Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BEIRUT: Turks may look back with anger at Israel

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

  • BEIRUT: Turks may look back with anger at Israel

    Turks may look back with anger at Israel
    By Bulent Aras, Commentary by

    The Daily Star
    Friday, May 06, 2005

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's visit to Israel earlier
    this week had more symbolic than practical meaning for the future of
    Turkish foreign policy. After all, the Turkish-Israeli relationship
    has its limits, and the expectations that came out of the military
    rapprochement of the late-1990s have not been met and were subsequently
    followed by a cooling of relations.

    One reason for this was that the Turkish-Israeli-American axis was
    an extension of the national security apparatuses in both Israel and
    Turkey and did not necessarily serve Ankara's interests as it embarked
    on a reform process to achieve democratization, improve human rights
    and freedoms and establish the rule of law. Turkey's putting its
    house in order gave it self-confidence in its regional policies, and
    its diplomacy sought to minimize problems with neighboring states. It
    also aimed to become a peace promoter and altered its policies toward
    a number of problems in the Middle East.

    Will this new foreign policy approach last? Where do Turkish-Israeli
    relations, and indeed Turkish regional policy, stand in its shadow?
    In the recent past, Erdogan was openly critical of the policies of
    the Sharon government in the West Bank and Gaza. At the same time,
    Turkey did not join the U.S-led coalition in Iraq, even as it has
    exerted enormous effort to mobilize regional support for a stable
    Iraqi state, with Turkish policymakers on a regular basis bringing
    together the countries bordering Iraq to address the situation there.

    On the other side, Syria and Iran have looked positively on Turkey's
    accession process to the European Union, and believe a European Turkey
    will offer them a chance to develop their own relations with the EU.

    These examples underline that Turkey's new orientation prioritizes
    the notion of democratic legitimacy in its foreign relations and
    supports multilateralism and the critical role played by the United
    Nations in world politics. However, two developments have generated
    suspicion among observers about the durability of this new approach:
    first, Turkey has not been as active as expected in pushing Syria to
    fulfill the demands of the international community, in particular,
    initially, its withdrawal from Lebanon. Second, Turkish-Israeli
    relations seem to be returning to what they were, shaped by the
    premises of power politics.

    During a visit to Israel in January, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah
    Gul indicated that there had been serious talks on Turkey's playing
    a possible mediation role between Israel and the Palestinians,
    but also between Syria and Israel in the future. However, Erdogan
    toned down such ambitions during his visit to Israel and focused,
    more generally, on the necessity of peace and stability in the Middle
    East. In response, his counterpart, Ariel Sharon, praised Turkish
    efforts to promote regional peace.

    The friendly atmosphere was mostly due to the reality of bilateral
    political, economic and military relations. However, it also seems
    that Turkey has eased up in pushing Israel to be more sensitive to
    regional balances and to be more responsible and constructive with
    the Palestinians. The Turkish agenda it seems is now to use Israel
    as a gateway to the United States and against the pro-Greek and
    pro-Armenian lobbies there.

    Turkey must maintain a delicate balance between its new orientation and
    its old-style security-first regional policies. If Turkey is to be a
    multicultural and democratic state which prioritizes the rule of law,
    the new political elite should pay attention to international laws,
    norms and principles as well as the tendencies of its own society
    in foreign policy formulation. Most Turks are very sensitive to
    the Palestinian problem and would be unhappy if their government
    sided with Israel. They have no problem with pursuing legitimate
    relations with the Israelis and calling for peace between them and
    the Palestinians. What they would find much more problematic is that
    their policymakers tolerate Sharon's maneuvers, Israel's violence in
    the Occupied Territories and its ignoring the legitimate concerns of
    other actors in the region.

    Turkey's new foreign policy orientation opened new horizons in
    its relations with neighboring states and was closely linked to
    the transformation in the domestic Turkish landscape. Turkey saw
    considerable progress in its move toward EU membership and gained
    enough leverage to emerge as a civil-economic power in the Middle
    East. Relations with Syria and Israel, perhaps later with Iran,
    will be test cases for Turkey's emergence as an active peacemaker in
    the Middle East. It is the only country in the region that has some
    leverage over both Palestinians and Israelis.

    On the other hand, if Turkey revives the power politics approach
    toward regional affairs that was visible in the 1990s, and if this
    leads to its overlooking the Palestinians and the legitimate demands of
    Israel's other neighbors, most Turks will regard this as an unwelcome
    return to the past. There are other ways of improving relations with
    the U.S. The current Erdogan government is both a cause and a result
    of the recent transformation of Turkish society. Its hold on power
    is very much dependent on its ability to understanding this reality
    when it formulates both its domestic and foreign policies.


    Bulent Aras is associate professor of international relations at Fatih
    University in Istanbul. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
Working...
X