Reflections on a Holiday: From the National to the Global

Last week, we commemorated the 102nd anniversary of the Great Victory. Although we celebrate August 30 as the liberation day of an Anatolia that had been under occupation following World War I, the Turkish army's defeat of the Greek army undoubtedly held a broader significance for our history. In other words, the Victory was also political. It was a crucial milestone on the path from empire to nation-state, and from a monarchy to a republican regime. Ultimately, it became a turning point not only for the country but also for Atatürk's political future. The fact that every national holiday of ours, including August 30, is marked by such controversy makes sense, especially when considered with this political subtext. 

In this context, last week was no exception. The holiday was debated in the eyes of politics and the public not only through internal political dynamics but also through issues touching upon foreign policy, which can no longer be considered separate from the former. It must be said that many of these debates contained significant contradictions within themselves. In this regard, the Diyanet (Presidency of Religious Affairs) undoubtedly deserves first place. Almost all of Turkey remains locked on whether or not Atatürk will be commemorated by the Diyanet on every national day. Yet, the Diyanet is essentially a Republic institution. It is worth remembering that this state institution, established during the early Republican period—which is often described as anti-clerical—now has over 200,000 personnel and a budget larger than many ministries. All of this makes the Diyanet's vague stance regarding the republican regime even more contradictory. While there are major structural differences, a comparative study conducted—or to be conducted—on the potential class distinctions between today's 'ilmiye' (religious establishment) and that of the imperial era might reveal some more meaningful interpretations on this subject. 

Another topic of debate this holiday was the graduation ceremony at the National Defense University (MSÜ). First and foremost, the fact that the top graduates of the Army, Navy, and Air Force Academies were all women is truly a situation to be proud of for our country. I felt proud. On the other hand, the incident involving the oath and slogans at the graduation ceremony created a significant controversy. The young people—who are likely representatives of a generation born after 2000—were almost labeled as coup plotters by a certain segment for saying 'We are the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal.' I will set aside how the slogan is socially perceived here. I find it highly problematic that students of an institution that traditionally holds its graduation ceremony during Victory Week and has produced Atatürk, who founded the republic, are being harshly criticized simply for commemorating him. However, in my opinion, the most contradictory part of this issue is that a deputy who was disturbed by this slogan, saying 'we have seen this movie before,' entered parliament from the list of the party founded by Mustafa Kemal Pasha. I believe many people agree that this list issue needs to continue to be discussed. 

Let us come to the starting point of this article. Actually, my desire to write this piece arose after a congratulatory message on X, which I still call Twitter. It was the congratulatory message—or rather, the image used in that message—posted by NATO's Allied Land Command (LANDCOM) based in Izmir. It was closed to replies, but when the reactions of Turkish users spilled over even under the previous post—the August 20 Hungary State Foundation Day—the congratulatory message was deleted and republished with a new image. As one might guess, this new post was also closed to replies. In fact, NATO's struggle with August 30 dates back further. A congratulatory message posted by LANDCOM in 2022 was deleted following an official complaint from the Greek Foreign Ministry, which in turn caused reactions in Turkey. Managing relations within an alliance between two countries like Turkey and Greece, which established their nation-states through wars against each other, has always been difficult for both NATO and the US since the 1960s, when the Cyprus issue created a constant environment of tension. It should be noted that there is a continuity in this regard.  

The image in question showed Syrians forming a queue in front of a hospital in Afrin and a Turkish soldier standing guard. Turkish users reacted to the chosen photo based on the demographic order that NATO—and by extension the US—has envisioned for Turkey. As is known, Syrians under temporary protection and other irregular migrant/refugee groups are one of the most debated topics in Turkey today. As a result of the reactions, a new message was published using a photo of a Turkish soldier in front of the flags of member states, but the debate continued. Many agreed that the photo was a public relations or public diplomacy error. However, one must also question whether such a photo is beyond a public diplomacy crisis, precisely at a time when the normalization of relations with Syria and, furthermore, the Turkish presence in Syria are being discussed. For even if a direct link cannot be established with the case I am currently addressing, Turkey's Syria policy, which is prone to change, will create some shifts in the regional balance calculations of international actors influencing Turkish foreign policy. As is known, the US had stated that it did not look favorably upon Turkey's intention to change its policy in Syria with the facilitation of Russia. In Washington's calculations, this means an even greater increase in the already obvious influence of Russia and Iran in the region. In short, the US currently stands in a position that prefers the Turkish soldier to remain on guard in Afrin. 

When we look at Russia, which has an important place in this equation, again through the lens of August 30, we see another symbolism. On the same day, contrary to NATO's controversial photo, the Russians chose to emphasize Soviet aid during our national struggle for independence. For several years, Russia has been celebrating August 30 with a few photos, including the Taksim Republic Monument, where Soviet Generals Kliment Voroshilov and Mikhail Frunze can be seen. It is truly a work that reflects the Turkish-Russian rapprochement that has been widely discussed in recent years and has taken place on regional and economic issues. Indeed, it is quite difficult to find another periodic example to highlight the historical dynamics of this rapprochement. The impact of the change in the international system on bilateral relations, the fact that this is explained by many Turkish foreign policy experts with reference to the concept of strategic autonomy, and furthermore, the relationship of all this transformation with historical analogy, should be the theme of another critical article...