Tweet
'ZERO-PROBLEMS POLICY' NEEDS FINE-TUNING
By Yavuz Baydar
Today's Zaman
Sept 13 2011
Turkey
"[The Turkish-Israeli crisis] signifies the coming of age of Turkey
as a strategic power connecting the Middle East with Europe; it is
Ankara's declaration of independence in terms of its foreign policy.
The Middle East will never be the same again," commented the Guardian's
Muhammed Ayoob, a distinguished professor of international relations
at Michigan State University. In conclusion, he called on the US to
conduct a "major revamp" of its foreign policy.
Turkey is increasingly at the center of the global debate over the
Palestinian bid for recognition as an independent state, which is soon
to be discussed and voted on at the UN. Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan's visit to Cairo put him under the spotlight because
it represented a powerful actor pushing for hegemony in a turbulent,
rapidly changing region, in open support of freedom and democracy.
However, the debate rages on in all the directions, depending on
perspective and perception. While analysts like Ayoob see a future
in optimism, others smell trouble and threat.
"Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to have abandoned the policy of smooth
relations with all of Turkey's neighbors. ... After becoming an
all-powerful figure in Turkey, he now feels that he can behave like the
local sovereign of the eastern Mediterranean, as well as a leader for
Muslim countries which have recently seen civil uprisings as a part of
the Arab Spring," wrote Alexis Papachelas, the editor of the respected
Greek daily Kathimerini. My colleague called for caution against a
tighter Israeli-Greek "alliance" in the eastern Mediterranean, pointing
out that Athens must not be lured into adventures in hot waters.
So it goes. Once the dynamics of history turn the page, it becomes
even more difficult to predict the outcome of any major move, let
alone have any kind of control over the process. In this sense, it is
natural that those who bring change draw some applause and admiration,
while suspicion of intent and endgame plans rise to new levels.
Erdogan may have embarked on an exciting journey in foreign policy,
with aspirations to be the leader and interlocutor of regional
transformation, but a lot of critical questions are equally legitimate
and timely. Some of the eyebrow raising is based on his seemingly
out-of-control, bold language; he has proven to be not keen on
mincing words but in possession of a code of honor, which makes him
take too many moves and statements personally. However, he is often
misunderstood or abused by those who look at him with antipathy. As
he plunges into issues head on, Turkish foreign policy takes a less
prominent path.
Nevertheless, almost all questions in Turkish politics these days
stem from his "zero problems with neighbors" policy line. Has it
failed? Is it over? If it is not, how is it possible to declare a
"soft and benevolent power" approach as a new guide, while the rhetoric
signals a flexing of muscles?
Skeptics of the policy see increasing problems in Ankara's pursuit of
this policy these days, particularly with regards to the crisis with
Israel. Some, declaring an early collapse of that ideal, suggest a
total policy revision is necessary.
The main points of those critics include the following: Although
Ankara has maintained positive relations with Bulgaria and Georgia,
all attempts to open an embassy in Yerevan and the land border with
Armenia have failed. Ties with Iran continue to be fragile because
of Tehran's fear of the "Turkish model" of leadership in the Middle
East and the NATO shield problem, in which Turkey's decision to host
a US-sponsored missile shield radar has been welcomed by Western
countries but not Iran. Attempts to nudge Syria into pluralism are
stuck. Cyprus has become an issue of severe frustration -- even
involving Greece, however vulnerable it is economically. Even Iraq
has become anxious due to Turkish operations in its Kurdish north.
Critics slam Erdogan and his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, for
what they call "one-track minded" policy-making. This notion is based
on the assumption that the unexpected is simply disregarded by the
administration. With the administration's lack of a plan B or plan
C, all good intentions may instead lead to harsh confrontations and
deep disputes.
At the moment, no other country is juggling so many balls at the
same time. But the "zero-problems" policy is -- despite premature
judgments that it has finished -- sustainable and, in the long run,
may be successful.
However, the conditions of success are also clear: A lot of energy must
be poured into vigorous conflict resolution with the elected Kurdish
deputies of the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and into negotiations
with Abdullah Ocalan, jailed leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party
(PKK). This must be the highest priority, since the Kurdish issue is
linked to Turkey's international aspirations. Second, while pursuing
"zero problems" with its neighbors, Ankara must act strictly on its
principles and not fall into the traps of simple tactical victories
or evasions. It must not distinguish its neighbors on religious or
ethnic divides and must react with determination to every breach of
human rights, making clear, for example, that Syria is no different
than Israel in terms of its violations. Yes, a revision is necessary,
the policy should not be dumped. Only readjustments must be done. As
the policy of threats belonged to "Old Turkey", a softer approach is
now called for.
From: Baghdasarian
By Yavuz Baydar
Today's Zaman
Sept 13 2011
Turkey
"[The Turkish-Israeli crisis] signifies the coming of age of Turkey
as a strategic power connecting the Middle East with Europe; it is
Ankara's declaration of independence in terms of its foreign policy.
The Middle East will never be the same again," commented the Guardian's
Muhammed Ayoob, a distinguished professor of international relations
at Michigan State University. In conclusion, he called on the US to
conduct a "major revamp" of its foreign policy.
Turkey is increasingly at the center of the global debate over the
Palestinian bid for recognition as an independent state, which is soon
to be discussed and voted on at the UN. Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan's visit to Cairo put him under the spotlight because
it represented a powerful actor pushing for hegemony in a turbulent,
rapidly changing region, in open support of freedom and democracy.
However, the debate rages on in all the directions, depending on
perspective and perception. While analysts like Ayoob see a future
in optimism, others smell trouble and threat.
"Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to have abandoned the policy of smooth
relations with all of Turkey's neighbors. ... After becoming an
all-powerful figure in Turkey, he now feels that he can behave like the
local sovereign of the eastern Mediterranean, as well as a leader for
Muslim countries which have recently seen civil uprisings as a part of
the Arab Spring," wrote Alexis Papachelas, the editor of the respected
Greek daily Kathimerini. My colleague called for caution against a
tighter Israeli-Greek "alliance" in the eastern Mediterranean, pointing
out that Athens must not be lured into adventures in hot waters.
So it goes. Once the dynamics of history turn the page, it becomes
even more difficult to predict the outcome of any major move, let
alone have any kind of control over the process. In this sense, it is
natural that those who bring change draw some applause and admiration,
while suspicion of intent and endgame plans rise to new levels.
Erdogan may have embarked on an exciting journey in foreign policy,
with aspirations to be the leader and interlocutor of regional
transformation, but a lot of critical questions are equally legitimate
and timely. Some of the eyebrow raising is based on his seemingly
out-of-control, bold language; he has proven to be not keen on
mincing words but in possession of a code of honor, which makes him
take too many moves and statements personally. However, he is often
misunderstood or abused by those who look at him with antipathy. As
he plunges into issues head on, Turkish foreign policy takes a less
prominent path.
Nevertheless, almost all questions in Turkish politics these days
stem from his "zero problems with neighbors" policy line. Has it
failed? Is it over? If it is not, how is it possible to declare a
"soft and benevolent power" approach as a new guide, while the rhetoric
signals a flexing of muscles?
Skeptics of the policy see increasing problems in Ankara's pursuit of
this policy these days, particularly with regards to the crisis with
Israel. Some, declaring an early collapse of that ideal, suggest a
total policy revision is necessary.
The main points of those critics include the following: Although
Ankara has maintained positive relations with Bulgaria and Georgia,
all attempts to open an embassy in Yerevan and the land border with
Armenia have failed. Ties with Iran continue to be fragile because
of Tehran's fear of the "Turkish model" of leadership in the Middle
East and the NATO shield problem, in which Turkey's decision to host
a US-sponsored missile shield radar has been welcomed by Western
countries but not Iran. Attempts to nudge Syria into pluralism are
stuck. Cyprus has become an issue of severe frustration -- even
involving Greece, however vulnerable it is economically. Even Iraq
has become anxious due to Turkish operations in its Kurdish north.
Critics slam Erdogan and his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, for
what they call "one-track minded" policy-making. This notion is based
on the assumption that the unexpected is simply disregarded by the
administration. With the administration's lack of a plan B or plan
C, all good intentions may instead lead to harsh confrontations and
deep disputes.
At the moment, no other country is juggling so many balls at the
same time. But the "zero-problems" policy is -- despite premature
judgments that it has finished -- sustainable and, in the long run,
may be successful.
However, the conditions of success are also clear: A lot of energy must
be poured into vigorous conflict resolution with the elected Kurdish
deputies of the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and into negotiations
with Abdullah Ocalan, jailed leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party
(PKK). This must be the highest priority, since the Kurdish issue is
linked to Turkey's international aspirations. Second, while pursuing
"zero problems" with its neighbors, Ankara must act strictly on its
principles and not fall into the traps of simple tactical victories
or evasions. It must not distinguish its neighbors on religious or
ethnic divides and must react with determination to every breach of
human rights, making clear, for example, that Syria is no different
than Israel in terms of its violations. Yes, a revision is necessary,
the policy should not be dumped. Only readjustments must be done. As
the policy of threats belonged to "Old Turkey", a softer approach is
now called for.
From: Baghdasarian