Entrapment

Apparently, American diplomats have frequently spoken with some trusted “embassy contacts” to figure out what's going on in Turkey. And it seems to me that their selection of contacts or friends influenced their analysis to a great extent.

So what's wrong with this? Doesn't every diplomat at a foreign post do the same? Certainly. The problem is, the cables sent from the US Embassy in Ankara did not give me the impression that US diplomats made sure their contacts represented a fair cross-section of Turkish society. Many of the dispatches, especially those from Ambassador Eric Edelman's period, have a negative bias vis-à-vis the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), if not religious conservatives in general, and even at times the religion of Islam itself. I think (or at least hope) the outcome would have been different had they had real friends from religious conservative circles as well.

Take the cable from December 2004 titled “Erdogan and AK Party After Two Years in Power.” Here is a glimpse at the embassy's opinion on Islam in Turkey: “Islam as it is lived in Turkey is stultified, riddled with hypocrisy, ignorant and intolerant of other religions' presence in Turkey, and unable to eject those who would politicize it in a radical, anti-Western way. … Until Turkey ensures that the humanist strain in Islam prevails here, Islam in Turkey will remain a troubled, defensive force, hypocritical to an extreme degree and unwilling to adapt to the challenges of open society.”

This cable deserves particular attention because the level of religious and cultural stereotyping is tantamount to bigotry. It also indicates that it was not politically incorrect in US government circles (at least back then) to speak about Islam and Muslims in a negative way behind closed doors.

Would those who signed this cable dare write any criticism that comes anywhere close about, say, Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism? Not at all. I guess Foreign Service culture would not condone that. Who wants to be labeled anti-Semitic, anti-Christian or anti-Hindu, anyway? Speaking of hypocrisy, the Bush administration, to which the embassy in Ankara reported, publicly praised Islam as a “religion of peace” back then. They promoted Turkish Islam as a model. Apparently the embassy in Ankara dissented in private…

As for the “embassy contacts,” many of whom I suspect are from among Turkey's Islamophobic oligarchic elite, such misguided cables must have been a real triumph. Too bad embassy staff was so willing to buy that nonsense. (Or perhaps no ammunition was needed from secularist Turks, since they already had their own preoccupations.) Had this been an insult only to our intelligence, as with some of the cables from Turkey, it wouldn't be so worrisome. But this is also an outrageous insult to Islam in Turkey, one of the most progressive and flexible interpretations of the Prophet Muhammad's legacy. If a Westerner cannot even live with Turkish Islam, I wonder if s/he can live with any other brand of Islam.

I have always argued that American diplomats in Turkey are often out of touch with the country because they have limited or no interaction with the wider society. Largely due to cultural convenience, English speaking, alcohol drinking Turks are more likely to secure a spot among the beloved “embassy contacts.” Who cares about the less worldly, probably boring, religious conservatives, right?

But you know what, those dull guys represent at least 30-40 percent of society. About half of the Turkish nation votes for parties led by religious conservatives. Contrary to what the cable suggests, they have generally demonstrated tremendous ability to adapt to the challenges of open society over time. They have effectively marginalized the radicals. And they are not only gradually embracing but also spreading democratic principles, including tolerance of other religions. Ask non-Muslim minorities in Turkey who they trust with their future more, the Kemalist secularists or the religious conservatives? The latter would be a clear winner.

Of course Turkish religious conservatives have their own imperfections. However, no matter how constructively they act, they are viewed at least with suspicion, if not repulsion, by some Westerners. It is disheartening to see many American diplomats in the same camp. For example, in the infamous cables, my newspaper, the Zaman daily, a popular choice of religious conservatives, is insistently depicted as “Islamist,” a pejorative term with many negative connotations in the West. In truth, real “Islamists” are not fond of Zaman, partly because they think it is too soft with Western nations and values. Even the fact that it is one of the most highly circulated newspapers in Turkey was not convincing enough for American diplomats to call Zaman “mainstream.”

To cut a long story short, if Washington wants to get a clearer and fairer picture of what is going on in Turkey, they must make sure American diplomats interact with a larger cross-section of society and refrain from adopting or infusing prejudice. Otherwise, “embassy contacts” will only serve as a trap. The entrapment process starts early on in Washington at the Foreign Service Institute, where American diplomats are trained before they go overseas. Just beware.