Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Nov 1 2009
Foreign policy making and Ankara: a juggling act
By definition, journalism has a lot do with taking note of certain
moments that will, in the end, probably be etched in history. A
journalist writing on foreign policy issues and living in Turkey is
most of the time required to do more than that -- particularly
recently, via analyzing what each move in Ankara's hectic foreign
policy activity actually means.
Some key sentences covering only just the last week's agenda may give
a clue as to why journalists in Ankara eventually settle for solely
taking note of certain moments rather than making analyses: The
leadership of Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
(KKTC) gather to draw up a roadmap in the run-up to a critical
threshold on the Cyprus issue; the prime minister visits Iran, where
he calls the latter's controversial nuclear program humanitarian and
peaceful, ahead of an upcoming visit to Washington; the president
visits Serbia with the aim of establishing strategic relations between
Serbia and Turkey; and the foreign minister visits northern Iraq,
holding high-level talks with Iraqi Kurdish leaders.
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Israel, Syria and the upcoming EU summit could
well be added to the above list, with a footnote indicating that the
foreign policy agenda in the Turkish capital is not limited to its
immediate neighborhood.
This situation sometimes prompts foreign diplomats based in Ankara to
question either Ankara's sincerity in its multidimensional foreign
policy or its eventual success in finalizing these moves. Those
raising the first question indicate that Turkey is doing this to show
off and that it has no intention of making a substantive change to the
status quo in which it was once positioned, while others raising the
second question are doubtful concerning Turkey's eventual performance.
The askers of both questions are, meanwhile, assumed to have been
aware of the fact that their countries are not located in such a
unique place in the world -- at a point where the three continents
making up the old world, Asia, Africa and Europe, are closest to each
other.
`They are wrong in posing those questions,' Bülent Aras, a professor
of international relations in the department of humanities and social
sciences at Ä°stanbul Technical University, briefly replied when
reminded by Sunday's Zaman of those questions floating around the
diplomatic community in Ankara.
`They are wrong because they are not aware that Turkey has expanded
its scale in the foreign policy arena. They must still have been
looking at it through clichés such as `the bridge' between Asia and
Europe or the West's [outpost] in the East,' Aras continued, referring
to the fact that during the Cold War Turkey was the only member of
NATO bordering the then-Soviet Union.
`Or maybe they cannot accept the potential behind Turkey's expanded
scale, thus preferring to act like fortunetellers by saying that those
foreign policy moves will not yield any result in the end,' Aras said,
when reminded of an example of such a lack of confidence in Turkey's
actions -- the normalization process with Armenia.
Two protocols announced in late August and signed on Oct. 10 between
Armenia and Turkey for re-establishing ties and reopening their mutual
border were recently sent to Parliament for ratification. Yet, it is
not clear when they will be voted on as there is no exact timetable
for the ratification other than `within a reasonable timeframe.' That
expression was used in the joint announcement on Aug. 31 when it said,
`The two protocols provide for a framework for the normalization of
their bilateral relations within a reasonable timeframe.'
Such a formulization, which can be potentially labeled as
`open-ended,' led to doubts within the diplomatic community over
Turkey's sincerity in its intention to normalize relations with
Armenia, with some suggesting that Turkey's move was `just for display
purposes.'
Probably aware of the existence of such doubts, the Foreign Ministry
spokesperson this week told reporters that Turkey was sincerely
committed to normalizing relations with Armenia, nonetheless
emphasizing that what Ankara aimed at with this process was not solely
confined to progress in Turkish-Armenian ties. `Our purpose is also to
pave the way for momentum in relations between Azerbaijan and
Armenia,' he said. `Everyone sees that peace and stability will not
come to the Caucasus if the wheels do not all revolve at the same
time.'
`Such critics are not fair; nobody can guarantee 100 percent success
in these kinds of painful processes such as the normalization of ties
between Armenia and Turkey. Just look at Bosnia and Herzegovina; the
fundamental process is still continuing with the Dayton Peace Accords,
which ended the 1992-95 war,' Aras said, referring to ongoing
international efforts for making changes to the Dayton Accords.
`What they miss here is the fact the decision for normalizing
relations with Armenia was not just made yesterday. Or take the
improved relations with Syria; the ground for such improvement is
based on the Adana Protocol,' Aras said, referring to a protocol
signed in 1998 which paved the way for a quick process of improvement
in bilateral relations between Ankara and Damascus.
`There are grounds for all foreign policy moves by Turkey; the EU's
recommendation for maintaining good-neighborly relations is just one
of them. Those among the diplomatic community must have never lived in
a difficult `district' like the one in which the Turks have been
living. This is a district that is the center of international
security; assuming an intense and multidimensional foreign policy
style on an expanded scale is imposed on Turkey by its geography.'
01 November 2009, Sunday
EMÄ°NE KART ANKARA
Nov 1 2009
Foreign policy making and Ankara: a juggling act
By definition, journalism has a lot do with taking note of certain
moments that will, in the end, probably be etched in history. A
journalist writing on foreign policy issues and living in Turkey is
most of the time required to do more than that -- particularly
recently, via analyzing what each move in Ankara's hectic foreign
policy activity actually means.
Some key sentences covering only just the last week's agenda may give
a clue as to why journalists in Ankara eventually settle for solely
taking note of certain moments rather than making analyses: The
leadership of Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
(KKTC) gather to draw up a roadmap in the run-up to a critical
threshold on the Cyprus issue; the prime minister visits Iran, where
he calls the latter's controversial nuclear program humanitarian and
peaceful, ahead of an upcoming visit to Washington; the president
visits Serbia with the aim of establishing strategic relations between
Serbia and Turkey; and the foreign minister visits northern Iraq,
holding high-level talks with Iraqi Kurdish leaders.
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Israel, Syria and the upcoming EU summit could
well be added to the above list, with a footnote indicating that the
foreign policy agenda in the Turkish capital is not limited to its
immediate neighborhood.
This situation sometimes prompts foreign diplomats based in Ankara to
question either Ankara's sincerity in its multidimensional foreign
policy or its eventual success in finalizing these moves. Those
raising the first question indicate that Turkey is doing this to show
off and that it has no intention of making a substantive change to the
status quo in which it was once positioned, while others raising the
second question are doubtful concerning Turkey's eventual performance.
The askers of both questions are, meanwhile, assumed to have been
aware of the fact that their countries are not located in such a
unique place in the world -- at a point where the three continents
making up the old world, Asia, Africa and Europe, are closest to each
other.
`They are wrong in posing those questions,' Bülent Aras, a professor
of international relations in the department of humanities and social
sciences at Ä°stanbul Technical University, briefly replied when
reminded by Sunday's Zaman of those questions floating around the
diplomatic community in Ankara.
`They are wrong because they are not aware that Turkey has expanded
its scale in the foreign policy arena. They must still have been
looking at it through clichés such as `the bridge' between Asia and
Europe or the West's [outpost] in the East,' Aras continued, referring
to the fact that during the Cold War Turkey was the only member of
NATO bordering the then-Soviet Union.
`Or maybe they cannot accept the potential behind Turkey's expanded
scale, thus preferring to act like fortunetellers by saying that those
foreign policy moves will not yield any result in the end,' Aras said,
when reminded of an example of such a lack of confidence in Turkey's
actions -- the normalization process with Armenia.
Two protocols announced in late August and signed on Oct. 10 between
Armenia and Turkey for re-establishing ties and reopening their mutual
border were recently sent to Parliament for ratification. Yet, it is
not clear when they will be voted on as there is no exact timetable
for the ratification other than `within a reasonable timeframe.' That
expression was used in the joint announcement on Aug. 31 when it said,
`The two protocols provide for a framework for the normalization of
their bilateral relations within a reasonable timeframe.'
Such a formulization, which can be potentially labeled as
`open-ended,' led to doubts within the diplomatic community over
Turkey's sincerity in its intention to normalize relations with
Armenia, with some suggesting that Turkey's move was `just for display
purposes.'
Probably aware of the existence of such doubts, the Foreign Ministry
spokesperson this week told reporters that Turkey was sincerely
committed to normalizing relations with Armenia, nonetheless
emphasizing that what Ankara aimed at with this process was not solely
confined to progress in Turkish-Armenian ties. `Our purpose is also to
pave the way for momentum in relations between Azerbaijan and
Armenia,' he said. `Everyone sees that peace and stability will not
come to the Caucasus if the wheels do not all revolve at the same
time.'
`Such critics are not fair; nobody can guarantee 100 percent success
in these kinds of painful processes such as the normalization of ties
between Armenia and Turkey. Just look at Bosnia and Herzegovina; the
fundamental process is still continuing with the Dayton Peace Accords,
which ended the 1992-95 war,' Aras said, referring to ongoing
international efforts for making changes to the Dayton Accords.
`What they miss here is the fact the decision for normalizing
relations with Armenia was not just made yesterday. Or take the
improved relations with Syria; the ground for such improvement is
based on the Adana Protocol,' Aras said, referring to a protocol
signed in 1998 which paved the way for a quick process of improvement
in bilateral relations between Ankara and Damascus.
`There are grounds for all foreign policy moves by Turkey; the EU's
recommendation for maintaining good-neighborly relations is just one
of them. Those among the diplomatic community must have never lived in
a difficult `district' like the one in which the Turks have been
living. This is a district that is the center of international
security; assuming an intense and multidimensional foreign policy
style on an expanded scale is imposed on Turkey by its geography.'
01 November 2009, Sunday
EMÄ°NE KART ANKARA