Tweet
CONCLUSION-DRIVEN FOREIGN POLICY
Cuneyt Ulsever
Hurriyet
Feb 9 2010
Turkey
I appreciate Mr. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's good will, hard
work and intellectual depth. He travels a lot, has contacts with
various entities. He also has introduced new concepts to political
jargon such as "zero problems with neighbors" and "multi-dimensional
foreign policy."
However, none of his efforts contribute to my "conclusion-driven
foreign policy" understanding!
Frankly, Davutoglu exerts tremendous efforts for ideological foreign
policy, which is based on ideals and principles, and real foreign
policy, based on realities of the world. But I cannot see any
beneficial results from any of his efforts. I cannot say "at all,"
for instance, no more visa application is required between Syria and
Turkey from now on. This is a good result. However, I don't see any
result in more serious issues.
Why? Because Davutoglu's efforts for ideological foreign policy
contradict with real foreign policy at times.
***
For instance, opening the border gate with Armenia is an ideological
foreign policy action in the direction of fulfilling the "zero
problems with neighbors" objective. However, bilateral relations
with Azerbaijan are a part of real foreign policy in order to meet
Turkey's energy needs, though we have emotional bonding with Azeris.
As I wrote before, you may try for "zero problems" with your neighbor
(A) and (B). And you may be successful to a degree. But if (A) and
(B) are having problems among themselves and if this is not under
your control, their problems will inevitably affect your relations
with both (A) and (B). Foreign policy is a multi-variable matrix.
Unavoidable contradictions will come and get you eventually!
***
For instance, Cansu Camlıbel of daily Hurriyet has recently made
remarkable interviews with officials. Davutoglu said in a conversation
with Camlıbel that he wouldn't believe so many coincidences regarding
the protocols we signed with Armenia, as he underlines the following
(Feb. 2, 2009):
"1) First of all, we heard about the reasoned-decision of the Armenian
Constitutional Court in which there are unacceptable interpretations.
2) And then, Azeri President Ä°lham Aliyev and his Armenian counterpart
Serge Sarkisian met in Sochi for the Karabakh conflict and the Armenian
side stepped back from its conciliatory attitude.
3) And now, the so-called genocide bill is being submitted to the U.S.
Congress. (It will be at Congress on Feb. 4 - C.U). Why is this being
brought to the agenda now? Why, let's say, the decision is not made
in November?"
***
I think the above remarks of Mr. Minister are a perfect example of
Turkish foreign policy's situation, where it stuck in between of
ideological foreign policy and real foreign policy. As a result,
Turkey is still trying to please everyone.
This is also a perfect example to show how contradictions increase:
1) The Armenian Constitutional Court has approved the protocols as
they are, and set no obstacles in front of them. The court has only
made several references that nothing prevents finalizing the process.
2) In the issue of the upper Karabakh conflict, the difficulties
Azerbaijan and Armenia are having among themselves have no relevance
to the protocols. For the protocols there is no reference to the
Armenian relations with the third countries. Besides, Mr. Davutoglu
while signing the blueprints knew all along that no condition on the
upper Karabakh was set in them. As Azerbaijan rightly reacted against
the protocols, Turkey has thrown the upper Karabakh issue to the floor,
in a way to turn the cat in the pan.
3) The genocide bill in the U.S. Congress is submitted around this
time each year. And Davutoglu surely knows this.
***
And I suggest for him to know that pleasing everyone would fail
eventually and do his politics accordingly, instead of questioning
coincidences.
Cuneyt Ulsever
Hurriyet
Feb 9 2010
Turkey
I appreciate Mr. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's good will, hard
work and intellectual depth. He travels a lot, has contacts with
various entities. He also has introduced new concepts to political
jargon such as "zero problems with neighbors" and "multi-dimensional
foreign policy."
However, none of his efforts contribute to my "conclusion-driven
foreign policy" understanding!
Frankly, Davutoglu exerts tremendous efforts for ideological foreign
policy, which is based on ideals and principles, and real foreign
policy, based on realities of the world. But I cannot see any
beneficial results from any of his efforts. I cannot say "at all,"
for instance, no more visa application is required between Syria and
Turkey from now on. This is a good result. However, I don't see any
result in more serious issues.
Why? Because Davutoglu's efforts for ideological foreign policy
contradict with real foreign policy at times.
***
For instance, opening the border gate with Armenia is an ideological
foreign policy action in the direction of fulfilling the "zero
problems with neighbors" objective. However, bilateral relations
with Azerbaijan are a part of real foreign policy in order to meet
Turkey's energy needs, though we have emotional bonding with Azeris.
As I wrote before, you may try for "zero problems" with your neighbor
(A) and (B). And you may be successful to a degree. But if (A) and
(B) are having problems among themselves and if this is not under
your control, their problems will inevitably affect your relations
with both (A) and (B). Foreign policy is a multi-variable matrix.
Unavoidable contradictions will come and get you eventually!
***
For instance, Cansu Camlıbel of daily Hurriyet has recently made
remarkable interviews with officials. Davutoglu said in a conversation
with Camlıbel that he wouldn't believe so many coincidences regarding
the protocols we signed with Armenia, as he underlines the following
(Feb. 2, 2009):
"1) First of all, we heard about the reasoned-decision of the Armenian
Constitutional Court in which there are unacceptable interpretations.
2) And then, Azeri President Ä°lham Aliyev and his Armenian counterpart
Serge Sarkisian met in Sochi for the Karabakh conflict and the Armenian
side stepped back from its conciliatory attitude.
3) And now, the so-called genocide bill is being submitted to the U.S.
Congress. (It will be at Congress on Feb. 4 - C.U). Why is this being
brought to the agenda now? Why, let's say, the decision is not made
in November?"
***
I think the above remarks of Mr. Minister are a perfect example of
Turkish foreign policy's situation, where it stuck in between of
ideological foreign policy and real foreign policy. As a result,
Turkey is still trying to please everyone.
This is also a perfect example to show how contradictions increase:
1) The Armenian Constitutional Court has approved the protocols as
they are, and set no obstacles in front of them. The court has only
made several references that nothing prevents finalizing the process.
2) In the issue of the upper Karabakh conflict, the difficulties
Azerbaijan and Armenia are having among themselves have no relevance
to the protocols. For the protocols there is no reference to the
Armenian relations with the third countries. Besides, Mr. Davutoglu
while signing the blueprints knew all along that no condition on the
upper Karabakh was set in them. As Azerbaijan rightly reacted against
the protocols, Turkey has thrown the upper Karabakh issue to the floor,
in a way to turn the cat in the pan.
3) The genocide bill in the U.S. Congress is submitted around this
time each year. And Davutoglu surely knows this.
***
And I suggest for him to know that pleasing everyone would fail
eventually and do his politics accordingly, instead of questioning
coincidences.