Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISTANBUL: Syria and Turkish foreign policy

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

  • ISTANBUL: Syria and Turkish foreign policy

    Today's Zaman, Turkey
    June 29 2012

    Syria and Turkish foreign policy

    �°HSAN YILMAZ


    Despite what the staunch Justice and Development Party (AKP) enemies
    have been arguing, there was nothing wrong with the
    zero-problems-with-neighbors approach. This was an idealist aim,
    worthy of trying to attain. Moreover, it is not mainly Turkey's fault
    that this approach is now not practical. Saying this does not mean
    that Turkish policymakers must be immune to criticism and have been
    working immaculately. Starting with the Syrian issue, let us evaluate
    what went wrong.


    Thanks to its economic success, increasing democratization and ability
    to accommodate a formerly Islamist group to run the country, Turkey
    has been a shining star in the Middle East. Turkish foreign
    policymakers were good at leading Turkey's soft power that not only
    includes its economic and political success but also its growing civil
    society, cultural achievements and gradually increasing intellectual
    advances. Only time will tell if they are also good at leading the
    country in a difficult time of turmoil, but the first signs suggest
    they are clumsy and very inexperienced when it comes to hard power and
    smart power issues.

    In the Libyan revolt, Turkey did not know what to do and initially did
    not side with the opposition to Muammar Gaddafi's rule. Our
    politicians explained that Turkey had $25 billion in investments and
    25,000 Turkish workers in Libya, so it was not easy to side with the
    opposition.

    This strong and very confident rhetoric that sometimes amounted to
    lecturing peer policymakers has been one of the problematic aspects of
    our foreign policy. I have heard many international colleagues and
    politicians joke about it and I cannot blame them.

    Even though, initially, we did not support the opposition in Libya and
    strongly opposed a NATO intervention, after this intervention and
    after seeing that Gaddafi was going down, we started to support the
    opposition. This is understandable as long as we honestly face the
    fact that Turkey, like any other nation-state, places its own
    interests over other considerations. The impact of the Libyan
    experience was costly for Turkey vis-Ã?-vis the Syrian crisis. This
    time, Turkey apparently did not want to repeat the same mistake that
    it made in Libya in Syria and from almost the beginning sided with the
    opposition and started putting pressure on the Bashar al-Assad regime.

    Nevertheless, this time we overdid it at the other extreme --
    especially the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip ErdoÃ?Â?an, who
    became more aggressive every time he talked about the Syrian issue. We
    had not made careful calculations of our capabilities, our allies'
    probable positions and action plans on the Syrian crisis, the
    possibility of being bogged down by a proxy war in Syria with Iran and
    Russia, supported by China and India, and the Kurdistan Workers' Party
    (PKK)/Kurdish problem. Our prime minister even shockingly said that
    the Syrian crisis was our internal affair. Turkey was implying that
    resorting to hard power was on the table, too. Then, to the public's
    surprise, Turkey's harsh rhetoric -- amounting to threatening the
    Assad regime -- abruptly stopped. There could be a few explanations
    for this, but I think the major one was the Russian message to Turkey
    and its allies. Russia sent a warship to its one and only base on the
    Mediterranean Sea and gave a very clear message to Turkey. I think
    this was actually the real test case for Turkey's capability of hard
    power, not the downed jet.

    When it comes to soft power, Turkey is also in an unfortunate
    position. Even though the Turkish army has been positioning its tanks,
    etc. alongside the Syrian border, it is very highly probable that it
    is a ploy for the benefit of domestic observers. Syria will not attack
    Turkey. Our politicians are quite justifiably trying to save face
    without clashing with Syria. Syria does not have much to lose. Its
    economy is already in tatters and it does not have any soft power at
    all. It is Turkey that needs millions of Western tourists, direct
    foreign investment, a status of credible peace-broker, people spending
    confidently and a country that aims for zero problems with its
    neighbors. It is obvious that Turkey now needs creative solutions. It
    seems that only a NATO intervention invited by the Arab League could
    save Turkey's face and help the opposition. But even this does not
    promise a bright future for Turkey. A NATO intervention could pave the
    way for Syria's partition, which means there will be another Kurdish
    at least de facto state along our longest southern border.

    All in all, overconfidence and ambitious rhetoric that alarmed our
    adversaries unnecessarily and caused concern among our friends in the
    Middle East, the Balkans and Caucasus; not being able to walk our
    talk, as was the case with Armenia and our Iran and Israel policies
    vis-Ã?-vis the Malatya missile shield issue; and the lack of
    calculating our capabilities are some of the reasons why Turkey's
    foreign policy is now in trouble.

    Instead of getting upset with people who constructively criticize
    them, our politicians, their bureaucrats and advisors should follow
    God's order to engage in consultation. Free debate in the public
    sphere is part of this process of consultation in democracies. God
    will reward humility and consultation.

Working...
X