turkish-greek civic dialogue - AEGEE Europe

A self-conception as an EU candidate would, for example, activate representation
of Greece as a fellow European country that is competing with but not hostile
towards Turkey, and discourses of national interest that stress the economic
and security benefits of the peaceful resolution of disputes. Within such a selfconception,
the adoption of European norms does not need to be justified on the
instrumentalist grounds of the benefits of future membership. Therefore, the
EU’s perceived ambivalence towards Turkey’s membership would not discredit
this alternative discourse. Turkey would seek to achieve European standards in
its foreign relations because they validate its international identity. Similarly,
a self-conception as a good international citizen would strengthen discourses
of national interest that stress international collaboration and setting a good
example for the international community. Of course, exposing these alternative
possibilities is the task of the critical theorist; however, how to make these
alternative possibilities the prevalent realities is another matter.
In some areas such as human rights and the environment, non-governmental
organisations have become actors in and of their own right. Though lacking
in military and economic power, their influence stems from one important
resource they have at their disposal, their power over ideas. By quickly
and credibly generating politically usable information, by framing issues in
innovative ways, by monitoring state behavior and holding them accountable
to previously stated policies, non-governmental actors have been able to after
the context of meanings and constraints within which governments make and
implement policies.
HOW CAN CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS MAKE A DIFFERENCE
IN TURKISH-GREEK RELATIONS?
I believe that the most effective way civil society actors in Turkey and
Greece can help generate meaningful change in Turkish-Greek relations is
by articulating and propagating an alternative discourse on international
relations within their own countries. Even though there are strong challenges
to mainstream thinking in both Turkey and Greece, these suffer from not being
articulated within a coherent discourse.
Critical arguments become trapped in a real politic discourse of power, gain/
lose, and self-help, which makes it all too easy to frame the new proposals as
concessions and betrayals. If these critiques voiced within a coherent alternative
discourse, embodying a new vocabulary to represent the new conceptions of
Association des Etats Généraux des Etudiants de L’Europe
state identity and national interests, then they are less vulnerable to silencing
and marginalization.
Discourses are linguistic structures though, which actors represent social
realities. They are the shared sets of vocabulary available to actors in describing
and making sense of the world out there. Actors employing these linguistic
structures are not conscious of the full ramifications of their meanings.
They use them because it is commonplace, because it is the only vocabulary
available to them. ‘The Ozone hole’, for example, is a widespread phrase used
to describe the thinning of the ozone layer in the atmosphere. We continuously
use it, not contemplating on the implications of our choice of that phrase
in place of for example, ozone depletion. However, the phrase ‘ozone hole’
conveys a sense of urgency, catastrophe, a damage that cannot be undone,
while ‘depletion’ is probably a much more scientifically accurate description
of the phenomenon, though rendering the process less immediate. I do not
know who originally coined this phrase, or whether he or she was conscious of
its likely effects. Regardless, its effectiveness in galvanizing public opinion and
prompting international action cannot be denied.
An example of effective discursive innovation in Turkish-Greek relations that
comes to my mind is the recently coined phrase ‘Ege’nin iki yakası’ (“two sides
(collars) of the Aegean”). It immediately resonates with the Turkish proverb
‘İki yakası bir araya gelmek’ where the coming together of ‘yaka’s means
prosperity. Each time Turkey and Greece are referred to as “Egenin iki yakası”,
what is implied is that they have to come together and be one.
In addition to such discursive innovations, another way in which civil society
actors can alter the context in which governments make and implement policies
is by providing credible and politically usable information. For example, a
website that keeps track of hate speech in the media of both sides building on
the success of the Hate Speech in the Balkans project, by officials, dog fights
in Aegean, and simultaneously records good gestures, positive representations,
and meeting such as this. Hate speech is a controversial term for speech
intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action
against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual
orientation, or disability.
This would not only be a reliable source of information for researchers, but
also strategically present the information in such a way that it will be easy to
Rebuilding Communication
49