{"id":34530,"date":"2011-05-29T09:46:55","date_gmt":"2011-05-29T06:46:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.turkishforum.com.tr\/en\/content\/?p=34530"},"modified":"2014-01-06T02:08:54","modified_gmt":"2014-01-06T00:08:54","slug":"turkeys-diplomatic-rise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/2011\/05\/29\/turkeys-diplomatic-rise\/","title":{"rendered":"Turkey&#8217;s diplomatic rise"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>By Richard Falk<\/p>\n<p>It is against the background of a  retreat in global leadership by the US and the ambivalence of other  global powers, such as emerging economies from the BRICS group, that  Turkey has emerged from its accustomed shadow-land of subordination to  the United States.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-full wp-image-34531\" title=\"ahmet-davutoglu-tur\" src=\"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/05\/ahmet-davutoglu-tur.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"309\" height=\"205\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/05\/ahmet-davutoglu-tur.jpg 309w, https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/05\/ahmet-davutoglu-tur-300x199.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 309px) 100vw, 309px\" \/>It is one of the most encouraging dimensions of the global setting in  this second decade of the 21st century, and offers the world a  secondary model of diplomatic leadership that is already exerting a  major influence within its region and beyond.<\/p>\n<p>The credit for this extraordinary development belongs to the top  echelons of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), that has governed  Turkey since 2002 with increasing populist backing from the citizenry.  The priority of this new leadership when first elected was to push as  hard as possible on the closed doors of the European Union with the goal  of Turkish accession to membership within a few years.<\/p>\n<p>This was a natural issue to concentrate upon as it bridged the basic  divide in Turkish society, enlisting even the grudging support of the  strict secularists who did little to hide their hostility and suspicions  about the AKP and of military commanders who had previously resisted  elected leaders that seemed to cross the red lines of Republican Turkey.<\/p>\n<p>The Turkish military periodically intruded upon the governing process  whenever their leading generals perceived departures from the vision  for modern Turkey fashioned by Kemal Ataturk, whether these departures  were attributed to the Marxist left or more recently to conservative  Islam.<\/p>\n<p>The unifying effort to satisfy the EU gatekeepers also allowed the  AKP to explain and justify its reformist initiatives within Turkey,  allowing the government to take some major steps to improve the  protection of human rights and even to set limits on the former degree  of military control exercised over the civilian governing process. This  disciplining of the notorious Turkish &#8220;deep state&#8221; should not be  underestimated in the continuing struggle to deepen constitutional  democracy in the country.<\/p>\n<p>As time passed, two developments dampened Turkish eagerness to pursue  the EU track: first, an eruption of Islamophobia in several crucial  European countries, which meant that Turkish membership in the EU would  not come about soon, if ever, no matter how many policy gymnastics  demanded by the Europeans were acceded to by Ankara in its futile effort  to satisfy EU admission criteria.<\/p>\n<p>Secondly, in light of these locked EU gates, it seemed increasingly  sensible for the Turkish government to let go of national hopes and  expectations of soon becoming part of Europe, while not altogether  abandoning the Turkish goal of eventually being accepted by the EU.<\/p>\n<p>With this understanding, Turkish foreign policy began to pay  increasing attention to an attractive array of non-European diplomatic  options.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Enter Ahmet Davutoglu<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The principal architect of Turkish foreign policy throughout this  exploratory period was Ahmet Davutoglu, first as chief advisor to both  the prime minister and the foreign minister, and for the past two years  as foreign minister himself.<\/p>\n<p>Turkey has been extremely fortunate to have the benefit of  Davutoglu&#8217;s deep historical, political, and cultural understanding of  the challenges and opportunities that lie on the country&#8217;s horizons, and  the main political leaders of the AKP, especially Prime Minister Recip  Teyyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, deserve credit for  appreciating and supporting Davutoglu&#8217;s diplomatic vision &#8211; which  inevitably has given rise to domestic controversy and is not without  risks.<\/p>\n<p>It is rare for a major government to put its trust in such an  outstanding intellectual and morally upright personality as Davutoglu;  someone who did not emerge from either the corridors of power or the  enclaves of economic privilege, and was not beholden to any special  interests. Someone who seemingly harboured no political ambitions beyond  a professed interest in returning to academic life at the earliest  possible time to fulfill his dream of establishing and shaping a world  class university as a learning community responsive to his vision of  humane politics and ecumenical culture.<\/p>\n<p>Davutoglu combines a brilliant political mind with astounding energy.  He is endowed with the skills of a seasoned diplomat, which is rather  amazing considering his prior absence of government service. Beyond  these capabilities, what is most impressive about this Davutoglu  phenomenon is the innovative diplomatic orientation that is daring and  extraordinarily attuned to the times.<\/p>\n<p>So far it has taken full advantage of opportunities for expanding  Turkish influence and beneficial economic relations. Davutoglu also  appreciates the importance of skilled institutional support for Turkish  foreign policy, and exhibits an administrative resolve to build an  energetic and competent Turkish foreign ministry that understands the  role of soft power in the pursuit of peace and justice in the region and  the world.<\/p>\n<p>In some respects, Davutoglu&#8217;s arrival on the scene was timed  perfectly for the enactment of such a vision. The Cold War alliance  rigidities no longer made sense in the altered conditions of the new  century. This freed countries in the Middle East from the constraints of  bipolarity, thereby clearing space for diplomatic maneuvres.<\/p>\n<p>Davutoglu also realised that the Middle East &#8211; due to its oil  reserves, the dangers of further nuclear proliferation, the persistence  of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the challenge to Western  interests by a resurgent Islam &#8211; was becoming the new strategic fulcrum  of struggle with respect to the unfolding of world history.<\/p>\n<p>In this role, the region was superseding Europe that had been the  scene of both world wars in the 20th century and remained the prime  strategic site of struggle throughout the Cold War. There was also the  widespread appreciation that festering regional tensions posed dangers  for Turkey and others, and harmed with prospects for trade, investment,  and stability.<\/p>\n<p>Davutoglu&#8217;s style and approach seemed designed to work wonders in such a regional setting.<\/p>\n<p>First of all, Davutoglu made clear that his goal was not victory, but  accommodation and reconciliation based on respect and mutual benefit,  expressed vividly by the phrases &#8220;zero conflict with neighbours&#8221; and a  &#8220;zero-problems foreign policy&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>This approach was dramatically put into practice in relation to  Syria, replacing border and policy tensions during prior decades with  open borders, an outcome that could not have been anticipated before it  happened. Of course, the brutal repression of the Syrian uprising in  recent weeks has posed unanticipated and awkward difficulties for  Turkey, showing that turbulence of regional politics can nullify  seemingly successful conflict-resolving initiatives.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly with Iran, rather than hide behind a wall of fear and  hostility, Turkey has refused to be dragged into the confrontational  approach insisted upon by Washington and Tel Aviv, seeking along with  Brazil to find a pathway to mutual acceptance on the hot button issue of  Iran&#8217;s contested nuclear program.<\/p>\n<p>In reaction, there was much annoyance voiced by those governments  that wanted to lend credibility to the military option. Turkey was  harshly criticised for &#8220;moving out of its lane&#8221; by an arrogant foreign  policy commentator in the United States.<\/p>\n<p>The imperial pretension here is embarrassingly manifest: Turkey&#8217;s  lane is supposed to be subservience to the hegemonic role of the United  States (and Israel) even in the region where it is located, and even  taking into account the fact that if war breaks out, Turkey&#8217;s political  and economic interests will be greatly harmed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Turkey breaks old taboos<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>While avoiding an abrasive response to a steady stream of criticism  from Washington, Turkey has made it clear that it will continue to act  as an independent state pursuing its goals on the basis of its values  and interests, and is no longer prepared to defer automatically to the  United States in the manner that had been the practice during the Cold  War.<\/p>\n<p>To be a geopolitical poodle seemed somewhat more justifiable in that  context as there existed a shared fear of Soviet expansion that needed  US military capabilities as deterrence and containment.<\/p>\n<p>Of course this litany of praise does not mean that everything  Davutoglu tried has succeeded, or that there are not still unmet  challenges. To attempt as much as he has in such a short time is  remarkable, and has been recognised even by the mainstream magazine  Foreign Policy, that listed Davutoglu as seventh on the list of the 100  top world thinkers in all fields, placing him immediately behind Celso  Amorim, Brazil&#8217;s much admired foreign minister.<\/p>\n<p>It was appropriate that these two individuals should be rated as the  two most highly rated statesmen in the world, and far ahead of such  geopolitical heavyweights as those making foreign policy on behalf of  the United States and China.<\/p>\n<p>I am not enamored of such evaluations overall, but the  acknowledgement of Davutoglu&#8217;s and Amorim&#8217;s achievements &#8211; as compared  to the foreign ministers representing every other country &#8211; seems to me  to be deserved, and is a revealing acceptance of the dramatic Turkish  (and Brazilian) rise to prominence on the global stage of diplomacy.<\/p>\n<p>If we consider the unmet challenges, probably the foremost remains  the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Davutoglu made a determined effort to  engage Israel constructively in several respects. Davutoglu offered  Turkey&#8217;s services as a credible broker to help negotiate a sustainable  peace between Syria and Israel, including Israeli withdrawal from the  Golan Heights.<\/p>\n<p>There was progress for a while, even some hope of an agreement for a  brief period, but the process was a casualty of Israel&#8217;s aggressive  attacks on Gaza at the end of 2008, and some bitterness between the two  countries ensued as a result of Erdogan&#8217;s dramatic condemnation of  Israel&#8217;s conduct at the World Economic Forum.<\/p>\n<p>It was also never clear that Israel was prepared to withdraw from the  Golan Heights, removing its settlements and settlers, as well as the  economic infrastructure that has evolved over the more than forty years  of occupation.<\/p>\n<p>Daringly, in the aftermath of the Hamas electoral victory in Gaza at  the start of 2006, Turkey &#8211; at the urging of Davutoglu &#8211; explored the  possibilities of treating Hamas as a political actor rather than leaving  it out in the cold, branded as &#8220;terrorist&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>Although these initiatives were widely endorsed throughout the world  as constructive, Israel was not ready to move in either of these  directions, and so neither was the United States (despite having  previously urged Hamas to compete in the Gaza elections, and thereby  shift their resistance to Israeli occupation from a violent track to a  political one) &#8211; but who could say it was not worth the effort to try.<\/p>\n<p>If it had succeeded, the most acute Palestinian misery in Gaza would  almost certainly have been lessened, and some kind of wider  reconciliation between the two peoples might not seem as remote as it  now appears. Davutoglu&#8217;s attempts with regard to Syria and Hamas, had  they succeeded, would have unquestionably been beneficial for the  region, and were well worth the attempt.<\/p>\n<p>Less controversial and not as salient, but equally impressive as a  departure from the earlier Turkish norm for diplomatic engagement, have  been Davutoglu&#8217;s initiatives in the Balkans and Caucasus, seeking to  overcome hostile relations in these troubled regions.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps his most notable success in these settings was to host an  amicable meeting between Bosnia and Serbia, two states formed from the  carcass of the former Yugoslavia that had treated each other as enemies  ever since the struggles of the 1990s &#8211; when Serbia promoted secession  of the Serb minority and supported systematic ethnic cleansing of  genocidal proportions in Bosnia.<\/p>\n<p>Not only was the meeting a surprising success, but also an agreement  was reached to have annual gatherings in the spirit of  confidence-building between these previously hostile neighbours.<\/p>\n<p>This diplomatic outreach has produced mainly benefits for Turkey. I  believe it has contributed to a growing sense of Turkish self-esteem  that reaches backwards in time to the Ottoman glory days &#8211; and forward  to establish Turkey as a major regional presence with significant global  standing and respect.<\/p>\n<p>This status was reflected in Turkey&#8217;s election to the Security  Council for the first time. Turkish hard-core secularists have given  this diplomacy a mixed reception, registering complaints about  alienating Turkey&#8217;s previously closest allies, the United States and  Israel, without achieving offsetting gains.<\/p>\n<p>Secularists have also objected to what they view as an overly  friendly relationship forged with Iran, which is regarded as an  anti-secular theocracy. But over time, Turkey&#8217;s rising regional stature  and domestic economic success has diluted such opposition.<\/p>\n<p>The personal achievements of Davutoglu&#8217;s diplomacy has been  reinforced by the wider impacts on the region of Turkey&#8217;s domestic  stability and pragmatic adaptation to the world economic recession.  Turkey has become a trusted diplomatic partner throughout the region. In  this period of upheaval in the Arab world, Turkey offers a model worth  learning from, if not emulating, while of course affirming the autonomy  and distinctiveness of each national experience.<\/p>\n<p>Turkey is especially admired for the way it has blended a  democratising leadership with Islamic leanings with respect for societal  pluralism and secular principles. In this regard, Turkey offers a  positive example of accommodating Muslim values and national and  cultural traditions that contrast with negative models of repression,  rigidity, and abject submission to neoliberal globalisation.<\/p>\n<p>Turkey has avoided the fate that has befallen Iran as a consequence  of its outright subordination of politics to religious authoritarianism,  as well as overcoming the anti-religious suppression of fundamentalist  secular regimes.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Internal issues<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the end, the future for Turkey remains uncertain.<\/p>\n<p>There are still unresolved problems that could create internal  conflict and crisis, including the issue of Kurdish rights and the  unresolved conflict over the future of Cyprus &#8211; as well as the struggle  between the regime and its domestic enemies that has led to disturbing  large-scale roundups of opponents charged with political crimes and to  the harassment of critical journalists.<\/p>\n<p>Relations with Israel remain tense in the stalemated efforts to  restore normality between the two countries in the aftermath of the Mavi  Marmara incident of 31 May 2010, when a Turkish ship carrying  humanitarian supplies to beleaguered Gaza was attacked in international  waters and nine of the political activists and humanitarian workers on  board were killed by Israeli commandos.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps most threatening of all to this Turkish vision of a  politically friendly and economically prosperous region is a continuing  fear that the encounter with Iran might yet lead to a most destructive  war.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the spillover from the Arab tumult could produce a variety  of negative effects due to Euro-US military intrusions as the ongoing  intervention in Libya suggests. While this situation presented Turkey  with opportunities to serve as a peacemaker, its main effect so far has  been to generate dangerous geopolitical tensions within and beyond the  region.<\/p>\n<p>All in all, Turkey has emerged from the first decade of the 21st  century as a pivotal country in world affairs, often spoken of in the  exalted terms as deserving to be now regarded as a junior BRIC, and  operating regionally and globally in a manner that is exemplary in many  respects.<\/p>\n<p>Turkey cannot alone overcome the continuing global leadership  deficit, but its diplomacy during the past decade casts a bright glow in  a darkening sky. Turkey more than any other country is providing the  world with a set of blueprints that depicts the contours of what benign  global leadership could become.<\/p>\n<p>As argued here, such leadership is urgently needed to cope with the  destructive sides of a heightened globalisation and with the unmet  challenges of a series of environmental, ethical, and political threats  to wellbeing of the peoples of the region and the world.<\/p>\n<p>mwcnews<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Richard Falk It is against the background of a retreat in global leadership by the US and the ambivalence of other global powers, such as emerging economies from the BRICS group, that Turkey has emerged from its accustomed shadow-land of subordination to the United States. It is one of the most encouraging dimensions of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":83,"featured_media":34531,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[89],"tags":[1571],"class_list":["post-34530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-turkey","tag-ahmet-davutoglu"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34530","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/83"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34530\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}