The Rise and Rise of Turkey

November 5, 2009
The Rise and Rise of Turkey
By PATRICK SEALE
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05iht-edseale.html?_r=2

It is generally accepted that America’s destruction of Iraq overturned the balance of power in the Gulf, opening the way for the Islamic Republic of Iran to emerge as a major regional power, able to challenge the dominance of Sunni Arab states and pose as a rival to both Israel and the United States.

Its influence has spread to Iraq itself — now under Shiite leadership — and beyond to Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and even perhaps to Zaidi rebels in northern Yemen fighting the central government in Sana‘a, a development that has aroused understandable anxiety in Saudi Arabia.

However, the Iraq war has had another important consequence that is also attracting serious notice. America’s failure in Iraq — and its equal failure to tame Israel’s excesses — has encouraged Turkey to emerge from its pro-American straitjacket and assert itself as a powerful independent actor at the heart of a vast region that extends from the Middle East to the Balkans, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

The Turks like to say that whereas Iran and Israel are revisionist powers, arousing anxiety and even fear by their expansionism and their challenge to existing power structures, Turkey is a stabilizing power, intent on spreading peace and security far and wide.

Turkey is extending its influence by diplomacy rather than force. It is also forging economic ties with its neighbors, and has offered to mediate in several persistent regional conflicts. It has, however, not hesitated to use force to quell the guerrillas of the PKK, a rebel movement fighting for Kurdish independence.

But even here, Turkey is now using a softer approach. The rebels have been offered an amnesty and Turkey’s influential foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has this past week paid a visit — the first of its kind — to the Kurdish Regional Government in northern Iraq. There is even talk of Turkey opening a consulate in Erbil.

In recent years, Turkey’s diplomacy has scored many successes, winning great popularity in the Arab world and strengthening Turkey’s hand in its bid to join the European Union. Some people would go so far as to argue that there is no future for Turkey without the E.U., and no future for the E.U. without Turkey.

Turkey’s dynamic multi-directional foreign policy started to take shape when the Justice and Development party, or AKP, came to power in 2002 under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Abdullah Gul, now president of the Turkish Republic. These men are rightly considered to be conservative and moderately Islamic — their wives wear headscarves — but they are careful to stress that they have no ambition to create an Islamic state. Turkey’s population may be largely Muslim, but the state itself is secular, democratic, capitalist and close to both the West and the Arab and Muslim world. Indeed, Turkey sees itself as a bridge, vital to both.

Ahmet Davutoglu is credited with providing the theoretical framework for Turkey’s new foreign policy. He was Mr. Erdogan’s principal adviser before being promoted foreign minister.

Two visits in October illustrate Turkey’s activisim. Prime Minister Erdogan, accompanied by nine ministers and an Airbus full of businessmen, visited Baghdad, where he held a session with the Iraq government and signed no fewer than 48 memoranda in the fields of commerce, energy, water, security, the environment and so forth.

At much the same time, Foreign Minister Davutoglu was in Aleppo, where he signed agreements with Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Muallim, of which perhaps the most important was the removal of visas, allowing for a free flow of people across their common border.

Turkey also broke new ground in October by signing two protocols with Armenia, providing for the restoration of diplomatic relations and the opening of the border between them. Not surprisingly, Turkey’s ally Azerbaijan has strongly objected to this development, since it is locked in conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-populated pocket of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenian forces.

Indeed, Turkey’s protocols with Armenia are unlikely to be fully implemented until Armenia withdraws from at least some of the districts surrounding Karabakh — but, at the very least, a historic start has been made toward Turkish-Armenian reconciliation.

From the Arab point of view, the most dramatic development has undoubtedly been the cooling of Turkey’s relations with Israel. The relationship has been damaged by the outrage felt by many Turks at Israel’s cruel oppression of the Palestinians, which reached its peak with the Gaza War.

Even before the assault on Gaza, Prime Minister Erdogan — a strong supporter of the Palestine cause — did not hesitate to describe some of Israel’s brutal actions as “state terrorism.” A total breach between the two countries is unlikely, but relations are unlikely to recover their earlier warmth so long as Israel’s hard-line prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, remain in power.

Underpinning Turkey’s diplomacy is its central role as an energy hub linking oil and gas producers in Russia and Central Asia with energy-hungry markets in Europe.

One way and another, a resurgent Turkey is rewriting the rules of the power game in the Middle East in a positive and non-confrontational manner. This is one of the few bright spots in a turbulent and highly inflammable Middle East.

Patrick Seale is the author of “The Struggle for Syria,” “Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East” and “Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.” Agence Global

Turkey and the Middle East Looking east and south

Oct 29th 2009 | ISTANBUL

From The Economist print edition

Frustrated by European equivocation, Turkey is reversing years of antagonism with its Arab neighbours

 

Illustration by Peter Schrank

IT IS a thousand years since the Turks arrived in the Middle East, migrating from Central Asia to Anatolia. For half of that millennium they ruled much of the region. But when the Ottoman Empire fizzled out and the Turkish Republic was born in 1923, they all but sealed themselves off from their former dominions, turning instead to Europe and tightly embracing America in its cold war with the Soviet Union.

The Turks are now back in the Middle East, in the benign guise of traders and diplomats. The move is natural, considering proximity, the strength of the Turkish economy, the revival of Islamic feeling in Turkey after decades of enforced secularism, and frustration with the sluggishness of talks to join the European Union. Indeed, Turkey’s Middle East offensive has taken on something of the scale and momentum of an invasion, albeit a peaceful one.

In the past seven years the value of Turkey’s exports to the Middle East and north Africa has swollen nearly sevenfold to $31 billion in 2008. From cars to tableware, dried figs to television serials, Turkish products, unknown a decade ago, are now ubiquitous in markets from Algiers to Tehran. Already a vital conduit for sending energy from east to west, Turkey is set to grow in importance as more pipelines come on stream. The most notable is Nabucco, a proposed €7.9 billion ($11.7 billion) scheme to carry gas across Turkey from Azerbaijan and possibly Turkmenistan, Iran, Iraq and Egypt. A single Turkish construction firm, TAV, has just finished an airport terminal for Egypt’s capital, Cairo, and is building others in Libya, Qatar, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. Turks have scooped up hundreds of infrastructure contracts in Iraqi Kurdistan, and invested in shopping malls, hotels and even schools.

These achievements are partly due to an energetic pursuit of trading privileges, such as Turkey’s free-trade pacts with Egypt, Israel, Morocco and Tunisia. It is seeking a similar deal with the six-member Gulf Co-operation Council, which includes Saudi Arabia. Earlier this month, teams of Turkish ministers travelled to Baghdad and Damascus to sign a package of 48 co-operation deals with Iraq and 40 with Syria. Covering everything from tourism to counter-terrorism and joint military exercises, the deals could end decades of tension between Turkey and its former Ottoman provinces.

Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has just been warmly received in the Iranian capital, Tehran, a reflection of the realpolitik that has kept links open despite the Islamic Republic’s international isolation. Turkey requires no visas for Iranians, and Mr Erdogan, who has stressed Iran’s right to nuclear power for civil purposes, pointedly congratulated Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, after his disputed election win in June. Turkey only recently made an historic breakthrough in relations with another eastern neighbour, Armenia. If the parliaments of both countries endorse the move, diplomatic ties may be restored after a 16-year freeze.

This dogged diplomatic pragmatism has been ardently pursued by the foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, an ebullient professor of international relations who had long advised Mr Erdogan before his appointment in May. Mr Davutoglu, who in a book described the Middle East as “Turkey’s strategic depth”, has called for a policy of “zero problems with neighbours”. Reflecting the mild, modernist Islamism of the Justice and Development party, known by its Turkish initials AK, which has ruled Turkey since 2002, the new policy seeks to use the soft power of trade, along with historical links, to project stability beyond Turkey’s frontiers. This marks a distinct shift in worldview. In the past Turkey tended to see itself as an eastern bulwark of the NATO alliance, whereas its Middle Eastern neighbours were viewed as threats to be contained.

Whatever Mr Davutoglu’s persuasive powers, this reorientation could not have happened without dramatic changes in Turkey. Reforms undertaken partly to meet demands for EU membership have shifted power from threat-obsessed generals to civilian institutions, and to a new, more self-consciously Muslim elite rooted in Anatolia rather than Istanbul, Turkey’s Western-looking commercial and intellectual capital. The AK party has also reversed decades of official policy by trying to meet the demands of Turkey’s large Kurdish minority (some 14m in a total population of 72m). The granting of more cultural and political rights, and the admission of past discrimination, have soothed tempers not only among Turkish Kurds, but among their ethnic kin in Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Yet a reason for the success of Turkey’s kinder, gentler approach is that it takes place in the context of a regional power vacuum. Such relative Arab heavyweights as Egypt and Iraq no longer wield much clout. American influence has also dipped in the wake of its troubles in Iraq. Indeed, Turkey’s biggest breakthrough in Arab public opinion came in 2003, when its parliament rejected an American request to open Turkish territory as a second front for the invasion of Iraq. Turkey did allow the use of an airbase to supply the war, but escaped the opprobrium heaped on America’s Arab allies who grudgingly lent support to the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Turkey has also been welcomed back because many Arabs see it as both a moderate counterweight to Iran and as a window to the West. Iraqi Shias, for instance, are still wary of Iranian meddling in Iraq, even though Iraq’s main Shia parties have close relations with Iran. Iraq’s Kurds, despite age-old tensions with Turkey, have also warmed their relations as trade has boomed and the looming departure of the Kurds’ American protectors raises the spectre of isolation. The secular government of Syria, an ostensible ally of Iran, in fact shares little cultural affinity with its stridently Islamist rulers, compared with the AK party’s businesslike, tie-wearing officials. Improved relations with Turkey, which now include visa-free travel, bring much-needed relief to Syria, isolated diplomatically and economically backward. In fact, so eager has Syria been to woo Turkey that in 2005 it scrapped a longstanding territorial claim to Hatay, a province granted to Turkey in 1939 by France, Syria’s colonial master at the time.

Turkish officials, however, have been careful to explain that their renewed interest in the Muslim east does not mean a chill towards the West. Instead, they present Turkey as a useful bridge, a regional force for peace, and the model of a democracy that is compatible with Islam. Its Western allies have generally shared that view and have not opposed Turkey’s eastward shift. Yet such benign indifference could change, if Turkey’s prospects for joining the EU die, or if Turkey is seen as undermining attempts to pressure Iran.

Already, Turkey’s gentle realignment has carried some costs, most obviously to its relations with Israel. These flourished into a full-blown strategic partnership in the 1990s, before the AK party’s rise, when peace between Palestinians and Israelis seemed possible. Joint military exercises and Israeli arms sales brought the two countries’ military establishments close, while trade and tourism expanded fast. Israel even offered to shield Turkey from lobbies in the American Congress that sought to punish Turkey for disputing the genocide of Armenians in Ottoman territory during the first world war.

The end of an affair?

But ties have frayed as Turkish public opinion, which now counts for more, has turned increasingly hostile to Israel. Mr Erdogan, a tough, streetwise politician, felt slighted last year when Israel attacked Gaza only days after he had met Israel’s then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who assured him that Turkish-brokered peace talks between Israel and Syria would resume. The bloodshed in Gaza outraged many Turks, who heartily praised Mr Erdogan when he stormed out of a debate with Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, at Davos in Switzerland earlier this year.

The Turks were again angered in September when Israel denied Mr Davutoglu permission to cross into Gaza during a visit to Israel. Earlier this month Turkey, citing Israel’s failure to deliver an order of military drone aircraft, abruptly cancelled joint air exercises. Israel, for its part, lodged a formal protest at the airing, on Turkish state television, of a serial depicting Israeli soldiers as brutal killers. Some Israeli officials say they detect signs of anti-Semitism that disqualify Turkey from mediating any longer between Syria and Israel.

Turkish officials respond that they have no intention of breaking off relations with Israel, and think they can still be a useful interlocutor with the Jewish state. But they remain indignant. “We might have lost leverage with Israel,” says an AK party man. “But I’d rather be on the side of history, of what is right, of justice.” One of Mr Erdogan’s advisers puts Turkey’s case more boldly, in a sign of its growing confidence as a regional leader. “We are conditioning relations with Israel on the progress of the conflict,” he says. “This is what the West should do.”

NATO and Russia War games

Oct 29th 2009 | RIGA AND TALLINN
From The Economist print edition

SCAREMONGERING is where defence-planning and politics overlap. Big military exercises in western Russia and Belarus, which finished earlier this month, were based on the following improbable scenario: ethnic Poles in western Belarus rise up and “terrorists” from Lithuania attack the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. More than 10,000 troops from Russia and Belarus countered them, reinforcing Kaliningrad from the sea and sending special forces behind the enemy lines. Three NATO–like brigades, one visiting, one Estonian and one Latvian, then invaded western Russia, where they were successfully rebuffed by the elite Pskov-based 76th air assault division, reinforced by a motorised rifle brigade.

Military exercises need a notional enemy and, from Russia’s point of view, NATO is the obvious choice. Because the alliance has expanded to Russia’s borders, taking in a dozen ex-communist members over strenuous protests from the Kremlin, it is all the more desirable to send a strong signal. What is more, Western countries have been urging (and helping) Russia’s military forces to become more professional. That requires practice drills.

The main aim of the Russian exercises may indeed have been to measure progress on military reform, particularly the creation of more Western-style autonomous brigades. And, plainly, Russia is neither willing nor able to fight a real war with NATO. Yet the war-games look alarming to neighbours. They recall that the war in Georgia in August 2008 followed many years of exercises, and they point out that NATO has no formal contingency plans to defend its vulnerable Baltic members. Nor has the alliance held land drills on the territory of any of its new members. Indeed, until two years ago NATO’s threat assessments explicitly discounted the idea of conflict with Russia.

Russia faces many security problems within its borders, and its armed forces are still rusty. It is hard to see why preparing for an implausible armed attack from the West should be a priority; these days America and its allies have little time to rehearse big-war manoeuvres because their soldiers are too busy fighting, or training to fight, insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, the idea of Lithuanian-based “terrorists” invading Russia is risible.

Western military analysts have noted Russia’s use of destroyers and landing craft from the Black Sea and Northern Fleets to back up its feeble Baltic-based naval forces. They also noted the deployment of Russia’s most advanced S-400 air defence system in Belarus and a parallel drill conducted by the Strategic Rocket Forces, the guardians of the Kremlin’s nuclear arsenal. “The scope of the exercises, the weaponry used, the troops involved and the scenarios rehearsed all indicate unequivocally that Russia is actually rehearsing a full-scale conventional strategic military operation against a conventional opponent,” says a report by Kaarel Kaas, an analyst at an Estonian security think-tank, the International Centre for Defence Studies.

Dividing the exercise into a northern war-game (called Ladoga) and a southern one (Zapad-09) brought each below the 13,000-troop threshold at which Russia is obliged to invite outside observers. Some neighbouring countries were not able to monitor the manoeuvres (Lithuania, with a handful of observers in Belarus, was an exception). That does not build confidence.

From what outsiders can gather, the performance of Russian forces was patchy. A joint Belarusian-Russian headquarters worked poorly. Drones—a big feature of Western armies—seem to have been used mainly for show. Moving large numbers of troops and equipment around, a weakness during Russia’s war in Georgia, took too long.

Polish, Baltic and other officials will meet in Warsaw shortly to discuss the significance of the exercises. NATO will assess them next month. America certainly took careful notes: the USS Cole, a guided-missile destroyer, visited Estonia. NATO warplanes mounted a modest air exercise. A planned exercise in the Baltic states next year is likely to be beefed up, perhaps with the involvement of part of NATO’s new mobile Response Force.

Russia’s armed forces may be ramshackle, but many European members of NATO are in poor shape too. The alliance’s ability to defend the Baltic states depends almost wholly on American involvement. NATO hawks complain that members such as Germany and Italy are blocking attempts to draw up formal contingency plans for all its members—something that President Barack Obama has demanded. The doves retort that NATO’s Article 5, which says that an attack on one member is an attack on the whole alliance, is deterrent enough; new members who question its worth are hurting their own cause.

Yet easterners are raising their voices in talks about NATO’s new “strategic concept”, a document to define its purpose that will be adopted next year. With NATO focused mostly on the fighting in Afghanistan, they want a clear statement that old-fashioned collective defence of NATO territory is still a priority. Only that, they say, will convince their voters that, with Russia flexing its muscles nearby, sending troops to Afghanistan is worth it.