earlier – maybe to be evenhanded? – he pays his respects at . . . the grave of a mass murderer of Jews?
It was one thing when Arafat was alive and most every diplomat and political leader who visited the region went to pay their respects to the Palestinian chairman. (Even then, some chose to isolate and ignore him these last few years – realizing that Arafat was still nothing more than a terrorist thug.)
And yet, now that he's dead and buried and everyone else has moved on – the Palestinians not least – Annan still has to pay his respects.
Kofi clearly doesn't forget his friends.
And no one who wants an impartial chief at the U.N. should forget this affair.
TURKEY -- "THE SICK MAN OF EUROPE"
The Sick Man of Europe – Again
By Robert L. Pollock
The Wall Street Journal
February 16, 2005
Several years ago I attended an exhibition in Istanbul. The theme was local art from the era of the country's last military coup (1980). But the artists seemed a lot more concerned with the injustices of global capitalism than the fate of Turkish democracy. In fact, to call the works leftist caricatures – many featured fat capitalists with Uncle Sam hats and emaciated workers – would have been an understatement. As one astute local reviewer put it (I quote from memory): "This shows that Turkish artists were willing to abase themselves voluntarily in ways that Soviet artists refused even at the height of Stalin's oppression."
That exhibition came to mind amid all the recent gnashing of teeth in the U.S. over the question of "Who lost Turkey?" Because it shows that a 50-year special relationship, between longtime NATO allies who fought Soviet expansionism together starting in Korea, has long had to weather the ideological hostility and intellectual decadence of much of Istanbul's elite. And at the 2002 election, the increasingly corrupt mainstream parties that had championed Turkish-American ties self-destructed, leaving a vacuum that was filled by the subtle yet insidious Islamism of the Justice and Development (AK) Party. It's this combination of old leftism and new Islamism – much more than any mutual pique over Turkey's refusal to side with us in the Iraq war – that explains the collapse in relations.
And what a collapse it has been. On a brief visit to Ankara earlier this month with Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, I found a poisonous atmosphere – one in which just about every politician and media outlet (secular and religious) preaches an extreme combination of America- and Jew-hatred that (like the Turkish artists) voluntarily goes far further than anything found in most of the Arab world's state-controlled press. If I hesitate to call it Nazi-like, that's only because Goebbels would probably have rejected much of it as too crude.
Consider the Islamist newspaper Yeni Safak, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's favorite. A Jan. 9 story claimed that U.S. forces were tossing so many Iraqi bodies into the Euphrates that mullahs there had issued a fatwa prohibiting residents from eating its fish. Yeni Safak has also repeatedly claimed that U.S. forces used chemical weapons in Fallujah. One of its columnists has alleged that U.S. soldiers raped women and children there and left their bodies in the streets to be eaten by dogs. Among the paper's "scoops" have been the 1,000 Israeli soldiers deployed alongside U.S. forces in Iraq, and that U.S. forces have been harvesting the innards of dead Iraqis for sale on the U.S. "organ market."
It's not much better in the secular press. The mainstream Hurriyet has accused Israeli hit squads of assassinating Turkish security personnel in Mosul, and the U.S. of starting an occupation of Indonesia under the guise of humanitarian assistance. At Sabah, a columnist last fall accused the U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Eric Edelman, of letting his "ethnic origins" – guess what, he's Jewish – determine his behavior. Mr. Edelman is indeed the all-too-rare foreign-service officer who takes seriously his obligation to defend America's image and interests abroad. The intellectual climate in which he's operating has gone so mad that he actually felt compelled to organize a conference call with scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey to explain that secret U.S. nuclear testing did not cause the recent tsunami.
Never in an ostensibly friendly country have I had the impression of embassy staff so besieged. Mr. Erdogan's office recently forbade Turkish officials from attending a reception at the ambassador's residence in honor of the "Ecumenical" Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, who resides in Istanbul. Why? Because "ecumenical" means universal, which somehow makes it all part of a plot to carve up Turkey.
Perhaps the most bizarre anti-American story au courant in the Turkish capital is the "eighth planet" theory, which holds not only that the U.S. knows of an impending asteroid strike, but that we know it's going to hit North America. Hence our desire to colonize the Middle East.
It all sounds loony, I know. But such stories are told in all seriousness at the most powerful dinner tables in Ankara. The common thread is that almost everything the U.S. is doing in the world – even tsunami relief – has malevolent motivations, usually with the implication that we're acting as muscle for the Jews.
In the face of such slanders Turkish politicians have been utterly silent. In fact, Turkish parliamentarians themselves have accused the U.S. of "genocide" in Iraq, while Mr. Erdogan (who we once hoped would set for the Muslim world an example of democracy) was among the few world leaders to question the legitimacy of the Iraqi elections. When confronted, Turkish pols claim they can't risk going against "public opinion."
All of which makes Mr. Erdogan a prize hypocrite for protesting to Condoleezza Rice the unflattering portrayal of Turkey in an episode of the fictional TV show "The West Wing." The episode allegedly depicts Turkey as having been taken over by a retrograde populist government that threatens women's rights. (Sounds about right to me.)
In the old days, Turkey would have had an opposition party strong enough to bring such a government closer to sanity. But the only opposition now is a moribund Republican People's Party, or CHP, once the party of Ataturk. At a recent party congress, its leader accused his main challenger of having been part of a CIA plot against him. That's not to say there aren't a few comparatively pro-U.S. officials left in the current government and the state bureaucracies. But they're afraid to say anything in public. In private, they whine endlessly about trivial things the U.S. "could have done differently."
Entirely forgotten is that President Bush was among the first world leaders to recognize Prime Minister Erdogan, while Turkey's own legal system was still weighing whether he was secular enough for the job. Forgotten have been decades of U.S. military assistance. Forgotten have been years of American efforts to secure a pipeline route for Caspian oil that terminates at the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Forgotten has been the fact that U.S. administrations continue to fight annual attempts in Congress to pass a resolution condemning modern Turkey for the long-ago Armenian genocide. Forgotten has been America's persistent lobbying for Turkish membership in the European Union.
Forgotten, above all, has been America's help against the PKK. Its now-imprisoned leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was expelled from Syria in 1998 after the Turks threatened military action. He was then passed like a hot potato between European governments, who refused to extradite him to Turkey because – gasp! – he might face the death penalty. He was eventually caught – with the help of U.S. intelligence – sheltered in the Greek Embassy in Nairobi. "They gave us Ocalan. What could be bigger than that?" says one of a handful of unapologetically pro-U.S. Turks I still know.
I know that Mr. Feith (another Jew, the Turkish press didn't hesitate to note), and Ms. Rice after him, pressed Turkish leaders on the need to challenge some of the more dangerous rhetoric if they value the Turkey-U.S. relationship. There is no evidence yet that they got a satisfactory answer. Turkish leaders should understand that the "public opinion" they cite is still reversible. But after a few more years of riding the tiger, who knows? Much of Ataturk's legacy risks being lost, and there won't be any of the old Ottoman grandeur left, either. Turkey could easily become just another second-rate country: small-minded, paranoid, marginal and – how could it be otherwise? – friendless in America and unwelcome in Europe.
(Mr. Pollock is a senior editorial page writer at the Journal.)