WHAT TO EXPECT FROM TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY IN 2011

2011

Although there is an optimistic way of thinking on the behalf of Turkey’s foreign policy steps due to its growing influence in her Eastern borders or Obama administration’s efforts for restoring trust through phone calls, nobody can assure that 2011 will be an easy and comfortable year for Turkish state officials. The reason Turkey is emerging as a significant regional player is not that simply she is between West and East but her significant economic and diplomatic influence especially in the Middle East. It seems that 2011 will bring many topics in Turkish foreign policy agenda such as stability of Iraqi government, Israeli tension, Iranian nuclear proliferation, Armenia relations and European Union membership.

Since Ahmet Davutoglu came into power as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2009, Turkey adopted a “zero problem” strategy with its neighbors. This proactive change is a step forward for Turkey to a more influential attitude in the region but the economic advancements and relations with Middle East members tell us that zero problem policy is a product of economic motivations. Nevertheless, the search for a more stable and peaceful environment in her East would mean a lot for Turkey in 2011 especially in reestablishment in Iraq. Compared to European investors, Turkish companies seem more comfortable in doing business in risky atmosphere of Iraq. The continuity of the newly formed Iraqi government will be a key issue for advancements of Turkish industry in the post-war region and the Turkish government will be having an important role for developing relations with her Iraqi colleagues in 2011.

Tension with Israel seem not to be decreasing as Turkey’s demands for an apology and compensation for “Mavi Marmara” deaths will probably not be answered by the Israeli government. Although the history and context of Turkey-Israel relations is big enough not to be replaced easily, Turkish Prime Minister’s aggressive statements to Israel make him a popular figure in the Middle East countries and this motivation seems enough to stand firm in the confrontation. In addition, Iran’s nuclear proliferation is another sensitive issue for Turkey to act wisely as a nuclear-muscled Iran is a sure threat to Turkey more than to US or Europe. At the end of January, Turkey will host a United Nations Security Council meeting that is about sanctions on Iran and despite the fact that Turkey will not a have a word in the meetings, still it will be a good event to further the bilateral and multilateral relations about the issue.

Efforts to normalize relations with Armenia is another topic in the agenda which will help the region stabilize especially for energy transportation. Protocols and agreements in 2009 was a good step for both countries as it was a good way to silence the Armenian lobbies across the ocean. Still, Turkey insists for a resolution of disputes between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to further the negotiations. The solution in this issue is important due to the fact that Azerbaijan is a significant neighbor for Turkey as she is an energy partner supported with ties of kinship. Besides, Armenia relations have a sensitive reflection in EU membership as Armenia is included in European Neighborhood policy. Furthermore the weakening relations of Turkey and EU which leads many people think that Turkey is shifting to the East. The fact is, Croatia, that is started membership negotiations with Turkey in 2005, is planning to successfully close all the chapters of negotiations in the first part of 2011. On the contrary, Turkey only managed to close one of the chapters and this insufficiency may lead Turkey to form her policy accordingly and maybe permanently in 2011.

I intentionally did not mention the role of United States above since the long-lasting relationship between US and Turkey seems to continue necessarily due to Turkey’s position to support policies of US in the region. The year 2011 have enough reasons for Turkish Foreign Policy not to decrease the tempo of 2010. The influential and proactive role that Turkey adopted will bring a need for stability and peace not just outside but also inside the boundaries and it is for certain that the increasing number of issues and problems that are mentioned above can have either a restraining or propelling role in Turkish Foreign Policy in 2011.

TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY IN THE EYES OF THE UNITED STATES

2010

On 28th of November 2010, Wikileaks, a voluntary organization that is aimed to reveal the secrets of governments to the public, started publishing documents of reports between US state officials, US bureaucrats and US embassies. Although it is active since 2007 and despite its successful revealing leaks on subjects like abuse and violation in Iraq and Afghanistan since then, no one (publicly and governmentally) discussed the organization’s efforts like that before. There are more than 250.000 documents to be published by Wikileaks and only a small portion of it was published since now which was enough to make a world-wide controversy. There are leaks from several US embassies in the world such as Madrid, Tel-Aviv or Buenos Aires but the Turkish Embassy of US in Ankara seems to be the Achilles’ heel as there are like 8.000 documents revealed from Ankara which is the biggest number among other embassies.

Throughout the published ones of 8.000 documents from Embassy Ankara, it can be seen that the aim of US officials in Ankara was to give an insight information of AKP government, bureaucrats and Turkey’s Foreign Policy approach to the US Secretary of State. There are some important comments about Turkish Foreign Policy in the documents, which are mainly focused on the arguable Neo-Ottoman posturing of Turkey based on her active diplomatic and economic efforts in the complex regions of Asia and Europe but especially in the Middle East. In this paper, I will evaluate a document written by Embassy Ankara on 20th January 2010 which is about Turkey’s recent foreign policy direction and its motivations.

To mention first, Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Foreign Minister since May of 2009, is the leading figure in Turkey’s active foreign policy efforts. With his “zero-problem” policy, Turkey is looking for creating balance in the complicated atmosphere of Middle East. Turkish officials are aiming for a pivotal role in the region and for that reason they increased the frequencies of visits to Iraq, Iran, Syria and several Arab countries. Nevertheless the bounds with European Union and United States are not broken and as a result, one may say that Turkey is far from having a pure identity as she is stuck between West and East. However this complexity helps Turkey build a calculated value-maximizing effort in international relations. Simply, Middle East countries respect Turkey because of her link with the West and Western countries respect Turkey because of her link with the East.

In the article called 10ANKARA87, published by Wikileaks, the former US ambassador James Jeffrey draws not only a comprehensive but also a simple framework of the recent Turkish Foreign Policy in addition to possible complications for the US side. In the introduction part of his report, he emphasizes the emerging desire of Turkey to be independently proactive, supported with an Islamic orientation. He summarizes the recent appearance of Turkey which was mostly Western oriented in the past: “Does all this mean that the country is becoming more focused on the Islamist world and its Muslim tradition in its foreign policy? Absolutely. Does it mean that it is "abandoning" or wants to abandon its traditional Western orientation and willingness to cooperate with us? Absolutely not.”

In his report, Jeffrey writes about the recent disturbances of Turkish elites and European Union members about Turkey’s orientation toward the East and Islamization. According to Jeffrey’s hearings, Turkish elites seem to be disturbed of the possible drift from Western world and EU seems to be disturbed of being a part of AKP’s Christian vs Muslim or Europe vs Middle East separation campaign. However, Jeffrey never mentions about a disadvantage for US in this separation. Despite the fact that US never desires an Islam Republic in Turkey as their companionship is built upon the Western-oriented perspectives and institutions, Jeffrey welcomes the option of sharing responsibility of the region with Turkey. As a result, US does not react Turkey in a negative manner for using Islam as a tool or ideology as long as they stay strong enough to help Americans in the Middle East. However a loss of control, such as losing the air space or Incirlik base, would be unacceptable for US.

Furthermore, another aspect of the recent Turkey Foreign Policy that makes US uncomfortable is Turkey’s Neo-Ottoman posturing around the Middle East and the Balkans. There is a quote from Davutoglu’s thesis in the report: “the Balkans, Caucasus, and Middle East were all better off when under Ottoman control or influence; peace and progress prevailed. Alas the region has been ravaged by division and war ever since.” On the other hand, Jeffrey claims that despite her active foreign policy and economic growth, Turkey still does not have enough power to compete with the region’s leading states like US, Russia or Iran. According to him Turkey is in need of an underdog to call for a help from her and show her capabilities as a result. This is a very good observation and it should be added that until that time Turkey will still be in need of the protection and support of Western countries. Actually Jeffrey simply summarizes Turkey’s condition with a metaphor and describe Turkey as a Rover with Rolls Royce dreams.

What US really wants from Turkey, apart from calming down the tension with Israel, is to draw Syria from Iran and begin achieving practical results, not just phone calls and conversations. Turkey is in calm relations with Iran and not opposing her strictly due to the nuclear power issue makes Turkey the only major country that is in friendly discussion with Iran. In return, US expects from Turkey to benefit from this positive relationship and be more demanding from Iran in Security Council meetings, to stop her nuclear progress.

To sum up, it is obvious that the changing direction of the Turkish Foreign Policy is being carefully observed by the US officials. Their arguments are mostly reasonable and it seems that US will not be interfering in Turkey’s turning back to East, whether in a Neo-Ottoman posturing or not, as long as they do not let go of the Western traditions and companionship of US, which is not a rational choice by the way. Actually, James Jeffrey summarizes Turkey’s situation very well: “Turkey will remain a complicated blend of world class "Western" institutions, competencies, and orientation, and Middle Eastern culture and religion.”

CLOSER LOOK AT THE MISSILE SHIELD

2010

During his way to the Lisbon, where the NATO summit was going to take place, Turkish President Abdullah Gül shared his opinion with the reporters: “Outcomes of the Lisbon (summit) will determine the 10-15 years of NATO agenda.” During the meeting on 19th and 20th November, the most important decision, along with the efforts of expanding NATO-EU security collaboration in the sense of involving non-EU European countries, was the plantation of a missile shield in Europe and radar probably in Turkish territory. After this historic decision, there are now some questions on the table: Who is this shield for? Who will control it? Will it protect enough in exchange for that much investment? What are the benefits for Turkey?

Obviously, preventing Iran’s possible aggressive behaviors in the region is the primary aim to build the shield. Russia is another country that has the missile technology but as she is declared a companion of NATO, nobody puts her name next to Iran. Before and during the summit, due to her zero problem policy with neighbours, Turkey underlined the sensitivity of not to speak out any name of any country that can be the objective for the shield. Except an individual effort by the French president Sarkozy, every member country shared Turkey’s perception and as a result Turkey escaped a possible outpost role in the favor of US against Iran or Russia.

After the end of the Cold War, it was a popular thought that NATO was over as it had lost its objective following the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, it maintained its existence, this time against new threats like terrorist organizations, cyber attacks and aggressive states. The theories that NATO is an organization that executes the interests of US still have an heavy impact on the public opinion and this situation makes people wonder if the shield technology in Turkish territory would be controlled by US officials. According to the decisions taken in the summit, the responsibility will be shared by the NATO members equally.

In May 2010, two important physicians from MIT claimed that missile shield is a military myth as it cannot catch a nuclear missile with high success rate. They supported their arguments with the official reports published by the Pentagon which were about testing the related shield. During the tests, only 1 or 2 out of 10 missiles were hit by the shield and there had never been a real nuclear missile used in these practices. On the contrary, it is obvious that expectancy for the shield to be fully successful will be high since there will a large sum of money to be invested in the project. According to the plans, each NATO member, including the post-economic crisis states of EU, is going to give 200 million dollars each for the next ten years. However, there are rumours that the price will be higher, given that a similar US project cost for 45 billion dollars.

Everything about the missile shield issue resulted fine for Turkish officials’ side during the summit. Firstly, Turkey’s sensitivity about not to mention Iran as the shield’s objective was shared by all the members. Also, the change of missile shield coverage from East Europe to Turkey and whole Europe was a lucky and maybe a deserved move due to her positive foreign policy steps during the last couple of years. Furthermore, since there was a preparation of a Turkish missile shield for the upcoming years, the NATO project can be a chance to reduce the costs of this national one. Finally, possessing a shield project, although under the common control of members, would be a prestigious role for Turkey if correctly exercised.

To sum up, it is obvious that the decision to plant a missile shield in Europe is a chance for NATO to regenerate its influence following end of the Cold War. Although there are question marks against its high costs and ability to hit the target, still it is an important effort to form a security area over Turkey and European region. Additionally, the summit can be written as a success for Turkey as they persuaded all the members about the sensitivity not to mention Iran as an objective for the shield and they gained a chance to achieve an influential role due to their active involvement in the process.