Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reconsidering Turkey

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

  • Reconsidering Turkey

    Reconsidering Turkey

    Richard Falk

    Zaman
    10.06.2004 Wednesday


    There is an exciting process of reform and reorientation taking place
    in Turkey during the last few years that has been hardly noticed in
    America, and certainly not properly appreciated.

    To the extent any attention has been given, it has been to whether the
    soft Islam of the AK Party provides the United States with an
    opportunity to demonstrate its willingness and capacity to abide a
    moderate Muslim outlook on the part of a foreign country in the Middle
    East.

    This possibility was severely strained in the weeks leading up to the
    Iraq War when the Turkish Parliament twice narrowly turned down an
    American request to use Turkish territory to launch its invasion. This
    was at the time an unexpected show of strategic independence on the
    part of Turkey, especially in the face of an American offer to provide
    Turkey with much needed financial assistance in the amount of $16
    billion. It is worth remembering that during and after the cold war
    Turkey had shaped its foreign policy entirely on the basis of being a
    subordinate ally of the United States, and regionally since the early
    1990s, by working in an avowed partnership with Israel.

    What was most surprising, and in the end revealing, about the Iraq
    decision initially so resented in Washington was that the Turkish
    military stayed in the barracks. In the recent past, any elected
    government in Turkey was subject to repudiation by a military coup or
    takeover if it crossed the red lines of either 'secularism' or the
    strategic relationship with the United States and Israel. There
    existed little room for maneuver on the part of politicians, and
    foreign policy in particular was regarded as the domain of 'the deep
    state,' the non-elected, non-accountable army leadership that had
    claimed for itself the uncontested role of guarding the constitutional
    order of republican Turkey as established by its founding leader
    [Mustafa] Kemal Ataturk. What is fascinating about this recent phase
    of Turkish foreign policy is this silent process of fundamental change
    that has been taking place without attracting notice except on an
    issue by issue basis. The scope and cumulative weight of these changes
    should not be exaggerated. The deep state remains in ultimate control
    of the political destiny of Turkey, and the red lines still limit the
    options for elected leaders. But the softening of these constraints is
    also part of the unfolding reality, and deserves more attention than
    it has so far received.

    Why this softening? I think the strength of the mandate received by
    the AK Party in the last round of national elections over two years
    ago, and the admitted absence of a secular alternative, has been
    crucial. But also significant is the skill and creativity of its
    leaders, particularly its Prime Minister, [Recep] Tayyip Erdogan, and
    Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, in taking steps forward in a manner
    made acceptable to the hidden military overseers, including even the
    civilianizing of the Turkish National Security Council. And overall,
    the unexpected success of the present leadership in Ankara of
    stabilizing runaway Turkish inflation while generating one of the
    world's fastest rates of economic growth has given the government an
    underpinning of credibility.

    The most obvious explanation of this Turkish opening is undoubtedly
    the consensus in Ankara that it is in the national interest of the
    country to obtain membership in the European Union at the earliest
    possible time. And it is agreed on all sides that this goal is
    attainable, if at all, only if Turkey demonstrates a willingness to
    clean up its human rights record and solve its main internal and
    external problems. This pressure was present even before the AK
    leadership arrived, and first became visible in earthquake diplomacy
    in which the Greek humanitarian response to the Turkish disaster in
    1998 led to a dramatic thawing of Greek/Turkish tensions, initiating a
    process that removed a major source of resistance to Turkey's presence
    in the EU. In that instance, Turkey responded positively, but it was
    Athens that took the initiative. But what has been happening more
    recently discloses a much greater Turkish willingness to take bold
    initiatives in foreign policy.

    I would mention several notable developments, but there are more. The
    Turkish government overcame the influence of its own formidable
    rejectionists to accept the carefully balanced proposals by Kofi
    Annan, on behalf of the United Nations, to solve the long-festering
    Cyprus crisis. When Turkish Cypriots voted to accept the plan, and
    Greek Cypriots voted to reject it, there emerged a new European and
    global realization that Turkey was moving away from its earlier
    pattern of rigid nationalism. It was also a clear signal that Turkey
    was ready to become a responsible member of the EU.

    More impressive, and more subtle, were the Turkish moves to improve
    their relations with their Islamic neighbors. Prime Minister Erdogan
    engaged in successful goodwill diplomacy with most of Turkey's
    neighbors, achieving a dramatic breakthrough by establishing an
    accommodation with Syria, and notably improved relations with Iran and
    Egypt. The Turkish government criticized Israel for the targeted
    assassinations of Hamas leaders, further solidifying its new image as
    a truly independent sovereign state that was now conducting its
    foreign policy according to ethical and legal principles, as well as
    on the basis of real politik.

    Recently, I had the benefit of long conversations with Ahmet
    Davutoglu, Chief Advisor to the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister,
    who confirmed these trends, speaking of 'a new paradigm' in Turkish
    foreign policy. This influential policy advisor, previously a leading
    intellectual presence in the country, saw Turkey as playing a decisive
    role as participant in an emerging multi-dimensional world order,
    being still in a positive relationship with the United States and
    Israel, but also an active player in Europe, the Middle East, and
    Central Asia. Davutoglu represents a new cultural and political trend
    in Turkey associated with a deliberate revival of the Ottoman past,
    both as a matter of cultural enrichment, but also as a source of an
    enriched Turkish identity as a political actor. What Davutoglu
    particularly celebrates is what he calls the 'accommodative' character
    of the Ottoman Empire at its height, that is, the willingness to
    appreciate and respect civilizational and ethnic diversity, and to
    deal with political conflict in a spirit of compromise and
    reconciliation. Davutoglu seeks what he calls 'a zero conflict'
    foreign policy for Turkey, as well as a balance between relations with
    Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and with the United States. He agrees
    that much of this hinges in the end on the willingness of Europe to
    set a schedule for Turkish accession to the EU, and thereby confirm
    the benefits of this innovative approach being taken by the AK
    leadership in Ankara. Without this tangible positive result, there are
    dangers of a return to the earlier rigid and narrower Turkish
    nationalism that approached conflict in a somewhat paranoid and
    zero-sum fashion that seemed incapable of reaching peaceful solutions
    because of its intense fear of being seen as 'weak.'

    There are additional lingering difficulties with this rather hopeful
    line of assessment. It is still not entirely clear which way the army
    will jump in future crises, especially if it views its guardian role
    as being subverted. Furthermore, Turkish urban elites are deeply
    suspicious of the AK leadership, fearing that it conceals an
    undisclosed agenda to turn the country into an Islamic
    republic. Turkish society is quite polarized, as Kemalists refuse to
    acknowledge the progress being made, contending unconvincingly that
    any leadership would have taken similar steps. Also, there are some
    remaining open wounds that the current leadership has not yet
    healed. The acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide is still
    resisted, and keeps this disturbing issue alive. And although the AK
    leadership has taken some notable positive moves with respect to its
    large Kurdish minority, on such matters as language and cultural
    rights, it has not gone nearly far enough in providing the Kurdish
    regions in the Eastern part of the country with a measure of
    self-rule. As well, the economic picture is not rosy for the Turkish
    masses as unemployment, poverty, and a low average standard of living
    torment most of the society.

    Yet on balance, considering the darkness that has descended on so much
    of the world since 9/11, the Turkish story is encouraging. And, in
    fairness, the Bush administration has, despite the refusal of Turkey
    to join actively in the Iraq War, has welcomed these shifts in Turkish
    foreign policy, and this has mad the process possible. At this point,
    what will push the process forward is a positive response from Europe,
    setting a date for the start of accession process, which even
    optimists will take more than a decade and will be confronted by
    roadblocks along the way. Nevertheless, at this moment, those that
    believe in democracy and a peaceful world order should take heart from
    Turkey's impressive efforts to reform its foreign policy, and
    congratulate the Turkish foreign ministry for exploring the frontiers
    of the politically acceptable.

    This has been a commentary exclusively written by Mr. Falk for ZAMAN
    daily.

    Mr. Falk, is a professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton
    University, a prolific writer, speaker and activist of world affairs
    and the author or co-author of more than 20 books, among them "Crimes
    of War", "Revolutionaries and Functionaries", "The War System", "A
    Study of Future Worlds", "The End of World Order", Revitalizing
    International Law", "Nuclear Weapons and International Law" and "On
    Human Governance".
Working...
X