Meeting Pope and Erdogan
as reflected in the press
WWW.CHIESA January 5th 2007
Exercises in Disinformation : The Pope According to the
Leading Newspapers.
Here is how the major international media have deformed Benedict
XVI’s position on the entry of Turkey into the European
Union. The author of the analysis: Anton Smitsendonk a former
Dutch ambassador to China.
by Sandro Magister
ROMA, January 5, 2007 – For a pope who is a theologian and
a “doctor of the Church” like Benedict XVI,
communication is essential. But the machinery of the Vatican is
far from providing him with an efficient service, as www.chiesa
has documented several times.
But there is also an external obstacle that blocks Benedict
XVI’s words from reaching their destination correctly. This
obstacle is found in the leading newspapers.
A striking case of disinformation on a grand scale was seen on
the first day of the pope’s trip to Turkey .
It was November 28, 2006. Benedict XVI, newly arrived at the
Ankara airport, held a conversation with Turkish prime minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The discussion was not followed by any official statement. But
the world’s major newspapers concluded, on the basis of
what Erdogan told journalists after the meeting, that Benedict
XVI had changed his mind about Turkey ’s entrance into the
European Union.
According to these papers, Joseph Ratzinger had changed the
unfavorable view he held before becoming pope into a favorable
one.
Here below, Anton Smitsendonk provides a well-reasoned summary of
what was written on that occasion by the world’s principal
newspapers, which overlooked the statements of a different nature
issued by authoritative exponents of the Holy See.
Smitsendonk, now commissioner for Thailand and Indonesia in the
International Chamber of Commerce, is a former Netherlands
ambassador in China and earlier minister counselor in Turkey. He
wrote this commentary expressly for www.chiesa.
But first, it is helpful to review in their entirety both the
assertions Ratzinger made in 2004 about Turkey ’s entry
into the European Union, and the positions expressed by
representatives of the Holy See on the occasion of Benedict
XVI’s meeting with the Turkish prime minister.
1. – Joseph Ratzinger in "Le Figaro Magazine," August 13,
2004, interviewed by Sophie de Ravinel:
"Europe is a cultural continent, not a geographical one. It is
its culture that gives it a common identity. The roots that have
formed it, that have permitted the formation of this continent,
are those of Christianity. [...] In this sense, throughout
history Turkey has always represented another continent, in
permanent contrast with Europe . There were the wars against the
Byzantine empire, the fall of Constantinople, the Balkan wars,
and the threat against Vienna and Austria. That is why I think it
would be an error to equate the two continents. It would mean a
loss of richness, the disappearance of culture for the sake of
economic benefits. Turkey, which is considered a secular country
but is founded upon Islam, could instead attempt to bring to life
a cultural continent together with some neighboring Arab
countries, and thus become the protagonist of a culture that
would possess its own identity but would also share the great
humanistic values that we should all acknowledge. This idea is
not incompatible with close and friendly forms of association and
collaboration with Europe , and would permit the development of
unified strength in opposition to any form of
fundamentalism."
2. – Joseph Ratzinger in a September 18, 2004 speech to
pastoral workers in the diocese of Velletri, a speech printed by
the Catholic newspaper in Lugano, Switzerland, "Il Giornale del
Popolo":
"Historically and culturally, Turkey has little in common with
Europe ; for this reason, it would be a great error to
incorporate it into the European Union. It would be better for
Turkey to become a bridge between Europe and the Arab world, or
to form together with that world its own cultural continent.
Europe is not a geographical concept, but a cultural one, formed
in a sometimes conflictual historical process centered upon the
Christian faith, and it is a matter of fact that the Ottoman
empire was always in opposition to Europe. Even though Kemal
Atatürk constructed a secular Turkey during the 1920's, the
country remains the nucleus of the old Ottoman empire; it has an
Islamic foundation, and is thus very different from Europe, which
is a collection of secular states with Christian foundations,
although today these countries seem to deny this without
justification. Thus the entry of Turkey into the EU would be
anti-historical."
3. – Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, the Holy See’s
foreign minister, speaking to “Avvenire” on November
26, 2006, in an interview with Gianni Cardinale:
“It is not the case that the Holy See has expressed an
‘official’ position on the subject [of Turkey
’s entrance into the European Union]. Obviously, it follows
the question with great interest, and this again highlights the
fact that the longstanding debate over Turkey’s admission
into the Union and the positions for or against this show the
great relevance of what is at stake. Of course, the Holy See
maintains that, in the case of admission, the country must comply
with all of the political criteria established by the Copenhagen
Summit in 2002, and more specifically in terms of religious
freedom, with the recommendations contained in the July 23, 2006
Council Decision on the principles, priorities and conditions
contained in the Accession Partnership with
Turkey.”
4. – Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See press
office, after the November 28, 2006 meeting between Benedict XVI
and Erdogan:
"The Holy See has neither the power nor the specific task of
intervening on the precise point of Turkey's entry in the
European Union. It is not its responsibility. However, it regards
positively and encourages the path of dialogue and rapprochement
to Europe in virtue of common values and principles. In this
connection, the pope expressed his appreciation for the
initiative of the Alliance of Civilizations promoted by prime
minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan."
"As a group of lemmings from the cliff..."
by Anton Smitsendonk
If Turks are in any way concerned about their image as a
hospitable nation it might be good if they knew how at Esemboga
International Airport of Ankara prime minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan tried to trap the Holy Father as he entered upon his
pilgrimage in Turkey, November 28, 2006.
But our strongest criticism does not go to Erdogan but to the
many journalists of the free western press who traveled with the
pope and showed so little professional perspicacity.
The renowned "New York Times" failed in this event. But also the
well respected "Figaro" in France, and nearly all the big
newspapers in my own country Holland .
All said more or less that the pope on the airport of Ankara gave
up his resistance to Turkey in the European Union.
For instance, "The New York Times / International Herald Tribune"
said in big letters on the front page : "Pope Backs Turkey's Bid
to Join the EU – Gesture seen as effort to temper anger of
Muslims."
And explained :
"On his trip this week, the pope is being more diplomatic.
Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, announced
that Benedict had told him it was now the Vatican’s wish
that Turkey join the European Union. A papal spokesman was less
direct, saying the Vatican was encouraging Turkey’s
‘integration’ into Europe. We hope that the
pope’s evolving stance – coupled with his calls for
Christian-Muslim dialogue – will soothe popular anger in
Turkey and across the Muslim world." "The New York Times"
again, in an article by Ian Fisher and Sabrina Tavernise :
"Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Turkey on Tuesday armed with a
surprise gesture of good will aimed at blunting Muslim anger
toward him: he backed Turkey ’s long-stalled desire to join
the European Union, reversing a statement he made two years ago.
Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told
reporters after a brief meeting with Benedict at the airport here
that he had asked the pope to support Turkey in its attempt to
become a member of the European Union. ‘He said, You know
we don’t have a political role, but we wish for Turkey
’s entry into the E.U.,’ Mr. Erdogan said the pope
told him. ‘His wish is a positive recommendation for
us.’ Although the Vatican does not play a formal role in
the European Union, or delve publicly into domestic matters of
other states, the pope’s gesture was nonetheless a piece of
political stagecraft at a delicate time both in relations between
Muslims and the West and in Benedict’s own damaged
reputation among Muslims. But the 79-year-old pope’s
concession on Tuesday, at the start of a four-day trip here,
seemed to make good on his pledge to heal the wounds between East
and West. It may also have the practical effect of tamping down
anger here."
"Le Figaro" :
"Accueilli par le premier ministre turc, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
le Souverain Pontife lui a déclaré qu'il pourrait
voir d'un bon oeil l'adhésion de son pays à l'Union
européenne. Une véritable révolution pour un
pape qui, avant son élection, s'était ouvertement
opposé à cet élargissement, vu comme
‘une grande erreur’. Le pape théologien s'est
fait diplomate. ‘Nous ne faisons pas de politique’, a
cependant précisé le père Federico Lombardi,
directeur du bureau de presse du Saint-Siège, ‘mais
nous voyons favorablement le chemin de la Turquie vers l'Union
européenne’. Le Saint-Siège ‘n'a pas le
pouvoir ni la compétence pour intervenir sur les points
précis regardant l'entrée de la Turquie dans
l'Union européenne’, a-t-il ajouté.
‘Cependant, il voit positivement et encourage le chemin de
dialogue et d'insertion de la Turquie dans l'Europe sur la base
des valeurs communes’".
"The Economist", halfway prudent :
"Mr. Erdogan claimed afterwards that one of Europe's most
prominent Turco-sceptics had been converted into a supporter of
his country's European Union membership – at a time when
that flagging cause needs all the help it can get. Whether
Benedict really has overcome his personal doubts about Turkey's
EU membership is open to question ; but the new Vatican line is
that, if Turkey meets the necessary conditions (including respect
for Christian rights) to join the club, that can only be
good."
"The Observer" :
"In an apparent reversal of his previous stance, Pope Benedict
XVI has reportedly said he supports Turkey joining the EU.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the Catholic
Church leader told him during a 20-minute conversation at the
outset of the pontiff's four-day trip to the mainly Muslim
secular country "we are not political but we wish for Turkey to
join the EU."
"Het Financieele Dagblad", the main financial daily of the
Netherlands :
"It is high time that partisans of Turkey ’s adhesion to
the European Union speak up, headed by enterprises members of
VNO-NCW. One unexpected partisan from Christian side, Pope
Benedict XVI gave a very good example, last Tuesday in Turkey
."
The misunderstanding continued even at later dates.
For instance, on "Le Figaro" the well regarded columnist Ivan
Rioufol became their victim as he wrote on November 1st :
"Le diplomate Benoît XVI a contredit, mardi, ses propos
passés de théologien, quand il assurait : ‘Ce
serait une grande erreur d’englober la Turquie dans
l'Europe’."
Andrew Purvis in "Time" magazine, December 11 :
"Early last week, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
had reason to be optimistic. During a meeting in Ankara, Pope
Benedict XVI said he was in favor of Turkey joining the European
Union... This reversed an opinion he had delivered previously as
a Cardinal, saying the move would be ‘a grave error against
history’." James Carrol in "The International Herald
Tribune", December 5th :
"The old structures must be dismantled. We see this very
process unfolding in the person of Pope Benedict, who still
insists on Europe ’s Christian identity. But in Turkey he
began to change, which shows the power of Europe ’s new
hope – the twain meeting at last."
Why were reporters so utterly misguided ?
There have been timely and clear and yet polite disclaimers from
both Father Federico Lombardi, the head of the Holy See press
division, and archbishop Dominique Mamberti of the State
Secretariat.
Do reporters not read between the lines? Do they not judge the
circumstances, see through the show which had been put up,
compare notes with each other and do some investigation? In this
case they fell as a group of lemmings from the cliff which
Erdogan had prepared for them. Erdogan may not have acted
entirely honorably in treating a guest in this cavalier way and
then turning to the journalists misreporting his conversation.
That is no great surprise. It is the western correspondents who
had the responsibility to see through such tricks and who
dismally failed in such a surprising way.
Maybe they saw their error a few days later. But did any of the
correspondents retract their statement when they saw the clear
disclaimers which were rapidly given – even during the
Turkish visit – by archbishop Mamberti and father Lombardi
?
The statements of Lombardi were carefully packaged with a
compliment to prime minister Erdogan praising him for his
"Alliance of Civilizations", an initiative which he is
undertaking with U.N. secretary-general, Kofi Annan, and Spanish
prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
Vatican diplomacy did what it had to do in a most proper way. But
the message was not understood by the reporters.
And did the chief editors of those newspapers later take any
remedial action ? They probably speculated that in our hasty
world the error would be forgotten in 48 hours.
It will not be forgotten. The Turkish people may be concerned
about how this accident is being seen in the world.
Erdogan’s action has even further diminished the chances of
Turkey accessing the European Union.
As to the quoted newspapers, they should not be surprised if in
establishing truth they are losing ground in comparison with
websites and electronic newsletters. The profession of newspaper
reporters needs some rehabilitation.
Meanwhile the peoples of Europe may safely assume that their
choices on any future relationship with Turkey (either accession,
or rather as more and more people now think a "privileged
partnership") is still wide open.
The Pope has not spoken on this topic.
Anton Smitsendonk Paris , January 5, 2007
|