Dr. Cercis IKIEL and Dr. H. Mustafa ACIKOZ

Abstract

Part One

Geopolitical Frame

The relations between the peoples of Turkey and Greece have had a long adventures past in the history of both countries. In this historical duration, they have sometimes peacefully lived together in an harmony and sometimes have confronted with each other in various ways. The outcome has been today derived from this duration is a kind of rivalry relating different fields that have been developed in accordance with sense and practise of strict nationalism and stateship.

For instance, if we take Greek side of this historical adventure in to consideration, starting at the middle of the eighteenth century, the movement of Greek enlightenment was in contact with nationalism which was derived by the romantic philosophy of the Europe. These movements combined with the national language and ancient Greek civilisation. Though this desire has been speedily carried out sofar, after a long confrontation process among both countries, the Greeks defined themselves as Helen in the end. (Milas, 1998)

In the process of definition and nationalisation of the Greek, one of the factors was Ottoman Empire from which they emerged and be independent. Thus they defined by opposing Ottoman Turks and Islam with a historical reasons which were derived from ancient Greek and Byzantium. Thus, they naturally established a nationalistic view and practise so that they had time to time thought of expanding her borders. When this case related to Turko-Greek relations, Lozano treaty or agreement put an end into dispute and bring a balance between two countries at least in a formal level. On the other hand, this balance sometimes tried to be used in favour of one side, obviously such use become cause of dispute and crises at both sides of Aegean Sea. For example, this one-sided projection has been perceived by Turkish people as the cause of discomfort as well as people of Greek.

On the other hand, the fact of globalisation forces the structure of national states to abolish national, traditional, economic, geographic, historical, political, cultural and so on barriers. If we applied this view to the relation of both countries; in order to actualise it, firstly both countries people’s minds have to have global vision and accordingly mission without having any prejudgement.

Because, globalisation interfere the minds of individual and societies even their dreams. Depending on the accumulation and thus transmission of the knowledge, which is shared within the context of the regional and global fields, have negative and destructive impacts of nationalism, and its concepts by means of which the peoples minds have been shaped. For example, if we remember Cyprus issue, which has historically been the main agenda of Turkish and Greek states, we can plainly explain what we want to say.

Though the Cyprus issue seems very problematic and chaotic, the intellectuals, thinkers, scientists, trade men and artists of the both countries realise the positive requirements of the globalisation; and thus they take positive initiative for establishing stable friendship and peace at the two sides of Aegean region.

This new awaking is different from the strict nationalistic enlightenment which is presented by identifying themselves opposing the others within the radical and dogmatic forms. Because, as we have just stated that the fact of globalisation does not tolerate such destructive doctrinal understanding and activities. Today, there is an unavoidable choice before the countries.

The choice is to be made between either remaining at the local level which is against the reel situation of the world or at the global level which is supposed to serve the unity, friendship, solidarity, peace and so on. If we take this general statement into the relations of our both countries, unlike the speech, understanding and actions of the peoples of both countries we have been seeing nationalistic speech which cover the anti-global understanding, approach and actions have been done by the politicians in the region time to time.

Today, the earth has been once again reshaped by the global powers of today in accordance with the protection of their opportunities in the short and long runs. Seeing this, the solidarity, friendship and peace, which are obtained from the intellectuals, thinkers, scientists and so on of both countries, is very crucial for their future constant relations.    To do this both cultures have sufficient historical backgrounds, for instance; one of them has been representatives of ancient Greek philosophy and another is one of the representatives of the Turko-Islamic civilisation. Both of them have took place in the same geographic regions.

Because, if these two reach and take the positive and constructive approach and action in the process of their relation in the Aegean region, they will naturally reach the positive outcome. This positive result will be taken as a contradictory sample or model to the “confrontation of the civilisations” and thus theory will fail. If both countries fail to take positive steps in the frame of the globalisation, they have to take the global blame for such failing and must explain the negative outcomes to their peoples.

In this context, the idea and practise of the European Unity may be good opportunity in order to actualise this global agenda. If both Greeks and Turks take advantage of this opportunity and accordingly meet the requirements of European Unity, they can achieve this global project both at the regional and the global levels. In the end, while both of obtaining something, the globe will also gain something.

And they will show the fact that if the peoples and the governments of two countries sincerely take initiative towards, peace, friendship, solidarity and co-operation, the dreams can be actualised or become actual. This what common sense, conscious and conscience say to us.

As a result, what I would like to say is that the choice is up to the peoples and the governments of both countries. If they want, they can make Aegean Sea as Sea of peace and friendship or alternatively as Sea of conflict and the war.

Reference:

1. Milas, Herkul , “Yunan Ulusunun Doğuşu – The Birth of Greek Nation”, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 1998

Part Two

Socio-Philosophical Frame

As it is rightly stated in the first part of the paper that globalisation is an obvious fact and its impacts over countries both individual and societal levels can not be avoided. And this impacts can be naturally extended to Aegean Region wherein Turkey and Greece are geographically placed as neighbour to each other. By moving from this general point, I shall philosophically make several points so as to promote the Turk-Greek relations in the era of globalisation.

Those who are interested in philosophy either professionally or amateurish know Aristotle’s famous definition of man that is “zoo-politician”. If we add the feature of “reason portery of man” to Aristotle’s definition, we have a sufficient clues which are man is an active, a social, a rational being by the virtue of these he can voluntarily make an individual and social change on space and time dimensions in order to know man and his society. The outcomes of such change or action make him accountable for in accordance of the nature, motive, purpose, manner and type of his action.

Today we have a number of Western and Eastern Blocs which have been leading and dictating a ready made new patterns of thoughts, actions, wills, values and lives of other countries on the earth by exerting their global power with respect to their so-called global vision and mission in order to reshape, redesign and reorder the individuals and their societies and create a new global man and society.

On the other hand, there is an optimistic view which may be beared in the mind, that the divisions or pluralistic structure of societies or countries may be evaluated as positive and richness of man’s historical adventures on the globe, if they learn, determine and act to live together peacefully. This shows man’s attractive and humane face while the negative particularistic structure of societies or countries reveals the ugly and inhumane face of the man.

Accordingly, man’s history has been mainly written in relation to dominance of this two by the virtue of which intellectual, spiritual and physical activities of man and also his values have been determined so far. This two face of man also show behavioural patterns of men at the individual and societal levels. For example; first one refers to friendship, goodness, wealth, solidarity, positive relations and unity of manhood. Second refers to blood, quarrel, war, destruction of mankind presented on the earth.

This dilemma forced to countries rethink over their position and act accordingly once again before the leading countries within the context of globalisation. Global activities of the leading countries force weak countries to make several choices, of course if they can or are allowed by the regional and global powers to do so, which may be counted as follows:

i) Remaining at the level of ethnicity in an independent state (ethnicity identity);

ii) Remaining at the level of an independent country (nationhood identity);

iii) Being a member of a bloc or community (bloc or community identity); and

iv) Being a world leading country or number one global power (global identity).

If we apply this ordering to the cases of Turkey and Greece, we may reach several conclusions which aid to see the positions of both countries in terms of their relations. Firstly let us briefly mention the current cases which Turkey and Greece may be presented as follows:

a) Both of them are the independent states;

b) Both of them have rich historical and cultural background;

c) Both of them proved to live together in their common history;

d) Beside being an independent state, Greece is also a member of European community or bloc wherein she sees her future; and

e) Similarly, Turkey chose to be among the western states and thus forwarded her face to the west since her establishment though her cultural background differs from the west.

Now, both E C and Turkey have the advantages and disadvantages from Turkish proposal for entering E C.. Both sides have a number of argument which is favour or infavour for the proposal. Taking optimistic view and common history into account,

I believe, in this process Greece can play an important positive and constructive role so as to include Turkey into the E C. And thus there will be a constant peace, friendship, solidarity and social, economic and cultural cooperations at the two sides of Aegean region as well as in the globe.

Otherwise, several alternative scenarios may be put forward and thus tried to actualise. For instance, one of the scenarios has always been that if Turkey does not permitted to enter E C as one of the member states, not surprisingly she will inevitable adapt the one of the options which have been just presented at the above since she has a strong cultural and historical heritage and accordingly try to return her historical roots as former leading state of Islamic world.

However, we have to point out the fact that the building an alternative sub-group or a bloc is not easy task which requires common grounds (e.g. shared geography, culture, belief, language, history, pragmas and so on) among members of targeted group.

Such an attempt or agenda of any country must have the aware of the existence of a number of pattern of national, regional, global or cosmic action which has been put forward to the global power while facing with it. Then, they may accordingly choose to take the following four actions, if they are of course permitted by the world leading country or global power:

a) To confront or conflict with the global power at the local level;

b) To surrender voluntarily to the global power both local and regional levels;

c) To appeal to the global power with an eclectic understanding; and

d) To appeal to the understanding of the universalism against the very idea of globalisation of global power.

After all, I would like to make a final point that today, members of all these categories necessarily need each other as ever due to zoo-politician characteristic of men and social, cultural, geographic and particularly economic conjecture. Therefore, mankind must learn and accordingly actualise to live together though they have time to time failed to do so. This naturally applies to Turk-Greek relation since they have a common history and the members of the same geography.

Reference:

1. Acikoz, H. M. “Iletisim Felsefesine Giris - An Introduction to Philosophy of Action”, Conclusion: Prolegomena for Any Future Attempt of Globalisation in the Historical Adventures of Societies, Second appearance, Birey Yay., Istanbul - 2003.