Tweet
TURKISH ATTITUDE CHANGED RAPIDLY IN 2009
Hurriyet
Dec 28 2009
Turkey
This week I will share with you events that drew our attention in
2009. Foremost there are developments in international politics.
>From time to time we need to look back and compare those developments
to new ones. Then we can better judge whether they were advantageous
or harmful.
For this reason today I will take you back to old days and compare
the old days to the present.
What kind of different attitudes were taken in Turkish foreign politics
for over 40 years? What kinds of reactions were given to different
crises? What kind of position did we take in international issues? What
did we do in external politics and crises in which we were involved?
What types of reactions did we show?
We did whatever Washington said
Let's first look at international issues.
In the 1970 and 80s, to some extent in the 90s regarding applications
in international politics Turkey would keep an eye out for Washington.
The Cold War split the world in two, the good (Western camp) and the
bad (the communist bloc). Whatever they'd do they'd oppose, whatever
we'd do they'd applaud.
To tell the truth things were much easier and simpler back then.
International crises were not too much of a concern of Ankara. It would
wait for a sign of the camp leader Washington and act accordingly.
Ankara's tranquility was for the first time disturbed by Cyprus
in 1974.
Turkey for the first time sent its soldiers abroad and, more
importantly, for the first time it was at variance with the general
attitude of its camp. It got punished by camp leader United States
and, again for the first time, Turkey entered a period in which it
was supposed to make up its own international politics. From now on
it would be at variance with the Western world.
Ankara in order to balance out contradictions in the Cyprus issues
it took many precautions not to be at variance with Washington and
Brussels.
It did neither pay attention to Palestine nor to regional issues nor
to issues of other Muslim countries. Turkey was only interested in
Cyprus. Everything was evolving around this issue of a vicious cycle.
For the first time joy of force
This situation has changed since the 90s.
The fall of the wall, the falling apart of the Soviet Empire, thus
the end of the Cold War made things worse. To be correct, now in
international politics Turkey was on its own.
It was exactly then when a different Turkey emerged.
After using armed forces in Cyprus and claiming an important part of
the island, after the ASALA terror organization raised the Armenian
issue and on top of that when the PKK again violently brought up the
Kurdish issue, Turkey trusted to employ its weapon force whenever
necessary and became a country that believed as its military became
stronger it could make others accept its request the better.
Until the 2000s, Turkey seemed to only solve its domestic problems,
and issues with regional countries like Cyprus, Greece, Syria,
Armenia and Iraq with force of weapons.
Military to Athens and soldiers to Damascus
Whenever there is tension or reaction from Greece you'll always hear
the same slogan: Military to Athens...
The interesting thing about it is that the military would always
seem glad and pass the ball to the politicians by saying "We'd go
immediately if we are given orders. We are at your service!"
As the crisis deepens ships would patrol the Aegean and tankers would
be dispatched to Thrace.
After a while everybody would return to their quarters and homes.
The same scenario would apply to Syria and Iraq.
The PKK and water are the issues that caused crises with these
two countries and during each big crisis the streets would echo
with slogans like "Soldiers to Damascus... Put Saddam in his
place..." Nobody would know whether or not the TSK could perform the
task and neither politicians nor the military would talk about the
consequences of this endeavor.
An interesting game would be played and people became accustomed to
believing crises can be solved with weapons.
Today the reverse attitude is true
Presently the general attitude and methods for solving crises have
completely changed.
Of course the international environment has changed as well. Presently
force is not that much used. The international balance is different.
But despite all, Ankara's attitude toward its domestic and
international problems is very different.
Now there are no more fights, no escalation of crises and no weapon
force. On the contrary there is dialogue and an effort to understand
each other.
The most important thing is that Ankara does not threaten anyone
any more.
Now the international and regional forces are facing a Turkey with
a healthier attitude.
Hurriyet
Dec 28 2009
Turkey
This week I will share with you events that drew our attention in
2009. Foremost there are developments in international politics.
>From time to time we need to look back and compare those developments
to new ones. Then we can better judge whether they were advantageous
or harmful.
For this reason today I will take you back to old days and compare
the old days to the present.
What kind of different attitudes were taken in Turkish foreign politics
for over 40 years? What kinds of reactions were given to different
crises? What kind of position did we take in international issues? What
did we do in external politics and crises in which we were involved?
What types of reactions did we show?
We did whatever Washington said
Let's first look at international issues.
In the 1970 and 80s, to some extent in the 90s regarding applications
in international politics Turkey would keep an eye out for Washington.
The Cold War split the world in two, the good (Western camp) and the
bad (the communist bloc). Whatever they'd do they'd oppose, whatever
we'd do they'd applaud.
To tell the truth things were much easier and simpler back then.
International crises were not too much of a concern of Ankara. It would
wait for a sign of the camp leader Washington and act accordingly.
Ankara's tranquility was for the first time disturbed by Cyprus
in 1974.
Turkey for the first time sent its soldiers abroad and, more
importantly, for the first time it was at variance with the general
attitude of its camp. It got punished by camp leader United States
and, again for the first time, Turkey entered a period in which it
was supposed to make up its own international politics. From now on
it would be at variance with the Western world.
Ankara in order to balance out contradictions in the Cyprus issues
it took many precautions not to be at variance with Washington and
Brussels.
It did neither pay attention to Palestine nor to regional issues nor
to issues of other Muslim countries. Turkey was only interested in
Cyprus. Everything was evolving around this issue of a vicious cycle.
For the first time joy of force
This situation has changed since the 90s.
The fall of the wall, the falling apart of the Soviet Empire, thus
the end of the Cold War made things worse. To be correct, now in
international politics Turkey was on its own.
It was exactly then when a different Turkey emerged.
After using armed forces in Cyprus and claiming an important part of
the island, after the ASALA terror organization raised the Armenian
issue and on top of that when the PKK again violently brought up the
Kurdish issue, Turkey trusted to employ its weapon force whenever
necessary and became a country that believed as its military became
stronger it could make others accept its request the better.
Until the 2000s, Turkey seemed to only solve its domestic problems,
and issues with regional countries like Cyprus, Greece, Syria,
Armenia and Iraq with force of weapons.
Military to Athens and soldiers to Damascus
Whenever there is tension or reaction from Greece you'll always hear
the same slogan: Military to Athens...
The interesting thing about it is that the military would always
seem glad and pass the ball to the politicians by saying "We'd go
immediately if we are given orders. We are at your service!"
As the crisis deepens ships would patrol the Aegean and tankers would
be dispatched to Thrace.
After a while everybody would return to their quarters and homes.
The same scenario would apply to Syria and Iraq.
The PKK and water are the issues that caused crises with these
two countries and during each big crisis the streets would echo
with slogans like "Soldiers to Damascus... Put Saddam in his
place..." Nobody would know whether or not the TSK could perform the
task and neither politicians nor the military would talk about the
consequences of this endeavor.
An interesting game would be played and people became accustomed to
believing crises can be solved with weapons.
Today the reverse attitude is true
Presently the general attitude and methods for solving crises have
completely changed.
Of course the international environment has changed as well. Presently
force is not that much used. The international balance is different.
But despite all, Ankara's attitude toward its domestic and
international problems is very different.
Now there are no more fights, no escalation of crises and no weapon
force. On the contrary there is dialogue and an effort to understand
each other.
The most important thing is that Ankara does not threaten anyone
any more.
Now the international and regional forces are facing a Turkey with
a healthier attitude.