Tweet
Weekly Blitz
VOLUME - 5, ISSUE - 24, DHAKA, JUNE 09, 2010
June 11 2010
Turkish regime changes sides
by Barry Rubin
June 11, 2010
This article is based on one commissioned and published by
PajamasMedia. I have added additional material to this more extensive
version. Turkish readers: see a special note to you at the end.
Why have Israel-Turkey relations gone from alliance to what seems to
be the verge of war?
The foolish think that the breakdown is due to the recent Gaza
flotilla crisis. The merely naive attribute the collapse to the
December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip.
Such conclusions are totally misleading. It was already clear-and in
private every Israeli expert dealing seriously with Turkey said
so-well over two years ago. For example, the Justice and Development
(AK) party government did not permit a single new military contract
with Israel since it took office. The special relationship was over.
And the cause was the election in Turkey of an Islamist government.
After all, Turkey needed Israel as an ally when a secular government
in Ankara regarded Iran, Syria, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the main
threats. Once there was a government which regarded Iran and Syria as
its closest allies, Israel became a perceived enemy.
When the Turkish armed forces were an important part of the regime,
they promoted the alliance because they saw Israel as a good source
for military equipment and an ally against Islamists and radical Arab
regimes. But once the army was to be suppressed by those who hated it
because of the military's secularism and feared it as the guardian of
the republican system it sought to dismantle, the generals' wishes
were a matter of no concern and depriving them of foreign allies was a
priority of the AK party government.
And when Turkey thought it needed Israel as a way to maintain good
relations with the United States, the alliance was also valuable. But
once it was clear that U.S. policy would accept the AK and was none
too fond of Israel, that reason for the alliance also dissolved. Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced, "It's Israel that is the
principal threat to regional peace." Not Iran, Israel.
At first, this outcome was not so obvious. The AK Party won its first
election by only a narrow margin. To keep the United States and EU
happy, to keep the Turkish army happy, and to cover up its Islamist
sympathies, the new regime was cautious over relations with Israel.
Keeping them going served as "proof" of Turkey's moderation.
Yet as the AK majorities in election rose, the government became more
confident. No longer did it stress that it was just a center-right
party with family values. The regime steadily weakened the army, using
EU demands for civilian power. As it repressed opposition and arrested
hundreds of critics, bought up 40 percent of the media, and installed
its people in the bureaucracy, the AK's arrogance, and thus its
willingness to go further and throw off its mask, grew steadily.
And then, on top of that, the regime saw that the United States would
not criticize it, not press it, not even notice what the Turkish
government was doing. President Barack Obama came to Turkey and
praised the regime as a model of moderate Muslim democracy. Former
President Bill Clinton appeared in Istanbul and, in response to
questions asked by an AK party supporter, was manipulated into
virtually endorsing the regime's program without realizing it.
Earlier this year, the situation became even more absurd as Turkey
moved ever closer to becoming the third state to join the Iran-Syria
bloc. Syria's state-controlled newspaper and Iranian President
Ahmadinejad openly referred to Turkey's membership in their alliance.
And no one in Washington even noticed what was happening. Even when,
in May, Turkish policy stabbed the United States in the back by
helping Iran launch a sanctions-avoiding plan, the Obama
Administration barely stirred in its sleep.
Then there is the theatrical demagoguery of Erdogan himself who threw
a choreographed fit at the Davos conference because Israel's President
Shimon Peres, the mildest and most dovish of men, "offended" him. He
returned home to an excited demonstration.
Bashing Israel to gain popularity and stir nationalist and religious
passions is not the oldest of such tricks. It is merely a variation of
doing the same historically to Jews in general. And yes it still
works. Boy, does it work!
Then there's Turkey's new foreign minister. Ahmed Davudoglu. It's a
pity that his writings in Turkish haven't been translated because when
he writes in English Davudoglu says Turkey wants to be everyone's
friend, but in the Turkish version he makes clear that his goal is to
be friends with those who hate the West. Davudoglu's appointment
completes the AK party's conquest of the Foreign Ministry, another
institution that hates Islamism.
And so with electoral victories; advancing control over Turkey's
bureaucracy, military and society; and Western complaisance, the
regime has become continually bolder.
A few weeks ago, the Turkish prime minister said that Iran isn't
developing nuclear weapons, that he regards President Ahmadinejad as a
friend, and that even if Iran were building nuclear bombs it has a
right to do so. And still no one in Washington noticed. Turkey was not
only what the Obama Administration wanted in a Muslim-majority
country, it was also one of the "responsible powers," to quote the
administration's national security strategy document, that the White
House saw as necessary attendants to shore up a weak America at the
Home for Aging Senile Superpowers.
The current Turkish government hates Israel because it is an Islamist
regime. Note who its friends are: it cares nothing for the Lebanese
people, it only backs Hizballah. It never has a kind word for the
Palestinian Authority or Fatah, the Turkish government's friend is
Hamas.
Lately for the first time, however, the AK government began to run
into domestic problems. The poor status of the economy, the growing
discontent of many Turks with creeping Islamism in the society, and
finally the election for the first time of a popular leader for the
opposition party, began to give hope that next year's elections might
bring down the regime. Indeed, polls showed the AK sinking into or
very close to second place. With the army neutered, elections are the
only hope of getting Turkey off the road to Islamist .
Now, however, the corpses of those killed after they or their
colleagues attacked Israeli soldiers will probably guarantee AK's
victory. As one Turkish columnist put it, the AK, "will sail on this
wind into a third term in power."
This is a prize well worth sacrificing Israeli trade and tourism. And
the action is all the more attractive since Turkey in doing so will
not have to sacrifice any Western and particularly U.S. support. By
making this behavior so cheap, the U.S. government has made it
inevitable.
But even that is not all. On September 12, Turkey will come to a
crossroads when a referendum will be held over constitutional
amendments introduced by the government. If passed, these changes will
give the government control over the court system, virtually the only
remaining institution it hasn't taken over. As one Turkish analyst
wrote, "This would be the end of checks [and balances] and democracy."
In light of national solidarity and outrage over the Gaza incident,
how can the government not win?
A Turkish colleague gave a good guideline for dealing with the Turkish
government's defection to the other side and march toward Islamism
some time ago, an analogy most ironic given the nautical nature of the
Gaza flotilla issue. It was very important, he explained, that the
Turkish people not become the enemy for the West and Israel. They
were, he continued, merely the passengers. The regime-the captain and
the crew-was the problem.
Even within the AK party there were more moderate elements, mostly
those who joined from non-Islamist center-right parties. When I hosted
the Turkey-Israel parliamentary friendship committee, these were the
people most eager for good relations, because they saw this alliance
as a check on the more extremist forces in their own party.
But then the Gaza flotilla sailed in. Many Turks who support
opposition parties see this as close to a conspiracy, and one can
hardly blame them for doing so. A radical Islamist group close to the
government organized this whole affair which, while nominally
independent, enjoyed the Turkish government's patronage. This flotilla
was a semi-official operation by the AK-ruled state apparatus.
This campaign set up the intensification of the regime's manipulation
of the two powerful symbols in Turkey that motivate people:
nationalism and Islam. This is an anti-nationalist government,
dismantling the traditional traditions of Atatirk's republic. But it
has managed to wrap itself in the Turkish flag. Thus, the less than 30
percent who support the AK and would back an attempt to help Hamas has
been turned into 100 percent by turning this from an Islamist into a
nationalist issue.
A national hysteria has been whipped up. In huge demonstrations,
Palestinian flags were waved and slogans should like: "Stop military
collaboration with the Israeli army," "Kill all the Israelis," "Allah
akbar," "Death to the Jews," and "Attack Israel."
This has taken on dangerous proportions. For example, an article in
the Islamist newspaper Zaman claims that Israel "ordered" the Kurdish
PKK to attack a Turkish naval base. This is a blood libel. The PKK
declared it would renew attacks long before the Gaza incident and the
Israeli government went out of its way to declare the PKK a terrorist
group years ago in order to support Turkey! Given such behavior, all
Israeli tourism to Turkey is likely to end for a long time given the
danger and the government might not be able to stop terror attacks on
Jewish and Israeli targets in Turkey even if it wants to do so.
Even the opposition parties, persuaded or intimidated by nationalist
fervor, shouted their outrage, with a unanimous vote in parliament
supporting the regime's stance. The Turkish media censored out almost
everything that challenged the narrative of peace-loving demonstrators
brutally attacked. Thus, Turks--largely locked into only there own
media due to language--don't have the basis to question what they are
being told.
I do not mean to suggest here that Israel might not have made tactical
mistakes or that the Turks don't have a reason to feel upset at the
death of nine of their nationals. But a different government in Turkey
would express anger and then try to resolve the matter calmly and
peacefully through some kind of compromise. Past, non-AK party
governments have at times been harsh in criticizing Israel but they
also had a strong incentive to resolve the crisis. This government
finds the crisis useful.
The AK government had three demands: all Turks be released
immediately, something Israel had already announced would happen but
the regime pretended only came about due to its tough stance; there
should be an international investigation; and Israel must pay
compensation. Turkey's top leaders spoke of Israel as committing
"piracy" and "terrorism," the latter term one never applies to Hamas
or Hizballah.
Indeed, Erdogan said something very revealing of his true intentions.
Turkey, he said, chose to side with law, peace, justice, Palestine and
the Gaza Strip. In other words, this is a political alliance,
theoretically with the Palestinians but actually only with his fellow
Hamas Islamists.
Incidentally, I think there is one hidden price Turkey will pay for
this strategy. Although its chances of getting into the EU were
already quite low, a view of Turkey as extremist will put the last
nail into the coffin of its candidacy succeeding. Even if European
states don't like Israel, a display of Islamic fervor in Turkey will
not make them feel good.
Another is the increased antagonism in the United States which, up
until now, has treated the regime uncritically. In a remarkable
editorial, the Washington Post blames Erdogan. It is a signal of a
significant potential rift in U.S.-Turkey relations.
Is this demagogic mobilization of nationalist and religious passions
the magic weapon the AK will use to gain reelection next year? Many
Turks think so and are angry at Israel for, in their eyes, helping the
survival of the regime they hate.
But for the AK government to succeed in gaining a political advantage,
it's going to have to create several more crises to keep nationalist
fervor stoked.
Unnoticed in the hoopla and hysteria surrounding this incident was the
Turkish government's insulting treatment of the United States, as an
errant schoolboy to be bullied and punished. President Barack Obama
seems to have swallowed this meekly. Davutoglu said, "We expect the
United States to show solidarity with us....I am not very happy with
the statements from the United States yesterday."
Quickly, U.S statements came into line. One might ask why the United
States should show solidarity with a regime that organized a massive
and aggressive operation on behalf of Hamas and had just stabbed it in
the back by cooking up a deal with Iran to sabotage sanctions against
Israel, an ally which had supported U.S. policies and made several
tough concessions at Obama's request.
Yet such is what has become normal in these times and under this U.S.
government. The message has thus been sent: The Turkish government can
do anything it wants and its American counterpart won't even squeak in
protest. Indeed, in his interview with Larry King, Obama went out of
his way--in a situation where it was totally unnecessary--to praise
Turkey and urge that it play a central role!
He said: "I think Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole
process once we've worked through this tragedy. And bring everybody
together to figure out how can we get a two-state solution where the
Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side in peace and
security." Presumably, the second sentence was meant to say that the
United States would "bring everybody together" but it could be read as
if he were referring to Turkey.
Ironically, Turkey's own behavior--which no other government or even
news media seems to be mentioning--runs rather counter to its
protestations. Since 1993, Turkey has blockaded Armenia in support of
Azerbaijan. One wonders how it would respond to a humanitarian convoy
trying to cross the border and attacking Turkish soldiers. It has
repeatedly sent soldiers into Iraq to attack Kurdish rebels, too, even
as the incident at sea unfolded. And the regime's human rights' record
has many spots on it.
Any idea of saving Israel-Turkey warm relations is an illusion as long
as the AK party remains in power in Turkey. Any thought that Turkey
can be an acceptable mediator for Israel, a country the regime
loathes, with the Palestinians or Syria is ridiculous.
As long as the AK party remains in power this is only the beginning of
its unfolding friction with the West. For one thing, the regime will
demand that Israel be found guilty, that the United States support
this verdict, and that Israel pay compensation. If not, Erdogan will
go into more fits of outrage and tens of thousands of angry
demonstrators will be unleashed into Turkey's streets.
This internal battle, however, is far from over. Turkey remains enough
of a democratic state that the voters can either throw out that party
or so reduce its votes as to force it into a coalition where its power
would be reduced and policy moderated. A good scare at the polls could
also force the AK regime to resume the moderate mask, pulling back on
foreign policy while continuing its effort to transform Turkey.
One of these options is the best hope for Turkey at present. For as
bad as things seem, if a different party took leadership in Ankara,
while the old days of a warm Turkish-Israel relationship could not
return so easily, a more normal situation would prevail. In other
words, Turkey's defection is not necessarily permanent if the AK party
does not remain in power for a long time.
The question now becomes: how much will this Turkish government
sabotage U.S. interests before U.S.-Turkish relations go the same way?
The defection of Turkey to the other side is the biggest strategic
shift in the Middle East and loss for the democratic West since the
Iranian revolution three decades ago. Pretending that this isn't
happening will make no difference in reality.
A note to Turkish readers: I can hear some of you saying: You are
blaming Turkey for the breakdown of relations, what about Israel's
responsibility? First, I'm not blaming Turkey but the current
government. A lot of you know that's basically true. Indeed, many of
you have told me that you are really angry at Israel because you feel
the situation has been successfully exploited by the regime to further
its ends, which are very bad for the Turkish people and democracy.
Second, I'm glad to debate over the Gaza flotilla issue with you (and
have been corresponding with many Turkish friends on this issue) but
before this latest event Israel has done nothing that anyone can claim
has damaged Turkey or is against Turkish interests and yet the
relations were already terrible.
Think also of what this is doing to your country. When martyrdom is
celebrated as public funerals; when individual Turks can decide to
take over the country's international policy by choosing to attack the
soldiers of another country; when Jihad replaces "peace at home, peace
in the world," is this not taking Turkey down the path that Arabs have
followed for sixty years?
Will this approach bring to Turkey the dubious benefits of such
"heroism" that have fallen upon Lebanon and Iraq: fanaticism,
instability, intolerance, dictatorship, endless bloodshed, long-term
conflict with the West; social stagnation, and financial ruin? This is
precisely the kind of thing that Ataturk sought to ensure never came
to Turkey.
May this dreadful prophecy never come to be!
http://www.weeklyblitz.net/793/turkish-regime-changes-sides
From: A. Papazian
VOLUME - 5, ISSUE - 24, DHAKA, JUNE 09, 2010
June 11 2010
Turkish regime changes sides
by Barry Rubin
June 11, 2010
This article is based on one commissioned and published by
PajamasMedia. I have added additional material to this more extensive
version. Turkish readers: see a special note to you at the end.
Why have Israel-Turkey relations gone from alliance to what seems to
be the verge of war?
The foolish think that the breakdown is due to the recent Gaza
flotilla crisis. The merely naive attribute the collapse to the
December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip.
Such conclusions are totally misleading. It was already clear-and in
private every Israeli expert dealing seriously with Turkey said
so-well over two years ago. For example, the Justice and Development
(AK) party government did not permit a single new military contract
with Israel since it took office. The special relationship was over.
And the cause was the election in Turkey of an Islamist government.
After all, Turkey needed Israel as an ally when a secular government
in Ankara regarded Iran, Syria, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the main
threats. Once there was a government which regarded Iran and Syria as
its closest allies, Israel became a perceived enemy.
When the Turkish armed forces were an important part of the regime,
they promoted the alliance because they saw Israel as a good source
for military equipment and an ally against Islamists and radical Arab
regimes. But once the army was to be suppressed by those who hated it
because of the military's secularism and feared it as the guardian of
the republican system it sought to dismantle, the generals' wishes
were a matter of no concern and depriving them of foreign allies was a
priority of the AK party government.
And when Turkey thought it needed Israel as a way to maintain good
relations with the United States, the alliance was also valuable. But
once it was clear that U.S. policy would accept the AK and was none
too fond of Israel, that reason for the alliance also dissolved. Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced, "It's Israel that is the
principal threat to regional peace." Not Iran, Israel.
At first, this outcome was not so obvious. The AK Party won its first
election by only a narrow margin. To keep the United States and EU
happy, to keep the Turkish army happy, and to cover up its Islamist
sympathies, the new regime was cautious over relations with Israel.
Keeping them going served as "proof" of Turkey's moderation.
Yet as the AK majorities in election rose, the government became more
confident. No longer did it stress that it was just a center-right
party with family values. The regime steadily weakened the army, using
EU demands for civilian power. As it repressed opposition and arrested
hundreds of critics, bought up 40 percent of the media, and installed
its people in the bureaucracy, the AK's arrogance, and thus its
willingness to go further and throw off its mask, grew steadily.
And then, on top of that, the regime saw that the United States would
not criticize it, not press it, not even notice what the Turkish
government was doing. President Barack Obama came to Turkey and
praised the regime as a model of moderate Muslim democracy. Former
President Bill Clinton appeared in Istanbul and, in response to
questions asked by an AK party supporter, was manipulated into
virtually endorsing the regime's program without realizing it.
Earlier this year, the situation became even more absurd as Turkey
moved ever closer to becoming the third state to join the Iran-Syria
bloc. Syria's state-controlled newspaper and Iranian President
Ahmadinejad openly referred to Turkey's membership in their alliance.
And no one in Washington even noticed what was happening. Even when,
in May, Turkish policy stabbed the United States in the back by
helping Iran launch a sanctions-avoiding plan, the Obama
Administration barely stirred in its sleep.
Then there is the theatrical demagoguery of Erdogan himself who threw
a choreographed fit at the Davos conference because Israel's President
Shimon Peres, the mildest and most dovish of men, "offended" him. He
returned home to an excited demonstration.
Bashing Israel to gain popularity and stir nationalist and religious
passions is not the oldest of such tricks. It is merely a variation of
doing the same historically to Jews in general. And yes it still
works. Boy, does it work!
Then there's Turkey's new foreign minister. Ahmed Davudoglu. It's a
pity that his writings in Turkish haven't been translated because when
he writes in English Davudoglu says Turkey wants to be everyone's
friend, but in the Turkish version he makes clear that his goal is to
be friends with those who hate the West. Davudoglu's appointment
completes the AK party's conquest of the Foreign Ministry, another
institution that hates Islamism.
And so with electoral victories; advancing control over Turkey's
bureaucracy, military and society; and Western complaisance, the
regime has become continually bolder.
A few weeks ago, the Turkish prime minister said that Iran isn't
developing nuclear weapons, that he regards President Ahmadinejad as a
friend, and that even if Iran were building nuclear bombs it has a
right to do so. And still no one in Washington noticed. Turkey was not
only what the Obama Administration wanted in a Muslim-majority
country, it was also one of the "responsible powers," to quote the
administration's national security strategy document, that the White
House saw as necessary attendants to shore up a weak America at the
Home for Aging Senile Superpowers.
The current Turkish government hates Israel because it is an Islamist
regime. Note who its friends are: it cares nothing for the Lebanese
people, it only backs Hizballah. It never has a kind word for the
Palestinian Authority or Fatah, the Turkish government's friend is
Hamas.
Lately for the first time, however, the AK government began to run
into domestic problems. The poor status of the economy, the growing
discontent of many Turks with creeping Islamism in the society, and
finally the election for the first time of a popular leader for the
opposition party, began to give hope that next year's elections might
bring down the regime. Indeed, polls showed the AK sinking into or
very close to second place. With the army neutered, elections are the
only hope of getting Turkey off the road to Islamist .
Now, however, the corpses of those killed after they or their
colleagues attacked Israeli soldiers will probably guarantee AK's
victory. As one Turkish columnist put it, the AK, "will sail on this
wind into a third term in power."
This is a prize well worth sacrificing Israeli trade and tourism. And
the action is all the more attractive since Turkey in doing so will
not have to sacrifice any Western and particularly U.S. support. By
making this behavior so cheap, the U.S. government has made it
inevitable.
But even that is not all. On September 12, Turkey will come to a
crossroads when a referendum will be held over constitutional
amendments introduced by the government. If passed, these changes will
give the government control over the court system, virtually the only
remaining institution it hasn't taken over. As one Turkish analyst
wrote, "This would be the end of checks [and balances] and democracy."
In light of national solidarity and outrage over the Gaza incident,
how can the government not win?
A Turkish colleague gave a good guideline for dealing with the Turkish
government's defection to the other side and march toward Islamism
some time ago, an analogy most ironic given the nautical nature of the
Gaza flotilla issue. It was very important, he explained, that the
Turkish people not become the enemy for the West and Israel. They
were, he continued, merely the passengers. The regime-the captain and
the crew-was the problem.
Even within the AK party there were more moderate elements, mostly
those who joined from non-Islamist center-right parties. When I hosted
the Turkey-Israel parliamentary friendship committee, these were the
people most eager for good relations, because they saw this alliance
as a check on the more extremist forces in their own party.
But then the Gaza flotilla sailed in. Many Turks who support
opposition parties see this as close to a conspiracy, and one can
hardly blame them for doing so. A radical Islamist group close to the
government organized this whole affair which, while nominally
independent, enjoyed the Turkish government's patronage. This flotilla
was a semi-official operation by the AK-ruled state apparatus.
This campaign set up the intensification of the regime's manipulation
of the two powerful symbols in Turkey that motivate people:
nationalism and Islam. This is an anti-nationalist government,
dismantling the traditional traditions of Atatirk's republic. But it
has managed to wrap itself in the Turkish flag. Thus, the less than 30
percent who support the AK and would back an attempt to help Hamas has
been turned into 100 percent by turning this from an Islamist into a
nationalist issue.
A national hysteria has been whipped up. In huge demonstrations,
Palestinian flags were waved and slogans should like: "Stop military
collaboration with the Israeli army," "Kill all the Israelis," "Allah
akbar," "Death to the Jews," and "Attack Israel."
This has taken on dangerous proportions. For example, an article in
the Islamist newspaper Zaman claims that Israel "ordered" the Kurdish
PKK to attack a Turkish naval base. This is a blood libel. The PKK
declared it would renew attacks long before the Gaza incident and the
Israeli government went out of its way to declare the PKK a terrorist
group years ago in order to support Turkey! Given such behavior, all
Israeli tourism to Turkey is likely to end for a long time given the
danger and the government might not be able to stop terror attacks on
Jewish and Israeli targets in Turkey even if it wants to do so.
Even the opposition parties, persuaded or intimidated by nationalist
fervor, shouted their outrage, with a unanimous vote in parliament
supporting the regime's stance. The Turkish media censored out almost
everything that challenged the narrative of peace-loving demonstrators
brutally attacked. Thus, Turks--largely locked into only there own
media due to language--don't have the basis to question what they are
being told.
I do not mean to suggest here that Israel might not have made tactical
mistakes or that the Turks don't have a reason to feel upset at the
death of nine of their nationals. But a different government in Turkey
would express anger and then try to resolve the matter calmly and
peacefully through some kind of compromise. Past, non-AK party
governments have at times been harsh in criticizing Israel but they
also had a strong incentive to resolve the crisis. This government
finds the crisis useful.
The AK government had three demands: all Turks be released
immediately, something Israel had already announced would happen but
the regime pretended only came about due to its tough stance; there
should be an international investigation; and Israel must pay
compensation. Turkey's top leaders spoke of Israel as committing
"piracy" and "terrorism," the latter term one never applies to Hamas
or Hizballah.
Indeed, Erdogan said something very revealing of his true intentions.
Turkey, he said, chose to side with law, peace, justice, Palestine and
the Gaza Strip. In other words, this is a political alliance,
theoretically with the Palestinians but actually only with his fellow
Hamas Islamists.
Incidentally, I think there is one hidden price Turkey will pay for
this strategy. Although its chances of getting into the EU were
already quite low, a view of Turkey as extremist will put the last
nail into the coffin of its candidacy succeeding. Even if European
states don't like Israel, a display of Islamic fervor in Turkey will
not make them feel good.
Another is the increased antagonism in the United States which, up
until now, has treated the regime uncritically. In a remarkable
editorial, the Washington Post blames Erdogan. It is a signal of a
significant potential rift in U.S.-Turkey relations.
Is this demagogic mobilization of nationalist and religious passions
the magic weapon the AK will use to gain reelection next year? Many
Turks think so and are angry at Israel for, in their eyes, helping the
survival of the regime they hate.
But for the AK government to succeed in gaining a political advantage,
it's going to have to create several more crises to keep nationalist
fervor stoked.
Unnoticed in the hoopla and hysteria surrounding this incident was the
Turkish government's insulting treatment of the United States, as an
errant schoolboy to be bullied and punished. President Barack Obama
seems to have swallowed this meekly. Davutoglu said, "We expect the
United States to show solidarity with us....I am not very happy with
the statements from the United States yesterday."
Quickly, U.S statements came into line. One might ask why the United
States should show solidarity with a regime that organized a massive
and aggressive operation on behalf of Hamas and had just stabbed it in
the back by cooking up a deal with Iran to sabotage sanctions against
Israel, an ally which had supported U.S. policies and made several
tough concessions at Obama's request.
Yet such is what has become normal in these times and under this U.S.
government. The message has thus been sent: The Turkish government can
do anything it wants and its American counterpart won't even squeak in
protest. Indeed, in his interview with Larry King, Obama went out of
his way--in a situation where it was totally unnecessary--to praise
Turkey and urge that it play a central role!
He said: "I think Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole
process once we've worked through this tragedy. And bring everybody
together to figure out how can we get a two-state solution where the
Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side in peace and
security." Presumably, the second sentence was meant to say that the
United States would "bring everybody together" but it could be read as
if he were referring to Turkey.
Ironically, Turkey's own behavior--which no other government or even
news media seems to be mentioning--runs rather counter to its
protestations. Since 1993, Turkey has blockaded Armenia in support of
Azerbaijan. One wonders how it would respond to a humanitarian convoy
trying to cross the border and attacking Turkish soldiers. It has
repeatedly sent soldiers into Iraq to attack Kurdish rebels, too, even
as the incident at sea unfolded. And the regime's human rights' record
has many spots on it.
Any idea of saving Israel-Turkey warm relations is an illusion as long
as the AK party remains in power in Turkey. Any thought that Turkey
can be an acceptable mediator for Israel, a country the regime
loathes, with the Palestinians or Syria is ridiculous.
As long as the AK party remains in power this is only the beginning of
its unfolding friction with the West. For one thing, the regime will
demand that Israel be found guilty, that the United States support
this verdict, and that Israel pay compensation. If not, Erdogan will
go into more fits of outrage and tens of thousands of angry
demonstrators will be unleashed into Turkey's streets.
This internal battle, however, is far from over. Turkey remains enough
of a democratic state that the voters can either throw out that party
or so reduce its votes as to force it into a coalition where its power
would be reduced and policy moderated. A good scare at the polls could
also force the AK regime to resume the moderate mask, pulling back on
foreign policy while continuing its effort to transform Turkey.
One of these options is the best hope for Turkey at present. For as
bad as things seem, if a different party took leadership in Ankara,
while the old days of a warm Turkish-Israel relationship could not
return so easily, a more normal situation would prevail. In other
words, Turkey's defection is not necessarily permanent if the AK party
does not remain in power for a long time.
The question now becomes: how much will this Turkish government
sabotage U.S. interests before U.S.-Turkish relations go the same way?
The defection of Turkey to the other side is the biggest strategic
shift in the Middle East and loss for the democratic West since the
Iranian revolution three decades ago. Pretending that this isn't
happening will make no difference in reality.
A note to Turkish readers: I can hear some of you saying: You are
blaming Turkey for the breakdown of relations, what about Israel's
responsibility? First, I'm not blaming Turkey but the current
government. A lot of you know that's basically true. Indeed, many of
you have told me that you are really angry at Israel because you feel
the situation has been successfully exploited by the regime to further
its ends, which are very bad for the Turkish people and democracy.
Second, I'm glad to debate over the Gaza flotilla issue with you (and
have been corresponding with many Turkish friends on this issue) but
before this latest event Israel has done nothing that anyone can claim
has damaged Turkey or is against Turkish interests and yet the
relations were already terrible.
Think also of what this is doing to your country. When martyrdom is
celebrated as public funerals; when individual Turks can decide to
take over the country's international policy by choosing to attack the
soldiers of another country; when Jihad replaces "peace at home, peace
in the world," is this not taking Turkey down the path that Arabs have
followed for sixty years?
Will this approach bring to Turkey the dubious benefits of such
"heroism" that have fallen upon Lebanon and Iraq: fanaticism,
instability, intolerance, dictatorship, endless bloodshed, long-term
conflict with the West; social stagnation, and financial ruin? This is
precisely the kind of thing that Ataturk sought to ensure never came
to Turkey.
May this dreadful prophecy never come to be!
http://www.weeklyblitz.net/793/turkish-regime-changes-sides
From: A. Papazian