What's new

Turkish Geopolitics/ Foreign Affairs


The new geopolitics of Turkey, Syria, and the West

As the turmoil in Syria enters its seventh year, its adverse geopolitical consequences stretch far beyond the Middle East. Developments in Syria have affected Turkey, too. Before the Arab Spring, Turkey was a rising star in its neighborhood, but has become a troubled nation in the years since. Its president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is increasingly cited as a model for authoritarians around the region and the world, and if tensions between Turkey and the West lead to a fracture, more adverse geopolitical consequences could follow.

UPWARD SPIRAL
Before the Arab Spring erupted late in 2010, Turkey was not without its problems, but it still enjoyed good standing in many respects. Its soft power and prestige in international affairs was at its peak. Its policy of “zero problems with neighbors” made it possible for Turkey to act as a mediator in the intractable problems of its region, most notably in the conflict between Israel and Syria. Membership talks with the European Union were well on their way, and many across the Middle East followed them with keen interest. Turkey even attempted to carry over some of the European experience in economic integration to the region, leading efforts to encourage “the free movement of goods and people taking place in a vast area stretching from the city of Kars in eastern Turkey to the Atlantic, and from Sinop on the Black Sea coast to the Gulf of Aden.” Culturally, the Turkish example had also made its way to the hearts and minds of the Arab populations through its highly popular soap operas, for instance.

It should come as no surprise that during his first official trip outside North America, in April 2009, President Obama went to Ankara with the hope of engaging Turkey into a model partnership based on shared values. The then-Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan’s emphasis on the virtues of a democratic and secular form of government, particularly as he addressed an enthusiastic audience in Cairo in September 2011, ought to be seen in the light of such a partnership. No Western leader at that time could have had the same effect making a similar speech to an Arab audience. He publicly advocated democratic values to an audience that was basking jubilantly in a recent regime overthrow. Such was the impact of Turkey in the region, at that time, in expanding the cause of democratic order in the Middle East.

RELATED CONTENT

TURKEY
The West’s Turkey conundrum
Amanda Sloat
February 2018


DOWNWARD TURN
Alas, this positive picture did not last long. The Arab Spring turned into winter almost in tandem with the start of the democratic and political regressions that have beset Turkey ever since. The Gezi Park protests of 2013, initially a peaceful reaction sparked out of popular concern at growing authoritarianism, only led to more repression—the freedom of the media being among its first casualty, along with many lives. This coincided with the overthrow of the popularly elected Mohammad Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, longtime ideological allies of Erdoğan. The West’s silence in the face of the coup in Egypt was not lost on the AKP, nor its leader Erdoğan. The fear that this could one day happen against their government led to the gradual abandonment of the democratic gains achieved in the earlier years of AKP rule, setting Erdoğan on a journeytowards greater authoritarianism.

Turkey’s reaction to the turmoil in Syria also brought an end to the prestige that it enjoyed internationally. In the initial days of the conflict, the leaders in Turkey expected, like most of their Western counterparts, a quick demise of Bashar Assad, and felt confident that the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would lead a transition to democracy. The United States was considered an ally until Obama failed, in 2013, to stand by his “red line” concerning the use of chemical weapons against civilians. Turkey, in a major departure from longstanding statecraft, then began to seek the violent overthrow of the regime of a neighboring country. This quickly led to growing involvement with extremist Islamist groups, which earned Turkey the reputation of a “jihadi highway,” a busy route for foreign fighters flowing into Syria. The AKP government repeatedly brushed aside the warnings coming from within the country and the international community against greater involvement in the Syrian quagmire. In response to growing disagreements with Western allies, government officials began to depict Turkey’s position as a state of “precious loneliness,” a romantic term intended to project the image that Turkey held moral principles above its allies’ requests, all in the service of a people awaiting desperate relief from the cruelty of a brutal regime. Domestic criticism also drowned in Turkey as the government quickly rolled back the free speech gains it had achieved just a few years prior. Ultimately, the misguided hope for a quick victory in Syria stemmed from a failure to foresee growing Russian and Iranian involvement on Assad’s side.

Turkey now finds itself in a camp opposite the United States. Ankara sees the U.S. policy of supporting Syrian Kurdish militants against ISIS as a serious affront, since the Turkish government makes no distinction between the Kurdish militia in Syria and the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), the terrorist organization that it has been fighting since the 1980s. Turkey sees its own national security threatened by the prospect of an emerging Kurdish region along its border that is governed by Syrian Kurds closely aligned with the PKK. Turkey’s military intervention into the Syrian Kurdish enclave of Afrin, an operation that began in January and still underway, has added a new layer of complexity to the conflict. The intervention comes against a backdrop of the reversal of the gains made with respect to Kurdish minority rights and the abandonment of efforts to find a negotiated political solution to the Kurdish question in Turkey. Violence, repression, and destruction reminiscent of the early 1990s have returned and also drawn Turkey into a military intervention into Syria.

This situation risks bringing Turkey and the United States into a military confrontation, unheard of in their 70-year long alliance. In the meantime, Russia remains steadfast in its support for Assad, allowing his regime to expand its territorial control by the day and continue inflicting untold suffering on civilians. In the face of these challenges, the Turkish government has been reacting by whipping up anti-Western and anti-American sentiments, while remaining utterly quiet on Russia, a facile way of diverting attention away from its own mistakes.

TURKEY AND THE WEST
In short, Turkey is a far cry from where it was when the Arab Spring began, and this brings to the forefront two dramatic geopolitical consequences, which I describe in more detail in my recent book, “Turkey and the West: Fault Lines in a Troubled Alliance.”

The first is Turkey’s orientation away from the trans-Atlantic alliance and its loosening commitment to the tenets of international liberal order. The Turkish model, once full of promises, has come to an end. Instead, Turkey, especially Erdoğan, is increasingly cited as a model in reverse: setting an example for a growing community of new leaders with authoritarian aspirations in regions stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

Second, if the current tensions with the United States and the frenzy of anti-Americanism do lead Turkey to break away or be pushed out of NATO, the picture could get worse. This would dramatically affect the security and stability of a whole region and possibly beyond in the face of a weakened and divided trans-Atlantic community. Surely, this would benefit Russia’s ability to manipulate its “near abroad” much more effectively. It would then be very difficult to defend the interests of Baltic countries down through Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, and others who still aspire for democratic gains and national sovereignty, let alone support those who aspire to join the EU and NATO.

At this dire junction, there is an urgency for both Turkey and the United States to see the broader strategic picture that brought them together in the aftermath of World War II to defend national sovereignty against expansionist powers and promote democratic governance. The AKP’s Turkey was at its best when its relations were at their best with both of its trans-Atlantic partners, the United States and the EU. That was also the time when Turkey enjoyed its best influence in its neighborhood, especially among so-called Arab Spring countries. The glue holding it together was democratic governance, including improving minority rights (such as those of Kurds). If the international liberal order is to be defended, it will be critical for both the EU and the United States to reengage Turkey in support of its place in the trans-Atlantic community. In turn, the AKP will need to return to its founding principles that brought it to power and that endowed Turkey with so much prosperity, stability, and international prestige. It is only then that one day it might again be possible to revive the hopes that the Arab Spring had once engendered. Otherwise, the AKP would turn the region over to the influence of Russia and Iran, which clearly have no sympathy for a vibrant, diverse, and democratic Middle East. Ironically, this would be a betrayal of the legacy of the Ottoman Empire, which used skillful diplomacy to manage—for centuries—to check Russian and Iranian imperial expansion towards the warm waters of the Mediterranean, a legacy that the AKP has long held in high esteem and would do well to remember today.
 
Are those our rifles they carry in the first video?
 
Are those our rifles they carry in the first video?

Yes. History of what is now Somalia and realtionship with then Ottoman Empire is really interesting. Somalis were first to defete Portugesse imperialists, two times, Ottoman Empire sent its own navy then. So, somalian respect and love for Turkey doesnt really comes as suprise, nor it is modern phenomena, it has deep historical roots. In contrast to westerners with which SOmalis asociate colonialism, with Turks its another story. They remember their history very well and Ottoman help.

They were one of the last to fall under colonial rule. Proud ppl, fierce fighters. Even British had tough time there... most notably rebelion lead by Muhamed Abdullah Hasan, whio established the dervish state and fought againt British, Italian, and Ethiopian empires.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Abdullah_Hassan
 
This news is hot . İf it happens Russia will act agresivelly. A lot thing between us could change .
A lot of country would be forced to make choices between Russia and Ukrainian if agression started.

yesterday head of pro-Russian separatists was assassinated. İnteresting just watch.
Remember 2.WW started from Ukraine.
____________________
US ready to give Ukraine even more weapons - Volcker

Correspondent.net, Yesterday, 14:17

1000



Volcker said that Washington is ready to increase arms supplies to Ukraine

The US Department of State's Special Representative for Ukraine confirmed the US's readiness to supply lethal weapons.

The US is ready to expand arms supplies to Ukraine, in order to strengthen its naval and air forces. This is on Saturday, September 1, said a special representative of the US State Department for Ukraine Kurt Volker in an interview with The Guardian, Izvestia writes.

According to him, Washington is ready to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons.

"They need to recreate the fleet, and they have very limited air forces, I think we should tackle the issue of air defense (Ukraine, - Ed.)," He said.

The special envoy noted that Ukraine in the present situation needs the help of other countries.

"And, of course, they need support in the form of deadly weapons," Volcker added.

Earlier, the United States delivered to Japan anti-tank missile systems, Javelin.

Correspondent.net
 
Russians are not gonna be to happy with Turkey making inroads in former soviet republics in Central Asia.
Well, f.uck the Russians. It was to long those contries were under their yoke, even after collapse of USSR.
 
What do you think of Pakistani-Indian confrontation, how would it effect the region? What measures would you take to dodge it's negative effects? Would that have any positive effect regarding Turkey or Turkish defense industry?

In my opinion, it is going to have lot's of negative effects. Today, I came across such a comment on Forum:

"As we all know, US, Saudis and Israel want to get rid of Iran. I know this is going to sound very cold and inhuman, but can Pakistan make a deal with the US and Israel that in return for supporting destruction of Iran, Pakistan would get the following benefits:

1-Payment of all Pakistan loans.
2-100 Billion Dollars in cash gift.
3-US Troops to leave A-Stan permanently as per Pakistan's demands. In fact handing over control of A-stan to Pakistan. No role of India in A-Stan.
4-Israel to stop all collaborations and weapons supplies to India.
5-Joint US and Pakistan military bases in Iran so that Iran's soil is not used against Pakistan.

I know all lot of people are going to jump up and down on this post, but end of the day, it is all business, and if Iran cannot be trusted, and if Iran is working with India, then I do not believe Pakistan has too many options left."


I am glad that we are somehow in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Turkey is a regional power I believe Turkey's influence can be felt in the Islamic World and the Turkic World.

I believe these places to be Turkey's sphere of influence due to religious, historical and cultural reasons.

-Balkans
-Middle East
-North Africa
-Caucasus
-Horn of Africa
-Central Asia

Turkey's sphere of influence is pretty big I can see why so many feel threatened by it. Imagine the potential for Turkey in these regions.

These places are perfect for soft and hard power.
 
What do you think of Pakistani-Indian confrontation, how would it effect the region? What measures would you take to dodge it's negative effects? Would that have any positive effect regarding Turkey or Turkish defense industry?

In my opinion, it is going to have lot's of negative effects. Today, I came across such a comment on Forum:

"As we all know, US, Saudis and Israel want to get rid of Iran. I know this is going to sound very cold and inhuman, but can Pakistan make a deal with the US and Israel that in return for supporting destruction of Iran, Pakistan would get the following benefits:

1-Payment of all Pakistan loans.
2-100 Billion Dollars in cash gift.
3-US Troops to leave A-Stan permanently as per Pakistan's demands. In fact handing over control of A-stan to Pakistan. No role of India in A-Stan.
4-Israel to stop all collaborations and weapons supplies to India.
5-Joint US and Pakistan military bases in Iran so that Iran's soil is not used against Pakistan.

I know all lot of people are going to jump up and down on this post, but end of the day, it is all business, and if Iran cannot be trusted, and if Iran is working with India, then I do not believe Pakistan has too many options left."


I am glad that we are somehow in Afghanistan.

I can't see it happening. Iran is too big of a fish to fry. Also if Russia stepped in to help Syria then what makes you think that they won't help out Iran? That being said the benefits you listed are spot on. I just can't see Iran being invaded any time soon.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom