turkish-greek civic dialogue - AEGEE Europe

all know –and it was also eloquently shown in the Sakarya meeting– that history
is used as a tool by national policies.
It was a very interesting and “difficult” conference. Kemal Arı and Ayhan Aktar
said that they could hardly imagine such a conference taking place in Turkey
5 years ago, and I could add the same for Greece –maybe without the 5 year
horizon.
The most important speeches –in terms of the richness of thoughts and emotions
they triggered in me– were, I think, those of Halil Berktay, who talked about
his emotions regarding the history of his family, Nikos Agriantonis, who showed
us that, in our cases, people (and the states) treat the monuments built by the
“enemy” as if they were the enemy itself, and finally Elif Babül, who presented
to us the multifaceted tribulations and suffering of Ίμβρος /Gökçeada island
–not of the rocks and trees, but of the people involved.
From the very first moment I had the feeling that our symposium, with the
poetic subtitle “yeniden kurulan yaşamlar” – “ζωέs ξαναστημένες απ’ την
αρχή” approached the whole issue in a very good way. And I realised that it was
an excellent symposium when, a month later, I attended a similar symposium
in Thessaloniki, organised by a similar refugee association, where the main
topics were: a) The violation of the Lausanne Treaty -by the Turks they meant,
b) 80 years since the Lausanne Treaty and the oblivion policy, c) Violation
of the reciprocity clauses –additional rights for the Western Thracian Muslims
according to Turkish demands. I don’t mean to be racist, but I can tell you that
there were only some 150 old people attending it.
I am fully convinced that OUR project Greek–Turkish civic dialogue –allow me
to use the word “our”; this is how I feel about it- has achieved many important
things, by bringing Greek and Turk youth together to have fun, to communicate,
to think about education, to think about prejudice in an attempt to overcome
it. But if I were asked to answer in one word if it was a success or not, I would
answer with no hesitation: hm, perhaps. If this project were evaluated in
technocratic terms, such as the number of participants, the number of proposals
submitted for subprojects, the number of training activities implemented, it
would most probably appear to be highly successful.
But what about more qualitative or more political criteria? What do I mean? Of
course I accept that things like the approach between people and workshops
Association des Etats Généraux des Etudiants de L’Europe
on deconstructing prejudice are very important. But I do not believe that the
Greek-Turkish conflict is a result of a huge misunderstanding and will therefore
be resolved in this way. Having in mind that in order to tackle a question and
try to contribute to a solution, we first need a sound analysis, and also that
the solution is strongly connected to the way the problem is defined, allow me
to proceed to a short analysis. The Greek-Turkish conflict does not lie on a
cultural basis. It is not because Greek and Turk shepherds milk their sheep in
different ways, or because Greek and Turk construction workers built walls in
different ways, or because Greek and Turk artists compose in different forms,
nor because Muslims and Christians disagree on the precise job of angels in
paradise.
The Greek-Turkish conflict is based on questions related to the exploitation
of wealth-generating resources and on questions related to power and
dominance. And that’s where we must focus. Otherwise our big efforts will
bear little fruit, if any, and we will be like the guy in the proverb –the same
in Greek and Turkish- who “θύμωσε με το γάιδαρο και χτυπάει το σαμάρι”
- “eşeğe kızdı, hırsını semerden aldı”. So, according to my analysis, the Greek-
Turkish conflict lies on economic and power issues. These have been the main
reasons for conflicts over the centuries. But what we have nowadays in this
part of the world is a different way to handle them. Now we accept that arms
are neither the only nor the best way to solve our problems. Besides, we all
understand that the type of game in which Greece and Turkey are involved can
change from a “win or lose” situation to a “win-win” situation. Negotiation,
mutual understanding, mutual profit are the key words.
This is my analysis and my proposals. Of course, I do not demand that it be
adopted. I am ready to consider and examine different analyses, to discuss
all of them and arrive at a synthesis on the basis of which we shall trace our
courses and establish monitoring mechanisms and criteria against which we
shall measure our effectiveness. My sense - and I think most of you agree
with me - is that we are in a good position. Of course there are many more
things to be done. But we have managed to stand by each other, to talk, to
understand the hopes and fears of each other and now we are putting in place
the conditions to start walking together.
LET’S DO IT!
Final Conference
175