Category: Turkey

  • Invitation to talk Turkey

    Invitation to talk Turkey

    COMPANIES looking to trade with Turkish firms are invited to a free advice clinic in Manchester next week.

    The session will be held on Monday at the Royal Bank of Scotland’s offices in Spinningfields. It is being organised by international trade advisers from The Export Network and representatives of Istanbul-based training and support outfit Doga Innovatory. Companies can book a 45-minute slot to talk over issues.

    Turkey is the 15th largest market in the world, and exports from Britain totalled £5.5bn in 2007. Around 1,800 UK companies have interests in Turkey.

    For more information, contact Simon Watson at the RBS via simon.watson@rbs.co.uk.

    Source:  www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk, March 18, 2009

  • Why Turkey Matters To The U.S.

    Why Turkey Matters To The U.S.

    Melik Kaylan, 03.17.09, 12:00 AM EDT

    Obama will need all of his diplomatic skills in Ankara.

    President Obama’s upcoming state visit to Turkey on March 30 brings up the question: Why is Turkey important? What benefits accrue to the U.S. and its global strategy to have Turkey on board, and what is lost by the absence thereof? Yes, yes, NATO ally, moderate Islamic democracy, bridge between Europe and Asia, but what in practical terms does it all mean?

    Mr. Obama’s visit will surely furnish a massive photo-op on many levels–he will demonstrate how, in his administration, diplomacy will be the first recourse in a way that never convincingly happened in the Bush era. There will be a lot of noise about showing respect to Muslim nations; words like “dialogue” and “dignity” will be intoned gravely. The visit will make Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan look like a real statesman again after his mercurial behavior at Davos toward the Israeli president. But beyond the diplomatic and symbolic, what?

    Not so fast. Actually the diplomatic and symbolic matter tremendously in this region, something that the younger Bush grievously underestimated and the older Bush understood precisely. In Turkey specifically, such things matter for a host of reasons. Like the U.K. and Russia, Turkey suffers from post-Imperial confusion about its role, its identity and importance in the world

    The Turkish language as spoken in Turkey no longer translates easily across borders to other Turkic countries, and former Ottoman non-Turkic provinces have adopted other languages. Unlike Russia and the U.K., Turkey feels painfully isolated, under-informed, unarticulated. Nobody understands the Turkish point of view automatically, the way Aussies might understand the Brits or Belarusians the Russians. Conversely, it’s not easy for Turks to eavesdrop on or gain clues from other cultures. As a result, they are prone to all sorts of paranoias.

    During the second Gulf War, Turks developed acute suspicions about the long-term goals of the second Bush administration. Highly placed sources in the Turkish military told me that before the war they had sounded out their American counterparts on pre-war U.S. clandestine activities in the Iraqi Kurdish zone.

    Here’s what the Turks said in effect: “We kept being told, no, the U.S. keeps no secrets from you–but we knew otherwise. We had pictures of secret meetings with local Kurdish tribal leaders. We had sources there for years. We also knew that Iranians had spies everywhere, that the U.S. was blundering into minefields. We could have been helpful, but we were kept out in the cold. So we wondered, what are they up to with the Kurds that they don’t want us to know?”

    Even then, top Turkish leaders, Erdogan and the generals, publicly endorsed formal collaboration with the war. One top general said on television that even though the military was against the war and didn’t think it was good for Turkey, they understood that being locked out of it would be worse. He advised cooperation.

    In the end, a handful of Turkish parliamentarians mistakenly voted “no” to U.S. plans, that is to give U.S. troops access to Iraq via Turkey. The parliamentarians thought the “yes” vote was locked in, and they could grandstand harmlessly by voting “no.” Suddenly, it was up to the Speaker of the House to cast the deciding vote, and he knew that his political career would be finished if, with all the cameras rolling, he voted “yes”–because a “yes” vote was seen as agreeing with the entire George W. Bush project for the region, known in Turkey as the “Great Middle East Project.”

    A top U.S. bureaucrat who happened to be in parliament visiting–a close friend to the Bushies–told me, “It was very frustrating: such an important event and I was the only American there. I was there completely by accident. Not officially at all. If I’d been empowered, I could have talked to a few of them, twisted a few arms, made assurances, soothed egos and changed the vote. That’s all it needed. And no one was there to do it. The administration has only itself to blame.”

    See what I mean about the importance of diplomacy? Now, what about the “Great Middle East Project?” The Turks were convinced of a long-term neoconservative-designed blueprint to change the borders of the region. Pundits and papers discussed it incessantly. In this scenario, the Iraqi Kurds would be emboldened to unite with the Turkish Kurds to create a “Greater Kurdistan,” which would become a new, more pliant, client state of the U.S.

    This paranoid vision simply didn’t take into account how the U.S. functions, especially these days. That kind of thing was possible during the British or Russian Great Game era but really makes no sense in the present. Nevertheless, the Turks were convinced that U.S. strategy planned for a fragmenting of their country as the Brits had intended after World War I, and as happened unintentionally with Bosnia and Kosovo more recently.

    In many cases and places, diplomacy and symbolic actions matter. A lot. In the case of the second Gulf War, it mattered in unintended but important ways. The absence of massed U.S. troops in the north didn’t affect “Shock and Awe.” All the problems arose after that, with the occupation, when the allies could already move forces freely anywhere within Iraq. And when the Turks finally offered to send in 10,000 troops to help the allies, it was the Kurds who nixed it. Still, inadvertent damage ensued from the misunderstandings. The Turks grew noticeably warmer to Moscow. Erdogan began to make friends with Iran and Damascus, and stoked pan-Muslim sentiments for his own political gain.

    None of these new friendships are good for Turkey. Or for the West. President Obama’s first task then is to re-convince the Turks of America’s good intentions. He should clear away the paranoias and show how Turkey benefits if the U.S. succeeds. Having a nonregional friend is a tremendous asset for the Turks–they should take another look at their neighbors and wake up. But Mr. Obama should also find ways to re-initiate the westernization process in Turkey. Money and support should flow from Europe, too, not just to industry and politics but to culture and education, to counteract the Islamizing influences from the oil states.

    What are the practical benefits to the U.S.? Let us list them: Turkish troops in Afghanistan. Freer NATO naval access to the Black Sea to bolster Ukrainian and Georgian morale. Turkish help for Georgia. A pro-U.S. Turkish flanking threat to distract Iran. Ditto Syria. The continued flow of non-Arab, non-Russian oil from Azerbaijan to the world. Increased U.S.-friendly Turkish influence in Central Asia’s Turkic states to counteract Russian and Iranian influence (remember those U.S. bases?). A secular Muslim buffer in the region against Islamization.

    If the U.S. and Turkey act in unison, as they did in the Cold War, Turkey can tip the balance as a pro-Western force in the region’s new politics. But it will take all of President Obama’s diplomatic and symbolic skills, sustained over time, to turn things around.

    Melik Kaylan, a writer based in New York, writes a weekly column for Forbes.com. His story “Georgia In The Time of Misha” is featured in The Best American Travel Writing 2008.

    Source:  www.forbes.com, 17.03.2009

  • President’s Budget Strategy Under Fire

    President’s Budget Strategy Under Fire

    Sen. Judd Gregg called the administration’s push for a budget shortcut the opposite of bipartisanship. (Susan Walsh – AP)

    Tactic May Break Obama’s Bipartisan Pledge, GOP Says

    By Lori Montgomery Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, March 18, 2009; Page A01

    Senior members of the Obama administration are pressing lawmakers to use a shortcut to drive the president’s signature initiatives on health care and energy through Congress without Republican votes, a move that many lawmakers say would fly in the face of President Obama’s pledge to restore bipartisanship to Washington.

    Republicans are howling about the proposal to expand health coverage and tax greenhouse gas emissions without their input, warning that it could irrevocably damage relations with the new president.

    “That would be the Chicago approach to governing: Strong-arm it through,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secretary. “You’re talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”

    The shortcut, known as “budget reconciliation,” would allow Obama’s health and energy proposals to be rolled into a bill that cannot be filibustered, meaning Democrats could push it through the Senate with 51 votes, instead of the usual 60. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both used the tactic to win deficit-reduction packages, while George W. Bush used it to push through his signature tax cuts.

    Administration officials say they have not made a final decision about whether to use the maneuver. But White House budget director Peter R. Orszag said yesterday that it is “premature to be taking it off the table.” Meanwhile, key administration officials, including White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, are pushing for reconciliation instructions in the budget proposal that Democrats are scheduled to unveil next week, congressional sources said.

    “I’m aware and the president is aware of the concerns that have been expressed, especially by Republicans, about its use,” Orszag told reporters at a luncheon organized by the Christian Science Monitor. “We’d like to avoid it, if possible, but we’re not taking it off the table at this point.”
    House Democratic leaders also are pressing strongly to use reconciliation in hopes of avoiding a repeat of the debate over the economic stimulus package, when a more expansive proposal adopted in the House was modified to appease moderate Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.

    With 58 Senate seats, Democrats need the support of at least two Republicans to block a filibuster. But they could pass a reconciliation bill without any Republican votes – and without the support of troublesome moderates in their own party.

    Some moderate Democrats are arguing that reconciliation would empower their party’s liberal wing while undermining a critical aspect of Obama’s popular appeal – his promise to work across the aisle.

    Just yesterday, in promoting his budget request, Obama said he was open to a healthy debate and invited Republicans to offer alternatives to his proposals. “With the magnitude of the challenges we face right now, what we need in Washington are not more political tactics, we need more good ideas,” he said. “We don’t need more point-scoring, we need more problem-solving.”

    Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) said reconciliation would send the opposite message, creating “kind of a divisive atmosphere.” Lincoln, a member of the Senate Finance Committee who has been working for months with GOP colleagues to lay the foundation for health-care reform, said circumventing that painstaking process “would just be sticking them in the eye.”

    Lincoln is one of seven Democrats who last week joined 21 Republican senators in declaring their opposition to using reconciliation to expedite Obama’s plan to auction off permits for the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, a proposal known as cap and trade. That legislation “is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy,” the letter says, adding that any move to put it on a fast track or to limit debate “would be inconsistent with the administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.”

    Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which is handling health care, also has spoken against reconciliation, arguing that he would rather have a health-care plan that can win broad, bipartisan support than a narrowly drawn proposal passed only by Democrats. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has argued against reconciliation as well.

    “There are many more problems with using reconciliation than is commonly appreciated,” Conrad said yesterday, after he and House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) met with Obama at the White House. The topic of reconciliation came up “in passing,” Conrad said, but no decisions were made.

    One big problem, Conrad said, is that reconciliation was conceived as a way to force hard budget choices, such as tax increases or spending cuts, not as a means to advance substantive legislation.

    Clinton, for example, rejected reconciliation for his own ill-fated health-care proposal, as did Republican congressional leaders when they enacted a Medicare prescription drug benefit, in part because reconciliation is permitted only for spending and revenue provisions. All the administrative language necessary to create a new health-care program or a new cap-and-trade regime could be cut, leaving major initiatives looking like “Swiss cheese,” Conrad said.

    G. William Hoagland, a former budget aide to Senate Republican leaders, said measures enacted through reconciliation also are temporary, which is one reason the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010. “Do you really want to set up a new health-care system just to have it expire?” he said.

    Jim Horney, a budget analyst at the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, agreed that those rules create obstacles to using reconciliation for Obama’s initiatives. But he said reconciliation is hardly a declaration of war on Republicans.

    Several past reconciliation bills, including a student-loan measure in 2007, won bipartisan support, Horney said. He added that it’s “a little odd that Republicans who thought it was hunky-dory to push through the Bush tax cuts now find it unbelievably offensive that you might use reconciliation, even as a backup.”

    Republicans argue that changing the tax rate is very different from adopting a sweeping reform of health care or energy policy.

    “This is a game-changer for how the nation’s economy relates to energy,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), the senior Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, said of the cap-and-trade proposal. “If we do it quickly, shame on us.”

    Staff writer Steven Mufson contributed to this report.

  • Only 25% of Britons believe evolution

    Only 25% of Britons believe evolution

    EVOLUTION SURVEYS UNDER THE MONOPOLY OF THE DARWINIST DICTATORSHIP

    An opinion poll was conducted in Britain. But the result came as a shock to Darwinists. The level of belief in the theory of evolution, in Darwin’s homeland, Britain, where Richard Dawkins’ atheist and Darwinist propaganda is most intense, emerged at a mere 25%. Britain’s best-known dailies immediately carried the story. This important and major development came as a real shock to Darwinists. It was the loudest declaration of Darwinism’s defeat.

    The result of the survey, carried out nationwide on the Guardian website on 2 February, 2009, was announced as follows: “Only 25% of Britons believe Darwin’s theory of evolution”. This headline, which reflected the poll findings, was altered within a few hours.

    This defeat being carried in the headlines was unacceptable to the Darwinist dictatorship. For that reason, the headline to the report carried in the publications in question was swiftly changed in a matter of hours.  The new report did not repeat that the level of belief in Darwinism was very low. The poll findings were distorted. The genuine report, which was carried for a brief period of time, was suddenly changed. Once again, people had been deceived under the influence of the Darwinist dictatorship.

    The incident did not end there. The results of this poll in Britain must have been particularly unwelcome, for Darwinists lost no time in resorting to another method in order to cover them up. “We have conducted a new poll,” they said. They gave the result of the poll they claimed to have conducted among 2000 people to the press. Under the influence of the Darwinist dictatorship the captions in the British press were swiftly altered. The British people were announced to be “evolutionist” by this false poll based on the opinions of 2000 persons.

    The fact is that this was a dirty trick by the Darwinist dictatorship that has taken the whole world under its sway and deceived people for many years.

    These intrigues have long been an effective technique for this sinister dictatorship that strives to spread Darwinist propaganda. Formerly, Darwinists used to draw pictures of imaginary ape ancestors, discover perfectly complex fossils of extinct life forms and claim that these were transitional fossils and maintain that a whole country was evolutionist, and people would duly believe them. That was because Darwinists kept the real scientific evidence carefully hidden away and nobody knew that Darwinism was a lie. They imagined that the equine series they saw in museums and the peppered moths they read about in school books were true, and were duly convinced because they knew nothing more. Whatever the Darwinist dictatorship said, went.

    But then something happened that Darwinists never expected.

    THE DARWINIST DICTATORSHIP WAS DEALT A BODY BLOW: BY ATLAS OF CREATION.

    The fossils so carefully hidden away were suddenly revealed. THERE WERE 100 MILLION FOSSILS THAT PROVED CREATION.  These all belonged to perfect, flawless and complex life forms, and many were living fossils. People realized that a tiger is the same today as it was 50 million years ago. A squid is the same today as it was 100 million years ago. And people also realized THAT NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSIL EXISTED.  Most important of all, they realized THEY HAD BEEN DECEIVED. The scientific facts were before their eyes. There was now no way of deceiving people by holding back the scientific proofs. Unable to produce any scientific evidence, and thus forced to rely on propaganda alone, Darwinism was abandoned.

    Demagoguery and propaganda are old Darwinist techniques. But that age is now over. It has no more influence over people who are now aware and have seen the scientific evidence.  People are abandoning evolution in droves and turning to belief in Allah (God). This is now showing itself very clearly and with powerful evidence in all countries. That is why Darwinists are in such a panic and such despair.

    Darwinism has been totally routed. It has been demolished. The Darwinist system that regarded people as ignorant and insignificant has realized that it can no longer deceive them. Nobody falls into the traps of the Darwinist dictatorship any more. They can make as much propaganda as they like, but nobody in the world really believes in Darwinism any more.

    Mar 17, 2009

    Source:  www.harunyahya.com, Mar 17, 2009

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

     

    Attribution from strafor.com

    Turkey and Russia on the Rise

    March 17, 2009

    By Reva Bhalla, Lauren Goodrich and Peter Zeihan

    Russian President Dmitri Medvedev reportedly will travel to Turkey in the near future to follow up a recent four-day visit by his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gul, to Moscow. The Turks and the Russians certainly have much to discuss.

    Related Special Topic Pages
    The Russian Resurgence
    Turkey’s Re-Emergence
    Central Asian Energy: Circumventing Russia
    Russian Energy and Foreign Policy
    Russia is moving aggressively to extend its influence throughout the former Soviet empire, while Turkey is rousing itself from 90 years of post-Ottoman isolation. Both are clearly ascendant powers, and it would seem logical that the more the two bump up against one other, the more likely they will gird for yet another round in their centuries-old conflict. But while that may be true down the line, the two Eurasian powers have sufficient strategic incentives to work together for now.

    Russia’s World
    Russia is among the world’s most strategically vulnerable states. Its core, the Moscow region, boasts no geographic barriers to invasion. Russia must thus expand its borders to create the largest possible buffer for its core, which requires forcibly incorporating legions of minorities who do not see themselves as Russian. The Russian government estimates that about 80 percent of Russia’s approximately 140 million people are actually ethnically Russian, but this number is somewhat suspect, as many minorities define themselves based on their use of the Russian language, just as many Hispanics in the United States define themselves by their use of English as their primary language. Thus, ironically, attaining security by creating a strategic buffer creates a new chronic security problem in the form of new populations hostile t o Moscow’s rule. The need to deal with the latter problem explains the development of Russia’s elite intelligence services, which are primarily designed for and tasked with monitoring the country’s multiethnic population.

    (click image to enlarge)
    Russia’s primary challenge, however, is time. In the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, the bottom fell out of the Russian birthrate, with fewer than half the number of babies born in the 1990s than were born in the 1980s. These post-Cold War children are now coming of age; in a few years, their small numbers are going to have a catastrophic impact on the size of the Russian population. By contrast, most non-Russian minorities — in particular those such as Chechens and Dagestanis, who are of Muslim faith — did not suffer from the 1990s birthrate plunge, so their numbers are rapidly increasing even as the number of ethnic Russians is rapidly decreasing. Add in deep-rooted, demographic-impacting problems such as HIV, tuberculosis and heroin abuse — concentrated not just among ethnic Russians but a lso among those of childbearing age — and Russia faces a hard-wired demographic time bomb. Put simply, Russia is an ascending power in the short run, but it is a declining power in the long run.

    The Russian leadership is well aware of this coming crisis, and knows it is going to need every scrap of strength it can muster just to continue the struggle to keep Russia in one piece. To this end, Moscow must do everything it can now to secure buffers against external intrusion in the not-so-distant future. For the most part, this means rolling back Western influence wherever and whenever possible, and impressing upon states that would prefer integration into the West that their fates lie with Russia instead. Moscow’s natural gas crisis with Ukraine, August 2008 war with Georgia, efforts to eject American forces from Central Asia and constant pressure on the Baltic states all represent efforts to buy Russia more space — and with that space, more time for survival.

    Expanding its buffer against such a diverse and potentially hostile collection of states is no small order, but Russia does have one major advantage: The security guarantor for nearly all of these countries is the United States, and the United States is currently very busy elsewhere. So long as U.S. ground forces are occupied with the Iraqi and Afghan wars, the Americans will not be riding to the rescue of the states on Russia’s periphery. Given this window of opportunity, the Russians have a fair chance to regain the relative security they seek. In light of the impending demographic catastrophe and the present window of opportunity, the Russians are in quite a hurry to act.

    Turkey’s World
    Turkey is in many ways the polar opposite of Russia. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, Turkey was pared down to its core, Asia Minor. Within this refuge, Turkey is nearly unassailable. It is surrounded by water on three sides, commands the only maritime connection between the Black and Mediterranean seas and sits astride a plateau surrounded by mountains. This is a very difficult chunk of territory to conquer. Indeed, beginning in the Seljuk Age in the 11th century, the ancestors of the modern Turks took the better part of three centuries to seize this territory from its previous occupant, the Byzantine Empire.

    The Turks have used much of the time since then to consolidate their position such that, as an ethnicity, they reign supreme in their realm. The Persians and Arabs have long since lost their footholds in Anatolia, while the Armenians were finally expelled in the dying days of World War I. Only the Kurds remain, and they do not pose a demographic challenge to the Turks. While Turkey exhibits many of the same demographic tendencies as other advanced developing states — namely, slowing birthrates and a steadily aging population — there is no major discrepancy between Turk and Kurdish birthrates, so the Turks should continue to comprise more than 80 percent of the country’s population for some time to come. Thus, while the Kurds will continue to be a source of nationalistic friction, they do not constitute a fundamental challenge to the power or operations of the Turkish state, like minorities in Russia are destined to do in the years ahead.

    Turkey’s security is not limited to its core lands. Once one moves beyond the borders of modern Turkey, the existential threats the state faced in years past have largely melted away. During the Cold War, Turkey was locked into the NATO structure to protect itself from Soviet power. But now the Soviet Union is gone, and the Balkans and Caucasus — both former Ottoman provinces — are again available for manipulation. The Arabs have not posed a threat to Anatolia in nearly a millennium, and any contest between Turkey and Iran is clearly a battle of unequals in which the Turks hold most of the cards. If anything, the Arabs — who view Iran as a hostile power with not only a heretical religion but also with a revolutionary foreign policy calling for the overthrow of most of the Arab regimes — are practically welcoming the Turks back. Despite both its imperial past and its close security association with the Americans, the Arabs see Turkey as a trusted mediator, and even an exemplar.

    With the disappearance of the threats of yesteryear, many of the things that once held Turkey’s undivided attention have become less important to Ankara. With the Soviet threat gone, NATO is no longer critical. With new markets opening up in the former Soviet Union, Turkey’s obsession with seeking EU membership has faded to a mere passing interest. Turkey has become a free agent, bound by very few relationships or restrictions, but dabbling in events throughout its entire periphery. Unlike Russia, which feels it needs an empire to survive, Turkey is flirting with the idea of an empire simply because it can — and the costs of exploring the option are negl igible.

    Whereas Russia is a state facing a clear series of threats in a very short time frame, Turkey is a state facing a veritable smorgasbord of strategic options under no time pressure whatsoever. Within that disconnect lies the road forward for the two states — and it is a road with surprisingly few clashes ahead in the near term.

    The Field of Competition
    There are four zones of overlapping interest for the Turks and Russians.

    First, the end of the Soviet empire opened up a wealth of economic opportunities, but very few states have proven adept at penetrating the consumer markets of Ukraine and Russia. Somewhat surprisingly, Turkey is one of those few states. Thanks to the legacy of Soviet central planning, Russian and Ukrainian industry have found it difficult to retool away from heavy industry to produce the consumer goods much in demand in their markets. Because most Ukrainians and Russians cannot afford Western goods, Turkey has carved out a robust and lasting niche with its lower-cost exports; it is now the largest supplier of imports to the Russian market. While this is no exercise in hard power, this Turkish penetration nevertheless is cause for much concern among Russian authorities.

    So far, Turkey has been scrupulous about not politicizing these useful trade links beyond some intelligence-gathering efforts (particularly in Ukraine). Considering Russia’s current financial problems, having a stable source of consumer goods — especially one that is not China — is actually seen as a positive. At least for now, the Russian government would rather see its trade relationship with Turkey stay strong. There will certainly be a clash later — either as Russia weakens or as Turkey becomes more ambitious — but for now, the Russians are content with the trade relationship.

    Second, the Russian retreat in the post-Cold War era has opened up the Balkans to Turkish influence. Romania, Bulgaria and the lands of the former Yugoslavia are all former Ottoman possessions, and in their day they formed the most advanced portion of the Ottoman economy. During the Cold War, they were all part of the Communist world, with Romania and Bulgaria formally incorporated into the Soviet bloc. While most of these lands are now absorbed into the European Union, Russia’s ties to its fellow Slavs — most notably the Serbs and Bulgarians — have allowed it a degree of influence that most Europeans choose to ignore. Additionally, Russia has long held a friendly relationship with Greece and Cyprus, both to complicate American policy in Europe and to provide a flank against Turkey. Still, thanks to proximity and trading links, Turkey clearly holds the upper hand in this theater of competition.

    But this particular region is unlikely to generate much Turkish-Russian animosity, simply because both countries are in the process of giving up.

    Most of the Balkan states are already members of an organization that is unlikely to ever admit Russia or Turkey: the European Union. Russia simply cannot meet the membership criteria, and Cyprus’ membership in essence strikes the possibility of Turkish inclusion. (Any EU member can veto the admission of would-be members.) The EU-led splitting of Kosovo from Serbia over Russian objections was a body blow to Russian power in the region, and the subsequent EU running of Kosovo as a protectorate greatly limited Turkish influence as well. Continuing EU expansion means that Turkish influence in the Balkans will shrivel just as Russian influence already has. Trouble this way lies, but not between Turkey and Russia. If anything, their joint exclusion might provide some room for the two to agree on something.

    The third area for Russian-Turkish competition is in energy, and this is where things get particularly sticky. Russia is Turkey’s No. 1 trading partner, with energy accounting for the bulk of the trade volume between the two countries. Turkey depends on Russia for 65 percent of its natural gas and 40 percent of its oil imports. Though Turkey has steadily grown its trade relationship with Russia, it does not exactly approve of Moscow’s penchant for using its energy relations with Europe as a political weapon. Russia has never gone so far as to cut supplies to Turkey directly, but Turkey has been indirectly affected more than once when Russia decided to cut supplies to Ukraine because Moscow felt the need to reassert its writ in Kiev.

    Sharing the Turks’ energy anxiety, the Europeans have been more than eager to use Turkey as an energy transit hub for routes that would bypass the Russians altogether in supplying the European market. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline is one such route, and others, like Nabucco, are still stuck in the planning stages. The Russians have every reason to pressure the Turks into staying far away from any more energy diversification schemes that could cost Russia one of its biggest energy clients — and deny Moscow much of the political leverage it currently holds over the Europeans who are dependent on the Russian energy network.

    There are only two options for the Turks in diversifying away from the Russians. The first lies to Turkey’s south in Iraq and Iran. Turkey has big plans for Iraq’s oil industry, but it will still take considerable time to upgrade and restore the oil fields and pipelines that have been persistently sabotaged and ransacked by insurgents during the fighting that followed the 2003 U.S. invasion. The Iranians offer another large source of energy for the Turks to tap into, but the political complications attached to dealing with Iran are still too prickly for the Turks to move ahead with concrete energy deals at this time. Complications remain for now, but Turkey wi ll be keeping an eye on its Middle Eastern neighbors for robust energy partnerships in the future.

    The second potential source of energy for the Turks lies in Central Asia, a region that Russia must keep in its grip at all costs if it hopes to survive in the long run. In many ways this theater is the reverse of the Balkans, where the Russians hold the ethnic links and the Turks the economic advantage. Here, four of the five Central Asian countries — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan — are Turkic. But as a consequence of the Soviet years, the infrastructure and economies of all four are so hardwired into the Russian sphere of influence that it would take some major surgery to liberate them. But the prize is a rich one: Central Asia possesses the world& #8217;s largest concentration of untapped energy reserves. And as the term “central” implies, whoever controls the region can project power into the former Soviet Union, China and South Asia. If the Russians and Turks are going to fight over something, this is it.

    Here Turkey faces a problem, however — it does not directly abut the region. If the Turks are even going to attempt to shift the Central Asian balance of power, they will need a lever. This brings us to the final — and most dynamic — realm of competition: the Caucasus.

    Turkey here faces the best and worst in terms of influence projection. The Azerbaijanis do not consider themselves simply Turkic, like the Central Asians, but actually Turkish. If there is a country in the former Soviet Union that would consider not only allying with but actually joining with another state to escape Russia’s orbit, it would be Azerbaijan with Turkey. Azerbaijan has its own significant energy supplies, but its real value is in serving as a willing springboard for Turkish influence into Central Asia.

    However, the core of Azerbaijan does not border Turkey. Instead, it is on the other side of Armenia, a country that thrashed Azerbaijan in a war over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh enclave and still has lingering animosities toward Ankara because of the 1915 Armenian “genocide.” Armenia has sold itself to the Russians to keep its Turkish foes at bay.

    This means Turkish designs on Central Asia all boil down to the former Soviet state of Georgia. If Turkey can bring Georgia fully under its wing, Turkey can then set about to integrate with Azerbaijan and project influence into Central Asia. But without Georgia, Turkey is hamstrung before it can even begin to reach for the real prize in Central Asia.

    In this, the Turks do not see the Georgians as much help. The Georgians do not have much in the way of a functional economy or military, and they have consistently overplayed their hand with the Russians in the hopes that the West would come to their aid. Such miscalculations contributed to the August 2008 Georgian-Russian war, in which Russia smashed what military capacity the Georgians did possess. So while Ankara sees the Georgians as reliably anti-Russian, it does not see them as reliably competent or capable.

    This means that Turkish-Russian competition may have been short-circuited before it even began. Meanwhile, the Americans and Russians are beginning to outline the rudiments of a deal. Various items on the table include Russia allowing the Americans to ship military supplies to Afghanistan via Russia’s sphere of influence, changes to the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, and a halt to NATO expansion. The last prong is a critical piece of Russian-Turkish competition. Should the Americans and Europeans put their weight behind NATO expansion, Georgia would be a logical candidate — meaning most of the heavy lifting in terms of Turkey projecting power eastward would already be done. But if the Americans and Europeans do not put their weight behind NATO expansion, Georgia would fall by the wayside and Turkey would have to do all the work of projecting power eastward — and facing the Russians — alone.

    A Temporary Meeting of Minds?
    There is clearly no shortage of friction points between the Turks and the Russians. With the two powers on a resurgent path, it was only a matter of time before they started bumping into one another. The most notable clash occurred when the Russians decided to invade Georgia last August, knowing full well that neither the Americans nor the Europeans would have the will or capability to intervene on behalf of the small Caucasian state. NATO’s strongest response was a symbolic show of force that relied on Turkey, as the gatekeeper to the Black Sea, to allow a buildup of NATO vessels near the Georgian coast and threaten the underbelly of Russia’s former Soviet peri phery.

    Turkey disapproved of the idea of Russian troops bearing down in the Caucasus near the Turkish border, and Ankara was also angered by having its energy revenues cut off during the war when the BTC pipeline was taken offline.

    The Russians promptly responded to Turkey’s NATO maneuvers in the Black Sea by holding up a large amount of Turkish goods at various Russian border checkpoints to put the squeeze on Turkish exports. But the standoff was short-lived; soon enough, the Turks and Russians came to the negotiating table to end the trade spat and sort out their respective spheres of influence. The Russian-Turkish negotiations have progressed over the past several months, with Russian and Turkish leaders now meeting fairly regularly to sort out the issues where both can find some mutual benefit.

    The first area of cooperation is Europe, where both Russia and Turkey have an interest in applying political pressure. Despite Europe’s objections and rejections, the Turks are persistent in their ambitions to become a member of the European Union. At the same time, the Russians need to keep Europe linked into the Russian energy network and divided over any plans for BMD, NATO expansion or any other Western plan that threatens Russian national security. As long as Turkey stalls on any European energy diversification projects, the more it can demand Europe’s attention on the issue of EU membership. In fact, the Turks already threatened as much at the start of the year, when they said outright that if Europe doesn’t need Turkey as an EU member, then Turkey doesn’t need to sign off on any more energy diversification projects that transit Turkish territory. Ankara’s threats against Europe dovetailed nicely with Russia’s natural gas cutoff to Ukraine in January, when the Europeans once again were reminded of Moscow’s energy wrath.

    The Turks and the Russians also can find common ground in the Middle East. Turkey is again expanding its influence deep into its Middle Eastern backyard, and Ankara expects to take the lead in handling the thorny issues of Iran, Iraq and Syria as the United States draws down its presence in the region and shifts its focus to Afghanistan. What the Turks want right now is stability on their southern flank. That means keeping Russia out of mischief in places like Iran, where Moscow has threatened to sell strategic S-300 air defense systems and to boost the Iranian nuclear program in order to grab Washington’s attention on other issues deemed vital to Moscow’s national security interests. The United States is already leaning on Russia to pressure Iran in return for other strategic concessions, and the Turks are just as interested as the Americans in taming Russia’s actions in the Middle East.

    Armenia is another issue where Russia and Turkey may be having a temporary meeting of minds. Russia unofficially occupies Armenia and has been building up a substantial military presence in the small Caucasian state. Turkey can either sit back, continue to isolate Armenia and leave it for the Russians to dominate through and through, or it can move toward normalizing relations with Yerevan and dealing with Russia on more equal footing in the Caucasus. With rumors flying of a deal on the horizon between Yerevan and Ankara (likely with Russia’s blessing), it appears more and more that the Turks and the Russians are making progress in sorting out their respective spheres of influence.

    Ultimately, both Russia and Turkey know that this relationship is likely temporary at best. The two Eurasian powers still distrust each other and have divergent long-term goals, even if in the short term there is a small window of opportunity for Turkish and Russian interests to overlap. The law of geopolitics dictates that the two ascendant powers are doomed to clash — just not today.

    Tell STRATFOR What You Think

    This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com

    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
    © Copyright 2009 Stratfor. All rights reserved.

  • Turkish Involvement Could Stimulate Middle East Development

    Turkish Involvement Could Stimulate Middle East Development

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) seems intent on increasing Turkey’s influence with such neighbors as Syria’s President Bashar Assad (2nd right).

    March 17, 2009
    By Abbas Djavadi

    In the Middle East, Turkey could play a leading role in resolving political conflicts; boosting economic cooperation and investment within the region; and supporting political, economic, and social reforms.

    As the most democratic Muslim country in the Middle East, one with rich experience dealing with and adapting to Western institutions, Turkey is the best-suited Middle Eastern country to lead the effort to advance regional stability and development. The European Union and the international community should support Turkey in this role.

    Ankara has demonstrated a consistent commitment to good relationships with all countries of the region, regardless of their domestic, regional, or international policies. Except for occasional military actions against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) pockets in northern Iraq that Ankara considers essential for its national security, Turkey has abstained from interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

    After some years of hesitation, Ankara has begun improving relations with the Kurdistan regional government in northern Iraq, a key factor in improving stability and security in that country. Turkey was also one of the first countries to contribute to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

    Turkish efforts over the last two years to mediate between Syria and Israel, the Lebanese groups, and, more recently, Palestinian organizations — as well as its offer to mediate between Iran and the United States — have met with limited success so far. But they have nonetheless underscored Turkey’s capability and potentially suitable positioning to act as a regional leader.

    While primarily leaning toward the West in the past, the Turkish government (controlled by the Justice and Development (AK) party) has — especially over the last few years — improved its relations and image among the Muslim countries of the region, occasionally at the cost of Western reservations or objections.

    Leading The Middle East

    Boosting economic relations and investment between Middle Eastern countries would — especially if accompanied by relaxation of travel, residence, and work-permit limitations — gradually contribute to the overall improvement of living standards, education, and social services in the region. The result would be the mitigation of the actual and potential dangers of extremism and ethnic conflict.

    With its experience with its own democratic reforms (free and fair elections, media, education, privatization, and modernization), Turkey is in a position to help other Middle Eastern countries implement reforms. Doing so could also help Ankara unblock its own reform process and move ahead with EU-required measures that have been bogged down considerably for the last two years.

    If the Middle East were developing economically and socially as a region and countries there had direct and growing interest in cooperation and integration, there would be much less grounds for repression, terrorism, and war.

    The modalities of EU involvement in such a regional initiative remain undetermined, but it seems evident that a leading role for Turkey would be one of the best guarantees of success. Many Turkish officials have expressed a desire for greater Turkish engagement in the region.

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to Ankara has signaled Washington’s support for Turkey’s role in the Middle East, and EU officials have seconded that support. The time seems ripe to build on these initiatives in order to keep the Middle East process active even as Brussels and Washington are preoccupied with immediate concerns closer to home.

    Abbas Djavadi is associate director of broadcasting with RFE/RL. The views expressed in this commentary, which is a summary of an address he gave at the Fourth Annual Conference of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies (Metropolitan University, Prague) are his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL