Turkey's role
By
Salama A Salama
The recent meetings between Turkey and various Arab states may mark the first time Ankara initiated consultations with its Arab neighbours to foster regional coordination and avert a war in the region. Despite the many wars that have wracked the Middle East, Turkey had never sought a role that suggested it felt responsible for working for regional stability. In the past, it either followed US strategies or adopted a neutral position.
Against this backdrop, Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul's visits to Syria, Egypt and Jordan to discuss ways to avert US military strikes against Iraq represents Turkey's assuming a new role. Ankara is doing this as a member of NATO and as an aspiring member of the EU, thereby allowing it to act as a bridge of understanding between the West and the Muslim world. The significance of its role should not be underestimated as Turkey is working to avert suffering by the people of the Middle East.
Turkey's new leadership has succeeded in a short period in demonstrating that it is politically savvy, signalling its willingness to resolve the Cyprus problem when it criticised the Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash for turning down the UN proposal to end the conflict. It appears that Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the real leader of the Justice and Development Party (JDP), has succeeded in overcoming the obstacles put in his way by the military to prevent him from taking power.
Turkey's recent actions may indicate that its new leaders have learned well from their country's recent experience when the army's influence over domestic and foreign policy led to the adoption of a limiting approach that diminished Turkey's international role and made it a tool for the implementation of US strategy.
Ankara's current spate of activity might also be accounted for by a realisation of the magnitude of losses that it would suffer in the event of war, and that such a conflict would not only inflict considerable harm on its relations with the Muslim world, but might also increase its problems with the Kurds along its borders. The economic losses owing to a war would be so vast that the US would be unable to compensate Turkey for them -- regardless of the aid it offered. Domestic political problems would also likely ensue, as the masses who voted Erdogan's government to power would be angered owing to their opposition to the use of Turkey's territories as a launching pad for a US attack on Iraq.
Hence, it appears that Turkey has a strong interest in avoiding a war, but many questions remain unanswered. What are the practical suggestions that would convince the US not to use military force against Iraq? What exactly is required once the weapons inspectors prove that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction? Does the solution lie in Saddam Hussein's regime voluntarily stepping down from power, as Turkey has suggested? Will the Bush administration be receptive to a call by a regional bloc that includes Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Iran, among others, not to use military force against Iraq?
In any case, Turkey's path down this road is indicative of something new, and could open the door to Arab- Turkish cooperation. It is not clear whether the US wants to make use of this cooperation if it decides not to attack Iraq -- as is sometimes implied in Bush's statements -- or whether it will ignore it completely and press ahead with its military operations. It should also be considered, though, that Gul's tour, which came in the wake of military manoeuvres in the Mediterranean between Turkey, the US and Israel, may have only been mounted to appease his Islamist supporters who believe that an American attack on Iraq is an attack on Islam. After all, we know that Turkish troops are already present on Iraqi soil, and everybody knows that the real authority in Turkey remains in the hands of the army.
