Turkey must tread with care

When he was transferred from Turkey's Ministry of Economy to the Foreign Ministry in August 2007, Ali Babacan (pronounced Baba-Jaan) made no secret of his unhappiness about the shift.

A trained economist and successful businessman, he had used his position as economy minister to introduce reforms that helped Turkey achieve spectacular growth rates while taming its chronic inflation. More importantly, perhaps, Babacan had little interest in foreign affairs.

And, yet, Babacan has taken to his new position as a duck to water, transforming Turkey from a diplomatic backwater to a major hub of international affair, a fact illustrated by US President Barack Obama's visit to Ankara and Istanbul earlier this month.

Over the past two years, Turkey has brokered secret talks between Israel and Syria, provided a channel of communication between Tehran and Washington, chaperoned informal talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and forged unprecedented close ties with moderate Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia.

Turkey has also developed close ties with Hamas and Hezbollah. Suddenly, Turkey has emerged as the only Muslim country which all rivals within Islam can trust and talk to.

Here is a secular republic governed by a party with Islamic sensibilities that is able to maintain close ties with the West while building a successful economy. The Turkish model, as Turkey's experience is now known, has a better chance of appealing to Muslims than the Khomeinist model in Iran.

Traditionally, Turkey had not been very active in the international arena. Trusting its security to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Turkey was content with keeping a low profile on the global stage.

Some Turks sought a place in Europe while others we intoxicated on nostalgia for their Ottoman past. Still others dreamed of a Turkish empire stretching from Hungary to central Asia and eastern China. That made Turkey a geopolitical outsider, both in the old continent and the Middle East. In 1968, Turkey refused to send its president or prime minister to the Rabat Arab Summit that created the Islamic Conference. (It sent Orhan Eralp, then secretary-general of the Turkish foreign ministry, and refused to endorse the summit's final communique.)

The first steps towards reshaping Turkish foreign policy came in 2002 when the newly elected government formed by the Justice and Development Party all but abandoned Ankara's policy of blind support for the Turkish minority in Cyprus.

Since then several developments have almost forced the Turkish leadership to review the nation's traditional foreign policy.

The first of these developments is the receding prospects of European Union membership. Many Turks feel that their nation is caught in a 'Waiting-for-Godot' style game that might continue for decades.

This obliges Turkey to look for other 'spaces' in which to deploy its energies. The once popular Turkish space in Central Asia has proved to be a disappointment as the newly independent former Soviet republics there have become closed and lethargic societies dominated by dictatorial elites. That forces Turkey to look to Western Asia and North Africa as spaces in which it might claim a major role.

The second development is the perception that the United States is in retreat as a major player in international politics. On his tour of Europe and Turkey, US President Barack Obama mostly apologised for his country's past behaviour, but offered nothing resembling leadership on issues of interest to the countries he visited.

The third development is the perception that Iran has already won its battle against the West on the nuclear issue. Turkish policymakers believe that Iran is now poised to acquire the scientific, industrial and technological wherewithal needed to develop a nuclear arsenal. This capability would alter the basic assumptions of Turkey's national defence doctrine.

Turkey has already set up a committee to study the creation of a nuclear capability, ostensibly for peaceful purposes. At some point, financial and political support from the Arab countries might be needed to speed up such a programme.

Other factors have helped foster Turkey's new activism. Turkey that was the 'sick man' of the Middle East with hyperinflation and mass unemployment, has become the region's largest economy.

The defeat of the Kurdish Workers' Party has also helped by boosting Ankara's self-confidence.

To prepare for a new leadership role in the Muslim world, Turkey has downgraded its traditional relations with Israel, injected a dose of anti-Americanism into its official discourse, and, metaphorically speaking, grown a beard.

The result so far is a success both for Babacan and his boss, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

However, it is far from certain that the new Turkish activism is sustainable. Turkey lacks the experience, the regional political experience, and the historic perspectives needed to pay a leadership role in the Middle East. If not handled with care, the new policy may win Turkey some temporary kudos while damaging its long-term prospects.

There is no doubt that Turkey should play a role commensurate to its position as the region's largest economy and biggest military power. But it should not become involved in other people's disputes.

Above all, it should not repeat Iran's mistake of biting more than it can chew.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe.

Mr Taheri has done a good job in describing how things have changed for Turkish foreign policy. however, his conclusion needs more elaboration. he explains the changing perspective and the motive of the Turkish foreign policy in the whole article. but, he finishes the article by warning Turkey not to be involved in other people's disputes. I believe the article needs more explanation where it claims that Turkey lacks the necessary "the experience, the regional political experience, and the historic perspectives" given Turkey (formerly Ottoman empire) has been part of the Middle East and north Africa more than 600 years as the proud protector of the holy land and its people. I believe 600 years of survival has given enough of the experience and vision to mediate and contribute in solving the disputes. On the other hand, Turkey has no motive to involve in "other people's disputes".
Mustafa Demir
Dubai,UAE
Posted: April 15, 2009, 18:01

I doubt if perception that turkey lacks the experience is true. In fact Turkey has ruled the area for a long period. It has respect and credibility in Muslim world, close ties with west and above all democracy. Maybe reason for Turkey not participating in Rabat was fresh secularism. Now things are changed politically, government presents people's opinions, not military. Hopefully Turkey will take the lead and countries will agree on that.
Jamal Khan
Abu Dhabi,UAE
Posted: April 15, 2009, 12:02