Tweet
YOUNG TURKS WHO UNDERSTAND AND PROMOTE TURKEY PROPERLY
by Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu*
Today's Zaman
Oct 8 2012
Turkey
We may foresee that US policies towards the Middle East will be
diversified in the new era through strategic partner countries that
include Turkey and Israel.
The priorities of the US, which has been making an effort to rectify
the bilateral relations between these two countries in the Middle East,
include the normalization of relations between Turkey and Israel. For
this reason, Washington is seeking to make progress by a reliance on
different methods.
The Obama administration, which has expressed an interest in Turkey,
has developed a series of programs to train future leaders and equip
them with real political considerations. The Young Turkey Young
America program, which has recently been initiated and repeated with
the participation of diverse figures every year by the US Department
of State, is one of the activities that the US pays utmost attention
to. During the program, which is coordinated by the Atlantic Council
and İstanbul Policy Center in the US and Turkey, respectively,
we, the participants, have discussed and analyzed the domestic and
international affairs of the US, its approach toward the world,
including the Middle East and its relations with Turkey. I would say
this policy and leadership program enable us to better understand
Turkish-American relations and help us analyze its policies regarding
other countries and regions.
I should admit that think tanks and civil society organizations in the
US are pretty active; they know other countries as if they were their
own. Of course, it would be naive to compare them with those in Turkey,
but I observe that we do not have a sufficient number of experts on the
regions we claim we have responsibilities for. We need more experts
in recent history who have analyzed the process of democratization
in Turkey from different angles, analysts who extensively discuss the
transformation in the region after Soviet rule and the Baath reign and
strategists who evaluate how Turkey should use the energy potential
in the Black Sea and Iraq. Turkey has a long road to travel because
these are sensitive issues that closely concern Turkey.
However, the US should also emulate the Turkish vision in some
respects. For instance, these include awareness of the sensitivities of
the nations in the region where it has been dominant for centuries,
understanding the different ethnic and religious groups and a
conviction that even small political steps may change regional affairs
radically. However, to do this, Turkey needs to better articulate
itself and its goals. We could evaluate the vision of both sides
by focusing on current issues. However, the greatest reason that
the Turkish part of the discussion is short of something is the
misinformation on the regional strategies and Turkey's inability to
express its goals and considerations on such cases of misinformation.
We could offer examples by looking at the American side because the
views and approaches held by experts, military analysts and academics
I have talked to during the program constitute the overall US vision.
Relations with Israel: The US has been focusing on normalization of
relations between Turkey and Israel and the establishment of strong
strategic relations. This issue represents a matter that makes the
entire region unstable for the US. The course of the problems in Egypt,
Lebanon, Syria and even Cyprus are analyzed from this perspective. The
insistence on the Israeli side not to offer an official apology
or lift the embargo and blockade in Palestine is another source
of the crisis because the US is unable to persuade Israel on this
matter. The counter-argument suggests that Turkey extends support
to Hamas and makes the issue of Palestinian terrorists a national
cause. No progress has been made so far because the Jewish lobby in
the US also agrees with this. They hold that Turkey must take some
constructive steps because Israel is the only country that would
understand Turkey in the international arena in reference to such
thorny issues as the Armenian issue, the Kurdistan Workers' Party
(PKK) problem and the Cyprus issue. Of course, this would be possible
only in the case of mutual understanding.
Syrian issue: US experts hold that Turkey has made sacrifices on the
Syrian issue because no other country would have accepted thousands
of Syrian refugees. However, Turkey needs American support in the
face of potential partition, the activities of Syrian intelligence
in the Southeast and the PKK's growing influence in the region. The
Libyan model cannot be applied in this case; in addition, military
interference would have serious repercussions. For this reason,
it is stressed that Turkey should not act unilaterally. However,
unfortunately, no reference is made to the problems that Turkey
encounters due to the exacerbating situation and growing instability
in its southern neighbor. It is obvious that the US will rely on
long-term plans to deal with this issue, whereas Turkey is expected
to make further sacrifices.
Armenian issue: The Armenian issue is stuck between two symbolic
dates: 1915 and 2015. It is noted that historians need to discuss
the matter by focusing on what really happened in 1915. However,
nobody refers to who would open the archives and who works against
Turkey in the US. In addition, nobody recalls the Armenian Secret Army
for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) attacks. In respect to 2015,
it is recalled that Turkey needs to remain cautious and take some
constructive steps. However, there is no reference to the current
setting where the US-led Minsk Group is no longer influential in the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue, which Turkey presents as a precondition for
normalization between Turkey and Armenia. It seems that in reference
to the Armenian lobby, the US does not prevent any lobbying activities
that are detrimental to Turkish interests because it does not appear
proper to do something to prevent their activities as they rely on
their democratic rights to influence Congress. The opposition that the
Greek and Armenian lobbies have staged against Turkish entrepreneurs'
initiatives to invest in the predominantly Native American regions
in the US has been extensively discussed this year. The declaration
these lobbies made against these initiatives suggests that Turkey
should be prevented from making investments in these areas because it
is a country that committed genocide against the Armenians, occupied
Cyprus and extended support to Hamas.
Kurdistan discourse: There is no doubt that there are many experts who
are familiar with Iraqi politics in the US. In addition, the number of
analysts focusing on Iraq, Syria and Iran has been increasing. These
analysts acquire experience and expertise through field research
and on-site investigations. For this reason, they are able to make
solid analyses. However, there is something that is neglected. The
reference to a region called Kurdistan raises doubts and concerns in
some circles, including Turkey. Experts noting that this name is only
related to geography fail to appreciate the sensitivities of Turkey
and other countries in the region. It is also a reality that the
evolution of northern Iraq into Kurdistan is based on geopolitical
developments as well. The addition of another element into the list
of sovereign nations in the Middle East may be acceptable. However,
analysis of the borders and the areas of domination based on the
approaches held in World War I may lead to serious problems. We are
witnessing the same today.
Cyprus issue: The Cyprus issue is not just a matter between Turkey
and Cyprus; both Israel and Armenia now rely on this as a counter
argument. Above all, reference to the 1974 military operation as
occupation is due to the lack of adequate and proper information on
the subject. In addition to the problems on the island and the UN
resolutions and decisions referring to the need for an intervention,
there is no reference to who has actually promoted the unification
of the island so far. Israel implies that it would ignore the issue
and even extend support for Turkey in the international arena in the
case of normalization of bilateral ties. On the other hand, Armenia
suggests that Turkey should resolve its Cyprus issue before dealing
with the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The US has made mistakes in this
matter, but more importantly, Turkey has been unable to articulate its
position so far. Turkey has not been able to explain its sensitivities
in respect to the Cyprus issue.
These issues are major problems that are closely related to
Turkey's regional and global policies as well as its position in the
international arena. Turkey needs to become more active and train
experts in order to make progress on these thorny issues. I hope that
young Turkish people will appreciate how Turkey is seen in the US
and how other countries treat and view its policies via such programs
as Young Turkey Young America because the real matter is to express
ourselves properly to the world and better understand global affairs.
The world cannot be well appreciated and recognized if we stand still
and immovable.
*Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu is an analyst at the Center for International
Strategy and Security Studies.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
by Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu*
Today's Zaman
Oct 8 2012
Turkey
We may foresee that US policies towards the Middle East will be
diversified in the new era through strategic partner countries that
include Turkey and Israel.
The priorities of the US, which has been making an effort to rectify
the bilateral relations between these two countries in the Middle East,
include the normalization of relations between Turkey and Israel. For
this reason, Washington is seeking to make progress by a reliance on
different methods.
The Obama administration, which has expressed an interest in Turkey,
has developed a series of programs to train future leaders and equip
them with real political considerations. The Young Turkey Young
America program, which has recently been initiated and repeated with
the participation of diverse figures every year by the US Department
of State, is one of the activities that the US pays utmost attention
to. During the program, which is coordinated by the Atlantic Council
and İstanbul Policy Center in the US and Turkey, respectively,
we, the participants, have discussed and analyzed the domestic and
international affairs of the US, its approach toward the world,
including the Middle East and its relations with Turkey. I would say
this policy and leadership program enable us to better understand
Turkish-American relations and help us analyze its policies regarding
other countries and regions.
I should admit that think tanks and civil society organizations in the
US are pretty active; they know other countries as if they were their
own. Of course, it would be naive to compare them with those in Turkey,
but I observe that we do not have a sufficient number of experts on the
regions we claim we have responsibilities for. We need more experts
in recent history who have analyzed the process of democratization
in Turkey from different angles, analysts who extensively discuss the
transformation in the region after Soviet rule and the Baath reign and
strategists who evaluate how Turkey should use the energy potential
in the Black Sea and Iraq. Turkey has a long road to travel because
these are sensitive issues that closely concern Turkey.
However, the US should also emulate the Turkish vision in some
respects. For instance, these include awareness of the sensitivities of
the nations in the region where it has been dominant for centuries,
understanding the different ethnic and religious groups and a
conviction that even small political steps may change regional affairs
radically. However, to do this, Turkey needs to better articulate
itself and its goals. We could evaluate the vision of both sides
by focusing on current issues. However, the greatest reason that
the Turkish part of the discussion is short of something is the
misinformation on the regional strategies and Turkey's inability to
express its goals and considerations on such cases of misinformation.
We could offer examples by looking at the American side because the
views and approaches held by experts, military analysts and academics
I have talked to during the program constitute the overall US vision.
Relations with Israel: The US has been focusing on normalization of
relations between Turkey and Israel and the establishment of strong
strategic relations. This issue represents a matter that makes the
entire region unstable for the US. The course of the problems in Egypt,
Lebanon, Syria and even Cyprus are analyzed from this perspective. The
insistence on the Israeli side not to offer an official apology
or lift the embargo and blockade in Palestine is another source
of the crisis because the US is unable to persuade Israel on this
matter. The counter-argument suggests that Turkey extends support
to Hamas and makes the issue of Palestinian terrorists a national
cause. No progress has been made so far because the Jewish lobby in
the US also agrees with this. They hold that Turkey must take some
constructive steps because Israel is the only country that would
understand Turkey in the international arena in reference to such
thorny issues as the Armenian issue, the Kurdistan Workers' Party
(PKK) problem and the Cyprus issue. Of course, this would be possible
only in the case of mutual understanding.
Syrian issue: US experts hold that Turkey has made sacrifices on the
Syrian issue because no other country would have accepted thousands
of Syrian refugees. However, Turkey needs American support in the
face of potential partition, the activities of Syrian intelligence
in the Southeast and the PKK's growing influence in the region. The
Libyan model cannot be applied in this case; in addition, military
interference would have serious repercussions. For this reason,
it is stressed that Turkey should not act unilaterally. However,
unfortunately, no reference is made to the problems that Turkey
encounters due to the exacerbating situation and growing instability
in its southern neighbor. It is obvious that the US will rely on
long-term plans to deal with this issue, whereas Turkey is expected
to make further sacrifices.
Armenian issue: The Armenian issue is stuck between two symbolic
dates: 1915 and 2015. It is noted that historians need to discuss
the matter by focusing on what really happened in 1915. However,
nobody refers to who would open the archives and who works against
Turkey in the US. In addition, nobody recalls the Armenian Secret Army
for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) attacks. In respect to 2015,
it is recalled that Turkey needs to remain cautious and take some
constructive steps. However, there is no reference to the current
setting where the US-led Minsk Group is no longer influential in the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue, which Turkey presents as a precondition for
normalization between Turkey and Armenia. It seems that in reference
to the Armenian lobby, the US does not prevent any lobbying activities
that are detrimental to Turkish interests because it does not appear
proper to do something to prevent their activities as they rely on
their democratic rights to influence Congress. The opposition that the
Greek and Armenian lobbies have staged against Turkish entrepreneurs'
initiatives to invest in the predominantly Native American regions
in the US has been extensively discussed this year. The declaration
these lobbies made against these initiatives suggests that Turkey
should be prevented from making investments in these areas because it
is a country that committed genocide against the Armenians, occupied
Cyprus and extended support to Hamas.
Kurdistan discourse: There is no doubt that there are many experts who
are familiar with Iraqi politics in the US. In addition, the number of
analysts focusing on Iraq, Syria and Iran has been increasing. These
analysts acquire experience and expertise through field research
and on-site investigations. For this reason, they are able to make
solid analyses. However, there is something that is neglected. The
reference to a region called Kurdistan raises doubts and concerns in
some circles, including Turkey. Experts noting that this name is only
related to geography fail to appreciate the sensitivities of Turkey
and other countries in the region. It is also a reality that the
evolution of northern Iraq into Kurdistan is based on geopolitical
developments as well. The addition of another element into the list
of sovereign nations in the Middle East may be acceptable. However,
analysis of the borders and the areas of domination based on the
approaches held in World War I may lead to serious problems. We are
witnessing the same today.
Cyprus issue: The Cyprus issue is not just a matter between Turkey
and Cyprus; both Israel and Armenia now rely on this as a counter
argument. Above all, reference to the 1974 military operation as
occupation is due to the lack of adequate and proper information on
the subject. In addition to the problems on the island and the UN
resolutions and decisions referring to the need for an intervention,
there is no reference to who has actually promoted the unification
of the island so far. Israel implies that it would ignore the issue
and even extend support for Turkey in the international arena in the
case of normalization of bilateral ties. On the other hand, Armenia
suggests that Turkey should resolve its Cyprus issue before dealing
with the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The US has made mistakes in this
matter, but more importantly, Turkey has been unable to articulate its
position so far. Turkey has not been able to explain its sensitivities
in respect to the Cyprus issue.
These issues are major problems that are closely related to
Turkey's regional and global policies as well as its position in the
international arena. Turkey needs to become more active and train
experts in order to make progress on these thorny issues. I hope that
young Turkish people will appreciate how Turkey is seen in the US
and how other countries treat and view its policies via such programs
as Young Turkey Young America because the real matter is to express
ourselves properly to the world and better understand global affairs.
The world cannot be well appreciated and recognized if we stand still
and immovable.
*Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu is an analyst at the Center for International
Strategy and Security Studies.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress