Ataturk Was No Autocrat

To the editor:

I strongly take issue with the recent article titled "Stiff Upper Lip," in which the founding father of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, is lumped with the likes of Hitler and Stalin.

Ataturk's achievements and the democratic legacy he left behind make him one of the great visionary leaders of the last century. It is thanks to Ataturk that Turkey now has a unique position in the Muslim world, with a vibrant, secular democracy and burgeoning economy. Particularly at a time when Turkey is being cited as a source of inspiration in the face of the dramatically changed Middle East, it is most unfortunate, outrageous and insulting to characterize Ataturk as an autocrat.

By the same token, taking whiskers as a light-hearted parameter to put an historical figure among irrelevant others is no less an offense to the credibility of Foreign Policy as a venue of learned debate and a source of reference.

No doubt, the people of the United States would have the same reaction if their great founders and contemporary leaders were placed among similar company based on their physical appearance.

This post is a grave injustice to Ataturk, to the well-earned reputation of Foreign Policy, and to the general public who could have benefited from a journalism of higher caliber.

Sincerely,

Namik Tan

Ambassador, Republic of Turkey

Washington, D.C.

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

ZORBA

2:56 PM ET

April 1, 2011

BRAVO!

Dear Mr. Tan;

I would like to thank you very much about your correction and sensibility.
It is also our mission to talk about facts happened in the history to everybody in the world like you.
Kind Regards..

S.Emrah UYGUN

PABLO1

4:46 PM ET

Hey Turks: Get over yourselves.

Dear Mr. Tan,

It may be crime in the nation of Turkey to insult Ataturk -- a fact that's certainly worth some discussion on the esteemed pages of Foreign Policy -- but it's not a crime in the United States. Listing Ataturk alongside rather unsavory leaders because of his rather hilarious choice in facial hair is an example of -- gasp! -- good old humor. Your incredibly irrational reaction to the fact that Ataturk's name was included on a list of mustache-wearers -- your horror that it might, perhaps, implicate him among the autocrats of the world -- speaks louder than the list itself. Me thinks thou dost protest too much, sir.

Pablo

REVOLUTIONARY

4:15 AM ET

April 2, 2011

No one thinks for a sec that insulting Ataturk is illegal in the US, or calling him an autocrat is a severe insult. It is only a misdirection of facts and hurts Turkish peoples' sensibilities.

Maybe you should get over with the fact that criticising a bad taste of humour, albeit it is your interpretation and not necessarily true, is not irrational, but is a right - as much as the FP has the right to publish erroneous and misdirecting articles.

Sincerely

ASAD KHAN

4:24 AM ET

i endorse pablo.mustufa

i endorse pablo.mustufa kamals services for turkey are undenable.he was a military genius.he didnt come to power through elections.he ruled alone--with anwar pasha and tilat pasha.the reaction is unwarranted.

4:32 AM ET

i protest against his

i protest against his excellencys remarks against hitler and stalin.

DR. JONES JR.

8:40 AM ET

Passion of the Turks

Having lived in Turkiye for some time as a student, I can well understand why the Turkish ambassador felt moved to comment on Mustafa Kemal's inclusion in a list of mustachioed dictators.

The Turks are (as a generalization) a passionate people, and Ataturk is the equivalent of the pope for a Catholic, or some combination of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for the general American. No matter the truth of the matter, the outcry should be expected and--frankly--should be tolerated. If you told an average American that George enjoyed receiving regular anal penetration--no matter how logical or correct your analysis that led to the conclusion--you could reasonably expect an upset response, perhaps even a violent one.

Reminds me a bit of the current uproar in India over the suggestion, in a recent book, that Mahatma Gandhi was bi-sexual. Correct? Maybe. Intended as an insult? Probably not. Deeply insulting to a very conservative country? Yes.

I would suggest that while Ataturk had many qualities of an autocrat--not least when doing away with traditional Turkish headgear by presidential fiat--Turks are also quite right to see him as an "enlightened" despot, keen to reform his country by any means necessary. It seems that autocracy was not his goal, but may have been accomplished during his lifetime through the force of his personality and the strength of his self-conviction. Ataturk remains, even today, as Turkey's secular god of secularity.

As for FP's "photo-essays", I think that most regular readers have learned (or should learn) not to take them very seriously. The Turkish Ambassador is probably correct to note, by the way, that these tend not to reflect well on FP as a serious magazine of international issues. While I'm personally not against having some humor included in FP, I would be wary of ending up like TIME.com/powered by CNN, with all its worthless "top ten" fluff.

ZORIN73

4:51 PM ET

Weird choice

I am a relatively new subscriber to FP but placing Ataturk amongst 20th century's despots made up my mind about journalistic jurisprudence and rational argument at your magazine. It looks like I'll stick to the Economist for a more wise outlook on foreign affairs and historical accuracy going forward...

EXMOD 27

10:42 PM ET

perspectives

A Kurd, or a "mountain Turk" as they were called in the 20s and 30s, or a Greek, might disagree with the notion that Ataturk wasn't a dictator. But for Turks, and as an example for all the former possessions of the Ottoman Empire, Ataturk was a shining example of leading his people out of the swamp of superstition and true despotism and onto clearer and higher ground. He was an extraordinary leader and a product of his times. Turkey, and the world in general, is better that he existed. You can not say the same for Hitler or Stalin and therefore he should not, even in jest, be included in that infamous company.

Foreign Policy Magazine

APRIL 1, 2011

(8)

Slate Highlights