Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Turkey’s ‘neo-Gaullism’

Turkey has endeavored to make itself a central player in the unfolding Middle East upheaval, leading one observer to comment that the country is displaying a “new self-confidence bordering on hubris."

Inter Press Service

In the course of 24 hours earlier this week, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu met a top envoy from Libya, dispatched a senior Turkish official to Tripoli and traveled to Bahrain and Syria, all struggling to survive the pro- democracy Arab spring.

It was a typical performance for Turkey's top diplomat. From Libya to Iran, from Gaza to Afghanistan, Turkey has thrust itself into crises that have frustrated more powerful nations. So far, however, Ankara's most concrete diplomatic achievement has been to free four New York Times journalists from the custody of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi last month.

A foreign policy on steroids is a hallmark of the Justice and Development (AK) party that has governed Turkey since 2002. But the party's Islamic roots may have less to do with the new orientation than nationalism and economic self- interest.

What Turkish officials have dubbed "neo-Ottomanism" is closer to "neo-Gaullism", says Omer Taspinar, director of the Turkey programme at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Turkey's role reflects not so much the country's desire to improve relations with Muslim neighbours as it does "Turkish national pride and a sense of grandeur," Taspinar said. "There is a new self-confidence bordering on hubris."

Several factors have contributed to this self-confidence. Turkey, which refused to allow U.S. ground troops to invade Iraq from Turkish soil, benefited from the perception that it had chosen wisely, yet has managed to restore close ties with Baghdad and even with the autonomous government in Iraqi Kurdistan.

French and German opposition to rapid Turkish accession to the European Union pushed Turkey toward the Middle East, Russia and Asia – a shift that seems prescient now given Europe's economic problems and Turkey's nine-percent annual growth. Turkish per capita GDP has quintupled to about 10,000 dollars since the AKP came to power, meeting the party's chief domestic goal.

Sclerotic Arab regimes, combined with U.S. setbacks, left a diplomatic vacuum in the Middle East. Turkey's harsh condemnation of Israel's massive offensive against Gaza two years ago burnished Ankara's credentials among Arabs.

However, it infuriated Israel and undermined Turkey's potential as a mediator between Israel and the Arabs. Relations with Israel deteriorated to nearly a breaking point last summer after Israel attacked a Turkish-registered ship attempting to break the blockade of Gaza, killing nine activists including a dual Turkish-American citizen.

Turkish officials say they came close to brokering an Israeli-Syrian deal in 2008 and might have succeeded if not for Israel's offensive in Gaza.

The Turks also bristle at criticism of their efforts last year to broker a confidence-building deal with Iran that would have traded 1,200 kilogrammes of Iranian low-enriched uranium for fuel for a Tehran research reactor that makes medical isotopes. By the time Tehran agreed to what had initially been a U.S. proposal, it had amassed a larger stockpile of LEU and the U.N. Security Council was about to pass a new sanctions resolution.

The U.S. and its diplomatic partners, while rejecting the "Tehran declaration" mediated by Turkey and Brazil, agreed to talks with Iran in Istanbul earlier this year but no progress was made.

The latest challenge to Turkish diplomacy – the pro- democracy wave in the Arab world – has spurred more activity but also led to a certain amount of hedging. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was among the first foreign leaders to call for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down.

But Turkey has waffled on Libya – where Turkey has billions in construction contracts – and called for a ceasefire that could leave Gaddafi in place. Turkey is also ambivalent about Syria, a crucial ally in curbing a nagging Kurdish rebellion.

The Turkish performance is undermining Arab goodwill.

An op-ed by Gamal Sultan in the Egyptian newspaper Al- Mesryoon on Tuesday called Turkey "shameful and opportunistic" for refusing to condemn Gaddafi's "massacres against his people" and hesitating about supporting a no-fly zone against Gaddafi's forces.

"Erdogan gained a lot on the political and human levels in the Arab world, when he adopted a courageous position toward the Israeli blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip," Sultan wrote. "Now however, Erdogan is losing this credit due to his position in favor of Gaddafi and his gangster sons. … Is the Libyan blood in Misrata not as precious as the Palestinian blood in Gaza?"

The Obama administration has a more positive view of recent Turkish diplomacy.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition that he not be named, told IPS that "despite last year's sharp differences over resolution 1929 and Iran, we have worked well with the Turks in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they continue to play a very valuable role, and in Libya, where they are actively involved in implementing resolution 1973 and pushing for a rapid transition of power."

Turkey has proven to be a valuable U.S. ally in Afghanistan, where its 1,700 troops act as peacekeepers in Kabul and Turkish provincial reconstruction teams have built 80 schools and nearly 50 hospitals. Unlike other NATO members, Turkey has vowed to keep a presence in Afghanistan for the long term.

Turkey is also taking a prominent role in efforts to create an international context for a peace agreement in Afghanistan. A meeting in Istanbul last June produced a preliminary declaration. The top U.N. envoy in Kabul, Staffan de Mistura, would like to build on this at another conference in Turkey later this year of Afghan neighbours and other key players.

Asked why Ankara has taken on so many difficult diplomatic tasks with so little assurance of success, a Turkish official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told IPS this week, "You get burned when you are touching hot objects but someone has to do it."

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share