Erdogan's Gamble In The Middle East Puzzle
by NAT da Polis
The travels in the countries of the Middle East and of the Arab spring, along with tensions with Israel, are part of the renovation of Turkish politics, which is abandoning the Kemalist ideology for a "neo-Ottoman" vision. Erdogan follows the advice of Barack Obama: to make Turkey the leading country of the Islamic world. Friction with Israel and Syria, but also with Iran.
Istanbul (AsiaNews) - The journey of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the countries of the Middle East has been hailed by triumphant speeches in the Turkish press. The figure of the premier has no doubt emerged strengthened at a time when he is about to face a long-awaited constitutional reform. But the diplomatic world expresses some concerns about the tensions that such moves are raising in the region.
After having settled a few accounts in Turkey with the old establishment, Prime Minister Erdogan wants to set his mark also on Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East, redefining the role of Turkey in the geopolitical chessboard recently shocked by the latest developments. It is worth noting that Turkey is a country of Sunni Islam, like most Arab countries. Erdogan's trip and the squabbles with Israel mean the renunciation of Kemalist foreign policy, characterized by a unilateral dimension, based on the privileged axis of a relationship with Israel and on the principle that Turkey is the bulwark of the West towards the East, a model to be imitated by non-Christian countries, always linked to Euro-Atlantic interests.
The new dogma is that of the "neo-Ottoman" ideology, focused on the common roots and origins of cultural, non-political, coexistence of the various peoples during the Ottoman rule. In addition, there are some neo-Gaullists who see Turkey as an emerging regional power, which treats the great powers as equals and is not dependent upon them.
The political model upon which it is based, called "Islam light", focuses on a marriage between the model of parliamentary democracy (a secular state), and respect for religious freedom, with an economy based on the new small and medium bourgeoisie production, of Islamic extraction.
Such a policy basically dreams of building a regional system of relationships in which Turkey is the center, linked to countries ranging from Bosnia in the Balkans to Yemen and Africa, united by a common denominator which is Muslim culture; also promoting Islam's coexistence with the West, and not the Westernisation of Islam, as did the Kemalist model.
The putative father of this policy, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, said verbatim: "Although we considered the entrance of Turkey [in Europe] a strategic goal, we never abandoned our deep ties with Caucasian and African Middle Eastern countries, which is why we must always know how to represent them and support them, if we want to have a specific weight in the world order".
As it is known, the big supporter of this policy of Erdogan and his AKP party, has been U.S. President Barack Obama, who broke with the policy of his predecessor, who demonized Islam.
But it was necessary to overcome the distrust of the Arab countries, due to the Ottoman dominion and Ankara's bonds with Israel: Ankara was the first Muslim country to establish diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv, to the point of formaing a military alliance with it in the 90s.
To this end, Erdogan has been using harsh language against Israel, for its aggressive policy both on the Gaza Strip and in general against the Palestinians. At the same time, he has initiated contact with Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon, reaching the peak in the verbal confrontation with Shimon Perez in the spring of 2009, which was followed by the clash over the ship Mavi Marmara, down to this day, in which he has expelled the Israeli ambassador to Ankara and stopped all military cooperation with Israel.
In this way, he has gained the admiration of the Muslim world, undermining the credibility of the conservative and reactionary leaders of the Arab world, of Sunni extraction, who are beginning to look upon him with a certain suspicion.
Some diplomatic circles believe that at the beginning, Erdogan did not want to break with Israel, but wanted to reformulate the relationship between the two countries based on a new reading of the situation: Israel needs Turkey and not the other way around.
But after the Iraqi fiasco, which although freed from Saddam Hussein is now controlled by Shiites linked to the unpopular Iranians, Israel has invested in Iraqi Kurdistan, which forms the basis of the excursions of the Kurdish Revolutionary Party into Turkish territory. And the Kurdish issue is a real cancer for Turkey.
In recent weeks, Erdogan has also rebuked the violent methods of Bashar el Assad towards the Arab spring. But from the historical point of view, relations with Syria have never been good. On the contrary, in times of crisis, Turkey has always wanted to have its say, like in 1939 when Ankara decided to annex the old Iskenderun, an annexation that had always been contested by Syria.
All these initiatives of Erdogan have met with praise from the Turks. A survey by the Marshall Fund, an institution located in Germany, shows that 43% of the Turkish population believes that political and economic relations with Arab nations are more important than those with Europe and America. Only 33% think the contrary. Only 48% are in favor of Turkish entry into the EU: although this represents a 10% increase compared to last year's data, it remains far from the 74% of 2004.
In this imperial cavalcade of Erdogan in the Middle Eastern world, we must not neglect the Iranian factor. On the surface there appear to be convergences between the two countries, especially over the Kurdish question, since it is a common enemy. But from the historical and cultural standpoint, they have always had differences. Shiite Iran has always had reservations about Sunni Turkey, and will never allow its hegemonic presence in that area.
In the early '80s, a careful analyst of the past, Gabriel Arnellos, made a prediction: this area is moving towards a confrontation that will involve Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, which will set a new international equilibrium. The current climate seems to be proving him right.
After having settled a few accounts in Turkey with the old establishment, Prime Minister Erdogan wants to set his mark also on Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East, redefining the role of Turkey in the geopolitical chessboard recently shocked by the latest developments. It is worth noting that Turkey is a country of Sunni Islam, like most Arab countries. Erdogan's trip and the squabbles with Israel mean the renunciation of Kemalist foreign policy, characterized by a unilateral dimension, based on the privileged axis of a relationship with Israel and on the principle that Turkey is the bulwark of the West towards the East, a model to be imitated by non-Christian countries, always linked to Euro-Atlantic interests.
The new dogma is that of the "neo-Ottoman" ideology, focused on the common roots and origins of cultural, non-political, coexistence of the various peoples during the Ottoman rule. In addition, there are some neo-Gaullists who see Turkey as an emerging regional power, which treats the great powers as equals and is not dependent upon them.
The political model upon which it is based, called "Islam light", focuses on a marriage between the model of parliamentary democracy (a secular state), and respect for religious freedom, with an economy based on the new small and medium bourgeoisie production, of Islamic extraction.
Such a policy basically dreams of building a regional system of relationships in which Turkey is the center, linked to countries ranging from Bosnia in the Balkans to Yemen and Africa, united by a common denominator which is Muslim culture; also promoting Islam's coexistence with the West, and not the Westernisation of Islam, as did the Kemalist model.
The putative father of this policy, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, said verbatim: "Although we considered the entrance of Turkey [in Europe] a strategic goal, we never abandoned our deep ties with Caucasian and African Middle Eastern countries, which is why we must always know how to represent them and support them, if we want to have a specific weight in the world order".
As it is known, the big supporter of this policy of Erdogan and his AKP party, has been U.S. President Barack Obama, who broke with the policy of his predecessor, who demonized Islam.
But it was necessary to overcome the distrust of the Arab countries, due to the Ottoman dominion and Ankara's bonds with Israel: Ankara was the first Muslim country to establish diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv, to the point of formaing a military alliance with it in the 90s.
To this end, Erdogan has been using harsh language against Israel, for its aggressive policy both on the Gaza Strip and in general against the Palestinians. At the same time, he has initiated contact with Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon, reaching the peak in the verbal confrontation with Shimon Perez in the spring of 2009, which was followed by the clash over the ship Mavi Marmara, down to this day, in which he has expelled the Israeli ambassador to Ankara and stopped all military cooperation with Israel.
In this way, he has gained the admiration of the Muslim world, undermining the credibility of the conservative and reactionary leaders of the Arab world, of Sunni extraction, who are beginning to look upon him with a certain suspicion.
Some diplomatic circles believe that at the beginning, Erdogan did not want to break with Israel, but wanted to reformulate the relationship between the two countries based on a new reading of the situation: Israel needs Turkey and not the other way around.
But after the Iraqi fiasco, which although freed from Saddam Hussein is now controlled by Shiites linked to the unpopular Iranians, Israel has invested in Iraqi Kurdistan, which forms the basis of the excursions of the Kurdish Revolutionary Party into Turkish territory. And the Kurdish issue is a real cancer for Turkey.
In recent weeks, Erdogan has also rebuked the violent methods of Bashar el Assad towards the Arab spring. But from the historical point of view, relations with Syria have never been good. On the contrary, in times of crisis, Turkey has always wanted to have its say, like in 1939 when Ankara decided to annex the old Iskenderun, an annexation that had always been contested by Syria.
All these initiatives of Erdogan have met with praise from the Turks. A survey by the Marshall Fund, an institution located in Germany, shows that 43% of the Turkish population believes that political and economic relations with Arab nations are more important than those with Europe and America. Only 33% think the contrary. Only 48% are in favor of Turkish entry into the EU: although this represents a 10% increase compared to last year's data, it remains far from the 74% of 2004.
In this imperial cavalcade of Erdogan in the Middle Eastern world, we must not neglect the Iranian factor. On the surface there appear to be convergences between the two countries, especially over the Kurdish question, since it is a common enemy. But from the historical and cultural standpoint, they have always had differences. Shiite Iran has always had reservations about Sunni Turkey, and will never allow its hegemonic presence in that area.
In the early '80s, a careful analyst of the past, Gabriel Arnellos, made a prediction: this area is moving towards a confrontation that will involve Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, which will set a new international equilibrium. The current climate seems to be proving him right.
.png)
See also
Erdogan's acrobatics and the art of bartering
06/02/2018 15:09
06/02/2018 15:09
Erdogan is preparing to pray in the Hagia Sophia next Friday
07/04/2017 11:39
07/04/2017 11:39
