Thirteenth and the last lesson Thirteenth and the last lesson During this period of 2009 and 2010, the weight of the Eastern option and the Shangai Cooperation Organization in Turkish foreign policy has increased. Turkey was now well aware of this new axis and focused on getting an observant membership to the SCO. And at this point, the EU and the USA blamed on each other. The US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates saw all the responsibility for Turkey’s shift of axis, mainly in the EU’s rejective attitude toward Turkey in full membership process. According to Gates, Turkey was heading to the East, due to the reluctant attitude of the EU. And on the contrary, the EU-Commission President Jose Manuel Barosso responded to Gates as follows: “Turkey started to move away from the West with the US invasion of Iraq”. He said to the US, «then it’s your fault». In this environment, even the ultra westernist Gülen Movement had also shifted towards Russia. So that, TUSKON, the businessmen organization of the Gülen Movement, signed a cooperation agreement with the Russian Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association on September 28, 2009. Thus, TUSKON got this cooperation agreement, that TUSİAD has been pursuing for a long time. Therefore, during President Medvedev’s official visit to Turkey, TUSKON was included in the Turkish-Russian Business Forum, instead of DEİK (in English the Foreign Economic Relations Board). In addition, the publishing houses of the Gülen Movement in Turkey, began to translate and publish all the books of Yevgeny Primakov, one of Russia’s leading veteran politicians. And in fact, Primakov came to Turkey on June 23, 2010 just for the signing ceremony of his last book. So, what was the reason, for this special interest in Primakov? Because Primakov was respectively Russia’s and former foreign minister and prime minister, most importantly, he was the current president of the Russian Chamber of Industry and Commerce. On the other hand; at this stage, even the Obama Administration in the US, preferred to concentrate further toward the East. The Obama Administration has brought up to the agenda the updated Greater Middle East Project, at this stage. According to this plan: - The new center of gravity would now be the AfghanistanPakistan axis, instead of Iraq, - Instead of “enemy Islam” view, the “partnership with Islam” discourse would be used and prevailed, - Instead of embarking on the worldwide adventures by the USA alone, trans-Atlantic relations would be restructured through the new NATO. So, in order to balance China, the USA would settle in this new center of gravity (that was Afghanistan-Pakistan axis) in Eurasia as soon as possible, while the heavy Works of the old center of gravity would be given to its allies and some contractor states, of course, especially to Turkey. So, within the framework of the model partnership, Turkey would primarily assume the protector role of the Kurds on behalf of the USA. But, while President Bush’s Iraq-based Greater Middle East Project lasted 8 years; President Obama’s updated new Project in Afghanistan-Pakistan axis, lasted only 1 and a half year. Eventually, Obama’s Afghanistan strategy began to unravel and the US had to return to its former Iraq based Project. Even the Obama Administration initially declared the July-2011 as the “date of withdrawal” from Afghanistan. EU and NATO member states also did not give support to the US in Afghanistan. And US troops were isolated and could not leave Kabul. Under these conditions, in Afghanistan issue, Turkey was the most needed country by the US. So, the US needed the most help from Turkey. The United States requested combat troops from Turkey. Although the JDP government gave an open support to this demand, the Turkish General Staff resisted and as the result, the combat forces were not sent to Afghanistan. AND Finally, the Obama Administration has come to the point of negotiations with the Taliban regime. And also, an uncertainty began to prevail in the Manas military base in Kyrgyzstan, which was one of the US main headquarters for Afghanistan operation. At this stage, the US received a support from the president of Turkey, Abdullah Gül, as we explained earlier for continuing the use of this base. As the result: The USA focused on the Middle East again within the framework of the Northern Iraq problem. As a matter of fact, the US combat troops started to be withdrawn from the center of Iraq by the end of 2010, Finally, the US withdrew its all combat forces from Central and Southern Iraq at the end of 2011, but it continued to be existed in Northern Iraq. but the Blackwater type special armies began to be given way after withdrawal of the troops. The following statement of the US president Obama was quite meaningful. He said exactly that: “We are ending the war in Iraq, but we are not finishing our business with this country”. So, according to the US strategic vision, ‘Turkey should support the regional Kurdish administration in Northern Iraq through the peace and opening processes’. Indeed, the US ambassador to Turkey, at that time, James Jeffrey was saying that: “We tolerate Turkey playing a more important role in the Middle East”. Turkey’s primary role in the Middle East has been an “encouraging model” (özendirici model), since 2010. The intellectual infrastructure of this model was described by Stephen Kinzer in New York Times as follows: “By demonstrating its independence from Washington D.C, Turkey has further increased its credibility in the Middle East. This credibility could be a stratgic value for the West. Because Turkish diplomats can go where the Americans cannot go, they can talk to groups the Americans can’t talk to and make deals the Americans can’t make.” And the Retired Ambassador James Holmes, who was at that time the president of the AmericanTurkish Council, made the following assessment about Turkey’s role: “By emphasizing both its independent role in its near abroad and its relations with the EU and NATO, Turkey can be an encouraging model for other countries”. A significant role played under this encouragingincentive model has been Turkey’s Uranium Swap Agreement with Iran. This Project was first put forward by the president of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Muhammed El Baradei, in October 2009, as a proposal to store the Iranian Uranium in Turkey. But Iran diplomatically rejected this proposal three times. And Tehran did not agree to such a bilateral agreement with Turkey. The US, on the other hand, continued to insist on this proposal. Finally, a new proposal was presented that Iran could accept. According to the new proposal, Brazil on behalf of Russia, China and Iran; and Turkey on behalf of the USA and EU, would be involved in this uranium swap process. As a result, the Uranium Swap Agreement was signed on May 17, 2010, between Turkey, Brazil, and Iran. According to this agreement, 1.200 kilograms of uranium held by Iran would be exchanged for enriched uranium on Turkish soil. Another important role played by Turkey during this period was the Rescuer (Kurtarıcı) one. This role was generally reflected in the controlled tension strategy against Israel. At the 2009-Davos Economic Forum, prime minister Erdoğan and Israeli president Şimon Perez spoke at a panel, moderated by American journalist David Ignatius. However, about a year ago, Erdoğan had applauded Perez’s speech in the Turkish Grand National Assembly on November 13, 2007. As known, Erdoğan left the panel in Davos by shouting “one minute”. Everyone was astonished. However, this panel meeting was not in the forum’s official schedule. So, Turkey had asked for this additional panel to be held 2 weeks ago. After the panel, Erdoğan protestfully said “Today, Davos is over for me”. In his return to Turkey, Erdoğan was greeted in İstanbul at night with banners writing as “the conqueror of Davos and World leader”. So after this incident, the Turkish governmental party caught a good wind and won the local elections of 29 March 2009. But after that, the controlled tension with Israel continued and much more expanded in Turkish foreign policy. The peak point, in this regard, was, without a doubt, the Mavi Marmara crisis that occured on May 31, 2010. Very interestingly, the Deputies from Ak Party were about to board, but at the last moment, they gave up boarding the ship. This raised naturally some ‘question marks’ in the minds. There were also some serious questions about the ship and this expedition. 1) First of all, the international environment was not prepared enough before the humanitarian convoy departed. 2) Israel had publicly declared that it would attack the convoy. It was threatening that the convoy should not even sail. But these were not taken into account at all by organizers. 3) Normally, the Blue Marmara was not an international voyage ship. In other words, it did not have to comply with SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea Convention). As a matter of fact, it was not given a “passenger ship safety certificate”, because its lifeboats were clearly unsufficient. 4) Therefore, the organizator of the Gaza expedition, the Humanitarian Relief Foundation-IHH changed the flag of the ship and hoisted the easy flag of Comoros (Komorlar) in order to simply overcome this problem. 5) After the bloody Mavi Marmara raid, the people took to the streets in Turkey and showed their severe reactions against Israel. The Gülen Movement, on the contrary, heavily criticized the Turkish Government about the Gaza Convoy for leaving Turkish territorial waters without permission of Israel and tried to adjust the government’s policies, at the moment. On the other hand, the public opinion in Turkey began to turn against Israel and the US, after this incident. But, shortly after this crisis athmosphere, since December 2010, the Arab Spring process emerged, which would completely affect the Turkish foreign policy. A protest movement, started by an unemployed young engineer Mouhammad Bouazizi’s burning himself in Tunisia resulted in the Jasmine Revolution on January 14, 2011 in this country. And as the result, the administration of Zeynel Abidin bin Ali in Tunisia has collapsed. Then the public protests spread to Egypt and the era of Hüsnü Mübarek also came to an end. After that, events spread to Libya. And the final result was again the overthrown of Muammer Gaddafi. Finally, as it is known, the events reached Syria. Thus, the Arab Spring Revolutions continued in the same way. At this stage of revolutions, “The Leaders of Change Summit Meeting” was held in İstanbul on March 14, 2011. At the summit, Prime Minister Erdoğan’s message was: “We are obligatory to help change and provide directions “. With this attitude, Turkey has shown that it would act within the framework of the Greater Middle East Project co-presidency and/or the model partnership with the USA. And Foreign Minister Davutoğlu also expressed his similar view in this meeting on the subject as follows: “If we cannot lead the change with an active leadership, we will be the country most negatively affected by these developments in this geography”. Therefore, it has been clearly understood that, the government in Turkey has become a strong supporter of the changes in the Middle East at this point. In Syria, on March 18, 2011, in the city of Dera, located in the South of the country, incidents and protests in which weapons were also used, were erupted. The protests and demonstrations were more triggered by the arrest of 4 young people who wrote against the Baath regime on the walls in Dera city. After that, in the ongoing protests against the arrests, the police forces killed 4 demonstrators. And the events continued also during the funeral ceremonies and the protests spread to other cities especially with a large Sunni population. (for example Aleppo) Regime forces intervened violently in the events. This, resulted in more casualties. Meanwhile, on August 23, 2011, the overthrown of Muammer Gaddafi regime in Libya, provided a great additional motivation to the revolutionary process in Syria. BUT, some interesting allegations and explanations have been made about the Dera events, which were the starting point of the revolution process in Syria. Accordingly, it was claimed that the Lebanese lands were used in the events of Dera. As stated in some allegations, these events in Dera, were supported and/or organized by the paramilitary units affiliated with Saad Hariri’s 14-March-Alliance of Lebanon which acted on the instructions of the US-deputy secretary of state Jeffrey D. Feltman at that time. In other words, Lebanon would have helped the Arab Spring events to spread to Syria, at this stage. But unfortunately, Lebanon’s political structure and power were not enough to get successful results in Syria. And the president of Lebanon at that time, Mişel Suleyman, did not also support the idea of opening a corridor from Lebanon to Damascus, similar to the Libyan-Benghazi Corridor Model. Because, there were 2 obstacles to the Lebanon’s initiative. 1) The first one was that: Syrian forces in the region were very strong. So much so that, they chased the paramilitary groups up to the Lebanese border. In fact they would almost enter the border again, for the first time since 2005. Insurgent groups, on the other hand, preferred to flee to the North towards Lebanon, rather than Jordan, which is closer to Dera. 2) And the second one was that: internally, the Lebanon Resistence Hizbullah factor prevented this initiative. It was supporting the Lebanon’s government in 2010. Under these circumstances, Turkey, on the other hand, had some reform expectations from the Baath regime before the establishment of a corridor towards Syria. Prime Minister Erdoğan wanted to have Beşar Esad, whom he called him as his “brother”, make some political reforms in Syria. First of all, he suggested that the members of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ihvan-ı Muslimin) organization be included in the Syrian government and the BAATH ideology should be softened. But Assad regime did not come close to these demands and requests and tried to stall Turkey. And he did not take the Brotherhood ideology into the government. Turkey, on the other hand, has always protected the Syrian opposition. From the very beginning, there were 4 main reasons for Turkey’s high engagement in the Syrian issue. 1) The first one was Erdoğan’s leadership. Undoubtedly, his tremendous popularity on the Arab Street, pushed him to taking more responsibility. 2) Secondly, this was the case as required by the US Doctrine, at that time. Obama Administration’s absolute support for Turkey on this issue and the parallelism between the two states on the agenda have been remarkable. In a sense, the Syrian issue, was wanted to be referred to Turkey, within the framework of the «Leading from Behind» doctrine. This was also a factor that increased Turkey’s engagement in Syria. 3) As the third one, Turkey’s model role had an impact on our engagement in this issue. Journalist Nuray Mert’s comment on this point was quite interesting. Mert made the following assessment: “The Western World wanted to give the most active role in this issue to Turkey, as a Muslim NATO member state, And the West has also tried to stay away from some cruel and destructive formulations that could backfire in the Middle East, in order not to give the image of imperialist Western interventions similar to the Crusades in this case. as in the minds of Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman.” For this reason, the Syrian affair was heavily left to Turkey’s share. 4) And the fourth reason was related with Turkey’s plans about the Middle East order. The Arab Spring clearly triggered Turkey’s quest for regional leadership. Therefore emerged the situation at this time has just like Turkey’s position to lead the Middle East in cooperation with the US in the region after the fall of the Shah regime in Iran in 1979. And same way, at this stage, Turkey has felt the same desire to lead and order the whole region since 2011, after the Mubarek regime was overthrown. In other words, the Arap Spring or Awakening triggered Turkey’s quest for regional leadership and gave her a great opportunity. Foreign Minister Davutoğlu’s contribution to this search was undoubtedly great. In one of his interviews with the Financial Times on November 23, 2011, Davutoğlu described Turkey before the JDP government as follows: “He was just like a man with muscular arms but an empty stomach, a small brain, and a trembling heart”. According to Davutoğlu, Turkey should now surpass this weak and narrow image. Therefore, Turkey could not seat back and watch all these events. THE END
