Monday, 2 April 2007View by Sedat LACINER (U.S.A.K.)
* 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. 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.
* Main Differences Between Turkish And American Approaches
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 ÔÇÝparanoid 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' ÔÇÝpre-emptive struggle against terrorism' creates the culture of fear and even the Americans at homeland are terrorized by ÔÇÝwar on terror'. 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." 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 ÔÇÝgreat' 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 ÔÇÝpuppet 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 ÔÇÝbad' 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. 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 ÔÇÝIslamist' 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 na+»ve. 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.
2 April 2007
slaciner@gmail.com
Sedat LACINER: BA (Ankara Univ.), MA (University of Sheffield, UK), PhD (King's College London, UK)
www.turkishweekly.net
|
Monday, 2 April 2007
View by Sedat LACINER
|
|
