14 Kasım 2007 Çarşamba

Opening Speeches



Mahir Namur- President of the European Cultural Association, Turkey

Dear Governor, dear Ambassador, dear guests, welcome.
We would like to say welcome to all guests coming to İstanbul from other lands and cities.

I would have liked to have seen you here yesterday, for last night reflected very well the formation spirit of this Forum. Doctors, art directors, historians, film makers, drama players, engineers, dancers, actors, students and technicians, we came together to line up the chairs you are now sitting on. We have been able to set foot in this lovely room put at our disposal by the History Foundation first after 10 PM. The eight panel discussions, eleven exhibitions and eleven performances to be presented in eleven rooms were prepared altogether with their rehearsal and installing procedures in the course of one single night. The preparations for this Forum have been carried out from the stage of thought to its present state by voluntary cooperation and contribution of numerous people and organizations. I wish to emphasize this aspect of the Forum which I think is quite peculiar.

That’s also the reason why we could take up the challenge to organize this Forum in two months’ time. This is the result of synergy. As of February, we started an Art and Culture Management Program. The objective of this program, was to establish a dialogue between art and culture directors, to bolster communication, to discuss the prospects and problems of the Turkish cultural scene, to enable the flow of information from a generation of experience to its successor, to demonstrate international models and to effectuate a synthesis in the mentioned fields so as to contribute to the enlargement of our cultural scene. This project developed organically. We established here an Advisory Board and consulted them for their ideas. After the beginning of this program, a veritable synergy was observed amongst the young art and culture directors and two months ago we started to organize this Forum together. Up until now, seventy people from thirty countries applied to the Forum. From Turkey, the number of registered participants reached 250. This was made possible without recourse from the media, solely by Internet communication. Hereby I would like to stress the outstanding role of new technologies in cultural communication and cooperation.

Like this Forum and the Culture and Art Management program, the European Cultural Association is an organically expounding organization. European Cultural Association is not a vocational institution. It is a civil society organization constituted of members from various professional activity fields. Our goal in founding this Association was to promote a civil society movement to improve cultural relations between Turkey and European societies. Naturally the thoughts, the knowledge and the experience we had back in the days when we were launching the organization differ greatly from those we have now. That’s because we try to evaluate the experience we gain from the activities we carry out and the projects we put through, the results and information achieved in the course of the conferences and seminars we organized or attended, for the sake of improving our Association. Since we acknowledge the importance of inter-cultural learning in the course of development, we prefer to create a platform, enabling thought production by assembling people from different backgrounds instead of defending one certain point of view. Thus, we define the role of our Association as that of an instrument improving cultural communication and cooperation on national and international levels.

As I stated above, this Forum has been realized by common effort. I would have liked to name every single one of our partners, to thank each of them, but as you too will understand, if you take a look at the hand-outs we distributed and the posters we pinned up, this is indeed very difficult to do. Add to this that those are our institutional partners who have logos, yet we shouldn’t neglect hundreds of contributors who do not have one. On behalf of the Association, I would like to thank everyone who has given us their support in this organization.

We thank you all for coming here, for being with us. Now, I would like to hand over to the Vice President of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Department for Multilateral Cultural Relationships, Dear Dr. Şander Gürbüz.

“The Political and Social Dimensions of Turkey-Europe Cultural Relations”

Dr. Şander GÜRBÜZ- Consul, Vice President of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Department for Multilateral Cultural Relationships, Turkey

Dear Guests,
I would like to commence my speech by expressing my special thanks to the members of the European Cultural Association who organized “The International Forum on Turkey-Europe Cultural Relations” and to all institutes and institutions that contributed to the realization of this activity. I feel a great joy to address this respectable audience, gathered on the occasion of the Forum. I welcome our dear guests, and wish that their stay in Turkey will be full of pleasant impressions and memories.

The fact that this meeting takes place in İstanbul, a cradle of multiculture where two continents meet, certainly has a special meaning. Founded in the 7th century BC on a strategic point connecting Europe and Asia, Istanbul has served as a capital to the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires besides being a city of permanent importance to all civilizations that ruled over this juncture. Thanks to its illustrious past, the “Historical Peninsula” we are on at this moment, embraces in its structure different religions, cultures and communities, their monuments and works of art and has thus found its place in the World Heritage Listing of the UNESCO.

In my speech, I will try to evaluate from a cultural and sociopolitical point of view, the attitude of our country towards Europe in the framework of former and present relations between Turkey and Europe and the contributions to be expected from Turkey within the European Union, after mentioning shortly the main priorities of the Turkish foreign policy as well as its objectives regarding Europe.

Dear Guests,
The Turkish Republic, part of a multicultural global society, leads a multidimensional foreign policy active on all continents, merging the East and the West, the North and the South.

The immediate goal of the Turkish foreign policy is to create a constant peaceful, prosperous regional and international context enabling social development on the base of mutual cooperation in Turkey, its neighboring countries and beyond as well. In order to attain this objective, Turkey follows a conciliatory, righteous and vigorous foreign policy in a very wide spectrum. Turkey is a member of several international organizations, cooperates with the European Union, pioneers in the process of regional cooperation, encourages smooth vicinity relations and economic cooperation, provides humanitarian aid for those under difficult conditions, participates in operations to maintain peace and contributes to efforts aspiring to dissolve conflicts, to reconcile and restructure afterwards.

With its geographical status in the heart of Eurasia and its widely extended historical and cultural bounds, Turkey fulfills the function of a bridge tuning up the dialogue between civilizations.

Turkey has mainly two determining goals as regards to its vision of foreign policy:
The first goal is to integrate with the European Union. Historically, geographically, economically and culturally Turkey is a European country. In this respect, it is natural for Turkey to become a full member of the European Union. An inseparable component of Europe and an efficient actor in the region throughout history, Turkey is attached to the European ideal.

The second goal is the creation of an environment of safety, stability, prosperity, amity and cooperation around our country which is the meeting point of the Balkans, Caucasia, the Black Sea, the Middle East, the Mediterranean Sea, Central Asia and Europe, all of which have an important place in Turkish foreign policy.

Turkey has rich historical and cultural relations with the abovementioned regions. Our country holds the objective of disposing its historical buildup, cultural bounds and geographical location for the benefit of the predominance of a culture of peace, tolerance and reconciliation both in its vicinity and in the rest of the world by means of a conciliatory, righteous and effective diplomacy.

In this respect, our country ascribes great importance to the development of cultural communication and cooperation on regional and international platforms and participates actively in cultural studies lead by international organizations such as the European Council, the UNESCO and the European Union. On the other hand, housing a massive interaction between the East and the West cultures, Turkey pursues its efforts to convey information to the world regarding its multifaceted artistic and cultural character.

In this regard our Ministry, with the intention of acquainting the European audience with the multicolored history and cultural characteristics of today’s dynamic and modern Turkey -ranging from classical music to present day musical trends, from traditional art forms to contemporary ones- encourages the organization of cultural events, gives support to them and plays a pioneering role when necessary. On this occasion, I would like congratulate our civil society organizations exerting their efforts to support contemporary culture and arts.

Dear Guests,
As you know, Turkish-European relations draw their strength from history. Thanks to cultural interaction and shared common values throughout the ages, a durable affiliation of amity and alliance has been established. Our cooperation covers a considerably wide spectrum of domains comprising military defense, energy sharing, tourism, archeology, war against international terrorism and organized crime, culture, education and finally mutual support in multilateral platforms.
Throughout centuries, there has been a mutual interaction in artistic and cultural fields between Turkey and Europe. The most significant interaction starts particularly in the 15th century. Europe has begun to get acquainted with Turkey through the works of numerous occidental painters travelling in the Ottoman Empire. Amongst these venerable artists we could cite Gentile Bellini, Jean Baptiste Van Mour, Jean Etienne Liotard, Antoine-Ignace Melling, Amedeo Court Preziosi, Ivan C. Ayvazowsky, Jean Léon Gérôme, Fausto Zonaro.

The “Alla Turca” movement in Europe has influenced famous composers such as Mozart and Bizet in the 18th century Europe. The “Alla Turca” movement has had echoes not only in music, but also in architecture, decoration, ceramics, textile and fashion design.
In our century with the rise of globalism, cultural interaction between international actors and civilizations is gaining an increasing importance.

Owing to their historical and cultural background, their traditions and social potentials, Turkey and Europe have the ability to make a positive contribution to developments in this region and beyond as good models of multiculturalism.

A common effort is required to turn into a figure of harmony this continent which has been the cradle of civilizations throughout history. I esteem that a Europe joint with Turkey’s cultural heritage and modern dynamism has a better chance to reflect its values and mission to the rest of the world.

Dear Guests,
With the historical expansion increasing the number of members from 15 to 25 on May the 1st 2004, Europe put an end to its artificial disunity. With this expansion, the Union has shown that it is inclined to unify its common values and beliefs with its new members. Each new member enriches the cultural diversity, the value system and prospects of the Union by the particular elements it holds.

On October the 6th 2004, the European Commission has published the Progress Report comprising a detailed evaluation concerning the political evolution Turkey has undergone since the 1999 Helsinki Summit.

In the Recommendation Paper published alongside with the abovementioned Progress Report, a tripartite strategy has been presented, and a “political and cultural dialogue between civil societies” has been mentioned in the third phase of this strategy. This phase, anticipates a comprehensive reinforced political and cultural dialogue between Turkey and the Union members which will bring the communities together. In course of this dialogue, civil society organizations should undertake an important role and the Union should facilitate this process. The Commission is expected to state soon its propositions regarding the way in which it could support this dialogue.

Gathered in Brussels on December the 17th 2004, the state and government leaders of the European Union have reported with enthusiasm the determined progress of the extensive reform process in Turkey, in line with the report of the Commission and its recommendations and have expressed their faith in the continuation of it. They have come to the conclusion that Turkey has satisfied the political criteria assigned in Copenhagen and have decided that accession negotiations should begin on October the 3rd 2005.

Turkish-European relations thus enter a new era. In this new era, accession negotiations which are going to commence within this year, are of central importance. The success of these negotiations will affirm the determination of the EU in unification of a Europe devoid of artificial demarcation lines. The realization of the European project will merge all Europeans around shared values; promote democracy and unity of the continent. As a result, the fundamental common values of the European Union will be accentuated once again.

As the Union reaches its maturity, it will not be a realistic approach to attach Europeanness to a single geographical zone, to a single system of beliefs, to a single scheme of traditions. The values acquired and the experiences underwent during the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment - which still have great influence today - constitute an underpinning for the willful acceptation of the benefits of cultural diversity by Europe. Then again the European Treaty refers to the importance of “unity in diversity” and names this principle amongst the values defining Europe.

The European mind-set which prefers a modern multicultural social structure to a system of big national states will turn the European continent into a pioneering authority. The breaking of artificial borders will strengthen Europe in realizing its political goals on global basis.

Dear Guests,
For centuries, Turkey has been on a march towards the West. This march has been accelerated by the series of revolutions effectuated by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the modern Turkish Republic. As a country which has inculcated the values of the modern world to the heritage bequeathed by the Ottoman Empire, Turkey is a real cultural treasure for Europe.

The presence of about three million Turkish nationals living in Europe points out yet another aspect of the contributions Turkey can make to Europe on a cultural level.

Turkey is a component part of the European system of democratic values and shall contribute considerably to the harmony and dialogue between civilizations in and beyond the European Union. As long as the membership of Turkey in the European Union is not assured, the unification project for Europe cannot be said to be accomplished.

Through the membership of Turkey, Europe will have a stronger strategic influence on international relations and regional developments, for Turkey is a secular country that establishes a network of peace-loving relations on various geographies and is an inspirational model for other regional countries with its pluralist democracy manifesting a will to undertake reforms.

Turkey features a novel facet as regards the basic rights and freedoms, the rule of law, democracy, political, cultural and religious diversity, transparence, responsibility and participation in the free market economy.

Those who follow Turkey closely, observe a relief in political and social tensions, a perpetuation of tolerance and democratic dialogue, an increasing permeation of human rights values in daily life, administrative practices and judicial decrees and a more efficient treatment of corruption and organized crime. At this point, I think it very important to point out that the potentials, virtues and deficiencies of Turkey should be evaluated equitably in order to come up with sound results at the end of the discussions.

In the last years, despite the debates in some member countries, we observe a growing consciousness in the European public opinion regarding the strategic, economic and cultural contributions Turkey will make to the European Union. Indeed, the fact that the economic and social potential of Turkey, far from being a burden constitutes an added value for Europe, has been emphasized by farseeing European statesmen, businessmen and intellectuals.

In this respect, we are happy to see that every hesitation and objection regarding the integration of Turkey with the European Union is immediately refuted by the sound arguments of highly regarded European statesmen, politicians and intellectuals.

At a time when we are facing the clash of civilizations as a real threat, the membership of Turkey, as a country inhabited by a Muslim majority which has adopted western and democratic values, will surely make a major contribution to regional and international stability.

Due to its unique location and the noteworthy relations it keeps up with the neighboring regions, Turkey is in a position to make an important contribution to the intensification of political, economic and cultural relations of Europe within this region. This contribution shall help the European Union to constitute a role model for the countries in this region by virtue of its comprehensive multicultural structure and organization.

It must not be overlooked that this state of affairs has a close rapport with the long-term global identity, benefits and future of Europe. Likewise, instead of making an evaluation based on current short-term elements, Turkey considers this issue from a long-term perspective. The process of Turkey’s integration with Europe has been started with the prospect of mutual gain. This relationship developed and progressed as a result of the faith that both sides have in themselves and in each other.

Turkey, on its way to full admission, is in a position to facilitate the spreading of European values in the region. For with its secular and democratic state structure Turkey is seen as an element of stability in a region of conflicts and potential dissensions. The admission of Turkey in the European Union will contribute to the consolidation of the values that underpin the peace ruling over the European continent and its vicinity.

Turkey’s membership will bring together the West with the Islamic world. Turkey’s membership in the European Union will help prevent and invalidate the destructive attitudes trying to be presented as a clash of civilizations and religions after September 11th by constructing a bridge between the West and the Islamic world.

A harmony created by cultural differences and a reconcilable coexistence of Islam and modernity will be the best reply of the West to the thesis of a Christian-Muslim conflict. In other words, by proving that Christians and Muslims can coexist in the same political and economic unity, the arguments and philosophy of Islamic radicalism and Christian fanaticism will be wholly refuted.

Dear Guests,
To found Europe on a single religious basis will corroborate the theses of those who defend an introversive existence for Europe. Europe should be able to situate itself beyond conservative, continental or regional ambitions and guide international developments.

The unification of Turkey with Europe will induce about 10 million Muslims living in Europe to make a modern interpretation of Islam. It will be an automatic response to the claims which state that the European Union is a “Christian Club”, that it has not been able to construct its universal identity that within the Union there is a rise of racism, etc. With its capacity to mingle Islam and the modern world, Turkey has the high merit of being the sole country capable of having an effect on the negative outlook of the Islamic world on Europe and the West in general.

A European Union expanded with Turkey’s membership shall constitute a model of unity in diversity for other regions of the world. This novel vision will be a proof that diversity and differences can be reconciled in favor of common interest and values. Europe will be able to reflect its values to other regions of the world more effectively by means of contributing to intercultural tolerance and understanding and thus will firm up the strategic force of the European Union as well as its role as an international actor.

Europe has made notable contributions to the history of civilization in scientific, cultural and political domains. In our present day also, Europe is a vanguard of high human values and peace in the world. I strongly believe that a Europe united with Turkey’s cultural heritage and modern dynamism shall better reflect its values and mission to the world.
Thank you.



Barbara HAY- Consul General of Great Britain in Istanbul, Turkey

Good morning, günaydın. I’m afraid that’s about my only word of Turkish. Actually I have three more but they’re not appropriate for right now.

The first thing that I wanted to say was how very delighted I am to be here with you this morning in these very splendid surroundings. It’s a great privilege to be invited to engage with you and to participate in a debate on a subject; European and indeed international cultural relations that is important to me personally and also touches me very strongly on a personal level. As a diplomat, in a sense I’ve been on the frontline of cultural relations for over thirty years. I have to say that it does not give me any personal pleasure to admit to the fact that it’s been over thirty years. Inside I still feel like a 22 year old. My day to day work -and I served in Russia, South Africa, Central Asia, North America, London and now Turkey- is of course meeting people that have different views, a different culture; it’s the business of forging relationships, influencing people, learning from them, doing business with them.

But that exposure to different cultures goes even further back to my childhood in Scotland; in what was then a rather state monoculture. People growing up in Turkey in the twenty first century can’t I’m sure imagine what it must have been like to be growing up in 1950’s Edinburgh. It was not very far after the Second World War had ended. Life was still pretty austere but I can remember extremely vividly the huge excitement every August when the Edinburgh International Festival came to town. This remarkable cultural event was piloted if you like immediately after the war. It was a tool to bring much damaged European countries together to build bridges, to make friends, to influence each other. And it has now a staggering size. It still brings world-class artists from around the world to Edinburgh for three weeks in the summer. It also brings at its fringe about a thousand artistic groups and students, young people, semi-professionals. They play in any venue that they can find, they play on the streets. The vivacity of the city is simply unbelievable. And as a youngster, as a five year old, a six year old, a seven year old, the influence that had on me was profound, it was quite immense.

This was a quite different cultural relationship that I had with the one delicatessen that we had in Edinburgh. It was started also in 1940’s by an Italian family. And I can remember as a little girl, the wonderful experience of the smells of this deli and the sausages and cheeses hanging from the ceiling and the tastes and flavors that I could not hope to have imagined otherwise. So you can see how an exposure to culture in different cultures has set me up for the rest of my life, professional life.

So the diversity of these experiences makes them all very personally rewarding. But the debate on cultural relations is absorbing because actually it reaches beyond personal experiences and it touches the very highest level of politics too. It can do this in two different ways. Firstly and most obviously it’s through the tangible human gifts of the arts, science and sport. These are cultural items that we can grab and point to for the impact they have made and are still making nationally and internationally. They help change mind-sets, create new understandings, effect politics, change the political landscape. There’re many examples that we can draw on: the works of Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Karl Marx, the findings of Einstein, Pasteur, Steven Hawking or the really fundamental effect of the Football World Cup, the Olympic games, even the Eurovision song contest in İstanbul last year. And what is so extraordinary is the acceleration, the speed. How much we’re all influenced by the books we’re all reading internationally whether it’s Harry Potter, Orhan Pamuk or the Economist, the films we watch, the television we’re drown to… I wonder how many of you like me set up for much of the night watching the live coverage of the British general election. But the second is much harder to see but potentially in the twenty first century much more important: it’s the role played by the individual, each one of us with the world wide web at our fingertips. Millions of people every day from different countries and cultures are making contact with each other around the world. They’re sharing ideas, they’re buying things, they’re selling things, they’re moving things around, they’re moving ideas around, they’re learning, debating, supporting, criticizing; in a sense it’s the Silk Road of the twenty first century. And we’re all now unimaginably more joined up than we could have dreamt of even a few years ago, whether it was people here in Turkey not knowing a huge amount about countries like my own at the other end of Europe or countries like mine not knowing much about the wider world. Millions of people from around the world are sharing ideas and wanting to move things around and move ideas around that really grips politics and politicians at the highest levels. The drivers and the driven in a sense are now almost indistinguishable. So what remarkable tool therefore are our cultural relations however they’re carried out, such a powerful political vehicle for promoting diversity, understanding and those ideas.

The previous speaker has referred already to the European Council, the third pillar. And I’m really very happy to have seen the European Council decision, a commitment to strengthen that third pillar in EU-Turkey relations as part of Turkey’s bid to join the EU. The initiative intends to strengthen a civil dialogue between EU members and Turkey. And it will allow the people of Turkey and the countries of the EU to understand better the benefits of coming together. In a sense, you have to learn the benefits but what the third pillar is doing is in a sense to kind of impose a vehicle for creating the benefits for us all. But for me I have to say, it’s less important whether this civil dialogue, this cultural relationship develops with the direct support of governments or whether it happens organically by the Internet, business links and the exchange programs which are already happening. Of course it has to be both. But the interesting thing now about the EU is that there is not a dictatorship of ideas. We can all feel as though we have something to contribute and that’s where people like yourselves are terribly important in this debate.

The other thing of course that makes me particularly interested in what we’re talking about today is that UK takes over the presidency of the Council of the EU on the 1st of July. I’m rather horrified that it’s only weeks away, I feel as I’m not quite ready for it yet. And I expect that we as the President of the Council, will certainly be looking to further this new EU initiative to foster closer civil society dialogue with Turkey and to broaden and deepen our cultural relations.

So, why is it important to broaden and deepen cultural relations between Turkey and the EU? I actually think that you all know the answers and they have been very cleverly articulated by my earlier colleague. To build a stronger cultural relationship with Turkey means a better understanding of the benefits of coming together. This is a very live example of how cultural relations are directly linked into politics. I’m looking forward to see European Commission’s proposals on developing this civil dialogue in the coming months. And one thing I want to say again as an individual coming from where I do, coming from that small nation of Scotland which would fit into Istanbul three times: I wanted to say that on a personal level, being a British European does not make me any less Scottish nor does it dilute our extraordinary culture; our dance, our music, our poetry, our language, our bagpipes. Indeed it has become a passport to us into Europe and into the world beyond. Our cultural identity I would say has actually strengthened rather than been diluted. So I’m always very sad when I hear people talk about the risks that they might face from closer integration. Closer integration does not mean that we are going to lose out but it does help of course to market ourselves better. And I don’t see that as a bad thing. I see that as rather a healthy participation in an integration into European process. And I think that’s something that we need to encourage or perhaps to think a bit more about. I can well understand people here who perhaps disagree with me quite fundamentally on that but I put forward an opinion for what it’s worth as something that people might find valuable to think about from a personal experience and a personal perspective. And indeed much of the work of the British Council, the organization in Britain with which you’re all familiar I’m sure, is predominantly responsible for developing cultural, educational, scientific links. There’re few examples that I’ve brought along for you. At a very fundamental level, the Council is working on schools’ links; promoting virtual contacts and face-to-face exchange visits between schools in Turkey and the UK. They’re obviously managing scholarship programs. And these are terribly important for young people to travel, learn, absorb and feel new experiences. Science links encouraging professional relationships between organizations in Turkey and the UK to promote innovation in science and to raise public awareness of such important issues as the environment. They’re involved in active citizenship projects, media development, sports programs, civil society. All these things, I can’t do sitting in my own consulate. But the Council with its network of people using via my colleagues as a vehicle, as a supporter, as a helper are doing an enormous amount. So the purposes of my being here this morning was not about the importance of all these things. I just wanted to give you a few landmarks, ideas, thoughts to take away and think about for the rest of the day and tomorrow. As a diplomat I just want to conclude by saying that of course I understand and appreciate the value, the contribution that cultural relations brings to politics and to reiterate that better understanding we need better cooperation, better trade, a safer and more just world. It’s my bread and butter, if I didn’t take that personal interest I couldn’t do my professional job. And so for that reason I wanted to say it’s been a pleasure to speak to an international audience this morning about cultural relations. I look forward to continue the debate and to leave you with the thought that you don’t actually know, none of us knows how many people were influencing in the kind of work we do, the cultural environment in which we operate, the influences that we are extending. Think of that little girl who was five, six or seven, who learned first of all about the richness of arts’ events, about the deliciousness of food, about the wonders of travel, the greatness of ideas that other people had and she could share. Thank you very much for your attention.

Mahir Mamur- We would like to thank Barbara Hay for sharing her views with us. As you all know, one of the objectives of this Forum is to introduce culture and art directors to each other. To this effect, we have organized long lunch breaks during which you can spend your time in the cafeteria. We also prepared an artistic program for our visitors to present the works of Turkish artists living in Turkey and in Europe. Thank you very much.

Panel: "Contexts and Perceptions of Turkey-Europe Cultural Relationships - 1"



Moderator: Prof. Dr. Tülin BUMİN Political Philosopher, Professor at Galatasaray University Philosophy Department, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Nilüfer NARLI- Sociologist, Dean at Kadir Has University Faculty of Communications, Turkey
Dr. Oruç ARUOBA- Philosopher, writer, poet, Turkey
Dr. Erwin LUCIUS- Consul, Former Austrian Cultural Attaché, Turkey
David BARCHARD- Writer of the Cornucopia magazine, UK




Tülin BUMİN- My acquaintance with the European Cultural Association dates back to last year when they organized several events. My impression was that these events were appropriate and highly meaningful. I am happy to be amongst them this year as well. Now, if you please, I would like to introduce the participants. I would like to add that this is the first time I’ve been asked to be a moderator. David Bachard is one of the writers of Cornucopia magazine and a former journalist of the Financial Times. One of the rare specialists on Turkey in England, he has conducted academic researches on Turkish-European relations. Let me present shortly his studies: he is currently working on a research on the outlook of England on Turkey since 1821. He has many works presenting a great interest for Turkey as well. Nilüfer Narlı, sociologist and Dean of the Communication Department of the Kadir Has University. The question she will be treating bears the title “Turkish Culture and Europe”. To my left, Dr. Erwin Lucius, former Cultural Attaché of Austria. He stands equidistant to Austria and Turkey due to his prolonged sojourn in Turkey. Lately, he has retired from the Office of Culture and Culture and Press Undersecretariat in the Embassy of Austria in Ankara and he independently continues his work on the same field between Vienna and İstanbul. Oruç Aruoba, philosopher, writer, poet, a teacher who has brought up many pupils, a university on his own, continuing his work. I presume that ever since he quit his job at the university yielding to his anger, he has been practising this profession as a freelancer. Isn’t it so? Now, let us take up this course as indicated in the program.



Nilüfer NARLI- Turkish Culture and Europe - Harmony in Diversity
The major characteristic of the Anatolian culture is harmony in diversity. It is a mosaic of various cultural and religious elements blended in the course of history. Turkey, the land of many cultures, decorated with the impressive historical ruins and monuments of these glorious ages and epochs, has been the cradle of many civilizations. It has been home to a rich variety of tribes and nations of people since 6500 BC: Hattis, Hittites, Phrygians, Urartians, Lycians, Lydians, Ionians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Seljuks and the Ottomans. They have all made a contribution to Turkey's history and enriched its culture.
Turkish religious culture is also rich and diversified. The Turks converted from Shamanism to Islam in the 8th century and they became Muslims by the 10th century. Some of the Shamanic practices survived as part of folk Islam -the totality of the Islamic beliefs and values blended with centuries-old Islamic and pre-Islamic Turkish customary beliefs and practices-. Rather than being orthodox Muslims, the Seljuks and the Ottomans gave freedom to heterodoxy, which in turn cherished Sufism and mystic tradition. It also promoted tolerance that was instrumental in creating a peaceful co-existence of all the religious groups and sects in the Ottoman State.
The Turkish mystics put awareness i.e knowing the self and the others and the love of God before the outward trapping of worship. With the tolerance of non-conformists and those of other faiths and the stress on expressing and experiencing divine love, it was under the mystical movements that poetry, music and literature flourished. The Mevlevi tarikat founded by Mevlana Celalattin Rumi (1207-1273) and the 13th century Bektashi movement, founded by the philosopher Haci Bektas Veli (1209-1271) are the examples of un-orthodox Islam preaching love of God and value of human being. Yunus Emre (d.ca 1320) whose poems treated the themes of humanitarianism and freedom of consciousness is another example of tolerant religious tradition that deviated from the orthodox pattern.
Cultural and religious diversity has grown through interacting with the geography and the political system of Europe since 15th century. Despite the constant conflict with the Christian West, Ottoman Sultans did not hesitate to encourage cultural borrowing from the West. They were not intimidated with “strangeness” in the cultures they interacted, in as much as the political culture of the Ottoman State was an amalgam of various sources. The Ottoman State was ostensibly organised on the basis of Islam. Nevertheless, its philosophical foundation included non-Islamic elements. According to the leading historians, the Ottoman Statecraft combined pre-Islamic Turkish customs, the Persian tradition of siyasetname, and medieval Islamic political philosophy in a technique of imperial rule that departed significantly from Sunnite theories of political legitimacy in its broad acceptance of social stratification, bureaucratization, and man-made law (kanun). Eastern Roman cultural elements added new ingredients to the Ottoman political culture as the Empire did not only consider itself an Islamic state, but also could claim to be the political descendant of both the Islamic and Eastern Roman State traditions.
Diversity in religion and political culture created a milieu where various religious groups lived in peace and practiced their faith. Respecting the other's faith, his or her human dignity and freedom were the virtues shared by all the religious groups.
Such a rich cultural and religious diversity made Turkey an integral part of the cultural values of Europe. It created a fertile ground for cherishing the democratic values and reformist ideas that led to the birth of the secular republic where human rights and women's rights have been respected, despite the difficulties resulted from the oscillations between authoritarian rule and democracy. Nevertheless, women have progressed and in turn, have begun to contribute to conflict resolution, to the creation of a culture of peace, and to inter-religious dialogues. Women have gone a long way until they reached a stage to help to the progress of others.

Turkish Cultural Interaction With the West
Would there have been a “European history” without Turkey? Some argue that Turkey has been in Europe, not of Europe. Yet modern Turkey is the inheritor of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, which have shaped Europe.
The historical place of the Ottoman Empire at the heart of Europe, despite as its “sick man”, has been obvious. Historical sociology corroborates diplomatic practice in this respect. In conquering Constantinople, the Ottomans did not take Byzantium out of Europe. To make its conquest, it relied on the support of Greeks; it incorporated Christians and Jewish elites into its power structure; it welcomed the Sephardic Jews after their expulsion from the Iberian peninsula; and it sought the support of the Orthodox church to help it govern its new territories.
Culturally, Turkey has inherited the entire legacy of the Eastern Empire; its music and cuisine are very much influenced from neo-Byzantine. Its political culture is also very much European in character.
Such a European Ottoman past explains why there has been over a long period a strong impulse to become part of Europe. The reform (Tanzimat) and modernisation movements of the late 18th century had played a significant role in flourishing it. The urge to be part of Europe augmented with the reforms of Atatürk, whose mission was the elevation of the Turkish people to the level of contemporary civilisation, identified as that of the West. It was Atatürk's remarkable attempt to shape the new state so that, despite history and the Islamic nature of Turkish society, modern Turkey too, would be in a position to flow into European civilisation. The goals were national security based on territorial integrity and full sovereignty, the modernisation of society and the democratisation of the political system. This orientation to the West was a conscious continuation of the late Ottoman policy. It was not based on any romantic attachment to the West. Atatürk and his friends had spent their professional lives defending the Ottoman State, and then the Republic against Western predations. It was a practical decision based on the fact that the West represented success and that only by achieving those standards would Turkey be accepted as an equal. Initially, the Western orientation remained philosophical and technical designed to gain acceptance and to modernise, but After World War II the relationship took on strong military and security dimensions.
The recognition of the common security interests with the West motivated Turkey to join NATO in 1952. Turkey also realised that its relations with the West had to develop beyond being mere cooperation in the area of security. This is why Turkey applied to the European Economic Community (EEC) for partnership status on July 31, 1959. On September 12, 1963, Turkey signed Ankara Agreement on the establishment of the partnership relationship that took the EEC and Turkey into a custom union. Turkey became an associate member of the European Community. Article 28 of the agreement envisaged eventual full membership. Then in 1999 at Helsinki Summit Turkey became a candidate country. Following this, on December 17, 2004 the EU decided the start of accession talks with Turkey.
Within the last 5 years, the governments have implemented revolutionary reform packages that have further matured democratic culture and taken Turkey to the political cultural environment of the EU. Democracy is deep-rooted and in no way artificial. Turkey did not inherit the democratic institutions from the colonial powers, as it was the case in many Middle Eastern states. Parliamentary democracy and its institutions were the choice of the people. They invented them in the course of a long political struggle. Today, there is a very vibrant and dynamic civil society promoting democratic values and gender equality.




Oruç ARUOBA- An important source of concern one has to put up with in similar types of meetings is one’s initial anticipation of both the multitude and total absence of things to say. To begin with, I shall therefore attempt to examine the concept: “Culture”. I will commence with an anecdote you are perhaps already familiar with. Around 1380, as the Ottoman princedom rules over fairly large frontiers, Murad the 1st bears the title of Bey. I fail to remember the name of the contemporaneous Byzantine Emperor. Murad has a son called Savji Bey, the Shakhzade heir to the Ottoman throne. The Emperor too has a son, called Prince Andronicos. These two conspire to overthrow the rule of their fathers in order to unite the two states and set off a rebellion. In the beginning, they do carry on their deed with a certain success; in effect, they take over domains in Thrace, or so I believe. Then this raises their fathers’ rage, with which they march on their sons. Murad captures them in Dimatoka, -I totally ignore where this city stands, except that it should be somewhere in the North of Greece, in the Balkans-. He then bids that both be blinded, though the execution of the order on Andronicos remains unaccomplished. As he then has Savji Bey slayed, he hands Andronicos over to his father. Andronicos is said to have one sound eye, I don’t know how long he has lived afterwards. I also don’t know why I’m telling you about this anyway.


Now, one could understand a multitude of things under the word “culture”. In its widest sense, it probably is that which belongs to a given group of people in common. However, the fact stands that in the beginning and in the end, there is always language. In order to speak of culture, a common idiom is de rigueur. Next, they should roughly share a common view regarding the quiddity of the type of world they are living in. Is it necessary that they inhabit the same space? Maybe not, and I mean by this that they might be people living in different regions of the earth but belonging to the same culture. Moreover, a sort of blood kinship, a race, an answer to the question “why do these people form a community” should be supplied.


Seen from this point of view, would it be possible to talk about a single European culture? This is a little difficult at first glance. For example, if we were to call in an Austrian, a Swab, a Bavarian and a Berliner around the same table, they would first of all fail to understand one another fluently, presuming of course that each should speak his own dialect. Especially, if there is a Swiss German amongst them, they might be unable to catch a single word. They start to understand one another first when they start speaking “High German”. But to what extent can they be said to have a community? What I’m talking about is no rapport between a Swede and a Portuguese. Will this lead us to pronounce that there is no such thing as a single European culture? This is too hard a thing to say. Wherein does it reside then? Should we now turn our regard to the history of Europe, we will see that, in the period before the Renaissance, there exists indeed a very prominent, mostly religion-based European culture, which even has a common idiom: Latin. Thomas More and Erasmus, an Englishman and a Hollander, can communicate with ease, while they both speak Latin, and are good pals. The community is based on a community of religion. Now, you will say “Which religion?” Here the Catholic; there the Protestant, the Anglican and the Presbyterian –we leave aside the Orthodox who fails to present any demographical importance in Europe. Once again we fall short of an actual community from this point of view.

Yet, with the New Age, a community of a different sort starts to form. Descartes let’s say, is of course obviously French: he publishes his work partially in Latin, partially in French. Nevertheless he, as a thinker, is no longer French, but European. The writings he comes up with aim not at a single community of people, i.e. not the sole French society, but bear the hope to be read by everymen. In a wider extent, we could consider artworks. A certain Goethe bestows this with a name and uses for the first time the term “World Literature”. An endeavour to reach people outside the realm of one’s own community sees daylight. This is to say that concepts are created independently from the particularities of a single human community. The thought of human rights which implies that man has a nature common to all human beings i.e. that being a human being is independent from one’s belonging to one single community… However, on the other side, a bizarre turn brings nationalism into play, taking effect naturally before the French Revolution. This time, a weird situation is brought about in Europe, which lasts about two centuries, namely from the 18th to the 20th. As, on the one hand, an understanding of culture based on that community, on “being human” is developed, on the other hand we begin to observe the rise of nationalism which seems to be exactly the opposite and the founding of national states. These in a sense contradictory two conditions reach their peak in the two world Wars. If we consider the abovementioned concepts -one single community, one single worldview, one single language, these functioning as an ideal or culture founding elements- we observe that these three ideas reach their final culminating point in the example of German nationalism, which, in spite of all, is defeated and wiped out from the course of history. Sadly enough, nationalism is still not completely effaced, has free play over the world and still bursts out relentlessly…


In this, two important thinkers have their share before the uproar towards the end of the 19th century. One of them is Marx. Marx is also important as regards the functioning of history, but one of his most significant contributions is the investigation of the developmental characteristics of the European continent as a whole and not of its single constitutive societies. England, Germany and France no longer exist as separate entities, but capitalism does. Capitalism is what constitutes the community. Nietzsche, who ostensibly represents the direct opposite position, says, on the contrary, that he is the first good European. The first European in the following sense: he states for the first time that the creation of a human community or cultural values does not depend on human communities in themselves, but on the virtue of creative people. When I say for the first time, I mean the first time with a theoretical hypothesis.


Hence, if today we are to use a status constructus such as European Culture, this culture presents itself as founded on the negation of the three aforesaid elements apparently enabling its constitution as a culture-possessing community. That is to say, it does not issue forth from a single community, not from a single worldview, not from a single language. Culture, i.e. European Culture in its present state is exclusively founded on a basis of this sort. If we should at present direct our attention on Turkey: I keep remembering the case of Savji Bey and Andronicos. I wonder in what language they communicated. Savji Bey probably spoke Greek, maybe Anronicos had learned Turkish. Did they use translators? For it must have been necessary for them to converse to be able to conspire against their fathers. As our friend mentioned a moment ago… They get captured in 1385. Since 1385, there are relations between what we call today the Turkish society and the people whom we call European. What kind of relations? Once, on a Greek channel, there was a choir singing Byzantine hymns. I had goose bumps. As much from astonishment as from contentment… For it was practically identical with the Court music performed in the Ottoman palace. Only ours was probably a little more complex in its form.

If we skip the period of Beneficial Reforms (Tanzimat), the 1st and the 2nd Constitutional Periods in Ottoman History, we arrive at the epoch of Mustafa Kemal. He didn’t appear out of nowhere. If one is to take into account the language he uses in his Discourse to the Turkish Nation, it is an extraordinary specimen of Ottoman prose, anon he himself wants to abandon that very style. I do not think it meaningful to meddle with the question to what extent we Turks as a human community are Westernized, if we are Westernized indeed, and to what extent we can be said to be Europeanized. Nevertheless we could at least trace these two reactions amongst those builders of culture who worked with the Turkish society in the Turkish Republic as they profess their self-opinion: on the one hand, there are those who say: “I have always been European”, on the other those who object: “I would never want to be European”. In my opinion, both viewpoints are intrinsically European. In a sense, we are European whether we want it or not. For the denunciation of the European identity is equally European in attitude. The most outstanding character trait of the abovementioned builders of culture is their standing against and criticising the dominant mentality of their own societies, in their own communities. I would like to conclude with a citation from Melih Cevdet. Sadly enough, it has never reached beyond the realm of newspaper readers. He says: “I’m European in any case, the ultimate reaction I can give to Europe is to criticise it”. This is all I have to say.

Erwin LUCIUS- I’ve been asked to speak in Turkish. I will do my best. As regards “the Contexts and Perceptions on Turkey-Europe Cultural Relations”, I would rather like to lay emphasis on the socio-cultural status. There are things we heard about cultural history and the history of the accession of Turkey to the EU yet there was a persisting problem. Are Turkey and the Ottoman Empire veritable European States or societies, or is it not the case? As far as history is concerned, it is clear that the Ottoman Empire was a powerful and important actor in European history throughout the ages. If we consider the expansion of the Turkish-Ottoman territory in the Balkans, the First and the Second siege of Vienna-which are very important to them-, the troublesome problem of Herzegovina in the 19th century as well as the Berlin Congress in 1983, we see that the Ottoman Empire was up to that date a European power, an active factor. In the 20th century, the status of the Ottoman Empire in World War I was evident; I needn’t linger on the subject. But I will say that it is a generally forgotten fact that when the European Council was founded in Strasbourg in 1949, the Turkish Republic was one of the first members. Turkey had directly become a political side in Europe with the result she obtained in her steps toward the EU. We could also mention the Ankara Treaty of 1963, the member status in Helsinki in 1999, the negotiation date given on the 17th of December last year, her tight relations with the EU as well as those she keeps up with the whole Western hemisphere.

If we consider the socio-cultural status, this is what we see: the image of Turks in Europe changed from one epoch to the other, always formed in parallel with transformations in politics. At the same time, both an exchange and a conflict occur with regard to culture. You have mentioned the unity in the Middle Ages; Latin was a cosmopolite fact, the dominant religion was Christianity. When the frontiers of the Ottoman Empire extended to Europe, religion was put forward for propaganda purposes and especially as a tool to point out the Turks as enemies in the Christian-Muslim conflicts of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. Anti-Islamic polemics were circulating as an inseparable part of Christian tradition and this propaganda was not solely against Turks, but also Arabs. In Europe, and particularly in Central Europe, Islam is associated with Turks. Therefore, a tremendous front was constructed against Turks.

On the other side, travellers visiting the Ottoman Empire in the 15th and 16th centuries have made impartial and analytical observations regarding Turks. This brought a new dimension to how people considered Turks and in addition to these new dimensions, not in Central but in Western Europe, the works produced by Dutch, French and English scholars on Islam and the East gradually turned the negative image of Turks into a positive one. For example, Voltaire was saying at that period: “It is not possible to have a sound picture of Turks as long as one doesn’t know them closely enough.” European thinkers began to consider the Ottoman Empire and in particular Turks differently and from a more positive, impartial point of view. Especially the Orientalism and Turcophilia existing in the Age of Enlightenment found approval only amongst the elite of high socio-cultural status. Turkish music, Turkish fashion, Turkish gardens were very fashionable. Although Turcophilia was a trend amongst the elite, at the level of the commons the age-old inimical image went on in their religious practices. What I would like to say is this: despite the fact that intellectuals regarded Turks positively, among the common run of people antipathy and enmity persisted due to religious reasons. This goes on even today. Nevertheless, from a historical perspective, we shouldn’t forget this quote by the Austrian thinker Egon Friedel: “In a convex mirror, the main lines of history always seem more obvious and distorted”. We look at history through a convex mirror. Add to this that we always look at it according to our set of ideas and from where we stand. Thus, it is not possible to write or understand history impartially.

Concerning the present day situation, there is an analysis of Hans Lukas Kieser, Professor of history in the University of Zurich: “Pious Jews who immigrated from Eastern Europe to the west one and a half centuries ago and Anatolians who came to Europe for various reasons as of 1960’s have shared more or less the same destiny. The members of both societies are found to be odd by autochthones because of their strange look and tight attachment to old traditions and practices.” I esteem this to be a very important observation. Sadly though, the Jewish immigration starting from Eastern Europe in the 1870’s on lead to a Hitler because of the dominant nationalistic tone. Wherefore? For the group of newcomers had adaptation difficulties and the autochthones refused to show sufficient tolerance. We observe similar circumstances in the case of the immigration of Anatolians into Europe from the 1960’s on. There is an observation made on that issue by the journalist Yalçın Doğan. He points out, for example, that a great part of the Turkish associations in Austria belong to islamic and fascist groups and claims that this is “the Third Siege of Vienna”. And in his own words he continues: “an ideological siege before the bewildered eyes of Austrians”. Now, a short while ago I said that religion is an important element amongst the common run of people. The groups of newcomers have not renounced their religion, traditions and practices. Since assimilation is undesirable, we confront the problem of integration. However, we encounter great difficulties in that respect. I think we can say that we are face to face with a phenomenon of Diaspora. These people assume an attitude that is harsher, more radical, fanatical and fundamentalist than that of the countries they come from. Consecutively, they go through difficulties of adaptation and integration. On the other side, Europe has not and could not understand them fully. For example, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Austria and the Minister of Sciences, Mr. Erhardt Busek once said this: “Until now, the EU has been helpless before the problem of integration of the minorities and hasn’t made any substantial accomplishments. There is a big problem in this regard.” Despite all these facts, once more according to Kieser: “Turkey and Europe are actually connected to one another due to the fact that they constitute opposite poles. While it is obligatory that these poles be in the right direction. If not, a coming together is not possible and coming closer means “language.” The major point I would like to stress is this: Language takes different forms, but it always gives rise to a dialogue, to communication, science and modern art. If two societies, states or communities are in dialogue, one can always find a solution and a dialogue is the most perfect tool for Turkey to prove and express herself.

Turkey, modern Turkey has derived this chance through the reforms of Atatürk. As a result, Turkey should evince that she is modern and European together with all her characteristics. You have talked about culture, a common language etc. The European Union has also another definition: common values. If we take those common values as a basis, Turkey and Europe can easily be in dialogue, move towards a positive solution and come to a result desirable for both sides. Once again, there is another statement by Busek which I find very meaningful. He says: “Is the EU ready to have borders with Syria, Iraq, Iran, Caucasia and Central Asia? The EU should ask itself this question and consider it seriously. This does not signify the leaving out or rejection of Turkey; it is just a question concerning the maturity of Europe, the existence of the EU.”

To conclude, I would like to say that Turkey and the EU can and should be in a perfect dialogue under the motto “unity in diversity”. Thank you very much.




David BARCHARD

The Ambigous Legacy: Turkey and Europe in the Nineteenth Century


Current opposition to Turkey in Europe descends partly from the “Eastern Question”
In this necessarily very brief discussion I want to touch quickly on a number of themes in Turkish-European relations which may be relevant today but of which most Western and Northern Europeans are unaware. I apologize in advance to my Turkish hearers who may well find little that is new or unfamiliar to them in what I have to say.

I would probably not have given this paper a year ago before the recent eruption of hostility towards the very principle of Turkish EU membership. The speeches of former EU Commissioners, Bolkestein and Fischler last autumn, the remarks of the then Cardinal Ratzinger, and those of Frau Angela Merkel in Germany and M. Nicholas Sarkozy and former President Giscard d’Estaing in France, obviously raise very serious issues for the future of the Turkish-European relationship. Reluctance to accept a country of 70 million people on their own terms is a very curious and unusual phenomenon. Current day issues—migrant workers, the clash of civilizations and fear of Islam after 9/11—are obviously part of the story but only a part. Much of the difficulty, I believe, arises from a carry-over from attitudes towards the Ottoman Empire which emerged during its final century when the great and small countries of Christian Europe, waited in the—as it turned out—false expectation of being able to devour all its territory.

In my view this problem has little to do with European attitudes to the Ottoman Empire before the mid-eighteenth century. It is a product of the legitimating myths and ideas which grew up around “the partition project” of the western powers.

Throughout the 19th century, Christian nationalists in Europe argued that Turkey would disappear fairly soon.
From about 1774 onwards, and particularly after the Greek uprising of 1821, the Ottoman Empire faced a manifest threat of possible elimination. Much European opinion did in fact hold throughout the 19th century and up to the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 that Turkey was destined to disappear from the world scene and the Turks with it. This view (which was not held by all European opinion but by a section of it) was legitimated by two further ideas. The first was that the Turks were few in numbers and did not constitute a nationality. The second was that Ottoman Turkish rule was innately cruel, inefficient and incapable of improvement. These notions eventually became widespread in Britain, Continental Europe, and North America and flourish in those areas to this day, but their origins can be traced back to Serbian and Greek Christian nationalist movements for whom they performed two functions. First, they legitimated violence for the elimination of Turkish rule (the “bag and baggage” argument). Second, they invoked the intervention of the European Great Powers to assist the nationalist movements on ostensibly ethical grounds. International law evolved during the 19th century along lines designed to ease Great Power intervention in the Ottoman Empire on behalf of Christian populations. These European humanitarian concerns did not extend to the Empire’s Muslims.

But this view was disproved by the Ottoman Empire’s regeneration as a modern state.
During the first three quarters of the nineteenth century however, the Ottoman Empire confounded its critics. It did not disintegrate and die. On the contrary it made substantial advances. Unlike the Khanates of Central Asia, Turkey demonstrated early on that, full-scale Russian conquest would be more expensive than Russia was prepared to accept. The conceptual framework for subsequent policies -the conversion of the Ottoman Empire into a modern state run along lines parallel to those of the other European 19th century dynastic empires- was articulated by Mahmut II (1808-1839). Military reforms, followed by legal, administrative, and educational ones, were made possible by the breaking of the power of the Janissaries in the Vak’a-i Hayriye of June 1826. Under Mahmut’s successor, the Tanzimat (Peristroika) statesmen created the basic institutions and mechanisms for a modern state. In 1820 the empire had a palace “scribal class” of 2000 persons along traditional lines. By the end of the 19th century it had a bureaucratic civil service of about 100,000 administering a huge area.

Nineteenth century Ottoman multiculturalism has been underestimated.
Though western Europeans objected that the rule of Muslims over Christians was intrinsically wrong and unacceptable, the Ottoman Empire was no longer an Islamic state in the way it had been before 1800. From Mahmut II onwards the Ottoman Government began to embrace a version of multiculturalism and common citizenship. Mahmut said that he would henceforth recognize Muslims only in the mosques, Christians only in the churches, and Jews only in the synagogues. In February 1856, formal legal equality for all the Empire’s citizens was proclaimed. This step separated the late Ottoman Empire from all previous Islamic polities and gave it a legitimate claim to be considered part of the modern European community of nations. Christians were promoted to senior levels of the civil service and there were attempts to introduce non-sectarian schooling. Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century Turkish ambassadors in western European capitals were usually Ottoman Christians such as Musurus Pasha and Costaki Pasha. This attempt at multiculturalism essentially failed not because the Ottomans were not serious about it, but because the Ottoman Christians masses rejected it, preferring nationalism and the Western European powers ignored it.

These reforms were accompanied by accelerating social and intellectual westernization, and the adoption of current western lifestyles, the forerunner of the cultural changes of the Republic. (There is at least one case of a Turkish woman wearing European dress in the 1840’s while traveling abroad.) All these administrative and social changes, accompanied by population shifts (the influx of Muslim immigrants displaced in the Balkans, Crete, the Caucasus, and Central Asia) ensured that Turkey would remain a large European state down to our own times.

Turkey’s progress towards integration with Europe halted after 1878.
Towards the middle of the 19th century prospects for the long term integration of Turkey into the general life of Europe looked fairly encouraging. For example members of the Ottoman bureaucratic elite seemed to be moving towards becoming parts of the circles of European public life. In the final quarter of the nineteenth century this process was interrupted, even though by then Turkey was developing the clear lineaments of a modern country. Ottoman high officials were no longer accepted by European high society on terms of social equality as, for example, Veli Pasha had done during his two spells as Ottoman Ambassador in Paris in 1856 and 1862.

Nineteenth century Europe spurned Turkish efforts to create a liberal multicultural modern state.
A turning point came in 1876-78 when the Ottomans lost half their European possessions in war with Russia, while liberal Europe did not support the attempts of Mithat Pasha and his supporters to turn the Ottoman Empire into a liberal constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government. With European endorsement, these might have succeeded, in which case the “soft landing” which the reformers envisaged for the Ottoman Empire and its diverse populations might have become a reality or at least events in the following fifty years would have unfolded less painfully.

After the fall of Mithat Pasha, Turkey was internationally isolated under the autocratic rule of Abdülhamit II (1876-1909). The main European ambassadors in Istanbul acted as a sort of committee to impose changes, mostly affecting the national aspirations of the Christian minorities, and the expansion of the territories of the post-ottoman Christian nationalist Balkan states. They saw this role as a preliminary to the orderly final dispersion of the empire’s territory.

The rise of the post-Ottoman Christian national states in the Balkans meant the eviction of their Muslim populations.
Balkan Christian nationalisms expanded at the expense of the Muslims. One of the first actions of modern Greece was to eliminate the Muslim population of the Peloponnese. “If Christians gain their freedom, the Moslem leaves the land of his birth, whatever pledges the new authorities may give,” wrote the British scholar, David Hogarth. Hogarth however was one of very few western Europeans who made such comments. There were a much greater number of European enthusiasts for the new nationalisms who promoted their causes and demonized the Turks as incorrigible. The new Christian nationalist states of Europe, from Serbia and Greece to Romania and Bulgaria were “monoethnic” in spirit: they aimed at cultural and linguistic homogeneity and, wherever possible, tried to remove their indigenous Ottoman Muslim populations. This led to large scale evictions and migrations and, as far as can be calculated, the deaths of 5.5 million Ottoman Muslims between 1821-1923—a detail of its history about which Christian Europe refuses to take an interest, despite its comparability in scale with the Nazi holocaust, and even though the Bosnian war of the 1990’s and events such as the massacre at Sbrenica (and, arguably, the Cyprus dispute) suggest that the process still continues to some extent.

Migration into the Ottoman lands triggered the birth of a new Turkish nation.
However migrations such as those during the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) reinforced the demographic base of Turkey and helped stimulate the growth of a new national consciousness which was the prelude to the War of Independence (1919-1923) and the establishment of the Republic.

Western European misperceptions of Turkey during the 19th century thus caused major historical opportunities to be missed; generated several massive human tragedies for both Christians and Muslims including of course the Gallipoli landings; and failed in their main aim -the partition of Turkey in the Sevres agreement in 1920. Instead, despite its continuing rebuffs, Turkey responded to its European liberal critics by becoming a “monoethnic” national state along essentially European liberal lines. It became the first multiparty democracy in a country with an Islamic historical heritage and also the first industrial nation state. Any limitations in the success of this enterprise might be attributed to the fact that it had to be undertaken in isolation.

Turkish-European partnership is important for both sides
Current moves to reject Turkey from Europe thus have a long and morally dubious background which should be born in mind during the current debate. Experience during the past 200 years suggests that Turkish-European partnership and integration is important and at least as beneficial to both sides as any other international partnership.

Tülin BUMİN- We will only be able to spare five minutes for questions. But before we move on, I will say a few things which will only take two minutes. The first of them is to Mr. Lucius: the Diaspora in Europe is such as you described. The uneducated masses have stronger religious beliefs. The common people who go there and show more fundamentalist sympathies as a question of identity are strangely the mass behind Turkey’s will to join Europe because they are the ones who have firsthand knowledge of Europe. While many intellectuals were still struggling with various questions, those people at least knew this much: there they had better chances of living, of being well treated. Minimum one person from each village went there, can you imagine? They have at least 5 to 15 relatives or a village full of people to whom they could transmit their message; this is a very significant factor. I honestly believe that we owe the European Union lobby in Turkey to our ignorant compatriots living there.

My second point concerns the question whether one is European or not. In my opinion, this is an utterly ideological inquiry. The desire for being European could be nothing but a fiction, because Europe is such a land that, when you travel across it for a whole day, you encounter so many cultures and languages, more than anywhere else on earth. The wealth of Europe is precisely this inner diversity. But that which makes Europe what it is is its aspiration to universality –that’s the deadlock of the question. This universalism gave rise to colonialism and to imperialism as well. However, it could also give rise to more agreeable things for it does derive from science and philosophy, i.e. a claim for universality. Therefore, if this universalism has the aspect of a non-delimited universalism ready to establish a relationship with the other, i.e. with Turkey, this could result in a universalism devoid of its erroneous qualities which could assure ease to humankind in a new formation. These were the remarks I wanted to make. Now, we could take a few short questions.

A listener – I’d like to ask my question to Mr. Aruoba. Could you explicit the ideas behind the claim made by the French President Jacques Chirac that “We all are the descendants of Byzantium”?

Oruç ARUOBA- Now, I’m not in a position to speak in the name of Chirac, I hope that’s not what you expect from me. If we consider the formation and the functioning of the Ottoman Empire, we can see that to a great extent it is founded on the institutions of the Byzantine Empire of which it is in some sort the continuation. Ernest Gerner wrote the most important book on the Islamic society in the last decade called “Muslim Society”. In that book, he states that all Islamic societies ranging from the Hindukush Mountains to Gibraltar have common features and explains them. He also says that the sole exception is the Ottoman Empire. In a way, he states that the Ottoman Empire is not an Islamic society. In this respect, perhaps what Chirac was saying is of course true for the French but it is also true for us because the Byzantine Empire is an enormous culture on which the Ottoman State was founded. Another point: the phrase “Turkey is an Islamic country” is in free circulation. Is it really true? I hesitate to say anything about the Seljuks, but I feel urged to say that the Ottomans have never been Muslims. When we consider the functioning of the Ottoman society, its laws etc., we realize that it is so. First of all, they revere a book which they never understand. Not only it is impossible for them to understand the Holy Book, but translations were forbidden until a very late date. Is an umma which can never read and understand its own book really an umma? Today, if an Arab is sufficiently well educated, he can read that book written in the Qurayshite dialect, a Turk cannot. What they actually do under the name of Qur’anic recitation is the reproduction of certain sounds by looking at certain forms. No one understands what is said in it. Anyway starting from here we can reach many other things. I would have preferred to have been Byzantine.

Tülin BUMİN- But the fact that he did not understand that language did not keep Sinan from building the mosques he built. There certainly is a cultural bound with Islam.

Alican GÜZEL- From the Viennese Association “The Meeting Point of Cultures”. Did you mean that our compatriots in Diaspora, ignorant as they are, contributed to the accession of Turkey to the EU?

Tülin BUMİN- We can nearly say that they are the only ones who make a contribution.

Alican GÜZEL- But can we also not say that their contribution can be a negative one?

Tülin BUMİN- They might have kept Europeans from liking us, but they also made us admire Europeans.

Alican GÜZEL- If it were not to the waves of immigration of non-qualified workers following the first wave of immigration, Turkey would have been closer to Europe.

Panel: "Contexts and Perceptions in Turkey-Europe Cultural Relations - II"



Moderator: Serhan ADA, İstanbul Bilgi University, Performing Arts Management Program Coordinator, Turkey
Eddy TERSTALL- Film Director, Political Scientist, Holland
Serra YILMAZ- Actress, Turkey-Italy
Prof. Manuel COSTA LOBO- Urban Planning Consultant, President of Portuguese Urban Planners Association, Portugal




Serhan ADA- “Contexts and Perceptions in Turkey-Europe Relations”… I think it would be more proper to put all this in the singular form. As you can see, one of our speakers is absent; Gögün Taner is not here with us. He had to attend a live TV broadcast; he will come if he can make it on time. On the occasion of my being assigned the function of a moderator, I will infringe upon my duty and say a few things before introducing our participants. My presence here is probably due to the fact that I am the Director of the Bilgi University and the Coordinator of the project we are hoping to realize in 2006. This project is a project of transforming the Silahtaragha Energy Central, which has been active from 1911 till 1983 on the extreme end of the Golden Horn, into a cultural complex, in other words a project of transforming that energy into culture. It will comprise not only a Museum of Contemporary Art and an Energy Museum, but also a very big library and an international residence program. We hope that it will even house guests we have here today, and enable them to realize their projects and works. We also hope that it will constitute a new cultural space where many students will think on culture and participate actively in the cultural life on that side of Istanbul as well. I could perhaps begin by saying that; we hope that İstanbul will become a space which can exhibit the synergy it forms and the mutual sharing with both Europe and other places beyond, of course with the whole of the Balkans, Caucasia, the Middle East and Russia with a novel bid and a new approach. That’s why I wish to announce you the title of our project which we share with you here for the first time: “santralistanbull”.

After this session of exploitation, we will try to deal with the issues of perception and context. I’d like to introduce our guests: Eddy Terstall is a film director and a political scientist. Here, he will combine both fields to talk to you about European identity and identity in art. Beside him, there is Manuel Costa Lobo who is an urban planner and a speaker who has lectured and published works on the link between city and culture. He also served as an ombudsman in Lisboa, which will interest those of you here who reflect on culture and city and he has important studies on the transformation of urban spaces culturally. The other speaker is the actress and translator Serra Yılmaz.

I’d like to add one more thing before we start. If I’m not mistaken, Jose Maria Barroso, head of the EU, said as he took over the office that the time of culture had come. For us, the time of culture was long come, but perhaps for them the right time was now. At this point, perception and context will have a great importance. If you please, let us start with Eddy.



Eddy TERSTALL- Good afternoon. I would be ashamed that this is my first time in Turkey, even though it is three hours flying time from my city. There is not enough time to get an overall impression but the good thing about it is that like three days ago I was in New York where my latest film had his international premiere and because I want to speak about European identity in art or in my case in cinema because that’s the subject matter that I know most of. It’s good to make comparison between two societies. It’s hard but, somewhat I wanted to find a common denominator of what European identity is all about. After spending two weeks in New York, sometimes you wonder if the only difference is that the Americans go to see baseball in New York Yankees and that in Europe when you’re in Norway, Portugal or Turkey, everybody knows about European Champions League. In Amsterdam I think half of the population knows what Fenerbahçe and Galatasaray are and in America they think that Amsterdam is in Turkey. Well in this short quest for what European identity in art is, I think you have to look in a wider perspective. Even though I feel a lot of things in common -like the American spirit and stuff like that, you know the sense of freedom etc- I still think that Americans are more inclined than Europeans to see things in terms of commodity. Their form of capitalism is less self mockery and what Europeans in general aim for is, capitalism with self mockery.

One point I try to make a comedy about this subject; it was called “Rent a Friend”. I took the most intimate thing that a human has, which is friendship and used it as a commodity and in this film an artist can be rented as a friend. And the company became very successful because after a while you can rent ten friends for a party or even thirty for a reunion and it becomes a status symbol to rent friends. Reason that I tell you this is that later on I will tell you how this is related to the overall subject matter. For instance, when I make a film, I write a script how that comes about, how that originates. Because usually in not “formula based” (if you look at film as a commodity it’s usually formula based because you are looking at a certain audience, you have certain elements that you think might be commercial or might be effective) proper author cinema the filmmaker is also the writer of the screenplay usually. I think the way to go above is that first of all you have to think what is occupying you, what provokes passion in you, if the subject matter is in society, in human spirit or in the present situation in your country or in your city that really wants you to spend a year working on something about that.

Second step is that: what is your opinion about it, what do you think about this subject, is there something important that you have to tell. And the third step is the form. At that point it can still be book, sculpture, but in my case it is a film and usually my style of film. For me that’s always the proper step to take to come to something that is genuine, and in that stage I’m thinking of the audience. I know that things that I make are quite accessible; there is no reason from my point of view to think about the audience because it is going to be accessible anyway, but in terms of integrity I try for myself never to think of the effect on the audience.

If we take it one step back; I sometimes teach or used to teach at film academy. When some of my students are writing a screenplay, I try to help them to do the same way. Start with what occupies them, then what they think about it, what’s their opinion, then starting to write the story. So they can always gage their initial point every step of the way. Sometimes it happens that one of the students has a story that “the color of blue is beautiful” should be the final statement. But sometimes, along the half way down the story, you think of a twist, that the audience doesn’t expect and that works better. But the only result or the negative effect of that is, for instance the answer or the final statement would be that “Green is beautiful, not blue”. If I try to point it out to that student, he says ‘Yes, but it works better”. And we came to the point that; well are you a filmmaker because you want to be a filmmaker with everything involved, thus seeing all your carrier as commodity, or do you want to be a storyteller, be just a transition valve for a story that comes to you. And I think the influence of Hollywood Cinema in Holland is quite dominant, even the financing structure of Dutch films is based on formula films, because it works, it’s commodity but it is not something that is inherently European. The better European films and the films that make it to the International Film Festivals usually are author films, they are not based on formula. In fact formula and originality are quite the contrary; it’s usually original not formula based films that travel well also. Like Danish, Finnish, Portuguese or Greek films that make it to other countries are usually films that are not formula based. But having said that, looking upon art as commodity is overall present because you know, after all we live in an economy that has not enough self mockery even though it’s something that we as Europeans try to strive after Shroeder and Blair are talking about the third way, the capitalism that still preserves the essential freedoms or the essential values.

And the little quest of what is European identity, I can only speak for my own experience as a filmmaker: the filmmakers wherever you meet them, in festivals or from Iceland, Turkey or Spain usually have that attitude about filmmaking, when you run into filmmakers across the Atlantic, even Canadian are usually talking about what formula, what kind of film they’re making. That’s basically my short speech.

Serhan ADA- Yes, if Görgün Taner was here, he would probably talk about the actions of the Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Art, about Berlin, Brussels and maybe about the exposition in London about Turks and how that experience contributes to our frame of study. I think he still will join if he can. Even if Eddy gives us the impression that he looks through a camera lens, I would like to thank him for his presentation on perception and story-telling. Serra Yılmaz is a personality who is here and there at the same time. I use this double locality allusion on purpose... She has been in art circles, she has made successful productions. I think she has a word to say on “perception”.



Serra YILMAZ – Yes, like most of you know, Ignorant Fairies and The Opposite Window that followed Harem Suare, my first working experience with Ferzan Özpetek in 1998, are Italian films. Although the Turkish media usually prefers to present these films as Turkish films claiming that Turkish cinema has made great progress and has great success abroad, they are not Turkish films. These films were really greeted with great enthusiasm in Italy and have been watched by a large audience. Accordingly, they also determined my destiny in Italy and since then I started to work more often in there. My experience of cultural exchange up to that date was based on the function I assumed for a longtime at the Municipal Theater of Istanbul as a foreign relations manager. There is a problem we generally face when we talk about cultural exchange: from whatever country we seek contact with, we manage to import artists. For example, a director comes from France and stages the play of a contemporary French playwright on our scenes. But the other part of the “exchange” usually does not take place. This is due to several reasons pertaining to their cultural policies and our lack of cultural policies.

I would rather like to talk to you about more pragmatic things. Especially in the last years, despite myself I reluctantly assumed the role of a cultural delegate in Italy because The Opposite Window for example earned a considerable amount of box-office gross. To such an extent that, when broadcasted one month ago, its rating topped that of the most popular television series and game shows such as “Who wants to be a millionaire?” and was watched a second time on the TV screen by some 30 million spectators from all around Italy. As I said before, this gives me the mission of a Turkish cultural envoy against my will. This does have positive aspects, but sometimes it can become annoying. But while we are talking about perception, I would like to mention perception as witnessed while talking with the man on the street or on a TV program.

Sadly enough, we are the children of a State which never wanted to be recognized through its art and culture. That’s why in Europe -in particular in the two countries I spend most of my time, i.e. Italy and France- the first things that come to the mind about Turkey are the Turkish delight, belly-dancing, shish-kebab, and doner kebab which has proliferated far beyond Turkish limits. This is the kind of perception we are facing. A good part of the negative images comes from political troubles such as the Kurdish and Armenian problems. As far as Italy is concerned, the old “Mamma ‘li turchi” and yet again “The Battle of Lepanto” are still topical. I want to stress this in particular that those who stop me on the street are rarely concerned with my nationality. Things like this do happen occasionally; once a middle-aged woman stopped me and said: “I have seen you in many movies… but I can’t figure out clearly where you’re from.” I said “I’m Turkish”. She replied, “Ah nevermind, I’m from Sicily myself”. So, as a result of the similarity between our image of the East and the vision of the South in Italy, she kind of excused me for being Turkish.

But for example in December before the decision of the EU on the 17th of December, the extreme right-wing and nationalist Italian political party called the Northern League which is also a coalition member of the Berlusconi government organized a huge demonstration against the accession of Turkey to the EU and their slogans were, as I mentioned above, “Mamma ‘li turchi” and “The Battle of Lepanto”. Just after this demonstration the Repubblica newspaper asked me and Ferzan Özpetek what we thought about the issue. In the two days following the demonstration I was obliged to be present all by myself at a high-rating political television debate called Ballarò. As I said before, although I was quite annoyed about having assumed this mission, I did feel the obligation to do so against my will. There too, among the issues mentioned were how much drink Turks consumed, how much they slaughtered, killed and massacred. A unionist and a green socialist Deputy, made many statements without my needing to take the floor to speak and as far as I could see, this broadcast became something which deeply affected Italian public opinion. For in the days following the show and since December, many people have come up to me to say “Thank you very much, you gave the League deputy the answer he deserved”. Of course, such things happen also.

There is one other thing I stand for; we already talked about it in the first part of the Forum. We constantly talk about tolerance. As far as I’m concerned, I’m totally against tolerance, for if I have to tolerate something, it immediately means that that thing is faulty. Therefore, instead of talking about tolerance, I prefer to talk about respect. In effect, that night the League Deputy said, “Yes, perhaps you are more tolerant towards other religions”, I felt obliged to reply “No, we are not tolerant, we are perhaps more used to living with each other and I cannot possibly tolerate another religion for it is not my job to pronounce a judgment on the existence of a religion. All I can do is respect that religion and expect respect in return for my irreligion”. So this “living in tolerance” is far from being something I would be in favor of.

Now I would like to come back to what I was saying a few minutes ago. I think that besides all the changes we have to operate in our legislation and all the reforms we have to endorse within the process of accession to the EU – the future results of which we are totally uncertain- there is the mission of a cultural exchange that we have to undertake seriously in each level and to this effect, the State should allot a significant amount of money and further its support. For example, one thing I could never accept as a Turkish citizen is that, while hooligans traveling abroad to support their team are exempted from travel taxes which are moreover totally against the right of free circulation, these taxes are still levied from educational staff and artists leaving Turkey to attend cultural activities. The levying of this tax is against the European legislation at any rate.

In conclusion, I think that we should compel the State slightly in this direction together with our universities and cultural institutions. For even minor efforts can have a major effect on the way in which Turkey is perceived. For example, this winter I acted in a play in Florence. This play was a collage that the director created for me personally. In this collage there were the Arabian Nights stories, and the last night in the Harem was staged and two stories by Nazlı Eray were put together. This play made many people say “I want to go to Turkey again” or “I want to go discover Turkey” after hearing what was said about women but you know how drama affects only a small audience. However, these events I mentioned are a result of everyday life intersections. I have never been given support for what I have done by any institution whatsoever. It happened just because I was appreciated in Italy and owing to a director’s proposal. I think that in this sense, a cultural exchange has to be bilateral and not unilateral. If a foreign director is able to put on a play in Turkey, our actors and directors should have the same opportunity in that director’s country. I think that we really need to move in this direction. In my sense, it is through culture and art that we can best show them who we are. For that reason, as in a short story by Boris Vian, our State should give up the attitude: “I draw out my gun whenever they speak of culture”.

Serhan ADA- In the time left, you can ask the questions you were not able to ask during the previous session. If you are not bored of course. Perceptions alter in line with artworks and cultural productions. Given that Serra Yılmaz has mentioned Lepanto, I would like to remind you of a little chapter. We all know Cervantes for his Don Quixote. Cervantes also has a “Grande Sultana”, i.e. “the Great Khanim Sultan”, a play based on the story of a Khanim Sultan who has been able to cease the opposition in the Imperial Court with the Sultan’s force and thus maintained her religion, costumes and culture. What a marvelous product of Europe it would have been… if it were not for the impediments in the way of our perceiving one another. I need not mention here that Cervantes lost his left arm during the Battle of Lepanto and that he wrote the works of literature we know of with his right arm. Now, once more Manuel Costa Lobo will talk to us about the frame of perception partially by a study of kneading the materials that came up this morning.



Manuel COSTA LOBO- Thank you very much. I’m very happy to be here. I’m very grateful for every people that were presenting his ideas about Turkey and perception. I’m learning very much. And I’m trying to think with you. This is not a speech that I brought from Portugal; it’s a kind of ongoing thinking with you about this problem.

This is a way of presenting my message, first of all about culture and how we see the world around us; don’t forget that each one of us is always in the center of the world. We see from us, therefore all that we see is the circle around us. And when we come to the problem of Europe, I normally represent Europe as a triangle, this triangle has three very strategic, very important corners, where on the top corner, North Cape in Norway, then there are two very important corners downstairs; it is İstanbul and Lisbon. I came from Lisbon, but it is not because I came from Lisbon that Lisbon is there. I am a city planner, regional planner, and then I always think that things start by space. Therefore Europe is a space, it is this triangle. But don’t mix with European Union; EU is a political organization, Europe is a space. It was always like that, even EU was so little, Europe was still there. And I can see that from these corners, we can start a discussion about what happens to Turkey.

Very often I speak about Portugal; it is because I come from Portugal, but also because it is exactly the other extreme of this Southern Europe. If we go on, you can see that we have two stakes in Europe: one of the stakes is Anatolia, and the other one is the Iberian Peninsula. This is only geography, this is not very elaborated reasoning, but it is interesting to see that we can find here a very important political town; it is Ankara, the capital of the Turkish Republic. And on the other side is also a very important town; this is not the capital of Portugal, but the most important city in the Iberian Peninsula; it is Madrid. Here we have two countries Spain and Portugal, but we have to accept that Madrid is the most important city in this Peninsula. And both of them are in the middle of these spaces. This is because they are taking profit of all the surroundings. Madrid and Ankara are very new cities, but there are also very old and very important cities of these spaces.

In my point of view the biggest, important, fantastic and marvelous city in this space is Istanbul. And on the other side it is Lisbon, and Lisbon is the starting point of the big adventure of the world of Europe, it was the idea of going around Africa to this side. Because Istanbul was very near, Turkey was already on that side of Asia, because finally to make trade is very often the motor of progress. At that time, around the 15th century, the important thing in trade was to have a contact with Asia; silk, jewels, spices, and all those things. Turkey, İstanbul was near, but the Western Europe was very far. And there were fightings between these two sides, very often compared with two brothers; when there is the father, the medieval king then two brothers start fighting, killing the other if necessary to become the next king. We were fighting, it’s normal at that time, not now.

Then about this link between this Peninsula, minor Asia, not Asia, this is very important because this is the root of the understanding of people. But in any case there is a line that is the Bosphorus that cuts this space in two parts; what we call Europe, what we call Asia or better, minor Asia. But as a matter of fact the Bosphorus is not a real division, but mainly a great link. You can see how many boats are going from one side to another. And the metropolitan area of Istanbul is not only one side, therefore, even though we accept that division from the geographical point of view, it is a big connection; from the human, from the city, from the regional point of view this division doesn’t exist. This is the main link between these two parts.

Then I cannot speak about relations between Turkish culture and European culture because in my point of view, Turkey is in Europe, but I can speak about Turkey and EU, yes this I can speak about. In any case if EU is represented here with its culture, with its capacity, and Turkey is here, maybe there is really a gap. But the people from EU say “Well, please Turkey now you have to change your culture in order to come together”. Why? Why the Europeans don’t change? Maybe because this is radical but I am not radical. Maybe we have to find something between. Because in my point of view, if we look to Europe, the biggest soul of Europe came from downstairs, from Mediterranean. And if you have to see something as European, let us compare with the South of Europe, we can compare with Finland. From the cultural point of view, very big, very heavy, very ancient culture is down there. From political point of view there are many things to say….

Now another one; I’m speaking about education and knowledge. It’s interesting that we have north and south of Europe, it is very symbolic to get some polemics, and then we have the western and the eastern part of Europe. And from education and knowledge, here in the western part I must tell you that, we know a lot about the North Europe, we know a little about the Southern Europe, but the Eastern Europe, for many time was put very much out of the knowledge of people, a certain obscurity. Maybe we can say that it is because of the religion. Maybe it was, but religion was in my point of view manipulated by trade and by the economic interests. Therefore this side is not very known by most people in the western countries. Even today, the knowledge about Turkey is not enough, very far from being enough. I’m bringing many people here, the first time I came here was forty years ago, since then each time I bring people from Portugal, they come and say “I didn’t expect that Turkey was a country like that.” I don’t know what they thought but they were very astonished.

For me Europe is a space, we can say the EU is that, it could be but it is a problem of decision. We can go further but suddenly I am afraid that if we make all Europe like that and this little bit is not there, this triangle of Europe you see will be like that, without this part, it will be just destroying this space.

Here this is another symbolic scheme. This is the scheme representing Europe. But more or less the lines are corresponding to the links, to the distances; therefore you have little distance from the North. But from the distance point of view Lisbon and Istanbul are very far. Now let’s see from the cultural, mentality, behavior, capacity of getting friends aspects, and then Istanbul becomes very near to Lisbon. It is so easy to make friends here. We think that we are very similar from the image point of view, even the image of Turkish people having dark skin, very big mustache; in former times in Portugal, it was the same idea; Portuguese must be short, have a dark skin and a mustache. Therefore I think we are similar. Why? Because for centuries, for thousands of years the links trough Mediterranean were much easier. Since many many years ago, the link between Istanbul and Lisbon existed, even not Lisbon the south of Lisbon. We have found out very recently stones with Hitit writings, we are now trying to deal, maybe the Hitits were also there in Portugal. Phoenicians were coming very often to Portugal; we have settlements there.

When you are shaping Europe don‘t forget about this, then here I can put again Europe. And about trade, trade of culture; now some people speak about cultural industry. If these different countries, regions, peoples and cities all make business, and all have their production… And if we have to buy a very important thing we go to Germany or to Netherlands to buy, and these are the contacts that existed. It is competition, we have to compete; the price of “fındık” in Portugal is expensive, so I’m going to buy in Turkey. These countries are only competing to serve in good prices the northern Europe and north Europe is making business with South countries. I don’t like competition but I like the so-called “civilized competition”. I think human beings nowadays must not be anymore wild beasts, therefore we have to get through the wild competition, we have to do things in a civilized way. And again this means cooperation but the cooperation must come through culture, not only with economic alliances. Therefore you have to get cooperation in these countries. It seems their eyes are blind, they don’t notice the important links between ourselves. The southern countries must become able to cooperate and then we get a balance in Europe.

And the last one; about identity. To have identity and a good Europe, we need to get complementaries. Complementarities not only between South and North, but also between East and West, and here I represent a little bit of the history. When Ottoman Empire went around the world, getting more links, more countries, more territorial grounds, Portuguese could not do that, because in one side there was Spain which is much bigger and in the other side only fish. We could go to the sea, we could not have this kind of strategy, and the strategy was navigation; the globalization of the sea at that time. This is interesting that Portugal is still having a policy and capacities that bring us very far. There are many people who go to Mexico, or to Toronto, to Boston, to South of Africa; we have many relations that are spread out, we are not strong enough to have this kind of relations with our neighbors. But Turkey is strong enough to have all these relations with Balkan, Asian and Mesopotamian countries. Turkey is able to do that, and if Europe wants to have the best from each one of its partners, I think we can find here in Turkey and in Portugal completely different capacities, identities and complementaries. Therefore we have complementaries, we can have cooperation, we can be friends. Coming here very often with friends, also with students from Portugal, now they have very good friends. Some of them have already small kids. These kids are going to be born in families that already have friends on both sides. Thank you.

Serhan ADA- It is hard to add whatsoever after the presentation of Manuel Costa Lobo, because even if he may give the impression that he talked about cultural geography, he actually pronounced a poetica thereof. At any rate, that’s what could be awaited from a speaker coming from the same city with Pessoa. This problem of identity is a recurrent one. Nevertheless, I would like to add a small thing to make clear that the dimensions of this issue have little to do with geography as Costa Lobo claims, but that the space we call EU has a looser definition. Recently, we hosted a Greek scholar in our university department who was to lecture on economy and culture. He was talking about the things that took place in Greece. The major subject of discussion in the recent days was the fact that students of Albanian origin headed the procession holding the Greek flag during national ceremonies because they were the most diligent students of their classes and this created great problems for the Greek public opinion. Albania has nothing to do with our discussion, but it is a given fact that the presence of one million Albanian immigrants in the heart of Europe creates a grave frame of perception. Without giving further examples, I would like to return to the subject by telling you an anecdote. This is an anecdote between me and Oruç Aruoba, if he doesn’t mention it, I will. He doesn’t like to mention it when I do. Now that he has concluded his speech, I think I can transmit it. It concerns the question of what it means to be European and who is to be called European. While silently sitting amongst probably liberal statesmen, artists and intellectuals in one of the former Venetian Biennials, as people were looking for an answer to the question “Who is European?”, Borges raises his hand and says “I am the most European amongst you all”. We have come to the end of our presentation in the limits of the time given to us. Now, I’d like to turn to you to hear your questions and contributions. We may start.

Vassiliki PAPAKOSTOPOULOU- It’s my pleasure to be here in Istanbul. As you know, Turkey and Greece have good relationships. I work for the International Relations Department within the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and we had a friendly cooperation with Turkey within the framework of the Council of Europe, EU, UNESCO and other international organizations. Just to refer to your example of Albanian scene in Greece and the flag; the institutional framework in Greece is that the student who has the best grade in the class is honored with the Greek flag. So the constitution or the institutional framework gives the opportunity to the people coming from the other countries to share the culture. It is very important for us. Thank you very much to having the opportunity here, have a nice afternoon to you all.

Serhan ADA– Yes, we surely have many things to learn from our neighbours.

Nevin TAN- I’m an architect retired from the Iller Bank and the Urban Development Planning Directorate of Istanbul. I think that the theme mentioned by our Greek colleague can very well be applied to Turkey in the following sense: relating to the education, due to the fact that the western section of Turkey is supplied with fertile farmlands and fields, the farmers living in that region do not let their kids have an education because they prefer that their sons continue to cultivate those lands after them -here I’m rather talking about a prevalent case in the past which still continues. The best students are those kids which we formerly called Eastern now named as the Kurds. If we were to consider bureaucrats of higher ranks predominantly we see those Kurdish kids who have had a good education. Similarly the same goes fo the military, although due to the conjuncture, they prefer not to call themselves Kurds. I felt obliged to make the link between the two cases because I observed a similar situation in Greece. On the other hand, I have known Manuel Costo Lobo for a very long time. He has made many valuable contributions especially in the Mimar Sinan University concerning Turkey. Thanks to his background in architecture and urban planning, he has produced extremely interesting schemes very appropriate for sociopolitical structures even though they may seem stylized. Maybe today here these schemes are valid, but I think that they should also be developed and integrated in the other activities of the EU. I’d like to thank him specialy for that reason.

A listener- The term “European Culture” is recurrent. I’d like to ask this question to speakers coming from Europe: is there such a thing as a World culture? If yes, what is the difference between European culture and the World culture?

Eddy TERSTALL- I think that there is definitely such a thing as European culture in a sense that the level of spiritual, intellectual development has a lot to do with economic progress and also the level of secularity is usually interconnected. And I think because of the fact that we all, the Turks like the Portuguese and Dutch, have plundered the rest of the world for a long time we have this economical advantage which caused us to be more liberal and secular countries than most of the third world countries. And I think because this more liberal attitude brought about curiosity, freedom of thinking, invention and progress and therefore because of our stolen advantage, we took advantage of the rest of the world basically. Our liberal attitude has caused a more wider and a more open look on the world which usually result in a more secular and open society. And I think that this is more or less what European culture is. Even for instance when I was in New York, the New York cultural elite like to identify themselves very much with Europe, cause they look upon themselves as forwards compared to the rest of the country. They think that they, the New Yorkers and maybe the people also from the west coast are Europe oriented, and that the rest of the country is basically backward Christian peasants.

The same listener- So that’s European culture? What about the World culture? If I read something from Portugal, if I watch a movie from Jamaica, I feel it the same way, because not I’m Turkish or something else, I just feel it because I am a human being. But what about the culture, is there a world culture?

Eddy TERSTALL- There is a world culture but I think because of the openness and liberal achievement that we manage to get because of our economic advantage again that we basically have stolen centuries before. But we do have that economic advantage which led to an extent to less backwardness and less religious fundamentalism. So the fact of being so liberal and having more opportunities to think freely and to be curious, I think that leads to an overall culture which is more open minded, liberal and libertarian and I would like to say that this is the European culture, and I think that’s also the way that others, like intellectual elites from Kuala Lumpur to Brasil also identify it.

Manuel COSTA LOBO- I will try also to add something about culture. I think it will be really difficult to say what is especially in Europe that we could call European culture. But one thing is important. Europe is composed by many countries, regions and various high personalities, with many fights during thousand of years. But bit by bit we came more mature, now Europe is not interested in going on having fights between regions or countries, because this is old. If you go to America, Brazil, many countries, they are very big, they have their states but they have a kind of homogeneity, same language etc. Here we have so many little differences, and we have bit by bit trained to live within this diversity. And there is also the city planning, this aspect. I think that in a certain way, city planning has some European characteristics. For instance, we have a very nice concept about central area of the city; the forum, the agora or the things that came before us, but than all these came to the concept of central area. Central area is a place of getting together, city is a place for social integration. What we see for instance in American literature, they don’t speak about central area, they speak about cbd, central business distinct. It seems that we give more importance to culture. But in any case, I think what is important is that we have to get to understand each other and if religion is the reason for our fight then let the religion from the window.

I would like to answer about the question “Is there a world culture?”, because actually that wasn’t answered. I think what’s threatening to become world culture is what we call “Mc Culture”; what’s turning to become the world culture is the spread of American culture. And this really is something to be aware and weary of. I think the difference between the European culture and the Mc Culture or the world culture, coca-cola, jeans, MTV, any place you wanna go; Russia, India everybody try to look like a little American. The Europeans hopefully until now has been going to depths of meaning, looking actually for some kind of spirituality -whatever definition you want to give- against this consumer world that anyone is talking about, where everything has a price tag and you just sell whatever you can to anybody you can. I think this is where the European culture can really benefit from a marriage with a Muslim land, because what the Muslim people still have is spirituality. They’re still busy with some kind of moral values which we’re rapidly loosing. I think that can be their great contribution to our civilization.

Alican GÜZEL- Vienna, Meeting Point of Cultures Association. My question will be to Ms. Serra Yilmaz. As she said in her speech, although Turkey receives a lot of external support, there is nothing substantial she can give back. The examples that occur to me are the fact that the films she mentioned were Italian, that the films made by Fatih Akin, although entirely German, were presented in the press as Turkish films and that Turkey does not, cannot make a contribution herself. Well then, what should be the route to follow? What should be the next plan? Now, after the 17th of December, since “the time of culture has come” as cited by the EU president, what should be the contributions of Turkey? How should she support the artists living abroad?

Serra YILMAZ– What I wish to make clear is this: it is the production company that determines the nationality of films, not the directors. All journalists in Turkey who have come to me recently seem very optimistic. They say “Turkish cinema is making great improvements, isn’t it?” And this puzzles me. Now, Ferzan’s films are Italian, those of Fatih are German. However Nuri Bilge Ceylan is a very atypical director for he himself writes his scenarios, produces his films himself, shoots it himself, his family acts in his films and therefore they are not films made with a production budget. That’s what I tried to point out. If you ask what should be done, Turkey has to build up its own film industry; you should not forget that in the past we used to produce much more films. Nowadays we cannot even make 20 films per year. Of course, the State has to make a contribution for the establishment of this industry. We pay so many taxes to the government that it is hard to understand why these taxes never return to us as a support to the Turkish cinema instead of guns and weapons, that’s what I’m asking myself…

Alican GÜZEL– I’ll add a small thing. We also do drama work in Vienna; we do Turkish drama pieces. It is quite an odd situation; we act pieces in Turkish, but receive no support from Turkey. We do them with the help of the Austrian government and the Municipality. Now Turkey will have to produce projects in Arabic and Kurdish. How is Turkey going to face this situation then?

Serra YILMAZ– By having a cultural policy. Is it not the raison d’être of the Ministry of Culture?

Serhan ADA– Although it’s not up to me to talk in the name of the Ministry of Culture, I think it is necessary to tell you something I witnessed in Ankara recently. The Ministry of Culture is at the stage of preparing Turkey’s cultural policy to present it to the EU and they are seeking how to share it with civil society organizations. I don’t know if we should consider this to be good news, but this project exists and it will be presented to the EU. But personally I do not advocate a close cooperation with the government in these kind of things, for sometimes metaphorically “playing together” does not give good results, either the game is interrupted or the toy gets broken. I see that there is another question over there…

Serra YILMAZ- Pardon me, I’d like to add a little thing. To play closely with the state does not mean to be supervised by it. When the state supports a film, it certainly does not have the right to censor it afterwards by saying that it is a good film, a bad film or that it is not a good representation or that it talks about the story of small Kurdish girl.

Aliye KURUMLU- Ms. Yilmaz made the following observation: we easily invite foreign guests and artists to Turkey but it is very hard for us to go abroad, to Europe or elsewhere in the world. What can be done in this respect? It is a vast subject, but she could express herself in a few words.

Serra YILMAZ- Let me say this much: when we look at the way in which these exchanges take place, we realize that most European countries have cultural centers in our country. The people working in these cultural centers work to bring together people working in cultural domains in their country with those of Turkey. I will again give an example from France: besides the AFAA Bureau which is subordinated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there is a publication office charged with the presentation of the French culture and this office supports the translation of French works published worldwide. The other day, I was a jury member in a film festival in Italy. A number of feminist groups came up to me and asked: “Are there not any woman writers in Turkey?” They are in great number, “But we don’t know any of them.” They don’t know them because publishers do not make any efforts to look for writers they don’t know of from countries they don’t know of to publish their works because they can’t always draw a great profit from bookselling. But apparently our Ministry of Culture has begun to give a certain support, I ignore what it amounts to. If such a support exists, you could propose a project. Apart from this, something like a cultural center could be created, there can be a cultural attaché and the director of the cultural center, the attaché or the manager -howsoever we may call him- can cease to be the brother-in-law or the nephew of the Minister and can be someone to really execute his functions. For as far as I could see, the list of government officials was satiated in this way. I think these should really be done.

Nelson FERNANDEZ- Visiting Arts UK. This is an answer to the previous question concerning how to present the art of Turkey. I think accidentally this is an issue that is of interest of all artists in the EU, if any consolation, it is not only a question that arises only with Turkish artists looking to present their work elsewhere in the EU. But there are mechanisms; I work for an organization that is called Visiting Arts, which is a sister organization to the British Council. I know that as one of your panelists has already identified, for example in France there are similar mechanisms. There is a growing sense in Europe in order to really have a dialogue, you have to not only present the arts of your country, but you need to also encourage the presentation of the arts of other countries in your own, so as to really allow your public, your audiences to understand what is the art and culture of the rest of our brothers and sisters on the EU is about. For example Visiting Arts, supports and encourages the presentation of foreign arts in the UK by providing access to the information, by providing access to networks, by providing artists with information about producers, curators, promoters, festivals that may be interested in the work. And I think this is something that is happening more and more throughout the EU, and that is something that anybody has questions about presenting work in Britain, than I would be happy to find an answer to some of these questions. And I think that we all need to encourage our Ministry of Culture to be more open and receptive, allowing and encouraging artists and companies to freely exchange by providing financial support, which is sometimes very difficult for ministries to accept. I am happy to answer questions later, if anybody wants to know more about how to present in the UK. Thank you.

Eddy TERSTALL- I’ll give you a relatively good example about how to promote your own culture in foreign countries. Five or six years ago, the Dutch government when it was like a state visit, they used to give a painting or something like that. But they stopped doing that. Now they give a state gift, very usual state gift lately for the last five years is to give a Dutch Film Week, to the country that the queen or the Prime Minister visits, because it is a more accessible way to reach a foreign audience. That is for instance a very nice way to show your culture. I think that was a very good idea, because usually those events are well attended by the country that the Prime Minister or any minister visits. I think it’s a better idea for instance to give a Theatre or Film Week as a state gift, than something less accessible.

Serhan ADA- Before moving on to the last question, I’d like to thank the speakers for having created an environment so much open to discussion. With your permission, I would like to take the last question so that we finish on time.

Genco GÜLAN – First of all, I’d like to say that I find the issue of national representation rather dangerous both in the case of Turkey’s representation and the representation of foreign countries in Turkey. I have serious doubts about the representation of culture solely through nationalistic values. In addition to this, I would like to make a small contribution to the previous discussion. The former Minister of Culture Mr. Erkan Mumcu had said: “Plenty of money, projects wanting”.