ELIMINATING INJUSTICE TO PALESTINIANS IS FIRST PRIORITY

 

All Turkish governments have always given high priority to foreign policy, but no other government has been as feverishly active and quite successful in this field as PM Tayyip Erdogan. The first long-term target in this field is clearly Turkey’s accession to the European integration and it coincides with a critical time, indeed a deep-rooted crisis within the EU. With that reality duly and timely understood by Turkey, a shrewd shift can be seen in foreign policy tactics, but certainly not in strategies, in Turkish diplomacy firstly in favour of Cyprus and secondly for Palestine to make the most of the country’s trump cards in the current global reshaping of diplomacy and security concepts and devices. For an analysis of the chances of success of this new policy please see the article below.

PM Tayyip Erdogan’s description of the current Israeli Government’s hawkish policies against the Palestinians “State terrorism” was nothing new as the most pro-American Arab States like Egypt had already said much worse things against Israel in addition to their activism to support the Palestinians with arms smuggling, but it did not have the same impact in Israel and the United States as the Turkish Prime Minister’s words.

The OIC may emerge as a new centre of power in world diplomacy

Turkey is now taking new steps in the trouble spots adjacent to its frontiers, Iraq and Palestine. This will be done through the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference) whose summit in Istanbul last week elected an Egyptian-born Turkish scholar and diplomat, Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, as its secretary-general.

This election was indicative of the changes in store for the Islamic world with Turkey’s active role. At the election, there was a clear grouping (not to say “ganging up”) of Islamic countries under the American influence and those outside that influence. While the first group led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia strongly opposed the Turkish candidate, the second group, primarily Palestine, exerted equally energetic efforts in the opposite direction and carried the day in the end. This was taken by the Islamic media as a sign of the termination of the joint Egyptian-Saudi hegemony in the OIC.   

Contrary to the established tradition of the organisation, Malaysia and Bangladesh were adamant about refusing to withdraw their candidates even though both had already represented Asia in this secretary-general position and this forced Turkey to reluctantly resort to one of the basic methods of democracy – the ballot box. Turkey was reluctant about going to the polls because it had never been done in the organisation before and there were neither clear rules nor traditions about sorting out an impasse at the voting. The OIC rules call for a two-thirds majority for the election of the secretary-general, but had no other rules about sorting out a dispute if there was an impasse. The OIC having 57 members, it meant 38 votes for the two-thirds majority. The voting turned out to be 32 votes for Turkey and 12 each for Malaysia and Bangladesh. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul’s pre-election suggestion that the highest supported candidate should be regarded as elected with the withdrawal of the other candidates was accepted and Prof Ihsanoglu became the Secretary-General.

Thus for the first time in the history of the OIC, the world’s biggest organisation after the United Nations, democratic process functioned and the dictations of Egypt and especially Saudi Arabia were brushed aside. “The Islamic world has proved to be able to sort out its own differences of opinion through democratic ways,” bragged Gul after this achievement.

Noteworthy about this election and the other thorny issue (the TRNC’s membership to the OIC under the title of “Turkish Cypriot State”) was that the influence of the United States was always in the way of Turkish diplomacy, but it was, by and large, transcended by Turkey.

Will Turkey’s active role in the OIC facilitate Bush’s Greater M.E. policy?

Hardly, and Washington is not sleeping. It is very much aware of it.

As a matter of fact, the whole thing, i.e. the American stance behind the latest Istanbul summit, was a huge paradox because, on the one hand, President Bush was inviting and receiving PM Erdogan at the G-8 conference as the “symbol of democracy” for the Islamic world and, on the other, his Administration was underhandedly exerting every effort to put a spoke in the wheel for the Turkish diplomacy’s concrete steps to tighten its ranks with the Islamic world by inducing it towards democracy and non-violence.

What was the reason for Washington’s contradictory behaviour at two important world conferences, the G-8 and the OIC summits that were conducted concurrently and on the eve of an equally important summit again in Istanbul, the NATO summit, which will be an occasion for a State visit to Turkey from the Super Power?

The key issue at the Istanbul summit of NATO before the end of this month will be the acceptance of the ICI (“Istanbul Cooperation Initiative”) which is tantamount to extending the NATO area to the Middle East and the Gulf for security arrangements through a typically American definition, “strategic dialogue”.

To put it in plain language, it is an American initiative to get NATO involved in Iraq, as it has done in Afghanistan, by sending troops to both countries, to start with. As Washington systematically undermines the Turkish soldiers’ working for the good of the local people in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as it has so successfully done in former Yugoslavia, there has so far been no happy ending in the efforts to work out such a “strategic dialogue” between Ankara and Washington, in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Instead, Ankara successfully worked out, much to Washington’s chagrin, a “neighbouring countries’ cooperation” about Iraq and especially the Ankara-Tehran-Damascus axis of this initiative was the main reason in forestalling the American ambition of creating an independent Kurdistan, starting with Northern Iraq. Last week’s Istanbul summit was also another occasion for the meeting of these “neighbouring countries” before the official conference that will be held before long.                     

 Needless to say, these activities go diametrically opposed to Washington’s ICI preparations. As Paris and Berlin also feel the same way as Turkey on the Iraq issue and especially about not getting NATO involved in Iraq’s security, the forthcoming Istanbul Summit is bound to be the scene of interesting developments.

As for the nature of Turkey’s new active policy in the Islamic world now that Prof. Ihsanoglu is sitting in the all important secretary-general’s seat of the OIC, it gives top priority to the Palestine question to induce the Sharon Government to fair play and humane behaviour towards the Palestinian people. It will certainly steer clear of supplying arms to Palestine, but will focus on humanitarian and financial assistance for the oppressed Muslims both in Israel and Palestine.

Another distinct characteristic of Turkey’s influence in the OIC will be keeping away from the “Zionist devil” rhetoric. Instead it will harp on about Israel doing today to the Palestinians what was done to the Jews especially in the Spanish Inquisition five centuries ago. PM Erdogan has already begun to speak about it, paying attention to not mentioning the much more recent Hitler’s holocaust, evidently to keep the Germans out of it during this critical period for EU accession.

Will Turkey’s new activism in Islam help its EU accession?

All these important summits and their developments took place under critical conditions concerning the future of the European integration, Turkey’s number one national objective today.

“The four-day democracy marathon” in Europe, i.e. the elections for the European Parliament in 25 EU countries, and the subsequent European summit for the European Constitution were conducted under critical conditions for Turkey’s accession, but yielded better results than the usual unfavourable developments Turkey is accustomed to in its dealings with Europe.

The elections were received coolly by the European electorate, especially by the new members. Whilst participation was below 50% throughout the EU, which brought up the question of the Union’s legitimacy, the ten new members averaged 28% and it was especially low in Poland with a 20% turn out.

What President Bush told the Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis on the first days of the AKP`s rule, “I’ve split up the European integration into three” was proved correct by the election returns. With or without the Americans’ efforts, the elections showed that there is today, the “old Europe” led by France and Germany, the “coalition countries (for Iraq)” led by the UK and Italy (though it has since lost a strong supporter with Spain leaving the coalition), and the former Soviet Bloc countries closer to the USA and UK, with Poland, Hungry and the Czech Republic leading it.

The talks for the new Constitution started in a pessimistic atmosphere with this distinct split in the EU, but wound up with a compromise thanks to the Irish Prime Minister’s strenuous efforts and shuttling between Blair and the Chirac-Schroeder hard core. It failed, however, to elect a new President of the EU Commission to succeed the outgoing Romano Prodi.

The noteworthy aspect of the whole affair for Turkey was that the pro-American faction led by Poland failed in its efforts to insert in the European Constitution a description for Europe, the “Christian heritage”. 

Instrumental in this favourable development for Turkey was President Chirac’s emphasis that Europe is secular and the Germans’ stress that Turkey’s accession is a must for the EU now that the Middle East and the Gulf events are gaining momentum.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer reportedly told former Economy Minister Kemal Dervis, “I believe that peace, democracy and economic development will come to eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East with Europe’s contributions. But you cannot bring this dream to life without Turkey’s participation. In this age, one can no longer dream of a Europe without Turkey.”

About the PKK relics’ recent attempts to undermine Turkey’s EU accession through fresh terrorism, the German Ambassador to Ankara, Dr Wolf-Ruthart Born told CNN Turk, “Everyone should refrain from statements in support of acts of violence. The PKK or its successors are terrorist organisations. They cannot possibly receive any support from the European Union.”

PM Erdogan will pay an official visit to France on 19-20 July and it may be a turning point in eliminating the last hesitations about Turkey’s accession. Meanwhile, Ankara is continuing with its efforts to answer the EU’s conditions. One of the latest steps taken was restoring to the French clergy called “Assompsion” a very valuable plot in Istanbul which had been given to them by the Ottoman Sultans back in the 19^th century but taken back by a court ruling in 1993.

A relatively thorny issue still sticking out in Turkey’s relations with Europe is Ankara’s reluctance from mentioning “The Republic of Cyprus” as one of the 10 new members of the EU. Turkey is ready to extend customs union facilities to all the 10 new members, but is loath to use the name “the Republic of Cyprus” for the Greek Cypriots. However, considering that the Annan plan has virtually put an end to the Republic of Cyprus and that the EU has not been able to stomach the Greek Cypriots  “deceiving” them at the referendum, it is obvious that Ankara should not pay much attention to the “danger” of the Greek Cypriots being treated as the owner of the entire island.

After the solution of these relatively small issues until October 6^th, when the EU Commission will prepare its progress report for the Turkish accession, it is believed that the negotiations will begin for the final end.

Turkey’s new place in the Islamic world and its ever-expanding relations with the Russian Federation will help the achievement of this aim. At the Istanbul summit last week the Russian Foreign Minister told his Turkish counterpart Gul that they would recognise the Turkish Cypriot State. uras@ada.net.tr  - June 19^th, 2004