2011
Nowadays it is very popular to observe Turkey’s new role as a politically mediating and economically influential country in the Middle East. Since Ahmet Davutoglu came into power as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2009, Turkey adopted a foreign policy called “zero problem with neighbors” and this policy needed a proactive approach from the Foreign Policy officials in political and economical grounds. Despite their rise in the region, Turkey is heavily questioned for if they are shifting towards East and leaving their Western tendency that is embraced since the foundation of the Turkish Republic. The New York Times writer Thomas Friedman, a three times Pulitzer winner, is one of the doubters and he expressed his fears of Turkey’s leaning towards East in his article called “Letter from Istanbul” on June 15, 2010.
What Friedman heavily underlines is that once an antidote to “Bin Ladenism” due to her secular and democratic but also Muslim approach, Turkey is now turning from West to East for sure and there are mainly three reasons for this transformation which are the negative attitude of European Union, the possibility of being the leader of the Arab world and the need for being strong inside the borders. Although I am convinced that there are reasonable points to believe that Turkey seems to be shifting, structural changes since the end of the cold war and the emerging economic activities of Turkey with her neighbors made people question the issue. These two points were in fact the steps for increasing the number of alternatives and enlarging the capabilities for Turkey which was once only the ally of the United States. To better explain my argument, I will be partly referring to the neo-realist perspective and articles from Kenneth Waltz, Mustafa Aydın and Dietrich Jung.
The main argument in Friedman’s mentioned article is change of approach adopted by Turkey in which he claims that “Turkey’s Islamist government seemingly focused not on joining the European Union but the Arab League”. That’s a bit exaggerated but what he means briefly is that Turkey is shifting from West to East. According to him, first reason for this change is the negative attitude of the EU in the aspect of membership of Turkey despite her efforts to match the conditions. Secondly, the absence of a leader country in the Middle East is a motivation for the Turkish government to turn his back to the West. It is certain that being in a confrontation with Israel brings a reputation to Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. Lastly, the motivation to stay strong in the domestic sphere leads the government’s aggressive actions against the press and the army and acts for domestic popularity by accusing Israel in public speeches. My opinion for Turkey’s appearance of shifting East is different than Friedman’s, which I will explain through the structural changes and the growing economic relations of Turkey in the neighborhood.
To understand the international picture for the moment and Turkey’s position in it, we should first look at the neo-realist writings of Kenneth Waltz. He explains the international system as a composition of structures and interacting units (states) where every unit looks to care of his own. Waltz underlines that international politics is the realm of power and struggle and continues that the relations of units and the changes in the structure are two factors that are affected by each other to finally form a new system. “The structure of a system changes with changes in the distribution of capabilities across the system’s units” he writes, which brings us to Turkey’s efforts to maximize her capabilities by improving her relations with her neighbors. The last turning point in the 20th century is certainly the end of the Cold War which led the system from a bipolar to unipolar and finally to a multipolar stage. The US, the leader in the unipolarity, could not prevent the rise of regional alliances and new regional actors which brought us to a new distribution of capabilities.
I firmly believe that Turkish Foreign Policy is newly defining her role in this changed structure which led her to reposition herself between the West and the East. It seems that US has to compromise more than before, compared to the Cold War period aggressiveness of hers. That reestablishment is both the reason and the product of the newly emerging regional powers such as China, Russia, Brazil or Turkey. Turkey, once a pro-Western oriented country, is now trying to strengthen her hand by forming relationships with Russia, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Here I join Friedman’s thoughts that European Union’s unwillingness made Turkey look elsewhere which led not a leaning towards East in Turkish Foreign Policy but to an increasing alternatives and maximizing of benefits.
A proactive role in both diplomatic and economic spheres especially in the Middle East region seems to be the new approach but growing relations with Russia, Africa and the other parts of the world also cannot be denied. Though it is said to be the extension of Western approach, it is a fact that Turkey used to be an active member in the Middle East during 1950s when she was leading the Baghdad Pact and Middle East Defense Organization. So what makes people think that Turkey is different than before and closer to the East? The difference is the growing trade numbers and the interactions between Turkey and the Middle East countries. Turkey has enlarged his market enormously compared to the past and for now European Union countries are not the only buyers of Turkish products and services. Thus, Turkey is looking for a “zero problem” policy of stability and peace to further her economic relations with the East in a consistent way.
However I understand the concerns of the West about Turkey’s inclination to the East as the current Turkish government using an appropriate language and set of discourses to be engaged with the Middle East. As Jung tells in his article that Turkey was being perceived as a traitor in the region due to her Ottoman past of domination over Arabs and republican approach of adopting a secular system and redefining the role of Islam in the country. Today, Turkish government is seen as an Islam-oriented and conservative government with its proper set of behaviors and discourses. In addition, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is seen as a hero in the region after his speeches about the Turkey-Israel confrontation. Nevertheless, unlike Friedman, I would say that Turkey is not aiming to join the Arab league and leave the West but to increase the benefit, maximize the capability and create a suitable atmosphere for healthy economic relations. It is certain that abandoning relations with European countries would not maximize the capabilities of Turkey.
To summarize, I firmly believe that Turkey’s efforts of maximizing her capabilities and increasing the number of alternatives to interact cannot be seen as an inclination to the East as Thomas Friedman suggested in his article. In my opinion, structural changes since the end of the Cold War resulted in a new form of relations where the regional alliances and actors became influent. Furthermore, Turkey seems to be discovering her new role in the region newly and trying to be more proactive compared to past. This policy needs a more peaceful environment that will result in more stable economic relations between the countries in the region. It is for certain that Turkey cannot not leave Europe and the West in a heartbeat as some huge part of her roots lies in that hemisphere with a serious engagement of economic and diplomatic relations. I underline that Turkey’s turning back to East is just a illusion of her maximizing benefits and alternatives based on increasing diplomatic and economic relations with the Middle Eastern countries.
Nowadays it is very popular to observe Turkey’s new role as a politically mediating and economically influential country in the Middle East. Since Ahmet Davutoglu came into power as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2009, Turkey adopted a foreign policy called “zero problem with neighbors” and this policy needed a proactive approach from the Foreign Policy officials in political and economical grounds. Despite their rise in the region, Turkey is heavily questioned for if they are shifting towards East and leaving their Western tendency that is embraced since the foundation of the Turkish Republic. The New York Times writer Thomas Friedman, a three times Pulitzer winner, is one of the doubters and he expressed his fears of Turkey’s leaning towards East in his article called “Letter from Istanbul” on June 15, 2010.
What Friedman heavily underlines is that once an antidote to “Bin Ladenism” due to her secular and democratic but also Muslim approach, Turkey is now turning from West to East for sure and there are mainly three reasons for this transformation which are the negative attitude of European Union, the possibility of being the leader of the Arab world and the need for being strong inside the borders. Although I am convinced that there are reasonable points to believe that Turkey seems to be shifting, structural changes since the end of the cold war and the emerging economic activities of Turkey with her neighbors made people question the issue. These two points were in fact the steps for increasing the number of alternatives and enlarging the capabilities for Turkey which was once only the ally of the United States. To better explain my argument, I will be partly referring to the neo-realist perspective and articles from Kenneth Waltz, Mustafa Aydın and Dietrich Jung.
The main argument in Friedman’s mentioned article is change of approach adopted by Turkey in which he claims that “Turkey’s Islamist government seemingly focused not on joining the European Union but the Arab League”. That’s a bit exaggerated but what he means briefly is that Turkey is shifting from West to East. According to him, first reason for this change is the negative attitude of the EU in the aspect of membership of Turkey despite her efforts to match the conditions. Secondly, the absence of a leader country in the Middle East is a motivation for the Turkish government to turn his back to the West. It is certain that being in a confrontation with Israel brings a reputation to Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. Lastly, the motivation to stay strong in the domestic sphere leads the government’s aggressive actions against the press and the army and acts for domestic popularity by accusing Israel in public speeches. My opinion for Turkey’s appearance of shifting East is different than Friedman’s, which I will explain through the structural changes and the growing economic relations of Turkey in the neighborhood.
To understand the international picture for the moment and Turkey’s position in it, we should first look at the neo-realist writings of Kenneth Waltz. He explains the international system as a composition of structures and interacting units (states) where every unit looks to care of his own. Waltz underlines that international politics is the realm of power and struggle and continues that the relations of units and the changes in the structure are two factors that are affected by each other to finally form a new system. “The structure of a system changes with changes in the distribution of capabilities across the system’s units” he writes, which brings us to Turkey’s efforts to maximize her capabilities by improving her relations with her neighbors. The last turning point in the 20th century is certainly the end of the Cold War which led the system from a bipolar to unipolar and finally to a multipolar stage. The US, the leader in the unipolarity, could not prevent the rise of regional alliances and new regional actors which brought us to a new distribution of capabilities.
I firmly believe that Turkish Foreign Policy is newly defining her role in this changed structure which led her to reposition herself between the West and the East. It seems that US has to compromise more than before, compared to the Cold War period aggressiveness of hers. That reestablishment is both the reason and the product of the newly emerging regional powers such as China, Russia, Brazil or Turkey. Turkey, once a pro-Western oriented country, is now trying to strengthen her hand by forming relationships with Russia, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Here I join Friedman’s thoughts that European Union’s unwillingness made Turkey look elsewhere which led not a leaning towards East in Turkish Foreign Policy but to an increasing alternatives and maximizing of benefits.
A proactive role in both diplomatic and economic spheres especially in the Middle East region seems to be the new approach but growing relations with Russia, Africa and the other parts of the world also cannot be denied. Though it is said to be the extension of Western approach, it is a fact that Turkey used to be an active member in the Middle East during 1950s when she was leading the Baghdad Pact and Middle East Defense Organization. So what makes people think that Turkey is different than before and closer to the East? The difference is the growing trade numbers and the interactions between Turkey and the Middle East countries. Turkey has enlarged his market enormously compared to the past and for now European Union countries are not the only buyers of Turkish products and services. Thus, Turkey is looking for a “zero problem” policy of stability and peace to further her economic relations with the East in a consistent way.
However I understand the concerns of the West about Turkey’s inclination to the East as the current Turkish government using an appropriate language and set of discourses to be engaged with the Middle East. As Jung tells in his article that Turkey was being perceived as a traitor in the region due to her Ottoman past of domination over Arabs and republican approach of adopting a secular system and redefining the role of Islam in the country. Today, Turkish government is seen as an Islam-oriented and conservative government with its proper set of behaviors and discourses. In addition, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is seen as a hero in the region after his speeches about the Turkey-Israel confrontation. Nevertheless, unlike Friedman, I would say that Turkey is not aiming to join the Arab league and leave the West but to increase the benefit, maximize the capability and create a suitable atmosphere for healthy economic relations. It is certain that abandoning relations with European countries would not maximize the capabilities of Turkey.
To summarize, I firmly believe that Turkey’s efforts of maximizing her capabilities and increasing the number of alternatives to interact cannot be seen as an inclination to the East as Thomas Friedman suggested in his article. In my opinion, structural changes since the end of the Cold War resulted in a new form of relations where the regional alliances and actors became influent. Furthermore, Turkey seems to be discovering her new role in the region newly and trying to be more proactive compared to past. This policy needs a more peaceful environment that will result in more stable economic relations between the countries in the region. It is for certain that Turkey cannot not leave Europe and the West in a heartbeat as some huge part of her roots lies in that hemisphere with a serious engagement of economic and diplomatic relations. I underline that Turkey’s turning back to East is just a illusion of her maximizing benefits and alternatives based on increasing diplomatic and economic relations with the Middle Eastern countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment