EURASIA INSIGHT March 7, 2003 HISTORICAL FACTORS INFLUENCE TURKEY'S STANCE ON IRAQ WAR Igor Torbakov: 3/07/03 A EurasiaNet Commentary
The Turkish parliament's reluctance to accept US troop deployment reflects widespread concern among the country's governing class about the merits of overhauling the region's geopolitical balance. Many are loath to abandon the cautious, if not isolationist, foreign policy principles established by the founders of the Turkish Republic. On the surface, the Grand National Assembly, Turkey's parliament, simply yielded to the overwhelming pacifist emotions of the public when it voted March 1 not to permit American deployment. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Roughly 90 per cent of Turks, according to polls, oppose Turkey's potential involvement in the war against Iraq. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the ruling Justice and Development Party, described the parliament's vote as "a completely democratic result." Besides popular opposition to a war to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, however, the parliament vote was the product of a deeply rooted political instinct in Turkey. It is an understanding that, historically, Turkey's security interests are better served by maintaining regional stability than by altering the existing geopolitical order. A sizeable segment of Turkey's political class remains wary of the Bush administration's grandiose plans to revamp the Middle East. Many in Ankara are particularly concerned about the possible consequences for Turkey of a regional geopolitical restructuring. The March 1 parliament vote was, according to political analyst Burak Bekdil, mostly "the product of Washington's failure to convince the Turkish military, which traditionally has an upper hand in deciding on security matters, that its war plans . did not contain a hidden agenda that might pose a security threat to Turkey." Among the sensitive issues that concern Turkish leaders, Bekdil pointed to possible demographic changes in the area of the oil-rich cities of Kirkuk and Mosul in northern Iraq, and to the possible formation of a loose federation in a post-Saddam Iraq that, in its turn, might eventually lead to the emergence of the independent Kurdish state. The razor-thin margin of the March 1 parliamentary vote testifies to the sharpness of the internal political debate on the Iraq issue. This debate has reminded some commentators of another, even more dramatic, parliamentary session when, by only a single vote, Turkey avoided being drawn into the Second World War. Of course, Turkish reluctance to enter the conflict was influenced heavily by the country's experience during the First World War, which cemented the break-up of the Ottoman Turkish empire and the tumultuous emergence of the modern Turkish Republic under Ataturk. Some observers have pointed to analogies between Turkey's current situation and that which existed prior to the outbreak of World War I. The most significant similarity is that Turkey is confronted now - as it was in 1914-1923 - with the geopolitical ambitions of powerful external players that are pursuing self-interested policies in the region. In addition, the current Turkish government is grappling with mounting economic hardships - a reminder of the economic decay that marked the waning days of rule by Ottoman Turkish sultans. US officials are now exerting pressure for a reconsideration of the March 1 parliament vote. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The evident irony of Washington's displeasure over the vote is not lost on many Turkish political observers. Taking heed of public attitudes and reflecting them in legislative decisions are democratic practices that "the American (and European) democrats have been advising the Turks to follow," one Turkish observer noted sarcastically. Turkish opponents of the conservative defensive strategy argue, however, that the potential damage of the isolationist policy could be much higher than the risks of the possible war with Iraq in alliance with the United S tates. If Turkey maintains its anti-war stance, they contend, Ankara will find itself unable either to prevent the war, or to maintain the regional geopolitical balance once hostilities commence. "The greatest nightmare would come to be true if the United States goes ahead without Turkey and wins the war against Iraq. In this case, it will have no responsibility to ask Turkey's opinion on how to restructure Iraq," says Ali Nihat Ozcan, an Ankara-based expert on the Middle East. The potential effect of Turkish parliament's vote on the country's European Union membership bid is also a matter of controversy. EU leaders France and Germany are outspoken opponents of military action against Iraq. As a result, Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister Ertugrul Yalcinbayir asserted that the parliament's decision raised Turkey's standing in EU's eyes and may accelerate the nation's accession process. Not everyone in Turkey shares this optimistic opinion. Turkey's already troubled European prospects, many experts say, might receive a serious blow if developments lead to the revival of Turkey's armed campaign against the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). "The Kurdish assembly in northern Iraq has become a new center of attraction for Kurds living in neighboring countries," says Cengiz Aktar, an expert on EU enlargement, hinting that this would lead to increased PKK activity. "The EU has already closed its doors to Turkey," Aktar said in the interview with the Turkish Daily News and added that the EU anti-war leaders had so far seemed unmoved by the Turkish lawmakers' snub of Washington. "I do not see any sign they will be in the future," he said. The seemingly ambiguous behavior of some of Turkey's powerful neighbors, local analysts argue, additionally contributes to the nation's sense of insecurity. "Russia and its ambitions are also playing a major role in the rise" of Ankara's uneasiness, writes Mete Belovacikli in a commentary published in the Turkish Daily News. Moscow's official line is that the Iraq crisis should be resolved peacefully and that war should be avoided at any cost. On March 4, Russian President Vladimir Putin praised the Turkish parliament's vote. Turkish leaders, though, are wary of Russia, believing that Moscow is capable of quickly abandoning its current position. Symptomatically, a commentary published March 3 in the nationalist-leaning Ortadogu newspaper accused Moscow of trying to cut a behind-the-scenes deal with Washington. Allegedly referring to the not much-publicized-talks Aleksandr Voloshin, head of Putin's presidential administration, held recently with US leaders, the commentary said that "Russia has entered into a secret bargaining process with the United States while Russian Foreign Minister [Igor] Ivanov hurls the veto threat at the UN." Editor's Note: Igor Torbakov is a freelance journalist and researcher who specializes in CIS political affairs. He holds an MA in History from Moscow State University and a PhD from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He was Research Scholar at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1988-1997; a Visiting Scholar at the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC, 1995, and a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia University, New York, 2000. He is now based in Istanbul, Turkey.
