Tweet
CONSUMER MARKETS
Shahan Kandaharian
Aztag Daily
Jan 17 2009
Lebanon
The tactical games of official statements that Turkey is playing over
the events taking place in Gaza suffer inconsistency or better to say
they lack harmony. Although it's a standard procedure to find open
doors in the announcements or statements made by foreign ministers,
nevertheless the obvious game of distribution of roles is seen in
the harsh stances of prime minister Erdogan and the rather milder
approach of the foreign minister Ali Babacan.
Indeed, there is a race of explaining and interpreting the statements
made by Turkish officials over the events taking place in Gaza on
Turkish Internet websites. Let's shed a light on the following points
extracted from the news published by Turkish diplomatic sources:
A- Turkish diplomacy is not ready to condemn Israel and go forth with
the demands of sanctions against it.
B- It's more logical and helpful for Turkey to prefer the strategic
thinking.
C- It's not easy to keep at the same distance from Israel as Syria
and Iran are keeping.
Before comparing the contents of the statements issued by the Turkish
diplomacy and the announcements made by the prime minister, let us
try to simplify what is being tried to convey through diplomacy. In
a simple and explicit way the following is being said: Turkey's
strategic cooperation is obliging the Turkish state to continue to
put its interests above any other factor or obligation. Moreover,
the third point mentioned above, being a natural continuation of the
first two, must capture the attention of the observers of not only the
Gaza events but also the Turkish movements and regional developments.
Here it is. Setting aside the mention of Iran for a while, let's
remember that Turkey was aspiring to play a major mediatory role in
the talks between Syria and Israel. On the days of the proclaimed
war over Gaza, the highest chief of Turkish diplomacy considered the
Israeli sudden attack as an insult against Turkey, thereby halting
the negotiations.
Now, what is being said exactly? The mediator announces that it
cannot keep the same distance from both Syria and Israel. The latter
is its strategic partner while the former is a country classified in
the same group as Iran (that's the stance adopted by the West). In
the practica of the international relationships it may be difficult
to identify examples where the country that has adopted a mediatory
mission explicitly announces that it cannot keep the same distance
between the opposing sides, based on its interests.
This observation is still not enough to underline the contradictions
recorded among the different sections of the Turkish executive
authorities. Prime minister Erdogan sided with the people of Gaza with
a surprising zeal. Moreover, he presented himself with the §crime
against humanity¦ announcement, which has legal and political
implications, in front of the media representatives.
The responsibility for §a crime against humanity¦ is discussed on
international stages. Otherwise, it would be limited to the field
of propaganda or, as is the case here, it would be aimed at specific
consumer markets. It's enough to read the speech of the Turkish foreign
minister during the discussions of the UN resolution 1860 on Gaza; it
not only lacked the mention of any crime against humanity but also it
included a clear effort to keep a balance between the opposing sides.
It seemed that the strategic game that Turkey had initiated could
last a little longer. Different representatives of the same country
proved by their statements that it was just a short-term endeavor
directed towards both the Turkish public and the Arab world. There
are signs to believe that time will prove that it is so.
--Boundary_(ID_hiW2CEXao9tDsRMn4wNGFw)--
Shahan Kandaharian
Aztag Daily
Jan 17 2009
Lebanon
The tactical games of official statements that Turkey is playing over
the events taking place in Gaza suffer inconsistency or better to say
they lack harmony. Although it's a standard procedure to find open
doors in the announcements or statements made by foreign ministers,
nevertheless the obvious game of distribution of roles is seen in
the harsh stances of prime minister Erdogan and the rather milder
approach of the foreign minister Ali Babacan.
Indeed, there is a race of explaining and interpreting the statements
made by Turkish officials over the events taking place in Gaza on
Turkish Internet websites. Let's shed a light on the following points
extracted from the news published by Turkish diplomatic sources:
A- Turkish diplomacy is not ready to condemn Israel and go forth with
the demands of sanctions against it.
B- It's more logical and helpful for Turkey to prefer the strategic
thinking.
C- It's not easy to keep at the same distance from Israel as Syria
and Iran are keeping.
Before comparing the contents of the statements issued by the Turkish
diplomacy and the announcements made by the prime minister, let us
try to simplify what is being tried to convey through diplomacy. In
a simple and explicit way the following is being said: Turkey's
strategic cooperation is obliging the Turkish state to continue to
put its interests above any other factor or obligation. Moreover,
the third point mentioned above, being a natural continuation of the
first two, must capture the attention of the observers of not only the
Gaza events but also the Turkish movements and regional developments.
Here it is. Setting aside the mention of Iran for a while, let's
remember that Turkey was aspiring to play a major mediatory role in
the talks between Syria and Israel. On the days of the proclaimed
war over Gaza, the highest chief of Turkish diplomacy considered the
Israeli sudden attack as an insult against Turkey, thereby halting
the negotiations.
Now, what is being said exactly? The mediator announces that it
cannot keep the same distance from both Syria and Israel. The latter
is its strategic partner while the former is a country classified in
the same group as Iran (that's the stance adopted by the West). In
the practica of the international relationships it may be difficult
to identify examples where the country that has adopted a mediatory
mission explicitly announces that it cannot keep the same distance
between the opposing sides, based on its interests.
This observation is still not enough to underline the contradictions
recorded among the different sections of the Turkish executive
authorities. Prime minister Erdogan sided with the people of Gaza with
a surprising zeal. Moreover, he presented himself with the §crime
against humanity¦ announcement, which has legal and political
implications, in front of the media representatives.
The responsibility for §a crime against humanity¦ is discussed on
international stages. Otherwise, it would be limited to the field
of propaganda or, as is the case here, it would be aimed at specific
consumer markets. It's enough to read the speech of the Turkish foreign
minister during the discussions of the UN resolution 1860 on Gaza; it
not only lacked the mention of any crime against humanity but also it
included a clear effort to keep a balance between the opposing sides.
It seemed that the strategic game that Turkey had initiated could
last a little longer. Different representatives of the same country
proved by their statements that it was just a short-term endeavor
directed towards both the Turkish public and the Arab world. There
are signs to believe that time will prove that it is so.
--Boundary_(ID_hiW2CEXao9tDsRMn4wNGFw)--