Suleyman Ozeren JTW Columnist printable version send your friend

Monday, 14 June 2010

Due to recent incidents and developments; nowadays, the question, whether Turkey has changed its axis, has been brought to public agenda more than ever. If we are to refresh our minds whether what led some part of the local and international intellectuals to discuss this matter; several items can be listed, however, a few prominent issues should be enough to grasp the picture.

Two current incidents, "no vote from Turkey to a UN Security Council resolution which adopted new and tougher sanctions against Iran" and Israel’s attack against the flotilla, carrying a humanitarian aid to Gaza and Turkey’s reaction to the incident, gave a new momentum to this discussion. The main question is whether Turkey has changed its axis from West to East.

A Short Review

Before looking at the recent incidents, it should be very helpful for us to review the issues which aided to this discussion. When the US has invaded Iraq in 2003, Turkish parliament said "no" to the US’ request to use Turkish territory for military passage. That incident was a kind of signal of change in Turkey’s foreign policy approaches. Further incidents, such as confrontation of Turkish and US military in the northern part of Iraq A couple of years ago increased the tension in the US-Turkey relations. To make things more complicated, Turkey’s policy approaches toward Israel and Palestine issue and the Middle East problem in general have been considered by some experts as potential detour from so-called model partnership between the US and Turkey.

Yes, it is true that there are some significant differences in Turkey’s foreign policy approaches. First of all, Turkey, instead of being an audience, decided to be an active facilitator in using diplomacy to solve chaotic issues at the international arena. Secondly, emerging as one of the most influential actor in the region, Turkey, unlike in the past, has started to put its own ideas and agendas to the table. Instead of being a passive actor in the game, Turkey brought its own insight to the discussions. Iraq invasion, US’s pressure over Syria, Syria-Israel tension, Lebanon-Israel conflict, Middle East issue, involving Palestinians and Israel, Russia-Georgia conflict, Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, Afghanistan invasion by the US and the UK, Pakistan-India conflict, Pakistan-Afghanistan tension and alike are some of the well-known issues that have kept the whole international community into its feet, and Turkey has been at the focal point in every one of these issues as problem solver. Even among the EU members there are significant differences in foreign policy issues, especially involving Iraq. While Spain expressed its full support behind the US, France and Germany have opposed to Iraq invasion. Similarly, there might be differences between Turkey and the US in looking at these issues. Even so none of these issues should be interpreted as a change in Turkey’s axis. Rather these changes should be considered as Turkey’s new foreign policy understanding and decisions which are providing another depth for the favor of the Western foreign policies toward this region. Particularly the US can be a prime beneficiary from this. How? Let us try to answer this fair question.

Turkey’s zero-problem policy does not mean a change of axis

As indicated before, two recent episodes which ignited axis debate involve both Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s Gaza siege. Turkey’s position in the former one is not allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapon, which has already been a big problem in the region given the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons at its arsenal. Turkey has been very active in enlisting diplomacy with Iran to avoid this county from acquiring nuclear weapon. Turkey has a consistent position toward nuclear weapons in the region, and that is no country, without exception, should have a nuclear weapon, including Iran and Israel. Turkey’s "zero- problem" foreign policy is also consistent with this. In fact Turkey and Brazil have achieved something that no other country has done. An agreement, which might have led Iran to give its enriched uranium to the international community, has been signed.

It should be fair to state that Turkey has every right to do anything to solve Iran’s nuclear program without any armed conflict. Such an attempt from Turkey cannot be interpreted as changing its axis. On the contrary, by being an alternative channel to mediate dialogue, Turkey plays a crucial role in avoiding another possibly more bloody and costly conflict in the region. Turkey is directly or indirectly helping the US and other Western allies. Turkey’s position, therefore, is not changing its axis, it is the opposite.

Is it going to be "same old same old" for the EU: Their consistent negligence over Turkey!
EU should appreciate the fact that Turkey has contributed to the security of not only the Middle Eastern region but also EU region as well. EU’s consistent negligence of this fact in recent years has led the Turkish public to have mistrust toward the EU. Their attitude toward Turkey for years is anything but encouraging. Yet Turkey has been determined to fulfill the requirements of the EU membership, all of which at the end will help Turkey to become a full-fledged democratic country. Having already admitted several countries to the EU membership and proposing alternative avenues to Turkey, this for some, is EU’s another attempt to resist to a change in their perception toward Turkey.

For those who claim that Turkey has changed its axis, we should remind the fact that Turkey is the very same country that has been leading the international efforts in Afghanistan, deploying its navy to fight against pirates, has given its full support in peace-keeping operations in the world, and until recently being a mediator between Israel and Syria.
Turkey’s effort to avoid a future conflict involving Iran reminded us 2003 Iraq invasion by the US and the so-called coalition of willing. Turkey, then once again, has opposed to invasion by claiming that not every means has been exhausted. Today Turkey’s position has been proven as the right one. If Turkey’s position has been taken into consideration, the world would have not had the conflict in the region and to the larger extent the conflicts in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And more importantly Iran would not be in this influential position in terms of its mobility, intervention ability, and influence over Iraqi politics and its future, all of which has been granted to Iran a result of Iraq invasion. Iraq shows us that tyranny cannot be avoided by blood or unjust policy decisions. In that sense may be Turkey’s no-vote at the UN Security Council can be a reminder to the world that diplomacy and dialogue can only be possible through adopting flexible and timely soft power. The author is not implying that the UN Security Council resolution proposes a military operation; however, passing that resolution did not give any chance to Turkey and Brazil to pressure over Iran.

Turkey and the US

Turkey and the US are the two countries, which can work together to overcome controversial issues, resolve conflicts, and create more peaceful and prosperous region in this part of the world. There are a number of issues, some of which are listed above are mandating the US and Turkey to act together and sometimes even to think together. Turkey does not owe its unique position only to its historical, cultural, and political past in the region. Turkey’s foreign policy approach (zero- problems foreign policy) carries it to a unique position. By not limiting its decisions to its national interest, Turkey has been a key country that could communicate with any country in the region. And this uniqueness can be capitalized by the US and Turkey to create a vacuum of broader understanding of the issues and problems in the region.
Turkey and the US have been and will be the two key countries in the world which can play crucial role in absorbing chaotic situations. However the US should consider every factor in making decisions about never-ending problems of the Middle East.
Who should change?

It is not Turkey which is changing its axis; it is the axis which is having some problems in understanding the changing nature of the world. Turkey, in terms of attaching itself to any axis, it is and it should be the Western world. But the Western world should be considered of what Turkey’s position in the region is. It is the Western world which will benefit from having Turkey being active in the region as a mediator in solving problems.

It is true that current tension between Turkey and Israel cannot be only determinant in the US-Turkey relations. But if we add Iran and may be Syria, then the relations can be complicated. Even then both Turkey and the US will need each other more than ever. Turkey-US relations involve several issues not limited to Iran and Israel; issues which are overreaching the Middle Eastern region. So, it is the right time for both countries to talk to each other much closely and communicate directly instead of being affected by spoilers.
There is no change or shift in Turkey’s axis; but whether there will be a positive change in the perception of the Western countries toward Turkey is the correct and fair question as a starting point to dig up the debate on the table.