RSS

November 26, 2009

Member deleted

Looking to the west, e.g., U.S. and EU, Turkey - Israel relationship deteriorated, looking to the east, e.g. Iran, Turkey - U.S. and EU relations become strained.

This is abnormal if Turkey's serving as a bridge building mutual trust among parties of concern, into the middle ground, for peace.

Transparency of Turkish strategic intentions and moves maybe the key for her to be successful, eastward and/or westward. And indeed, EU should not be too hasty to shut its doors to Turkey's applications to join EU, in whatever type of forms that may come about.

November 26, 2009

Jakob Schirmer, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Gold Contributor (134)

Thank you for your thoughts, Alex. In my opinion your definition of Turkey's interests and position between EU, the Middle East and Russia hits the mark: "Complex states do not have a single geopolitical ‘direction'." By the way, that applies also to the EU. Also the EU should follow such a "holistic approach" towards Russia, as well as to the countries of the Eastern Partnership and of course Turkey.

November 26, 2009

Ghassan Dahhan, King's College London, Bronze Contributor (14)

Dear Mr. Jackson,

First of all I’d like to say that I understand your concern. Alarmist scenarios are and have always been very popular. It’s much more easy to make pessimistic predictions based on facts that are blown out of their context rather than making nuanced predictions that don’t seem to attribute anything new to a discussion, and are therefore less popular among the audiences. However in the case of Turkey the Western concern about the possibility to lose an important ally is in fact real.

In your article you dismiss the claim of the possibility that Turkey will shift its policy orientation eastwards. According to you, the prediction of a shift of Turkey’s foreign policy towards the east is based on wrong assumptions. Instead you neglect the importance of the recent incidents that took place in the region in which you give several arguments why such policy shift is unlikely to take place.

You assert that the spat between Turkey and Israel was caused by Israel’s assault on Gaza last year. As a result of the war the Turkish efforts in the Arab-Israeli peace process were tarnished by Israel, which left Turkey disenfranchised. This claim is however misguided. Turkey has hitherto a poor record when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. The only Arab-Israeli peace process in which Turkey until recently has been involved is that between Israel and Syria, but since Syria was neither affected nor involved in the Gaza war, why would Turkey feel betrayed by Israel for its conduct during the Gaza war? Certainly, Syria was content with the result of the Gaza war, in which it saw Israel losing the battle for public support for their ‘fight against terror’, but that was not you were referring to.

Moreover, you also state that it is odd to ‘link Turkish anger at Israel with turning away from the EU’ because Israel is not “an integral part of ‘the West', geographically or politically.” Indeed geographically Israel is not an integral part of the West, but the assumption that Israel is politically not a part of the West is simply not correct. The military, economic and political ties between the West and Israel exceed that of any non-Western country. The case of Israel – where the support for Israel and the commitment to its security by the West is unconditional and unlimited – cannot be compared to any other case in the world. Therefore one can properly claim that politically, Israel is an integral part of the West, though not geographically – the cancellation of Italian and American participation of the military drill last month, due to the Turkish refusal to allow Israel to take part in the exercise is only one example. For that reason, the claim that Turkey’s attitude towards Israel has no effect on the Western-Turkish relations or vice versa needs more evidence than that provided by you.

In order to understand Turkey’s foreign policy in the region you stress the need to examine the regional ‘historic rivalries’, in which you refer to ‘Turkish fears of an Iranian nuclear weapon’. Again, this claim is based on the wrong assumptions. Not only hasn’t there been any significant ‘historic rivalry’ between Iran and Turkey, furthermore, the nuclear ambitions of the Iranian Republic have only developed recently – which makes the term ‘historic’ irrelevant. But when we really take a look into the ‘historic rivalries’ within the region, as you advise us to do, we see a completely different picture than the one you present. Whereas the former rivalry Turkish-Armenian relations have improved tremendously during the last couple of months, and the Turkish-Syrian relations have become ‘superb’; the relations between the ‘historical allies’ are deteriorating – take for example the Turkish-Azeri and the Turkish-Israeli relations.

These examples do not only contradict your claim that it is important to examine the ‘historic rivalries’ in the region in order to understand the nature of Turkish politics, your analysis of the existing historical rivalries are not correct as well. Second, there is absolutely no indication that Turkey has purchased Patriot missile batteries because of fears of a ‘nuclear Iran’. Instead, the acquisition of these missiles is part of broad strategy designed to modernize the Turkish military equipment. And if turkey would feel threatened by Iran nuclear ambitions, it would be more likely that we would see Turkey developing nuclear weapons of their own, rather than purchasing Patriot missiles.

At the end you recommend the West to allow Turkey ‘to play a bigger role in the talks on Iran's nuclear programme. Subsequently you state that the West should ‘recognise Turkey's status as an essential partner and a regional powerhouse’ and that the EU shouldn’t ‘shut the door on Turkish EU membership’ My question to you is this: What would happen if the West denies to allow Turkey to play a bigger role in the Middle East; fails to recognize Turkey as a regional powerhouse; and the EU does shut the door to Turkish accession? And do you believe, if that happens, that Turkey will than decide to re-orientate its foreign policy eastwards?

November 26, 2009

Member deleted

Dear Mr Dahhan,

Thank you for your comments. First of all, I do agree that the threat of the West losing Turkey is certainly real, in the long run. However whilst the EU accession process remains open, and whilst the AKP remains in power, I don’t believe we should overstate the possibility.

With regard to Gaza, I think we should bear in mind the strong links between regional conflicts. I disagree that Syria was content with the result of Cast Lead. Seeing Israel lose the PR war must have been satisfying for Damascus but Syria knows that peace between Israel and the Palestinians is bound up with peace between Israel and Syria. It is hard to believe that Damascus was satisfied with seeing Israeli jets levelling civilian targets in Gaza.

In any case, whether or not Turkey has a poor record on mediating between Israel and the Palestinians is neither here nor there – the point is that Ankara believes it has a role to play in regional peacemaking. After all, it officially requested to replace Egypt as negotiator between Fatah and Hamas in July. Its fury at Israel was, and very much still is, extremely clear.

With regard to Israel’s integration with the West, I acknowledge that this point is contentious. However, I stand by it, and I believe it is an overstatement to say that the West provides ‘unconditional and unlimited’ support to Israel. The US certainly has done so, although even that is changing these days. Europe certainly does not provide this level of support.

The level of criticism directed at Israel would be extraordinary if directed at a fellow European state, or – even during the darkest days of the Iraq War crisis – at the US. The EU has repeatedly refused to upgrade its Association Agreement with Israel until it makes progress on a Palestinian state. For all the strategic, commercial and cultural ties, there is nonetheless a very real distaste for Israeli policies amongst some European politicians that inevitably leads the EU to distance itself from Tel Aviv.

I would disagree that there has been no significant historic rivalry between Iran and Turkey. Although I am always wary of reading too much into the distant past, we should not forget that the Ottoman Empire and Persia repeatedly fought each other. Times have changed but there is no doubt that there is subtle geopolitical rivalry. When Iranian gunships threatened an Azerbaijani team investigating oil deposits in the Caspian, in 2001, Turkish fighter jets soon arrived and made it clear to Iran that such actions would not be tolerated.

Iran also supported the PKK for some time, as Robert Baer’s book ‘The Devil We Know’ makes very clear. Most notably, of course, the Turkish state dreads the possibility of an Iranian-style revolution in Turkey. They have never been comfortable with an Islamic theocracy on their eastern border, even though Iranian policies have become less revolutionary since the 1980s.

With regard to Armenia, this is clearly significant but Armenia is not, in any way, part of the Middle East. The Armenian thaw has been undertaken predominantly (though not entirely) to win European support, and to increase Ankara’s EU accession hopes. Rapprochement with its eastern neighbour (and not to give undue weight to the issue of religion, but we should not forget Armenia's Christianity) is ironically another case of Turkey’s westward ambitions.

The fact that relations with Azerbaijan have worsened recently is, for the purposes of this discussion, neither here nor there. Azerbaijan is not a Middle Eastern state, and the crisis will be managed. If this issue actually was significant, it would reinforce my central argument – that Turkey is not turning towards Muslim states and away from Europe.

As for the Patriot missiles, you are absolutely right that it is part of the Turkish military modernisation programme. But all military procurement policies have an aim in mind, a hypothetical war in which they may be used. Turkey is not buying a highly advanced, highly expensive missile system just for a rainy day.

Although I don’t rule out Turkey beginning its own nuclear weapons programme, it is not as easy to acquire the bomb as you suggest (as Iran could tell you!) The costs – in time, money, and international opprobrium – of establishing a nuclear programme would be prohibitive. Buying advanced air defence systems is a cheaper, quicker, more politically acceptable option, since, as you make clear, Turkey can state that it is simply upgrading its military. It also shows its continued close relationship with Washington and NATO.

As for your final questions, I certainly agree that Turkey would start to reorient its foreign policy. I think failing to support Turkey’s role in the Middle East would not be a fatal blow to the relationship, nor would failing to recognise it as a regional powerhouse. I would argue that the West already fails to do both of these things, for instance by not fully incorporating it into conflict resolution efforts in the Caucasus.

Closing the door to EU membership would be the final straw, I believe. Integration with the West has been the driving force behind Turkey’s policies, and indeed part of its national identity, since the days of Ataturk. Comprehensive rejection would be a geopolitical earthquake. I wouldn’t wish to speculate too far on the exact actions that Ankara would take, but we would certainly see closer cooperation with Russia, Iran, Syria, and possibly China as well. The long term effects would be profound, and the EU should bear this in mind.

Once again, thank you for your comments!

Alex

November 26, 2009

Member deleted

Dear All Concerned,

Please kindly note thatI despise hearing too often the comment that Turkey is a bridge between East & West. This is a ridiculous cliche used by some people including some of my countrymen. They seem to have picked up from somewhere and chosen to memorize it and repeat it as their lifelong favorite motto like parrots about my country without feeling any responsibility to give it a credible thought:))

The self-conditioning of their own minds with such misleading understanding of my country & people sometimes leads them to be startled and puzzled about the political, economical and even social movements which takes place.

This misunderstanding results in generation of misguided policies towards my people at the expense of the Westerners as well as us. The basic reason behind my attempt, with the hope of prevention, to express a rather common Turkish feeling towards Westerners in my country which may eventually crystalize out as dislike for the Western people though undesirable.

The well-formulated article above covers a good example of the present state of affairs on this part of the world from my stand point, too. I hope this article along with my brief comment awaken at least some Western people to do away with foolish slogans like "Clash of Civilizations" etc.

I would at this point humbly try to attempt to advise Western professionals to set aside their intellectual inertias and do their homework properly to think in terms of World's ongoing realities rather than by stereo-typed conceptualizations, double standards, etc.

Why not try pondering about some of my favorite slogans for Turkey given below:

***Turkey has been located at a cradle of civilizations throughout history;
***Turkey has been situated at the crossroads of civilizations;
***Turkey is a land of opportunities;
***Etc.

Thanks for your consideration...

November 27, 2009

Hans Reuther-Fix

Over the last 100 years, historic events caused devastation and
ended in distortions about traditional societies, especially its human capital.
This cannot be neglected, as the gap between real value and fiat-currency
is becoming so obvious.
One has to step down from the high ground of " victors justice" and ask, especially with regard to above subject and its deliberations, first, who and what constitutes the West, in our case it can be narrowed down to the
institution of the EU.
Secondly, with regard to the Middle East conflict, shouldn't we be open and
inquisitive as to whether the State of Israel really wants peace at this time,
especially while enjoying this direct and indirect unconditional support by America and Germany respectively.
But what about Turkey. As to antiquity, going beyond The Republic and The Ottoman Empire, the Anatolian Peninsula ( also called Asia Minor ) comprises
most of Turkey. Anatolia is one of the oldest continuously inhabted regions of the world, due to its location at the intersection of Asia and Europe.
In history and before settling Anatolia, the Turks were "riding " with the Huns.
The House of Seljuk, which settled Anatolia from the Romans, was a branch of the Kinik Oguz Turks, who lived on the periphery of the Muslim world.
It is claimed that according to DNA studies the Turkish and Azeri populations,
which are Turkic speaking, seem to be closer to populations from the Middle
East, Caucasus and the Balkans. However, one should not play with the idea of possible elite cultural dominance.
.......... in 1963 Turkey became an associate member of the EEC and reached a customs union agreement in 1995. But Turkey also fostered close political,
cultural and industrial relations with the East, also through memberships
in the OIC and ECO. To sum it up, Turkey is classified as a developed country by the CIA and as a regional power by political scientists and
economists worldwide...............

All discussions above as to West against East, reminds one of
"... either you are with us or against us....."
Recent meetings in St.Petersburg between , Brazil, Russia, China and India
on world economy should make one realize that Europe, as it presents itself
now is not a union by any means, although the Lisbon Treaty tries
to structure Europe to make it manageable.
The fabric of Europe still carries this intriguing desire for dominance within and seems to lack the important ingredient for a union to function--"team work".
When one country covers for another for human rights violation, or a potential class action legal challenge is to be introduced because of miltary activities outside its periphery, unmanageable at present is not an overstatement.
With the existing debt load of the Eurozone, any EU enlargement is ill-
advised and can only be to the detriment of Turkey.
Turkey needs to maintain its indentity, because there is a future in the East,
it should rather help to restructure NATO and define its purpose.

HRF

November 27, 2009

Member deleted

Israel - A country with existential problems won't listen to any one, be it U.S., EU, or Turkey.....

Turkey - A member of the Developing 8 organization, apparently not a developed nation yet

Europe and EU - separate identities

NATO - the future of her probably rely on the success of Afghanistan

To sum it up, Turkey might feel more comfortable with the East, but a "modern" West may be attractive to her as well, for her own further developments. She probably should remain pragmatic, leaving all options open for the best interests of her people.

November 30, 2009

Anita Issagholyan, NYU MSGA, (8)

I would like to respectfully disagree with Mr. Dahhan.

Actually, Turkish-Armenian relations have not be normalized, reconciled or improved. The signing of a piece of paper, we all know, does not ensure good relations, peace or progress. It just means, there was enough pressure from those with the most interest (Hilary Clinton who accompanied the Armenian and Turkish dignitaries to ensure the signatures went through),

In regards to Mr. Jackson's commentary- yes, the "normalization" of relations between Turkey and Armenia, can be considered one of the many campaigns that Turkey is taking up in order to gain acceptance into the EU. There are plenty of contingencies that the EU has placed upon Turkey's entry into the Union. Turkey's leaderships knows that the bloody stains of their past are not being forgotten and are looking for easy ways out instead of long lasting peace processes.