Category: Middle East

  • India-Israel Defense Relations Threatened by Scandal

    India-Israel Defense Relations Threatened by Scandal

    indianpmsinghMayank Bubna | 13 Apr 2009

    WORLD POLITICS REVIEW

    NEW DELHI, India — One of India’s biggest ever defense deals with Israel, worth $2 billion, hovered on the brink of collapse earlier this month after allegations of graft to the tune of $120 million surfaced. Indian Defense Minister A. K. Anthony was quick to deny the claims, while asserting that the government would take strict action against the Israeli company and the Indian middlemen involved should the charges be true. This was, however, the second blow to Indo-Israeli relations in a matter of days — the first being a controversial video produced by Israeli defense firm Rafael and shown at a recent arms expo that lampooned India’s Bollywood movie industry.

    The bad news came at a time when ties between the two countries could not have been stronger. In March, Israel officially overtook Russia to acquire the enviable position of India’s largest arms supplier. Now the deal involving the sale of surface-to-air missiles by Israel Aerospace Industries to the Indian government seems to have been jeopardized.

    India-Israel strategic relations have traditionally been defined around security. Prior to the 1990s, India regarded with skepticism military ties to a state founded around its religious identity. Struggling to deal with the growing menace of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, though, and impressed with Israel’s successes in wars against neighboring Arab nations, India has cultivated closer ties since then.

    The shift was also aided by weakening Indo-Russian relations, frayed in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the former Soviet Union. Several problems have arisen in Indo-Russian bilateral defense cooperation since 1991, including but not limited to issues of spare parts provision, technical documentation and what one analyst called “scant respect for contractual obligations” — a reference to Russian delivery delays, property rights disputes and avoidable cost escalations.

    But if Israel has emerged as a partner of convenience in India’s efforts to diversify its arms procurement, the relationship has also presented potential problems. According to P. R. Kumaraswamy, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, restructuring India’s defense capabilities to facilitate purchases from Irael might be detrimental in the long run. “Israel does not export platforms, rather it only offers high-tech innovation upgrades,” he says, referring to Israel’s limited arms inventory. Technology is not as tangible as military hardware. Furthermore, India is incapable of a “complete military overhaul,” which according to Kumaraswamy would become necessary if India shifted completely from one major supplier to another.

    Another critical factor is the political costs of courting Israel. Domestically, politicians fear the loss of the Indian Muslim vote. Problems in Kashmir may be very different from and seemingly unrelated to the Palestine issue. But in an age of increasing globalization, many in India have strong sympathies for the Palestinian cause.

    Internationally, however, India stands to lose less. According to Kumaraswamy, it is “unfashionable” to speak of the Israeli factor as affecting Indo-Arab strategic ties. Arab apprehensions, if any, have usually been discussed only in private circles. Historically, Arab nations have grudgingly accepted Indo-Israel strategic relations, even as thousands of Indians continue to live and work in several Middle Eastern nations.

    Iran, too, has pursued an India policy independent of Israel. According to Kumaraswamy, Iran can afford to do this because there are “certain things that Iran can supply which Israel cannot, like energy security.” Israel’s strength lies in security cooperation, an area of collaboration where Iran has little to offer India.

    Yet, growing India-Israel cooperation could now be in peril, thanks to public outrage over the recent corruption allegations. While defense procurement fraud is hardly news to the Indian public, this most recent incident stands out for its dimensions. The largest previous scandal involved the sale of Swedish howitzers in the 1980s, in which several Indian ministers were alleged to have received about $12 million in kickbacks. The current Israel deal involves corruption charges amounting to 10 times this amount.

    Traditionally India has somehow brushed off these humiliations, managing to treat corruption as inevitable and therefore tolerated within the Indian political system. Whether this same sense of fatalism can help it endure this most recent crisis remains to be seen.

    Mayank Bubna is a freelance war correspondent and consultant. He is presently based in India.

    Source:  www.worldpoliticsreview.com, 13 Apr 2009

  • Turkish-Iraqi-American Trilateral Security Mechanism Focuses on PKK Terrorism

    Turkish-Iraqi-American Trilateral Security Mechanism Focuses on PKK Terrorism

    Turkish-Iraqi-American Trilateral Security Mechanism Focuses on PKK Terrorism

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 70
    April 13, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    The trilateral commission established between Turkey, the United States and Iraq to facilitate security cooperation against the activities of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Northern Iraq continues to operate. However it remains uncertain if it will produce tangible results that satisfy Turkey’s expectations to eliminate the PKK threat. Last week, two Turkish soldiers died in a clash with PKK militants, in which seven terrorists were killed, and this could signal an escalation of the PKK’s militants’ activities ahead of summer. This incident increases the pressure on the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) to take urgent military measures.

    On April 11 Turkey’s Minister of Interior Besir Atalay travelled to Baghdad for a ministerial level meeting of the trilateral commission where he met the Iraqi National Security Minister Shirwan al-Waili and the Charges d’Affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Patricia Butenis (Anadolu Ajansi, April 11, Hurriyet Daily News, April 12). A five-point declaration was subsequently issued, denouncing the PKK as a terrorist organization which endangers the security of all parties. The statement also added that Baghdad will ban the activities of the PKK and its proxy organization in Iraq, the Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party. The commission reviewed its progress, and reaffirmed their determination to continue working on limiting the political, military and media activities of the PKK.

    The trilateral mechanism was initiated in November 2008, following a change in Turkey’s anti-terrorist policy against the PKK (Terrorism Monitor, December 8, 2008). Iraqi Kurds, who for a long time had refused to cooperate with Turkey on the issue, also changed their position and joined the process as part of the Iraqi delegation. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has taken a stronger line since then and promised to curb the activities of the PKK. The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that a branch of the trilateral mechanism will be established in the Northern Iraqi city of Arbil, which highlighted the thawing in Turkey’s relations with the KRG (Today’s Zaman, February 24).

    From Ankara’s perspective, the conclusions of last weekend’s meeting will test the commitment of the Iraqi Kurds to the “joint fight against the PKK.” During President Abdullah Gul’s visit to Iraq in March, KRG officials expressed their support and offered a plan to disarm the PKK militants in the areas under their control (EDM, March 24, 29). As a further expression of their determination, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, himself a Kurd, gave Gul a warm welcome and threatened the PKK during their joint press briefing: “either lay down arms, or leave Iraq” (www.cnnturk.com, March 24). The Turkish side interpreted Talabani’s statement as a successful sign for Turkey’s new policies in general and Gul’s visit in particular.

    Soon after Gul’s return to Turkey, however, Talabani’s subsequent remarks raised questions about the sincerity of the Iraqi Kurds’ to cooperate. Talabani, who is also the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, visited Northern Iraq, where he met Mesud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, who had been travelling in Europe during Gul’s visit. The two leaders discussed relations between the Kurdish groups, as well as the KRG’s ties with the central government in Baghdad. Talabani also briefed Barzani about his contacts with Turkey. Referring to the local Kurdish media, the Turkish press reported that Talabani retracted his earlier position and denied having called on the PKK to “lay down arms or leave Iraq.” Talabani argued he was misunderstood and clarified his position by saying that the disarmament of the PKK was Turkey’s proposal and he was simply referring to it (Dogan Haber Ajansi, April 1).

    Familiar with the Iraqi Kurdish politicians’ reneging on their promises in the past, the Turkish media covered this development extensively, and the opposition parties criticized the government’s reliance on the Northern Iraqi Kurdish groups to handle the PKK threat (www.haber7.com, April 7). In response to a question on the subject, Gul stated “I would like to believe what Talabani said during the joint press briefing” (Anadolu Ajansi, April 3). Gul later hardened his tone against Baghdad, and in an interview on Iraqi TV he called on the government to keep its promises. Noting that Turkey respected Iraq’s territorial integrity, Gul added “if Baghdad cannot solve this problem, we can… If some of the areas used by [the PKK] are not under the control of the central administration, leave it to us and we will take care of it” (Milliyet, April 11).

    Before leaving for Iraq to attend the meeting of the trilateral commission, Atalay said that Turkey expected concrete steps from Baghdad and the Northern Iraqi authorities. According to the Turkish press, the declaration issued after the meeting reaffirmed Talabani’s earlier warning to the PKK, and Atalay emphasized Turkey’s satisfaction with the process, especially his partners’ willingness to continue joint efforts against the PKK presence in Northern Iraq (www.cnnturk.com, April 12).

    The dynamics of the recent developments between Ankara-Baghdad-Arbil illustrate the continuity of the AKP’s Kurdish policy and the fight against terrorism. The decline in the AKP’s electoral support within the southeastern provinces in last month’s local elections was interpreted as a failure of the “domestic” pillar of the government’s Kurdish policy (EDM, March 31). If Turkey cannot ensure the compliance of Baghdad and the KRG to deliver on their promises, it will come to be viewed as a serious blow to the “external” pillar of the government’s anti-terrorist policy. Obviously, this situation makes Ankara anxious to secure tangible results from the trilateral process, but uncertainty remains as to whether the declarations will be translated into effective action. What also adds to Ankara’s sense of urgency is the fear that the advent of spring will witness an increase in militant attacks on Turkish military targets, and raise pressure on the government to immediately address the threat posed by the PKK.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-iraqi-american-trilateral-security-mechanism-focuses-on-pkk-terrorism/
  • Will there be a new Camp David of Turkey?

    Will there be a new Camp David of Turkey?

    Armenian problem of Turkey took an important dimension while regional balances are changing regional nations’ characteristics in this time section. Armenia that have seen double reaction by two countries since invasion on Karabakh region has an inevitable chance. Two brother countries’ opposition conducts because of dilemmas by foreign affairs gave some advantages for Armenia and their diaspora.

    Although Turkey’s demand about giving up by Armenian insistences on Karabakh, genocide lie and new territory of east Anatolia points, this country didn’t improve relations. Additionally Armenia’s desires about their unreal pronunciations had grew up in period of Sarkisyan. Turkey and other states can not understand different thoughts of an irredentist state.

    Of course absolute definitons like “Can be a country collapsed with historical confession which is combining many words?” of some liberal and global defenders in Turkey created this period. It doesn’t matter to interpret these responsible groups which formed new critical relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey. For example: “Azerbaijan didn’t recognize Turkish Cyprus, so this is unnecessary to defend their self interests, Karabakh conflict is an internal problem of them and Turkish foreign policy can not depend on it, Azerbaijan reailty finishes western support to Turkey while guarantees of the USA are enough for us…” To understand truth reality you can search all documents about these subjects.

    Today public opinion of Azerbaijan feels unwell about last news. All messages are followed and columnists debate possible circumstances. Additionally to political dimension, economical and energical subjects are different debate areas. Unfortunately some alternative energy line projects are debated today. About border opening effects and reaction of public opinion of Azerbaijan circumstances, we ask to Araz Aslanli who is an academic person in Khazar University and president of Caucasus Research Center for International Relations and Strategic Analysis :

    “ I don’t expect that borders will be opened. If actors look at the local and regional dynamics and Turkey want to stiff its position here, it shouldn’t be opened. But if they say that we have some guarantees of our position as regional power, no issues can influence this reality, and Turkey is only interested about global issues, they can open as minimum concession about this problem.

    Border problem is strategical but it has psychological among relations with Azerbaijan. It is important for two countries. Example; Turkey is a single country which had been sponsored and protected by Azerbaijan if we compare global powers. It is originally psychological that is shored up ethnic, religious and cultural connections. Commonlu this question can collapse “trustworthy brother” image of Turkey in Turkish world and Azerbaijan. I think that it is another target of groups which are desire border opening idea. Public opinion is very sensitive in Azerbaijan about this question. Reaction of government can be limited but it can put a psychological mine because of sensitivity of public.”

    Another symbol of public sensitive representation is a media organ that is Turkistan Newspaper. We ask this question to Aqil Camal who is a head director of Turkistan Newspaper. According to him, this case can end Turkish image in this geography:

    “We are unwell as Turkish nationalists. There are some pressures as “Is it your defensivity?”
    Some pro-Russian groups are working to create bad image about Turkey in public opinion. We should look at a point. If Turkey will open borders and Azerbaijani government agree this reality, all of the works about Turkish union will die. Because Azerbaijan is a bridge between Turkey and Central Asia because of Central Asian countries were near us. If Azerbaijan give up these works, Turkey can not be successful. This is a great problem all of us who are working to create Turkish union.

    Sometimes politicians talk about state interests. But states are existing to serve nation. Who wants a state that is not interested about demands of nation? If there will be a cold time with Turkey, Azerbaijan consider relations with Russia, like Central Asian bandwagoning.

    Mr. Öztarsu, you know that I said these sentences as a Turkish idealist on Turkish union way, not as an angry person on ordinary public sphere. At least Turkey shouldn’t open borders in this period. Chances shouldn’t be given to defeatists of our brotherhood. Punishment should be given when necessary, not serve them. As like as Çanakkale War…”

    There is a long time period to open borders and debate its historical and political subjects as like speeches of Armenian president. But only beaten side will be conscience and thought of Turkish nation in this psychological war. Defenses of opposition groups from the likes of economic development, brotherhood of Armenians for Turkey, independent situation of Turkish foreign policy thoughts will be main actors in this process. We know that Turkish bureaucrats don’t want a new Camp David of Turkish world and be remembered a new Anwar Sadat.

    Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU
    Baku Qafqaz University
    International Research Club

  • The Dream of a Kurdish State

    The Dream of a Kurdish State

    By Hewa Aziz

    Sulaimaniyah, Asharq Al-Awsat- Throughout its long history, the forty-million strong Kurdish nation has never had its own independent state. Since the decline of the Median Empire some 3000 years ago, the Kurds have remained part of other states or, at the best, managed to establish scattered principalities as part of larger empires dominating the region such as the Islamic and Ottoman Empires.

    The Kurds established the principalities of Baban in Sulaimaniyah, Ardalan and Botan, and later founded the province of Sharazor, the capital of which was Kirkuk, and Mosul and other cities.

    The idea of establishing an independent Kurdish state was not a priority for the Kurds, nor was it a matter of necessity. This is because the concept of the modern state was yet to emerge or appear in the region until the late nineteenth century when states began to emerge according to a modern system.

    At the time, despite their potential, Kurdish leaders were preoccupied with minor issues that took their attention away from realizing the dream of establishing an independent Kurdish state, a dream that the Persian and the Ottoman Empires, and modern-day Iran and Turkey have fought against.

    After World War I, an opportunity arose for the Kurds to outline the features of their independent state within the framework of treaties and the international and regional coalitions that dominated that period. However, the Kurdish leader Sheikh Mahmoud al Hafid in particular, was content with establishing his small kingdom in Sulaimaniyah. The kingdom soon collapsed following bloody wars with the British occupation forces that brought down the Ottoman Empire and with it all its allying bodies including al Hafid’s kingdom. He failed to make the most of Kurdish sentiment at the time regarding the Kurdish right to establish a homeland.

    Sheikh Mahmoud al Hafid was unaware of the fact that the new age required a new a vision and conduct, and as a result, the Turks established their own state and the Kurds were dispersed between four of the regional countries: Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

    Almost a century has elapsed since then. That experience was followed by other attempts to establish a Kurdish state such as the Republic of Mahabad by Qazi Mohammed in Iranian Kurdistan back in 1946. This attempt was short lived and was brought down by the army of the Pahlavi regime. The dream of establishing an independent Kurdish state is yet to be realized. But the main question is: will this dream ever come true?

    Many Kurdish politicians, intellectuals and decision-makers agree that this dream is possible and can be realized in the right political regional and international circumstances. Others are of the view that the dream is unattainable for geopolitical reasons whereas others predict that more than one autonomous or semi-autonomous state will emerge in the four parts of Kurdistan shortly in view of recent developments and the potential political shifts in the new Middle East over the next two decades.

    Fareed Asasard, a leading figure at the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan [PUK] party and the director of Kurdistan’s Strategic Studies Centre based in Sulaimaniyah, believes that the idea of forming or founding an independent Greater Kurdistan comprising of Kurdistan’s four areas continues to be a hypothetical issue.

    “The basic components required for establishing any state are still unavailable [to the Kurds] at the present time and I believe that they will not be available in the long term for several reasons, the most important of which is that the world will witness a shift in the decades to come causing it to rely on geo-economics instead of geopolitics as the case is at present,” said Asasard.

    Asasard, who has conducted a lot of research on this topic, stresses that the idea of founding a greater independent state has failed a number of times. For example the Turks failed to found the Greater Turkish Empire from China to the Mediterranean to ensure the existence of the Turkish race everywhere. Asasard adds, “In the mid-1990s, I presented a research paper on the geopolitics of Kurdistan in which I made clear that establishing an independent Kurdish state in Iraqi Kurdistan would be very difficult as it requires changing the map of a significant part of the world. Besides, even if this state were established, it would remain isolated from the world as it would have no seaports.”

    Asasard expects that there will be several small Kurdish statelets in other parts of Kurdistan in the long term especially as the initial step in this direction has already been taken in the sense that the political and administrative structure of Iraqi Kurdistan is quite independent. However, he stressed that the link between these Kurdish states on the economic level in the future will be very weak and that these states will remain linked to the central systems in Tehran, Turkey and Baghdad.

    Asasard stated that he believes that international politics will be subject to the logics and authority of the economy in upcoming decades. Therefore, the Kurdish statelets, if they emerge, will be economically weak and this will be their biggest problem, not to mention their unfortunate location, which will always tip the scale in favour of their neighbours, making it subordinate to these neighbouring countries. Therefore, the idea of founding an independent Kurdish state is an unachievable dream.

    On the other hand however, Dr. Jaza Toufi Taleb, professor of geopolitics at the University of Sulaimani believes that all the basic constituents are available for an independent Kurdish state to be established on Kurdish land such as the geographical borders, nation, economy and seaports. However, the political atmosphere is completely unsuitable for outlining the features of the state at present, especially as the concerned countries continue to reject even marginal autonomy for the Kurds in their countries. Dr Taleb explained that even though several independent states around the world, such as Kosovo for example, do not have the potential that Iraqi Kurdistan enjoys.

    “I believe that if reformists in Iran and the moderates in Turkey gain power in the upcoming elections, and with the geopolitical changes in Syria that are taking place, this would allow for the rise of political bodies in the Kurdistan region, specifically in Turkey which wants to join the EU but a precondition is the acknowledgement of the rights of all minorities. In Iran, there are signs of such bodies emerging under the rule of reformists. These bodies will represent the initial step towards the establishment of the Kurdish state in the long term. Turkey will be the starting point towards this goal. However, geopolitically, the dream of establishing the greater Kurdish state remains a difficult dream to make come true,” explained Dr Taleb.

    But Hussein Yazdan Bana, Vice President of the Kurdistan Freedom Party headed by Ali Qazi Mohammed, the son of the founder of the Kurdish Mahabad Republic in Iranian Kurdistan, stressed that the Kurdish nation has the right to an independent state on its land in accordance with international law. He emphasized that Kurdistan possesses all the requirements necessary for establishing an independent state just like other countries in the world. “Conspiracies and international interests were, and still are, the major obstacles to the establishment of the Kurdish state. This is exemplified by what happened to Sheikh Mahmoud al Hafid’s kingdom and the Kurdistan Republic [of Mahabad] founded by Qazi Mohamed.”

    Yazdan Bana emphasized that the most important prerequisite for the establishment of any state is the will and resolution of the nation itself and the favourable external factors and circumstances that have not been agreeable to the Kurds until now.

    “If the British had not been present and the superpowers did not have their own interests, the Kurdish, Baban, Botan and Ardalan principalities would have been successful in establishing Greater Kurdistan. In addition, the very few opportunities that were made available to the Kurds throughout history, specifically after World War I, were not utilised well by Kurdish politicians to establish that state.”

    Yazdan Bana confirmed that international policies in the current age of globalization are not resistant to the aspirations of countries seeking to establish their own independent states. These conditions can be utilised to make the Kurdish dream come true provided that there is a unified political will among the Kurds.

    Yazdan Bana said, “The establishment of the Kurdish state is a goal that the Kurds and their political powers should act to achieve, and we can do this provided that a unified and a solid political will is made available. At present, the establishment of this state is not possible for several reasons, but once the Kurdish politicians abandon their personal dreams and ambitions for power and influence then forty million people will be able to establish their own state.”

    Abdul Baqi Yousef, member of the politburo of the Kurdish Yekiti Party in Syria highlighted that the establishment of an independent state is the right of the Kurdish nation and it is not an impossible dream. However, he explains that this is conditional upon future political developments in the region that will outline existing ties between the Kurds and the Middle East region and will result in establishing ties between all the parts of Kurdistan.

    “States are not established based on emotions or desires but basic factors such as geography, economy and others factors that are all available in Kurdistan. I believe that the future developments, in the long run, will allow for the establishment of several Kurdish statelets in the region, and this will lead to the establishment of independent greater Kurdistan.”

    But the issue differs for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party [PKK] in Turkey, which called for establishing greater Kurdistan since it began the armed struggle in 1984. The party reduced its demand to establishing a confederation system that ensures national and cultural rights for Kurds whose population exceeds ten million in Turkey’s Kurdistan region alone.

    Ahmed Deniz, the PKK’s foreign affairs officer, believes that the municipal elections that took place recently in Turkey were promising as they indicated fair democratic and political solutions to the Kurdish cause in Turkey.

    Deniz told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Kurdish nation, whose land was split between the four countries following the Treaty of Lausanne that was signed after World War I, is still the only nation with no independent state in the region despite that its population exceeds 40 million.

    “In the PKK, we believe that a confederation system based on the freedom and rights of the Kurdish people is best suited to the Kurdish cause not only in Turkey but in the entire Kurdistan region as is the case with several advanced European countries. However, the PKK still believes in the right of the Kurdish people to an independent state. But the PKK’s political strategy at present does not aim to establish an independent state that requires a particular atmosphere that we lack at present, especially as an independent state does not necessarily mean freedom for nations. What is more important to us is that the Kurds gain their freedom, enjoy real democracy and human rights. Only then can the Kurds decide themselves the nature of the political identity they want,” said Deniz.

    As for the renowned Kurdish-Syrian writer Nouri Brimo, he said that “the [establishment of the] Kurdish state is not a dream but a political course and its supporters increase as it gains strength through the sacrifices of its people. In all cases, the Kurds have been able to prove throughout history that they have always been rational in their political discourse and presentation and that they have always respected their neighbours.”

    But Sami Davood, a renowned researcher at the Syrian Sardam cultural institution, stated that the establishment of the Kurdish state is related to geographical factors first and foremost. In other words, the issue requires the liberation of Kurdistan’s geographical region before an independent identity can be built.

    Due to the geographical nature of the Kurdish areas in Syria, there cannot be any armed struggle unlike in the Kurdish regions in Iraq, Turkey and Iran in addition to the population density of each of the four regions. Therefore, Davood believes that any attempt by the Kurds to establish their own state will be confronted with strong opposition from the regional states not so that they can keep the Kurds within the boundaries of their own countries by force, but because the majority of water and energy resources are situated in the Kurdish areas of the four countries.

    Source: aawsat.com, 10/04/2009

  • Turkey in a Dialogue of Interests

    Turkey in a Dialogue of Interests

    Abdullah Iskandar      Al-Hayat      – 08/04/09//

     

    The Turks welcomed the stances announced by the new American President Barack Obama with much fanfare and support. The officials underlined the unity of stances and interests, while the press focused on the stardom of the guest and his ability to speak to the Turkish audience.

    This Turkish sense of pride at the renewal of the relations with the United States, following the setback caused by the rise of the Islamists to power, they who refused to have their country used in the invasion of Iraq, goes beyond the bilateral context to an identical analysis of and approach to the regional developments. This is based on the new American policy and the Turkish ability to cooperate with its goals.

    Obama came to Ankara, the capital of Ataturk and secularism, and to Istanbul, the capital where civilizations and religions meet, following two exceptional summits in Europe, the G20 economic summit and the NATO summit.

    He came fully aware of the depth of the problems facing his country on the ground, problems that are not solely confined to its image which hit an all-time low because of his predecessor’s policies. As in the G20 summit, where the United States was forced to concede to its partners over the measures to confront the financial crisis, it was also forced during the NATO summit to take their views and goals into account.

    Turkey, in this regard, presents the most prominent example of responsiveness to the new American approach given its potentials and geo-strategic position. The Justice and Development Party has successfully harmonized its Islamic roots and the secular system, overcoming the financial and economic crisis that rocked Turkey in the past to record high growth rates before the Turkish economy, like all others, succumbed to the latest crisis.

    In this sense, the party reconciled an Islamic regime with the requirements of democracy and wise economic management.  But Turkey is more advanced than other Islamic countries with similar successes, like Indonesia which was presented more than once as the first Muslim country from which Obama will potentially address Muslims.

    Turkey is superior to the other Islamic countries because it understands the dialogue of interests, not only the dialogue of religions. It is a full member of NATO and the only Islamic country to send forces to Afghanistan. Its troops are also deployed in south Lebanon as part of the UNIFIL in implementation of an international resolution. It almost sent forces and observers to Gaza as part of the efforts to solve the issue of the siege and the border crossings.

    In tandem with these military roles, Turkey also played the role of mediator in the indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations and is prepared to resume these negotiations. It also played an important role during the Israeli aggression on Gaza. It is an important player in Iraq, given its ties to the Kurdish issue and its position as a neighboring state with common interests. Ankara also enhanced its political and economic relations with the Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, so that it has become an important economic partner.
        
    In addition to this Atlantic and Arab role, Turkey overlooks a crescent of crises of interest to the United States, whether in the Caucasian region with its economic and political issues or in Iran where the nuclear program constitutes a source of anxiety for Ankara and Washington alike. Before all that, Turkey remains the eastern gate to Europe which supplies it with cultural diversity and reconciliation between religions.

    Thus Turkey has all the prerequisites of a perfect partner for the United States. This is why Obama chose to declare the principles of his policy on Turkish soil. With its regime, leadership, regional and economic relations, reconciliatory approach, and diverse historical background, Turkey embodies Obama’s goals and principles.

  • Tuesday 7 April 2009
  • It is an inconvenient truth that the two most influential countries in the Middle East are both non-Arab – Iran and Turkey. But some hope must lie in the fact that Barack Obama yesterday chose to make Turkey the focus of an attempt to bridge the gulf between Islam and the west. Alighting on Turkey as an example of the deal that can be struck between the US and the Muslim world is as bold in foreign policy terms as it is risky in domestic ones. There are plenty on the right who would seize on Mr Obama’s self-identification as an American who has Muslims in his family. But to choose the Turkish parliament as the venue to say that his country is not and never will be at war with Islam is the mark of a man who is showing increasing confidence on the world stage.

    The French president and the German chancellor, who have bolted the door to Europe, have dropped the ball on Turkey. They have yet to see what Mr Obama has already understood. Turkey’s biggest asset is its geopolitical role, and it is using it intelligently. The president, Abdullah Gul, has gone to Armenia on the first visit by a Turkish leader in the two nations’ bitter history. Ankara is also trying to transform its relationship with Iraqi Kurds. Turkey mediated indirect talks between Syria and Israel, and when the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stormed off the stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos, telling the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, that he was killing people in Gaza, Turkish flags went up all over Palestine.

    At a time when Washington is reviewing its policy on the stalled Israeli-Arab peace process, Mr Erdogan’s message that Hamas must be represented at the peace table carries weight. Not least it gives Israel, which maintains close ties with Ankara, cause for concern. If any country can reinforce the message to Mr Obama that the current status quo is untenable it is Turkey.

    Mr Erdogan is not without his domestic problems. His Justice and Development party won about 39% of the vote at recent local elections, well down on the 47% it got two years ago. It was 36% in Istanbul and the coastal cities, a clear sign that he must listen to the progressive areas of his country. He has relaunched moves to widen ethnic and religious freedoms, and promised to work on a new and less authoritarian civilian constitution. Turkey is always reforming and never reformed, and Mr Erdogan may have personally lost faith in the ultimate goal of seeking accession to the EU, no thanks to Mr Sarkozy. Turkey is not a model country, any more than any other is. But it is a telling example. It undermines the western notion that Islam and modernity are somehow fundamentally incompatible, and it does have useful regional contacts. Next stop Iran.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/apr/07/barack-obama-turkey-east-west