×
HABERLERYazarlarCengiz Çandar - English’Moral leadership’ of Turkey in the Middle East, ’inactive US policy’
’Moral leadership’ of Turkey in the Middle East, ’inactive US policy’
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
Alarm bells are ringing. No one expected of Israel to be delighted with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s performance at Davos anyway. So disturbance signals sent by Israel cannot be surprising. But irrespective of angles here, Israel has an extremely large "margin of pragmatism" for seeing itself facing an issue of existentialism.
And therefore, Israel will hesitate to turn its "close friend" Turkey into an enemy while it sees Iran, one of the two biggest regional powers, "number one enemy." Israel will try to tune down.
Adamant Jewish circles in United States expect Israel to fiercely react against Erdoğan. If the Turkish citizen Soner Cagaptay, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has already written an article titled, "Turkey’s Turn From the West," and published in the Washington Post, then it means a "signal flare" is already sent for reactions against Erdoğan.
Anti-Erdoğan circles in Turkey reading this article will try to build up their case and say "Look, United States sees that Turkey is drifting apart from the West. Davos will cost us a lot." People in United States and in the West after reading it will consider the fact that Çağaptay is a Turkish expert on Turkey and they will begin to emphasize that Turkey is shifting toward the Iranian-Arab axis, as claimed in the article, or Turkey is becoming a "Middle Eastern country," rather than a Western country. The "signal flare" has already been sent. Not everyone can touch Israel. And the price will be paidÉ
Probably a few people only will remember that Çağaptay for so long is acting like an enemy of the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and Erdoğan; in many of his articles Çağaptay is reflecting that he behaves like American rightist pro-Israeli encouraging a military coup d’etat in Turkey.
The first paragraph of his article is like a "message" by itself:
"Under its current government by the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, Turkey is losing special qualities. Liberal political trends are disappearing, EU accession talks have stalled, ties with anti-Western states such as Iran are improving and relations with Israel are deteriorating. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out of a panel at Davos, Switzerland, after chiding Israeli President Shimon Peres for ’killing people.’ If Turkey fails in these areas or wavers in its commitment to transatlantic structures such as NATO, it cannot expect to be President Obama’s favorite Muslim country."
In short, this is a call for Obama to "stay away" from Erdoğan.
Since the Davos drama, I have been writing the opposite of these "advises" published in the Washington Post. I have never thought that Erdoğan’s step he took in Davos is "risk free." I have always been aware that Mr. Prime Minister’s political moves may be too much in favor of Hamas. But Erdoğan’s move at Davos has placed Turkey into a brand new position in the "Middle East equation" and therefore has changed the equation for he, as the "Prime Minister of Turkey," was representing Turkey.
This happened for three reasons:
1. Turkey was the one in action making a change in the political ground. Turkey is the main heir of a state that ruled the region including Israel, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt for 400 years. The said countries have left the Ottoman dominance almost 100 years ago. Some, primarily Israel, did not even exist then. The attitude of such a Turkey, in addition to being a NATO member and being a country in membership talks with the EU, against the blood bath in Gaza in 2009 has brought a "moral leadership" in the Arab and the Muslim world. While doing so, Turkey has adopted not the "religious values" but the "Western values" and that eventually led to a change in the "Middle Eastern equation." (Including United States though, this could take some time to be digested and perceived by the actors in the Middle East.)
2. Inactive policy of the United States, the only super power in the world.
3. The Middle East stage emptied by the collapse of the Soviets Union has not been filled by either wrong or inactive policies of the United States as Americans drag their allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan into ineffectiveness in the region. That provided Iran a broad space of maneuverability. Turkey has transformed into a "regional center of gravity." This is the result of the regional conjuncture. It also functions to automatically restrict Iran’s maneuverability.
Therefore, it is impossible for United States to make "future planning" in the Middle East any other country but Turkey. The United States cannot do this with Israel due to their "special relations." Israel is a problematic regional element in need of U.S. protection. The United States cannot make such plans with any of the Arab countries because none is suitable.
Most importantly, the reason is the inactive U.S. policy in the Middle East. This is taken care of by American-Jewish experts. For instance, Nathan Brown of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in his article titled "Pointers for the Obama Administration in the Middle East: Avoiding Myths and Vain Hopes," says,
"The incoming Obama administration is faced from its opening days with a difficult dilemma. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has forced itself onto the diplomatic agenda, but there is no obvious path of action. On the one hand, the new U.S. leadership can pick up where the Bush administration left off, going through the motions of a peace process and whistling past the graveyard of past efforts. Alternatively, it can acknowledge that the ground has shifted so fundamentally that the diplomacy of the past two decades has died without leaving any legitimate heir."
After Brown points out that groups seeking a "peaceful solution" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict despair of solution, stresses that there is all too much sense in their despair and there will be no comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict any time soon. At this point he suggests:
"The task for the incoming Obama administration is to use diplomacy to manage the conflict and steer it back into directions that will make it possible to live for the present and, at a later date, move back toward a solution."
In other words, what Obama can do now is to control the conflict, rather than finding solution. This has already revealed the limited-restricted role of the United States that cannot keep trump cards in hand. Is it possible for the United States to play its role with any country but Turkey which has been elevated to "moral leadership" of the significant part of the region as a U.S. ally?
In fact, Aaron David Millers as the top U.S. negotiator for the Middle East over a decade sees Obama’s Middle East Envoy George Mitchell has a slight chance to achieve a Palestinian-Israeli Agreement" if it is not zero. Miller interprets the appointment of Mitchell as that the Obama administration prefers the process itself to the content of it.
The Obama administration adopts a policy to remain in the middle field at some point in the Middle East. It is difficult for the new U.S. administration to do this without Turkey after the Davos incident or by exclusion of Turkey. Obama cannot stand an administration screw up right at the beginning.
For this reason, let’s not pay attention to doomsayers who scream, "Turkey will face the wrath of Israel. If you do not want the Armenian genocide bill being passed in the U.S. congress, say nothing against Israel’s actions in Gaza."
Turkey and Erdoğan could not, and shouldn’t, tolerate the incidents in Gaza. Look what the 92-year-old renowned historian Hobsbawm, who has never involved in the subject of the Middle East conflict, says:
"For three weeks barbarism has been on show before a universal public, which has watched, judged and with few exceptions rejected Israel’s use of armed terror against the [1.5] million inhabitants blockaded since 2006 in the Gaza Strip. Never have the official justifications for invasion been more patently refuted by the combination of camera and arithmetic. Thirteen dead on one side, 1,360 on the other: it isn’t hard to work out which side is the victim. There is not much more to be said about Israel’s appalling operation in GazaÉ
"Israel in action in Gaza is not the victim people of history, nor even the ’brave little Israel’ of 1948 to 1967 mythology, a David defeating all its surrounding Goliaths. Israel is losing goodwill as rapidly as the United States did under George W. Bush, and for similar reasons: nationalist blindness and the megalomania of military power. What is good for Israel and what is good for the Jews as a people are evidently linked, but, until there is a just answer to the Palestinian question, they are not and cannot be identical. And it is essential for Jews to say so."
One of the greatest historians of the 20th century, Hobsbawm says this and what he says pretty much likens what Erdoğan told PeresÉ
Adamant Jewish circles in United States expect Israel to fiercely react against Erdoğan. If the Turkish citizen Soner Cagaptay, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has already written an article titled, "Turkey’s Turn From the West," and published in the Washington Post, then it means a "signal flare" is already sent for reactions against Erdoğan.
Anti-Erdoğan circles in Turkey reading this article will try to build up their case and say "Look, United States sees that Turkey is drifting apart from the West. Davos will cost us a lot." People in United States and in the West after reading it will consider the fact that Çağaptay is a Turkish expert on Turkey and they will begin to emphasize that Turkey is shifting toward the Iranian-Arab axis, as claimed in the article, or Turkey is becoming a "Middle Eastern country," rather than a Western country. The "signal flare" has already been sent. Not everyone can touch Israel. And the price will be paidÉ
Probably a few people only will remember that Çağaptay for so long is acting like an enemy of the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and Erdoğan; in many of his articles Çağaptay is reflecting that he behaves like American rightist pro-Israeli encouraging a military coup d’etat in Turkey.
The first paragraph of his article is like a "message" by itself:
"Under its current government by the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, Turkey is losing special qualities. Liberal political trends are disappearing, EU accession talks have stalled, ties with anti-Western states such as Iran are improving and relations with Israel are deteriorating. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out of a panel at Davos, Switzerland, after chiding Israeli President Shimon Peres for ’killing people.’ If Turkey fails in these areas or wavers in its commitment to transatlantic structures such as NATO, it cannot expect to be President Obama’s favorite Muslim country."
In short, this is a call for Obama to "stay away" from Erdoğan.
Since the Davos drama, I have been writing the opposite of these "advises" published in the Washington Post. I have never thought that Erdoğan’s step he took in Davos is "risk free." I have always been aware that Mr. Prime Minister’s political moves may be too much in favor of Hamas. But Erdoğan’s move at Davos has placed Turkey into a brand new position in the "Middle East equation" and therefore has changed the equation for he, as the "Prime Minister of Turkey," was representing Turkey.
This happened for three reasons:
1. Turkey was the one in action making a change in the political ground. Turkey is the main heir of a state that ruled the region including Israel, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt for 400 years. The said countries have left the Ottoman dominance almost 100 years ago. Some, primarily Israel, did not even exist then. The attitude of such a Turkey, in addition to being a NATO member and being a country in membership talks with the EU, against the blood bath in Gaza in 2009 has brought a "moral leadership" in the Arab and the Muslim world. While doing so, Turkey has adopted not the "religious values" but the "Western values" and that eventually led to a change in the "Middle Eastern equation." (Including United States though, this could take some time to be digested and perceived by the actors in the Middle East.)
2. Inactive policy of the United States, the only super power in the world.
3. The Middle East stage emptied by the collapse of the Soviets Union has not been filled by either wrong or inactive policies of the United States as Americans drag their allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan into ineffectiveness in the region. That provided Iran a broad space of maneuverability. Turkey has transformed into a "regional center of gravity." This is the result of the regional conjuncture. It also functions to automatically restrict Iran’s maneuverability.
Therefore, it is impossible for United States to make "future planning" in the Middle East any other country but Turkey. The United States cannot do this with Israel due to their "special relations." Israel is a problematic regional element in need of U.S. protection. The United States cannot make such plans with any of the Arab countries because none is suitable.
Most importantly, the reason is the inactive U.S. policy in the Middle East. This is taken care of by American-Jewish experts. For instance, Nathan Brown of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in his article titled "Pointers for the Obama Administration in the Middle East: Avoiding Myths and Vain Hopes," says,
"The incoming Obama administration is faced from its opening days with a difficult dilemma. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has forced itself onto the diplomatic agenda, but there is no obvious path of action. On the one hand, the new U.S. leadership can pick up where the Bush administration left off, going through the motions of a peace process and whistling past the graveyard of past efforts. Alternatively, it can acknowledge that the ground has shifted so fundamentally that the diplomacy of the past two decades has died without leaving any legitimate heir."
After Brown points out that groups seeking a "peaceful solution" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict despair of solution, stresses that there is all too much sense in their despair and there will be no comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict any time soon. At this point he suggests:
"The task for the incoming Obama administration is to use diplomacy to manage the conflict and steer it back into directions that will make it possible to live for the present and, at a later date, move back toward a solution."
In other words, what Obama can do now is to control the conflict, rather than finding solution. This has already revealed the limited-restricted role of the United States that cannot keep trump cards in hand. Is it possible for the United States to play its role with any country but Turkey which has been elevated to "moral leadership" of the significant part of the region as a U.S. ally?
In fact, Aaron David Millers as the top U.S. negotiator for the Middle East over a decade sees Obama’s Middle East Envoy George Mitchell has a slight chance to achieve a Palestinian-Israeli Agreement" if it is not zero. Miller interprets the appointment of Mitchell as that the Obama administration prefers the process itself to the content of it.
The Obama administration adopts a policy to remain in the middle field at some point in the Middle East. It is difficult for the new U.S. administration to do this without Turkey after the Davos incident or by exclusion of Turkey. Obama cannot stand an administration screw up right at the beginning.
For this reason, let’s not pay attention to doomsayers who scream, "Turkey will face the wrath of Israel. If you do not want the Armenian genocide bill being passed in the U.S. congress, say nothing against Israel’s actions in Gaza."
Turkey and Erdoğan could not, and shouldn’t, tolerate the incidents in Gaza. Look what the 92-year-old renowned historian Hobsbawm, who has never involved in the subject of the Middle East conflict, says:
"For three weeks barbarism has been on show before a universal public, which has watched, judged and with few exceptions rejected Israel’s use of armed terror against the [1.5] million inhabitants blockaded since 2006 in the Gaza Strip. Never have the official justifications for invasion been more patently refuted by the combination of camera and arithmetic. Thirteen dead on one side, 1,360 on the other: it isn’t hard to work out which side is the victim. There is not much more to be said about Israel’s appalling operation in GazaÉ
"Israel in action in Gaza is not the victim people of history, nor even the ’brave little Israel’ of 1948 to 1967 mythology, a David defeating all its surrounding Goliaths. Israel is losing goodwill as rapidly as the United States did under George W. Bush, and for similar reasons: nationalist blindness and the megalomania of military power. What is good for Israel and what is good for the Jews as a people are evidently linked, but, until there is a just answer to the Palestinian question, they are not and cannot be identical. And it is essential for Jews to say so."
One of the greatest historians of the 20th century, Hobsbawm says this and what he says pretty much likens what Erdoğan told PeresÉ
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
