Tweet
TURKEY EXPANDS INFLUENCE IN MIDDLE EAST
The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/turkey-expands-influence-in-middle-east/story-e6frg6zo-1225881040129
June 18 2010
ON June 9, Turkey voted against increased sanctions on Iran in the
UN Security Council. This action confirmed the fears of many Western
pundits, already inflamed by harsh denunciations of the Israeli attack
on the Gaza flotilla, that the only Muslim-majority member of NATO
had defected to the enemy camp - militant Islamism.
In fact, the changes in Turkey's foreign policy over the past few years
owe nothing to "clash of civilisation" dynamics and instead reflect the
governing AK Party's pragmatic pursuit of Turkey's national interests.
Turkey's new activism startles some observers because it marks
a dramatic change from decades of an inward-looking orientation
encapsulated in founder Kemal Ataturk's phrase "peace in the world,
peace at home". After expelling Greek invaders backed by Europe's
great powers following World War I, Turkey avoided entanglements
in the neighbouring states that the Ottoman sultan in Istanbul had
ruled for centuries. Finding itself on the front line of the Cold War,
Turkey fought in Korea and joined NATO. For decades, Turkey followed
the US's lead in the Middle East.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Since the first Gulf War in 1991, US handling of affairs in the Middle
East has hurt Turkey's interests. With sanctions against Iraq, in a
stroke it lost its second-biggest trading partner and 500,000 Kurdish
refugees streamed into Turkey. In 2003, the parliament defied the
AKP leadership and voted against allowing the US to invade Iraq from
Turkish territory.
On Istanbul's Independence Boulevard at the time, Turks were delighted
by their parliament's unwonted assertion of sovereignty. These
revellers were not Islamists, but patriots.
Such people had grown tired of watching their leaders go along with
whatever policies emerged from the shifting governments in Washington,
Europe and Israel, and now applaud Ankara's new assertiveness. The
AKP government has used requirements attached to its EU candidacy
to achieve further-reaching reforms, including women's rights and
cultural rights for Kurds, than any government in Turkey's history.
But Greek-Cypriot rejection of a UN-drafted peace agreement has
crippled Turkey's EU accession hopes, while Swedish and American
resolutions on the Armenian genocide have complicated implementation
of an agreement to normalise relations with Armenia. These moves,
along with other rebuffs, have reminded Turks that they cannot afford
to put all their eggs in the European basket.
Ahmet Davutoglu, now Foreign Minister, once explained to me the roots
of the AKP's current activism. Turkey, he said, couldn't very well
justify leaving management of affairs in the region to Western powers
when it was clear that those powers weren't doing a very good job
of it. Hard to argue with that. Turkey's vote, along with Brazil's,
against sanctions on Iran, was based on Ankara's not wanting to find
itself on the front line of a new cold war and its recognition that
US-led efforts to isolate Iran had delivered no progress.
A recent report by the International Crisis Group quotes a senior
Turkish official: "Our approach is very simple. We want stability. We
suffered most. We were importing lots of security problems from the
Middle East, arms, terrorist training. We have decided that we cannot
remain indifferent."
Turkey's new activism has already paid enormous dividends. After
years of tensions with Syria and Iraq, relations with both are now
flourishing commercially and politically. Turkey's economy is the
17th biggest in the world.
Having good relations with Syria and Iraq opens up markets with 50
million consumers. Improvements with Syria date back to 1998, years
before the AKP came to power, when the military lost patience with
Damascus providing refuge to PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan.
Despite the PKK launching attacks from the Kurdish region of northern
Iraq, relations between Ankara and the regional government have
continued to flourish.
Turkey brokered five rounds of indirect talks between Israel and
Syria, which succeeded in drawing Damascus out of isolation. The
process broke down due to Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2008.
On Iran, Turkey is pursuing a policy of continuous engagement. Turks
have more regular access to the Iranian leadership than any other
diplomats, which helps prevent Tehran from feeling cornered. Last year,
Davutoglu tried to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
Turkish criticism of Israeli policy is nothing new; while in terms of
trade, tourist arrivals and diplomatic contact, 2008 - under the AKP
government - marked the high point of Turkish-Israeli relations. Many
Turks who protested against the attack on the flotilla off Gaza were
renowned secularists and critics of the government.
Turkey's Western allies benefit from its increased engagement in the
Middle East. For its part, Turkey's stature in the region depends as
much on its links to the West as to its size and prosperity. While
not all its initiatives are equally successful, Turkey's interests
have been advanced by its new activism.
Given Australia's own geopolitical position, we should be the last
people to see diplomatic activity through a narrowing East-West lens.
As with Australia, Turkish diplomacy is driven by its need to protect
its own security and economic interests in a big, fickle world.
Whit Mason is director of the Justice in Peacebuilding and Development
project at the University of NSW's Centre for Interdisciplinary
Studies of Law
From: A. Papazian
The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/turkey-expands-influence-in-middle-east/story-e6frg6zo-1225881040129
June 18 2010
ON June 9, Turkey voted against increased sanctions on Iran in the
UN Security Council. This action confirmed the fears of many Western
pundits, already inflamed by harsh denunciations of the Israeli attack
on the Gaza flotilla, that the only Muslim-majority member of NATO
had defected to the enemy camp - militant Islamism.
In fact, the changes in Turkey's foreign policy over the past few years
owe nothing to "clash of civilisation" dynamics and instead reflect the
governing AK Party's pragmatic pursuit of Turkey's national interests.
Turkey's new activism startles some observers because it marks
a dramatic change from decades of an inward-looking orientation
encapsulated in founder Kemal Ataturk's phrase "peace in the world,
peace at home". After expelling Greek invaders backed by Europe's
great powers following World War I, Turkey avoided entanglements
in the neighbouring states that the Ottoman sultan in Istanbul had
ruled for centuries. Finding itself on the front line of the Cold War,
Turkey fought in Korea and joined NATO. For decades, Turkey followed
the US's lead in the Middle East.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Since the first Gulf War in 1991, US handling of affairs in the Middle
East has hurt Turkey's interests. With sanctions against Iraq, in a
stroke it lost its second-biggest trading partner and 500,000 Kurdish
refugees streamed into Turkey. In 2003, the parliament defied the
AKP leadership and voted against allowing the US to invade Iraq from
Turkish territory.
On Istanbul's Independence Boulevard at the time, Turks were delighted
by their parliament's unwonted assertion of sovereignty. These
revellers were not Islamists, but patriots.
Such people had grown tired of watching their leaders go along with
whatever policies emerged from the shifting governments in Washington,
Europe and Israel, and now applaud Ankara's new assertiveness. The
AKP government has used requirements attached to its EU candidacy
to achieve further-reaching reforms, including women's rights and
cultural rights for Kurds, than any government in Turkey's history.
But Greek-Cypriot rejection of a UN-drafted peace agreement has
crippled Turkey's EU accession hopes, while Swedish and American
resolutions on the Armenian genocide have complicated implementation
of an agreement to normalise relations with Armenia. These moves,
along with other rebuffs, have reminded Turks that they cannot afford
to put all their eggs in the European basket.
Ahmet Davutoglu, now Foreign Minister, once explained to me the roots
of the AKP's current activism. Turkey, he said, couldn't very well
justify leaving management of affairs in the region to Western powers
when it was clear that those powers weren't doing a very good job
of it. Hard to argue with that. Turkey's vote, along with Brazil's,
against sanctions on Iran, was based on Ankara's not wanting to find
itself on the front line of a new cold war and its recognition that
US-led efforts to isolate Iran had delivered no progress.
A recent report by the International Crisis Group quotes a senior
Turkish official: "Our approach is very simple. We want stability. We
suffered most. We were importing lots of security problems from the
Middle East, arms, terrorist training. We have decided that we cannot
remain indifferent."
Turkey's new activism has already paid enormous dividends. After
years of tensions with Syria and Iraq, relations with both are now
flourishing commercially and politically. Turkey's economy is the
17th biggest in the world.
Having good relations with Syria and Iraq opens up markets with 50
million consumers. Improvements with Syria date back to 1998, years
before the AKP came to power, when the military lost patience with
Damascus providing refuge to PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan.
Despite the PKK launching attacks from the Kurdish region of northern
Iraq, relations between Ankara and the regional government have
continued to flourish.
Turkey brokered five rounds of indirect talks between Israel and
Syria, which succeeded in drawing Damascus out of isolation. The
process broke down due to Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2008.
On Iran, Turkey is pursuing a policy of continuous engagement. Turks
have more regular access to the Iranian leadership than any other
diplomats, which helps prevent Tehran from feeling cornered. Last year,
Davutoglu tried to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
Turkish criticism of Israeli policy is nothing new; while in terms of
trade, tourist arrivals and diplomatic contact, 2008 - under the AKP
government - marked the high point of Turkish-Israeli relations. Many
Turks who protested against the attack on the flotilla off Gaza were
renowned secularists and critics of the government.
Turkey's Western allies benefit from its increased engagement in the
Middle East. For its part, Turkey's stature in the region depends as
much on its links to the West as to its size and prosperity. While
not all its initiatives are equally successful, Turkey's interests
have been advanced by its new activism.
Given Australia's own geopolitical position, we should be the last
people to see diplomatic activity through a narrowing East-West lens.
As with Australia, Turkish diplomacy is driven by its need to protect
its own security and economic interests in a big, fickle world.
Whit Mason is director of the Justice in Peacebuilding and Development
project at the University of NSW's Centre for Interdisciplinary
Studies of Law
From: A. Papazian