In the pervasive confusion of the Middle East, people forget that the spill-over of the war in Iraq is bound to have repercussions in Turkey , which is undergoing its own reconfiguration and crisis. Turkey is primarily significant for its geo-strategic location, as a gateway to Southwest Asia , which was its role under British imperialism. In the ‘containment policies’ of the Cold War, Turkey became a NATO ally, used by the West to install bases against Soviet communism. Now, the very Western powers which exploited Turkey to serve their geopolitical interests have no further need for the Turkish state, being virtually excluded from membership. Also, with the new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, rabidly opposed to Turkey’s integration with the EU, Turkey seems to be in a deadlock, as well as a dilemma over its domestic politics between ‘Islamists’ and ‘secularists.’
However, deeper insights into the Turkish crisis would show that the ‘secularist’ versus ‘Islamist’ problem is merely one tip of the iceberg. A strategic analysis of the new equation of Turkey walking the tightrope between Europe and Asia shows uncertainty regarding the nation’s future, its direction, and even future destabilisation from external forces. In the long run, however, the current crisis may dredge up a much-needed reality-check, which may rekindle optimism in the country.
BETWEEN A ‘ROCK AND A HARD PLACE’
From recent developments, it is evident Turkey is in a Byzantine ‘muddle’ that is multi-pronged, or between ‘a rock and a hard place.’ The scenario pits its precarious destiny between the EU, the Anglo-Americans, Islamists (in government), secularists and the impending threat of a military takeover.
The Turkish Constitutional Court ruled the parliamentary election of a new President on April 27 illegal, with Prime Minister Recep Erdogan demanding new elections in June. Meanwhile, according to the Turkish Daily News, on May 17 the two main centre-left parties formed an alliance for national elections after long squabbling on July 22. The aim of the left was to put up a “combined front against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).”
According to the head of the Democratic Left Party (DSP) leader, Deniz Baykal, “This is an important step toward a historical unification of the left.” Referring to the unification with the Republican People’s Party (CHP), he said “We will walk hand in hand to strengthen our country as a secular, democratic republic. This is a historical milestone.” However, paradoxically, on May 2 British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned against secular forces taking over following the turmoil of the Presidential elections in April through a “coup threat” by the military. It is clear that the long arm of the Anglo-Americans is yet again trying to turn the screw on Turkey in the geo-politics of the Middle Eastern region. Even Turkey’s claim for membership in the European Union, much earlier than those of states that have recently been allowed to join like Bulgaria and Romania, is now a bargaining chip in the arm-twisting by the British and Americans to continue to force Turkey into conforming to their local political interests.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul stated (May 17) that membership in the European Union and cooperation in the Mediterranean were two separate things. He referred to Sarkozy’s opposition to Turkey’s bid for EU membership through a proposal for a Mediterranean block in which “ Ankara would become a pivot player.” (Turkish Daily News). The Minister said, “Turkey is one of the Mediterranean countries but cooperation in the Mediterranean and cooperation in Europe are two different things. Turkey is a country that started negotiations with the EU. This decision [on the start of entry talks] has been made unanimously.” But Sarkozy’s election allegedly was a blow to Turkey ’s ambitions for EU entry. The Turkish Finance Minister Kemal Unakitan also stated (May 16): “I hope Nicolas Sarkozy will assume a more realistic attitude on Turkey . Speaking at a news conference after the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) annual ministerial meeting in Paris , he added decisions were made together in the EU and French President Sarkozy “could not hinder the membership negotiations alone.” (Paris, Anatolia news agency). With the alliance of two neo-con leaders in Europe, Sarkozy and Tony Blair, the danger of a European superstate dogma is already viewed as a threat to democracy within Europe itself. So why would Turkey want, or aspire, to have membership in this ‘club’ based on exclusion and discrimination? That, of course, is the argument put forth by many Islamists in Turkey , fed up with the Western blackmail and humiliations. But real politik seems to prevail, for Turkey ’s survival in the region. Israel allegedly welcomed Turkish support for its ambitions to become a member of the OECD. Following the Paris meeting of finance ministers this week, Israel was invited to start accession negotiations with OECD and the Israeli Embassy said in a written statement that Ankara “greatly contributed to the adoption of such a decision.” (Turkish Daily News).
THE KURD THREAT
The horns of the Turkish dilemma are complex, and multiple. While playing its ‘pivotal role’ in the Mediterranean region, Turkey nonetheless is staunchly opposed to an independent Kurdish government being formed in Iraq . The U.S. and U.K. occupation at Turkey’s borders in northern Iraq, where PKK Kurds are protected by the Anglo-Americans controlling the oil-rich city of Kirkuk as the capital of “Kurdistan” is a major threat to Turkey . Turkey would in this case take military action. With its own large Kurdish population, an active domestic Kurdish separatist insurgency, the Kurdish state would destabilise Turkey ’s borders, thus becoming a threat to Turkish sovereignty. In a press conference (April 12) Chief of Staff Gen. Yasar Buyukanit announced Turkey would launch a three-month military campaign against the Kurdistan Workers party (PKK), a Kurdish terrorist group in northern Iraq . The General said, “An operation in North Iraq is an imperative. It requires political will.” Pinpoint strikes at PKK positions were needed, he said, to prevent terrorist infiltration into Turkey , where significant casualties had already occurred with large-scale fighting.
DANGERS OF SECTARIANISM
The internal conflict between the military, the left-wing secularists, and the ‘Islamists’ supporting the Erdogan government further complicate the dilemma faced by the state. The outgoing President Ahmet Necdet Sezer warned that secularism was endangered and “domestic and foreign forces with a common objective are acting together on this issue, to turn Turkey into an Islamic republic.”
The President mentioned that “threats” came from graduates of religious schools being placed in positions of power and there was opposition to the ban on women’s headscarves. He praised the military as “the protector and guarantor of the secular Republic” and “internal and foreign forces” were trying to “erode its credibility and make it inefficient.” Prime Minister Erdogan is a likely candidate to replace him as the next President. On April 14, a mass rally defending secularism and protesting against Erdogan’s candidacy took place. On April 24, Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Ergin Saygun declared the next President had to be committed to secularism. By April 27, in the first round of the Presidential vote in Parliament, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul became the candidate for the AKP (Party of Justice and Development). Erdogan had withdrawn his candidacy in response to protests that he was “too Islamist”.
A statement after the first round vote was posted on the website of the General Staff reading, “The Turkish Armed Forces are watching this situation with concern … It should not be forgotten that the Turkish Armed Forces are a party to those debates and absolute defender of secularism… It will display its attitude and action openly and clearly whenever it is necessary.” (This was interpreted as a threat of a military coup). Following this, the British hand intervened; London called for early elections, and the Financial Times wrote democracy should prevail over the military, and Tony Blair “intervened in Turkey ’s internal political crisis by urging the Turkish armed forces to abide by the country’s democratic constitution. Also, “In an unusual foray into the domestic affairs of a close ally, Downing Street issued a statement in which Mr. Blair said he was following closely developments in Turkey following the military’s threat on Friday to block the selection of a new president.”
The threat allegedly issued by the military was denied and attributed to younger members of the military which is itself divided into several groups including the Anglo-Americans, Islamists and nationalists. Once again, the British were playing sectarian politics in Turkey, as in Iraq and elsewhere by pitting secularists, Islamists and the military in a potential conflict, which would finally earn Turkey condemnation from the EU, the UN, US and others for violating democracy. These threats from Western manipulations, plus the crisis at Turkey ’s borders create the potential for turmoil or a nationalist military coup in the nation.