Sitting on the terrace I tap my feet and bop my head to Bob Sinclar’s “World Hold On,” blaring from the nearby disco. My eyes closed, I’m vacationing on the Spanish island of Ibiza, the European hot spot and party capital of the world. I hear the singing of beautiful Quranic verses echoing throughout the city, the fifth and final Muslim call to prayer of the day. I open my eyes. Europe? The Middle East? “Tesekuler,” I say to the waiter. “Thank you.” Oh yes, Turkey — that’s where I am.

Back in the states, we approach international affairs as a divided world. It’s 2008 and we speak of the “East” and the “West,” as if we are still in the midst of the Cold War, forcing democracy upon populations that hate us and everything we stand for. With the outbreak of war in Georgia and the Caucasus region, we ridicule Russia for their outdated realpolitik approach to foreign policy and shiver at the possibility of a reemerging Cold War. But in actuality, how has the United States departed from this ruthless battle of ideology herself? Whether fighting Communism or Islamic fundamentalism, it seems as if our insatiable need for title of sole world superpower is driving our nation into political, economic and social turmoil in both the national and international arenas. Why is it that we cannot settle for both an East and a West?

A recent trip to Istanbul caused me to recognize that just maybe, the peaceful coexistence of an “East” and a “West,” whatever these broad terms may connote at the present time, is possible. In the ancient, aesthetic city of Istanbul, modernization-with-a-twist is the rule of the land. In a city of nearly 12 million, people of diverse ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds coexist. I walk across the Bosphorus Bridge connecting Europe and Asia; I stand in between two women: one in a full burqa, the other in a tank top. Many would describe this unusual picture as a clash of cultures; I call it the 21st century.

Yet, I am not fully blinded by my optimism. This summer in Turkey, the western principles of secularism and democracy knocked heads with those of Islam. On July 30, 2008 during my stay in Istanbul, a historic court decision was announced: the incumbent Turkish political party, the AKP, would remain in power by a slim 6-5 vote. Last year, the AKP passed a bill that removed the preexisting ban on Islamic headscarves in public universities. Recent studies show that two-thirds of Turkish women wear a headscarf, a startling increase since Kemal Ataturk first founded the modern, secular republic of Turkey. While this legislation would have likely expanded educational opportunities for women, giving women who cover their heads access to public university, fervent secularists cried out that such a measure was unconstitutional and would push Turkey down a slippery slope towards Islamic Fundamentalism and the “backwards” Middle East. With the future of the secular state at risk, opposition parties pursued the outlaw of the AKP. Though the AKP remains in power today, the ban on headscarves in public arenas was re-implemented, and it is unlikely that the AKP will push for additional Islamic measures in the near future.

Thus, the age-old East vs. West question re-emerges. While the “East” in this case no longer represents Communism, but rather, Islamic fundamentalism, the battle still persists. Should Turkey expand education for women or face the threat of losing her highly-prized secular status? Think for a second what it would be like if it was illegal to enter a CALS building wearing a yarmulke on your head or a cross around your neck. It’s inconceivable here in America, but hardly so half a world away. Currently, the headscarf controversy in Turkey remains. Ultimately, the vote of the Constitutional Court allowed the AKP to remain in power, preventing a potential out-lash against the democratic institution, but still reinforcing Turkey’s secular roots. Thus, the coexistence of Islam and secularism remain the law of the land.

My question is, if Turks can be satisfied with compromise, why can’t we? With the rapid rise of China and India, and the reemergence of Russia as a potential world power once again, our superpower status will likely be challenged to some degree in the near future. Instead of continuing this bloody battle for sole supremacy, let’s take a step back, clean up our act, and think before acting in this newly defined international world. Reputable world leader instead of arrogant super power? Compromise in place of absolutism? Human rights in exchange for war and torture? Let’s hope that Nov. 4 brings us more than change. We need a new approach to international diplomacy; we need compromise; we need coexistence.

Carolyn Witte is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at cfw46@cornell.edu. Carolyn is a contributing columnist for The Sun.