AK Party Deputy Chairman of External Affairs Suat KINIKLIOGLU was the guest of the CNN Turk’s program “Ankara Kulisi” which is prepared and presented by Fikret Bila and Murat Yetkin.

Further guests in the TV program were CHP’s Deputy Chairman Onur OYMEN, Prof. Dr. Ihsan DAGI from Middle Eastern Technical University and Prof. Dr. Rusen MAZICI from Marmara University who discussed the topic mentioned by the Prime Minister at a county congress in Duzce concerning fascistic approaches in Turkey’s past in the context of minorities.

Commenting the Prime Minister’s Duzce speech KINIKLIOGLU said, “The topic mentioned by Mr. Prime Minister expresses the appearance of a xenophobic approach towards foreigners now and again in the past. Actually it is pointed out that there is a discrepancy between the profound integration of Turkey into the global economy, the activity of foreign capital in many fields and Turkey’s recently achieved remarkable and self assured position on the one hand, and the scepticism in Turkey against foreign companies on the other.”

“There are some events in history of the Republic as Thrace in 1934, the wealth tax in 1942, the events in September 1955 which we cannot be proud of” KINIKLIOÐLU added.  The tax revenue of the wealth tax has constituted 80% of the national budget in that year, said KINIKLIOÐLU. This was not something to be proud of no matter from which political wing or tradition someone originates. He added, “For example Canan Aritman accused our President’s mother of being Armenian. This is not happening in the 30s or 40s where the Nazi ideology was common but in 2008-2009. I do not understand how we can accept such an approach in a globalised world where different cultures try to live together. Can we really discuss our own past freely in this country? Habermas called this “discursive democracy”. In a world of globalisation and modernisation I believe that Turkey must discuss these issues and the Prime Minister’s speech opened the door for such a debate.

KINIKLIOGLU, while pointing out that Turkey embraced different languages, religions and ethnicities and that this diversity enriched our country, added, “Should we as citizens of the Turkish Republic in 2009 see this diversity as a weakness or as an enriching factor? We must be proud of the ethnic, religious and confessional diversity of our country; these factors enrich our country and give us the vitality which distinguishes Turkey as an exceptional country in this geography. We have to overcome the trauma from the last years of the (Ottoman) Empire. Turkey is not the Turkey of the 1890s, the 1910s. Turkey is not a country which is lead by great powers; Turkey is a strong actor which projects this strength towards its region; 50% of its population is under 35, the membership talks with the EU are in progress and the economic growth between 2002 and 2007 accounts for 7,5% per year. Now we are discussing with self-confidence some issues in our past and this very TV program is part of this debate.

KINIKLIOGLU furthermore said whilst alluding to the Prime Minister’s speech, “In a global economy there is no language, religion or confession of money. We are now discussing events in our past after the Prime Minister’s push in the context of a bill which is not passed yet. But we have to designate carefully the essentials of this debate. People in our country speak different languages, have different religions or confessions. What unites us is this flag, this land and the citizenship of this country which is designated in the constitution. An approach which is proud of our country’s diversities and sees them as an enriching factor is essential. This is the base of this debate and I believe that we have to focus on this. In the year 2009, do we want to live in a Turkey which has a respected position in the international community with a developed culture allowing to live with minorities or do we want a Turkey which constantly produces internal and external enemies, a paranoid Turkey where foreign investment is seen as categorically evil, a country which is not in peace with itself? This is the point that needs to be discussed”