http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/810501.html
Turkey - the West's last line of defense?
By Michalis Firillas
Not a day goes by without some major media outlet running a story, an
editorial or simple commentary on Turkey's path toward full membership
in the European Union. The importance attributed to this matter has
created an exaggerated sense that Turkish membership is directly linked
with the preservation of the West. Indeed, even Turkey's staunchest
detractors would be hard pressed to deny that it is an important
country, certainly from a geopolitical perspective. It is also possible
to argue that in many respects Turkey is no more problematic a candidate
for accession to the EU than many of the countries that were brought
into the fold in 2004, or for that matter in the two earlier expansions.
Whether Turkey should become part of the EU is a subject for serious
discussion - one that should concentrate on the country's objective
needs and capabilities, as well as its ability to contribute and coexist
with a coalition of 27 countries. However, the current debate is based
on certain problematic assumptions.
One of the more troubling aspects has to do with a possible Turkish
contribution to the stability of the Middle East, specifically in Iraq.
It is often reiterated (in an International Herald Tribune editorial as
recently as January 2, 2007) that Turkey "is an underutilized resource"
in quelling the war in Iraq. If there is, however, one Muslim country in
the Middle East that has very little to contribute constructively to
Iraq, it is Turkey. Bypassing the fact that Ankara refused to allow
United States forces to invade Iraq from its territory in 2003 -
chipping away at that mythological maxim that the Western alliance can
always rely on Turkey - the only contribution Turkey can have in Iraq
will be a negative one.
Any Turkish effort to become involved in Iraq will conflict with one of
the three main components that constitute that country: the Kurds, the
Arabs and the Sunni-Shi'a divide. Seeing as the northern third of Iraq,
the Kurdish third, is also the most stable part of the country, any
direct Turkish involvement would have disastrous results because it will
clash with Kurdish national aspirations - a fact already acknowledged by
U.S. commanders. The Shi'a and Sunni Arabs of Iraq have their own
reasons for being suspicious of Turkish involvement. The Arab world has
generally proven wary of Turkey because of its imperial past in the
Middle East, and there is generally no love lost between them. Arab
nationalists continue to view Turkey with suspicion because of its close
ties with the West, NATO and the United States. The Shi'a had a bitter
history under Ottoman rule, and the Sunni Arabs view the Turks, or in
fact any non-Arab Muslims, as upstarts when it comes to Islam. As for
the radical Islamists - including Wahabi Saudi Arabia and theocratic
Iran - in the best-case scenario they regard Turkish secularism and
flirtations with the West as a passing episode; at worst, they view
Turkey as an apostate country whose demise is pending.
Advertisement
It is true that Turkey is now ruled by an Islamist party. And for the
optimists this is a shining example of the possible coexistence of Islam
with democratic values. Will it not then, the argument follows, serve as
a model of emulation for other parts of the Middle East? Will a European
rebuff of Turkish efforts to join the EU not doom the chances of
democracy spreading to the rest of the region? While there is a domestic
power struggle in Turkey, the Turkish commitment to democratic values
should not be confused with a broader trend, or absence thereof, in the
Muslim world. The Islamist party in Turkey operates within a political
and legal context that is different from any other part of the Middle
East. The boundaries of this context, while constantly challenged, are
fixed to the Western ideal of separation of church and state.
Furthermore, the secular branches of the Turkish state, the presidency
and the military, supervise and discipline any radical diversions from
the secular constitution - sometimes to the detriment of democracy itself.
This is not the first time that the West placed high hopes on Turkey's
ability to serve as a model. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, great
efforts were made to influence the Turkic states of Central Asia. The
instability and uncertainty that followed the collapse of the Soviet
Union, and the strategic importance of Central Asia, in terms of both
the energy resources there as well as the presence of nuclear arms, lent
great urgency to ensuring that the region was not "lost" to elements
hostile to the West. And yet, although Turkey could claim ethnic and
religious affinity to the region, the efforts led to naught. Not only
did Turkish-style democracy not gain a foothold, but domestic political
realities in the Central Asian republics resulted in new arrangements
with Moscow, and in some cases, direct dealings with Washington.
To a great extent, Turkey is considered to be so far out of the Middle
East by the Arab Muslims, that a European rebuff to its EU aspirations
would have minimal, if any impact on the region. This is so because the
view in the Muslim world of the European Union being a "Christian club"
is fixed - in part because there is general inability to conceive of a
political entity as being separated from its religious and cultural
heritage. As such, most Arab Muslims see a rejection of Turkey as
inevitable - perhaps even justifiable - because in their eyes a Muslim
country has no place in a Christian club, no more than a European
country with a large Muslim minority has in seeking membership in the
Islamic Organization Conference. For Arab Muslims, a rejection of Turkey
would not be an affront; it would not make them more or less radical,
more or less friendly to the West.
In short, Turkey and its future are not high on the agenda of the
peoples of the Arab Middle East - and this is one element in the case of
those advocating its membership in the EU that should be abandoned. Any
discussion on possible Turkish accession to the EU should be based on
rational assessments and not on wishful thinking.
+++
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
