Balkanalysis.com

The recent week of terrorist attacks in Istanbul have spread confusion and panic in Turkey’s spiritual capital. Some fear that the military may crack down if the government cannot stop future outbursts of violence. Others believe that (as in America) a voluntary surrender of civil liberties may be the necessary price of ensuring safety. And there is also the feeling that the Turks are suffering the backlash for America’s bad decision to bomb Iraq. The war on terror, with all its accoutrements, has arrived.This is a portentous event indeed, primarily for the symbolic dimensions of bombing the historic bridge between east and west. Apparently, Islamist forces believe this bridge can be severed and Turkey brought back into the fold. Ironically, however, while it was Turkey’s incarnation as the Ottoman Empire that not only spread Islam far and wide, this also set the pattern of colonialism in the Arab world that was exploited later by the British and others, most recently by the United States. Just as there is no internal homogeneity in the Islamic world to be defended, there is no perceived ideal homogeneity within Turkey to be striven for. In short, Turkey is not a ‘jihad land.’

If anything, the terrorist attacks in Turkey’s most cosmopolitan, Western city will only alienate the population from the kind of radical Islamists that seek to take control. Their strategy seems to be to scare off foreign investors and tourists- as if that alone will make an Afghanistan out of Turkey.

To be sure, there are a small minority of Turks who have joined up with the terrorists, as we have seen on occasion in various police raids and events worldwide. And there have been a few that for religious reasons ended up aiding secular enough “liberation” movements, as in Macedonia in 2001. But by and large, Turks have no interest in Islamic fundamentalism. The much ballyhooed elections of last year- when Erdogan’s “Islamic” party won- was more a result of popular dissatisfaction with the economic situation than with an overwhelming call to religion. In any case, Turkey’s revered founder, Kemal Attaturk, made the provision for a secular government and this is still respected by most Turks.

As in Bali, tourism is sure to suffer from last week’s attacks. But it would be a grave mistake for Westerners to get scared off from this rich land full of history, natural beauty and dizzying contrast. Turkey’s tourism industry is vital and by and large the Turks tend to be gracious and hospitable hosts. The worst thing that could happen (though it wouldn’t be surprising in light of the American propensity for making cartoonish stereotypes out of real peoples) would be for the Turks and their country to be put on the “black list.” This would affect not only the country itself, but also have deep ramifications for the European Union and neighboring Greece, host of next year’s Olympic Games.

Apparently, the terrorists would like to create an exodus of Westerners, not least of all for the economic disruption it would cause. As was seen in the former Yugoslavia, economic failure can be a prime cause of civil unrest. And this would be a necessary precursor to governmental crises.

However, we should not be scared off. Tthis is very unlikely in Turkey’s case. The military’s power, and the attitude of Turks themselves, means that they would never tolerate a hardline, Taliban-esque government. Turkey has thrown its lot in with the West and has made considerable efforts to placate European critics over issues like human rights, the death penalty and free speech. This trajectory can be temporarily slowed, but not reversed.

Of course, this does not mean that religious influence will be ended, either. Nor should it. The Turks embrace their Muslim faith overtly and take pride in its history. But by its very existence as a bridge between east and west, as a crossroads of civilizations, Turkey can never be fully taken over by either one. The status quo must be one of co-habitation, for reasons of history, outlook and economy. And by any estimation the coexistence has been a pretty successful one.

That said, it would be a shame for Westerners to give up on Turkey, consigning it to some oblivion when the vast majority of its inhabitants are clearly not terrorism-bent extremists. Turkey’s economy has been through its fair share of crises, but the country remains vital as the hub of Southeastern Europe. Turkey (and especially Istanbul) generates a mind-boggling amount of commerce, and Turkish exports are pervasive in the neighboring Balkan states. Turkey is a great agricultural exporter as well. Turkey needs Europe, but Europe needs it as well.

Yet perhaps equally, giving up on Turkey would be a great loss for the tourists themselves. The country offers such a wealth of fascinating places, stunning beauty and all-around great experiences that missing out on it would be really quite tragic. I have spent considerable time there over the past few years, and can say that being deprived of the Turkish experience would be a grave personal and professional loss.

On the other hand, that decision is eminently in our control. We can choose whether or not to give up on Turkey. An analogous situation has to be New York, one of the most culturally rich and exciting cities of the world. It suffered far greater terrorist attacks, but did this stop people from living there and traveling there? To the contrary, it only stiffened resolve to not be cowed by terrorists. This is one of the more admirable reactions of Americans to the events of September 11^th. Many have accounted for it by recourse to patriotism.

In this analogy, the Turks would be the ones to display a similar patriotism in not abandoning their city. But what about the rest of us? Should we hastily cut our losses and rush back to wherever we come from, believing it is somehow safer there?

I would posit that committed travelers display rather another sort of patriotism- a more ecumenical and global one. This means having a sympathy for and belief in peoples and places that have proven hospitable and contributed to the traveler’s experiences and education- in short, to all those things that go into forming character, world outlook and most fundamentally, memories of life experience. This is a completely subjective and arbitrary allegiance, of course, but no more arbitrary than supporting a country just because one happens to have been born there. After all, among the most patriotic Americans one finds the immigrants or children of immigrants who looked to it for all of those things they found lacking in their own home countries.

No doubt, these are troubled times we are currently enduring, times which are bigger than all of us and which are forcing dramatic changes, probably not for the better. Yet for all of those travelers who can remember the places they visited for more than just the things they bought there, it is incumbent upon them to defend these countries in good times and bad. While you may just be “passing through,” the lives of those you met do not end upon your departure. If building some kind of a global community through travel is really the goal, we can start by remembering to defend- in any little way possible- those who have helped us, translated for us, housed us, etc. To give something back for something we get.

While travelers, safe back in the comfort of their homes, could shudder and say, “I’m glad not to be there now,” this acquiescence does little to promote the values and freedoms necessary for travel and, simultaneously, the benefits it has for peace and understanding between peoples. We should not feel consigned to grimly and periodically blacking out little pieces of the world map. That would be exactly what the ignorant terrorists and Washington warmongers alike would want us to do. To create a black and white world full of lifeless, c
artoonish people illustrating the forces of Good and Evil, to make war a more palatable thing. To set back the possibilities for peace by a thousand years.

In conclusion, these are troubled times, and certainly not ones in which we should count on governments, institutions or “diplomacy” to save us. These have brought only war, paranoia and the debasement of civil liberties. As always, the best chances for peace come through individual action and thoughtfulness. By acting locally in a global context, travelers are the only ones who can affect the harmful stereotypes and misunderstandings that are increasingly polarizing different peoples and cultures. Of course, a critical mass must be reached in order to accomplish anything significant, and for this you need a large number of brave and committed travelers. This goal will never be reached if we fearfully stay home, choosing strip malls and television over great countries like Turkey.