Nowadays, what is understood from “terror” or “global terror” in the US is the terror made by the Muslims or Islamic extremism. This perspective on the issue should thus be viewed as limited in the first place. The PKK terror or extreme leftist terror are neither considered nor fought enough against by the US and EU. The US even hopes to benefit from different kind of terrorism to fight against the ‘global terror’ as seen in the Iranian cases.[2]

Another problem with the American definition of the recent terrorist movements is that it broadens the targeted groups naming the terrorists as ‘Islamic’, ‘Islamist’, ‘Jihadist’ even ‘Muslim’. Thus the front of fighting becomes the entire Muslim world with its more than 1 billion people. Though moderate Muslims do not share the Al Qaeda’s ideology or methodology if you name them as ‘Islamic’, even the non-religious people in the Muslim world feel assault against themselves.

Third, there are some points about the terms of “terror” and “terrorist” that need to be clarified.  Nations who had to face terrorism have the tendency to define the terrorist as an evil power or incurable ill. By this definition, terror has no rational explanation and the only way to fight against it is annihilation of all terrorists. There is no such alternative as establishing communication with the terrorists. Every nation confronted by terrorism makes this mistake, which is in fact one of the significant causes of terror; ignorance of the problems, refusing the communication channels to listen to their demands and so on. States by ignoring the problems and neglecting some groups, cause greater tension and eventually terror. I do not mean that terrorism is a legitimate way to defend rights and to oppose to the governments. Nevertheless, we should note that governments have also great responsibilities in terrorism and in its growing. In this framework, the US is no exception. It has an important responsibility in emergence of the global terror and it still continues to make the same mistakes in the name of fighting against terror, which effectively deepens global terror.[3]

Terror is mostly perceived as an ‘armed challenge’ or ‘armed rebellion’ against the State. However, in fact, terrorism does not challenge by force, it is rather political-ideological than military. Terrorists cannot face security forces on equal base, because they are weak, and they know that they cannot destroy the security forces or the State. On the contrary, terrorism’s challenge is political and ideological, and they know that they can destroy the idea of legitimate state on the mind and hearts of the ordinary people.  The main aim of the terrorist’s attacks is not give economical or military damages, but political one. S/He assaults whenever s/he wants and generally to get political results. For instance, the direct aim of the 9/11 attacks was to destroy the US’ economic and military power. These kind of terrorist attacks are just the tools to manipulate the masses and encourage the US to make fatal mistakes. Terrorists are wise enough to know that the US is not going to become extinct by tearing down two buildings. They know so well that it is only the American mistakes that can destroy the US. Terrorists tried to force the US to react in a way they preferred. Their aim was to create a polarization between the US and the Muslim world, not to destroy the US’ economic or military power. That’s why most of the targets in the 9/11 were symbolic. Yet, states view terrorist attacks from a different perspective and choose to define them as military rebellions instead of understanding the ideological messages of terrorists and the states begin campaigns to destroy the terrorists, instead of terror. That is exactly the will and expectation of the terrorist. After the first attack, the terrorist wants the state to engage in military action. That is how the persecution starts. Terrorist attacks annoy the police, soldiers, intelligence officers and the Government. The great pressure from the media and the people create intense terror on the decision makers and implementing agencies. Thus the only focus of combating terrorism becomes to take revenge from the terrorists. The terrorists determine the place to fight and succeed in making the state forces follow them. Armed state forces on the other hand, destroy these places like an elephant in a china store chasing a mosquito. Every attack against terrorists has in fact an impact on society as a whole. The more the fight against terrorism is deepened, the more disadvantageous the situation becomes for society. Increasing numbers of killed terrorists do in fact - in contrast to the state’s expectations - only lead to further mass terror. By doing so, the state loses its real power against the terrorists: legitimacy. As much as the State forces liken to the terrorists, it would become difficult to distinguish the differences between legitimate State forces and the terrorist forces. Terrorist wants state to attack himself/herself after the first strike. And the chase begins. Terrorist takes the State wherever s/he wants and then hits and runs. While trying to destroy the terrorist in the places that s/he hides, security forces begin to give damage to these places. This is something like an elephant to try to catch a mosquito in a glassware store. Any massive strike against terrorist in fact goes directly to some part of the society and prepares a favorable environment for the terrorist at the end. While the victims are limited in numbers in the beginning of terror, this number begins to get bigger and bigger like a snowball. Terrorist hides among these victims. In this process, if the State cannot control its nerves and increases its strikes, the terror does not come to an end; only the number of death increases and terror becomes a mass problem. If this problem continues for decades, terror transforms into chronic terror and creates its own industry on both sides.

After 9/11, it seems that the US did not want to get involved to this “Chasing Game”. In the beginning, the “pre-emptive” approach of Bush Administration was just like an answer to the classical approaches in combating terrorism.

Terror was supposed to be annihilated in its origin, namely Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover, controlling these countries, the US would have enabled the control of the homeland of terror –Islamic Terror-; the whole (greater) Middle East. As claimed by American politicians; the combat would be made in Baghdad instead of the streets of New York. It would look like a genius plan on the paper. But this is not so different from the other classical ways of fight against terror in its essences, in fact, it contains even bigger mistakes. In the classical way the state attacks to the places where terrorist draws the state through and as a result of these attacks the masses of victims of combat against terrorism increases. In Bush’s pre-emptive plan, before terrorists takes the State to the places where they desire, the State exactly goes there and causes crucial damages and makes what exactly the terrorist wants from it. So, Bush’s pre-emptive plan actually fulfils the wishes of the terrorists too.

The problem is the very same both in Bush’s approach and the classical approach. Both of them perceive the terror as an armed challenge. The second common problem is that both approaches take the geography as the main reference for combating terrorism. As a matter of fact that the main battle field against terror should be the minds and hearts of peoples not the caves or the mountains. It is not possible for a state to be successful in fight against terror unless it could answer the political claims of the terrorists. Particularly, the US’ fight against terror – or Islamic terror as it accepts- cannot be successful with this insight. The US has been killing the terrorists, not the ideas of the terrorists.

WHY DID TERROR EMERGE? A SUITABLE ATMOSPHERE FOR TERROR

The most important reasons for the emergence of global terror can be summed up as the following:

The Palestinian Issue: Actually, the global terror problem primarily is the Palestinization of the entire Middle East region, and then the Middle Easternization of the globe. The world could not solve the Palestinian problem and the Palestine has walked forward to the world. First the Middle East became greater Palestine and now the Middle East becomes greater Middle East. The US’ “Greater Middle East Initiative” can cover the whole world through spreading more and more.

Today, there is no Islamist who is not affected from the Palestine problem. In the hearts of the Islamists, from the moderates to the fundamentalists, there is a feeling of injustice and victimization. Even this feeling not only exists in the hearts of Islamists, but also in the hearts of all Muslims with their population of more than 1 billion. There is almost no one who does not perceive Palestine as a problem from Chechnya to Afghanistan, from Indonesia to Sudan. Similarly, Palestine is a significant source of exploitation in Turkey and in Europe among the Muslim population. As long as this wound is not healed, global terror or however you define it, problems between the USA and Muslims will continue. It should not be forgotten that while the US defines its adversary as terrorist, a significant part of Muslims defines the US and Israel as an enemy or even terrorist. It should be noted that, according to many Muslims, the anti-Americanism among the Muslims created by the American anti-Islam policies.

Victimization and Desperation: Another aspect is the feeling of victimization and hopelessness among the Muslims in the world. The humiliation of Palestinian people by Israel resulted in disrespect for human rights and moreover in the discontinuation of their success. How pregnant women were prevented from going to hospital, fathers were taken from their houses, houses of 15-16 years old rebels torn down and further examples indicate that Israel ignored the principals of individualism in crime. The open air Palestinian prison with a great number of control points and strict rules such as the lack of air and naval exits or a connection between the West Bank and Gaza mean the continued humiliation of Arabs and a deadlock in the solution of the problem. Nobody has insulted its enemy this much. The USA has lost its role as an arbitrator and completely supports Israel. The weak opposition from the EU, Russia and China does not seem to break the vicious circle. Palestinians have the following picture in their minds: Israel does whatever it wants to do, and is supported by the US while the rest of the world is watching. Arabs are under the American monitor and the rest of the Muslims are too weak to change something. In other words, the picture is absolutely hopeless.

Unless you give little victories to your enemy to save its honor, you can never reach a full victory of yours.  This is the main mistake of Israel. It could not make its victories permanent and cause problem to take a form that cannot be resolved ad infinitum.

Unfortunately, the Palestinian problem is deepened by the Lebanese experience. Maybe, it is possible to say that Lebanon was the first victim of the Palestinian problem. First, the civil war, then the Israeli attacks in the summer of 2006. Saying they are fighting against Hezbollah, Israel sent tons of bombs to the capital city of this country. Maybe a few of the terrorists were killed ‘accidentally’ during these attacks (!) However, the most beautiful parts of the city and an infrastructure that would take years to rebuild were destroyed. It is not the buildings that were destroyed, but also the Muslim trust to international law and the system was also destroyed once more. The feeling of how weak the Muslims are and the unjustness of the West regained power.

Weakness and hopelessness are vitalized in Bosnia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabagh, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iraq, all of which point to the defeat of Muslims. In all of these problems it was always Muslims to be defeated. In other words, in the Muslim World the perception of Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations is the constant defeat of the Muslims. Even though the picture is against the Muslim World, inspired by Huntington thesis, many Western politicians advocated even more pre-emptive policies to prevent the ‘Muslim attacks’. The fear at the centre of the Western policies deepened the feelings of victimisation and hopelessness of the Muslims. Unfortunately, the new generation in the Arab world thought only of two available options:

1) Accepting what is imposed upon them, in other words, to accept defeat and humiliation as a life style.

2) Despite the lack of the hope for a victory, choosing “Allah’s way” and sacrificing himself / herself for the next generations; or hoping for the victory in another life.

Lack of Success Story

The Muslim world extends through a wide range of geographical regions; from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, from Russia to Southern Africa. In addition, there is a significant Muslim Diaspora in the US, Canada, and Europe. However, it is hard to say there is a role model for the Muslims within this huge region. However, like individuals, societies and countries also learn through the role models. Japanese and Franco-German motors in the relevant regions for instance have proved the importance of role models and these countries led their regions to stability, security, development and integration. Actually there are some countries claiming leadership in the Islam world, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt etc. Their competition the leading position in the Islamic world lacks strong internal support. Despite their natural oil and gas resources they do not have strong economies. Other countries of the Gulf region are smaller within the terms of economics and also population. Malaysia and Indonesia in the Far East lack the necessary capacity for leadership. Pakistan, Egypt and others are dealing with economic and political problems resulting in instability. Turkey, on the other hand, possesses an exceptional place among these countries. The economic boom made it the 17^th[4] (according to some resources the 19^th) largest economy of the world.

Turkey’s democratization process with its rapid progress in its bid to EU puts Turkey in a different position among Muslim Countries widening the gap between Turkey and the other Muslim countries in terms of democratization, liberalization and development. The problem is that Turkey has not wanted to be the leader or role model of the Middle east or entire Muslim world. Diaspora Muslims whose population in the EU countries is about 20 million today could have been role models, however, integration problems did not make it possible, as 7/7 attacks in London once again illustrated the failure.

Underdevelopment and the Weak ‘Muslim’ States

Economic, social and cultural underdevelopment in the Arab world is illustrated by many examples such as the literacy rate of 50 % in general and sometimes less than 20 % among women, inequality of education, lack of health and social services by the state. Thus, the State is only viewed as police or military force by the citizens. The fulfillment of basic needs by traditional institutions has been becoming harder in rapidly modernizing world. In addition, the traditional institutions are abolished via Western support but without their replacement by the new modern ones. The emerging institutional gap is then filled by new non-governmental and non-traditional forces such as Hamas or Hezbollah who supply the basic requirements of daily life such as funerals, marriages, health problems etc. This social aspect of this new kind of “civil society” results in loyalty to these powers and weakening of state’s control. The relations between the society and these new powers are beyond the concept of the modern state-citizen relationship. People view them as new alternatives. Thus, perception of Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah and others as terrorist organizations by the US would be wrong to understand fully the situation in the Middle East. It should not be a surprise if the near future to witness the emergence of such powers in Iraq as well. What we refer to as terrorists is becoming more legitimate day by day among the peoples, whereas extremism replaces normality. Hamas in Palestine is a good example. The extremists of the past are now the Government of the country.

One of the important factors in emerging of the new civil powers with extremist and even terrorist links is that the secular and nationalist Governments failed to meet the people’s economic, political and legal needs. The US and the West in general had noticeable responsibility in failure of the secular powers in the greater Middle East. The Western states could not create secular and Westernist alternatives in the Middle East politics. The Western support to some of the ME Governments did not aim to create a long-lasting democratic and developed societies in the region, but to sustain the narrow-minded interests. In Palestine for example, Israel, US and the EU could not make secular-nationalist PLO a real partner. When the PLO failed, the way to the Islamist extremists was fully opened. If the Hamas cannot success to fulfill the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people, more people will become extremist and terrorists in near future.

Gap in Global Representation of the Region

The most important reasons of the emergence of terror are the problem in communication channels and shortcoming in the representation of the Muslim peoples in global governing. We see that Muslim countries are not represented in global politics although most of the crucial global problems are related with the Middle East, including the energy sources, terrorism, Palestinian issue, Iraq occupation etc. All critical global issues rooted in the Middle East are discussed in institutions such as the UN Security Council or G8 without Middle East countries’ contributions. The 7/7 experience during the G8 meeting in Scotland in 2005 gave an important lesson about the nature of the global terrorism. When no Muslim prime minister or president invited to the Summit, Al Qaeda put bombs to London tube stations and bus stops. As long as the reforms in global politics are not realized, the attempts for representation through illegal channels will increase, and the terrorist network will continue to their propaganda that the world is being governed without Muslims.[5]

Lack of Cooperation

The future of fight against global terrorism is dependent on the cooperation between the regional countries and the co-operation between the US and the region. No power can defeat terrorism from outside. The US needs really strong co-operation of the insiders. 

However, the US’ Middle East policies have not concentrated on this aspect after 9/11, and it made almost all actors in the Middle East feared from the US policies. Its pre-emptive fight approach did not cause fear only in the terrorist organizations but also in the America’s allies in the region. Almost everyone in the region think that the US has secret agenda regarding the Middle East and the global terrorism combat is just an excuse to cover the real intentions.

Apart from Israel, there are three main-column-nations in the Middle East: Turks, Arabs and Persians. Politics without support of at least two of them is not able to be successful in the region and the previous great powers always considered this balance of power in the past. However, the American politics after 9/11 made these entire three nations opponent to its Middle East policies: The American president openly threatened Syria and Iran. The US occupied an Arab country, Iraq. Israel attacked another Arab country Lebanon, and backed by the US. Some of the Congressmen in Washington argued that the ultimate target should be Saudis and the ‘Islamic Gulf countries’. Even Egypt perceived great threat from the American policies. Turkey has been kept away from Iraq, and now many Turks view the US as threat for their territorial unity. The only strategic partners of the US (in addition to Israel) are the Iraqi Kurds. It means that the US has no strong support of the regional actors in its fight against the global terrorism.

A similar situation occurs also in Europe. The integration problems of the Euro-Muslims cannot be solved without the EU’s close cooperation with the motherland countries such as Turkey, Morocco, Algeria and Pakistan. 9/11 resulted in the Western perception of the Muslim Diaspora as potential threat, which has been deepened by unfortunate occurrences such as the Van Gogh murder in the Netherlands. Discrimination and racism among the European politicians against the Muslim minorities have been increasing in Europe, which was unimaginable before September 11 attacks. As a result even the moderate and liberal Muslims have been alienated by the EU Governments and the EU lost the most useful tools in fighting against the global terrorism.

Mistakes in the Methodology of the Combat

As discussed earlier, terror is not a military but a criminal issue. Terrorist attacks are not about two armies, neither are they to cease with the annihilation of one of the parties. Terror is like a well camouflaged ‘brain tumor’ which should be dealt with carefully in order not to destroy the surroundings. The greatest mistake is to view the fight against terrorism as the fight against a military rebellion that is to be annihilated. The US approach to the Middle East as well as the Israeli one to the Palestinian problem reveal similarities in terms of this mistake. As a matter of fact that the US, EU countries and Israel prefer police and intelligence forces in the fight against domestic criminal issues and domestic terrorism in their own countries. However, they see the problem in other countries militarily rather than criminal. Although they cannot use army against their own ‘true citizens’, they do not hesitate to bomb the cities in Iraq in the name of fighting against terrorism. Each bombardment against a town in Iraq or in Afghanistan creates more and more terrorists. You may kill couple of terrorists in military operations, while you produce an environment terrorists preferred a lot.

Turkey’s Possible Contributions:

Turkey’s vital importance and exceptional place in the fight against terrorism are due to the following reasons:

·         First of all, Turkey is one of the most experienced countries in the fight against terrorism. Turkish people faced modern terrorism during the Ottoman years. Raided banks and assassination attempts to the head of the State by Armenian terrorist groups were the first examples of modern terror in Turkish territories. The increasing power of leftist terror in the 1960s was followed by the dominance of the nationalist-rightist terror in the1970s. The 1980s witnessed the clash of these two wings. Moreover, many Turkish diplomats were assassinated by Armenian terrorists in the 1970s and 1980s. Since 1980, more than 30,000 people lost their life due to the PKK terror. In addition, Islamist groups like Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Ibda-C etc. tried to gain power in Turkey through their terrorist attacks. As a consequence of all these examples, Turkey is not only used to live with terror but also succeeded in constructing a strong infrastructure for fighting against global and local terror.

·         Second, the most powerful and reliable security forces, police organization and intelligence services in the region are the Turkish ones together with the Israeli forces. The infrastructure of Turkish security forces who work together with their western partners are beyond the capacities of the ones from Egypt, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Turkish forces are natural partners in the region for the fight against global terrorism, especially if one takes into account that many high ranked security forces of the regional countries are trained by Turkey.

·         Third, Turkey is probably one of the most successful countries in fight against fundamentalist-religionist terror in the world. Despite the relatively less success in the combat against ethnic and ideological terrorism, Turkey’s performance should be evaluated as impressive in the fight against fundamentalist terrorism. Iran’s failure in its attempts to export its regime, the collapse of the Turkey Hezbollah through successful police operations and the prevention of Al- Qaeda from getting organized, the failure of the Hizbul-Tahrir terrorist organization and finally, the imprisonment of the leading figures of Ibda-C are the best examples of Turkey’s performance in religionist terrorism combat..

·         Another significant aspect is the Turkish interpretation of Islam, which can be presented as an antidote against religionist terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. The moderate and liberal Turkish Islam or Ottoman Islam has been present for ages in the Muslim world. The lack of a favorable basis for terror in the western cities of Turkey is mainly due to this interpretation of Islam. That also explains why Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah could only find a favorable environment in the mostly populated by the Kurdish people. Almost all of the members of the Turkish Hezbollah are Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin from the Southeastern Anatolia like those who were responsible for the Al Qaeda’s Istanbul incidents. There is no Turkish cleric who defines suicidal attacks in Palestine, Iraq or in any other country as jihad. Many Islamic movements and their leaders in Turkey condemned Al-Qaeda and its leader. “Osama Bin Laden humiliated Islam. I hope Bin Laden to die and Islam to get rid of these kinds of evil approaches” is just an example of the statements of Turkish clerics. Turkey with its secular and tolerant character has a distinguished position in the Muslim world. Turkish model can be considered as the antidote of both of Sunni and Shiite radical Islamist groups.

·         Moreover, Turkey’s well-functioning liberal system prevents the emergence of a suitable environment for religionist terror. Turkish democracy and free market mechanism are old and sufficiently effective, which emphasizes its distinguished place in the Muslim world once again. Turkey represents a good example of the coexistence of secularism, Islam and democracy, and proves the Al Qaeda’s ideological claims are wrong.

·         Turkey’s relations with the Western world on equal basis are also unique. This also challenges the terrorist claims which take advantage of the humiliation of Iraqi and Palestinian people. On the contrary, Turkey regardless of its position as allied or enemy force has been an actor in international relations with equal rights as the Western powers had in the history. The World War I, Cyprus intervention as well as Korean War demonstrated that Turkey is an influential and powerful country and can say “No” to the West or anyone. In contrast to the Al-Qaeda drawn picture of Muslim leaders, Turkey could criticize the West as hard as possible in some cases. Despite its NATO membership and good relations with the Western countries, Turkish critique of the US and Israel has sometimes been more than any other Arab country. Moreover, the Europeanization process is also significant to understand Turkey’s different place among the Muslim countries. The success of Turkish model would be able to break the vicious circle of victimization and desperation among the Muslims. The possible following abolishment of the illegitimate methods as the only alternative to defense Muslim’s rights would be a crucial step in the combat against global terrorism.

·         Especially, Turkey’s fast progress towards the EU might have negative impacts on terrorism’s ideological background in the Middle East. Accession of a Muslim country in the Western world would break the image of the Christian Club. Even though there are countries like Turkey, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), Bosnia, Albania, Azerbaijan and Kosovo in the European continent, none of the members of the EU is Muslim. Even in Cyprus, only the Christians were accepted to the Union and the Muslims were left outside. This supports the image of the EU as a Christian Club, and strengthened the religionists’ thesis of the West-Islam polarization.  It is Turkey who can change this situation by proving that a Muslim nation could co-exist the Western values and Islam together. Turkish democracy and close-links with the West can disprove the Al Qaeda argument of that democracy is incompatible with Islamic tradition

·         Turkey’s wide and rich linguistic, ethnic, and cultural hinterland is an asset in the fight against terrorism. With the fulfillment of the cooperation between the US and Turkey in this fight, Turkish Islam would not be limited with 75 millions of Turks in Turkey, but also spread to whole Europe with 6-7 millions of Turks living in European countries. It should be noted that with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania around 800.000-1000.000 of Turks have become the citizens of the EU. Thus with this Turkish population, Turkish Islam can balance extremism of Shiites and Al-Qaeda in Europe. Moreover, the TRNC is another country, in which Turkish Islam is also being experienced. Azerbaijan just like Turkey has a secular, liberal and moderate interpretation of Islam.

A moderate interpretation of Islam in these aforementioned countries and in the European Diaspora would be influential enough to outweigh the extremism in all around the world. Turkey’s hinterland has a significant importance in Ottoman geography and in the Central Asia as well. In addition, four Central Asian Turkic countries’ interpretation of Islam is similar to Turkey’s understanding too. In fact, Turkey’s Islamic interpretation rooted in the Central Asian experiences. The main problem is that democracies and liberal economies are still too young and fledgling in this region. Cooperation between Turkey and these countries would form a band from China to the Atlantic Ocean in which Moderate Interpretation of Islam exists. Pakistani, Indonesian and Malaysian harmonization with this model would have a special function against radical Sunni and Shiite trends.

II. PERSPECTIVES OF THE U.S. AND TURKEY AND THE PROBLEM OF THEIR CONVERGENCE

Common Principles and Targets

Turkey and the US (also the EU) shares a lot in combating against terrorism in terms of ultimate aims and principles. As democratic, liberal and secular countries, both, U.S. and Turkey wants to eliminate religionist. Al Qaeda and other religionist organization prove how they are dangerous for the American national interests in 9/11, Kenya and other assaults. Similarly, Al Qaeda attacked in Istanbul and killed many. Al Qaeda leaders continue to threaten Turkey arguing Turkey is making alliance with the West against Islam and distorting Islam. There is no debate between Turkey and the US on how religionist terrorism is a serious threat.

Second, compared Turkish and American leaders’ speeches show that both countries dream of a democratic and developed Middle East.

Third, both Turkey and the US accept and defend Israel’s right of exist. Both again argues that the Palestinian issue should be immediately solved on justice and equal rights.

Turkey like the US wants to see an economically and politically integrated Middle East with the rest of the globe. Turkey is a co-sponsor, along with Italy and Yemen, of the Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative's Democracy Assistance Dialogue, and declared open support to the US’ Broader Middle Eastern aims.

Turkey with the US argues that democracy, pluralism, liberalism and other Western values are compatible with Islam. According to their common vision, the problem is not the Islamic rules and principles but misinterpretation of the religion.

Both Turkey and the US defended a more active NATO in combating terrorism. Turkey with strong and able armed forces in NATO, helped and continue to help transform the alliance to address the global challenges of the 21st Century. Turkey’s crucial role in bringing stability and security to the Balkans, Caucasus, Central Asia, Middle East and elsewhere shows that Turkey -- side by side with the United States -- is helping bring about NATO's future as an instrument of security wherever it is needed: from former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan.[6] The difference between Turkey and the US on NATO is much lesser than the US and any other NATO member.

In Afghanistan, Turkish-American cooperation under NATO flag is at work helping to transform Afghanistan. Turkey sharing the US vision there sent troops and spent millions of dollar in restoring Afghanistan campaign.

Differences

Despite of the common principles and aims, there are significant differences between the perspectives of Turkey and the US in terms of terrorist movements of the Middle East origin and extremism in the region. Turkey has had differing views on Iraq. The sides have also disagreed on tactics for dealing with Iran and Syria.

The U.S.’ Approach to the Issue: The US analysis has been based on the fear after 9/11 which was worsened with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Politics shaped by ‘paranoid conceptions’ and fear is not likely to succeed over time. Terrorists aim to create terror and fear. This is their aim to manipulate and force the governments and the masses to do something they want. Governments combating against terrorism should decrease terror and should not allow any dialogue channel between the terrorists and the society. However the US’ ‘pre-emptive struggle against terrorism’ creates the culture of fear and even the Americans at homeland are terrorized by ‘war on terror’.[7] The environment full of fear and terror serves the terrorists and make the struggle more and more difficult.

The US’ anti-terror policies and tactics are mostly military-based and focus on destroying terrorists instead of terrorism. Though terror is an ideological challenge to the States, the US anti-terror campaign has been considering religionist terrorism as an armed challenge against the US and the West.

Third the US knows very little about the terrorists. The names, age, addresses etc. of the terrorists and to be terrorists are being collected and stored in the computers, yet all these things do not mean that the US learns something. The US policy makers have no idea how the religionist terrorists think or what the terrorists aim since the US focus on the terrorists’ bodies, instead of their ideas.

Another important point is that US is alone in its struggle against the terrorists, because does not accept real help from the regional countries, including Turkey, and from the European Union allies. US did not want help from these countries but support without questioning the US policies. President George W. Bush declared this policy in his 20 September 2001 speech: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”[8] Such a strict understanding leaves no room for any contribution from other countries and makes the US and the terrorists two far away poles. This understating does not isolate the religionists, but make them stronger in terms of ideology.

Moreover, the US says that it wants to redraw the map of the Middle East due to its belief in the key role of changing borders, leaders and/or regimes for the solution of problems in the region, including global terrorism. In fact, the US’ intention is not clear enough to understand whether it is fighting against terror or trying to redraw the map of the Middle East for its national interests. However, this goal conflict results in failure of its politics at both fronts. Moreover, almost every country in the region perceives the US as a threatening factor after the Iraq War. Despite the artificial character of the borders in the Middle East, it is really hard to redraw them. Israel’s initiatives to change the borders, which were drawn after the World War I, caused bloody conflicts and long-lasting big problems in the region. Another example is Lebanon, a small country. The disintegration of this country was not possible even after a bloody and long civil war. In this context, what Saddam Hussein experienced during his occupation of Kuwait, which has the most artificial profile in the world, is a good example. Except Israel, what made the preservation of borders possible since the World War I, are the local, regional and global conflicts. A new attempt to change the borders or even regimes might cause more bloody conflicts and no border change. Even for global players like the US would it then be hard to keep these conflicts under control. At this point it should be reminded that the US had to withdraw from Lebanon when the civil war targeted the US soldiers. In brief, the US may start a process to change the regimes, borders or leaders, yet it cannot control the rest of the process, and the change may cause a worse Middle East.

Turkey’s Approach to the Issue: From Turkish perspective, the problem in the Middle East has economic, social and political roots. Al-Qaeda and similar terror organizations are the results of the problems in Islamic world, not the reasons. Religionist terror is a modern and rather new fact although violence has always been present in the fundamentalist trends. Middle East is not a region whose people have had tendency to be terrorists; the problems are not due to the religion, sect or ethnic features. Please remember, it was not the Middle East where one could observe the first examples of modern terror.

Second, according to the Turkish perspective, the structural and historical problems of the region cannot be solved by altering borders, leaders or regimes. There is not any perfect plan to change the status quo at once. Despite their perfect outlook on paper, the ‘great’ plans ignoring the regional dynamics only increase the instability of the region. An attempt to establish new borders, new regimes or to change the leaders would result in the emergence of new ethnic and religious conflicts. Furthermore, this kind of attempts could cause an increase in the perception that all regimes, borders and leaders in the region are the ‘puppet regimes, leaders or states’, who depends on the Western powers for its existence and which closely follows the will of the Western powers in key policy issues. This will not cause a decrease in the opposition to the West among the peoples or would not put an end to global terrorism; instead it will result in the stronger presence of the ‘bad’ regimes of the Middle East.

Then should the region be let alone?

Are the regimes, leaders and borders obliged to remain the same?

The change in the Middle East is only possible without the militarist means. The recent military and repressive means, the suppression of nations to establish the stability are not going to bring about successful results. The US interventions into the region were mainly through the military means, and economic, social, cultural and similar means have been neglected in the region, and they are even looked down to some extent. However, via these means, it could be possible to open the countries such as Iran and Syria to the external world, and to change the nature of their regime and maybe with new leaders. Turkey could play a special role here:

For instance, Syria with its economic, demographic and geographical features is open to Turkish influence. The need to change after the end of the Cold War was emphasized with the leadership of Bessar Assad after the death of his father Hafez Assad. Bessar Assad appeared as a leader who wants radical reforms in economy and politics. Nevertheless, militarist and isolationist cadre formed by Hafez Assad does not share Bessar Assad’s vision and it abuses the anti-Western reactions among the Arab peoples and the problems with Israel for the benefit of the continuation of the old regime. In such circumstances, a fundamental change in Syria requires either a bloody struggle with the remnants of the old regime or a radical transformation in the society. A bloody struggle against the old regime can possibly cause internal disintegration. Besides, it is so hard to struggle against the militarist-nationalist structure in Syria as long as Israel’s current policies in Golan Heights, Lebanon and Palestine continues; the civil war in neighboring Iraq deepens and the US threat over Syria continue to exist.  Instead, internal economic and political change could spill over to a general change in Syria. Syria has taken courageous steps in the fields of internet, broadcasting, and banking and so on to catch up with the globalizing world. Emergence of new economic actors has been allowed. In this sense, it is possible to observe an immediate increase in commercial relations between Turkish economy, (particularly Gaziantep, a Turkish city), and Syrian economy. Between Turkish and Syrian cities, regular shuttle services have started, which was unimaginable in the near past. In the past, Turkish people could not even take permission to visit their relatives in Syria. Whereas trade volume between two countries was around 100-200 million dollars until recent times, this figure in 2006 came closer to 1 billion dollars and it is also expected to exceed 3 billion dollars in one or two years. Turkey’s share in Syria’s foreign trade volume by 2006 is around 9 % and this share has rapidly increased. Even if direct investments remain limited due to the slowness in Syrian liberalization, it is expected that there will be a prominent boom for investments made by Turkey in this country. If other countries together with Turkey manage to enter Syria powerfully and in a way that would liberalize its market, proponents of the change will gain power in regard to Syria’s domestic balance, more importantly the power will get rid of centering in rather limited hands. Attempts aiming at economic integration between Turkey and Syria will make contribution to Syria’s transformation irreversibly. The irreversibility of the rapprochement is also shown by the geographic and ethnic borders between two countries. In addition to the closer economic ties, the satellite, TV and radio broadcasts have been watched regularly in Syria and contributed to transformation. Moreover, not only Syrian Kurds and Turcomen whose population exceed ca. 2 million but also the Arabs watch mentioned broadcasts. If these broadcasts, which are completely in Turkish now, are also made in Arabic, the change in Syrian society could possibly be expected to gain momentum.

The problem is that Turkey does not have the priority and power to change a country so quickly on its own through its present economic power. Turkey’s economic growth has naturally externalities in the Middle Eastern countries. However, a certain plan would enable the liberalization of Syrian society by means of economic, cultural and social means and their integration to the global system would be easier in a short time. The most important thing for Syria is to be ambitious and to make a special effort in order to improve the relations with Turkey. Bessar Assad once stated that Turkey considers them more than the Arab countries. One of the most important supports for Turkey’s EU membership prospect came from Syria and the prime minister of the country expressed that thanks to Turkey’s possible EU membership they would be neighbor with the EU and this situation would make particular contribution to their development.

A similar interpretation could also be made for Iran. As Turkey-Iran economic relations there was a boom in the last 10 years and in 2006 it exceeded 6.7 billion dollars.[9] This figure is rapidly increasing and the number around 15-20 billion dollars is expected to reach in coming few years. Furthermore, this growth has been experienced despite preventive efforts of the supporters in Iran for radical ‘Islamist’ regime. In addition to the increasing trade, every year more than 600.000 Iranian tourists visit Turkey. In the process of the Iranian efforts for change, Turkey plays a role in isolated Iran as an exit way to the global system. Nearly 30 % of the country’s population speaks Azerbaijani and Turcoman Turkish and in general follows Turkish televisions via satellite. Not only Azeri and Turcoman people but also rather high number of Persian, Kurd and other groups follow so often Turkish media. These broadcasts, tourism and increasing economic relations result in significant changes in Iran. Inside the country, the proponents of the current regime are mainly in minority and Iran has undergone a normalization process. However, first the Iran-Iraq War, then the Gulf War and the current Iraq Conflicts gave rise to a renewal process for the Iranian revolutionary regime. Already ongoing Iranian Nuclear Crisis and the US threat over Iran have benefits for the current regime in Iran and prevent the normalization process. Moreover, the process which began with the US intervention to Iraq has repeatedly renewed the revolutionary regime in Iran.

As in the case of Syria, starting social and economic programs for Iran could bring about more effective results than the military means. Emerging economies of Turkey from the West, Azerbaijan from the north and the Gulf countries from the south could make Iran open itself to the external world and could make integration with the global economic system possible. A great share of Iranian assets is in the Gulf countries, Turkey and Europe. Thus, the operation of an open Iran would be highly determined by the efforts of the Iranian entrepreneurs.

It could also be possible to claim that only the military approach would solve the problems and social, economic and cultural means be naïve. Yet, the Iraq War and the previous incidents obviously show us that military means are the ways which are more costly, wasting more time and less successful than the economic ones.

Turkey intended to show the fist examples of this economy-based approach to Palestine’s Erez region. However, Israel’s air strike gave considerable damage to this investment. The possible integration of Palestine to the world economically through a project with Turkey’s special role would undermine the radical movements in Palestine. My own belief is that Palestinian issue is maybe one of the modern problems easy to resolve. It would be easier to be interested in a Palestine and Jordon integrated to Israel’s economy in political arena. These three countries could achieve a model similar to the EU with the help of the other countries in the region such as Turkey. These suggestions could seem to be utopian. Yet, this is also the only way which has not been tried before.

The contra thesis advocates that the reason of terror is not economic and the terrorists are not poor people. That’s right, Osama bin Laden is not a member of a poor family. Also, most of the people around him do not suffer from poverty. However, the poverty is one of the facts they took advantage of. The majority of Palestine now lives below the poverty line. There is no big economy which would bring stability to Palestine. Israeli and Palestinian societies are not linked with economic interests. The link between them is one-sided and quite weak, thus there would not be a great loss without this link.

It is possible to say that Turkey can see the roots of the regional structural problems more properly than any power, mainly due to its position as an integral part of the region and more importantly, as the former governor of the region for hundreds of years.

In this perspective, the Middle East approach of the US during the Bush period can be considered similar to Israel’s Palestinian strategy. Palestinians are maybe the most secular part of the Arab world. The educational level in Palestine is also above the average. Despite this fact, Israel worsened the problem than solving by not supporting the moderate, secular and liberal nationalists in the country. It created enemies around itself. It is possible to stop the enemies by armed forces but for which price? If there were no USA which would support Israel at all costs, how many times would Israel be able to defend herself? If the current balances change and Israel losses the military supremacy, how will Israel’s future be? Also if the Middle East adventure of the US goes on similar to that of Iraq and both military and economic costs of this policy reach a level which the US could not afford, then who will pay this price?

Of course, both approaches have positive and negative aspects. It could also be not possible to succeed by only one instrument. However, Turkey’s possible main role could be unification of and helping the region to open itself to the world. And this will only be possible via economic, cultural and social means.

The Impact of the Kurdish Issue on Turkish-American Co-operation against Terrorism

The most important point deepening the divergence of the two approaches is the Kurdish issue. That the US has an implicit agenda is the popular belief in Turkish public. Within this context, the US plans intend to damage Turkey. Particularly after the Iraq War, ‘suspicious’ steps of the US has irritated Turkish public which is still going on. The de facto Kurdish state in northern Iraq and the ignorance of the problems of Turcoman people in Iraq by the US called for the current perception of the US by Turkish public. That the US prefers Iraqi Kurds is strengthened with the on going existence of the PKK camps of a number about 10 in northern Iraq in which 3.000-3.500 armed militants are trained to attack Turkey. That there is no step taken to abolish them by the US despite its statements supports the thesis of many prestigious publishers such as BBC and New Yorker. According to them, the US pretends to ignore the PKK and even supports it. They think, PKK (under the title of PEJAK) has been used as a part of destabilization operations conducted against Iran. That the PKK is defined as a terrorist organization according by the laws of the US, the EU and also of Turkey, such news about the US damages its credibility in terms of fight against terror in both Turkey and the region.

According to the survey conducted by Ankara-based ISRO/USAK (International Strategic Research Organization), 75% of the Turkish people consider the PKK camp in Iraq as a determining aspect of the relations and main obstacle in US-Turkey relations. Second, 9% believe that the US has a certain ‘Kurdish policy’ which is against Turkey. In other words, the Turkish-American relations are under the shadow of terror and the Kurdish issue. This is the belief of 84%.

The US is in a dilemma in terms of Kurdish issue. A pro-Turkey politics, the US thinks, would result in the disappearance of the Kurdish support in Iraq and in American isolation in the region.  The American belief is such that without the PKK, Turkey would damage Barzani and Talabani groups and claim right on Kerkuk and Mosul (Musul) and the US would face with a puzzle impossible to solve. Also, the media reports that some in the US dream of that the armed PKK forces in Turkey and Iraq could play a role in destabilizing Iran. This is another important point.

However, both assumptions seem baseless: Turkey is not a country which is ‘against Kurds’. In contrast to the presumed ideas, Turkey is not against an independent Kurdish state in Iraq. Turkey is against Iraq’s partition in such a way. Turkey’s concerns are mainly about the emergence of a source of instability and terror just like in Afghanistan in the hearth of Middle East. Moreover, the challenging attitude of the planned Kurdish state and its efforts to found such a state by infringing Arab and Turcoman rights worries Turkey. Otherwise, it can be argued that Turkey would not oppose too much to a federal or independent Kurdish state which respects the rights of Arabs and Turcoman peoples. Actually, in the current situation, almost all institutions and infrastructure of the Iraqi Kurdistan are made by Turkish businessmen. Thousands of Turkish workers work in Kurdish construction sites and the Habur Border Gate forms an important source of income for the Iraqi Kurdish region. Turkey’s trade with the region and its investments exceed 5 billion dollars. A rapid increase in this figure is also expected. This is because American or European entrepreneurs do not make investments due to the security concerns in Kurdish region. Turkish businessmen have dominated the region’s economic life.  The establishment of a Kurdish state would not change this situation. It does not matter either the Kurdish region is independent or has a federal structure or is a part of Iraq, the region would only be able to be stabile through Turkey’s support. The Iraqi Kurdish region’s economic and social integration to Turkey would enable the security and development both sides need. It seems not possible for a possible Kurdish state, which ignores the regional powers, to survive just with the oil income.

To summarize, Turkey is not a country ‘against Kurds’. Even establishment of a Kurdish state could make many contributions to Turkey. However, the factor limiting the possibilities of a possible cooperation is the PKK terror. As long as the PKK attacks Turkey from the Kurdish region in Iraq and funeral of the Turkish soldiers continue to come the home, Turkey’s point of view towards Barzani and Talabani would never reach the desired level. The PKK would determine the Turkey-Iraqi Kurdistan relations.

Second, those who aim at taking advantages of the PKK against Iran and Syria are making a great mistake. The PKK has no power to destabilize these countries. On the contrary, as long as this kind of attacks increases in these countries, the militarist side of their regime would gain more power and increase its legitimacy. The possibility of the PKK to cause a mass revolt in Iran or Syria is so low. The Kurds in Iran have no big armed force and no such military tradition. The influence of an imported power like the PKK remains thus limited. Similarly, it seems not likely for the PKK to organize an independence movement in Syria. In such a case, Turkey would be forced to establish undesired alliances. Turkey would be on the side of Iran and Syria against the PKK. The PKK caused death of more than 35.000 people in Turkey. Turkey would not take any risk in this issue. In addition to these, as long as the claims continue that the US (and Israel) support the PKK, the US would be neither credible nor accountable in the fight against terror in the eyes of the Turkish people.

Another aspect regarding the Kurdish issue is the Kerkuk problem.  The Kurds have to understand the fact that they are not the only ethnic group in the region. If they want to extend their state to the Arab and Turcoman regions, they first have to get these people’s consent. They should think of the establishment of a Kurd-Turcoman or Kurd-Turcoman-Arab Northern Iraq state if it is necessary. Otherwise, the state to be established would always be fragile. The possibility of the application of a second Israel model is so weak.

What has to be done is to complete the economic integration between Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey and to transfer a model similar to that of Turkey to Northern Iraq. Even Turkey could be the legal guarantor of the Iraqi Kurds in this region. Therefore, the Iraqi Kurds’ fear from a new strike from Baghdad or from any other capital would be eliminated. It is to remember that the Iraqi Kurds were sheltered by Turkey when they were attacked by the Saddam’s forces in the past. Thus they could consider Turkey as a shelter again from now on, not as a threat.

III. THE EUROPEAN UNION AND TURKEY

Turkey’s institutional cooperation with the West and  being an equal member of the Western world have essential benefits for establishing a model of moderate Islam, liberalization and democratization in the Middle East. A Turkey an integral part of the West by keeping its culture and religion would lead the integration of the Islamic world to the global system. Thus, the EU-Turkey integration has an important role in combating global terror. Turkey as a member of the EU would demonstrate a real success story needed to end the hopelessness and grievance in the Muslim societies from Palestine to Indonesia. Moreover, it would contribute to the elimination of partial representation of Muslims in the global governance. The argument of Al-Qaeda about the clash of Muslims and the West would be undermined. Other Muslim countries would follow the Turkish example and set rational aims and more importantly, there would be the proof of a liberal and democratic Islam. A Turkey being an EU member would play an important role in increasing the loyalty of other Muslim countries to the West. The EU would also directly become an actor in order eliminate the extremism in Muslim world with the new Muslim power. Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer confirming the vitality of the Middle East in the EU’s interest argues that the EU should be an important actor in the Middle East:

“Before 11 September 2001 attacks I had been skeptical about the EU bordering Syria, Iraq and Iran. But now, it is strategically important… Our security will be defined for at least five decades in this region… whether we like it or not.”[10]

Thanks to having a representative from the Muslim world in the Western one, a special channel for dialogue to express the problems of the region would be established. When Turkey’s candidate status was accepted, many Middle Eastern countries explicitly declared that they consider Turkey representative of the region. After the decision of Turkey-EU membership negotiations on 4 October 2005, Syria and Jordan declared that they perceive Turkey as the representative of the entire region in Europe. Syrian Prime Minister Naji Otri once said that Turkey is representative of Arab and Muslim world:

“We observed this decision (Turkey-EU Talks decision) with great happiness. We are not only happy about this decision but we also support it… Turkey is getting closer to the EU and it will make us stronger also. The EU process is not only good for Turkey, but also for the Arab world. We hope the full membership happens in 3-5 years. We believe Turkey will do so. Of course Turkey will prove the counter argument of the civilization clash scenario. Turkey’s entrance to the EU as a Muslim country will serve to tell the problems of Islam world to the West. We see Turkey as representative of the Arab and Islamic world in the EU and this gives authorization to it”.

Similarly the AFP news agency reported “Turkey in EU would help the Muslim World”. Fares Braizat, researcher at the the Centre of Strategic Studies of the University of Jordan, told the AFP that Turkey’s full membership to the EU will be an encouragement for the region:

“Turkey’s negotiations with the European Union are a sign of encouragement… For the Arabs it means that Turkey could play a significant role within the European Union regarding the EU policies towards the Arab and Muslim regions. Turkey is seen by Muslim countries as a role model that has successfully balanced tradition and modernization. The Arabs look up to Turkey as a model for bringing modernization and democracy… This could inspire Arab countries that if you introduce democratic reforms, it would mean you have the advantage of being considered for a better partnership with the European Union.”

Alistair Lyon, journalist from Reuters, also wrote “Many Muslims, like some Europeans, view the EU as a "Christian club". Admitting Turkey, a predominantly Muslim nation of 72 million, would erode if not shatter this image.” Abdel Raouf el-Reedy, chairman of the Egyptian Council on Foreign Relations, told the Reuters that Turkey’s membership to the EU will be a great message to the Arab and Muslim world. "It would send a message to the Arab world that a Muslim country can also become a part of Europe," el-Reedy added.

Ibrahim Al-Marasli from Lebanese newspaper The Daily Star argues that ultimately, Turkey’s entry in the EU can help undo myths in the Arab World and Europe.

Not only the Muslim and Arab world, but also the non-Muslims of the Middle East strongly support Turkey's EU membership. Israel for instance sees Turkey’s membership as a great contribution to the stability and development of the region. The Jewish lobby in the European capitals and the United States has defended Turkey’s membership for the years. 

In short, Turkey’s full accession to the EU would be a determining step towards eliminating terror. Neighborhood with countries such as Iran, Syria and Iraq and closer ties of Lebanon, Israel and Palestine to the world’s greatest open market and democracy would bring about such a synergy and center of attraction that it would be hard for the regimes in Damascus and Tehran to be isolated from the external world.

The US has made considerable effort and has for long years supported Turkey’s EU membership prospect. This support increased after 9/11. However, the US support to Turkey’s EU membership could also be an obstacle rather than a possible contribution. Unfortunately, while the US supports Turkey in terms of the EU membership, it also intervenes into the sovereignty domains of the EU members. Sending messages to the summits or the individual leaders directly, in a way, it limits the freedom of taking decisions of the EU members. If the US wants to support Turkey’s EU membership process, there are easier and more effective ways for this:

The first way of this support is to keep the Cyprus issue away from the EU-Turkey relations. In 2004, Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus showed their attitude towards solving the problem when they explicitly supported the UN Annan Plan. The US then gave promise to Turkish side to reward them. In this sense, it made a commitment to remove the isolation on the Turkish side. However, over time, those who refused the plan were rewarded. The Greek side entered the EU as the only representative of the island. After that, there was no motivation for Greek Cypriots to negotiate with Turkey and the Turkish side. The attituted of the Greek side, which is also defined as blackmailing Turkey in her EU membership process also indicates opposition to the US and also the EU. Moreover, accepting the Christian Greeks as a full member and excluding the Muslim Turks despite their positive attitude, the EU also sends negative messages to the whole Muslim world. The Organization of Islamic Conference has always reiterated its support to the Turkish Cyprus. The isolation on the Turkish Cyprus should be removed. The fist country to take this step has to be the US. This is because the EU lost her role as arbitrator due with membership of the Greek Cyprus. Her room to maneuver is now also limited. If the US manages to remove the isolation on the Turkish Cyprus, the negative effects of the Cyprus issue on the EU –Turkey relations would be eliminated and the EU would therefore have the power to act more easily. Besides, the opposition groups in Turkey against the West would loss the opportunity to use the Cyprus issue easily.

Second, the US has to make contribution to the rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey and Azerbaijan in terms of the Armenian issue. This is because the Armenian issue has always been exploited in the EU-Turkey relations. Despite the hundred years old roots of the problem, Turkey’s expectation is not as much as assumed. Armenia’s declaration to recognize Turkey’s border and withdrawal from the invaded villages would be enough. With Turkey’s further steps, the following process would be easier than expected.

Third, the US critiques because of the motion and small-scale tension experienced between the US and Turkey in the Middle East damage Turkey’s relations with the EU. Particularly, nationalist-leftist wing in Turkey view that the reasons of the PKK camps in Iraq, of the problems with the EU and the US support to Armenia and of Cyprus problem are in the religionist and discriminatory policies of the West. These groups advocate that Turkey has to distance herself from the West, namely, both the EU and US. Being on side of cooperation with the EU and the US is getting harder and harder in Turkey. Thus, a possible rapprochement between Turkey and the US to fight against the PKK terror would surprisingly have positive effects on Turkey-EU relations.

The E.U., Turkey and Fight Against Terrorism

The E.U. considered the increasing religionist terror among the Muslims as an external issue. However, 7/7 London Attacks showed explicitly that the religionist (global) terror is an internal issue and its continuance carries the risk of civil war. Nevertheless, the Euro-Muslims are one of the important Muslim societies that could bring Western and Islamic values together. This is a big chance. If this chance is not used, these people could immediately turn into the most serious group which would exploit the Western values and the absolute polarization between Islam and the West. The cooperation between Turkey and in this sense the EU gains a crucial importance. It could be possible to provide a close cooperation between Ankara and Brussels in many areas from training of clerics in the European countries to the arrangements of mosques; from religious education to the representation problem of the Muslim Europeans. In order to achieve this, it requires the fulfillment of 3 main conditions:

1)      First, rapprochement of Turkey to the EU should go on and Turkey’s full membership perspective should be alive,

2)      In terms of convergence of the Euro-Muslims, Turkey should be considered as a part of the issue and the cooperation should be maintained,

3)      The US should be more sincere in the fight against terror and it should not make discrimination between the similar organizations such as PKK, DHKP-C and Al-Qaeda.

In particular, the third point has crucial importance. A member of the DHKP-C who killed a popular politician in Turkey cannot be judged in Brussels by the crime of terror (this group is accepted as a terrorist organization by all the EU countries and also the US). Turkey’s demand for extradition of this terrorist was also refused. Many PKK militants can easily go on with their activities in Brussels and other EU member countries. In this context, Turkey’s support to the EU in terms of the fight against terror could diminish.

CONCLUSION

If there terror turns into a massive movement, this means that there are fundamental and great problems. Without consideration of these problems, the fight against terrorist and terrorism consists only of useless attempts. Thus the emergence of terror in the Middle East is not surprising. The current structure does not allow an efficient struggle against terrorism; instead it causes terrorist organizations to be able to undertake state functions and makes their acts legitimate.

Second, terror is a political challenge not an armed challenge. Defeating terror requires defeating their claims and values not the terrorists. However, after 9/11, the US wants both to reshape the Middle East and to defeat the global terror by changing the borders, leaders and regimes in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the mistakes of the US cause new exploitation areas of which terror can take advantage. It is likely that Iraq will be the fourth terror school of the region after Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon.

There are significant differences between the US and Turkey in terms of the fight against terror and the Middle East issue, but the aims are the same. Both Turkey and the US aim at an integrated Middle East with the developed, free and global economy. However, the means of the US are incompatible with the aims advocated by Turkey. The experience until now also shows that the US approach makes serious failures. In addition, Turkey has so far been excluded from the US politics towards the Middle East to a great extent. The current situation has been shaped by the US so far. Thus, the US should take the main responsibility if the ideas and acts of two countries should be harmonized to reach their common goals in the future.