Tweet
BASHIR IN TURKEY: THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Morton Abramowitz
Century Foundation
Jan 24 2008
NY
One would think Turkey's leaders would be a little more careful before
laying down the red carpet for the likes of President Omar al Bashir
of Sudan.
Bashir is widely viewed in most parts of the world as an illegitimate
dictator presiding over a pariah state guilty of crimes against
humanity. He is a seemingly strange bedfellow for Turkey's AKP
(Justice and Development Party) trying to prove to many domestic and
Western observers of its balanced, well-calibrated foreign policy,
and its attachment to international norms.
Turkey has been trying to persuade the world, not very successfully,
that there was no Armenian genocide in 1915. The picture of President
Abdullah Gul smiling at a joint press conference is hardly going to
convince skeptics that Turkey even knows what genocide means, and
it will certainly raise doubts in supporters of Turkey. After all,
Bashir's Sudan has been accused of a relentless campaign of ethnic
cleansing that has left over 200,000 Sudanese dead and more than 2
million driven from their homes. This has prompted some (including the
United States government) to suggest rightly or wrongly, it amounts
to genocide. To many around the world, Bashir whitewashes his massive
crimes against humanity and Gul and Erdoðan avert their gaze.
Bashir's visit is hardly surprising-it is yet another step in a
developing relationship. It follows the visit of Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdoðan to Sudan in March 2006 for an Arab League summit. With a
side-trip to Darfur and relatively benign comments about the situation,
Erdoðan was perceived as issuing a statement of support for the
Sudanese government. Just two weeks ago, Turkish Defense Minister
Vecdi Gonui was in Khartoum to discuss military cooperation between
the two countries, and what some suspect to be negotiations over
Turkish arms sales to Khartoum. The AKP's leader's actions are in
stark contrast to the Foreign Ministry's advice and former President
Sezer's refusal to accept Bashir's invitation to visit.
Put in these stark terms it is hard to find logic behind the
government's actions, but this may be not giving the Turkish leadership
enough credit. There are some counter-explanations worth considering.
An alternative foreign policy?
Perhaps, the AKP government is carving out an alternative foreign
policy role for itself that of a genuine intermediary, even mediator,
in some of the world's most intractable conflicts involving Arab and
Moslem factions and identity issues. It is certainly true that one
needs to be in communication with all the parties to dispute to convey
to them what needs to be done to resolve it. By perceiving to cozy up
to Bashir, Turkey is also buying much-needed credibility in his eyes,
and may position itself to become an important interlocutor for peace
in Darfur. However, there is little to support this explanation. To
date, talks between Ankara and Khartoum have been dominated by
negotiations over trade, investment, energy and military issues,
all areas that Turkey's would-be partners in the EU are increasingly
avoiding.
Alternatively perhaps Ankara believes that support for Bashir is
the key to peace in Darfur, and that discordant rebel movements must
be brought under control. After all after four years western policy
is virtually bankrupt. Its one major achievement is helping keep 2
million displaced people alive, not in getting them home or bringing
peace to the region. Ankara could be signaling a willingness to go
down a different path to resolving the Darfur conflict real politik
overcoming morality and seeking success where the West has failed, by
bolstering Bashir and his forces to go after the rebels. That would
be a unique policy. In addition, it is conceivable that the Turkish
government believes all Darfur needs is a little more humanitarian
assistance which Erdoðan promised a gesture described as indicative
of the Turkish government's profound humanitarian concern for the
people of Darfur. Turkish aid to Darfur's people so far has been minor.
In some countries and perhaps in Turkey many believe the AKP government
is intent on promoting Islamic unity and perceive the Sudan as a
Muslim country being unfairly treated by the West, whatever the scale
of horrors being perpetrated.
One thing is certain: The Turkish government has taken a serious
diplomatic move, opening it up correctly for censure unless it can
better explain its intentions and policies. Failing to do so and
provide relevant details of the meetings with Sudanese leaders,
it will be condemned as a diplomacy that supports a disgraceful
dictatorship without benefiting the innocent victims of Darfur in
any meaningful manner.
No amount of expressions of sympathy for the victims of Darfur will
save Gul and Erdoðan from the pointed questions clouding Bashir's
visit.
Morton Abramowitz is Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation and
former U.S. ambassador to Turkey. This article was first published
in the Turkish Daily News.
--Boundary_(ID_Asosqtb5iSuv9JDedw+E0Q)--
Morton Abramowitz
Century Foundation
Jan 24 2008
NY
One would think Turkey's leaders would be a little more careful before
laying down the red carpet for the likes of President Omar al Bashir
of Sudan.
Bashir is widely viewed in most parts of the world as an illegitimate
dictator presiding over a pariah state guilty of crimes against
humanity. He is a seemingly strange bedfellow for Turkey's AKP
(Justice and Development Party) trying to prove to many domestic and
Western observers of its balanced, well-calibrated foreign policy,
and its attachment to international norms.
Turkey has been trying to persuade the world, not very successfully,
that there was no Armenian genocide in 1915. The picture of President
Abdullah Gul smiling at a joint press conference is hardly going to
convince skeptics that Turkey even knows what genocide means, and
it will certainly raise doubts in supporters of Turkey. After all,
Bashir's Sudan has been accused of a relentless campaign of ethnic
cleansing that has left over 200,000 Sudanese dead and more than 2
million driven from their homes. This has prompted some (including the
United States government) to suggest rightly or wrongly, it amounts
to genocide. To many around the world, Bashir whitewashes his massive
crimes against humanity and Gul and Erdoðan avert their gaze.
Bashir's visit is hardly surprising-it is yet another step in a
developing relationship. It follows the visit of Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdoðan to Sudan in March 2006 for an Arab League summit. With a
side-trip to Darfur and relatively benign comments about the situation,
Erdoðan was perceived as issuing a statement of support for the
Sudanese government. Just two weeks ago, Turkish Defense Minister
Vecdi Gonui was in Khartoum to discuss military cooperation between
the two countries, and what some suspect to be negotiations over
Turkish arms sales to Khartoum. The AKP's leader's actions are in
stark contrast to the Foreign Ministry's advice and former President
Sezer's refusal to accept Bashir's invitation to visit.
Put in these stark terms it is hard to find logic behind the
government's actions, but this may be not giving the Turkish leadership
enough credit. There are some counter-explanations worth considering.
An alternative foreign policy?
Perhaps, the AKP government is carving out an alternative foreign
policy role for itself that of a genuine intermediary, even mediator,
in some of the world's most intractable conflicts involving Arab and
Moslem factions and identity issues. It is certainly true that one
needs to be in communication with all the parties to dispute to convey
to them what needs to be done to resolve it. By perceiving to cozy up
to Bashir, Turkey is also buying much-needed credibility in his eyes,
and may position itself to become an important interlocutor for peace
in Darfur. However, there is little to support this explanation. To
date, talks between Ankara and Khartoum have been dominated by
negotiations over trade, investment, energy and military issues,
all areas that Turkey's would-be partners in the EU are increasingly
avoiding.
Alternatively perhaps Ankara believes that support for Bashir is
the key to peace in Darfur, and that discordant rebel movements must
be brought under control. After all after four years western policy
is virtually bankrupt. Its one major achievement is helping keep 2
million displaced people alive, not in getting them home or bringing
peace to the region. Ankara could be signaling a willingness to go
down a different path to resolving the Darfur conflict real politik
overcoming morality and seeking success where the West has failed, by
bolstering Bashir and his forces to go after the rebels. That would
be a unique policy. In addition, it is conceivable that the Turkish
government believes all Darfur needs is a little more humanitarian
assistance which Erdoðan promised a gesture described as indicative
of the Turkish government's profound humanitarian concern for the
people of Darfur. Turkish aid to Darfur's people so far has been minor.
In some countries and perhaps in Turkey many believe the AKP government
is intent on promoting Islamic unity and perceive the Sudan as a
Muslim country being unfairly treated by the West, whatever the scale
of horrors being perpetrated.
One thing is certain: The Turkish government has taken a serious
diplomatic move, opening it up correctly for censure unless it can
better explain its intentions and policies. Failing to do so and
provide relevant details of the meetings with Sudanese leaders,
it will be condemned as a diplomacy that supports a disgraceful
dictatorship without benefiting the innocent victims of Darfur in
any meaningful manner.
No amount of expressions of sympathy for the victims of Darfur will
save Gul and Erdoðan from the pointed questions clouding Bashir's
visit.
Morton Abramowitz is Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation and
former U.S. ambassador to Turkey. This article was first published
in the Turkish Daily News.
--Boundary_(ID_Asosqtb5iSuv9JDedw+E0Q)--