Aylan Kurdi’s Death

Famously, Aylan Kurdi, who washed up on a Turkish Mediterranean coast in September 2015 while he was desperately seeking safe land in Europe, instantly became a shocking image in the media. The tear-jerking picture of this three-year-old Syrian boy had broad repercussions in the world. Almost all international news channels covered the story, and the image has been shared hundreds of thousands of times on social media platforms. Self-contradictorily, while it is nearly impossible to see the dead body of a British, French or American child posted in the media, the vast majority of Western newspapers in particular had published the picture of Aylan’s body on their front pages. Some claimed that it raised awareness about the Syrian Civil War and the refugee crisis. During the “top topic” times of Aylan, a number of conferences, talks, programs and exhibitions had been organized in the United States and European countries. A lot of articles were written about this “dramatic” death. The media had produced lots of content. On the other hand, millions of people watched, listened and probably said: “Oh, you poor thing”.

Unfortunately, the social reflex after Aylan’s death has not gone beyond taking an emotional gaze and suffering from far away, for a while. Furthermore, focusing on a “spectacular” image has caused people to ignore the reality of war zones in Syria and other places. Maybe this image has become a powerful symbol of the war, people will remember it time to time, but it will have been representing the Syrians’ war. It has been consumed as media content which is feeding the individuals’ satisfaction via the media industry. Although the fact remains that the conventional and social media have set a strong agenda through Aylan, the question is what has been changed with this sensational photo of a little child at the end of the day? Has Aylan’s image triggered any mass social movement in Europe or America? How many Western governments expressed a sense of responsibility in housing refugees from Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan?

Overwhelmingly dramatizing the death of innocent children has not stopped suffering in Syria for a year. Making the pictures of Aylan a kind of commodity through the media hasn’t pushed the West to do something noteworthy about the Syrian Civil War and refugees. In this regard, Canada has become an exceptional country which succeeded in putting on a “refugees welcome” campaign. Aylan’s family had reputedly been trying to reach Canada through Europe. His story and the refugee crisis in general directly became a question of debate in the Canadian Federal Election on Oct 19, 2015. However, only 35,745 Syrian refugees have arrived in Canada since November 2015, meanwhile Şanlıurfa, a Turkish city, has welcomed more than 400,000 refugees.

Mediated Echoes of a Picture

In fact, Aylan is not the only child whose death or sad story has been heavily circulated or not circulated enough by the media. On January 5, 2016, four months after the death of Aylan, at least 34 people including at least three children washed up in the Aegean coasts of Turkey after two boats overturned in stormy weather. Although there were much more photos, the global media attention was very limited. People did not even care for their names. Because, it was not something new and “the concept of death” had already lost its impact. Another time, Omran Daqneesh’s image, probably you remember, was an unusual concept, a new “thing” to be mediated, but Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb’s photo, who was a thirteen-year-old Syrian boy who died in the custody of the Syrian government, was not sensational enough to cover. As the phrase goes, while the West brought many children to display for business and enjoyment off its own bat, it has mainly failed to receive most of the refugees, including many needed children. And unfortunately, the pictures of Aylan, Hamza Ali and many other children’s dead bodies have arrived in Europe via the media.

Aylan’s image has triggered a discussion around the refugee crisis and such a use of spectacular pictures by the mass media. In the United Kingdom, for example, while the Times newspaper argued that the UK must take more Syrian refugees and the Guardian suggested EU powers be prepared to spend more of their efforts and resources fostering the conditions for ceasefire, the Daily Express said they should not allow themselves to be emotionally blackmailed into feeling guilty that they are acting improperly by not letting even more illegal immigrants in.

Fraser Nelson of the Telegraph made a different comment: “A photograph of a drowned child is heartbreaking, but should not change policy: a botched response can lead to many more dead children. Hundreds of Yemeni children will likely starve this winter, victims of its civil war – we won’t see the pictures, so we’re unlikely to see anyone petitioning Parliament about them. But it’s no less of a tragedy.” Furthermore, a comment by Brendan O’Neill in The Spectator magazine on September 2015 was much more critical: “The global spreading of this snapshot … is justified as a way of raising awareness about the migrant crisis. Please. It’s more like a snuff photo for progressives, dead-child porn, designed not to start a serious debate about migration in the 21st century but to elicit a self-satisfied feeling of sadness among Western observers.”

Touching People, not the Screen

However, the debates have not changed anything remarkable in a positive manner. Instead, France closed the Calais refugee camp, Norway launched an anti-refugee advertising campaign. The United Kingdom has faced rising xenophobia since Brexit. Donald Trump, who is famous for his xenophobic discourse, won the US presidential election. Germany has somehow tried to send refugees back to Turkey. The rightwing pundits in the West have been given a new platform to speak, even some left-wing philosophers have joined the discussions with anti-refugee statements. Despite the rise of the right-wing in the West, many people have turned into distant sufferers on the media screens as a reaction to the heartbreaking images. This “distant suffering” has eventually become a kind of quiescence and insensitivity. Noam Chomsky, an American philosopher and political activist, considers it a moral crisis and criticized the reaction of the states: “Among citizens, there are honorable exceptions, but the reaction of the states is a moral disgrace” and he adds: “The shame is deep and persistent”.

At this point, Western nations should ask themselves in terms of their sincerity whether they are emotionally satisfied with some spectacular photos or are they really keen to do something for Syrian people by pushing the governments into action. Otherwise, the images of victims like Aylan and Omran will feed suffering “fetishes” and the emotional satisfaction of Western individuals. Instead of bestowing a hand of help to them, the Western world prefers to be distant sufferers via TV and computer screens. I shudder to think that the current situation has become a kind of modern exploitation over the children’s bodies via the media commodities. People in the West must materially and morally go beyond the pictures and do something about the crisis lived by Syrian children. They should begin to think about them outside the screen, even if they are not the “top topic” agenda in the media.

On January 4, 2017 CNN published an exclusive news story entitled “The Rohingya A[y]lan Kurdi: Will the world take notice now?” It covers the picture and story of Mohammed Shohayet, a 16-month-old Rohingya refugee whose family fled their home for Bangladesh to escape the violence in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, only to drown during the journey along with his mother, uncle and three-year-old brother. The title itself – “Rohingya A[y]lan Kurdi” – already means that the child’s death is not something new and different for the media and their audience.

In brief, the next chapter of the British economy will rely upon the degree of its future economic integration with the EU and the deals that will be built upon this. In this context, there is no doubt that the UK will have to make serious efforts to minimize the relevant costs and attain the best privileges possible. This, however, could constrain its economy to a considerably low performance in the years to come.

Likewise, consequences of the Brexit process possibly will resonate in Turkey due to the country’s strong economic ties with the UK and the EU. The UK is currently one of the top destinations for Turkish exports and welcomes a wide range of goods from Turkey, including motor vehicles, clothing, electronics, machinery and articles of iron and steel. As for the short term, a prospective slowdown in the UK economy has the potential to affect imports from Turkey in a downward direction. Moreover, Turkish exports could encounter the risk of a reaction through the European economy, depending on the severity of the regional outcomes. In this context, the trade relations of Turkey with the UK and the EU might also be affected by the changes in sterling and euro in the near future. Besides, developments in the short run can be expected to have consequences for the Turkish tourism sector, for which the EU and the UK, in particular, are major sources.

The aftereffects on the Turkish economy, on the other hand, will hinge mostly upon the Brexit formula to be devised. In this respect, the new structure of UK-EU trade could include Turkey as an associated party or, alternatively, pave the way for a new bilateral agreement with the UK. The latter is a delicate matter due to Turkey’s subjection to the Customs Union, nonetheless. And last but not least, apart from the credit opportunities it provides for the Turkish private sector, the United Kingdom also stands as a foremost actor in terms of foreign direct investments (FDI) made in Turkey. The share of the UK in total FDIs in Turkey in the year of 2015 was %7 and enlarged to %8.2 for the first 7 months of 2016. Thus, the UK’s ongoing role as a prominent source of finance and investments should be expressed as another likely channel of impact for the Turkish economy. To cut a long story short, potential implications of the imminent negotiation process and the post-Brexit era are likely to be echoed in Turkey, as well.

Great Britain’s decision to leave the European Union is not only a turning point in Europe’s history but also a huge challenge for the world’s economic and political system.

The Brexit referendum has shown us, once again, the ambiguities of referendums. According to surveys, the older generation and more conservative people have voted to leave the EU, perhaps imagining that the UK will return to the power of its Victorian Era once it is liberated from its European obligations. Immediately after the announcement of the results, some “leave” voters expressed their regrets and tried to propose ways to reverse the decision. People have searched EU-related information on the web following the referendum, not before, which shows that many were not informed about what they were voting against. They have seen that their money is losing value, that international firms have expressed intentions to leave the country and that a number of citizens have applied for French citizenship – many are shocked by these developments.

Democracy in the Context of Ethnic Nationalism and Globalism

Brexit has proved that a referendum can be a very dangerous tool in a democracy. Politics is never black and white; it is always made up of shades of gray. If every issue was black and white, politicians would not be necessary. This, of course, does not mean that referendums should be prohibited, but it does mean that they must be organized in a more just, transparent and democratic way.

The UK’s decision has encouraged discussion of democracy and voting habits. It has also sparked a number of other debates: the future of Scotland, for example. There is now a widely held opinion that a second Scottish independence referendum will be held soon, and this time the supporters of a free Scotland will win. Scotland will then apply for EU membership. If this happens, will the Scots be seen as a secessionist ethnic group or will this be considered the use of the right to self-determination by a distinct nation?

The UK’s decision has encouraged discussion of democracy and voting habits. It has also sparked a number of other debates: the future of Scotland, for example.

Do people have the right to create their own independent state or can this only happen when great powers make the decision? In Scotland’s case, it is not the Scots but the English, by their decision to leave the EU, who have provoked the secession. This begs the question of whether the same scenario is possible in Spain or Italy.

In the past, many wars have been caused by this kind of secessionist desire. What is new is that today’s secessionists want to leave the states they are attached to in order to join a multi-state integration movement, namely the EU.

We do not know yet if Scotland will be able to declare independence and join the EU, but, if that happens, it could pave the way for the resolution of the Cyprus question. Can the EU act differently when divergent peoples ask for the same dispensation?

There is another problem: let us imagine that the UK has indeed been dismembered and Scotland has become independent. The UN is the main mechanism that can validate such a situation, but the UK is a permanent member of the Security Council. What if the UK uses its veto right to block Scotland’s wish to join international bodies, and what if, despite that, Scotland asks to be incorporated into the EU? In this case, and if the EU accepts Scotland’s membership, what can one say? That the EU has encouraged the falling apart of the UK? Or that the EU has protected the rights of a sovereign nation against the egoistic will of the UK ?

Democracy and Loose EU vs Tight EU

Since the foundation of the EU, one of the main debates has been about the level of integration: whether the EU will become a rigid bloc or a loose association of states. France and Germany have always defended the first view, while the UK has insisted on the second. As of today, some say that Brexit is the result of the EU’s inability to establish a tight union thus far, while others say that the EU is more than tight enough already, which is exactly what has pushed Britain to leave the union.

Since the foundation of the EU, one of the main debates has been about the level of integration: whether the EU will become a rigid bloc or a loose association of states.

Perhaps the problem is not about the tight or loose character of the union, but where and how decisions are taken. Immediately before and after the referendum, the term “EU” was searched on the internet massively by people in the UK. In other words, people who actually live under EU regulation are unaware of what the EU is, or they have forgotten its definition. EU mechanisms profess to act on behalf of the people, but it has gone unnoticed that the people feel that the EU institutions do not represent them. For most people, the EU is only what their politicians tell them.

England is the motherland of modern parliamentarian democracy. The EU has always said that it cherishes democracy, but, over time, the EU institutions have become unable to make people feel that they are represented in Brussels; this is why the English people have reacted. It is known that the EU insists that its members have impeccable democracy; but the EU mechanisms themselves have lost their democratic character. One of the reasons for this is that it is not the people who make the final decisions, it is the states. This is why, even if a state is democratic within its country, when it comes to the international scene, states act as realistic actors and their priority is only their national interest.

The problem is that the EU member countries do not have the same powerful economy, so, in the end, it is Germany that has become the major decision maker.

Another aspect of the debate is the market economy. The theory is that a liberal democracy cannot be imagined without a liberal economy. The EU has definitely adopted liberal economic rules and it has reduced states’ role over economic processes. But it has simply replaced those states with Brussels. Singular states have, indeed, small influence over the economy, but the EU is now the main regulatory actor. The problem is that the EU member countries do not have the same powerful economic situation, so, in the end, it is the country with the biggest economy that has become the major decision maker, and it is obvious that this player is Germany. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to talk about a real liberal economy. In fact, the EU is quite liberal within the Union, but extremely protective against the outside world. There are now agreements to weaken these protective walls, but these are being negotiated by states and put into practice by firms.

This is why big companies are, in fact, the real pivot of the EU’s economy, which creates distortion effects for diverse income segments and business sectors. Sometimes, states try to correct this situation, such as in France with the disputed law on working life; but this pushes angry people into the streets.

Democracy in the Context of Euroscepticism and Xenophobia

The UK example has shown us that those who do not want to remain within the EU are those who dislike other people, which is why all nationalist and racist parties in France, the Netherlands, Italy and Austria have applauded the Brexit result.

It is sad to think that the EU was once created so that nationalism and racism would be eradicated. It appears that a moment came when people began to question the purpose of the EU.

It is sad to think that the EU was once created so that nationalism and racism would be eradicated. It appears that a moment came when people began to question the purpose of the EU, and they asked themselves “who are we?” Moreover, they have begun to believe that values such as democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms are solid enough and do not require the EU’s protection.

Turkey has been the perfect target in this context as it is a candidate country. It has been seen as the “other” because it has not adopted these values, and the EU has done little to help in this. Turkey has been criticized because of its undemocratic character, but the way it has been criticized has been almost as though the EU wants Turkey to remain undemocratic.

When a group of people begin to call themselves “we”, they can no longer claim  to cherish European or universal values, because, if there is a “we”, there is certainly an “other” somewhere.

Brexit is not only about how many members the EU will retain or what can be expected in Britain’s future. It is about the big debate on democracy.

The “others” for the EU are Turkey, the Syrian refugees, Middle Eastern people or Muslims in general. A clear distinction has sometimes been made between European Muslims and Middle Eastern Muslims, such as with the building of a wall on the Greek-Bulgarian border. These walls are not only at the borders, but also in the mind. The “others” have also sparked fears.

Europeans are not only afraid of non-European people but also of those European citizens of Middle Eastern origin. The fear has turned easily into a discrimination.

Conservative English people have said “no” to the EU, believing that European institutions will bring many more foreigners to their country. Many more European countries may say the same. They consider democracy to be the right to not live with foreigner neighbors or to not see foreigners in daily life. Britain has caused this debate to grow stronger; after all, it is the motherland of parliamentarian democracy.

Brexit is not only about how many members the EU will retain or what can be expected in Britain’s future. It is about the big debate on democracy. It is a turning point for Europe and for the entire world.