Category: Middle East & Africa

Visit of E.Mammadyarov to Tel-Aviv is very important for Azerbaijan

Gulnara Inanch, director of Information and Analytical Center Etnoglobus (ethnoglobus.az), editor of Russian section of Turkishnews American-Turkish Resource website www.turkishnews.com

Since the declaration of Azerbaijan as an independent country, the visit of an influential political-diplomatic head of state body to Israel on April 21 can not be estimated as a simple event. Usually, the President of Azerbaijan and minister of foreign affairs meet with their colleagues in the international ceremonies. But as we stepped to new stage in geopolitics, the terms of game have been changed. In this regard the visit of Elmar Mammadyarov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, to Israel should be explained from different standpoints.

First of all, some months ago, during the US President Barrack Obama’s visit to Tel-Aviv it was achieved to warm the Turkey-Israel relations. Tel-Aviv had initially refused to apologize and to compensate the events that occurred during the attack of “Blue Marmara” (Mavi Marmara) ship that carried humanitarian aid to Gazza district which is under block. But, the reason of persuading Israel by B.Obama to change its views to the very issues is not just related with that Turkey is strategic country. I think that, the main purpose is to warm the relations between Turkey and Israel, another powerful country in the area, and bring to position of strategic cooperation as it was some years ago.

The main purpose in this project is improvement and propaganda of importance and authority of each country, jointly and separately, in their place of location.

It should be mentioned that until deterioration of relations between Israel and Turkey there was Turkey-Azerbaijan-Israel strategic trio. These three countries maintain their specific geopolitical code in their area. Following collapse of Soviet Union, blocking and two-pole world factor have been weakened for some period. But, all processes that have occurred within recent years lead to blocking and grouping of countries again. While B.Obama was solving the problem in regard to Ankara-Tel Aviv relations discussion of terms of Azerbaijan’s place in Turkey-Israel strategic duet are said to have been discussed.

The second issue is the first visit of Azerbaijani official to Palestine. Though official Baku established close and development-inclined relations with Israel, Azerbaijan maintains positive image in Arabian world thanks to recognition of the independency of Palestine and supporting division of Quds in two – eastern and western parts.

At the end of last year, Khaled bin Saud bin Khaled, the Prince, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia, confirmed that it is necessary that international community should increase the pressure over Yerevan in order to solve Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

Israel officials have repeatedly confirmed their interest in increasing the authority of Azerbaijan in Middle East adding that they do their best for this purpose. One of the reasons is the need of availability of any other alternative country to Turkey in the area. As a result of this, imperial claims of Turkey are back, Azerbaijan is a small country and it does not have any imperial ambitions. By the way, in Northern Caucasus policy Russia bases on this factor referring to Azerbaijan. That’s why, in some regional issues official Baku can be a mediator.

Official Baku tries to draw Islamic world’s attention to Karabakh conflict in parallel with Quds problem. In this case, Ramallah meetings would be an important step in order to draw Islamic world’s attention to Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

I would like to draw your attention to another interesting issue. Nowadays, John Kerry, the Secretary of State of USA, stated that Nagorno Karabakh conflict is being discussed with Turkish officials which I can say that, is thanks to US’s Jewish lobby.

Decisions made for the benefit of Azerbaijan by the US Department of State include two key issues – good attitude to the Jewish in Azerbaijan and relations between Azerbaijan – Israel. Azerbaijan managed to prevent the recognition of “Armenian genocide” only thanks to the support of Jewish lobby representing Israel’s interests. Despite Armenian lobby’s attempts to raise the “Armenian genocide” issue in Knesset, officials of Israel declared that they would never give an opportunity for it as they highly appreciate relations with Azerbaijan.

Basing on analysis, we can say that Azerbaijan is working with diligence in respect to release the occupied regions within Nagorno Karabakh conflict according to offer of stage-by-stage solution to Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Some years ago military-political platform was created for its realization.

It seems that this issue is again in the focus of attention. Azerbaijan is not indebted to Israel for the strategic relations. Azerbaijan protected the arm industry of Israel from being collapse by purchasing arms in large parts from this country. Because military industry of Israel is deprived of its potential buyers in West as a result of economic crisis in Europe.

Oil fields of Israel in Mediterranean Sea have already been discovered and Israel involved Azerbaijan to the exploitation of abovementioned fields, and requests to build gas line from Turkey.

In general, it should be noted that, Jewish lobby played leading role in realization of projects such as “Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan”, “Baku-Tbilisi-Gars” and at present TANAP.

No doubt that another important issue that will be discussed in Tel-Aviv is Iran. Besides, Azerbaijan will officially declare that it will not let using its territory for attack against Iran. Thus, it will draw Islamic world’s attention. By the way, I have to say that, visit of E.Mammadyarov to Tel-Aviv is very important for Azerbaijan at present. Because everything that will be stated in Israel and Palestine that focused the attention of the world will be delivered to international society as well as Islamic world and Jewish lobby by world’s media. It should be noted that, this visit occurs in the period when ideological fight is intense of in Azerbaijan-Iran relations.

It should be noted that Israel does not need any territory in Azerbaijan in order to attack Iran. For the first, it is known that Baku will not agree with it as it may cause consequences for Azerbaijan. For the second, Israel considers the territory of Azerbaijan suitable for intelligence activity against Iran. It helps to pass on technical equipment installed within the scope of projects which are realized by Israel in the territory of country to neighboring countries from the nearest areas to Iran. In addition, Israel and Jewish organizations are trying to raise the issue of South Azerbaijan in the territory of Azerbaijan to have relations with the Jewish people living in Iran, to contact with representatives of organizations representing nations living in Iran and Azerbaijan and political-religious communities in Azerbaijan.

I must say that Azerbaijan’s answer to objections of Iran to the visit of Shimon Peres, the president of Israel, to Baku was that it will not let the dictation of directions of foreign politics. In addition to abovementioned, Azerbaijan may act as mediator between Iran-Israel relations. This thought has also been expressed by different officials of Israel many times. I think that, new role of Azerbaijan and new progress of Turkey-Iran relations will be determined in Tel-Aviv. I remember, some years ago, when Bashar Asad visited Baku, presence of Azerbaijan in Syria-Israel relations as a mediator was considered possible.

April 20, 2013
More U.S. Support for Syria Rebels Would Hinge on Pledges to Abide by Law
More U.S. Support for Syria Rebels Would Hinge on Pledges to Abide by Law

By MARK LANDLER and MICHAEL R. GORDON

Published: April 19, 2013
- FACEBOOK
- TWITTER
- GOOGLE+
- SAVE
- E-MAIL
- SHARE
- PRINT
- SINGLE PAGE
- REPRINTS
WASHINGTON — President Obama has agreed to additional nonlethal aid for Syria’s rebels, according to a senior administration official, but its delivery will hinge in part on pledges by their political leaders to be inclusive, to protect minorities and to abide by the rule of law.

Multimedia

Video Feature

WATCHING SYRIA’S WAR

A Father Mourns His Children
- GRAPHIC: Map of the Dispute in Syria
- GRAPHIC: An Arms Pipeline to the Syrian Rebels
Related
- Syria Faces New Claim on Chemical Arms (April 19, 2013)
Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Secretary of State John Kerry planned to meet with opposition leaders in Istanbul on Saturday, as well as with foreign ministers from nations that are supporting them, to discuss both what the United States plans to do to help the rebels and what it expects from them.

“It’s not a quid pro quo, but we want the opposition to do more,” said a senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the administration’s strategy. “Secretary Kerry will be discussing what steps we want them to take.”

The meeting in Turkey of the so-called Friends of Syria group is taking place against a backdrop of worsening violence in the two-year-old civil war, dire new worries about how to care for millions of displaced Syrians, and further signs of Islamist radicalization in the insurgency as well as intransigence by President Bashar al-Assad. The special Syria envoy of the Arab League and United Nations, Lakhdar Brahimi, told the Security Council on Friday that “the situation is extremely bad” and that he thinks daily about resigning.

The American package, officials said, includes protective military gear like body armor and night-vision goggles, as well as communications equipment — but not weapons. It comes on top of food rations and medicine announced by Mr. Kerry last February. While the State Department will determine the size of the package, an official said it could be double the $60 million in nonlethal aid already committed.

But Mr. Kerry’s expected announcement, officials said, may not come until after the United States secures a commitment from the Syrian opposition and its supporters that any government that replaces Mr. Assad’s would be inclusive, would protect the rights of his Alawite minority and other sects, and would abide by the rule of law.

Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Mr. Kerry said his goal was “to get everybody on the same page with respect to what post-Assad might look like — commitment to diversity, pluralism, democracy, inclusivity, protection of minority rights.”

In addition, Mr. Kerry said, the United States wanted the opposition to be “open to the negotiating process to a political settlement” and to “abide by rules with respect to conduct in warfare.”

While the United States and European nations have insisted on democratic principles, American officials have been concerned that some of the opposition’s financial backers in Persian Gulf states have been less particular about the rebel factions they aid.

Among those that Mr. Kerry said he wanted to put “on the same page” are the “Qataris, Saudis, Emirates, Turks,” as well as the Europeans. Nurturing a unified, moderate opposition has been complicated by regional rivalries, with countries pushing their own favorites.

Not everyone in the Obama administration has necessarily been on the same page on policy toward the Syrian resistance. And State Department officials hope that the Istanbul meeting will enable the American side to close ranks as well.

In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, voiced concern about the growing role of extremists among the anti-Assad fighters in Syria, and said identifying moderate members of the Syrian resistance had become more difficult.

“It’s actually more confusing on the opposition side today than it was six months ago,” General Dempsey said.

During his Senate testimony on Thursday, Mr. Kerry, when asked about General Dempsey’s comments, said one purpose of the Istanbul meeting was to identify and reinforce the moderate opposition.

1 2 NEXT PAGE »

Reporting was contributed by Alan Cowell from London; Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard from Beirut, Lebanon; and Rick Gladstone from New York.
April 20, 2013
Post-apology, are Israel and Turkey allies again, or uneasy frenemies?

ADNAN KHAN

Post-apology, are Israel and Turkey allies again, or uneasy frenemies?

ADNAN KHAN

The Globe and Mail

If you believe the hype, Turkey and Israel are friends again. It’s been a long time coming. Four years ago, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Turkish Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked off the stage during a debate with Israeli President Shimon Peres, accusing the moderator of not giving him enough time to respond to Mr. Peres’ comments on Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

The incident came to be known in Turkey as the 12-Minute Affair, referring to the time Mr. Erdogan was given to speak compared to the 25 minutes allotted to Mr. Peres. Turks began using the phrase proudly, if somewhat lightheartedly, at dinner parties and bars, raising their hands in the air during heated discussions with friends, shouting: “Twelve minutes! Twelve Minutes!”

A little more than a year later, in May 2010, Turkish-Israeli relations took a more ominous turn after a deadly raid by Israeli commandos on a Turkish cargo ship hired by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), carrying supplies to civilians in Gaza, in defiance of Israel’s blockade. Eight Turks and an American citizen were killed in the pre-dawn chaos, prompting Turkey to expel Israel’s ambassador. Relations dipped to dangerous levels after Israel refused to apologize for the incident and pay compensation to the families of those killed, reaching their nadir when Turkey changed its designation of Israeli warplanes from ‘friendlies’ to ‘hostile.’ The apology finally came in late March this year following a visit to Israel by U.S. President Barack Obama. In Turkey, it was seen as another victory. Mr. Erdogan had triumphed again over the Goliath of the Middle East, raising his street cred among both Turks and Arabs.

In terms of U.S. strategic interests, the apology was critical. As Islamists cash in on the political windfall following the collapse of authoritarian governments throughout the Middle East, it’s Turkey that offers the kind of moderation and leadership the American administration needs.

But it’s a risky gamble. Turkey is nowhere near the human rights norms expected of it if it intends to reach international standards. A recent report by the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders dubbed Turkey “the world’s biggest prison for journalists.” The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has been accused of using intimidation to silence critics and push forward an agenda many feel undermines Turkey’s secular system.

For Israel, these are worrying developments. Its apology falls into the rubric of necessity more than any genuine sense of remorse. In fact, Israeli and Turkish interests have never been as far apart as they are today, the victims of geopolitical realities neither could have anticipated.

But it is Turkey that has played the game expertly. The AKP occupies a novel category in conservative politics. It is perhaps the world’s only Muslim political party with a proven track record of successfully operating in a globalized democratic environment. It has shown a remarkable ability to read the key issues of its time, both domestically and geopolitically. In many ways, despite its increasing authoritarianism, it operates as a mature political party, catering to its key domestic constituencies – namely religious conservatives and the business community – while managing to preserve its international image as the pivot point between East and West.

Take Syria: In a recent interview with Turkish journalists, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu admitted his government has “concerns” over extremist groups gaining ground in the Syrian revolution but insisted that worrying about those groups now undermines the more urgent need – namely, to bring an end to the conflict.

The Israelis view events in Syria through a very different lens. Islamic extremism tops the agenda and as jihadists gain ground in Syria, Israel faces the prospect of another hardline Islamist government on its doorstep.

The Turkish approach is more subtle. On the one hand, it condemns groups like the Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda-linked militants considered the most dangerous rebel group operating in Syria. On the other, it quietly supports groups like the Ahrar al-Sham, a Salafi-inspired Islamist faction that has made deep in-roads into Syrian society through its vast network of humanitarian relief operations.

The IHH, considered an arm of the AKP, has developed a strong working relationship with the Ahrar al-Sham. Most of the aid it delivers to Syria is channeled through them.

It’s hard to believe the AKP leadership is not aware of how the IHH operates. But the sensitivity of the issue, both inside Turkey where allegations of an Islamist conspiracy abound, and internationally where helping Islamist factions in Syria is tantamount to helping terrorists, poses serious problems for Ankara.

But the AKP has read the writing on the wall. It seems inevitable that Islamists will dominate Middle Eastern politics for the foreseeable future. As authoritarian regimes collapse, it’s these groups, with their networks of social organizations, that have offered their citizens a social agenda and capitalized on elections. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood swept to power on the back of a reputation for humanitarianism, developed over years of working among Egypt’s poor and disenfranchised. The secularists, who launched the Egyptian revolution, could not compete on the political stage. Young, and largely online, they were ill-equipped to address the ground realities facing everyday Egyptians.

Through its leveraging of these Islamist parties, Turkey has developed into a dominant force in the Middle East. The gambit in Syria follows this same logic: the Ahrar al-Sham is developing into the most influential group in Syria. Barring a wider civil war after the Assad regime collapses, it is posed to dominate the future of Syrian politics. And Turkey is its friend.

Obviously, the Israelis would not approve. Their nightmare scenario is a future Syria dominated by Islamists who reject Israel’s right to exist, or worse still a sectarian civil war that turns Syria into an Arab Afghanistan where al-Qaeda flourishes, right on Israel’s doorstep. It is a near-sighted vision, however, that fails to take into account the broader realities of the Arab Spring, and runs counter to the interests of Turkey.

But for the sake of appearance Turkey and Israel must appear to be friends again, as paper thin as that friendship actually is. It is a game, and Turkey is winning.

Adnan Khan is a writer and photographer who lives in Istanbul and Islamabad.

April 19, 2013
Turkey’s Camps Can’t Expand Fast Enough for All the New Syrian Refugees

The horrific statistical realities of the two-year conflict

ARMIN ROSEN

Syrian refugees in a refugee camp on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey, near Idlib, on January 29, 2013. (Reuters)

The Syrian conflict escalated far faster than any of the world’s decision-makers anticipated. In January, a pledge conference in Kuwait raised $1.5 billion in humanitarian funding commitments for the conflict’s next six months, with the assumption that the war’s one millionth refugee wouldn’t be created until the middle of 2013. That grim threshold was cleared in March, which turned out to be the two-year-old conflict’s deadliest month .

With such little cause for optimism in an increasingly violent and multi-faceted conflict, the backlog of refugees on the Syrian side of the Turkish border seems like a portent of bigger problems to come.

Just six weeks later, there are 1.3 million Syrian refugees, although the international community seems to be adjusting its estimates to account for a situation that has slipped beyond any one actor’s control — and that likely wouldn’t be resolved even with president Bashar al-Assad’s ouster. In late March, Antonio Guterres, the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees, told a Congressional hearing that there might be as many as four million Syrian refugees by the end of 2013. In March, the UN estimated that there were 3.6 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Syria; the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is likely to revise that number upwards — perhaps as high as 4.5 million — in the coming weeks.

But the conflict’s severity doesn’t necessarily translate into greater political will, and it’s becoming apparent that the conflict has accelerated beyond the international community’s current ability to address it. “We are sleepwalking into a major disaster,” said Kristalina Georgieva, the European Union’s Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection. “The capacity to cope is outstripped by the intensified fighting … even if we all deliver on our pledges, it is now reaching the point where handling [the conflict] goes above and beyond humanitarian budgets.”

Simply, refugees are being created faster than even the best equipped of Syria’s neighbors can accommodate them. The starkest example of this is along the Turkish-Syrian border, where 100,000 people are estimated to be living between the conflict’s northern front lines and Turkish territory — partly because Turkey can’t expand its humanitarian capacity at the rate that refugees are arriving at the country’s doorstep. “The border remains fully open,” says Georgieva. “But it is not as freely possible to cross into Turkey as it was in the first months, or even the first year, of the conflict.” There are currently nine sizable (i.e., in the 15,000 inhabitant range) IDP camps on the Syrian side of the border. But by all accounts, the amount of aid reaching IDPs is less than what is available at official, UN-apportioned camps in neighboring countries — working across the border can be politically sensitive, as well as dangerous, for some governments and relief organizations. In total, the international community’s humanitarian safety net covers about 2 million people out of a total IDP and refugee population of nearly 5 million.

Turkey isn’t turning away refugees, which would represent a violation of standard humanitarian practice and perhaps even international law. But the country is currently in the process of building six new refugee camps, on top of the 17 that already exist. “Turkey for security reasons and absorption capacity reasons is now being more selective, prioritizing crossing for those who are at highest need,” says Georgieva, categories which include women, children, and the wounded.

Still, it’s notable that Turkey, which is both more developed and politically stable than Lebanon and Jordan, is facing these kinds of challenges with refugee absorption. “The Turkish border has at times seen numbers so overwhelming that they’ve had to slow down the flow in terms of accepting those crossing at the time,” says Kelly Clements, a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. She says that at least some of the IDPs along the border don’t want to enter Turkey at the moment. “They’re in a place where they can seek and obtain assistance more easily than in some of the more heavily bombarded and conflict-ridden communities,” she says. “So they’ve moved closer to the border. But not all of them have actually wanted to cross.” Overall, she says, “Turkey’s been managing exceptionally well.”

Even so, the full ramifications of a massive and perhaps semi-permanent population displacement in the heart of the Middle East might not be known for decades. For now, the numbers are jarring and suggest a resettlement of potentially historic proportions — for instance, the 440,000 refugees in Jordan represents about 6.5 percent of the already-fragile country’s population. The strain on neighboring states is an immediate, political problem with clear humanitarian consequences. The borders with Jordan and Turkey remain open. But it might not remain that way. “Jordan is now very close to saying, we cannot cope anymore, close down the border, create a buffer zone inside Syria,” says Georgieva. “A buffer zone is not an impossibility, but who’s going to protect it?”

It’s not just that more funding is needed — although the pledges from the Kuwait conference are proving worryingly inadequate. The humanitarian situation also has a clear diplomatic element to it. It might get to the point where keeping borders open and protecting Syrian refugees means reaching some kind of multilateral political accommodation with Jordan and Turkey — something that addresses concerns over the social and economic strain of hosting a large and perhaps long-term refugee population.

Humanitarian-related tensions between the international community and Syria’s neighbors might lie another couple million refugees in the future. But if the past year has proven anything, it’s that such moments could come sooner than world leaders want or expect them to. With such little cause for optimism in an increasingly violent and multi-faceted conflict, it’s possible to see the backlog of refugees on the Syrian side of the Turkish border as a portent of bigger problems to come. At least for Clements, it’s difficult to overstate the anxiety of the present moment. “We’re already at worse case scenario,” says Clements. “We’re there.”

April 19, 2013
Turkey plans refugee camp for Syrian Christians, Ecumenical News

Syrian refugees are seen in a refugee camp on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey, near Idlib January 29, 2013, in this picture provided by Shaam News Network. Picture taken Jan. 29, 2013. ReutersPHOTO: REUTERS / MUHAMMAD NAJDET QADOUR / SHAAM NEWS NETWORK / HANDOUT

The Turkish government is setting up a refugee space specifically for displaced Christians, two years after the civil war in Syria began.

Not all Christians are, however, welcoming the move.

The Turkish Disaster and Emergency Management (or AFAD) announced it will separate Christians into their own camp near Mor Abraham Syriac Monastery by the town of Midyat.

The area is located about 30 miles (50 kilometers) from the Syrian border.

“A month ago, some churches met with the Turkish foreign minister, and they requested that for Christians it would be better to open another camp,” Metin Corabatir, a spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Turkey said Tuesday.

Corabatir said the camp is likely the response to a series of meetings between Turkish officials and churches in the area.

The plight of Syrian Christians has become increasingly glaring in recent months.

Christians make up about 10 percent of the 22 million people in Syria.

In March, the U.S. Bishops’ Catholic Relief Services reported that about 200 Syrian Christians were seeking shelter in local Turkish churches, out of fear of intolerance at the 17 relief camps near the border.

The Turkish disaster agency estimates that there are about 200,000 refugees near the area in dispute, most of whom are predominantly Sunni Muslim.

Some Christian leaders are, however, not welcoming the separation of Christians from other Syrians.

Father Francois Yakan, the patriarchal vicar of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Turkey, was quoted by the Catholic Herald in the UK as saying that while he was unaware of any such plans that they would not be good.

The Catholic leader worries that such a move would segregate Christians in the area.

“These are people who have been living together for centuries. To be separating them now is not a good idea,” Yakan said.

Reuters news agency reported that the Turkish government strongly denied a sectarian or ethnic agenda.

A Turkish foreign ministry official said the two tented camps, to be completed in less than a month, are being built in Midyat, a town in southeastern Mardin province some 50 km (30 miles) from the Syrian border.

The U.N. estimates that up to 70,000 people have been killed in the Syrian Civil War and the carnage has displaced 1 million refugees between Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon.

Half of those refugees, the U.N. estimates, are currently residing in Turkey.

via Turkey plans refugee camp for Syrian Christians, Ecumenical News.

April 18, 2013
Turkey Is the Model for Arab Spring Nations

Aki Peritz is the senior policy adviser for national security at Third Way and author of Find, Fix, Finish: Inside the Counterterrorism Campaigns that Killed bin Laden and Devastated Al Qaeda.

The political advances Islamist parties have been making across the Middle East have caused a lot of uneasiness in Washington. From Egypt to Tunisia, religiously conservative Islamist politicians are leading major countries, complicating an already complex narrative for U.S. policymakers. But is this worry justified?

Time will tell, but at least we have one decent example of an Islamist party taking power and not crashing the government or the economy: Turkey.

The “Turkey Model”—how moderate Islamist parties could govern Western-oriented, Muslim-majority countries—was on everyone’s lips during the Arab Spring as the new Middle Eastern paradigm. But the Turkish model will only succeed if these countries can build secular states with strong governmental institutions, and only if the U.S. backs these efforts, as it has strongly supported Turkey over the past 70 years.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the Middle East.]

From the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey has been the beneficiary of almost a century of secular rule. Generations of Turks have lived in a modern secular state, so much so that women in headscarves even today cannot enter government buildings. The Turkish military is the primary enforcer of secularism, forcing out one government in 1997 the generals deemed too religious. While ugly, it cemented the notion that there are limits to how far religion can advance in the public marketplace.

As a secular-oriented nation, Turkey is bound to the West in many ways. The shopworn phrase that Turkey sits at the crossroads of Europe and Asia is not just a throwaway line for the country’s tourism industry. As a NATO member since 1952, Turkey is integral to the American-European military alliance, even if the European Union continues to give Ankara the cold shoulder. And NATO needs Turkey, for the country has the second largest military in the alliance.

Here at home, U.S. policymakers since World War II have seen Turkish stability as a core national security imperative. After all, the 1947 Truman Doctrine was founded specifically to assist Turkey against communist aggression. President Truman provided aid to the “freedom-loving” people of Turkey, for it was “necessary for the maintenance of its national integrity.”

[See a collection of political cartoons on defense spending.]

Even now, Turkey is critical, and the US is deeply invested in the country. Turkey hosts U.S. troops at Incirlik Air Base and Izmir Air Station. 400 U.S. troops man Patriot missile batteries in the south, and the nation hosts an X-band radar system at Kürecik Air Base that keeps an eye on its irascible neighbor, Iran. Turkey is also critical to solving – or at least containing – the civil war in Syria.

Despite some rocky stretches, such as when the Turkish parliament denied the U.S. an invasion route in the run-up to the Iraq War, the U.S. assiduously cultivates Turkey because it remains in Washington’s best interests to do so. As Kim Ghattas noted in “The Secretary,” Secretary of State Clinton saw her Turkish counterpart as “one of her more consequential counterparts even if she didn’t always agree with him. Developing a relationship with [Foreign Minister] Davutoglu was also a way of keeping Turkey close, in the orbit of the West.”

And this rapport continues to pay dividends: During his latest trip to the region, President Obama brokered a rapprochement between Turkey and Israel renewing the two countries’ strategic partnership.

This is all accomplished with religious conservatives dominating parliament. Despite some misgivings, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) have been in power for a decade, and so far they’ve been successful in guiding the economy, growing it at almost 6 percent a year.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the European debt crisis.]

Still, all is not all rosy in Anatolia. In 2010, Turkey voted against UN sanctions against Iran. A recent scandal named Ergenekon has placed numerous top military men behind bars. Turkey remains on edge with its Kurdish population. And simmering historic tensions with Greece threaten to erupt over Cyprus.

From a larger perspective, Turkey shows that religious parties and democratic rule are not inherently incompatible. However, a country requires a foundation of stable, credible civilian institutions and a history of citizen-state interactions for this to work—combined with a close and continuing interest from the world’s remaining superpower. This successful recipe could be replicated, over time, across the Middle East.

When the master Ottoman architect Mimar Sinan designed the magnificent Süleymaniye Mosque in the 1550s, he let the structure’s foundations settle for three years in the earthquake-prone city before beginning the mosque’s actual construction. If the nations of the Middle East had time and patience to let their political foundations become strong and independent enough to withstand periodic shakeups, they too can be like Turkey.

It remains to be seen whether the leaders guiding the new Middle East have this perseverance—and whether America has the attention span to follow through on our side of the bargain.

via Turkey Is the Model for Arab Spring Nations – World Report (usnews.com).

April 18, 2013