In the last few years we are
witnessing a shift in Turkey’s foreign policy, moving from once being a bastion
of Western civilization to a more undefined Eurasian understanding. Turkey’s
leadership started flirting more actively with Moscow with ties getting
normalized, after the apology for downing of a Russian airplane over Syria.
Vladimir Putin was faster than Western politicians in condemning the failed
coup. Some even say Putin himself warned Turkey’s president that coup is under
its way. Disappointed with Western’s attitude, Ankara started more openly
speaking of getting even closer with Kremlin. President of Turkey and political
establishment in Ankara are sending threatening messages to Western leaders
regarding the Turkey’s NATO membership and recently went even as far to
announce a possible referendum on abandoning EU accession process. Besides the
threatening rhetoric definitely there were some moves in recent months
confirming this stance of Ankara. Turkey’s political elite is condemning the
West on every occasion in their statements and Turkish media, especially media
close to the government, is bombarding the public with anti-Western sentiment
almost for a year now. It was Israel before, seen as an archenemy, but
certainly, the West now has taken that place. Fear of Turkey turning to
‘Eastern alliance’ became even more threatening after the recent referendum on
constitutional changes, which give more power to President. Western countries aware
that they might lose Turkey changed their harsh rhetoric and started delivering
more reconciling statements. If Turkey decides to turn to the East, to Russia in
particular, that will certainly have a great impact on Turkey’s foreign policy.
Some regions which Ankara sees as its natural hinterland will suffer more, some
less. The region that will bear the most consequences of Turkey’s decision are
the Balkans, especially its Muslim population.
When it comes to Turkey’s foreign
policy, one name is often quoted. That name is Turkey’s ex-Foreign Minister
Ahmet Davutoğlu. New dynamism that started with him back in 2009, as he became
a Foreign Minister, was seen as a symbol of Turkey’s growing international
importance. His book The Strategic Depth was a popular quoting source, and it
was seen as the manifesto of Turkey’s new foreign policy. Written before AKP
came to power, the book is arguing that Turkey should be a more active player
in its wider neighborhood which once was the Ottoman realm. He calls this area the
“strategic depth of Turkey”. In the book, he gives a detailed analysis on how
Turkey’s policy should look like when it comes to the Balkans. He sees two
communities in the peninsula as crucial for Ankara’s foreign policy. These are
Albanians and Bosniaks, who happen to be Muslims, thanks to being a part of
Ottoman Empire for centuries. He believes that these two ethnic groups are
Turkey’s leverage for successful policy in the region. More or less during his
time and still today Turkey managed to build its position in the Balkans thanks
to having close ties to these two groups. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say
that almost all Balkans politics are implemented via these ethnic groups and
their nation states. Turkey’s foreign policy, especially in the Western
Balkans, with other groups, is at a minimal level. Keeping close ideological
ties with Albanians and Bosniaks was an entry card for the position in the
Balkans.
But what would be the impact of
Turkey’s turning East on its Balkans policy?
Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia and
Herzegovina are three nation-states that set Euro-Atlantic integration as their
ultimate foreign policy goal. Turkey was attractive in that sense, being a NATO
member and a candidate for entering the EU. On the other hand, Belgrade is seen
as a common threat by Sarajevo and Pristina and to a much lesser extent by
Tirana. After the nationalist regime of Slobodan Milosevic was defeated back in
2000, Belgrade doesn’t represent anymore a threat being feared of. But there is
a country which is seen as a historical threat to both Albanians and Bosniaks.
That threat is Russia. If we take a look in past centuries, Russia was seen as the
main sponsor of Orthodox population in the Balkans always siding with
irredentist Serbian state, the very same state that has forced Balkan Muslims
to migrate in big numbers to Anatolia. To many Albanians and Bosniaks Russia
was and still is synonymous with Serbian nationalistic irredentism. During the
bloody years of the nineties, Russia sided with Milosevic regime, the same
regime which has caused 100 thousand dead in Bosnia and Herzegovina and some 15
thousand deaths in Kosovo. This was the very reason why these two communities
decided to look Westward for ending the bloodshed and for EU and NATO
membership after gaining the independence. Russia is still backing Republika
Srpska, a Serb majority part of Bosnia, which occasionally threatens Sarajevo
with separation. There is a constant fear of Russia, in these communities. For
Muslims of the Balkans, Turkey for many reasons was looking friendly as it is a
secular Muslim majority country, looking to becoming a full member of European
Union, NATO member, plus all the common history which lasted for five hundred
years. Ankara in its statements always was supportive of regions' path of
integrating with EU and NATO, or with the same West which she now despises so
much. Turkey’s anti-West sentiment, at times irrationally high, is dragging the
country towards losing its position in the Balkans. Once lost, the region will
be hard to get back. There is a silent outcry among Muslims in the Balkans with
this new dynamics, as they feel left behind by Ankara. If Turkey turns in that
direction, they certainly will be.
Some would suggest that it is the
double standards of the Western governments that have pushed Turkey to take the
Eastern course. There might be some truth in that statement. But, double
standards with interests are probably two constants of foreign policy from the
early days of nationhood. It is true that inconsistency is present in the West,
but the same attitude is harshly criticized by various voices in the West as
well. Political elite shouldn’t get trapped ignoring the benefits Turkey offered
in the past being a Western ally.
Let us take a short historical
journey to get this point more clear. Turkey as a country with glorious past
and a large number of historical strongmen today has another one. Some might
not like him, but Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is definitely the strongest
political figure in Turkey after Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. At the moment Erdoğan
is at the crossroad when it comes to foreign policy. His decisions will determine
the future of Turkey for probably a long time to come. But what would Turkey’s
past strongmen have done if they were in the same situation? It is important to
think of this as history acknowledges only those statesmen who took the right
decision at the crossroads.
I would argue that four brilliant
statesmen decided the fate of Turkish people ever since they settled in
Anatolian lands. The decision of these four statesmen has drawn the path for
the development of Turkish nation and the state. First being Alp Arslan the
Seljuk leader, followed by Osman the founder of Ottoman Empire, Sultan Mehmed
the Second conqueror of Constantinople and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk the founder of
Turkish Republic. Without entering into the details, many historians would
agree that precisely these four leaders have decided the faith of Turkish
people. All four of them had one thing in common. They all looked towards the
West. Interesting?
Alp Arslan is responsible why
today Turks live in Anatolia as he defeated Byzantine forces in the Battle of
Manzikert. This opened the way for various Turkic tribes of Oghuz groups to
permanently settle in Anatolian lands. So he looked towards the West, rather
than East. Another one is Osman, the founder of Ottoman Empire. The basis of
Ottoman state ideology was the Gaza (Holy war). Ottoman Empire was born as a ‘warrior
state’ whose ultimate goal was to spread Islamdom by conquering Byzantine
lands. In its first centuries, Ottomans were oriented to spreading the Empire
towards west, rather than heading east. Sultan Mehmed the Second known as the
Conqueror has conquered once Byzantine capital Constantinople. After taking the
town one of the first things he did was to proclaim himself a Kayser-i Rum or
Cesar of Rome. During his leadership, he was known for culturally transforming
the state into more of European-like state rather than another Turkic state of
Anatolia. Mehmed the Conqueror successfully absorbed the Greco-Roman tradition
left behind by Byzantine civilization. He abolished a monopoly held by Turkic
families for the state positions and focused on recruiting youth from the
Balkans for the high state positions. This brilliant tactics have launched
Ottoman state into becoming one of the mightiest empires of its time. He even
went that far to call an Italian painter Gentile Bellini to paint his portrait
despite harsh criticism by religious circles, as it was seen as blasphemous
act. This clearly demonstrates his determination in looking towards the West.
Incorporating Greco-Roman state tradition created the longest lasting Turkish
state, compared to previous dynasties which managed to last only for one or two
generations, as the fighting for the throne in endless civil wars between
strong families was the destiny of all Turkic states. Mehmed the Conqueror
brought the understanding that the state is above the family, thus established
the rule of law.
Finally, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk,
with sometimes ruthless reforms, made a precedent in the Islamic world. After
abolishing the Ottoman caliphate he proclaimed the secular nation state on the
ruins of Ottoman Empire. Today there are many debates on his governing, which I
will avoid to comment, but one thing is for sure. Building a parliamentary
secular democracy, a process which had its ups and downs, was probably the main
reason why Turkey didn’t end up like rest of the Middle Eastern countries after
the Arab spring. In parliament all social groups for decades had a place to
share their discontents. Many remember that Turkey was enormously popular
during the early days of the Arab Spring. What was surprising was that Arab
street saw Turkey as a Western country, and of course, that is the another
geography where Turkey is going to lose if sides with Russia, as the majority
of Arab street is composed of the Sunni population and have a very bad opinion
of Russia, and definitely of Iran. So, the orientation of Atatürk towards the
West has created some stress in Turkey, but from the distance, it was worth it.
Being labeled as a Western and Muslim country, for a long time was the greatest
asset Ankara has possessed in its foreign policy. It should be noted that this
was the only reason why Turkey was entrusted an important role during the
bloody nineties in the Balkans and thus positioned itself in the peninsula.
All the great figures in Turkish
history made a move in the same direction; they strengthened the state
tradition in Greco-Roman fashion. As they knew this was the key to building an
empire and ticket for the Balkans as a gateway to Europe. And of course, they
didn’t wait for the invitation from Europeans. Turks ignored the obstacles put
forward by the European states, as they face some today. Without strong Greco-Roman
tradition, Turkey would be an ordinary Middle Eastern state. That will for sure
weaken Ankara’s position in the Middle East as well. The Middle East is too complicated;
Caucasus not so valuable from the geopolitical point, Central Asia too far and
under Moscow’s shadow, the Balkans should probably be the right choice at this
crossroad.
Comments
Post a Comment