Tweet
DAVUTOGLU: TURKEY'S FINEST FOREIGN MINISTER OF REPUBLICAN ERA
By Richard Falk
Today's Zaman
Sept 2 2009
Turkey
It has been my privilege to know Ahmet Davutoglu since he was a young
professor teaching in Malaysia in the early 1990s.
At that time I was immediately struck by his keen understanding of
the importance of culture and civilization for the proper conduct
of international relations. Mr. Davutoglu was definitely not just
one more realist foreign policy analyst with a good grounding in
the mainstream tradition of Western political thought covering
the conceptual ground that connects Machiavelli to Kissinger. This
tradition was preoccupied with the management of power, and there
is no doubt that Davutoglu had a sophisticated understanding about
how to cope with power and conflict in world politics. Yet what made
him more intriguing and distinguished him from many other intelligent
interpreters of the changing global scene was his recognition of the
significance of non-Western thought as forming an essential basis for
the shaping of historically relevant policy to enable a government
to meet the challenges of the contemporary world.
Davutoglu returned to Turkey a few years later, and began teaching
university courses. More impressively, he founded a voluntary program
of advanced studies for doctoral students in the social sciences
and humanities from all over the country. He led this effort by way
of a foundation for arts, culture, and science that started in a
modest building, but from its outset established an exciting and
innovative learning community that combined an intrinsic love of
knowledge and ideas with a search for practical wisdom that would
enable Turkey to fulfill its potential as a national, regional and
global actor. Davutoglu led this educational effort, emphasizing
in the teaching program the importance of history and culture, and
what is sometimes called macro-history, or the comparative study of
civilizations, examining the broad sweep of the rise and fall of
civilizations through time and across space. In this illuminating
spirit of inquiry, the role of Turkey was interpreted within a wider
cultural and historical context of past, present, and future. Such an
approach acted as a corrective to a narrowly conceived nationalism
that never looked back further than the ideas and guidance of the
founder of the modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
>From such a perspective, the interpretation of the place of Turkey
in the modern world of the late 20th and early 21st centuries was
of preeminent importance. It was Davutoglu's particular insight that
Turkey, in order to move creatively forward into the future, needed
to recapture an understanding of and a pride in the achievements of
its pre-republican past and especially the extraordinary capacity
of the Ottoman Empire to encompass diverse peoples while exhibiting
respect for distinct cultures and religions. I found this way of
thinking congenial. It represented a refreshing enlargement upon the
non-historical forms of strategic thought that seemed so prominent
at the time in Turkey, and was almost entirely derivative from the
way world politics was conceived in the United States. Davutoglu as a
scholar was striving for an approach that came directly to terms with
Turkey's hopes and aspirations for the future, turning to philosophy,
culture and history for this deepening of his understanding. In this
same spirit, it was his consistent desire to expose students and the
intelligent public in Turkey to similar styles of global thinking from
other parts of the world. His foundation organized several conferences
in the last decade that brought to Turkey leading thinkers from all
over the world. Such events exhibited Davutoglu's commitment to the
establishment of a cross-cultural community of scholars dedicated to
a universalizing vision of a peaceful and just world.
In his notable scholarly publications, these features of Davutoglu's
thoughts gained attention for his ideas. His book on "strategic depth"
as the foundation of a constructive approach to security is one of
the outstanding formulations of the way sovereign states should pursue
their interests with respect to their region and the world. Although
the book is now about 10 years old and is not available in English, it
has gone through many printings, and is being translated into a variety
of foreign languages. It is one of the most significant contributions
to the literature of international relations, and although imprinted
with the geopolitics of the Cold War and its globalization sequel,
it retains great relevance to the relations of Turkey to an evolving
world order. Davutoglu has expressed frustration that his public
duties have prevented him from either revising "Stratejik Derinlik"
or following it up with a second book on "cultural depth" that would
have given his published work a more accurate reflection of his
original approach to international relations in our time.
Against such a background, it may not seem surprising that Davutoglu
has had such a major impact on Turkish foreign policy, initially as
chief advisor to the top AK Party leadership, and since May of 2008,
as foreign minister. Usually there is not a very good fit between
influential professors and successful government service. What has
made Davutoglu an exception is his unusual combination of social and
diplomatic skills and an absence of political ambition. Staying aloof
from party politics, yet aligned with the AK Party policy outlook,
has managed to give him a unique place on the Turkish scene, which
is at once independent and yet exceedingly influential with political
leaders, with the public, and in foreign capitals.
Even before becoming foreign minister, it was widely appreciated in
the media and in the diplomatic community that Davutoglu has been
the architect of Turkish foreign policy ever since the AK Party
was elected in 2002. His initial main portfolio involved a focus on
achieving Turkish membership in the European Union. It was always
Davutoglu's view that such membership was not only beneficial to
Turkey, including establishing a stronger foundation for genuine
democracy at home, but also that it presented Europe with a unique
opportunity to become a dynamic force in a post-colonial world,
enjoying multi-civilizational legitimacy in a world order where the
West could no longer play an effective role unless it could claim an
identity and recruit the participation of the rising peoples of the
East. Although Davutoglu's hopes for greater European receptivity to
Turkey have undoubtedly been disappointed by the unanticipated surge of
Islamophobia in several European countries, as well as the unfortunate
admission of Cyprus to the EU in 2004, he continues to believe that
the goal of Turkish membership is attainable and desirable. This
Turkish quest for EU membership continues, with its ups and downs,
and has had its own benefits, providing all along strong support for
domestic moves to strengthen democracy and human rights in Turkey.
As foreign minister, Davutoglu has exhibited the qualities of energy,
intelligence, political savvy, moral concern, self-confidence (without
arrogance) and historically grounded vision that one encounters in
his scholarship and lectures. It is hard to think of a world figure
that has had a more positive impact in a shorter time. Davutoglu's
signature approach of "zero problems with the neighbors" has been
consistently successful in establishing better Turkish relations
throughout the region, and challenging a country such as Egypt for
regional leadership, even among Arab governments. Less noticed, but as
important, is Davutoglu's tireless search for non-violent approaches
to conflict management based on identifying and maximizing the common
ground between adversaries. This diplomacy of reconciliation brings
an urgently needed stabilizing influence to the inflamed politics
of the Middle East, but also brings Turkey respect, stature and
expanding economic and diplomatic opportunities in the region and
world. Perhaps most notable in this regard are the growing economic
links, especially in relation to energy, with both Russia and Iran,
countries that have often in the past been at odds with Turkey.
Turkey: an important ally
It is particularly notable that Turkey embarked on these controversial
initiatives without harming its strategically central relationship
with the United States. Quite the contrary: Turkey is more than ever
treated by Washington as an important ally, as exhibited by President
Obama's early visit, but to a far greater extent than in the past,
Turkey is now also respected as an independent actor with its own
agenda and priorities that may diverge from that of the United States
in particular instances. It was an expression of this new mutuality
that led Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Afghanistan, to
say during his recent visit to Istanbul that it was up to Turkey to
decide whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan. This seems
like the natural thing to do in the relations among sovereign states,
but it contrasted with the heavy-handed approach of the Bush years,
where American officials, most prominently Paul Wolfowitz, lectured
Turkey in public on their responsibilities to do whatever the White
House desired. Of course, this changed atmosphere generally reflects
a more multilateralist foreign policy in the United States, but it
is also a recognition that Turkey is now an independent force in
world affairs, not just an appendage of NATO or the West, which was
the case during the Cold War and in the 1990s. Davutoglu deserves
major credit for conceptualizing this change in the perception and
treatment of Turkey, as well as through its expression in practical,
day to day foreign policy decisions.
It is important to appreciate that Davutoglu took career risks while
serving as chief foreign policy advisor that showed a willingness to
put principle ahead of personal ambition. Davutoglu tried very hard
to find and enlarge the common ground and dormant mutual interests
in the most intractable, sensitive, and dangerous regional conflict,
that of Israel/Palestine and Israel/the Arab world. He did his best
to broker Israel/Syria negotiations, encouraging an agreement that
would end Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and some kind of
diplomatic normalcy between the two countries.
And more controversially, but no less constructively, Davutoglu tried
hard to soften Hamas' posture as an uncompromising and violent element
in the Palestinian struggle, and at the same time to encourage Israel
to treat Hamas as a political actor, not a terrorist organization,
after Hamas gained political power through the 2006 elections in
Gaza, and declared its intention to establish, at first unilaterally,
a cease-fire. Israel, as well as the United States and the EU, refused
to drop the terrorist label, and instead put deadly pressure on the 1.5
million Palestinians living in Gaza. A devastating humanitarian ordeal
has resulted in Gaza from this refusal to respect the outcome of the
elections, and is continuing with no end in sight. In retrospect,
so much suffering might have been avoided if Davutoglu's approach
had succeeded. Additionally, the outlook for peace between the two
peoples would have been far brighter than it is today. In this sense,
Davutoglu's foreign policy disappointments during the past several
years are as deserving of our admiration as his successes.
There is no doubt in my mind that Turkey is extremely fortunate to
have Ahmet Davutoglu as its foreign minister, and it is a tribute
to the elected leadership in Ankara that so much responsibility has
been entrusted to someone without party affiliations, of independent
character and of scholarly temperament. Much has been made of
Davutoglu's emphasis on "strategic depth," but I believe he will be
in the end most remembered for his "moral depth." By moral depth, I
mean a dedicated concern for seeking peaceful resolution of conflict
through mediation and compromise, based on mutual respect for legal
rights and a commitment to justice. Although it is far too early in
his tenure to make any final appraisal with confidence, it is not too
soon to think that fusing strategic depth with moral depth will turn
out to be a memorable dimension of Davutoglu's legacy. If so, it is
likely to underpin an eventual judgment that Ahmet Davutoglu should
be regarded as Turkey's finest foreign minister of the Republican era.
*Richard Falk is a professor emeritus of international law and practice
at Princeton University and the UN's special rapporteur on the occupied
Palestinian territories.
By Richard Falk
Today's Zaman
Sept 2 2009
Turkey
It has been my privilege to know Ahmet Davutoglu since he was a young
professor teaching in Malaysia in the early 1990s.
At that time I was immediately struck by his keen understanding of
the importance of culture and civilization for the proper conduct
of international relations. Mr. Davutoglu was definitely not just
one more realist foreign policy analyst with a good grounding in
the mainstream tradition of Western political thought covering
the conceptual ground that connects Machiavelli to Kissinger. This
tradition was preoccupied with the management of power, and there
is no doubt that Davutoglu had a sophisticated understanding about
how to cope with power and conflict in world politics. Yet what made
him more intriguing and distinguished him from many other intelligent
interpreters of the changing global scene was his recognition of the
significance of non-Western thought as forming an essential basis for
the shaping of historically relevant policy to enable a government
to meet the challenges of the contemporary world.
Davutoglu returned to Turkey a few years later, and began teaching
university courses. More impressively, he founded a voluntary program
of advanced studies for doctoral students in the social sciences
and humanities from all over the country. He led this effort by way
of a foundation for arts, culture, and science that started in a
modest building, but from its outset established an exciting and
innovative learning community that combined an intrinsic love of
knowledge and ideas with a search for practical wisdom that would
enable Turkey to fulfill its potential as a national, regional and
global actor. Davutoglu led this educational effort, emphasizing
in the teaching program the importance of history and culture, and
what is sometimes called macro-history, or the comparative study of
civilizations, examining the broad sweep of the rise and fall of
civilizations through time and across space. In this illuminating
spirit of inquiry, the role of Turkey was interpreted within a wider
cultural and historical context of past, present, and future. Such an
approach acted as a corrective to a narrowly conceived nationalism
that never looked back further than the ideas and guidance of the
founder of the modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
>From such a perspective, the interpretation of the place of Turkey
in the modern world of the late 20th and early 21st centuries was
of preeminent importance. It was Davutoglu's particular insight that
Turkey, in order to move creatively forward into the future, needed
to recapture an understanding of and a pride in the achievements of
its pre-republican past and especially the extraordinary capacity
of the Ottoman Empire to encompass diverse peoples while exhibiting
respect for distinct cultures and religions. I found this way of
thinking congenial. It represented a refreshing enlargement upon the
non-historical forms of strategic thought that seemed so prominent
at the time in Turkey, and was almost entirely derivative from the
way world politics was conceived in the United States. Davutoglu as a
scholar was striving for an approach that came directly to terms with
Turkey's hopes and aspirations for the future, turning to philosophy,
culture and history for this deepening of his understanding. In this
same spirit, it was his consistent desire to expose students and the
intelligent public in Turkey to similar styles of global thinking from
other parts of the world. His foundation organized several conferences
in the last decade that brought to Turkey leading thinkers from all
over the world. Such events exhibited Davutoglu's commitment to the
establishment of a cross-cultural community of scholars dedicated to
a universalizing vision of a peaceful and just world.
In his notable scholarly publications, these features of Davutoglu's
thoughts gained attention for his ideas. His book on "strategic depth"
as the foundation of a constructive approach to security is one of
the outstanding formulations of the way sovereign states should pursue
their interests with respect to their region and the world. Although
the book is now about 10 years old and is not available in English, it
has gone through many printings, and is being translated into a variety
of foreign languages. It is one of the most significant contributions
to the literature of international relations, and although imprinted
with the geopolitics of the Cold War and its globalization sequel,
it retains great relevance to the relations of Turkey to an evolving
world order. Davutoglu has expressed frustration that his public
duties have prevented him from either revising "Stratejik Derinlik"
or following it up with a second book on "cultural depth" that would
have given his published work a more accurate reflection of his
original approach to international relations in our time.
Against such a background, it may not seem surprising that Davutoglu
has had such a major impact on Turkish foreign policy, initially as
chief advisor to the top AK Party leadership, and since May of 2008,
as foreign minister. Usually there is not a very good fit between
influential professors and successful government service. What has
made Davutoglu an exception is his unusual combination of social and
diplomatic skills and an absence of political ambition. Staying aloof
from party politics, yet aligned with the AK Party policy outlook,
has managed to give him a unique place on the Turkish scene, which
is at once independent and yet exceedingly influential with political
leaders, with the public, and in foreign capitals.
Even before becoming foreign minister, it was widely appreciated in
the media and in the diplomatic community that Davutoglu has been
the architect of Turkish foreign policy ever since the AK Party
was elected in 2002. His initial main portfolio involved a focus on
achieving Turkish membership in the European Union. It was always
Davutoglu's view that such membership was not only beneficial to
Turkey, including establishing a stronger foundation for genuine
democracy at home, but also that it presented Europe with a unique
opportunity to become a dynamic force in a post-colonial world,
enjoying multi-civilizational legitimacy in a world order where the
West could no longer play an effective role unless it could claim an
identity and recruit the participation of the rising peoples of the
East. Although Davutoglu's hopes for greater European receptivity to
Turkey have undoubtedly been disappointed by the unanticipated surge of
Islamophobia in several European countries, as well as the unfortunate
admission of Cyprus to the EU in 2004, he continues to believe that
the goal of Turkish membership is attainable and desirable. This
Turkish quest for EU membership continues, with its ups and downs,
and has had its own benefits, providing all along strong support for
domestic moves to strengthen democracy and human rights in Turkey.
As foreign minister, Davutoglu has exhibited the qualities of energy,
intelligence, political savvy, moral concern, self-confidence (without
arrogance) and historically grounded vision that one encounters in
his scholarship and lectures. It is hard to think of a world figure
that has had a more positive impact in a shorter time. Davutoglu's
signature approach of "zero problems with the neighbors" has been
consistently successful in establishing better Turkish relations
throughout the region, and challenging a country such as Egypt for
regional leadership, even among Arab governments. Less noticed, but as
important, is Davutoglu's tireless search for non-violent approaches
to conflict management based on identifying and maximizing the common
ground between adversaries. This diplomacy of reconciliation brings
an urgently needed stabilizing influence to the inflamed politics
of the Middle East, but also brings Turkey respect, stature and
expanding economic and diplomatic opportunities in the region and
world. Perhaps most notable in this regard are the growing economic
links, especially in relation to energy, with both Russia and Iran,
countries that have often in the past been at odds with Turkey.
Turkey: an important ally
It is particularly notable that Turkey embarked on these controversial
initiatives without harming its strategically central relationship
with the United States. Quite the contrary: Turkey is more than ever
treated by Washington as an important ally, as exhibited by President
Obama's early visit, but to a far greater extent than in the past,
Turkey is now also respected as an independent actor with its own
agenda and priorities that may diverge from that of the United States
in particular instances. It was an expression of this new mutuality
that led Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Afghanistan, to
say during his recent visit to Istanbul that it was up to Turkey to
decide whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan. This seems
like the natural thing to do in the relations among sovereign states,
but it contrasted with the heavy-handed approach of the Bush years,
where American officials, most prominently Paul Wolfowitz, lectured
Turkey in public on their responsibilities to do whatever the White
House desired. Of course, this changed atmosphere generally reflects
a more multilateralist foreign policy in the United States, but it
is also a recognition that Turkey is now an independent force in
world affairs, not just an appendage of NATO or the West, which was
the case during the Cold War and in the 1990s. Davutoglu deserves
major credit for conceptualizing this change in the perception and
treatment of Turkey, as well as through its expression in practical,
day to day foreign policy decisions.
It is important to appreciate that Davutoglu took career risks while
serving as chief foreign policy advisor that showed a willingness to
put principle ahead of personal ambition. Davutoglu tried very hard
to find and enlarge the common ground and dormant mutual interests
in the most intractable, sensitive, and dangerous regional conflict,
that of Israel/Palestine and Israel/the Arab world. He did his best
to broker Israel/Syria negotiations, encouraging an agreement that
would end Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and some kind of
diplomatic normalcy between the two countries.
And more controversially, but no less constructively, Davutoglu tried
hard to soften Hamas' posture as an uncompromising and violent element
in the Palestinian struggle, and at the same time to encourage Israel
to treat Hamas as a political actor, not a terrorist organization,
after Hamas gained political power through the 2006 elections in
Gaza, and declared its intention to establish, at first unilaterally,
a cease-fire. Israel, as well as the United States and the EU, refused
to drop the terrorist label, and instead put deadly pressure on the 1.5
million Palestinians living in Gaza. A devastating humanitarian ordeal
has resulted in Gaza from this refusal to respect the outcome of the
elections, and is continuing with no end in sight. In retrospect,
so much suffering might have been avoided if Davutoglu's approach
had succeeded. Additionally, the outlook for peace between the two
peoples would have been far brighter than it is today. In this sense,
Davutoglu's foreign policy disappointments during the past several
years are as deserving of our admiration as his successes.
There is no doubt in my mind that Turkey is extremely fortunate to
have Ahmet Davutoglu as its foreign minister, and it is a tribute
to the elected leadership in Ankara that so much responsibility has
been entrusted to someone without party affiliations, of independent
character and of scholarly temperament. Much has been made of
Davutoglu's emphasis on "strategic depth," but I believe he will be
in the end most remembered for his "moral depth." By moral depth, I
mean a dedicated concern for seeking peaceful resolution of conflict
through mediation and compromise, based on mutual respect for legal
rights and a commitment to justice. Although it is far too early in
his tenure to make any final appraisal with confidence, it is not too
soon to think that fusing strategic depth with moral depth will turn
out to be a memorable dimension of Davutoglu's legacy. If so, it is
likely to underpin an eventual judgment that Ahmet Davutoglu should
be regarded as Turkey's finest foreign minister of the Republican era.
*Richard Falk is a professor emeritus of international law and practice
at Princeton University and the UN's special rapporteur on the occupied
Palestinian territories.