http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/02/ahmet-davutoglu-turkey-obama-opinions-contributors-ottoman-empire_print.html
Commentary
A New Ottoman Empire?
Asli Aydintasbas, 06.02.09, 2:57 PM ET
ISTANBUL -- This week, Turkey assumed the presidency of the United
Nation's Security Council, and while that may just be a passing story in
most countries, here it is a big deal.
"This is very important and a big responsibility for our country," said
Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu--and he should know. Davutoglu
has been the chief architect of Turkey's neo-imperial foreign policy
that envisions a far greater role for this pro-western Islamic country
than as an aspiring second-tier member of the European club.
No one was surprised last month when Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip
Erdogan appointed his longtime political adviser Davutoglu as the
Foreign Minister. The soft-talking professor--who was also an adviser to
President Abdullah Gul--has largely been responsible for reshaping
Turkey's foreign policy over the past six years, moving it away from its
isolationist roots and toward a role as a self-declared regional power
broker in the Middle East.
Turks love the spotlight that has come from efforts to mediate between
Israelis and Syrians, act as peacekeepers in Lebanon and host
high-profile world dignitaries. They got a kick out of seeing their
globetrotting leader Erdogan in a face-off with Israeli President Shimon
Peres in Davos.
The official television station TRT has recently started to refer to
Turkey as a "global power." These days, the book du jour in Turkish
power circles is Stratfor founder George Friedman's The Next 100 Years:
A Forecast for the 21st Century. It predicts the rise of a hegemonic
Turkish empire in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire.
All that talk may be premature, but not for Davutoglu.
Meeting the Turkish foreign minister, you would never guess that you are
talking to one of the most powerful figures in the Middle East.
Davutoglu is a short, even-tempered man in his fifties who talks, in
fact nearly mumbles, with a relaxing half-smile that gives you the
momentary hope that the world's most vicious problems are actually not
that difficult to solve. He is more avuncular than imposing, more
monotonous than charismatic.
From Damascus to Tel Aviv, regional leaders have been talking to him as
the best private channel to the decision-makers in Ankara--making him
the most influential consigliore in the history of the modern republic.
His book Strategic Depth is a must-read for diplomats coming to Turkey.
He has been at the heart of every critical diplomatic initiative over
the last few years--from lobbying to attain U.N. Security Council
membership for Turkey to conducting secret Israeli-Syrian mediation efforts.
It's not power for power's sake. There is a whole political theory
behind the Davutoglu Doctrine. In a nutshell, instead of defining Turkey
as the eastern flank of the Transatlantic Alliance, Davutoglu sees it as
a pivotal country ("merkez ülke"), the centerpoint of concentric power
circles. The governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP, does not
see the European Union as an end goal, and does not regard Turkey's
western orientation as its sole strategic axis. Instead, they talk of
multiple axes of alliances to solidify Turkey's leadership in the Muslim
world.
But not everyone is happy about the New Turkey. To his critics,
Davutoglu is responsible for the neo-Ottomanist revisionism in foreign
policy that values Muslim solidarity over the secular nation's
long-standing alliance with the West. He was partly blamed in media for
Turkey's refusal to open a northern front for U.S. troops in the Iraq
war, as well as Ankara's controversial invitation to Hamas leader Khaled
Mashal in 2006.
Davutoglu defended both decisions by pointing out that Turkey, in each
case, made more gains than losses. Ankara currently differs from the
European and American positions on numerous issues, including relations
with Russia, the role of Hamas in Israeli-Palestinian issues and Darfur,
where the AKP government openly supports the regime of President Omar
al-Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court.
But even his critics agree, AKP reign has somehow elevated Turkey's
stature as a democratic Muslim country and an independent actor in the
Middle East. Among his fans, including leading members of the
Islamist-oriented governing party, he has somewhat of a cult following,
"Before AKP, no one in the mainstream media had heard of his name, but
in our circles he was a legend. We used to think of him as the next
Ozal," says a conservative journalist with close ties to the government.
Born in Konya, Turkey's conservative heartland, Davutoglu is a pious man
who has spent a good chunk of his academic career teaching in
Malaysia--somewhat unusual among Turkish academics, who gravitate toward
European and American colleges for academic research. South Asia's brand
of Islamic politics, marked with the growth of religion within a
democratic framework, impacted his thinking on state and society. He has
been very active in the Balkans with efforts to help Muslims in the
Bosnian war. His particular view of Turkey as seen from the outside has
led to the development of an unconventional understanding of its place
in the world stage.
Davutoglu's vision somewhat differs from traditional Turkish foreign
policy. Weary of troubling imperial baggage and decades of wars, the
modern Turkish republic, founded in 1923, has predominantly been
isolationist--aimed at anchoring Turkey to the "civilized" West and
untangling it from the "backward" lands to the East. The AKP challenges
this view and sees an active role in the Middle East as an asset for
Turkey's relations with the West.
Under AKP, Turkey has been delving into areas that its traditional
westward-looking foreign policy establishment considered off-limits,
acting as a power-broker in far off disputes from Afghanistan to
Palestine. In doing so, it certainly has become more enmeshed in the
Muslim world, sometimes even positioning itself as the spokesman for the
Islamic world, as reflected in Erdogan's outburst in Davos against
Peres, or Turkey's reluctance to accept Danish Prime Minister Anders
Fogh Rasmussen as the head of NATO, due to his stance during the Danish
cartoon crisis.
When Davutoglu coined the term "Neighborhood Rapprochement Policy" back
in 2003, the idea of Turkey becoming friends with its arch enemies--like
Syria, a rogue state that hosted Kurdish guerilla leader Abdullah Ocalan
for many years, Iran, whose efforts to export Islamic revolution
threatened Turkey's secular foundations, or Armenia, with its unyielding
diaspora lobbying against Turkey--seemed pointless, at best.
Today, Turkey is best of friends with historical enemies Greece, Syria
and Iran, on course to normalize its relations with Armenia and even
talking to the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq. Journalists
who used to scoff at Davutoglu's theories nowadays generously throw
around his terminology, like "zero conflict with neighbors," "flexible
focal point" and, of course, Turkey as a "global power."
Conservatives who tend to credit Davutoglu with raising Turkey's
influence through a non-aligned foreign policy were encouraged by
President Barack Obama's visit here in April. Speaking to lawmakers in
Ankara, Obama said, "Turkey's greatness lies in your ability to be at
the center of things. This is not where East and West divide--this is
where they come together." He sounded almost like Davutoglu himself.
One major problem with Davutoglu's policies has always been the question
of what would happen domestically if Turkey traded its place in the West
in return for a greater regional role. While Turks enjoy their
high-profile role in the Middle East, there are pitfalls. Typically the
farther a nation moves from the West and its mechanisms, the more likely
it is to see a rise in illiberal tendencies.
Russia, for example, is a very important country, but its independent
status is precisely what makes it impossible for the U.S. to pressure
Vladimir Putin or Dmitry Medvedev for accountability when it comes to
corruption, a free press or democratic norms.
What if Turkey were no longer a candidate for E.U. membership. Would
human rights be as closely monitored? Media freedoms and minority rights
still protected? Women's rights guaranteed?
No one knows the answer. But Turks seem to like the ride.
Asli Aydintasbas is an Istanbul-based journalist and former Ankara
bureau chief of the newspaper Sabah.
Serbian News Network - SNN
[email protected]
http://www.antic.org/
