Friday, 20 November 2009
Q - How has Turkey’s role in the Middle East changed over time?
SL: Turkey could not play an important role in the Middle East after the First World War. The main reasons for this, there are many, but economic weakness and the situation in the Middle East, the Cold War competition, are among themany reasons that prevented Turkey from having strong Middle East policies. During that time, outside powers especially were effective in the region. The UK and France dominated the Middle East until the Second World War, after which they reluctantly left the region to the US. But the problem was that the US was not an experienced super power.
The US’ Middle East policies have been closely affected by the London and Tel Aviv schools of thought, which, unfortunately, enlarged and deepened the existing problems. First we had the Palestine problem and then after a few decades the entire Middle East became a greater Palestine. The Middle East had been a certain, a limited area, but in time, a larger region became the Middle East, which former President George W. Bush referred to as the Greater (or Broaden) Middle East. If this approach continues to exist, the region known as the Middle East will continue to grow. The 9/11 attacks is one of the indications that the Middle East is expanding towards other regions: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even India are becoming part of the so-called Greater Middle East. And, apart from the Northern Africa, Sudan, Somalia, and deep inside Africa are becoming the Middle East as well. Even the Western European capitals, thanks to immigration from the Middle Eastern countries and the rising problems between the Christians and Muslims, are becoming like the Middle East. If we take the ‘Middle East’ as a mentality, with destructive policies expanding the region, we have a greater Middle East.
Q - Is such an expansion inevitable at this point?
SL: No, I do not think this is the fate of the region. We should understand that policies implemented in Palestine and the Middle East in general are wrong. The Palestinian problem, the Lebanon problem, Iran, and many other examples prove that the path we are following is not the right way. When we look at the US’ Middle East policy, its Israel policy, we see the mistake. First let us focus on the Palestinian problem. In the Palestinian issue, Israel has won many victories, but its security problems still continue. Since its foundation, Israel has had a problem of security, of existence, of recognition. This is not normal. Israel has no friends around, and this is again not normal. If a state does not have any friends in its neighborhood, it should question its relations and itself not only the others. But Israel always gave importance to weapons, and it tried to be ever stronger in terms of military. But security requires friends. A state has to neutralize its enemies and convert them into non-aggressive actors and then from non-aggressive actors to friendly actors. More weapons cannot provide security, and, after a certain level, victories become failures.
Now there is no balance of power between Israelis and Palestinians: Israel has advanced technological weapons; Palestinians have stones and undeveloped weapons, like Kalashnikovs. Israel can hit any Palestinian target with air attacks and missiles, and the Palestinians cannot respond to such attacks. But still Israel has a security problem, an existence problem.
Israel has always used hard power, never soft power or channels of humanitarian dialogue; economic, social, and cultural tools were neglected by Israeli politicians. And the security mentality that accompanied the increasing security problems increased extremism. The world ignores extremism in Israel and focuses only on Palestinian’s extremism, but both sides construct extremism in similar ways.
The US’ Middle East policy has always been influenced by Israel’s policies. First of all, Israel has a ‘Jewish Diaspora’ in the US that has a great deal of influence over the defense and foreign policy institutions in Washington, D.C. As a result of this close, special relationship, US policies have sometimes become Israeli policies and vice versa. It is unfortunate that the US, similar to Israeli way, in many cases has used only hard power, weapons, in dealing with problems in the Middle East. Iraq is the best example of this. The United States had every possible means to overcome Saddam Hussein’s regime at its disposal but preferred the war option. Its one-sided policies have made wary not only its enemies but also its friends in the region. After the Iraq War, even Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, important allies of the US, became skeptical of the US’ policies, as no one knew their ultimate aim.
Q - What is Turkey’s position in regards to the US and UK’s policies towards the Middle East?
SL: In the last 7 years, Ankara has been developing an alternative understanding to that of London and Tel Aviv. Turkey argues that instead of a Greater Middle East, we can create a Greater Europe. Normally better systems, stronger political economic and social systems should walk towards the other regions, but the world has experienced the reverse. Why does the Middle East continue to grow over other regions? This is not normal, and this is not a fate. The main reason is that the outside great powers nourish what makes the Middle East a Middle East. According to Turkey’s new understanding, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan, all these problematic countries have serious reasons to resist the global order. First we have to understand the roots of the problems. A state or a people cannot be accused of being evil or being bad without any reason. In social life, there is no evil: there are problems, and problems can be solved by social, economic, and political channels. In the Middle East the communication channels are not open and there is no healthy communication between regional countries. So in a place no-one communicates problems cannot understood. If you cannot understand the problems, solutions cannot be found.
Second, the Middle Eastern countries need more economic and social cooperation, and for this too we need channels of dialogue. Because they do not speak enough, because they do not have healthy communication, they are fearful and suspicious of each other. So healthier communication can solve many problems. These nations and states are so similar, and their differences are so few. Most of the people are coming from the same religion, same culture, similar historical background; most of them speak Arabic, for example. Differences are artificial and exaggerated by the outside powers, by the corrupted leaders. The region needs direct dialogue and communication for economic and social cooperation.
These countries should first cooperate on economic issues, since economic cooperation gives rise to political cooperation. Turkey thinks that Syria, Iran, and all other Middle Eastern countries can be shaped in time and can be integrated into the global system.
One thing that should be kept in mind is that the Middle East has no success stories. All stories in the Middle East, especially those between East and West, are tragic. But, in time, following economic cooperation, it is hoped that political solutions can become the region’s success stories.
Israel is quite successful in military battles, but, as I said before, there is no balance of power. Palestine and Israel are not equals, and this unbalanced situation humiliates the Arab people and the whole Muslim population. They feel victimized and humiliated. The Middle East peoples think that Israel, a small country, cannot humiliate Muslims without the secret – or open – support of the US and EU. Israel makes mistakes, and not only Israel, but the US and the entire world, pays the bill.
We need a success story and Turkey can create such a story. Turkey’s relationship with the West shows that true cooperation between East and West is possible. Turkey has been a NATO member and part of all pan-European organizations and institutions since the Second World War. Turkey has also been part of the European political system for centuries. If Turkey can join the EU as a full member, it would be a big success and would prove that the arguments of al Qaeda and similar types of organizations are wrong. Turkey would be a representative of this region and would prove that the stories of Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan are not the fate of Muslim-West relations. Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis, and Egyptians could realize that their countries could become democratic, developed, and part of the Western order. They would understand that there is no clash of civilizations, that the US can be a true friend, but they need an example, a success story. Turkey can provide that.
Q - According to the ‘Ankara School’, how would Turkey approach the region’s problems? What steps would Turkey take?
SL: Turkey needs help in integrating the Middle East by economic and social means, due to the limits of the Turkish economy and political power. Though it is the 17th largest economy in the world, part of G20, the Turkish economy cannot be the locomotive of Middle East integration. After the Second World War, the Marshall Plan financed the rebuilding and development of Germany, France, England, and other countries in order to create an integrated Europe. While the Middle East does not need a Marshall Plan, global cooperation is needed to mend the problems. Turkey with the West’s help should manage large-scale projects between the Middle Eastern countries, for example a highway that would connect Egypt to Gaza to Israel, Lebanon, Turkey and to the EU countries could be a good idea. These kinds of big projects could integrate the Middle Eastern people and could integrate the region into the global order. Such projects need credits, political support and co-operation of the EU and the US.
Another problem that should be solved is the democratic deficit in global governing. There is a huge gap in global governance. None of the Security Council’s five members are from the Middle East. The G8 and other important governing bodies do not represent the Muslim people even though most of the global problems are related to the Muslim population – terrorism, the oil and gas supply, the Iraqi problem, the Palestinian problem, and Afghanistan are a few such examples. Despite the number of issues related to the Middle East or the Muslim people, they do not have a legal representative in the global governing bodies. As a result of this absence, people represent their problems through illegal ways. For example, Al Qaeda detonated a bomb in London (7/7) while G8 leaders were meeting in Scotland. We need to construct legal ways to express these people’s problems and feelings, and we have to mend the gap in global democracy. There is a democratic deficit in global governing. Turkey, with other regional countries and with the close cooperation of the United States and the European Union, can fulfill this need.
Turkey has been quite successful in creating a dialogue environment in the Middle East. We know that Turkey and the region needs more time, maybe 10-20 years, that this is just the beginning. But without the support of the United States, the European Union, and even Israel, Turkey cannot be successful enough in integrating the whole region. The efforts of the years can be spoiled in a couple of days. But we should understand that Turkey’s efforts and the Ankara school of understanding is not against European, American, or Israeli interests.
Q - If the Ankara School is not against Western interests, why has Turkey’s foreign policy direction been questioned recently?
SL: Right-wing extremist Israeli politicians, columnists and experts have been trying to undermine Turkey’s efforts in the Middle East in the last two years. They claim that Turkey is shifting its direction towards Iran, Syria, and other Eastern countries, away from the Western world. This is not true, and even they definetly knows what they say is not true. They deliberately say so in order to force Turkey to certain policies. To understand Turkey’s direction we have to look at the values Turkey prefers, not the recent pictures of the leaders or conjectural visits. Turkey is negotiating with the EU for full membership, and Turkey’s relations with the United States and other Western countries are at their highpoint. We should understand that Turkey’s efforts are also good for Israel’s interests. If Turkey can normalize Syria, normalize Lebanon and Palestinians, Israel’s existence and recognition problems would be solved. Turkey dreams of a region with no Palestinian problem, where Israelis and Palestinians live shoulder to shoulder. I think these dreams are good for the Israeli people as well.
Q - So why are extremist rightist groups against Turkey’s efforts?
SL: I think they are obsessed with the concept of security. Decades of terrorism, of war and conflict, have created a mentality and its followers. Israelis are fighting not against the Palestinians but against their fears. They live with their fears and they fight against themselves, and there is no end to this conflict if outsiders do not help Israelis. And we should not forget that countering terrorism, war, or political tensions, if these problems are chronic problems, if these problems have lasted for decades, it means these problems have created an industry. Each industry has its own advocators, its own defenders, and Israel is no exception. We should help Israel by not listening to its radicals.
We should help the Middle East; we should not fight the Middle East. We saw in Iraq and Afghanistan that more war does not help to solve problems but gives birth to new problems. Iraq was free of terrorism but is now home to one of the schools of terrorism, as is Afghanistan.
Q - What about the threat of Iran?
SL: Iran is a stable state; it is not perfect and has almost no friends, but it is still a stable state. If any country attacks Iran, we would see that Iran would become another school of terrorism, instability, and extremism. We should gain Middle Eastern peoples’ hearts and minds. We should not concentrate on only politicians and leaders. Iranian and Syrian peoples can change their regimes with a soft transformation period. If the economic structure can be changed, if these people enjoy modern life and the advantages of the global order, we will see that the changed economies and societies will create their own political leadership and system.
* Interview with Turkish foreign policy expert Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sedat Laciner by Kaitlin MacKenzie
* Interview was conducted by Kaitlin MacKenzie, a researcher at the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK). Dr. Laciner is the Director of USAK and lecturer in Turkish foreign policy
