by Conn Hallinan
Foreign Policy in Focus
June 25, 2010
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/25-8
When U.S. forces found themselves beset by a growing
insurgency in Iraq following their lighting overthrow of
Saddam Hussein, the most obvious parallel that came to
mind was Vietnam: an occupying army, far from home,
besieged by a shadowy foe. But Patrick Cockburn, the
Independent's (UK) ace Middle East reporter, suggested
that the escalating chaos was more like the Boer War
than the conflict in Southeast Asia.
It was a parallel that was lost on most Americans, very
few of whom know anything about the short, savage, turn-
of-the-century war between Dutch settlers and the
British Empire in South Africa.
But the analogy explains a great deal about the growing
influence of a country like Turkey, and why Washington,
despite its military power and economic clout, can no
longer dominate regional and global politics. Turkey's
Rise
The most common U.S. interpretation of the joint
Turkish-Brazilian peace plan for Iran, as well as
Ankara's falling out with Israel over the latter's
assault on the Gaza flotilla, is that Turkey is "looking
East." Rationales run the gamut from rising Islamism to
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' explanation that
the West alienated Turkey when it blocked Ankara from
joining the European Union (EU).
While Turkey's rise does indeed reflect internal
developments in that country, its growing influence
mirrors the ebb of American power, a consequence of the
catastrophic policies Washington has followed in the
Middle East and Central Asia.
From Ankara's point of view, it is picking up the tab
for the chaos in Iraq, the aggressive policies of the
Israeli government, and the growing tensions around the
Iranian nuclear program. As Sedat Laciner, director of
the International Strategic Resource Center in Ankara,
told The New York Times, "The Western countries do
things and Turkey pays the bill."
While the Cold War is over, argues Turkish Foreign
Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, "a new global" order has yet
to emerge. Until those "mechanisms" are in place, "It
will therefore fall largely to nation-states to meet and
create solutions for the global political, cultural, and
economic turmoil."
Davutoglu's observation about "a new global" order is an
implicit critique of a UN Security Council dominated by
the veto power of the "Big Five": the United States,
Britain, France, Russia, and China. Increasingly
countries like Turkey, Brazil, and India are unhappy
with the current setup. They either want a place at the
table or a reduction of the Council's power. The latest
Iran sanctions passed 12 to 2 (with one abstention) in
the Council. The sanctions would have failed a vote in
the General Assembly. New Turkish Foreign Policy
Internally, Turkey is putting its house in order. It has
returned the once all-powerful army - four coups in as
many decades - to the barracks, shifted power away from
Istanbul elites to central and eastern Turkey, eased up
on domestic repression, and even begun coming to terms
with its large Kurdish minority. Legislation before the
parliament would establish a commission to fight
discrimination.
Externally, Turkey is following what Davutoglu calls a
"zero problems with neighbors" foreign policy. It has
buried the hatchet with Syria and reached out to Iraq's
Kurds. Of the 1,200 companies working in Iraq's
Kurdistan, half are Turkish, and cross-border trade is
projected to reach $20 billion this year. And the Kurds
have something Ankara wants: 45 billion barrels in oil
reserves and plentiful natural gas.
Turkey has expanded ties with Iran and worked closely
with Russia on energy and trade. It has even tried to
thaw relations with Armenia. It has mediated between
Damascus and Tel Aviv, brokered peace talks between
Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, and Serbians and Bosnians in
the Balkans, and tried to reduce tension in the
Caucasus. It has also opened 15 embassies in Africa and
two in Latin America.
Its foreign policy is "multi-dimensional," says
Davutoglu, which "means that good relations with Russia
are not an alternative to relations with the EU," an
explicit repudiation of the zero-sum game diplomacy that
characterized the Cold War. Vacuum in Middle East
Turkey's ascendancy is partly a reflection of a
political vacuum in the Middle East. The U.S.'s
traditional allies in the region, like Egypt, Jordan and
Saudi Arabia, are increasingly isolated, distracted by
economic troubles, paranoid about internal opposition,
and nervous about Iran.
This growing influence has not been well received by the
United States, particularly the recent deal to enrich
Iran's nuclear fuel. But from the Turks' point of view,
the nuclear compromise was an effort to ratchet down
tensions in a volatile neighborhood. Turkey is no more
in favor of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons than is the
United States, but as Laciner says, it also doesn't
"want another Iraq."
Of course there is an element of self-interest here.
Turkey gets 20 percent of its gas and oil from Iran, and
Tehran is increasingly a valuable trading partner.
Indeed, Turkey, Iran, and Syria are considering forming
a trade group that would also include Iraq.
Islamicism, Turkey's anger at Israel is over policy, not
religion. The current Israeli government has no interest
in resolving its dispute with the Palestinians, and
leading members of the Netanyahu coalition have
threatened war with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.
A war with any of those countries might go regional, and
could even turn nuclear if the Israelis find their
conventional weapons are not up to the job of knocking
out their opponents.
Ankara has much to lose from war and everything to gain
from nurturing regional trade agreements and building
political stability. Turkey has the 16th largest economy
in the world and seventh largest in Europe. Working with
Brazil
Turkey has begun working closely with other nations who
would also benefit from a reduction in international
tension. Ankara's partnership with Brazil is no
accident. Like Turkey, Brazil's economy is humming and
it has been key in knitting together Mercosur, the
third-largest trade organization in the world. It has
also played no small part in helping South America to
become one of the most peaceful regions in the world.
The United States, on the other hand, has drawn
widespread anger for its support of the Honduran
government, expanding its military bases in Colombia,
and its increasingly unpopular war on drugs. No wonder
that much of the world concludes that regional powers
like Turkey and Brazil are centers of stability while
the United States has become increasingly ham-fisted or
ineffectual.
The British eventually triumphed in the 1899-1902 Boer
War. But what was predicted to be a cakewalk for the
most powerful military in the world turned into the
longest and most expensive of Britain's colonial wars.
In the end, the British won only by herding Boer women
and children into concentration camps, where 28,000 of
them died of starvation and disease.
All over the colonial world people took notice: a ragtag
guerrilla force had fought the mighty British army to a
stalemate. The Boer War exposed the underlying weakness
of the British Empire, just as Iraq and Afghanistan have
signaled the end of an era in which powerful countries
could use force to dominate a region or the globe.
"The world is not going to take the diktats of the
powers that have run it for the past two or three
hundred years," political scientist Soli Ozel of Bilgi
University in Istanbul told the Financial Times.
