Last week on its editorial page The New York Times published one more article that says, "Stop President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. I say one more article because The New York Times is interested in and party to what is going on in Turkey as if it were an "opposition" Turkish newspaper. I write the word opposition in quotes because being an opponent does not mean fighting for sovereignty. Going beyond the enemies of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and those of Erdoğan, The New York Times called NATO to duty.
While an almost democratic revolution has been sweeping the country for 12 years, why is there so much antipathy for a political party and its leader who saved the country from bankruptcy and from the brink of a civil war, made it the 16th biggest economy of the world, won nine independent elections and ensured the support of 52 percent of the country's electorate? Persistently striving to misrepresent Turkey and Turkish politics by reversing what is happening in the country are not attributes of independent and objective journalism. Is The New York Times trying to influence the elections in its own way or shaking a finger at Erdoğan by reversing everything in the country with a very persistent manner that cannot even be considered partial?
Do those who keep silent while people live in hell in Syria, the inhuman cruelty continues in Palestine and Mohammed Morsi, who was discharged from his office by a coup d'état, has been sentenced to death together with his friends see this country that is the only stable oasis in the region as a problem? If they see Turkey as a problem, I believe this consideration is not an issue of democracy - it stems from the fact that Turkey has stopped acting as if it were a banana republic. I have met a lot of foreign journalists who look down upon the Middle East as a category and who are ignorant and arrogant. The New York Times' behavior exceeds such ignorance. It is a conscious behavior and the desire to intervene draws one's attention.
Accused of abetting the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and being a dictatorship, Turkey is subject to being put into sectarian parenthesis. One cannot swing a dead cat without hitting falsified news and disinformation. This unjust treatment of the only stable Muslim country that could simultaneously negotiate and work with the West and Middle East cannot be the strategy of Western countries.
The people themselves will now decide who will take power in Turkey and how they will govern the country. Intervening in this country, creating a government and conducting operations on the country despite its people is no longer possible. We will respect whatever decision the people make in the upcoming elections. The most fundamental rule of democracy is to respect the results of the ballot box. Renouncing the results of the ballot box, as is the case in Egypt, and playing with the fates of those countries through manipulation will bring good neither to those countries, the region nor the world.
Both The New York Times and those who regard the world as an area to be engineered should acknowledge that peace will come to the world only when will of the people takes power in those countries. Now we need a more humanitarian realpolitik, a more humanitarian competition environment and a newer paradigm. A democratic revolution that is important both for Turkey's region and for the world has been put into action. It is high time for the West to respect the Middle East and get used to an equal relationship.
Using the discourse of democracy in order to manipulate democratic values and media endangers the future of these countries. The decay of values brings downfall. I am warning as a friend who appreciates Western democracy.