los condicionantes externos e internos de las relaciones Argentina-Estados Unidos durante los gobiernos de Menem, De la Rúa, Duhalde y Kirchners

Durante la larga historia de la política exterior de Argentina, los Estados Unidos siempre han tenido y tienen un lugar muy importante. Cada gobierno de la Argentina que llegó al poder, para determinar su postura en sus asuntos internacionales tenía que pensar primero en cómo iba a mantener su relación con ese país. Después de un largo periodo de la ruptura de la democracia en Argentina, Raúl Alfonsín fue el presidente que condujo la transición hacia la democracia. En realidad, por muchos aspectos, fue un enorme desafío para su gobierno mantener una relación con Estados Unidos, que sería muy diferente a la de sus antecesores. El tema de la autonomía tuvo un lugar muy importante y definitivo, y tuvo un impacto preponderante en la relación con los Estados Unidos. Alfonsín durante su presidencia tuvo diferentes objetivos, y uno de ellos fue tomar grandes e importantes decisiones para fortalecer la consolidación de la democracia en Argentina. Entre estas decisiones una de las mas relevantes era mostrar al mundo el cambio que estaba sucediendo en Argentina. Por muchas razones, ser independiente, destacar la importancia de temas de derechos humanos, evaluar el lugar del país y determinar una política exterior que estaban buscando vínculos productivos con los países en América Latina y otros países en desarrollo fueron algunos de los primeros objetivos del gobierno de Alfonsín. Solo en su segunda etapa de su presidencia, el tema de deuda externa empezó a tener un lugar preponderante, que cambió la postura respecto de su relación con los Estados Unidos. Los dos países, mucho antes que Menem tomara el poder, precisamente con la ultima visita de Alfonsin a los Estados Unidos empezaron a experimentar una relación mas próxima. Cuando Menem asumió su mandato, continuó a consolidar la relación. Para muchos analistas de política la presidencia de Menem significa una ruptura radical en la tradición de política exterior de Argentina. Desde el comienzo de la Nación, quienes estaban en el gobierno y también los círculos de intelectuales que tuvieron un impacto significativo en los asuntos del estado siempre tuvieron la idea de que Argentina es un país que tiene un gran destino y también puede competir con los grandes poderes. Por eso, los intereses políticos y económicos de los Estados Unidos en América Latina siempre fueron percibidos desde Argentina como una amenaza. Cuando Menem asumió el poder, él y sus ministros transformaron la política exterior de Argentina aplicando un nuevo paradigma que cambió el viejo entendimiento. Esta nueva postura que Carlos Escudé introdujo, se llamó: “Realismo Periférico”. Para él, la Argentina debería dejar de aplicar políticas equivocadas que datan desde hace 50 anos, y percibir un nuevo rol, dependiente del los cambios postulados en el nuevo orden mundial. Desde su óptica, un país vulnerable, empobrecido y con poco peso estratégico, en relación a los intereses vitales de la potencia hegemónica debe evitar todo confrontación con las grandes potencias, salvo en aquellos asuntos materiales vinculados en forma directa con su bienestar y su base de poder; en suma, necesita adaptar sus objetivos a la potencia dominante. (Escudé, 1992 44- 47) Pero la pregunta mas importante que nos tenemos que plantear es: cómo este nuevo paradigma de Escudé fue aceptado generalizadamente en este década en Argentina, cuáles fueron las circunstancias internas y también externas que permitieron al gobierno de Menem cambiar su postura hacia los Estados Unidos tan radicalmente. A diferencia del gobierno radical de Alfonsin, el nuevo gobierno Peronista de Menem llegó al poder cuando la inflación y deuda externa estaba en su punto culmine. La democracia estaba consolidada y con las políticas de derechos humanos ya establecidas, pero el tema de la economía tuvo un impacto preponderante. Las promesas del gobierno Peronista eran insertar al a Argentina en el mundo de los países desarrollados (industrializados, países de primera línea) y para lograr eso Menem subrayó la importancia de tener una relación muy afianzada con los Estados Unidos. Su razonamiento estaba basado en ciertos parámetros. Como Roberto Russell destacó: “Menem comprendió que el mundo era otro: el conflicto Este-Oeste daba sus últimos estertores, los Estados Unidos aparecía como el líder indiscutido de la coalición vencedora de la Guerra Fría. Menem y su equipo leyeron este cambio como una oportunidad y decidieron aprovecharla al máximo poniendo en practica una política exterior que situó al país a lo largo de toda la década en el lugar del aliado más solícito de los Estados Unidos en América Latina.” (Russell) Los condicionantes mundiales que llevaron al gobierno Peronista a cambiar su politica hacia los Estados Unidos estuvieron aceptados generalmente por la sociedad argentina. Francisco Corigliano, en su artículo “Argentina y Estados Unidos: giros, reformas y ajustes”, explica elocuentemente cómo las expectativas de la sociedad argentina, que eran parte de los condicionantes internos, fueron apropiados para introducir nuevas políticas externas: “…durante el gobierno de Menem no se puede dejar de tomar en cuenta el reclamo del grueso de la opinión pública por la adopción de medidas de estabilización y modernización económica, opciones obligadas por la traumática experiencia hiperinflacionaria de los años 1989 y 1990”. El gobierno peronista de Menem utilizó la fuerte relación con los Estados Unidos como uno de los mas cruciales necesidades para cambiar la drástica situación económica del país. Y los condicionantes externos como los nuevos ideales: neoliberalismo, democracia y libre mercado empezaron a tener mucho impacto en el nuevo orden mundial, fueron adoptados por la Argentina como muchos otros países en desarrollo y cambiaron las dinámicas de la relación con los Estados Unidos. La falta de inversión externa en el mercado de Argentina también fue uno de los condicionantes internos muy importantes que el gobierno de Menem utilizó para fortalecer las relaciones con los Estados Unidos. Otro condicionante externo que tuvo un lugar muy significativo fue la invasión de Irak a Kuwait. Para Corigliano esta invasión le dio al gobierno argentino la oportunidad de profundizar el acercamiento a Estados Unidos. (Corigliano) La caída del Unión Soviética finalizó la incertidumbre y al final Argentina, después de aplicar una política externa prudente y muchas veces muy neutral por muchos años, al final con el presidencia de Menem estuvo muy atenta a los cambios en la esfera de la seguridad mundial. Porque como dice Raúl Bernal Meza en su artículo “Política Exterior Argentina de Menem a De La Rua Hay una nueva política”: “La necesidad de implementar la nueva política era consecuencia, fundamentalmente de los cambios ocurridos en el sistema mundial: fin de la guerra fría, Estados Unidos como única superpotencia mundial capaz de ejercer influencia y jugar en todos los escenarios: política- diplomático, militar-estratégico, tecnológico- financiero”. (Raúl- Bernal Merza 2002 ). Por eso el último condicionante externo fue el tema de seguridad, Argentina con el gobierno de Menem tuvo que hacer una elección y definir su postura externa para adaptarse al nuevo sistema mundial. Y la profundización del la relación con los Estados Unidos hizo a la Argentina mas integracionista y comprometida con la defensa del nuevo ordenamiento mundial en el ámbito de Naciones Unidas, contrastando con su anterior perfil dominado por un aislacionismo internacional de hecho (Bolívar 1998). Y como expresó Roberto Russell en su ultimo trabajo “La Argentina del segundo Centenario”, se destacan del gobierno peronista las diferentes medidas espectaculares para disipar cualquier duda sobre el alcance del compromiso: el envío de dos naves de guerra al Golfo Pérsico para participar en la alianza multinacional contra Irak en la primera guerra del Golfo; el retiro del movimiento de Países No Alineados dando un portazo, con el propósito de producir un cambio cultural en el país y de demostrar al mundo el apartamiento de la Argentina y de sus reivindicaciones; el voto favorable en el Comisión de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas a la propuesta de los Estados Unidos sobre la investigación de los derechos humanos en Cuba; el cambio del perfil del voto argentino en la Asamblea General de la ONU, con el propositito de acercarlo a las posiciones estadounidenses; la ratificación del Tratado de Tlatelolco; la adhesión al TNP y la desactivación total del plan misilistico Cóndor II. (Roberto Russell 2010)

Francisco Corigliano en su articulo Las Relaciones entre Argentina y Estados Unidos durante las gestiones de Fernando De La Rua y Eduardo Duhalde explica cómo el rol jugado por las autoridades de la Casa Blanca en una forma sustantiva durante las sucesivas crisis en la segunda gestión de Menem. Para Corigliano las últimas crisis desnudaron la vulnerabilidad de la economía argentina y estos factores externos negativos, mas el desequilibrio fiscal que durante la segunda gestión Menem legaría a su sucesor. (Corigliano) Entonces cuando De La Rua vino al poder, la crítica situación económica de la Argentina tuvo un lugar muy importante en la formación de la nueva política exterior. El déficit fiscal fue una de los condicionantes internos muy importantes que causó una relación especial con los Estados Unidos. Raúl Bernal Meza argumenta que “De la Rua y su canciller impulsaron una línea de política que mantuviera el nivel de buen relacionamiento que las relaciones bilaterales argentino-norteamericanas tuvieron bajo la gestión del presidente Menem, pero reduciendo el perfil de exposición (“relaciones carnales”) interpretadas –interna y externamente- como de seguidísimo o alineamiento”. Aunque las relaciones no eran tan “profundas” como habían sido antes, era muy evidente que no obstante las disputas controversiales que ocurrieron durante estos años, por ejemplo como Bernal Meza destaca, el rechazo norteamericano a la ley de Patentes Medicinales y el conflicto entre las agencias de inteligencia de los dos países, el gobierno de la Alianza continuó dando mucha atención y mucha importancia a su relación con los Estados Unidos. La grave situación de la economía no dio mucho espacio para tener una postura más autonomista.


A partir de la renuncia de Fernando De La Rua, la situación económica del país siguió empeorando. Cuando Eduardo Duhalde asumió el poder, en su primer mensaje al Parlamento anunció un cambio en lo económico, de un sistema “agotado”. El no pago de la deuda externa decretada por Adolfo Rodríguez Saa (Smirnoff) La drástica situación de la economía evidentemente paralizó a la sociedad Argentina, y el gobierno de Duhalde considerando este condicionante interno tuvo que cambiar su postura hacia los Estados Unidos y tomar decisiones comparando a sus antecesores mucho mas prudentes. Como Smirnoff argumenta, a diferencia de la administración dellarruista, Duhalde tuvo una política exterior mas pragmática y sujeta por la coyuntura del “cada día”. Aunque Duhalde se cuidó mucho para no colisionar con el gobierno de Bush, las negociaciones con el FMI causaron ciertos daños en la relación con este país. El gobierno de Bush, que criticó en un principio a la Argentina por no cumplir sus compromisos financieros, a partir de fines de 2002 facilitó las negociaciones con el FMI, asumiendo un papel que el propio Duhalde caracterizo como muy militante. Pero al final cambió su postura. Las razones del cambio fueron puramente prácticas: Washington temía que el peronismo adoptara política mas dirigistas si no se llegaba a un acuerdo y consideró que era necesario preservar la estabilidad macroeconómica argentina para allanar la transición a un nuevo gobierno (Russell 2010). Al final los condicionantes externos como la falta de apoyo del gobierno de Duhalde en la intervención estadounidense en Irak, el cambio en la votación de Argentina en la ONU sobre el tema de los derechos humanos en Cuba fueron condicionantes externos que afectaron las relaciones entre la Argentina y los Estados Unidos negativamente, pero eso no significa que había cambios profundos y dramáticos. El gobierno de Néstor Kirchner llego al poder en Mayo del 2003. Como Pedro Brieger dice: “El asumió menos de dos años después del atentado a las Torres Gemelas cuando Estados Unidos ya había invadido Afganistán e Irak y cuando las criticas hacia la política exterior de George Bush estaban en su punto mas alto” (Brieger). Las condicionantes externos que tuvieron un impacto en las relaciones de estos dos países estaban cambiando. El gobierno peronista primero busca maneras de tener más autonomía en sus políticas exteriores y especialmente en su relación con los Estados Unidos. Para lograr eso, Kirchner hizo mucho esfuerzo por que los problemas económicas no dominen las relaciones con este país, y debiliten a la Argentina como había ocurrido por muchos años. Este plan de Kirchner necesitaba mucho tiempo para ser realizado, por eso, como Russell argumenta, en sus primeros años Kirchner guardó para su intimidad las diferencias con el gobierno de Bush por el papel que le correspondía en el tema entonces central de relaciones exteriores del país: la renegociación de la deuda con los organismos multilaterales de crédito y los acreedores privados. Así esquivó todo cuestionamiento publico a la intervención de los Estados Unidos en Irak . (Russell 58, 2010) Sólo después de octubre de 2005, con la victoria de la partido peronista en las elecciones legislativas y el mejoramiento en la economía, Kirchner tuvo la posibilidad de dar una forma a su política exterior mas independiente de los impactos negativos de la economía del país. Entonces, después de muchos años las relaciones con los Estados Unidos poco a poco empezaron a cambiar debido a los cambios en los condicionantes internos. Russell argumenta que: “Agrandado por el canje exitoso de la deuda en default a principios de marzo de 2005, con una adhesión del 76 por ciento a las bonistas, Kirchner sintió que había llegado la hora de tomar distancia del gobierno Bush y reprobar a Washington, por sus políticas actuales y pasadas. Esta distanciamiento entre los dos países no ocurrió sólo por la actitud que estaba tomando el gobierno peronista de Kirchner. Unos de condicionantes externos que jugó un papel muy importante en las relaciones de los países fue la indeferencia y el desinterés de los Estados Unidos hacia Argentina. Corigliano argumenta que la Argentina nunca integró la lista de países prioritarios para los intereses vitales norteamericanos desde el punto de vista estratégico y/o económico (como, por ejemplo, Israel, China, Turquía o, para citar un caso regional, México). En circunstancias excepcionales (casos de crisis, amenazas de crisis o procesos internos potencial o realmente peligrosos para los intereses vitales de Washington), el "irrelevante relativo" adquiere momentáneamente un nivel de "relevancia" que está en relación directamente proporcional con la gravedad de sus problemas y la naturaleza y magnitud de sus amenazas y cuestionamientos a los intereses vitales de Estados Unidos. (Corigliano 2001) Al final esta distanciamiento no significaba que el gobierno Peronista buscó confrontar los intereses de los Estados Unidos, simplemente buscó otras alternativas para tener mas autonomía en su política exterior. Las relaciones económicas con Venezuela que comenzaron a tener un lugar muy significante, fueron uno de estas alternativas que para Kirchner dieron espacio para maniobrar. En el gobierno de Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, las relaciones con los Estados Unidos continuó sin cambios. Evitando confrontar los intereses de los Estados Unidos, el nuevo gobierno peronista de Kirchner, con el cambio del presidente de los Estados Unidos, pasó a estar muy lejos de los prioridades de la política exterior de este país.

COMPARING THE FOREIGN POLICIES OF ALFONSIN AND MENEM

FOREIGN POLICIES OF ALFONSIN

From 1983 until the end of 1999, Argentinean society witnessed great change in the foreign policy traditions in that country. Of course, these great changes did not take place overnight. Beginning with the presidency of Raul Alfonsin, who became the first democratically elected president of Argentina at the end of a very violent and harsh period of military dictatorship, was required to construct a new political scheme primarily focused on achieving a major shift in foreign policy in order to change the generally negative perceptions of Argentina throughout much of the West.

Throughout his presidency Alfonsin focused on determining certain principles, with he and his ministers careful to present policies that were morally consistent. At a meeting in 1985, Dante Copputo, Alfonsin’s first foreign minister, explains the nature of this policy position very clearly: “There are no two policies nor two morals nor two conceptions of life, liberty and democracy.” .”(Coputo D 1985) This statement demonstrates the radical government of Alfonsin as directed at the unification of internal and external policies by following certain ideals which would prove to the world that Argentina - now out of a military dictatorship - was ready to embrace her past and build a strong and independent democracy. For Alfonsin, following these ideals was not just a pragmatic option which would ultimately enable Argentina to free itself from the rusty and self-destructive Argentinean exceptionalism and help it move closer to world powers.

Roberto Russell in his article Belief Systems and Argentinean Foreign Policy argues that the universal principles which were cornerstones of the discourse of protection of human life and dignity that Alfonsin was so strongly emphasizing in both internal and external policies were actually perceived as a way of protecting the country against the actions of the powerful states. They were also understood as a specific tool with which to recover the prestige that the country lost during the military dictatorship years. . (Russell R 1996)

Transition to democracy was the hardest task that Alfonsin needed to accomplish during the first phase of his presidency. The level of anti-Americanism in society was still at such a level that it also had a pronounced impact on the choices of the public during the elections. During the first years of eighties a majority of Argentineans considered the United States poorly for its support of ferocious actions of the military in Argentina.

Therefore when Alfonsin came to power it was not a surprise that he kept a distant relationship with United States, chose to support the idea of “self determinism” and strengthened country’s position in the Non-Alignment Movement. External debt passed on by the military dictatorship was a large burden for Alfonsin’s radical government. In order to deal with this problem, the country required reconstruction of its relationships with neighboring countries and reinforcement of trade activities with them. The peace treaties with Chile, as well as the negotiations that resulted in the formation of Mercosur, should therefore be seen as important steps in reconsolidating the country’s position in the region.

Apart from these activities, Alfonsin focused on playing a role in changing the rules for international commerce, which favored developed countries and largely ignored the interests of developing ones. Dante Copputo in his speech at the Uruguay Round stated: “The belief of equal development between nations causes us to ignore the profound historical, social and economical differences between countries and also contributes to strengthen the asymmetries.” (Coputo D) This demonstrates that as a developing country, Argentina, was not pleased with the injustices occurring in the world trading system, and by opposing these injustices showed a more neutral position in its international relations. The decision to visit India in 1987 and become part of the Group of Six and strengthen economic bounds with developing countries can be understood as the results of the search for national autonomy, which enabled the country to have an independent foreign political agenda.

Reconciliation with the European countries, especially the treaties signed with Italy and Spain, enabled Argentina to improve its social and economic relations with European countries. In comparison to the foreign policies of the military dictatorship, Alfonsin’s government aimed to stay away from the persistent clash between two major powers and find other spaces for Argentina to seek security and secure its economic interests. The Group of Six, which Argentina formed together with India, Greece, Tanzania, Mexico and Sweden, was aimed at opposing the arms races between the superpowers. However as argued by Roberto Russell, Alfonsin’s radical government lost its credibility by not ratifying Tlatelolco; by failing to join a TNP; and by continuing to develop Project Condor II (Russell R 1996) .

In the second half of 1984, Alfonsin’s government began to change its foreign policy priorities and place priority on relations with the United States. This change caused severe opposition in the parliament and was understood as a betrayal of his government’s original policies. As Reficco argues in his article “ Foreign Policy and Political Culture: Argentinean democracy case 1983-1985”, Alfonsin’s two visits to the United States can be seen as the beginning of a new alignment with the United States as well as a significant mark of departure from the traditional foreign policies that Alfonsin had attempted to compose. Reffico defined this major step as el giro realista, or the “realist turn”, which later in Menem’s presidency accelerated and was ultimately widely accepted by Argentinean society. .(Reficco E 1996)

FOREIGN POLICY OF MENEM

When Menem came to power in July 1989, he faced an Argentinean society more focused on the country’s devastating economic situation than any of its ideological conflicts. It would therefore not be wrong to state that Menem’s approach to politics and the economy was in fact a result of the demands of the majority of Argentineans. His idea of bringing prosperity and peace to the country was very much directed at the goal of rendering Argentina a rising power, performing at its maximum economic and political capacity. In order to accomplish this goal Menem’s policies were very much focused on short-term goals with an accompanying lack of consistency. Reficco in his article argues that Menem redefined the idea of being part of the Occident. Unlike his predecessors, instead of focusing on the ethical and cultural features of the Occident, Menem elected to highlight the role of politics and the economy. . (Reficco E 1996)

Global political and economic dynamics had gone through a radical change with the fall of the Soviet Union and this change was felt as strongly in Argentina as elsewhere. It was therefore not unexpected to see that Argentinean domestic politics was greatly affected by these changes. Indeed the foreign policy decisions of Menem could be seen as an outcome of these changes. For example, acknowledgement of the position of the United States as sole super power rendered Menem’s government more determined to seek ways to strengthen its alignment with that country. In order to accomplish this, a movement away from the policies of former radical government was inevitable. It was therefore essential to be able to present a rational defense of his new foreign policies to society. Menem, together with his first foreign minister Domingo Cavallo, attempted to convince society that the efforts and decisions made by the former government on foreign policy issues were not sufficient to improve Argentina’s position in the international arena. Due to the radical changes happening around the world, economical interdependence had to be part of every country’s reality in order to survive. As a consequence, as Amalia Stuhldreher argues in her article “Regimen Politico y Politico Exterior en Argentina. El caso del primer gobierno de Carlos Menem (1989-1995)” Menem started to advocate a new political scheme, which would be run by three concepts: realism, pragmatism and normality. (Stuhdreher A 2003). By embracing realism and pragmatism Menem’s government applied a policy which made economic relations a priority.

Being a strong ally of United States meant certain sacrifices, such as losing the ability to act independently in certain circumstances. In security issues, Menem’s government supported United States interests even in places where Argentina had no direct interest, such as by sending troops to the Gulf War without even waiting for the ratification of the parliament. This particular support can be seen as a pragmatic decision of the Menem government, which enabled Argentina to strengthen economic relations with the United States. Economic crisis, high inflation and foreign debt were sufficient to legitimize his neoliberal posture. In order to solve these domestic problems Menem utilized foreign policy as a tool to convince Argentinean society that only by integrating through strategic and economic alliances could Argentina be better off in the long term.

Menem’s charismatic leadership played a great role in convincing the masses that his government was ready to make all necessary changes to consolidate its place alongside the world’s biggest powers. The strong relationship with United States that Reficco defines as reconnection caused Argentina to move away from the Non Alignment Movement and implement Plan Condor II. It similarly caused Argentina to give greater attention to United States interests.

Meanwhile, Menem continued to foster the integration process with Brazil, Uruguay and other neighboring countries. Latin America, along with Europe and United States
In light of the fact that Argentina’s economic and strategic interests continued to have great importance in Menem’s government’s foreign policy.

Another important subject considered as a significant deviation from previous foreign policy was Argentina’s relationship with Britain. So-called demalvinization of foreign policy was an important issue for Menem’s government. He and his foreign ministers believed that this issue harmed the position of Argentina in international arena and this drove his government’s efforts to reconsolidate relations with Britain. The treaty, which was signed by both countries in Madrid in 1990, was the outcome of Menem’s departure from former policies on the Malvinas issue.

COMPARING THE FOREIGN POLICIES OF ALFONSIN AND MENEM

Both Alfonsin and Menem play major roles in the contemporary political history of Argentinean. Both were forced to create new political schemes to adapt to changing international conditions. The times at which each came to power also played a significant role in their contrasting decision-making processes in relation to foreign policy. Alfonsin came to power at a time when great transition was taking place in Argentina. Passing from military dictatorship to democracy was a hard task to accomplish. Political tension was still high and society was still fragile as a result of the unpleasant experiences of those years. Alfonsin’s foreign policy was no doubt affected by these internal conditions. Initially, the radical government felt in need of restoring the prestige that the county had lost. The foreign policy of Alfonsin was consequently very much focused on accomplishing this task. His government signed numerous treaties in order to prove to the world that Argentina would stick to democracy and protect human rights, thereby distancing itself from the military dictatorship.

Unlike Alfonsin, Menem took power when the democracy was consolidated. He therefore he did not feel the same need to rationalize his policies by recourse to universal ideals. Rather, it can be seen that Menem chose to rationalize his foreign policies by using the argument that his government was focused upon the most urgent necessities of the Argentinean people, which at that time were the result of bad economic conditions.

Similarly, at the time that Alfonsin came to power, Argentinean society was continuing to perceive the United States as responsible for helping the military to commit horrendous crimes. Therefore it was out of question for Alfonsin’s government to build strong relations with United States. For this reason by taking Argentinean society’s needs and beliefs, Alfonsin’s government chose to emphasize the idea of independent foreign policy, based on promoting democratic and peaceful values around the world. In order to do that his government chose not to take sides and support the non-alignment movement.

The priorities of the foreign policy of Alfonsin for a very long time was to improve the relations with the Latin American countries by fostering the integration process especially with the neighbors and, afterwards try to demolish the isolationist policies of the military dictatorship which caused Argentina to go backwards for a long period of time. In order to do that, in contrast to Menem, Alfonsin tried to form new alignments with developing countries. Only in the last years of his presidency, due to the unresolved economical problems of the country, did Alfonsin move away from his former policies and try to strengthen the relations with United States. It would not be wrong to state that Alfonsin’s departure from traditional foreign policy in turn became the foundation for Menem’s approach to foreign policy.

The case of Malvinas is another subject that stands out as a significant difference between the policies of these two presidents. Unlike Alfonsin whom did not change the prevailing approach on this issue, Menem, again due to the pragmatic reasons, chose not to take a hostile or uncompromising attitude on this issue. Once again, the international political climate and the radical changes that took place such as the end of Soviet Union played a significant role in Menem’s foreign policy decisions. The impact of the end of bipolarity on Menem’s government decision to give priority to strengthen the relations with United States should not be underestimated.

Meanwhile, foreign debt, which continued to grow, together with high inflation rates, caused a drastic change in the articulation of expectations and necessities. The political conflicts that arose from ideological differences were replaced with the day-to-day necessities which were the result of urgent economic problems.

The role of finance and multinational companies in the Argentinean economy similarly had a huge impact on Menem’s foreign policy decisions in favor of economic interdependence.

As a result, the radical changes that occurred at both the international and domestic level were in fact the major determiners in the foreign policy agendas of both presidents. It should also be mentioned that both presidents used different arguments to legitimize their policies. Alfonsin’s idea of autonomy was completely different than that which Menem perceived. The priorities in their respective foreign policies were very much shaped by societal demands.

It is therefore largely impossible to make a comparison without accounting for the domestic and international conditions encountered by each president. In this way a comparison of the respective positions of Alfonsin and Menem demonstrates that foreign policy is inevitably a product of the contemporary political culture of a country.

LOS ORIGENES DE LA PAC

--Mi nuevo ensayo . Se trata de los origenes de la politica agricola comun en union europea.

Durante la historia de la Unión Europea , la Política Agrícola Común siempre ocupo un lugar muy importante, porque fue uno de los temas mas discutidos en política dentro y fuera de la U.E.. PAC ( la política agricultura común)nos muestra que es un sector crucial por todos los países en Unión Europa . Pero por que la agricultura fue siempre uno de los mas importantes sectores en Unión Europea? . Simplemente porque Europa fue uno de los exportadores de productos agrícolas a todo el mundo. Entonces para solucionar los problemas de este sector era crucial ordenarse económicamente y también cuando analizamos la historia de la Unión no es incorrecto decir que tener una política común en agricultura fue el primer desafió en el camino de la integración. Entonces es indispensable que analizamos los origines de la PAC para entender porque siempre fue tan problemática y en el mismo tiempo tan importante para la U.E..


Durante los primer años de 1950 Europa estaba en un lugar que nunca estuvo. Después de las dos guerras mundiales y la gran crisis que generó esto perdió todo su poderío.. La vida de las poblaciones cambiaron drásticamente. La brutalidad de las guerras no solo finalizó con las vidas de millones de personas sino que también causó graves daños en las tierras que antes eran muy productivas . Los gobiernos de los seis países ( Francia, Italia, Alemania, Holanda, Luxemburgo y Bélgica) que después fueron a ser los primeros países que tuvieron un acuerdo a aplicar la PAC en sus políticas domesticas estaban luchando para mantener los intereses de todos los sectores. Los campesinos siempre tuvieron un lugar muy importante en la escena de la política de estos países. Aunque la industrialización cambio la forma de producción, todavía los sectores de la agricultura estaban jugando un papel muy importante para ganar las elecciones en estos países. Según Ian Bache y Stephen George, para la Quinto Republica de Francia, el sector agrícola no era solo importante económicamente sino políticamente. Había una presión constante en todos los partidos políticos de centro-derecho para las agricultores pequeños que eran productores ineficientes, pero también muy determinados para continuar a ser independientes. Esto significaba que los agricultores tenían que estar subsidiados por el estado en medio del sistema de apoyo en precios. ( George , Bache 2006) En Alemania la situación en general no era muy diferente, el estado tuvo que apoyar al sector agrícola para aumentar la producción. Pero era muy evidente que las tierras de en Alemania Oeste estaban muy dañadas. Por eso había escasez de alimentación, que causó problemas en la población y para proteger a los campesinos el gobierno de Adenauer tuvo que aplicar una política de precios que favorecía a valores muy altos para los productos agrícolas en el mercado domestico. En los otros países como Italia, Luxemburgo, Holanda y Bélgica la política de poner altos precios para los productos agrícolas era muy común . Entonces en los países que eran los primeros fundadores de la política común agrícola, las regulaciones para mejorar la situación del sector tenían casi las mismas características. Por eso las discusiones entre los países para tener una política en común no encontró resistencia entre estos seis países. Las discusiones empezaron inmediatamente después del fin de la segunda guerra mundial y según Henrik Zobbe había dos temas muy importantes que siempre estaban cuestionados por estos seis países. El primer tema enfoco en la aseguración de suministro de los alimentos y el segundo tema cuestionó como los países pueden asegurar los ingresos de los campesinos. ( Zobbe 2001) Como mencioné antes las dos guerras imposibilitaban a los productores agrícolas a tener los mismos niveles de producción y aprovechar los altos niveles de ingresos, pero también la necesidad de hacer una renovación en la estructura de los sectores de la agricultura, todo esto estaba muy relacionado con la necesidad de transferir la gente a trabajar en los sectores de industria y aumentar la producción de la misma. Era imperante introducir nuevas tecnologías y cambiar la estructura de la agricultura fue uno de los mas importantes objetivos de la nueva política agrícola común. Después de indicar los problemas en este sector cada país quería determinar un plan común para mejorar las condiciones. Después de los primeras discusiones , los seis países no pudieron determinar un proyecto común. Por eso la discusión continuó con la creación de una nueva conferencia que solo se especializaría en los mercados de agricultura dentro de Europa. Este conferencia duró 2 años . Empezó en 1952 y terminó en 1954 y tampoco durante estos dos años los siete países incluyendo Inglaterra lograran a tener un consenso en los temas generales. Michael Tracy en su articulo “ Agricultura in Western Europe- Challenge and Response, argumenta que era muy fácil dar cuenta que había una diferencia entre los perspectivas de Francia, Holanda y Inglaterra. Según Francia era impensable tener un mercado común sin tener una política agrícola común, por eso también Holanda, ellos estaban a favor de tener una política mas supranacionalita, con fuertes preferencias sobre la comunidad. Contrario a Francia y Holanda , Inglaterra que siempre quería ser mas independiente y tener relaciones mas cerca con los otros países en la Commonwealth, generó muchas dificultades durante las discusiones. (M TRACY 1982) Aunque la infraestructura del sector agrícola en Francia estaba dañado después de las dos guerras, Francia siguió teniendo excedentes en sus producciones agrícolas y a pesar de las discusiones de tener una política agrícola común su primer motivo siempre fue exportar sus productos especialmente a Alemania y después a los otros países de Europa. En el final de las conferencias especiales para los mercados agrícolas , era muy claro ver que los seis países contrario a Inglaterra eran mas entusiastas para continuar a integrar sus mercados agrícolas, pero también era muy claro que todos los países tuvieron que sacrificar algunos intereses nacionales para poder integrarse a algo mas súper racional y complejo. Durante los siguientes años los seis países aumentaron la velocidad de los procesos de integración de los mercados agrícolas. Según Mansholt había cuatro razones para lograr una la inclusión agrícola en el proceso de integración. Primero era muy difícil de excluir los sectores agrícolas en la proceso de integración económico en Europa del Oeste porque era muy complicado fijar los limites entre los productos industriales y agrícolas, segundo el rol del sector de la agricultura durante esos años en Europa era muy importante . En tercer lugar para determinar precios mas estables y prevenir los fluctuaciones según Mansholt los países debían tener una política de precios común y en cuarto lugar y la ultima razón por porque Mansholt piensa que es necesario incluir los sectores agrícolas al proceso de integración, fue la relación entre la agricultura y el mercado general. Para Mansholt era evidente que el aumento en la producción agrícola marchaba a posibilitar de tener industrias mas avanzas y que producirían más rápidamente y con mejor calidad. (Mansholt 1963) Durante las discusiones entre los seis países era muy evidente que los intereses de Alemania y Francia muchas veces chocaban. En Alemania los campesinos estaban a favor de los precios altos y convencerlos para igualar los precios de los alimentos fue muy difícil por el gobierno de Adenauer.


Pero al final se llegó a un consenso entre los seis países para realizar una modernización muy rápida en el sector agrícola. Los costos de esta modernización significaba la falta de apoyo a los otros sectores, pero también los gobiernos sabían que esta modernización podía posibilitar la transferencia de los trabajadores campesinos a los sectores de la industria. Entonces podemos argumentar que la expansión industrial era muy dependiente de la modernización del sector agrícola en estos seis países. Cuando analizamos todo el proceso antes del tratado de Roma es fácil de darse cuenta que el acercamiento entre Francia y Alemania es uno de las mas importantes razones que posibilitó de tener una política común agrícola. Porque durante todo este proceso Francia con De Gauelle casi definieron todas las mayores reglas de la PAC y también el apoyo político de Holanda a Francia en este caso posibilitó a Alemania de hacer mas compromisos.

En conclusión en 1957 los seis países firmaron el Tratado de Roma y la política agrícola común en términos muy generales fue una de las partes mas importantes que ha posibilitado a los seis países de Europa unificarse y determinar las regulaciones en sus sectores agrícolas por primera vez. Pero los artículos que se tratan a PAC tuvieron aspectos muy generales. Como consecuencia se tomó la decisión de aumentar la velocidad del proceso de integración. El articulo 39 del Tratado de Roma en relación a la Agricultura define muy claramente los objetivos de la PAC :

a) Incrementar la productividad de la agricultura, desarrollando el progreso técnico y asegurando el desarrollo racional de la producción agraria así como el empleo óptimo de los factores de producción, especialmente la mano obra;

b) Garantizar un nivel de vida equitativo a la población agrícola, especialmente por el aumento de la renta individual de aquellos que trabajan en la agricultura.

c) Estabilizar los mercados

d) Garantizar la seguridad de los abastecimientos

e) Asegurar al consumidor suministros a precios razonables.

Al final no es incorrecto a decir que todos los objetivos que eran definidos en este artículo en realidad eran muy constantes con los objetivos nacionales de los seis países. El primer objetivo de este artículo se enfoca en la eficiencia de la economía y eso solo puedo ser posible si el sector agrícola usa los nuevos recursos técnicos y las tecnológicas necesarias para incrementar su productividad. El segundo objetivo es muy claro, y dice: que los gobiernos de estos seis países siempre por razones políticas y económicas van a cuidar los intereses del sector agrícola . Los altos niveles de ingresos por los campesinos es crucial para tener el apoyo de el sector agrícola en política. Pero también asegurar los precios de los productos para que sean asequible, este es un objetivo muy importante para proteger los otros grupos de intereses. En realidad con este tratado los seis países lograron equilibrar los intereses de los diferentes sectores. Los altos precios de los productos significaban proteger al sector agrícola, pero también puede causar resistencia entre los consumidores. Por eso con la política de fijación y nivelización de los precios de los alimentos los seis países pudieron asegurar los intereses de los consumidores. Al final el tratado de Roma solo determinó los temas que estos seis países tienen que enfocar para mejorar sus sector agrícola. Después de este tratado había muchas acuerdos y reformas que cambiaron la estructura de la PAC . Pero para entender como estas reformas y acuerdos cambiaron la PAC y posibilitaron su funcionar de otra manera, es crucial a ver sus origines.

ATAYA ÖZLEM

Geçen sene yazdığım bir yazı tekrar okudum ve bir on kasım sonrası hiç birşeyin değişmediğini düşünüp buraya tekrar koymak istedim.

The Messiah will only come when he will no longer be necessary. He will come one day after his advent. He will not come on the day of the Last Judgement,but on the day after.
- Kafka

" When ıne talks so much about power, it's because it can no longer be found anywhere. The same goes for God: the stage in which he was everywhere came just before the one in which he was dead. Even the death of God no doubt came before the stage in which he was everywhere. The same goes for power, and if one speaks about it so much and so well that's because it is deceased, a ghost, a puppet;such is also the meaning of Kafka's words: the Messiah of the day after is only a God resuscitated from among the dead, a zombie. The finesse and the microscopic nature of the analysis are themselves a " nostalgia effect" And so everywhere we see power coupled with seduction ( its almost obligatory these days) IN ORDER TO GIVE A SECOND EXISTENCE. Power gets its fresh blood from desire. And its no longer anything more than a sart of "desire effect" at the confines of the social, or a sort of " strategy effect" at the confines of history.

.... This universal fascination with power in its exercise and its theory is so intense because it is a fascination with a DEAD POWER characterized by a simultaneus " ressurection effect" in an obscence and parodic mode, of all the forms of power already seen.

Baudrillard


Ata şikayet hattı : Anıtkabir yürüyüşleri, Ata'nın dağda beliren silueti,Ata'nın sembolleştirilidiği her türlü dahiyane fikrin altında aslında tek bir şey yatıyor o da " Güce Özlem". Türk siyasi tarihi belirli dönemlere ayrılarak incelendiğinde sadece tek bir dönemde kullanılan sınırsız güç hala bugün bile meşruiyetini korumayı başarabiliyor. Bu güce olan,sarsılmaz güven ve inanç , Mustafa Kemal'in o günkü koşulları iyi değerlendirerek ilk başta kendisi için kurguladığı ve daha sonra kendisinin dışında büyük bir kitlenin varoluşuna şart koştuğu "karizmatik kurtarıcı" kimliği bugün hala bütün devlet aygıtları tarafından tekrar tekrar kurgulanarak ayakta tutulmaya çalışılıyor. O günün koşullarında, yaratıcı nosyonunun gerektiği ölçüde hızla gerçekleştirilen bir çok yeniliğin öncüsü olması ve en önemlisi bir arada tutulmaya çalışılan bir kitlenin kendi kimliğini oluşturma sürecinde en önemli dayanak noktası olarak benimsediği kahraman figüre verilen ismin Ata olması hiç de şaşırtıcı sayılmaz. Ama asıl şaşırtıcı olan bugüne değin bir çok noktada şiddete, baskıya ve sessizliğe tahammül eden milyonlarca insanın hala bu kurtarıcı figüre olan özlemi. Burada göze çarpan en önemli nokta Ata'nın kurtarıcı figurünün tarihin her türlü safasında şiddet ve baskı uygulayanlar tarafından da (otoritenin sağlama alınması için çoğunluk tarafından kurucu ve kurtarıcı olarak kabul görmüş ve her zaman minnetle anılmış olduğu için) kullanılmasıdır. Bugün hala yüzeydeki her türlü siyasal oluşumun kendini meşrulaştırmasında ve halka benimsetmesinde belirleyici rolü oynayan yine Mustafa Kemal kimliği üzerinden türetilen Kurtarıcı Ata figürüdür. Bu yüzden şu an Türk siyasetindeki bütün siyasal örgütlenmelerin ideolojilerini birbirinden ayırt etmenin imkansızlığı içerisinde oluşumuzun aslında yine tek sebebi ,hepsinin kendi kitlesiyle oluşturduğu bağları sıkılaştırmak için Ata'yı kullanıyor olmasıdır. Bu yüzden ince detaylar üzerinden bir partiler skalası oluşturulma çabası bırakılırsa eğer,ortada eskimiş ve yıpranmış kurgusuna rağmen ona hala dehşet verici bir şekilde sımsıkı sarılmış,kurtarılmayı bekleyen bir kitle görüntüsüyle karşılaşıyoruz. Hangi sebepten olursa olsun,bugün hala protesto mahayiyetinde belirli meslek gruplarının , sivil toplum örgütlerinin ,ataya şikayette bulunmak için gerçekleştirdiği yürüyüşler bunun en vahim örneği olarak görülebilir. Ölmüş bir varlıktan türetilen kimliğe yakınma şikayette bulunma, aslında varolan acizliğimizin ve çaresizliğimizin klişeleşmiş bir kanıtıdır.

El mercado es una institución en decadencia- Victor Beker

--- algo que escribi para la clase de economia politica. Despues de estos dos ensayos no me quedo con ganas de escribir mas sobre el mercado y sus nuevos desafios etc. voy a dejar a leer y escribir sobre estos temas por unos dias y concentrar en mi nuevo ensayo : LOS ORIGENES DE LA PAC - LA POLITICA AGRICOLA COMUN EN UNION EUROPA
ah que divertida ! me encanta mi vida aka , mucho fiesta poco trabajoo!!



La mayor parte de los textos que leemos sobre breve historia de economía en el siglo XX entienden al estado como un actor muy importante en la economía y esto se modificó después de la caída del Muro del Berlín y el estado empezó a tener un rol menos signicativo. En estos textos también siempre encontramos, comparaciones entre el rol del estado en los países comunistas y en los países capitalistas durante la Guerra Fría. Hay también otras posibilidades para ver como la influencia del estado disminuye en los mercados después de la caída del Muro Berlín, pero no debemos olvidar que en la mayor parte de siglo XX los estados disfrutaron de completo control en el proceso de distribución de los recursos en sus territorios. Las empresas o los otros actores, como consumidores, comparados a los estados no eran tan significativos en su influencia en el proceso de distribución de los recursos. Había también muchos factores que posibilitaron que los estados, disfrutaran, de sus posiciones. Como menciona Beker en su articulo : “Estado,Mercado,Competencia y Monopolio: Verdaderas y Falsas Dicotomías: la crisis en 1930, la posterior Segunda Guerra Mundial y también el proceso de descolonización eran unos de estos factores que posibilitaron a los estados a ser el único actor en la promoción del desarrollo económico. Después de la caída del Muro de Berlín, los estados perdieron drásticamente su role para decidir como los recursos tendrían que distribuirse. Eso no ocurrió en un día. Cada día encontramos e establecimiento de nuevas empresas y estas empresas cada día tienen y siguen teniendo la oportunidad de conjuntar con otras empresas en otros partes del mundo para ser mas grandes y tener más control en los mercados. Entonces casi todas las comparaciones entre el presente y el pasado están demostrándonos como el rol de los actores en el mercado cambió.

Hay una tendencia entre los economistas favor del sistema capitalista a mostrar que durante el primer parte de siglo XX , la distribución de los recursos por estados no fue eficiente. Es verdad que los estados no eran capaces de distribuir los recursos justamente y también faltaban muchas cosas para mejorar los niveles de la vida de sus poblaciones pero según Beker tampoco hoy podemos decir que hoy esta falta de eficiencia en la distribución de los bienes haya mejorado notablemente. Para Beker los argumentos sobre la dicotomía entre Mercado y Estado no tienen mucha relevancia para entender que esta sucediendo hoy en la economía global. Hoy ni los mercados ni los estados, tienen mucha influencia en el proceso de distribución de los recursos. Beker argumenta que hoy los procesos de integración vertical y horizontal de los empresas disminuye las transacciones que antes pasaban, por los mercados. Muchas empresas que eran pequeños hoy son gigantescas corporaciones y no permiten al mercado a poner responsabilizarlos para mejorar sus productos o hacer cambios en los precios para competir. Porque como Beker explica hoy los precios son fijados por estas corporaciones, entre sus organismos ellos deciden todo. Por eso para los defensores de la sistema capitalista , el mercado no siempre puede mejorar el nivel de competencia entre los productores ni puede obligarlos a hacer renovaciones para producir productos en mejor calidad posible. Si es verdad que la distribución de los recursos por Estados pueden causar monopolios y oligopolios pues como sabemos los monopolios y oligopolios son los verdaderos enemigos en el proceso de desarrollo de los economías . Pero como Beker explica en su articulo como hoy también las gigantescas corporaciones mas o menos practicando un tipo de oligopolio y ponen la eficiencia de los mercados en riesgo. Al final podemos argumentar que en estas empresas los departamentos de innovaciones sin tener ningún tipo de preocupación sobre las demandas de los consumidores determinan cuando es el tiempo para renovar los productos y presentar nuevas tecnologías. También los consumidores no tienen ningún tipo de efecto para determinar los precios. Como Beker expone: “ La única decisión que pueden adoptar los consumidores es que cantidad quieren o pueden adquirir a los precios fijados.” Entonces para entender que esta pasando hoy me parece que tenemos que cuestionar los argumentos de los defensores del sistema capitalista. Porque como Beker en su articulo demuestra el mercado libre no siempre posibilita a tener una distribución del los recursos mas eficiente . Como podemos ver ahora el mercado simplemente no puede asegurar la competencia entre las organizaciones privadas. Es importante a mencionar que la innovación no es tampoco una promesa en el libre mercado , entonces como Beker expone en su articulo : “ Ni las economías capitalistas son eficientes ni la eficiencia es una característica a la que puedan atribuirse los éxitos del sistema. “

Uzun zamandır buraya Kolombiya'nın içler acısı durumu hakkında bir şey yazmak istiyordum, burada oluşum yaptığım master,okuduklarım, bu ülkede olan abuk sabuk şeyler hakkında bi kaç fikir sahip olmama yardımcı oldu. Gelmeden önce "failed state" kavramını nedense hiç Kolombiya'ya yakıştırmamıştım belki Ortadoğu Türkiye de siyaset okuyanların baslıca genel ilgi alanı olduğu için .Aslında Kolombiya,Bolivya,El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras gibi ülkelerde olup bitenlere karşısındaki tutumumuz Afrika'da olup bitenlere karşısındaki tutumumuzdan farksız.O kadar az fikrimiz varki, oralarda bir iç savaş,bir devletsizlik,açlık,uyuşturucu kaçaklığı vs evet var ama ne oluyor ne bitiyor sanırım ancak toplu bir kıyım olduğunda, veyahut bu sene Honduras örneğindeki gibi askeri bir darbe olduğunda dikkatimizi çekiyor. Garip olan şu Newyorktimes'ı The independent'i El pais'i ne biliyim Le monde un herhangi bir editionını açtığınızda bu ülkelerde olup bitenler o kadar filtrelenip özet halinde önünüze getiriliyor ki detaylı bir fikrimiz olmaması zaten kaçınılmaz.Korkunç olan şu sanırım coğrafi olarak kaybolmuş durumdayız, ne tarafa bakarsak bakalım asla yoğunlaşamıyoruz.Genellemeler ne yazık ki kaçınılmazlaşıyor.

Bugün New Yorker'da Seymour Hersh'in Pakistan'nın nükleer silahlarının Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nin güvenlik çıkarlarına uygun bir şekilde korunup korunmadığıyla ilgili bir yazısını okudum,okurken Pakistan istihbarat servisinden herhangi bir yetkilinin açıklamalarına yer vermiş Hersh yetkili kısacası Pakistan hükümetinin nükleer gücüyla ilgili hiç bir zaman Amerika'ya karşı tamamen açık davranmıcağı asla güvenmiceğiyle ilgili bir şeyler söylüyor ve ekliyor biz size ne söylersek söyleyelim asla sizde kalmayacağını ve bunun düşmanlarımıza gidiceğini biliyoruz. Güney Amerika'daki ülkelerin de Amerika'ya olan tutumları aslında neredeyse aynı daha önce burada Chavez ve diğer bölge ülkeleri liderlerinin Arjantinin Bariloche kentinde yapılan UNASUR toplantısında Kolombiya'nın Amerika Birleşik Devletleriyle yaptığı askeri anlaşmalara gösterdikleri tepkilerden bahsetmiştim.Bundan bahsedeli sadece bir kaç ay oldu ve Chavez daha bu hafta AloPresidente programında halkına seslenirken savaş için hazırlıklı olmalarını söyledi,komik olan durum şu Kolombiya ve Venezuella sınırında yaşayan her ülkenin halklarının arasındaki sosyal ve ekonomik ilişkilerin oldukça normal bir düzeyde devam etmesi ,bu durumda siz nasıl bir yapay gündem yaratıcaksınız nasıl bir düşmanlık aşılamaya çalışıcaksınız ki bu halklar karşı karşıya gelsin ve savaşsın. Peki bu ülkeler nasıl bu noktaya geliyor ? Yaratılan güvensizlik... Pakistan örneğinde olduğu gibi Venezuela'da ABD'yle olan ilişkilerinde geçmişteki problemlerini sürekli şimdiye ve geleceğe taşıyarak halkı daimi olarak tehdit altındaymış hissini yaşaması için elinden geleni yapıyor. Tabi bu durumdan ne Pakistan ne de Venezuela hükümetlerini liderlerini tamamen sorumlu tutabiliriz sanırım. Amerika'nın daimi olarak güvenlik çıkarlarını hep bu bölgedeki ülkelerin istikrar,gelişme gibi hedeflerinden daha ön planda tutması,bu ülke liderlerinin savaşı halka normalmiş her an olması beklenebilir birşeymiş gibi göstermelerine yardımcı oluyor. Çünkü Amerika o korkunç imajını değiştirmek için ne yazık ki hiç bir şey yapmıyor.Hatta günden güne daha ihtiyatsız bir siyaset sergiliyor.

Buna verilebilicek en şahane örnek: Kolombiya.Bu ülke hiçbir zaman ulus inşa etme sürecini tamamlayamamış bir ülke. Modern siyaset tarihi gibi bir şey okutuluyorsa eğer bu ülkede sanırım bahsedebilicekleri tekşey sınıflar arasındaki akıl almaz uçurum,ve bu uçurumun neden olduğu gerilla örgütlenmeleri. Ne yazık ki Kolombiya bundan ibaret pardon bir de Shakira.Başka hiç bir şey değil.Bu yüzden hükümet bu kadar rahat elini kolunu sallayıp istediğini yapabiliyor çünkü kimse kendini temsil eden bir hükümet olduğunu düşünmüyor nasıl düşünebilirlerki eğer gelen her hükümet sadece belli çıkar gruplarının ve sektörlerin huzurunu refahını ve güvenliğini düşünüyorsa, herkes kendini koruyacak bir şeyler arayıp dursun, kontragerillalar gerillalar koruma vaadi karşısında bir ülke halkının bütün gelecekle ilgili umutlarını tüketiyor,şiddeti günlük hayatın bir parçası haline getiriyor ve sonunda sadece ülkedeki bazı şanslı sektör ve grupların çıkarları değil , kıtadaki bir başka ülkenin çıkarları da oldukça alenen hükümetin korunması altına giriyor. ABD'nin Kolombiya'daki sözde uyuşturucu kaçakçlığı savaşında sergilediği tutum,bugün Chavez'in mütemadiyen atıp tutmasının tek nedeni,ABD bu şekilde alenen çıkarları doğrultusunda hareket ederse çok yakın bir zamanda sanki bir o eksikmiş gibi varolmayan düşmanlık iki ülke halkına en kısa ve en temiz yoldan yani korku politikasıyla kolayca aşılanıcak.

LOS MOTORES DE LA INTEGRACION ECONÓMICA GLOBAL

En su artículo:”The Internacional Political Economy Since World WAR II”, Joseph Grieco clasifica los motores de la integración económica global en cuatro categorías: La Tecnología, el liderazgo de hegemonía, el liberalismo que es integrado en las democracias industrializadas y los regimenes internacionales. Esta clasificación por razones que Grieco explica en términos muy generales puede darnos una idea sobre cómo el proceso de integración económica global empezó y siguiendo a continúa a una velocidad extremamente alta.

La tecnología para Grieco es uno de los más importantes motores de la integración. En su artículo argumenta que los más drásticos cambios y desarrollos sucedieron en telecomunicación y transportación. Para Grieco después de la segunda guerra mundial los nuevos descubrimientos y novedades tanto en telecomunicación como en transportación empezaron a facilitar los movimientos de los bienes y servicios a cada parte del mundo. Es cierto que la integración económica global en gran parte depende de los movimientos de estos bienes y servicios. Y esta movilización de los bienes y servicios antes de la segunda guerra mundial estaba sucediendo en condiciones muy primitivas a comparación del presente. La alta velocidad de los movimientos de estos bienes y servicios es crucial para el proceso de la integración económica global , había muchas empresas privadas de Estados Unidos y Europa que estaban transportando y también recibiendo una considerable cantidad de bienes vía los barcos y los trenes, pero debido al nivel de tecnología que no era muy alta obviamente la velocidad de los movimientos era muy baja y también la tecnología de la producción antes de la guerra no era suficiente para que algunos sectores de pudieran exportar productos perecederos a lugares que quedaban muy lejos. Por eso antes de la guerra, la mayoría de las empresas de los países desarrollados como Estados Unidos, Inglaterra y Alemania eran vacilantes de adoptar una postura tan global. Mover los productos desde un continente a otro significa mucho tiempo y mucho dinero. Esta situación cambió después de los nuevos descubrimientos en telecomunicación y transportación. Las empresas de Estados Unidos y Europa empezaron a avanzar y tomar riesgos para expandir sus actividades de comercio y producción en diferentes partes del mundo.

En su segundo argumento, Grieco focaliza la necesidad de dominación de un poder hegemónico que siempre pueda cambiar la estructura de economía. En el siglo XIX Inglaterra fue el primer poder hegemónico, desde de su revolución industrial cambió las reglas de la comercio. Como John Ikenberry argumentó en su artículo: “Globalization and Political Order, The Sources and Consequences of World Economic Integration” el gobierno de Inglaterra persiguió la firma de acuerdos con los países para bajar los aranceles y los bancos de Londres pusieron capital para usar productivamente en el exterior y el poder naval aseguró que el acceso a los mercados y los recursos del mundo fueran libres. Y el resultado fue un flujo de los bienes, capital y gente sin precedentes. Así, cuando la primera guerra mundial empezó Estados Unidos estaba muy decidido a estar aislado del resto del mundo y esta postura fue una de las primeras razones de la gran depresión. Después de la segunda guerra mundial esta postura de Estados Unidos cambio drásticamente. Estar tan aislado del mundo y al mismo tiempo tener una economía fuerte no era posible y, como Grieco explica brevemente en su artículo, un poder tan grande como Estados Unidos tiene la capacidad de cambiar la estructura del sistema económico. Durante la guerra fría lo que Estados Unidos hizo básicamente fue eso: cambiar la estructura económica para sus intereses. Estados Unidos siempre necesitaba un mercado libre donde sus productos pudieran ser exportados sin enfrentar a las barreras económicas como aranceles y también podemos argumentar como Grieco que un poder hegemónico siempre es necesario para establecer un sistema porque es crucial para asegurar a los otros países que este sistema va a ser guardado sin enfrentar ¡las amenazas. Como Ikenberry argumentó: “Los acuerdos que empiezo con Atlantic Charter (1941) después los acuerdos de Bretton Woods (1944) el Plan Marshall (1947) y Pacto Atlantico (1949) dio a Estados Unidos la oportunidad de organizar sus relaciones entre las democracias de Atlántico.” También, para asegurar que los bienes y servicios circularan libremente en los mercados, Estados Unidos fue unos de primeros fundadores de ciertas instituciones como el FMI y el Banco Mundial ya que la identificación de los intereses nacionales con el libre mercado mundial era uno de los más importantes argumentos de los políticos norteamericanos durante la guerra fría. Pero para convencer a los otros países el argumento de Estados Unidos obviamente no era para proteger sus intereses nacionales, sino justo lo contrario: un mercado libre e integrado precisamente necesario para el orden político del mundo estable. Considerando la existencia de la Unión Soviética que para Europa occidental era una amenaza concreta, este argumento de Estados Unidos fue aceptado unánimemente para evitar otra posibilidad de una nueva guerra que para ellos tenia un sólo significado : Armegadon.

En su tercer argumento Grieco expone que había también un consenso entre los países desarrollados de que el mercado mundial debería ser libre. De hecho fue la primera causa por la que el sistema que Estados Unidos estableció no fracasó durante la decadencia de Estados Unidos entre 1970 y 1980. Durante estos años los países de Europa estaban totalmente recuperados de la segunda guerra mundial y la integración regional en el proyecto grande de Europa (Unión Europea) también hizo imposible evitar el proceso de integración económica global. Por eso es muy importante no olvidarnos que los países de Europa Occidental fueron independientes de Estados Unidos para continuar sus proyectos que en este periodo pareció casi imposible lograr. Fueron los primeros defensores de la integración de economía global y los mercados libres y también, como mencioné antes, el otro argumento podría ser la existencia de la Unión Soviética. La Unión Soviética y su esfera comunista siempre jugaron un rol muy importante para justificar el amenaza de “efecto dominó” y como Estados Unidos, ningún país en la parte de occidental en Europa tampoco quería poner sus economías en riesgo. En su último argumento Grieco enfatiza la importancia de las instituciones establecidas por los países desarrollados: Estados Unidos, y los países de Europa. Para Grieco estas instituciones durante las crisis de economía tuvieron un rol muy importante para evitar que los países de implementaran políticas muy proteccionistas o aislamentistas. Las instituciones como La OMC o el Banco Mundial no solo fueron establecidos para asegurar la existencia de un mercado libre pero también para asegurar que los otros países en desarrollo fueran parte del proceso de la integración. Porque después del proceso de la descolonización las organizaciones de la economía mundial precisamente enfocaron a los proyectos que pueden desarrollar las economías de estos países. Al final las instituciones que fueron establecidas por los países desarrollados son muy importantes para el futuro de la integración económica global para asegurar que los países hicieran más esfuerzo para el mantenimiento de un mercado más libre, más integrado y más transparente.

From Enlightenment Capitalism to Star Trek, From … Capitalism to Star Wars

I found this site while searching an article about Teresa Marggolles Sierra and Gabriel Orozco. After spending some time and discovering and reading various other articles, i came across to this article written by Süreyya Algül for Birikim Magazine. Its not something that you can read in ten minutes pay attention and read it carefully,in the end you'll be amazed.

Encontre este sitio cuando estaba buscando un articulo sobre unos artistas mexicanos : Teresa Margolles Sierra y Gabriel Orozco. Este sitio creado por la gente que escribe y discute sobre el arte. Y puede encontrar un monton de articulos escrito por artistas, escritores de todo el mundo. Por eso encontrar un articulo que escrito por una escritora Turca no es tan sorprendente.Leelo lentamente por que sin prestar atencion no es un articulo facil de entender.Es demasiado largo y tiene un monton de referencias.
Disfrutalo!



From Enlightenment Capitalism to Star Trek, From … Capitalism to Star Wars

Süreyya Algül



It will be a cliché introduction, but all US Second World War veteran Gene Roddenberry really wanted was to make a science fiction series “full of hope.” And after a few unsuccessful attempts, he did, too. When the filming of Star Trek, translated into Turkish as Uzay Yolu, began for NBC in 1966, probably no one, including Roddenberry, was aware that a cult science fiction production was born.


The conditions were ripe to make a science fiction film brimming with hope. Although not valid for all geographical spheres, the time was, at least for the developed West, the period coined “the golden age of capitalism” by historians like Eric Hobsbawm, and this meant incredible economic growth, developing democracies and of course, huge progress in science and technology. From where the defenders of capitalism sat, despite two great wars and a few small accidents on the way, there appeared to be no reason left not to believe that Voltaire’s intellect coupled with his commercial ability and Rousseau’s social contract and ideal of public sovereignty, Voltaire’s contemporary and the man he hugely disliked, had finally united and came into existence on this geographical field. It was as if Enlightenment itself had become reality. As the free market provided economic growth, the democracies arising on this economic regime were closer than they had ever been to realize the maxim, equality, fraternity and liberty within the mentality of the social state. Taking into account the advances in science and technology and especially the vertiginous potential of change in space research, there was no reason left for humanity, which was breaking free of superstitions and false convictions, not to finally turn its face to the universe and enlighten that great darkness, too. It was true of course that the voices of certain groups opposed to capitalism and certain thinkers who occupied themselves with concepts such as exploitation, power, hegemony and the lot, sometimes became unbearably loud and created discord. However, this was common in democracies and those who made this noise could even be regarded as a richness of humanity walking towards its future. Besides, on the outside, the rival Soviet bloc had also declared it was “ready to live together in peace,” albeit in cold war conditions. If it was even possible to build relations with the great enemy under the atmosphere of a “détente,” there was no ground to get held up in conflicts which could create pessimism. After all, it was time to be optimistic, to look to the future with optimism, and besides, the time to design the future with optimism.



For the film and television industry, placed perhaps at the top of the list of industries bearing, producing and disseminating the specific notion of the period, setting out to work on the production of a science fiction series facing the future with an optimistic spirit, meant perpetuating this mission and therefore, making a profit. By giving Roddenberry a chance, NBC undersigned maybe not the first, but probably the best known production of the US film and television industry which displayed this spirit.



The topic of Star Trek was the space adventure of Enterprise, a starship of the “Starfleet” of the “United Federation of Planets.” The “full of hope” adventure of Starship Enterprise in the foreground was supported by a political utopia in the background. No doubt, the United Federation of Planets had been founded under the leadership of Earth and Earth was the centre of the federation. The civil administration of the federation was based in Paris. It is not known whether Paris was chosen to send a message of compromise to the France of De Gaulle who had come to the forefront as the defender of a “European Europe,” produced its own atom bomb and had withdrawn from the military wing of NATO in 1966 following friction with the USA, or because this country was seen as one of the most significant centres of Enlightenment. However, what can be known for sure is that San Francisco, chosen as the central Starfleet Headquarters, the acting executive authority, was also the city where the United Nations Agreement had been signed. Would it be, one way or another, seeking ulterior motives to suggest that the executive organ which expressed power itself was deliberately established on American soil? Franz Joseph, who carried out one of the first important studies published on the “Universe of Star Trek,” writes that the Constitution of the Federation, the legal platform of the Federation, owed its existence to the Constitution of the United Nations which it copied almost article for article. Seeking a blemish in San Francisco being the executive centre of this world, stemmed from, if not ulterior motives, then from being poisoned by the political and social atmosphere of the world of the 20th century, or in other words, lagging behind and in the past. The world wasn’t the same old world anymore. It was now known as the “United Nations, Planet Earth” in the Constitution of the Federation, a title again reminiscent of a political utopia. However, Earth had become a utopia not only politically, but in the full sense of the word; issues such as poverty and hunger were alien to the planet and citizens lived in peace, tranquillity and justice as equal individuals. Robots called replicators supplied all industrial and technological requirements in addition to the entire food requirement. Environmental pollution had long been eradicated and biological diversity had been secured. In brief, the planet of the humans, just like post-1945 America in its own history, had more than deserved to be the centre as one of the most developed members of the Federation. In which case there could be nothing more natural than the constitution of the Federation being a copy of the United Nations Agreement. Since it had preserved its vitality to inspire the establishment of the Federation, the transformation which had made the world a utopia must have been secured with this agreement which had brought post-1945 order. Since the centre was perfect now, the main task of the periphery was probably to harmonize itself with the revolutionary principles of the constitution based on the same agreement and the order it had brought, so that it could approach the centre. But finally, these are inferences made not from the real topic of the series, the space adventure of Starship Enterprise, but from the construction of the Federation which enabled these travels.



The main task of Enterprise in travelling to the depths of space was to discover new life forms, carry out scientific research and reconnaissance, therefore Enterprise was not a military starship. It is true that all staff in the command room, including most importantly “Captain Kirk” himself, the commander of the ship, were military officers and the ship and the staff were armed so that they could defend themselves if necessary. However, this was presented as a necessary precaution against bad surprises they could encounter during the realization of their real task. Besides, even in the event of such a surprise, the handheld version of these weapons called Phasers designed for personal security, had a “stun” setting, and in the event of a clash where the crew had to use them, this “stun” setting would be preferred. But the real factor which ensured that not only the officers of the Enterprise, but all starship officers abstained from the use of violence as much as possible –far more significantly than the possibilities presented by the hardware of the weapons they owned- was the legal principles they were liable to comply with. The first of these rules, known as the “General Orders” which were binding for all “Starfleet officers” including the Enterprise crew, prevented all manner of interference with the normal development of other cultures. Considering the Spanish Hernan Cortes who confronted the Aztecs with a force of seven thousand in the process of the discovery of the New World, and went on to kill Montezuma II, the Aztec emperor, and pillaged the entire Aztec country for a year, or the Christian missionaries of Columbus who, twenty five years before Cortes tried to spread their religion using cruel methods on the natives, one could claim that the starfleet officers of Enterprise had, in the aftermath of the bloody history of their forefathers, finally reached Enlightenment modernism’s line of “civilization”, despite the weapons they carry. And also despite Enlightenment modernism’s own history of “implementing civilization by force”…



Since Enterprise was a scientific research ship and its task was to discover new life forms and carry out scientific research, science would be its beacon when performing its task. The series actually came to life with the mediation of surprises brought on by scientific, logical and sometimes even philosophical issues in the context of a journey within the attractive obscurity of space and again, with their discussion in the light of science. Science had such a central importance for the series that this centrality was not deemed to be sufficient to let it be felt within the flow of subjects and events, and Mr. Spock, one of the two main characters of the film, had almost become the flesh-and-blood manifestation of this scientific paradigm. Spock was, with Captain Kirk, the best known character of the series, and probably the most striking, with his pointed ears and his ice-cold stance. However, his appearance was not his only striking aspect. His personality was in fact more worthy of attention; even in the most dramatic moments when there was a danger of ruin and everyone around him, including Kirk, showed their feelings to some extent, he always remained imperturbable, and serious to the extent that seriousness appeared to have relinquished its place to indifference and blankness, and he occupied himself with continuing his activity of scientific examination, research and analysis in silence and loyalty and this occupation eventually played an extremely significant part in USS Enterprise solving the problems and continuing to perform its mission. This justified Spock’s attitude which was not metaphorically but genuinely unemotional and would enable his attitude in the face of the reactions of McCoy, the medical officer of the starship, to be perceived as the admirable indifference of a scientist rather than arrogance. After all, he was the science officer of the starship. However, Spock’s existence composed of reason and logic, emphasized even more with the absence of emotions, did not belong to Earth and humanity. He was an individual from a different planet called Vulcan and in Vulcan culture, reason was considered superior to all emotions as the foundation of existence. Emotions were a sign of primitiveness and weakness. This enabled the Vulcan Spock to secure the sovereign ideological discourse of the period as a perfect citizen candidate proving on one hand the ancient universality of human science and reason which surpassed even the human being and on the other hand the multiculturality of the Federation. It is true that one could also speak of multiculturality considering the presence of the helmsman Sulu with almond shaped eyes and the black communications officer Uhura. However, in view of these two offices, the command room of the Enterprise would have resembled and stood out as the multicultural composition of the USA, an old country from the history of the world, rather than that of the Federation. Spock existed as a character who clouded this composition in favour of the Federation.



In contrast to Spock, Sulu and Uhura had no doubt been appointed to their positions on the starship, like all other staff, on merit. For those who wanted to secure assignments in the dangerous adventure in space, merit was a precondition which could not be sacrificed to multiculturality, but at the same time it was the guarantee of multiculturality. The message was clear; everyone, whatever their race, religion, language or gender, could gain the chance to go on board a starship on merit. The question whether equal conditions and means were provided in the race to earn merit was as meaningless for the Enterprise, the starship of the utopia of the United Nations Planet Earth as a question belonging to the 20th century, as it must have been meaningless and unpalatable for the sovereign ideology of the same century when this utopia had been dreamed up. As to Mr. Spock’s position as the science officer; his appointment to this position stemmed from a privilege which could not only be explained by merit, from being half-Vulcan and therefore, from the a priori value attributed to rational reflection. Of course, concepts such as education and experience which implied ways of earning merit had a counterpart in Vulcan culture. But still, this counterpart corresponded to efforts aiming to develop high level rational thought, which they already possessed and aptitude towards scientific work.



Despite Spock’s important place in Star Trek and its ideology, the value attributed to Spock and therefore Spock’s knowledge also had a limit. In the final analysis, this limit arose due to the fact that he was the other. Spock provided great advantages as the other who proved the universality of reason and science and the multiculturalism of the Federation, but he would remain forever deficient as an other devoid of humanism because he did not possess human ethics, belief, pleasure and emotions. His deficiency was everlasting, since it was a deficiency which could not be remedied with training and experience, which could not be compensated by merit; it was caused by him not being human and therefore not understanding certain problems peculiar to humans, and this was unacceptable for space travel. A right-minded, humanist and strong man was needed who could benefit from Spock’s superior faculties to command the Enterprise; and this person was of course no other than Captain Kirk. Thus, although this meant that Spock found himself, in accordance with the cliché of adventure films, in the position of the short, overweight, spectacle-wearing genius boy standing behind the leading man despite his great importance in the series, he continued to realize his mission as the other who emphasized human uniqueness both with his advantages and disadvantages. There was nothing that could be done for him. After all, he starred in a man-made science-fiction and a leading role could not be given to a non-human in the dreams (ideologies) of these people who created this science fiction, their humanism was an obstacle first and foremost. Therefore, he would probably never be able to understand what was being done to him. Despite all its efforts and a discourse oriented towards multiculturalism, he was stuck at the threshold where citizens who manage to come to extremely important positions but are still not considered among the original “white”s, and can not become number one no matter what they do. With a single difference; he was experiencing all this in a Utopia.



We will never know if it would be of any consolation to Spock, but perhaps the only reason he could not become captain was not because he was not human. The problem could also be that science was seen as an administrative issue of such importance that it could not be abandoned to the curiosities of pure scientists. Scientific thinking was perhaps a different task from using scientific knowledge and commanding the science ship…



But Star Trek, the one known as the original series on official and related Internet sites, shot from 1966 to 1969 and shown on NBC, was a television series which, despite all its inadequacies, faults and many further criticisms which could be mentioned here, had scientific curiosity as its motivation, tried to understand and shed light on the subject of space through this motivation, asked questions and had its own set of problems it tried to deal with. Above all, despite the occasional scenes of violence, it took place in an age of utopias where peace had been achieved and the enemies confronted in the violent scenes were not demonized –judged for being primitive etc. at the most- but an attempt was made to understand them. And all this was done for the dream of a future where things could change for the better. No doubt, despite the effort to construct Star Trek on a utopia within this dream, the repetition of capitalism’s progressivist and optimist rhetoric of the era and the failure to see its shortcomings, it was inevitable that Star Trek would be handicapped by the ideological faults of the system. Ultimately one could not hear, for example, neither the intellectual voice of dissent in Foucault’s History of Madness or The Birth of The Clinic, nor the political and social voice of dissent of the 68 movement and Vietnam, and not even the artistic voice of dissent of Kubrick’s 2001 Space Odyssey in the Star Trek utopia. The voice heard in Star Trek was not of dissent, but to recall the example Eric Hobsbawm uses to describe the period, it resounded the tone of Harold Macmillan’s government in Britain, who ‘won the 1959 elections by proclaiming “You’ve never had it so good,”’ as if to provide a reference to a UN report dated 1972 maintaining that “fundamental growth trends would continue as in the 1960s.”



Towards the end of the golden age the times were pregnant with developments which would make one yearn even for the echo of this sentiment. The world was heading for the 1980s and as is known, the deterioration arising with recessions in capitalist nation-state economies had finally begun to create crises. Economic growth had in many countries been replaced by shrinkage. Neo-liberal governments, led by Reagan and Thatcher who had, in the meantime, come to power in the USA and Britain respectively, placed the burden of all the responsibility on the shoulders of the welfare state and began to cut social security spending, increase tax on low-income and wage earners, venture into rapid privatisations and effectuate neo-liberal policies based on many similar implementations. In this environment where the capitalist market place was fetishized and profitability was king, unemployment increased rapidly, and as years passed new recruits were added to the ranks of the unemployed millions. As Hobsbawm says, “(in the 1980s), even many of the richest and most developed countries found themselves once more getting used to the sight of beggars on the streets and of the homeless sheltering in doorways or cardboard boxes, (as long as they were not removed from their spots.)” However, in time, such scenes in cities, the symbols of modern life, were almost internalized by the inhabitants as a natural part of the scenery, and on the other hand, wealthy upper class inhabitants, as they had become accustomed to, began to establish their “holy homes” within private and secure housing complex surrounded by high and thick walls, built with the financial and social means of the class they belong to. As city centres and suburbs increasingly turned into crime centres, neo-liberal governments, which implemented policies that destroyed the welfare state and left wider social masses at the mercy of international capitalism, as a requirement of their conservative ideologies on social and political issues and with disregard to the fact that the vast majority of criminals belong to the oppressed, scorned or ignored classes and/or sub-cultural and ethnic groups, sought to legitimize their anti-democratic implementations based on a discourse of “the requirement of both internal and external security.” Due to the increasing share they received from revenues and their life styles mentioned above, the upper classes probably do have a higher need for security, and both to sustain their life styles and to further increase their shares in wealth, they were only too glad to provide neo-liberal governments with the legitimacy they needed. After all, neo-liberalism existed first and foremost for them. Images of crime and violence in the media of the new order, allocated continuous screen time with no apparent reason, were sufficiently convincing not only for them, but for wider masses of society made to believe they needed order and regulation. Under such circumstances, it was the concepts of the welfare state and democracy whose legitimacy was increasingly questioned. Seemingly, the problem was not the new form of capitalism and the discourses of its new apologists. Liberty, equality and fraternity certainly did not fill stomachs anymore. This was the problem and everything had to be rearranged. By all means, it was unnecessary to oppose neither liberty, nor equality and fraternity as long as they remained mere slogans. After all, this type of slogan always carried a magical power to allure the masses for propaganda and advertising gurus who marketed them. Besides, for the presentation of the same slogans from a neo-liberal perspective, it was possible to provide material from the vast knowledge of liberal economy based on many years of experience. For example, yes, the neo-liberals did believe in equality. In fact, they were the original defenders of equality. It was workers’ unions who damaged equality in the first place. Although the unions appeared to secure high wages for workers with their struggle, they were actually creating a monopoly on labour in the long term, which led to the degeneration of the labour market, resulting in low wages for non-union workers. First and foremost, this was unacceptable in terms of equality! Besides, union workers were also made to suffer later on. Who valued liberty more than them?! Was it not libertarian to demand the rescue of the enterprising spirit of the free market from all control mechanisms devised for the public good? Therefore, in order to let freedom, equality and fraternity find their real match, it was primarily necessary to bring formulations which would reshape the state and society.



No doubt the outside was included in all that was to be regulated and post-80s developments accelerated by neo-liberal policies also provided suitable conditions for the construction of the new order on an international level. Relationships with the Soviet bloc had deteriorated because of new security policies; issues like Afghanistan had been added to existing problems to seriously increase the tension. Reagan often likened the Soviet Union to the devil’s empire, and on the other hand had placed the “star wars project” on the agenda, which would force the Soviets, whose economic condition was already not too bright, to an arms race. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the replacement of the “balance of fear” with the “fear of instability,” the same policies could be sustained against new and unknown, therefore allegedly more dangerous, enemies. Besides, probably because they were left unrivalled after the 80s, neo-liberal governments felt very little need to adhere to post-1945 international legal norms when they carried out operations against these new enemies.



In brief, whatever the reason may be, the spell had been broken. The promises of the 1960s about a future of better days both at home and abroad had been replaced by demands preaching that more sacrifices had to be made to return to the good old days. Now was the time for the new representatives of the bourgeoisie to once again “create a new world in their own image.” Now was the time not for peace but for conflict, not for utopias but dystopias, not for thinking, understanding, learning and making science but for struggle, sacrifice and do as one is told without questioning. Under these conditions science fiction productions like Star Trek were too well-intentioned, naïve and did not really fit reality, even as science fiction. It is true that films which had foreseen that things might not always go well had been made in the period of Star Trek. For example, films had focused on subjects such as trouble brought on by robots produced by the hand of man, or the end of mankind as a result of its own evolution. But even these films had not made the grade, compared to the lived experience of reality. This was now a period in which more radical films would prove popular and the films in vogue in this era did not contain order, or a positive view of the future. In contrast, films emphasizing chaos and a negative imagination of the future, highlighting heroes who destroyed the bad guys to end the chaos and established order at all costs, were gaining box-office success and a positive future came to life only after this noble struggle. The clash between the good and the bad in these films was often depicted almost as a scene of Armageddon and as stated before, the box-office indicated that the young masses of the new era adored these images of Armageddon.



George Lucas’s Star Wars was the first and most important film which gained cult status and the recipient of an admiration from a fan base which could compete with the cult of the previous era, Star Trek. Star Wars was the name of the first series of six films Lucas shot the first of in 1977 and the same would later be widely used for Reagan’s project mentioned above.



The theme of Star Wars is the downfall from within of the greatest state in the universe, known as the Galactic Republic, perpetuated by its evil enemies, its transformation into the Galactic Empire followed by the destruction of the Empire, which then became the source of evil, by the Rebel Alliance, the symbol of good. Therefore, in contrast to Star Trek, there is no space-research to be carried out, or to be studied. Everything looks to have been already researched and studied. The universe was the stage for the great war between enemy “dark” forces and the good guys resisting them. It was no longer the language of peace and the scientist that was spoken, but the language of war, and therefore, the military officer. Since this language contained a coding oriented not towards understanding differences, but destroying and equalizing them, it could be defined not by the differences of various cultures, but the uncompromising differences of opposed parties, friends and enemies, the good and the bad. Lucas’s series used this coding to relate the implacable struggle between the good and the bad. Difference in terms of cultural variety was called upon only in order to point to the universality of the struggle.



As it has no doubt been understood, Star Wars had a far more political content than Star Trek. In contrast to the heroes of Star Trek who had dedicated themselves entirely to science as representatives of a civilization which has solved its political problems, the heroes of Star Wars were exceedingly political personalities. However, the said politics emphasized, as stated above, not a civilian but a military attitude towards politics. As an effective depolitization process reigned over younger generations on the left in the post-1980 period, the huge popularity among especially younger generations of a film based on military politics, and therefore war, the enemy, strategy, power and destruction, must have been satisfying for right-wing governments of the new order, and especially Reagan, busy designing his own star wars.



The first episode of the series filmed in 1977 carries the title “A New Hope,” because it tells a “the-day-after” story. The Galactic Republic has become history, the forces of evil have consolidated their power by reinstating the Galactic Empire in place of the destroyed Republic. However, a group of pro-Republic “rebels” who refuse to bow to the dominion of evil continue to fight against the Empire. The reason the episode has this name is, rather than rebels’ struggle, the emergence of the hero who will bring an end to evil. Upon the huge interest the first film received, Lucas had set about making sequels and also numbered this film the IV. of the series and deemed this name suitable for it. In a sense, this name also represented a new hope for Lucas’s career, who had suffered huge difficulties in financing and screening the first film and who had had to go from one production company to another. Still, with the script unity provided with the sequels, the IV. Film really did correspond to a new hope. Within this unity, the IV., V., and VI. Films, released in 1977, 1980 and 1983 respectively, related the destruction of the Empire, whereas the I., II. and III. Films were a parade of the past which led to the events in these films, and related the abolition of the Republic. That is to say, the releases in 1999, 2002 and 2005 respectively saw Star Wars fans flock to the cinemas knowing beforehand how the story ends. Yes, the invincibility of good emerged clearly in the end. However, the devil was apparently hidden in the detail. What exactly had taken place to transform the great and proud Galactic Republic of good in to the Galactic Empire of the devil? It is true that in the first trilogy a clue is given to indicate that treason plays an important part in this transformation. It was made clear that Darth Vader, the infamous villain of the series and the right hand man of the Emperor, had once been on the light side but for an undisclosed reason had entered in to the service of evil and this preference had contributed considerably to the commencement of the dark period. However, until the release of the second trilogy, everything had remained in the dark. Therefore, the aim of the second trilogy was clear, the truth left in the dark would be revealed, that is to say, history would be illuminated.



Once the aim was set as the illumination of history, Lucas also captured the chance of adding a moral to the story with a history “lesson” while relating history. He would selectively use real cultures and exemplary historical events to use this chance, and attain his objective by enabling the viewer to easily draw parallels between fiction and reality. In fact, Lucas’s selectiveness had revealed itself as early as the first film, number IV in the series. Besides, the concept of the “Force,” the most important example of this selective attitude for the series, was defined in the IV. Film. Obi Wan Kenobi, one of the main protagonists of the series, tells Luke Skywalker, another protagonist who is unaware of being the chosen one who will bring an end to the Empire, that, “The Force is an energy field, created by all living things, that surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.” As a concept deeply believed in and respected by both sides which determined their nature, and in a sense, uniting the two parties of uncompromising enemies, the force adds meaning to both sides and their struggle, and outlines the ideology of the series. The basis of this ideology was belief and faith, whatever side one was on, because the Force was not a fact proven and determined by scientific research, but by religion. The knowledge of the Force could be attained not by scientific and mental thought, but by intuition. And faith and belief were essential for this attainment. As Yoda, the master of good, says in the V. film when training Luke Skywalker, first to “clear your mind of questions. Do not think, believe.” The more one believes and has faith the more one approaches the Force, feels its presence and more importantly, the power to eliminate the enemy is obtained. In the IV. Film, before striking the killer blow to the enemy ship, guided by the voice of Obi Wan, Luke Skywalker shuts off the high-technology targeting computer of his own ship, feels and believes in the Force, refreshes his faith and then fires the shot which destroys the huge enemy ship called the Death Star. It is true that there were some characters in the IV. Film who did not believe in this religion on both sides. For example, an officer of the empire describes the Force as a “decrepit religion.” But these people were not in administrative positions in the war and were not fully aware of the extent of it. For those in charge of the war, doubt regarding the existence of the Force was not a question, they believed in the Force, because first and foremost, they owed their existence to it and received their powers from it. As a matter of fact, Lord Vader would not waste time in punishing the officer who pronounces these remarks. In brief, the religion of the Force was presented as truth itself. The Force itself was pure and neutral, but it had two sides surrounding good and evil. Evil was described as the dark side and good, as the light side. In this way, the good and evil of the Force were elevated to a status which could only find an equivalent in religious works and films related to religion within a science fiction film; they represented pure and absolute good and evil, they possessed this possibility of representation because they were part of the Force. Therefore the struggle of good assumed an exceedingly legitimate and more holy and otherworldly form than all other struggles. Lucas had borrowed the Force from Far Eastern religions, and mostly from Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, but had adapted to fit the warrior spirit of the series and used as the legitimate basis of war. For both sides the Force was both the purpose and the tool; it was the purpose, because everything was done to attract its potential energy and to attain absolute and pure power. It was a tool, because the sides used their powers deriving from it to destroy one another. Therefore, ultimately, the Force was everything for both sides and the Force as pure energy and the force used to destroy the opposition were not that different from each other. But the definition of the Force itself as a pure and neutral field of energy served to protect it from all manners of normative criticism. After all, the Force was an ontological fact, it existed in itself and therefore had to be accepted as such. In a sense, it was religion of a destructive violence immune to all criticism, sanctified with the truth, it forced one to submit. But of course, the relationship of the good with power, namely, its violence, was presented as legitimate and holy.



When the struggle is so holy and the good and the villains carrying out the struggle so extraordinary, Lucas, probably having thought that the perpetrators of this struggle –in contrast to the regular creatures who are the foot soldiers of total war- must possess special qualities, and again using a selective method, carried titles such as knighthood, lordship and earldom from the Middle Ages to the future. The main weapon the two sides use in their war against each other had also come forth from ancient times; it was the sword as we know it, but in accordance with latest technology, it had been renamed the “lightsaber.” The sabre served at times to cut arms, and at times bodies in two. That is to say, scenes of violence, unimaginable in Star Trek, appeared on the silver screen in shocking detail in line with the spirit of Star Wars. As this was the case, and while Jedis used weapons other than the lightsaber as well, it is ironic that in the IV. Film, the elderly Jedi Obi Wan, on the losing Republican side, tells young Luke, as he gifts him with his lightsaber that this weapon belongs to a more civilized age.



As can easily be guessed, the good warriors are knights; to give their full name they are Jedi knights… Not everyone could become a Jedi knight. Above all, it was not a matter of merit or training. It was emphasized clearly in the I. film that it was not so when the child Anakin Skywalker –who was to turn to the dark side and take the name Lord (Darth) Vader- was taken from his mother to be raised as a Jedi. When Qui Gon, Obi Wan’s master, realizing Anakin’s fighting spirit on a planet they landed when their ship broke down, immediately took a blood sample, and his high midi-chlorian count (which determines a person’s sensitivity to the Force) led him to believe that Anakin could become a Jedi. The midi-chlorian count of other Jedis was also significantly higher than common mortals. But Anakin was not only a Jedi. His midi-chlorian count was so high that, according to Qui Gon’s intuitions, he was the chosen Jedi who would end chaos in the struggle between good and evil, bring balance to the Force and re-establish the order of good. He thought that his encounter with Anakin was not coincidence. The Force had wanted this. Qui Gon’s intuitions aside, the existence of a prophecy to this effect was mentioned in the I. film. Prophecy and the chosenness, the subject of this prophecy, were among the most important elements reflecting the religious character of Star Wars. Among chosen Jedis, Anakin was, in a sense, the most chosen, because both He and his son Luke Skywalker would determine the outcome of the war. However, Qui Gon had been mistaken about Anakin, because Anakin would later turn to the evil side. Nevertheless the prophecy would be fulfilled, though not by Anakin himself, but by his son Luke, with the help of his penitent father. His blood proved that Anakin was chosen, suggesting that genetic nobility was far more important than education and merit. However, the following dialogue between Qui Gon and Anakin’s mother laid bare a further quality of this nobility stemming from the intensity of midi-chlorians in the blood: Qui Gon; “The force is unusually strong with him, that much is clear. Who is his father?” His mother; “There was no father that I know of… I carried him, I gave him birth… I can’t explain what happened.” As it easily becomes clear, the story of Anakin’s mother overlaps entirely with the birth of the Christian Jesus. Qui Gon first asked Anakin’s mother about his father, he did not presume that His mother, a woman, could have played a role in Anakin’s gene structure. After all, (although one of the Jedis killed in the III. Film looked like a woman) Jedis were male, there were no female Jedis. So Jedi Knightship was a male profession and the talents of the Jedi were inherited from their fathers. However, even in Christian belief –albeit because God had chosen her as the mother to give birth to the prophet- Mary was considered a holy figure. Yet Anakin’s mother was described as a simple slave and would be kidnapped as a simple slave by a group of looters and die. It is true that his mother’s tragic end would open deep wounds in Anakin’s soul and would, albeit indirectly, influence his corruption to the dark side. From this perspective, the events were in line with the script and one could not say that Anakin’s mother was entirely insignificant. But this was exactly the issue, because a woman who had no share in the superior talents of her son, could only play a role in his downfall. The love he felt for his mother, along with the love he felt for another woman, his wife Padme, would bring disaster to Anakin. Anakin’s mother’s fate, despite its difference from Mary’s, was actually Lucas’s contribution to the position taken up by monotheistic religions such as Christianity for the male dominant discourse which provided meaning to both the Force and the nobility of Jedis. However, in the first trilogy, Luke Skywalker’s sister Princess Leia not only was not the reason of disaster as one of the fearless rebels fighting the Empire, but she also stood out as one of the important characters of the film as the substitute hero to be pushed to the front by Yoda as the sibling of Luke, in the event of his failure. Looking at this example, one may suggest that one should not be unjust to Lucas. However, after seeing the entire trilogy, it was revealed that Leia’s role was actually being the lover of Han Solo, the adventurous character of the same trilogy, rather than being an exceptional warrior. The insignificance of Leia in terms of the subject matter of the series was clear from the relationship she built, or rather, could not build with her father. Leia’s father Anakin, otherwise known as Darth Vader, who had turned to the dark side intercepts their ship in the film. Despite having never seen neither his daughter nor so, Vader feels the presence of his son. He also feels there is a connection between them, although he does not fully comprehend the nature of this connection. This all happens although he is outside the ship and never comes face to face with his son, and what’s more, his son responds to him. Yet he does not understand that Leia is his daughter even when he catches and tortures her, and Leia, who obviously had known of Vader’s existence for a long time judging by their hateful dialogue, does not deem it possible that the person she is insulting is her father. Vader only understands that he has a daughter too when he encounters Luke and reads his mind. In other words, he senses the existence of his daughter only through the mediation of his son. The only relationship between Vader and his daughter Leia would remain the knowledge of each other’s existence through Luke. Not only Vader, but the Emperor, too, senses Luke’s presence, and he tells Vader that this person is his son. The Force was in a sense their father, and the male nobles were not in a state to “sense” anyone other than their father and each other, both on the light and dark side. Leia, together with her lover Solo, were almost the representatives of the adventure-love-comedy cliché of Hollywood in the trilogy. In contrast to the second trilogy which reflected the heavy religious air of the struggle more and appeared to invite the first trilogy to solemnity, the adventure-love-comedy cliché –although never a central element- was used as a flavour in the first trilogy. Yet Leia was a woman by the side of her man, even as part of this flavour. Another character which resembles Leia appears a few years later. The Indiana Jones series, directed by Steven Spielberg and co-scripted by Lucas, features the Indiana Jones character played by Harrison Ford, a role which is almost identical to his part as Han Solo in Star Wars. And Marion, his lover in the Indiana Jones series, occupies the same position as Leia in Star Wars.



The religious set-up of Star Wars was not only formed by the religion of the Force or the devotion of the Jedi and their enemies to this religion, their nobility and the struggle between them. The struggle which revolves around the transformation of the state into a semi-autocracy with the Jedis’ position in the Galactic Republic and the acquisition of the state, religion gained space by surrounding the Galactic Republic and in a sense, was connected to life and made complete. The religious and the otherworldy thus reached out to the worldly, came into being and was also universalised.



The position of the Jedis which influenced the nature of the state stemmed from the administrative state organ called the “Jedi Council.” The Council was one of the most important administrative offices of the Galactic Republic. This council, formed of masters of the Jedi Knights and the peacekeeping force of the Republic (the most important master was Yoda, one of the main characters of the series), was like the general staff of the republic due to its defensive function. But it was by no means only this. It also acted as a spiritual council of wise men. In any event, the centre of the council was not called a headquarters but a temple, and the Council, under the leadership of Yoda, “sensed” the changes in the Force and tried to take decisions by foreseeing potential dangers. The council alluded to a structure combining the military with wisdom. There were no problems between weapons and wisdom; on the contrary, they were brothers. The members of the council were both well respected wise men and the best warriors of the Republic, besides; they were concerned with all internal and external matters regarding the government of the Republic. In a sense, the “fresh forces” and the wise men had become one.



Another important state organ, alongside the Jedi Council, was the Senate. The Senate was composed of Senators representing planets tied to the Galactic Republic. The Council was autonomously bound to the Senate, and the Senate was the legislative office of the Republic and its president, as also the president of the Higher Council which had the powers of the cabinet, was known as the Chancellor. It was not for nothing that Lucas had used this particular title. The evil character symbolized by Palpatine (Lord Sidious) who holds this title has a very important role in finding the answer to the question as to how the Republic evolved into the Empire and the title of chancellery was the key in terms of Lucas’s selectiveness to build a parallel between this evilness and its correspondent in actual history. Chancellor Palpatine corresponded to Chancellor Hitler in actual history. As a dictator with an irrefutably evil heritage in the eyes of everyone apart from neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, Hitler was a fitting preference by Lucas and must have been preferred not only for his evilness but also for the method he used to establish his power. First and foremost, chancellery meant for Palpatine what it meant for Hitler; a status with indisputable legitimacy on the road to power, gained to use the means of the already weakened Republic to destroy it… Besides, exactly like Hitler, Palpatine never refrained from using all manners of violence and conspiracy both before becoming chancellor and after.



It was made clear in the final film of the series that Palpatine was actually a Sith Lord. According to the storyline, Siths, the evil on the dark side of the Force had been destroyed by the Jedis a thousand years ago and had disappeared from the stage of history, but not only had Palpatine (Lord Sidious) managed to disguise his identity, he had also managed to infiltrate the state and rise to the position of Supreme Council Chancellery. He had put his terrifying plan into practice after assuming office. Palpatine began work by making sure Naboo, a planet tied to the Republic, was invaded by the Trade Federation, another member of the Republic. His reason in provoking the invasion was to benefit from chaos ensuing due to this event in the Senate, which had been in disarray for a long time anyway. This confusion was preventing any sanctions being passed against the invading Federation, and this was the exact point where Palpatine’s evil genius entered the picture. Padme, the queen of invaded Naboo, came to the Senate to have the invasion removed, and with the orientation of Palpatine, who was also Naboo’s representative in the Senate, called for a vote of no confidence in the Senate leadership of current chancellor Volorum. The election following the approval of the vote was won by Palpatine and he became head of State as the new chancellor. The rest was simple and easy for Palpatine. On one hand, he would provoke new insurrections within the Republic to cause chaos, and on the other hand he would have himself granted extraordinary emergency powers for the reestablishment of order. The restricted number of Jedis were inadequate in the face of increasing insurrections, and Palpatine made sure that the Senate had to call upon the help of the battle droid army he had had produced secretly, and after reinforcing the position of the droid army with a few victories against false enemies, he had all Jedis other than Obi Wan and Yoda destroyed with a secret order he put out. And using as an excuse the unsuccessful operation of the Jedis, who had by now found out he was a Sith Lord, he gained emperorship, not unlike Caesar, with a speech he made in front of the Senate.



Palpatine’s rise to emperorship was for many people including Lucas, evidence that Star Wars had an oppositional, anti-war stance. And it was really possible to think from Palpatine’s story, that Star Wars was a criticism of politicians who profited from wars and suffocated democracy using chaos as an excuse. Anyway, there was no reason to think otherwise hearing Lucas saying that he was influenced by the outcome of the Vietnam War when he set out to write the first film and that he was saddened to see that nothing had changed when he looked at what his country had done in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the story does not end here. Yes, Palpatine was obviously evil, one had to be alert against politicians who had similar aims, but the real problem was not the evil Palpatine but the missionaries of the good side. Palpatine was ultimately evil, and as a villain on a par with Hitler, his deeds were not that surprising. In which case, it was not He who would determine how opposed to or supporting of the system Star Wars was, but the heroes, who responded to what must be done to stop evil and thus far more clearly revealed the ideological discourse of the series. Previous criticism of the series aside, it was impossible to say the series was oppositional. As a Sith who wanted to become emperor, Palpatine obviously did not believe in the Republic. It became clear in the III. Film that the Jedis, presented as the sole guardians of the Republic, may have believed in the Republic and the state, but they certainly did not believe in democracy. As a response to Palpatine’s plan, they were calculating a coup to disperse the Senate and gain administration in order to drive the Chancellor out. Their justification, of course, was that the Senate could not arbitrate properly because it was under Palpatine’s hold. In any event, the Senate was portrayed as a pointless institution of diplomacy which only recalled intricacy and a controlled regime which prevented the final showdown. Padme, the Senator of Naboo (and former queen of Naboo) is the only character in the film who appears to believe in democracy and says that more debate and diplomacy should be preferred over war; and she is described as a naïve democrat who is deceived by Palpatine and paves the way for his Chancellorship. What’s more, the same Padme was shown as indirectly responsible of Annakin’s corruption to the dark side and the victory of the villains because she had married him and become his weakness, although Jedis were not permitted to marry. Anakin, who constantly dreamed of Padme’s death in his nightmares (dreams are like a reflection of the future within the series) and had to bear the burden of the guilt of failing to prevent the death of his mother, had turned to the dark side believing Palpatine’s promise that he could save the woman he loved if he turned to the dark side.



The moment of Anakin’s turn to the dark side actually reveals that the Jedis’ perception of not only democracy but also human rights was not much different from Palpatine’s. After Jedi master Windu learns from Anakin that Palpatine is a Sith Lord, despite going to his post to arrest him and successfully overcoming him in battle, he tries to kill him, although Jedi rules require him being taken captive, because Windu believed he was too dangerous to be allowed to live. In the same film, before his identity is deciphered, Palpatine demands Anakin kill the man he has taken captive, despite this being in breach of the same rules, and when Anakin complies, he is sure that he will turn to the ranks of evil. Judging by Master Windu’s preference, there was nothing wrong in following the methods of evil to defeat evil, let alone breaching Jedi rules, if victory was to be attained in this great war.



Interestingly, Anakin thinks that for Padme to live, Palpatine should not die, but be tried, and when he interferes to prevent Windu, he causes Palpatine to kill him with a sudden blow, and thus passes to the dark side. But his turn to the dark side will not prevent Padme’s death and as repeated constantly in the series, Anakin “will not escape his fate.” Anyhow, Yoda, when Qui Gon brought in Anakin as a small child, had opposed him entering Jedi apprenticeship and as a child recently separated from his mother, saw little Anakin’s fear of losing his mother as a sign that he may turn to the dark side.



According to Yoda’s wisdom, there was an automatic process where, “fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering,” and suffering meant entering the path to the dark side. In Anakin’s changing sides, as a Jedi who had displayed humane emotions since his childhood, and in addition to him remaining under the influence of the weakness created by the love he felt towards Padme and his mother, his insufficient obedience towards his masters had also been a determining cause. Obedience was one of the most fundamental qualities of Jedi nobility and Anakin had failed to become sufficiently obedient due to his dismay towards his masters who did not understand him at all and wanted him to only act in accordance with the requirements of the holy war. After all, he was not a democrat like his wife Padme, and believed even more than his masters in short cut solutions for the redemption of the Republic from chaos, but the reason for his disobedience was not this belief but his will to keep Padme alive.



Ultimately, however sincere George Lucas’s political views may be, and, in fact, despite the influence of these sincere views leading to Anakin uttering the post-9/11 words of Bush to Obi Wan (the same was valid for Obi Wan), “if you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy,” Star Wars was not opposed to the system, but embraced it. These words were, if anything, evidence to the fact that Star Wars was the new type of science fiction for the new order and this was probably why they did not stand out within the spirit of the film. Star Wars did not only water down science fiction within a dualism of good guys-bad guys, it participated in the new order’s language of security and violence to reproduce it, despite Lucas’s words to the contrary. Besides, its huge box-office success would soon trigger a host of similar productions. Regrettably, this also included film and television versions of the so-called new generation of Star Trek. Most products of this new generation, with the exception of a few films, had no similarity to the spirit of the original series, and what is more, spoke the same language as Star Wars.

*****

While Lucas had released his first two films and was shooting the third, Cüneyt Arkın, the dauntless representative of Turkish nationalism in film in Turkey, was busy meeting his viewers with the 1982-film Dünyayı Kurtaran Adam/The Man Who Saved The World, whose script he wrote himself and was directed by Çetin İnanç. As is known, Arkın had been extremely inspired by Star Wars and this combined with the artistic brilliance of the film, would lead to the film becoming a cult product of popular culture years later, and the film would be re-screened especially in student’s clubs at universities. But there was something curious about this, because in these re-screening years, the students preferred to categorize the film not as science fiction but as comedy.

However, when Dünyayı Kurtaran Adam/The Man Who Saved The World was first screened, not many people, apart from the ruling class, could laugh, and the film conveyed messages which one would never see in a comedy. However absurd the style of the messages, the spirit of Star Wars and the new order of 1980s Turkey had been captured. As its name states, the film was about the struggle of two Turkish pilots against aliens and how they save the world and it achieved this without any logical or aesthetic concern or an attempt at narrative continuity. But still, it was not for nothing that Hüseyin Peyda, starring as the sage of the film, says melancholically in the mausoleum in space that the word had been struck by disaster because people had deserted religion and deviated, and that Islam is the saviour of the world. Because, when Peyda spoke these words, the 12 September military junta which had crushed the left, had taken action in order to prevent the country going back to pre-12 September times by raising patriots trained in the ideology of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis and who had heightened immunity to the left; and within the scope of this project had also made religion lessons mandatory in schools by constitutional decree. Cüneyt Arkın, who took the leading role in tens of films about the Byzantine Empire and belittled the entire Byzantine Empire as a raider who had even back then succeeded to become a Turkish nationalist and who accused those who made fun of these films of “preventing the raising of youth with awareness,” had, needless to say, not neglected his mission.

Luckily, Dünyayı Kurtaran Adam/The Man Who Saved The World was not the only science fiction film of the post-1980 period. Another film would be screened in 2004, but in contrast to Dünyayı Kurtaran Adam/The Man Who Saved the World, this film would be presented as a comedy film of its own accord. Gora, written by Cem Yılmaz who also took the leading role, had, in a sense, followed Sadri Alışık’s route, because it revolved around the adventures of a Turk on the spaceship of the aliens. Cem Yılmaz himself had voiced his admiration of Sadri Alışık, and had stated he had generously drawn upon his work.

Yet however similar the topic was, and however in awe of Sadri Alışık Cem Yılmaz may be, Gora was quite different from Sadri Alışık’s Turist Ömer Uzayda/Tourist Ömer in Space. Above all, Alışık’s Tourist Ömer was, as stated before, a modest, morally upright, penniless but generous hearted hero. But Cem Yılmaz’s Arif was a real entrepreneur with a strong ego who did not refrain from trying to sell carpets to the aliens who abducted him. Tourist Ömer was shy when he made fun of the heroes of Star Trek, but Arif did not hold back from constantly belittling the aliens as a man confident in himself and his culture. And since Logar, the commander of the aliens who abducted him, was, in contrast with the heroes of Star Trek, and more an enemy in the vein of Lord Vader who wants to capture the world, he amply deserved Arif’s insults, who spoke to him in the language he understood. In the meantime, Arif was not so wrong in having confidence in his culture, since even the alien leading girl in love with Arif had learned about love from the Turkish melodramas she watched. In a sense, Gora’s Arif was a hero created by the post-1980 neo-liberal transformation, and in comparison with this hero, it was highly likely that Tourist Ömer would be seen as naïve rather than funny by the customers of comedy in this period. Just like the heroes of Star Trek being left devoid of their reality in comparison with the heroes of Star Wars, he, too, appeared too naïve to be laughed at anymore.

*****

Science-fiction is important. It must be taken into consideration as a way of searching for the future and a different life. When science fiction productions dream of the future or other worlds, they undoubtedly bear, to a large extent, the traces of the economic, political, cultural circumstances of the social structure they emerge from. But at the same time, by realizing the dreams they construct in the present of the societies they emerge from, they carry potential to claim a share, albeit small, in the founding of the present (and therefore, the future). This potential should not be underestimated. Beside many elements which could drive one to despair on the way to building a better future, the existence of young generations whose minds and imaginations have been atrophied by works of science fiction shaped with the logic of violence and war, will only serve to further destroy dreams. In this sense, the existence of masses, believed to number tens of thousands, who claim allegiance to the Jedi religion and organize as Jedi communities in various countries, should not be read as insignificant consequences of popular culture.



Ultimately, the fading and disappearance of the Star Trek of 1960s, surrendering its popularity to Star Wars in the 1980s, cannot be explained with a simple change from the old to the new one can make light of. Since change is also the result of a certain series of things, it could be said that it is a must to try to understand, on the route to establish a better world, the reasons which prepared this result. In this context, it should be meaningful to seek the answer of, at least, the following question: In a sense, it was Enlightenment capitalism which had created Star Wars, and Star Trek was the product of the artistic back drop of Enlightenment capitalism extending to the masses. But then, which capitalism had Star Wars been created by; Star Wars continues to affect the masses, but as a product, to which type of capitalism’s background does it belong to?



Star Trek also represents golden times, for many people over thirty in Turkey, too. It represented the opportunity to imagine other, better worlds if only for approximately half an hour, for people who strove to continue their lives within the vicious circle of violence, terror and poverty for many years, at a period, the 1970s, when the concept of space only managed to evoke Tübitak (The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey), even to people most interested in the topic. In fact, the Turkish public had even found the opportunity to experience a space adventure of its own disposition on Enterprise in the person of Sadri Alışık, who played the leading role in the 1973-film Turist Ömer Uzayda/Tourist Ömer in Space. If the chance was given, a warmer film from Turkey, departing from the penniless yet generous at heart and morally upright Tourist Ömer, who made fun of Spock’s seriousness and the stuffy human relationships of Star Trek, could have been made. However, the post-12 September period would not allow this.








Appendix
Translated from the Turkish by Nazim Dikbas.