Tweet
Turkish Foreign Minister Invokes Ottoman Empire As New Order for Middle East
Posted GMT 3-15-2013 17:13:32
Speaking of the international order or lack thereof has always been
controversial. For Turkey to challenge the international order,
however, carries some real risks -- simply because it's a NATO member
country, and its objections raise questions as to whether it's
proposing an alternative foreign policy to this military bloc's
generally perceived worldview, and if so, whether it is diverging in
its perception of security issues from the rest. NATO is also the most
significant alliance Turkey has, anchoring it in the West.
The ongoing criticism that comes out of Ankara to the international
order is not news. The Erdogan government has been vocally asking for
the enlargement of the UN Security Council, especially since the
Russian and Chinese veto power has been presented as the main
stumbling block before the international community to establish no-fly
zones in the war-torn Syrian battlefield for the past two years.
As setting a no-fly zone literally means for the international
community to decide to go to war against Syria -- since they need to
knock down all the radar systems to do that, Ankara therefore has also
been rallying for war against the Assad regime. While Turkey's
initiatives on that were not realized, NATO responded positively to
Turkey's request to install Patriot missiles on its territory as a
precaution against an escalation of the Syrian fighting into Turkey.
Yet Ankara has been tirelessly complaining about the lack of the
international community's moral obligation to Syrians, while being
dreadfully dependent on it, maybe more than ever, for the protection
of its eastern borders -- not only with the Assad regime, but
potentially with Iraq and Iran as well. And not that all this
cooperation has to be about military engagement, but Ankara needs the
political support of the countries that it criticizes to keep things
under control and to its benefit.
The reason for this entire introduction is simply this: It's more than
likely now than ever that Ankara has been misreading the current
developments in its neighborhood, and the making of the new world
order.
Like Henry Kissenger, Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Foreign Minister,
is also coming from academia -- but it's very likely that he is
finding it way too difficult to admit that his academic theories
actually has not been practically working on the ground -- yet he
keeps on dwelling in the same direction without any hope. Kissinger, a
former secretary of state, was more practical in that sense.
Take Davutoglu's recent remarks on two consecutive days, March 3 and 4
-- as an example. First he claims that Turkey for the first time has
finally been back to the lands that were lost during the Ottoman
times, and he suggests that it's time for Turkey to take the lead to
set an order for these lands and re-connect them once again --
"Without going to war, we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus,
Benghazi to Erzurum and to Batumi."
Before continuing with his following remarks though, two quick
observations need to be made. First, there is nothing against these
cities or countries to feel against being connected to one another.
The world is a village, and who ever likes to join hands and work
together may do that. Therefore, his remarks as such invite questions
as to whether he is proposing an alternative foreign policy, and what
that means exactly. Second of all, it may not be the place of Turkey's
foreign minister to suggest that Sarajevo to be tied to Damascus --
especially at a time like this, when Syria is drowning in an
unfortunate civil war, one needs to wonder as to what the people of
Sarajevo think about such a proposal!
But, let's not linger on that point and get lost in the conversation.
After all, Davutoglu is wondering why people use an accusatory
rhetoric, as if his policy suggestions mean to suggest the
refurbishment of Ottoman era.
Here is why in his own words: "Last century was only a parenthesis for
us. We will close that parenthesis. We will do so without going to
war, or calling anyone an enemy, without being disrespectful to any
border, we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum to
Batumi. This is the core of our power," he said. "These may look like
all different countries to you, but Yemen and Skopje were part of the
same country 110 years ago, or Erzurum and Benghazi. When we say this,
they call it 'new Ottomanism.' The ones who united the whole Europe
don't become new Romans, but the ones who unite the Middle East
geography are called as new Ottomanists. It's an honor to be reminded
with the names of Ottomans, Seljuks, Artuklu or Eyyubi, but we have
never or will ever have our eye on anyone's land based on a historic
background."
On March 4, Davutoglu continued with his remarks: "The people who
lived together throughout the history in this region were torn apart
from each other in the last century; they grew distant from each
other. Turkey was the central country at the time when borders were
diminished, geography was divided, and economic spheres were
separated. As if these are not enough, a new seed of division started
to be planted in our country." This new seed Davutoglu is referring to
is the Kurdish nationalism that seeks some form of autonomy or
recognition. He calls on everyone to grasp the importance of the
moment, and be alert for those who might attempt to prevent Turkey
from growing stronger as a country that has solved its Kurdish
problem.
"This current labor pain is the pain of gaining back that old
historical nature. We have to get our act together both domestically
and abroad. Surely, we have to first cure our own problem," he says.
"It's time to think big. When I was an academician, I used to observe
this country feeling scared of communism during winter, and division
[of its land] during summer [i.e., creation of a Turkish Kurdistan].
It's now time to solve our own problem. If this gets delayed, the
traumas from the outside will inevitably play a negative impact on us,
and that it will be likely that the opposite may also happen."
"What I have observed in foreign policy practice is that if you have a
right reading, and presented a firm position, you may receive
criticism in the first place, but you will get results in the mid- and
long-term. What is important is to stand firm there. If you are
confident of your policy, you should not give any concessions. What is
important is not to be indecisive at a critical, decision-making
moment."
Fair enough, but Turkey has not accomplished anything solid with
Davutoglu's policy except strengthening its trade ties with the Arab
Muslim countries. That said, Europe still remains Turkey's major
trading partner. Yet for things where Turkey has put its political
capital on the line in the region -- whether siding with Hamas against
Israel, or rallying the international community to use military force
to end the Assad regime in Syria, it has not scored anything concrete
to show as a Turkish victory. In that perspective, one has to ask --
what happens if Davutoglu's policies are actually wrong, and that his
insistence on wrong policies exposes Turkey to new and unprecedented
threats? Who would actually bear the responsibility for that?
May he be humble enough to understand that he, or anyone else for that
matter, won't be able to bear the responsibility for it all when
things get rough.
It's time for the Erdogan government to listen to the critics of its
policies, and at the very least begin toning down these arrogant
suggestions that Turkey be the core country for setting a new order
for those once-Ottoman lands.
That said, it may already be too late for Turkey to take a new direction.
By Tulin Daloglu
AL Monitor
http://www.aina.org/news/20130315121332.htm
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Posted GMT 3-15-2013 17:13:32
Speaking of the international order or lack thereof has always been
controversial. For Turkey to challenge the international order,
however, carries some real risks -- simply because it's a NATO member
country, and its objections raise questions as to whether it's
proposing an alternative foreign policy to this military bloc's
generally perceived worldview, and if so, whether it is diverging in
its perception of security issues from the rest. NATO is also the most
significant alliance Turkey has, anchoring it in the West.
The ongoing criticism that comes out of Ankara to the international
order is not news. The Erdogan government has been vocally asking for
the enlargement of the UN Security Council, especially since the
Russian and Chinese veto power has been presented as the main
stumbling block before the international community to establish no-fly
zones in the war-torn Syrian battlefield for the past two years.
As setting a no-fly zone literally means for the international
community to decide to go to war against Syria -- since they need to
knock down all the radar systems to do that, Ankara therefore has also
been rallying for war against the Assad regime. While Turkey's
initiatives on that were not realized, NATO responded positively to
Turkey's request to install Patriot missiles on its territory as a
precaution against an escalation of the Syrian fighting into Turkey.
Yet Ankara has been tirelessly complaining about the lack of the
international community's moral obligation to Syrians, while being
dreadfully dependent on it, maybe more than ever, for the protection
of its eastern borders -- not only with the Assad regime, but
potentially with Iraq and Iran as well. And not that all this
cooperation has to be about military engagement, but Ankara needs the
political support of the countries that it criticizes to keep things
under control and to its benefit.
The reason for this entire introduction is simply this: It's more than
likely now than ever that Ankara has been misreading the current
developments in its neighborhood, and the making of the new world
order.
Like Henry Kissenger, Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Foreign Minister,
is also coming from academia -- but it's very likely that he is
finding it way too difficult to admit that his academic theories
actually has not been practically working on the ground -- yet he
keeps on dwelling in the same direction without any hope. Kissinger, a
former secretary of state, was more practical in that sense.
Take Davutoglu's recent remarks on two consecutive days, March 3 and 4
-- as an example. First he claims that Turkey for the first time has
finally been back to the lands that were lost during the Ottoman
times, and he suggests that it's time for Turkey to take the lead to
set an order for these lands and re-connect them once again --
"Without going to war, we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus,
Benghazi to Erzurum and to Batumi."
Before continuing with his following remarks though, two quick
observations need to be made. First, there is nothing against these
cities or countries to feel against being connected to one another.
The world is a village, and who ever likes to join hands and work
together may do that. Therefore, his remarks as such invite questions
as to whether he is proposing an alternative foreign policy, and what
that means exactly. Second of all, it may not be the place of Turkey's
foreign minister to suggest that Sarajevo to be tied to Damascus --
especially at a time like this, when Syria is drowning in an
unfortunate civil war, one needs to wonder as to what the people of
Sarajevo think about such a proposal!
But, let's not linger on that point and get lost in the conversation.
After all, Davutoglu is wondering why people use an accusatory
rhetoric, as if his policy suggestions mean to suggest the
refurbishment of Ottoman era.
Here is why in his own words: "Last century was only a parenthesis for
us. We will close that parenthesis. We will do so without going to
war, or calling anyone an enemy, without being disrespectful to any
border, we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum to
Batumi. This is the core of our power," he said. "These may look like
all different countries to you, but Yemen and Skopje were part of the
same country 110 years ago, or Erzurum and Benghazi. When we say this,
they call it 'new Ottomanism.' The ones who united the whole Europe
don't become new Romans, but the ones who unite the Middle East
geography are called as new Ottomanists. It's an honor to be reminded
with the names of Ottomans, Seljuks, Artuklu or Eyyubi, but we have
never or will ever have our eye on anyone's land based on a historic
background."
On March 4, Davutoglu continued with his remarks: "The people who
lived together throughout the history in this region were torn apart
from each other in the last century; they grew distant from each
other. Turkey was the central country at the time when borders were
diminished, geography was divided, and economic spheres were
separated. As if these are not enough, a new seed of division started
to be planted in our country." This new seed Davutoglu is referring to
is the Kurdish nationalism that seeks some form of autonomy or
recognition. He calls on everyone to grasp the importance of the
moment, and be alert for those who might attempt to prevent Turkey
from growing stronger as a country that has solved its Kurdish
problem.
"This current labor pain is the pain of gaining back that old
historical nature. We have to get our act together both domestically
and abroad. Surely, we have to first cure our own problem," he says.
"It's time to think big. When I was an academician, I used to observe
this country feeling scared of communism during winter, and division
[of its land] during summer [i.e., creation of a Turkish Kurdistan].
It's now time to solve our own problem. If this gets delayed, the
traumas from the outside will inevitably play a negative impact on us,
and that it will be likely that the opposite may also happen."
"What I have observed in foreign policy practice is that if you have a
right reading, and presented a firm position, you may receive
criticism in the first place, but you will get results in the mid- and
long-term. What is important is to stand firm there. If you are
confident of your policy, you should not give any concessions. What is
important is not to be indecisive at a critical, decision-making
moment."
Fair enough, but Turkey has not accomplished anything solid with
Davutoglu's policy except strengthening its trade ties with the Arab
Muslim countries. That said, Europe still remains Turkey's major
trading partner. Yet for things where Turkey has put its political
capital on the line in the region -- whether siding with Hamas against
Israel, or rallying the international community to use military force
to end the Assad regime in Syria, it has not scored anything concrete
to show as a Turkish victory. In that perspective, one has to ask --
what happens if Davutoglu's policies are actually wrong, and that his
insistence on wrong policies exposes Turkey to new and unprecedented
threats? Who would actually bear the responsibility for that?
May he be humble enough to understand that he, or anyone else for that
matter, won't be able to bear the responsibility for it all when
things get rough.
It's time for the Erdogan government to listen to the critics of its
policies, and at the very least begin toning down these arrogant
suggestions that Turkey be the core country for setting a new order
for those once-Ottoman lands.
That said, it may already be too late for Turkey to take a new direction.
By Tulin Daloglu
AL Monitor
http://www.aina.org/news/20130315121332.htm
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress