Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISTANBUL: Turkish foreign policy and Syria

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ISTANBUL: Turkish foreign policy and Syria

    Today's Zaman, Turkey
    Oct 5 2012

    Turkish foreign policy and Syria


    MARKAR ESAYAN


    A serious domestic struggle started with the coming of the Justice and
    Development Party (AK Party) to power on Nov. 3, 2002.


    However, the network established by party leaders with the US and the
    EU before the start of the administration enabled them to fight back
    in the war against the guardianship regime by reliance on the bodies
    of the broader military, media and judiciary. In the aftermath of this
    struggle, clear political positions, the EU membership bid and popular
    support have legitimized the government and its actions. The
    administration has fought against the deep state on legal grounds,
    whereas it has relied on initiatives and openings to address the
    assumption suggested by the Kemalist paradigm that we are surrounded
    by enemies.

    Regardless of domestic hurdles, favorable world economic conditions
    have helped the government in this process. The rise of oil prices in
    the second term of the government was a burden for Turkey, which deals
    with energy deficits through imports, but the economy was left to
    experts in their fields and lessons were drawn from the February 2000
    crisis. The banking system was revised and strengthened after this
    crisis. The budgetary measures and discipline were strict. The
    financial administration has expended efforts to diversify the weight
    of the EU and the US on imports.

    During this process, a large group of volunteers and Turkish
    entrepreneurs strived to establish business ties all around the world.
    As voluntary representatives of the government, they have created
    alternative markets in various parts of the world, including Africa.
    The rising prestige associated with the attempts to deal with the
    Kemalist tutelage has also made the government self-confident.

    Turkey and the international stage

    Efforts to integrate with the rest of the world have become more
    visible as ideological prejudices have been addressed. For the same
    reason, strong relations have been established with neighboring
    countries. The protocols signed with Armenia, despite grave historical
    and ideological baggage, represented a huge step forward for Turkey.
    Warm relations, including removal of the visa barriers, enabled Turkey
    to emerge as a stable bridge between Western and Eastern states.

    Turkey became even more important after the coming of Barack Obama to
    power in the US, an administration which did away with the Sept. 11
    paradigm and decided to maintain warm ties with the Islamic world.
    Turkey became an important regional power not only because it was a
    leading ally of the EU and the US and a respected NATO member, but
    also because it was a political power in its region. Its strong
    economy was a further asset in this setting.

    Turkey has also addressed the crimes that Israel committed in
    Palestinian lands, as well as the offenses committed by Hamas; Prime
    Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an's one-minute showdown in Davos, and the
    attempt to ensure that Iran does not become a radical power by voting
    against the draft resolution in the UN Security Council, despite
    American efforts, were taken as serious steps and signs of strong
    intentions.

    These humane stances, distant to real political considerations,
    attracted support from the world as they were backed by power. Turkey
    was not considered a weak and insignificant state that could be easily
    swayed. It could be said that the one-minute reaction has taken the
    rage held by Palestinian and Muslim people vis-Ã-vis the West from a
    marginal perspective to a point of reconciliation. ErdoÄ?an's stance
    was interpreted as the return of the Muslims into world politics in a
    more rational and respected fashion.

    This was actually what Obama referred to in the struggle against
    al-Qaeda: making a distinction between terror and Islam, and leaving
    George W. Bush's neo-con style behind. ErdoÄ?an's attitude, which did
    not demonize the West but promoted the rights of Muslims, was a great
    opportunity for the new world order.

    In the meantime, however, other events have taken place. Israeli
    commandos conducted a bloody raid on the Mavi Marmara, an aid ship
    sent to Gaza for humanitarian purposes. Nine citizens of Turkey were
    murdered in the attack. This was unacceptable. The incident cracked
    bilateral relations between Turkey and Israel. Turkey is making no
    attempt to normalize relations with Israel as it expects an official
    apology, payment of compensation and the lifting of the Gaza blockade.
    This pleases the Muslim world; however, it is an improper policy
    choice that restricts Turkey's role and power in the region.

    It should be noted that the government was not involved in the Mavi
    Marmara incident. The Foreign Ministry attempted to stop the aid
    operation, but I have heard that the organizers could not be
    convinced. However, it is obvious that the government needs to be more
    forceful on such issues. The Mavi Marmara initiative was not a
    successful and appropriate example of civil disobedience; it only
    caused the deaths of nine people and the end of Turkish influence over
    Israel in the region. I believe that the government pursued a proper
    and rational policy on the Syrian crisis up until the time when it
    failed to observe boundaries with the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Even
    though a marginal group of left-wingers and the Republican People's
    Party (CHP) supported the Baath regime, out of opposition to the AK
    Party, the government correctly opposed a dictator who has now killed
    around 25,000 people. Those who accuse the government of having good
    relations with the Bashar al-Assad regime before the start of the
    massacres base their opposition on their dislike of the AK Party. A
    state should not wait for improvement of human rights standards in a
    neighboring country in order to foster warm ties. Besides, close
    relations and growing political and economic dependency increase
    influence over that country.

    Nevertheless, remaining silent on massacres would not be a proper
    approach. The support Russia and China are extending to the crimes
    against humanity in Syria is shameful for these countries; history
    will recall them as associates of these heinous crimes.

    Turkey lacks a balanced policy on Syria

    However, it should also be noted that the government has failed to
    draft a balanced policy on the Syrian crisis, considering that it has
    extended extensive support to the FSA. Turkey's greatest problem is
    still its inability to end Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) violence;
    the historical relationship between Syria and the PKK has made the
    Syrian crisis a domestic matter and the PKK issue a Middle Eastern
    problem. The government's actions in this process have been
    reactionary; it has aligned itself with the FSA, which actually is not
    a promising actor in the future of Syria. This was in response to
    provocations by Syria, with Assad ceding partial control along Syria's
    border with Turkey to the PKK. It is obvious that from this point
    onwards the PKK has become stronger and attempted to reestablish ties
    with the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), the PKK of Iran.

    The murder of five people in Turkey in a mortar attack from Syrian
    soil has shocked everybody. Turkey retaliated in accordance with the
    renewed rules of engagement. It further relied on the mechanisms of
    international law and asked for solidarity from NATO, the US and the
    EU. After the downing of the F4 aircraft by Syrian fire, Turkey had
    already declared that it would strongly respond to any similar attack
    in the future. However, the initial reaction and statements from the
    Syrian side are promising.

    Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an noted after the adoption of the motion in
    Parliament giving authority for cross-border raids into Syria that
    waging war was not considered. I believe that a war with Syria would
    be a disaster for Turkey, and that the government will avoid this.
    However, a state also needs to prove its deterrent power and its
    decisiveness in retaliation. For this reason, I think the influential
    diplomatic moves in the aftermath of the attack and the adoption of
    the motion are proper steps. It is also clear that the anti-war lobby
    in Turkey has again become attentive to the rise of power and
    influence of the AK Party. But in actuality, both the government and
    the people are concerned about the possible repercussions of a
    regional war.

    In conclusion, Turkey needs to learn lessons from its past mistakes
    and should reconsider its ties with the FSA while aligning itself with
    international powers. Improving the living standards of the asylum
    seekers who have fled to Turkey from Syria, ensuring that the world
    stays focused on this crisis and putting diplomatic pressure on Iran
    and Syria are the best policies that Turkey could pursue.
    Unfortunately, it is not realistic to think that Turkey could embark
    alone on a risk that the US and NATO will not take.

Working...
X