Broadening the diplomatic field of vision
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Ocak 30, 2009 00:00
Amid the ongoing debate about what Turkey did wrong vis-a-vis its emerging regional role during the Gaza war, it is important not to lose sight of what Turkey has done right in our region. If there is a model for appropriate diplomatic behavior, it would be Turkey’s stance toward Russia last summer after it invaded Georgia to settle territorial disputes with breakaway republics.
We key on this point in the wake of the news that Russia has halted its plans to deploy a missile system in Kaliningrad, an island of Russian territory that borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. Russia’s move followed a conversation between U.S. President Barack Obama and Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev. It has been widely interpreted as encouragement for Obama to cancel his predecessor’s plans for a "missile defense shield" in Eastern Europe.
This diplomatic gesturing is welcome in its own right. The "shield" is a dumb idea. It also invites consideration of other points. The Georgian conflict was hardly analogous to the Gaza war but there are some commonalities to consider. For one, Georgia’s government was emboldened on its provocative stance by its ties to the "superpower." Secondly, there were great domestic difficulties for Turkey in handling its role; just as many Turks empathize with the plight of Palestinians, there are many Turks with "kin" among the skirmishing Georgians, Circassians and Abkhazians. Despite this, Turkey’s position during that conflict left no room for confusion. This success included the post-conflict creation of the "Caucasus Platform" involving all the actors in the region, a group which met for the second time just days ago.
This, was not the case in Gaza, the confusion evidenced again this week by Foreign Minister Ali Babacan’s chameleon rhetoric on Israel. But in our listing of successes, we could make a similar argument about Turkey’s efforts to engage Iran. Other than some bad stage management during Iran President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s visit to Turkey last year, Turkey has played it straight.
These are important assets to East-West dialogue. That the Bush administration failed to see this does not diminish the fact. And the new Obama administration, as we are seeing, is striking a very different course when it comes to the concept of multilateral action.
At the moment, the trans-Atlantic conversation Ñ or argument really Ñ is turning largely on what role Turkey can play as mediator between Israel and its adversaries. Amid Turkey’s diminished stature that discussion will continue this weekend when Obama’s new Mideast envoy George Mitchell visits Ankara. But the diplomatic field of vision should be larger. Medvedev’s move should be an occasion to re-emphasize that flash points are many in our region. Turkey can and should make its contribution. Defining that contribution is the task at hand.
This diplomatic gesturing is welcome in its own right. The "shield" is a dumb idea. It also invites consideration of other points. The Georgian conflict was hardly analogous to the Gaza war but there are some commonalities to consider. For one, Georgia’s government was emboldened on its provocative stance by its ties to the "superpower." Secondly, there were great domestic difficulties for Turkey in handling its role; just as many Turks empathize with the plight of Palestinians, there are many Turks with "kin" among the skirmishing Georgians, Circassians and Abkhazians. Despite this, Turkey’s position during that conflict left no room for confusion. This success included the post-conflict creation of the "Caucasus Platform" involving all the actors in the region, a group which met for the second time just days ago.
This, was not the case in Gaza, the confusion evidenced again this week by Foreign Minister Ali Babacan’s chameleon rhetoric on Israel. But in our listing of successes, we could make a similar argument about Turkey’s efforts to engage Iran. Other than some bad stage management during Iran President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s visit to Turkey last year, Turkey has played it straight.
These are important assets to East-West dialogue. That the Bush administration failed to see this does not diminish the fact. And the new Obama administration, as we are seeing, is striking a very different course when it comes to the concept of multilateral action.
At the moment, the trans-Atlantic conversation Ñ or argument really Ñ is turning largely on what role Turkey can play as mediator between Israel and its adversaries. Amid Turkey’s diminished stature that discussion will continue this weekend when Obama’s new Mideast envoy George Mitchell visits Ankara. But the diplomatic field of vision should be larger. Medvedev’s move should be an occasion to re-emphasize that flash points are many in our region. Turkey can and should make its contribution. Defining that contribution is the task at hand.