Turkey reviving its Middle East identity

As of late, it seems Washington is a bit irritated with Turkey. After all, the Bush administration was the loudest fan of Turkey's EU membership bid at the historic Brussels summit last December. And arguably, Turkey got what it got in Brussels because America bothered to make a fuss about it.

So far, the new government in Ankara has been slow to return the favour.

Allegedly, the tactical wavering of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the man in charge of Turkish politics, between commitment and inaction indicates problems for the Turkish-American relationship. But maybe it shouldn't; at least not yet.

This week, the Turks invited the leaders of the five Middle Eastern powers - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Jordan and Syria - to Ankara where they hope to strike a region-wide common position on what to do with Iraq and Saddam Hussain.

And here the Turks are not only looking for a lukewarm condemnation. Rather, they are pushing a far more ambitious set of demands spiced up by the inevitability of war if Saddam falters. In principle, this is not all that different form the American position.

If the Ankara summit ends up a success, Turkey's role in the region, and its ability to influence regional political events will undoubtedly score. To be sure, Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia - the traditional regional powers - will be outdone. None so far have had much success in rallying meaningful Middle Eastern political consensus.

The last dozen or so Arab League summits are hardly worth mention; each ended in divergent opinions or "silent" pleas. But with renewed Turkish efforts to revive its Middle Eastern identity, this all could change. Moreover, Turkey could become the leading voice in the region.

A democratic Turkey committed to living by Europe's laws, norms and standards, today projects a European and secular brand of Islam. And unlike its previous governments who tipped their noses at public sentiment - as was the case in 1991 when President Turgut Ozal dictated the Gulf War to both his Motherland Party and the Turkish public - this government, it seems, actually cares about what the people have to say.

The fact is that over 80 per cent of the Turks oppose a war in Iraq. If for example the roles were reversed, and it was Turkey asking Washington for support in an initiative which 80 per cent of Americans disapproved of, an American president would unquestionably waver. In a democracy, the domestic constituency is of primary importance. Surely the Americans understand this axiom well.

In addition, Erdogan has the European watchdog breathing down his neck. If he were to simply do a Turgut Ozal - push Turkey into war despite such strong public opposition - Turkey-sceptics in Europe would line up in Brussels the very next day demanding an indefinite rejection of the Turkish membership bid. The priority for Erdogan at this point is Europe, not Saddam. Americans ought to understand this.

Despite the negatives, Turkey is arguably doing Washington a big favour in the long run. If Erdogan's deliberate foreign policy will secure for Turkey a leading role in Middle Eastern affairs, Ankara could push for region-wide reforms from a position of a peer. So much better for Washington. With Turkey pushing the reforms campaign, various Arab states may be far less hostile to change.

Besides, a momentous Turkish ally at this point will come at the expense of alienating (much like Washington is doing) Arab governments and its own public.

In addition, Turkey is already a good ally of Israel; the two share the Arrow Missile Defense system. By gaining the trust and respect amongst the Arab countries as well - say through attaining the status of a serious and trustworthy regional player - Turkey could help push the two sides towards a settlement, and thus restart a peace-process that is slipping increasingly out of Washington's hands.

With so much potential in store, perhaps it would not be too much to ask that Washington show some patience in the case of Turkey. Besides, Erdogan has not ruled out the military option against Saddam, and Turkey should still be counted on playing a reliable ally. In this respect, his equivocation and preference for a Security Council endorsement is no different than the positions of most European leaders.

The writer is a political analyst at the School of International Service in Washington D.C., who writes from Ljubljana, Slovenia.