Why the West Cares about Turkey's Diplomatic Conflict with Israel

Under the surface, there have been growing concerns in the West about the general direction of Turkish foreign policy under Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP Party. In an extremely important 2004 cable from the US Department of State, revealed by WIKILEAKS, that was described previously in this column, an American diplomat in Turkey wrote about his concerns with Ankara's "new, highly activist foreign policy," Like many other commentators he focused on what he called the "neo-Ottoman fantasies" of Ahmet Davutoglu, who was then only an advisor and today is Turkey's foreign minister. 

 

But the American diplomat went much further in his description. He attended a meeting at the main think tank of Turkey's ruling AKP Party where he heard many in the AKP saying that it is Turkey's role to spread Islam in Europe. He added that among the participants in the think tank there was "the widespread belief" that Turkey should "avenge the defeat at the siege of Vienna in 1683"--where the Ottoman armies loss to the Hapsburg Empire.

 

Even assuming that this American cable overstates the ideological orientation of the Turkish government by relying on impressions from a think tank of the AKP Party, it nonetheless illustrates the concerns of a Western diplomat about the ideas circulating in ruling circles within Erdogan's Turkey. Can Turkey still be viewed as a reliable NATO ally or is it now adopting an approach to the world based on Islamist agenda? As a result, will it give preference to  its partnerships with Middle Eastern countries, like Iran, despite its disagreements with Tehran? 

 

These trends are not just a concern for the US, but for other countries who are doubtlessly monitoring trends in Turkey. In late 2009, Davutoglu spoke in Sarajevo, Bosnia and laid out his approach to Turkey's foreign policy. According to a State Department report of the speech, he stated that "the Balkans, the Caucuses, and the Middle East were all better off when under Ottoman control or influence." For many states that were once part of the Ottoman Empire, especially in Europe, this statement undoubtedly raised eyebrows. Across Eastern Europe, from Hungary to Serbia, there are sites that are remembered as battlefields between Christian armies and the Ottoman Empire. 

 

Many commentators have missed another recent tendency in Turkey's approach to the Middle East, in particular. In a study by Steven Merley, an expert on the European Muslim Brotherhood networks, he points out that since 2006, if the Muslim Brotherhood wants to convene a major international conference, it does not go to Qatar or to Saudi Arabia, who would not grant permission for such a meeting. Instead, Muslim Brotherhood conferences have been convened in Turkey, on a regular basis.

 

 

 

What is happening to Turkey may not be just explained by Islamism, but also by geo-politics. Prior to the French invasion of Egypt in 1799, the Middle East was dominated by two powers, the Ottoman Empire and the Persian (or Safavid) Empire. The West was not yet in control of the region. In the next two centuries, the Middle East was under mostly Anglo-French hegemony that was replaced by American power. Professor Bernard Lewis has remarked on occasion that the Middle East could return to its earlier state in which Turkey and Iran become again the dominant powers. Today, if the US is seen as being in retreat from the region, Turkey may well be  positioning itself to resume its earlier role.

 

Davutoglu has many reasons for escalating his conflict with Israel. There are those who might conjecture that it is a personal conflict, since his grandfather was an Ottoman soldier who fought the British in the Gaza Strip. A few years ago the prestigious American quarterly, Foreign Affairs, published an article entitled "Is Turkey Leaving the West?" Turkey is aware of these concerns; it has sort to blunt criticism by agreeing to the deployment of a NATO early-warning radar and offering its services to the West for helping prepare the groundwork for a post-Assad Syria. Some Western politicians have been satisfied by these Turkish moves. But many others are still concerned by Turkey's overall direction. For them what Erdogan and Davutoglu do with Israel is seen as a warning sign regarding the future direction of Turkish policy. Will Turkey return to being a pragmatic ally of the West that serves as a bridge to the Middle East or will it pursue a new radical course that brings it increasingly into conflict with the countries around it?