One of the interesting questions brought up by the recent elections held in Israel is if the new government that's being created there can somehow help improve the country's still extremely strained relations with Turkey. Although Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu will again be prime minister of the new government, the emergence of the centrist Yesh Atid ("There is a future") party, which will play a key role in whatever coalition Netanyahu puts together, puts forward the possibility that Israel's foreign policy could stop the rightward drift that it took under former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, something which could have a positive impact on relations with Turkey.
Writing in the Hurriyet Daily News, Tel Aviv University-based researcher Gallia Lindenstrauss takes a look at the possible Yesh Atid effect:
Yesh Atid followed the growing trend in Israel of having journalists as key party members (in comparison, there was a sharp decline in ex-army personnel who were elected). In addition to the party chair, Yair Lapid, who was a columnist and television anchorman before entering politics, another new Yesh Atid member of Parliament is the newspaper and television commentator Ofer Shelah. Shelah is notable since he helped draft the platform for security-related issues in the Yesh Atid party’s program. While these issues were not the main focus of the party’s campaign (and in general were not the key issue of the elections) they are likely to reemerge both in discussions surrounding forming a coalition government and later on.
Up until only the last two years, the question of whether Turkey was "drifting east" seemed to dominate any discussion regarding the country and its future trajectory. But an improved Turkish relationship with the United States, a deteriorating one with Iran and a deepening involvement with NATO have all contributed towards pushing that question into the background.
Now, though, it's none other than Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan who has helped revived the "drifting east" debate. Speaking on Turkish television the other night, the PM was asked about his country's stalled and troubled European Union membership drive. Erdogan's blunt bombshell of an answer suggested Turkey is considering dropping its EU bid in favor of joining the China- and Russia-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). “When things go so poorly, you inevitably, as the prime minister of 75 million people, seek other paths. That's why I recently said to Mr. [Vladimir] Putin: ‘Take us into the Shanghai Five; do it, and we will say farewell to the EU, leave it altogether. Why all this stalling?'” Asked to elaborate, Erdogan said, “The Shanghai Five is better and more powerful and we have common values with them.” (The SCO last year upgraded its relations with Turkey, naming the country a "dialogue partner.")
Russian President Vladimir Putin came to Turkey this week -- after suddenly canceling a visit that was supposed to take place in October -- and there was a certain element of suspense to the trip. Although Russia is Turkey's top trading partner and the two countries have also been deepening their political ties in recent years, Ankara and Moscow have not seen eye-to-eye on some key regional issues -- the fate of Syria and the Assad regime, in particular -- and the question was whether these tensions would surface during Putin's visit.
In the end, there was little drama. As The Economist writes of the Russian leader's visit, the two countries have decided to let "cool pragmatism" rule their relations:
“The level of economic and political relations is such that neither Turkey can forgo Russia, nor Russia Turkey…the future of Assad is nothing,” argued Mehmet Ali Birand, a veteran commentator.
It was only a few years ago that Turkey's Middle East foreign policy, as orchestrated by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), showed so much promise. At one point, Ankara was mediating between Israel and Syria, negotiating a resolution to the standoff over Iran's controversial nuclear program and was involved in one way or another in helping resolve a host of other regional problems. As many analysts saw it, with its growing economy, strong democracy (at least compared to its Middle Eastern neighbors) and proactive foreign policy that focused on promoting "soft power" approaches, Turkey was set to play a defining regional role in the coming years.
Recent events, though, have raises some significant questions about whether Turkey can become the regional superpower it had set out to become. Writing in a Nov. 25 column in Today's Zaman, analyst Yavuz Baydar sums up Turkey's current position in rather uncharitable terms:
Turkey, once full of promises as a leading regional power, no longer leads; it only follows. It started to send signals as an old style state whose voice is a blend of anger, threat, resentment and disappointment. This must be addressed.
The ongoing crisis in Syria, for example, has shown the limits of Turkish power -- both soft and hard -- and also called into question the AKP leadership's ability to correctly read regional developments. But the recent flareup of hostilites between Israel and Hamas made even clearer how diminished Ankara's voice is in the Middle East right now.
American President Barack Obama and his challenger, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, have been spending this election season working hard to portray themselves as each representing a starkly different choice for American voters. But as the October 22 debate in Florida between the two candidates made clear, when it comes to foreign policy issues, Obama and Romney are not really that different. During the debate, Romney frequently agreed with positions that the Obama administration has taken on many key foreign policy issues, or offered only mild criticism on others, leaving very little distance between the two.
When it comes to the question of Turkish-American relations, the debate – which featured hardly any discussion of Turkey itself – ultimately answered very little, leaving observers to continue their guessing game as to what the election would mean for the ties between the two countries, particularly if Romney were to win.
In the case that Obama is reelected, the picture is fairly clear. Although Obama presided a rocky period in Turkey-US relations, particularly during 2010 after the Mavi Marmara incident and the Turkish “no” vote in the United Nations Security Council on tightening sanctions on Iran, the period since then has seen a dramatic improvement in the ties between Ankara and Washington.
“I think President Obama’s views are well known. He has worked hard to cultivate a strong personal relationship Prime Minister Erdogan. At all levels, Turkey-US relations are better probably today then they have ever been in history,” Ross Wilson, a former US ambassador to Turkey and currently director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington, told me.
As the crisis in Syria drags on and Turkey's security concerns become more pronounced, there have been suggestions from various quarters that Ankara might want to shore up its own interests by mending its strained ties with Israel, which have been frozen since the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident.
The latest such suggestion appears to have come from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who reportedly pressed Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during a Berlin meeting the other day about patching things up with Israel. As Today's Zaman columnist Abdullah Bozkurt reports today, Erdogan told reporters after his meeting with Merkel that he told the German leaders that, along with an apology for the incident and compensation to the families of the nine Turks killed, Ankara also expects Israel lift its blockade on Gaza if it wants to restore relations with Turkey. In other words, don't expect much to happen. From Bozkurt's column:
Later on, when he shared his recollection of the meeting with reporters, Erdoğan said: “I told her that all three conditions must be fulfilled. I said to her in very clear terms that we are not open to options like agreeing to a deal on an apology and compensation while discarding the lifting of embargo condition.”
Turkey's forcing down of a Syrian civilian jet earlier this month on it way from Moscow to Damascus on suspicion that it was carrying military cargo was certainly a bold move by a country intent on showing its regional leadership. But two weeks later, the issue of the plane's cargo appears to remain a bone of contention between Ankara and Moscow, which has been both increasing its political and economic cooperation with Turkey while, at the same time, watching its growing regional ambitions with some concern.
The good news for Ankara from last night's presidential debate on foreign policy issues was that, unlike in one of the Republican primary debates, where Texas Governor Rick Perry referred to Turkey as being ruled by "Islamic terrorists," there was really very little mention of the country -- positive or negative -- by either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.
The bad news was that whatever was said on what is perhaps the most critical issue facing Turkey right now -- the continuing crisis in Syria -- made it crystal clear that Ankara is far ahead of Washington when it comes to pushing for greater military action against the Assad regime.
While Ankara has been active in supporting the Syrian opposition, both in political and -- according to various reports -- military terms, and has in recent weeks beefed up its military presence along the Syrian border and retaliated with its own artillery after Syrian mortars landed in Turkish territory, both Obama and Romney showed little appetite for the United States to get militarily involved in Syria.
Asked about the crisis there by moderator Bob Schieffer, President Obama responded:
....what we’re seeing taking place in Syria is heartbreaking, and that’s why we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition. But we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step. And we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping, that we’re not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or our allies in the region.
Romney, meanwhile, echoed Obama, simply saying, "We don’t want to get drawn into a military conflict."
Back in July, when I wrote a piece for Eurasianet looking at how their differing position on how to resolve the Syria crisis might impact relations between Turkey and Russia, most analysts I spoke to seemed to agree that while the Syrian crisis might lead to some increased tension, Ankara and Moscow have found a way to "compartmentalize" their disagreements. But now, following Turkey's interception of a Syrian passenger jet that was en route from Moscow to Damascus, perhaps it's time to consider the differences between Ankara and Moscow decompartmentalized.
According to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Syrian Arab Airlines jet -- which was forced to land Wednesday at Ankara's Esenboga airport by two Turkish F-16's -- was carrying munitions and other military equipment that a civilian aircraft should not be transporting. Moscow, meanwhile, has not only denied that the plane was carrying any weapons, but has also demanded an explanation from Ankara for its actions and suggested that the interception of the airliner “threatened the life and safety” of the several Russian passengers who were on the jet.
While much of the focus (and occasional hand wringing) regarding Turkish foreign policy in recent years has been over Ankara's reengagement with the Middle East, the truth of the matter is that Turkey has been no less active in developing its diplomatic and economic presence in the Balkans. Like in other regions, in the Balkans Turkish diplomacy is working not only to deepen Turkey's political influence there, but also to open new door for Turkish business. (For some background, take a look at this previous post.)
Take a look, for example, at how Turkey is promoting its tea in Macedonia. As an interesting article from SETimes.com makes clear, the effort is about much more than just selling tea. From the article:
Chajkur, the largest producer of tea in Turkey, launched its national drink in several Macedonian cities. The promotional campaign, Friendly Greeting for Friendly Macedonia, offered sample tasting and production presentations.
Abdulkadri Bayraktar, Turkish consul in Macedonia, told SETimes that this investment will bring other Turkish investors to the country....
....Ismail Safi, president of the Turkish group in the parliamentary assembly of the Black Sea Economic Co-operation, told SETimes said that in visiting Macedonia, the goal is not only to offer tea to their Macedonian friends, but also search out for more investment opportunities.
"The main goal was to present the Turkish tea in Macedonia, because we found out that [the product] is not known here enough, and is hard to find. We want Macedonians to get used to it, discover the advantages of tea, and later make some investments … We hope to increase marketing relations in the future," Safi said.
"Macedonia is one of the most important allies and friends of Turkey," Gilaj Daljan, a Turkish MP, said.
