Harsh truths from mon chers

For the last four years the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP, continues with their relentless "leadership/mediation" efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere with the assumption that they will be able to pull a foreign policy of their choice despite and against "mon chers." Overblown by cajoling words of some European Union countries who are against Turkey’s accession but happy to push it toward the Middle East as well as the encouragements of former Bush administration in the United States this policy is now near to an end.

Today Egypt, Jordan, al Fath, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates with the exception of Qatar are politely or bluntly saying "no thanks" to "leadership/mediation" efforts of our peacemakers. The position of Israel on future Turkish mediation is not difficult to guess. On the Caucasus front, Russia has turned inwards with huge economic problems but still has no intention to let Turkey in. Potential money lenders like Qatar have no more to lend to anyone. We are back to square "Europe," as always.

But this time there will be more to pay to recover from it as time and energy spent on "leadership/mediation" distracted the government to properly address country’s own problems. Moreover through Gaza/Davos shows friends and brothers are now looking elsewhere. While the population comes and goes between arrogance and inferiority complexes regarding "leadership/mediation successes", Erdoğan’s "sui generis" Kasımpaşa-style of doing foreign policy has shown its limits.

Let’s take as a "worst practice" the post-Davos saga and the remarks of Avi Mizrahi, chief of the Israeli Ground Forces that reportedly came at an international conference. I have in no place to defend Mizrahi who seems to be the mastermind of the Gaza offensive. Besides, he is said to be famous for hawkish attitudes and arrogance. However:

1. Israel did not resort to diplomatic channels for the public outrage against its president but it smartly retaliated to Erdoğan’s Davos move by letting a military top official reply back; i.e. a response by a general organizing the Gaza offensive and who is no equivalent of a prime minister.

2. Against all diplomatic customs, Turkey answered through its General Staff and presented a note verbale only afterwards.

3. While there is nothing to be proud of Turkey’s harsh reactions no one noticed the absence of a counter-note verbale;

4. The Israeli General Staff adopted an ambiguous language against Turkey and did not say a word against what the Ground Forces Commander said; "General Mizrahi said some things that might be construed as critical of Turkey. The army spokesman wishes to clarify that this is not the official position of the army."

Magnifying mirrors

So we are at the end of a virtual world and of a speculative balloon. The AKP wasted the credit Turkey gathered through EU and IMF inspired reforms, since the beginning of the 2000s and made strategic mistakes both domestically and outside as a result of seeing itself on a magnifying mirror. Its policy choices helped nothing but waste of time with some notorious exceptions like the visit of President Gül to Yerevan. Now with the impact of the global economic crisis and the EU anchor vanishing, the credit is evaporating quickly, leaving AKP’s Turkey alone with harsh facts. The new-Ottomanism balloon blew up as all speculative balloons did.

Following the March 29 local polls, the best thing the AKP can do is to refocus on domestic and country’s own external problems. In order to bring the Ergenekon crime gang case to the best conclusion it should bring a new social contract, i.e. the civilian constitution, back to the agenda and revive the EU process.

In this context, we should read and understand the phone call of the new U.S. president to the prime minister accurately. As it’s been told to all foreign leaders that are U.S. allies, the United States welcomed leadership of Turkey. We shouldn’t be dazzled by that. The United States is talking about strategic partnership and referring to Turkey’s responsibility in NATO and in fact asking for more military assistance in Afghanistan. Otherwise the new U.S. approach and potential support need to be properly channeled to our EU bid in particular and to solution making deals regarding Armenia, Cyprus and the Kurdistan Regional Administration in Iraq.