Ditching the West to Join The Rest

By joining the Eurasian Economic Union, Ankara can greatly benefit as a result.

*

Nine years ago I wrote a post in which I alluded to the possibility of Turkiye joining the Eurasian Economic Union: 

"As was the case between France and Germany, Turkey had been Russia's number one enemy for centuries, the two countries had fought a long series of wars with each other. Both empires - the Russian and the Turkish - disappeared, however the states that emerged from their ruins enjoy excellent economic and diplomatic relations today.

Pushing the analogy with the EU further, we find that the new Eurasian Economic union needs a nucleus formed by two strong states around which new members from Eurasia can be attracted in the future.

Thus, according to a statistic published by Geo magazine (French edition) in December 2011, between 2002 and 2011 Turkey attracted a number of 27,000 foreign companies, of which 15,000 came from Russia. This being the situation, we can consider that the integration of the two economies - Russian and Turkish - has already reached an advanced stage."

As most of us know, the Eurasian Economic Community (EEC) appeared after the dissolution of the USSR and - in a way - because of it. Although headquartered in Moscow, the union was actually the brainchild of Nursultan Nazarbayev, the former president of Kazakhstan. 

After 2000, Russia wished to use the EEC as the nucleus of a larger common market, hoping to enlist Ukraine as a member. That prospect greatly upset the American Secretary of State at the time Hilary Clinton, who by 2011 campaigned internationally against it. The matter was put to rest by the Maidan coup d'etat, after which Ukraine decided to join the European Union instead.

Since then, the membership of the EEC has only included states like Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia.

During the same period, Turkiye all but gave up on its bid to join the EU after more than 50 years of waiting for a decision from Brussels. Geographically considering the matter, Turkyie is an Eurasian country with a different religion and culture from the rest of the EU members.

Taking the analogy between France and Germany after World War II and present-day Turkiye/Russia further, it is obvious to me that both the Russians and the Turks would greatly benefit economically from joining forces within the EEC.

Furthermore, the EEC includes republics from Central Asia whose populations are of Turkic descent. Finally, both Russia and Turkyie are governed by populist authoritarian leaders who strongly support traditional family values and reject Western-style liberalism with its current corollary, the LGBTQ agenda.

But there is more. 

For such a momentous transition for Turkiye to be complete, the Erdogan government should seriously consider joining the Cooperative Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). Over the past few years there have been quite a few calls within American policymaking circles, including The Atlantic Council, for Turkiye to be evicted from NATO.

Again, given the fact that the CSTO includes among its members some of the Turkic republics from Central Asia such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Turkiye could play a vital role in helping stabilise those republics which periodically experience political turmoil. Thus, the 5th of January 2022 Russian intervention in Kazakhstan could very well have been undertaken by a Turkish contingent instead.

Another area where Turkiye would have made an essential contribution is that of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia has obvious leverage in Yerevan, but very little influence in Baku where Turkiye has a big say. Clearly, with both Russia and Turkiye being part of the same security organisation, Central Asia and the rest of Eurasia could only stand to benefit as a result.

A Bad Case of Ottomanism

 February 22, 2018

When the AKP Islamic Party came to power in Turkey at the turn of the century, the event was saluted by many specialists as a victory for political Islam. For an entire decade, Turkey became a model of Islamic democracy envied by many in the Arab world. The 2011 revolutions were ignited by the hope that other Islamic societies might achieve the level of economic development and political stability that characterized the AKP rule in the first years in power.
Not anymore. The AKP moderates – such as former President Abdullah Gul, or former Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu – were sidelined or brutally dismissed from office in a power-grabbing exercise that consolidated the authority of a single individual, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, over both the party and the country as a whole.
One of the most unsettling consequences is the 180-degree change in Turkey’s foreign policy. During the first 10 years of AKP rule, the then Foreign Minister Davutoglu – a noted professor of International Relations – crafted a policy called “zero problems with the neighbours”. He initiated dialogues with the Kurds, the Greeks and other neighbouring countries, and tried his best to make Turkey a respectable regional player in Asia and in Europe.
This enlightened foreign policy has been all but abandoned a few years ago in favour of military interventionism in Iraq, then Syria, as well as an unwise increase in tensions with both Russia and Greece. The revival of Ottomanism by President Erdogan is nothing new, in a country subjected to authoritarian rule. The use of history in order to elicit widespread popular support for government policies and to shore up one-man rule has been tried countless of times before in many other countries around the world. What makes Turkey’s Ottoman nostalgia particularly dangerous is the fact that it takes place at a point in time when the Middle East is a war zone and the European Union is practically unable to defend its borders. By unleashing hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees onto European shores, Erdogan has proven to many an EU political leader that his intentions towards Europe, and particularly towards Greece, are at least as bellicose as his rhetoric.
This turn of events in Turkey brings thus to a sad conclusion an experiment with political Islam that had started as very promising, but may yet end up in disaster.

How NATO is Failing the EU

 December 3, 2015

The untrained observer could be forgiven for believing that NATO is still acting as a military and political organization dedicated to protecting the security of its members. Enlarging the organization with a less-than-significant member (militarily speaking) like Montenegro cannot, however, obscure NATO’s huge failure to adapt to today’s radically changed geopolitical and strategic landscape.
Headed in the past few years by Russia-obsessed officials hailing from European northern kingdoms (Rasmussen from Denmark or Stoltenberg from Norway), the alliance has failed to recognize that these days the biggest threat to the security of all NATO countries is represented by existing or emerging Islamic countries from the Middle East instead.
Nor did NATO reckon with the fact that, since 2002, the secular regime in Turkey was replaced by an Islamic one. This mega transformation of Turkish society – which is still ongoing – has ended up creating a serious security threat for the European Union as a whole, as illustrated by this year’s refugee crisis. Indeed, not only has Turkey failed to live up to its obligations as a NATO member, such as sealing its border with Syria, but over the past four years it has allowed tens of thousands of jihadi fighters from all over the world to cross the country and join ISIS. This year it has decided to allow hundreds of thousands of refugees on its territory to practically invade EU countries unhindered. One of Erdogan’s advisers, Burhan Kuzu, has even hailed Turkey’s latest exercise in extortion as a success for the AKP regime:

“The EU finally got Turkey’s message and opened its purse strings. What did we say? ‘We’ll open our borders and unleash all the Syrian refugees on you.”

For a number of years after 2002, I too believed that a moderate Islamic government in power in Turkey could make the country more politically stable and economically prosperous. Not anymore. The assistance – overt or covert – extended by the AKP regime to Islamists in Syria and elsewhere, the scandal of appointing Erdogan’s son-in-law as energy minister and his son as the head of another energy company ( as if Turkey was an oil-producing powerhouse), the savage repression of journalists, of the free press and of Turkish officials who are trying to uphold the rule of law within the country, have all finally contributed to convincing me that the AKP regime has outlived its usefulness for Turkey and for the NATO alliance, as well.
Undaunted, the current NATO leadership, with some behind the scenes assistance from American neo-cons, is trying to recycle expired Cold War policies and continue to depict Russia as the main enemy of the West. In so doing, the organization conclusively proves that it has become obsolete and useless when it comes to addressing major security threats affecting its members.
It is my belief that Turkey wouldn’t have dared shoot down a Russian aircraft – a jamais vu event in the Alliance’s history – if the country’s leaders had not been certain that anti-Russian bias at the top levels of NATO would prevail.

Still, instead of discussing Russia, NATO ministers would be well-advised to hold a special session dedicated to assessing Turkey’s continuing usefulness for the Alliance in the current strategic circumstances. In the light of this year’s developments, Turkey – NATO’s only Muslim member – has emerged as a dangerous ally and a questionable friend. In other words, instead of trying to evict Greece – Turkey’s main victim in the refugee crisis – from the Schengen area, it would definitely prove more useful to consider the suspension of Turkey from NATO command structures until such time as the AKP leadership could come clean on the issues of unchecked refugee migration to Europe, jihadi movements to and from Syria, shady oil dealings and the supply of weaponry to Islamic insurgents.

Turkey's Confused Geopolitics

 November 27, 2015

The downing of a Russian jet over Syria by the Turkish military brings to a sad conclusion a hitherto promising international relations agenda, whose author was none other than Ahmet Davutoglu, the current Turkish prime minister.

Only a few years ago, Davutoglu as Turkey’s foreign minister advanced a “zero problems with the neighbours” diplomatic agenda. Turkey’s economic and diplomatic relations with Moscow, meanwhile, had evolved from fair to excellent, as one would expect from two major Eurasian powers with similar development objectives and interests in the region spanning from Central Asia to the Middle East.

The two countries – Russia and Turkey – are neither European nor entirely Asian. They are neither rich nor poor and both have experienced problems with Islamic radicalism or outright terrorism. For a while, even in military terms, Turkey has tried a few years back to leave the Cold War-era NATO structures and seek admission within the SCO, the new up-and-coming security organization designed specifically for dealing with the challenges of the Eurasian region.

Not anymore. Since the war in Syria, the Turkish leadership’s geopolitical agenda got confused. Ankara’s ambition of exporting its Islamic brand of democracy to the Arab world, from Tunisia to Egypt or Syria, is now in shambles.

Internally, Turkey is nowadays a divided country as a result of the November 1st parliamentary elections that gave, nevertheless, the AK Party another mandate to stay in power a few years longer.

The 2002 victory of political Islam was a direct consequence of the failure of the Turkish brand of secularism to build a truly democratic and inclusive society. Subsequent efforts by the AKP to give Kurds more autonomy and recognize the rights of the Alevi religious minority have similarly failed, transforming Turkey into a reluctant and erratic NATO ally, a menacing neighbour for Greece and the European Union as a whole and, as of a few days ago, an enemy of Russia.

Undaunted, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has failed to see the error of his ways and is blindly pushing for a re-write of the Turkish constitution that would change the country from a parliamentary to a presidential republic which nobody seems to want, not even some leading figures within the AKP.

Since the war in Kosovo and the invasion of Iraq, the world has slowly abandoned globalization as a universal objective of economic and political development. What we are currently witnessing is the onset of the age of geopolitics, characterized by a plethora of civil wars, like in Syria, Iraq or Libya, and of proxy wars between military blocs, such as the one in Georgia (in 2008) or the present-day war in Ukraine, not to mention the conflict in Yemen and beyond in the Middle East.

In such troubled times, it is imperative for large countries like Turkey to articulate a revamped geopolitical agenda for its leadership. The further Islamization of Turkish society is definitely not the answer to its current predicament, while economic and military conflict with its much larger and much more powerful Eurasian neighbour Russia should have been avoided at all costs.

Moreover, being soft on ISIS, selling weapons and buying oil from them – a fact uncovered by both the American and the Russian intelligence establishments – will not bring about a quick demise of the Assad regime, as Ankara expected. As Vladimir Putin correctly observed, the military situation in Syria cannot change by bombing campaigns alone. Since all interested countries in the Syrian developments are reluctant to provide boots on the ground, Assad’s army, with its Hezbollah associates, is the only force involved in large-scale ground operations against ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Last but not least, Turkey would be well-advised to reverse its current practice of allowing waves of Syrian migrants to cross to Europe in their hundreds of thousands. The recent approach adopted by the AKP in their negotiations with the EU has an important blackmail component and could turn decisively the entire European Union, Germans included, against Turkey. Already it stands to lose tens of billions of dollars in lost tourism revenue from Russia, as well as from exports and projects in that country. If German tourists were likewise of a mind to punish Ankara for allowing the migrant exodus towards Europe, then the entire Turkish economy would nosedive and growth would evaporate altogether.

One can only hope that sanity will prevail in the end, that Turkey will apologize to Russia and start to live up to its responsibilities when it comes to stopping the current wave of Syrians en route for Europe. After all, Turkey – and not the EU – was the most enthusiastic and vocal supporter of the anti-Assad rebellion in Syria…

EU: No Silver Bullet Solution for the Migrant Crisis

 

EU: no silver-bullet solution for the migrant crisis

October 25, 2015

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity by EU leaders who are trying to slow down the migrant influx has not as yet yielded any tangible results. In truth, the situation has become so complicated that there are no good moves left in order to stabilize it.

 

To illustrate this, one should consider the results of German chancellor Angela Merkel’s October 18 visit to Istanbul, during which she offered Turkish authorities a 3 billion-euro contribution and the promise to speed up the country’s accession talks with the EU. (A deal so far refused by Turkey.) If anything, the visit has frightened the Syrian migrants into crossing to Greece in even bigger numbers. From around 5,000 people a day making the perilous trip before the visit, the IOM authorities have announced that the number of migrants increased to around 9,500 a day for the whole week following Merkel’s visit.

 

The Commission also tries to convince transit countries like Macedonia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria to help stem the flow of migrants to Germany. So far, the efforts have generated the fear that these countries might be obliged to keep a huge number of refugees on their territory for longer than a few days. Accordingly, the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian premiers have announced on Saturday October 24th, in a joint press conference, that if Austria and Germany will close their borders to migrants, they would have no choice but to follow suit. After the mini-summit held in Brussels on Sunday 25th of October, the Bulgarian prime minister Boyko Borissov has complained to the press that the European Commission suggested to governments such as his to take out loans from the EBRD or BEI in order to pay for the upkeep of refugees.

 

Finally, there is a lot of bickering going on between the Commission and a number of Central and Eastern European members which flatly refuse the imposition of migrant quotas. In fact, the leaders of these countries are resisting the very idea of quotas, as they feel that their populations are totally unprepared to accept Arab migrants in their midst and that their economies might be adversely affected by the expenditure necessary for the migrants’ upkeep.

 

The only glimmer of hope to date might come from the ongoing negotiations to reach a political solution in Syria which involves the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The quartet might be joined next week by Iran and is expected to ultimately reach a deal in order to bring about an end to the bloody civil war that is the root cause of the current refugee crisis.

Turkey Still a Model for Arab Youth

October 12, 2015

Saturday’s horrific terrorist attack in Ankara where more than 100 people lost their lives brings to mind similar gruesome deeds, from New York in 2001 or London in 2007. The similarities between these events, unfortunately, end with the casualties. In Turkey, the opposition -in a rather desperate bid to thwart Erdogan’s party’s re-election chances- took to the streets rallying against the government. This is unfortunate because normally, in times like these, political parties and the population rally behind the government of the day in a show of solidarity.

For democracy to flourish, it is not enough to have free and fair elections and respect for the rule of law. A necessary ingredient of any functional democracy is a measure of respect between the party (or parties) in power and the opposition. Sadly, this basic respect among political leaders and parties competing for power seems to be lacking in Turkey. In the past three years this appears to be the main reason why elections have taken place in a very tense atmosphere, made worse by vicious attacks, slander and unethical political bickering.

There is one essential aspect, however, that has escaped the attention of the Turkish opposition, blinded by hate as it is against Erdogan’s AK Party. Arab youth, who are yet to see positive changes in their societies following the Arab revolutions, still regard the Turkish brand of Islamic democracy as a model to be emulated. In a recent book about their aspirations, Ms. Bessma Momani -a renowned Arab-Canadian scholar and political scientist- wrote that

“Some Turks don’t want to hear this but there is a Turkish model in the Arab world. Some countries may find that Turkey’s involvement in the Syrian war has given the model a negative perspective but overall throughout the Arab Spring and even before there was a very positive view. What is the Turkish model? It’s to create a society that is economically growing with lots of opportunities. It’s a place that allows for Islam in daily life. As much as secularists might have a hard time seeing this, they do appreciate the idea that a Muslim party has an opportunity to compete. They view the Turkish model as positive and I think sometimes they are critical of Turkish actions with respect to Syria but I think if you take out the geopolitics, overall, Turkey as an economic model is very high. People still look up to it as an example.” (Source: Hurriyet)

Since 1998, I am one of the few European historians to have supported the idea of an Islamic party in power in Turkey. In doing so, I fully realize that my professional views are at odds with the beliefs of most EU political leaders and mainstream intellectuals, many of whom are blinded by secularism and could not foresee the rise of political Islam. It is not entirely by accident, therefore, that four years after graduating in geopolitics and international relations with excellent results from Sciences po Toulouse, I am still without a suitable job. The truth remains, however, that AKP’s many achievements, especially in the economic sphere, are substantial and its leaders’ performance in office should also be recognized as such by EU leaders and Turkish opposition alike.

Turkey: Time to Mend Diplomatic Fences

 December 24, 2014

Turkey has today announced its budget for 2015. Total spending is estimated at 225 billion dollars, whereas revenue is expected to be around 216 billion USD, leaving a deficit of only 9 billion USD. The biggest items on its expenditure list are health and education, with 38 billion dollars earmarked for each, which is a significant amount by any standards. Moreover, despite the turmoil in the Middle East and stagnation in Europe, Turkey’s economy is expected to grow by 3.5 percent next year. (source: Hurriyet)

 

The good news about Turkey’s good economic performance is overshadowed by a war of words between the Turkish government and some EU officials about what is essentially an internal political affair involving journalists from Zaman. Unfortunately, every now and again EU officials feel compelled to lecture condescendingly to their Turkish counterparts on various issues, forgetting the fact that the Ottoman Empire had successfully ruled a large territory that is today part of the Union (as well as the Maghreb and the Middle East) for a few hundred years and that its army could only be stopped in its tracks in 1683, while halfway to Dover.

 

On the diplomatic front, however, President Erdogan and his government have to finally come to terms with the brutal demise from power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Truth be told, the Islamic brand of democracy promoted after the 2011 Arab revolutions by Turkey has not really caught on in North Africa or the Middle East. This is not to say that such a development will never happen in the future, but so far Arabs have shown they are less pragmatic and more radical in their approach to political Islam than the Turks, hence the fiasco.

 

Still, Egypt remains the largest Arab country and therefore Turkish authorities cannot continue to reject the normalization of diplomatic relations with Al-Sissi, distasteful as this might be in practice. The current state of diplomatic relations with Egypt could only insulate Turkey within the Arab world, an outcome that neither Mr Davutoglu, the prime minister, nor President Erdogan would benefit from.

 

Over the past few years, the promotion of Islamic values within Turkey has intensified to levels that remind us of the aggressive promotion of secularism by Kemalist authorities last century. Most politicians in Europe reject the Islamization of their own continent and do by now understand that Turks – likewise – are entitled to refuse European values and to affirm their own instead. Still, the forced Islamization of Turkish society could defeat the purpose, if the policies and the methods used to implement them prove too hasty or too harsh. In such an event, all the solid achievements of the AK Party over the past 12 years are at risk of being overshadowed by social, religious or ethnic tensions which have the potential to tear the Turkish social fabric apart.

 

The SCO Expands

 August 15, 2014

The EU’s expansion into Ukraine obeys the law of unintended consequences. Alliances that were probably decades into the making are starting to take shape in months, if not weeks.

Thus, after ten years of protracted negotiation, Russia agreed to sign the huge gas-supply contract with China last June. The two countries have reinforced their diplomatic and military cooperation within the SCO and are now poised to enlarge this organization to ten members.

Russia and China have recently announced that India, Iran, Pakistan and Mongolia will be accepted as new members at the forthcoming SCO summit in Dushanbe to be held on the 11th-12th September 2014. This is how the enlargement process is perceived in New Delhi:

“With Beijing having had a profound rethink on India’s admission as a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the tectonic plates of the geopolitics of a massive swathe of the planet stretching from the Asia-Pacific to West Asia are dramatically shifting. That grating noise in the Central Asian steppes will be heard far and wide — as far as North America, says Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar.”

In a not-too-distant future we could expect Turkey to respond positively to President Nazarbayev’s invitation to join the Eurasian Union. There is also a very strong possibility that Turkey’s observer status within the SCO will morph into full membership of the organization.

In hindsight, the EU’s and NATO’s ill-inspired eastward drive and subsequent sanctions against Russia have greatly accelerated the latent integration plans in Asia and have increased the bonds of solidarity and economic cooperation within the BRICS group of countries.

 

The Eurasian Union: Two Competing Geopolitical Visions

 March 21, 2012

The implosion of the Soviet Union has in many ways adversely affected the stability of the Central Asian republics like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan. Since 1991, a loose alliance of 11 former Soviet republics, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), was formed in order to preserve, at least in part, the Soviet-era heritage in regional economic integration.

The geopolitical competition for influence in Central Asia has ceased to be a Russia-only affair, however. China is rapidly becoming a big player in the energy sweepstakes, if its direct dealings with Turkmenistan and others are any guide. Closer to Europe, Turkey has also been willing to take the lead in promoting Eurasian integration. Thus, on the 5th of February 2010, Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu has stated during a business conference that “there is a need to embark on a new vision in order to have the Eurasia region regain its historical importance”. Assembling the five “stans” into an Eurasian common structure would, in Davutoglu’s view, be useful to establish “a link between energy-supplying countries and energy-receiving countries”.

Turkey’s ability to foster Eurasian regional integration is based on common cultural and religious roots of the inhabitants of the Central Asian republics. To further its diplomatic aims, Turkey has founded TURKSOY in 1993 in Alma Aty (Kazakhstan), as an international organisation for the promotion of Turkish culture abroad.

As the Arab revolutions have forced Turkey’s diplomats to put the Eurasian project on the back-burner, the opportunity has astutely been seized by Vladimir Putin. In an article entitled “A New Integration Project for Eurasia: The Future in the Making” published by Izvestia on the 4th of October 2011, Vladimir Putin has outlined his vision for the creation of an Eurasian Union larger in size than the European Union. Putin argues that the objective is to build “a new, strong, supranational union that could become one of the poles of the modern world, and could play the role of an effective bridge between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region”.

His proposed union would be much more than a mere customs union and would include such common institutions as an Eurasian Commission, similar to the one in Brussels, an Eurasian parliament, as well as an Eurasian common currency. To foster regional integration, the Eurasian union “should be built on the inheritance of the Soviet Union: infrastructure, a developed system of regional production specialisation, and a common space of language, science and culture” (V.Putin).

Putin claims that the impetus for the regional integration plans was provided by the financial crisis – a reason invoked by the Chinese, as well, in plans to build their own trade bloc together with the ASEAN countries.

According to Mars Sariev, a Kyrgyz political scientist, Putin and the Russian foreign policy elite have had little choice but to come up with a blueprint for integrating the former Soviet republics into a regional bloc. The alternative, he claims, would be for Russia to become a mere supplier of raw materials for the EU and China. Recently, during an Eurasian Economic Community summit involving Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, their leaders have decided to postpone the creation of the Eurasian Union until 2015. Curiously enough, the project’s most vocal opponent was Belarus’ president Lukashenko, although Ukraine’s president Yanukovich, whose country was present at the summit as an observer, also expressed serious reservations regarding Putin’s plans.

Professor Gerhard Simon of the University of Cologne assesses the chances of success for the proposed Eurasian Union project as “slim to none”. The president of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, considers the project as being the blueprint for “a new Soviet Union”, a charge vehemently denied in his Izvestia article by Vladimir Putin.

The biggest misgivings concerning the Eurasian project come from countries like Azerbaijan and Georgia, which together with Turkey have already formed a geopolitical team that benefits from US assistance. Both countries experience ethnic turmoil, Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and Georgia in South Ossetia. Azerbaijan would rather export its oil and gas directly to Europe, through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. SOCAR, the Azeri state oil company has invested 1 billion US dollars in Georgia and controls 80 percent of the latter’s fuel stations. Georgia, meanwhile, is strongly courting NATO and EU membership and is complaining about Brussels’ foot-dragging regarding its accession hopes.

To be sure, the geopolitical competition between Turkey and Russia for the creation of an Eurasian union is heating up. Whilst it is hard to envisage an Eurasian union built around Russia, given its enormous size and colonial record, Turkey’s recent policy paralysis does not qualify it as a strong regional leadership contender, either. (sources: EurActiv, Voice of America News, Deutsche Welle, The Atlantic, Izvestia, Today’s Zaman, www.TurkishCentralNews.com)

Turkey, the Indispensable Negotiation Partner

 September 30, 2011

Over the last two weeks, Turkish diplomacy went all out to capitalise on the country’s increasing international clout. President Abdullah Gul has made a 4-day visit to Germany, Turkey’s main European partner, whereas premier Erdogan has made a highly publicised visit to Egypt and has recently met with President Obama in New York to discuss the situation in Syria.

Turkey’s sustained economic growth and the pro-Islamic geopolitical agenda it adopted a few years ago have transformed the country into an indispensable partner for the West. Turkish diplomacy and influence could become instrumental in helping the EU, for instance, deal with the upheavals in the Maghreb and help stabilise the region. The US, too, needs Turkish assistance in dealing with the crisis in Syria and in resolving the Palestinian question. Finally, Russia might find it opportune in future to use Turkey’s help in dealing with the political upheavals in countries like Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan or others in Central Asia.

Even if Turkey’s increased international standing, as well as its status as a major regional power in Asia and within the Islamic world, are by now indisputable, a cooler approach to the Palestinian issue might make its efforts more effective than it has been the case so far. Pushing Israel too hard on the Palestinian question is – as the latest events prove – counterproductive. The Turkish diplomacy has to find a way to help Palestinians by working closely with EU diplomats and the US administration in order to persuade the Israelis to soften their resistance to international efforts of helping Palestinians achieve statehood. As cooperation on the issue brings more rewards than confrontation, threats to accompany Gaza-bound humanitarian convoys with Turkish warships could only aggravate matters and increase tensions in the Middle East. Such a display of hard power could only play in the hands of Israel’s military and undo the successes achieved by the Turkish diplomacy’s soft means over the last decade.

Most analysts, especially from Europe, believe that Turkey is in fact a responsible stakeholder in the Middle East and contributes to increasing the political stability of the region. By spreading the message of democracy and human rights around the Islamic world now in turmoil, Turkey is also viewed by many inside and outside the Arab world as a positive force for democratic change. These are but a few reasons why the Turkish diplomacy will have to tread much more carefully in future on the Palestinian question and avoid antagonising unnecessarily Israel and its main backer, the US. (sources: Today’s Zaman, Project Syndicate, Reuters, Al Arabiya)

A Beacon of Islamic Democracy

 June 15, 2011

When it comes to geopolitics, few major shifts are more important than the emergence of an Islamic democracy in Turkey. Long resisted by the Turkish military and its western allies, the accession to power of Erdogan’s AKP party in 2002 has provoked major changes for the better in Turkey’s economic performance, institutional architecture and foreign policy orientations.

For the first time since 1946 – the date a democracy of sorts was inaugurated – a political party has succeeded in securing a third consecutive mandate, bringing much-needed political stability to a crisis-prone Turkey. As a result of the June 12 elections, Erdogan’s party has obtained a solid 49.9 percent of the votes. The electoral score reflects not only the recognition of the government’s achievements in social and economic terms, but is interpreted by many as a mandate for further reforming Turkey’s outdated 1982 constitution.

Back in the ’90’s, I was unfortunately alone in publicly supporting the Turkish Islamic politicians in their quest to form a government. In the wake of the Iranian revolution, most western specialists feared that such an occurrence would shift Turkey’s allegiance from NATO to the Iranian camp, which currently enlists countries such as Lebanon. Turkey’s evolution in the past decade proves, however, that an authentic Islamic democracy is both possible and potentially beneficial. For the first time in decades, countries like Greece or Armenia have nothing to fear from their militarily powerful neighbour, whose foreign minister Ahmed Davutoglu inaugurated a “zero problems” neighbourhood policy.

Today, when the Arab revolutions are in full swing, it is the Turkish, and not the Iranian model, which has won the hearts and minds of many Arab reformers, from Egypt to Syria and beyond. In hindsight, it is worth pondering what would have been the potential consequences of thwarting Turkey’s Islamic political project again in 2002. In the current circumstances, however, the new Turkish foreign policy agenda and the projection of its soft power across the Middle East have so far succeeded in preventing the Arab world’s slide into despair and anti-western religious fundamentalism. (sources: Zaman, The Guardian, The Economist, EVZ)

EU's Regional Security Concerns

 October 27, 2010

Slowly but surely, EU leaders are waking up to the fact that they should take regional security into their own hands and promote a neighbourhood diplomacy which would eventually have to exclude NATO or the United States, but would be inclusive of Russia and Turkey.

This is the new geostrategic context in which the Sarkozy-Merkel-Medvedev meeting has taken place last week in Deauville. As the leaders of the two most powerful EU countries, Sarkozy and Merkel could no longer overlook the adverse consequences for the Union of the US’ involvement in promoting the Orange revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Romania. The two previous winters beset by gas supply interruptions, as well as the Georgian war were alarming enough events for France and Germany to take action. Now that a pro-Russian president is again in power in Kiev, and that the Georgian conflict is largely frozen even if not solved, Merkel and Sarkozy can concentrate on the future relationship with Russia and, to a lesser extent, with Turkey.

Since 2008, president Medvedev has advanced a common Russia-EU security architecture project, which until recently has received the cold shoulder from Paris or Berlin. Far from trying to divide the NATO alliance, as American pundits claim, the Russians feel that regional security would be better served if Russia and the EU adapted to the new geopolitical landscape and built a regional security organisation. Indeed, as the EU is one of Russia’s largest customers for oil and gas, it makes sense for both supplier and end-user to join forces in ensuring the security of supply routes and – it goes without saying – in preventing the US from interfering again in each other’s “spheres of influence”. The pay-off, especially during these tight economic times, could be huge, as this way both EU and Russia would save tens of billions of euros earmarked for the construction of undersea pipelines, originally planned to bypass problem-countries like the Ukraine.

Further afield, the European Union has to compete for Central Asian oil & gas with a turbo-charged China and with a burgeoning India. By comparison, Russia’s cooperation with China is functioning smoothly : oil & gas pipelines have been built, from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to China, and more are planned and paid for. To date, the Europeans haven’t been successful in completing more than one such project with Russia, namely the North Stream pipeline. That brings it into the same leagues with India, which experiences similar difficulties in securing its energy supplies. In both cases, the negative outcome is the direct result of the US’ involvement in regional security matters and trade options, from Eastern Europe to the Persian Gulf.

Russia’s frustration with US-supported revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, and the disruptions of gas supplies that affected Gazprom’s earnings, have determined Moscow to shift its geopolitical agenda towards China, taking its Central Asian allies along with her. Thus since 2001, Russia and China have established the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), designed to deal with security threats affecting Russia, China and Central Asia. The SCO is the first working example of a regional security organisation which will become the hallmark of the security arrangements of the evolving multipolar world. Similarly, the ASEAN countries have this year started working on their own collective security architecture, and across the Atlantic, a group of Latin American countries have established Unasur as of 2008.

As a consequence, the European Union, will have to compete for the natural resources it needs and for political influence with a player like China. The latter was quicker off the mark and better at developing a brisk raw materials and energy trade with Russia, Central Asia and Latin America, as well as in reaching cooperative security arrangements with Russia.

Coming just weeks before the Lisbon NATO summit, the Deauville summit has given a clear indication of where the immediate security interests of the European Union lie. These, to be sure, are not global, but regional in scope and would have to involve Russia and Turkey. As for NATO, the outdated organisation is still in search of an elusive enemy, which will probably have to be found in outer space, in partnership with NASA. (sources: EurActiv, Presseurop, SME.sk, BBC)

Turkey Divides EU Political Leadership

 June 5, 2009

In the run-up to the European elections, German and French conservatives are pushing for a “privileged partnership” arrangement for Turkey, as opposed to full EU membership. From the West of the continent to the Balkans, the issue of Turkey’s accession is a hot one, given the 16 million Muslims now living within the Union’s borders.

The European Social Democrats are favourable to the idea of full EU membership for Turkey, a stance which has recently infuriated President Sarkozy. The issue is so contentious that following Carl Bildt’s interview in Le Figaro – in which he expressed Sweden’s support for accepting Turkey as a full EU member – the French president has cancelled his planned state visit to Sweden.

Nor is the situation any better in Germany. In a live chat with Spiegel Online, the President of the European Parliament, Conservative Hans-Gert Poettering, has recently declared : “it is my deep belief that — politically, culturally, financially and geographically — it would be too much to have Turkey as a member of the European Union”.(Source: Spiegel Online, 25 May 2009) Whilst Chancellor Merkel also favours a “privileged partnership” for Turkey, her foreign minister, Social Democrat Steinmeier supports the idea of Turkey’s inclusion within the EU.

To be sure, the lack of a common foreign policy and of a bipartisan approach to enlargement is responsible for the current divide affecting the EU’s polity. With the fate of the Lisbon Treaty in doubt, the Union seems unable to reach consensus on major issues such as enlargement and its limits. This creates a situation in which countries like Turkey are given mixed signals, which in turn could lead to confusion, frustration and disappointment, if not outright contempt for our political leadership.

For such political quagmires to be avoided in future, a consensus needs to be reached between the Conservatives and the Social Democrats, before adopting an official position and thrashing it out in the media. Political expediency apart, both sides should understand that some issues cannot be used for electoral purposes without doing serious harm to the EU’s influence abroad and at home. As matters now stand, the only general consensus developing is that the Union is rudderless and paralysed by infighting.

Turkish Voters Weary of Erdogan's Style

 March 30, 2009

The Turkish local elections ended on Sunday after a tense, national-like campaign designed by the ruling party AKP’s leaders to win key cities in Kurdish-dominated zones. Although it has won 39 percent of the vote, this is 8 percent short of the projected win envisaged by premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Moreover, this is the first time since the 2002 electoral win by AKP that the party has scored so low at the polls. Whilst many Turkish columnists argue that the global crisis is responsible for the poor electoral performance, many others including foreign observers blame it on Erdogan’s increasingly autocratic political style. Most likely, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Earlier this month, IPI (International Press Institute) and its affiliate SEEMO (South East Europe Media Organisation) have asked Commissioner Olli Rehn and other EU officials to press the Turkish government to respect freedom of the press and the life and limb of journalists who dare criticise the prime minister or lesser officials. The two organisations claim that Erdogan has publicly called for the boycott of newspapers critical of his performance in office and has slapped a 380 million-euro fine on Mr Dogan’s media empire. A friend-turned-foe, the Turkish media mogul’s journalists had been very critical of Mr Erdogan’s policies of late.

The premier’s critics claim he has all but abandoned his reform agenda. With unemployment in Turkey running at 14 % and with a fall in industrial production of more than 21 %, they had hoped his government would conclude negotiations with the IMF for a 20 billion plus bailout package. These were delayed, however, until yesterday’s election results became known.

The election results should act as a warning for Mr Erdogan if he wishes to continue in office and win the 2011 national ballot. To be sure, neglecting the economy and attacking press people critical of his performance is not the right recipe for success. Says Bilal Cetin, of Vatan newspaper: “The results show that the upward period for the AKP has ended. There are two possible reasons for that. First his choice to pursue tense policies and secondly the economic crisis that he underestimated, as well as increased corruption claims. If it continues, this downward trend poses a serious warning and even risk for the general elections due in spring of 2011. Turkey could return to coalition governments after the 2011 elections.”

In any free and pluralistic society, the press and its people are the guardians of democracy. By attacking them viciously and repeatedly, Mr Erdogan facilitates the return of his country to a time when the military played that role only too willingly – to everyone’s chagrin.