Turkey’s EU Membership’s Possible Impacts on the Middle East
View: Dr. Sedat LACINER

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Dec 24 2004

One objection forwarded about Turkey’s EU membership is the prospect
that the EU will border the Middle East. The implicit assumption that
this objection carries is that the EU is distant to the Middle East
and only through Turkey’s membership can it border the region.
Nevertheless, even at the present stage, the EU is much closer to
Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine with the newly joined Cyprus.
Similarly, the Greek islands, Malta, Italy, and Spain, all EU
territories, are closer to North Africa than Turkey. Moroccan
refugees virtually swim through the Gibraltar to seek asylum in
Spain. It is possible to say that Turkish borders are much better
defended when considering the ease in crossing the Spain-North Africa
or Italy-North Africa boundaries. In line with the terrorism of the
1980s and 1990s, Turkey’s Middle Eastern borders are highly protected
and illegal trespassing is at a minimum. Even if we disregard all
these facts, it is an established reality that millions of immigrants
from the Middle Eastern countries live in the EU countries and that
the immigration goes on with a steady increase. In other words, the
Middle East is speedily and uncontrollably settling at the heart of
Europe. With all these figures, is it possible to say that what
protects the EU from ‘meddling’ with the Middle East is a 1000
km-tract of land? With the current state of technology, is the EU
hiding behind the pretext of Turkish lands in order to distance
itself from the Middle East?

There is no doubt that even if the EU separates itself from the
Middle East by oceans, it will still want to be an influential actor
in the region, and will not be able to avoid that at any rate. Even
now, the Middle East is at the center of the EU’s troubles anyway:
The Middle East profoundly affects the EU with oil, terrorism,
migration, human trafficking, narcotics, arms proliferation, etc. At
the present state of affairs, the EU is affected from problems
originating from the Middle East but lacks the means to tackle them.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a typical example. By allocating
its vast resources to this region and others, the EU has difficulty
in obtaining results. It has been unable to attain a role in the
Middle East on par with the US. Neither in terms of impact, nor in
prestige, has the EU risen to the status that its efforts warrant. On
the other hand, the September 11 attacks and the Iraq War clearly
depict that Middle Eastern events are going to affect Europe, just as
they do with the rest of the world. German Foreign Minister Joschka
Fischer confirms the vitality of the Middle East in the EU’s
interest:

“Before 11 September 2001 attacks I had been skeptical about the EU
bordering Syria, Iraq and Iran. But now, it is strategically
important… Our security will be defined for at least five decades in
this region… whether we like it or not.”

Should the EU fail to play its role as a guide, the Middle East might
be reshaped adversely, perhaps even in a way that could harm the EU.
At this point, Turkey’s membership may grant the desired means and
the power to affect the region. In addition to its Ottoman legacy,
Turkey’s cultural links with the region award it with a great boon.
Especially with its performance during the Iraq War and the proactive
policies it pursued with the Justice and Development Party (AKP)
government, prejudices and misunderstandings about Turkey in the
region have decreased. For example, while it was presumed that Turkey
had an interest in Iraq’s disintegration and in the rich oil fields
in Northern Iraq, Turkey was the most ardent supporter of Iraq’s
territorial integrity. With this approach, Turkey gained Arabs’ and
the neighboring countries’ respect while advocating the need to avoid
further conflict. On the contrary, it urged steps to be taken for
integration. In this sense, it can be said that at the center of
Turkey’s Middle East approach lies integration and regional
cooperation. On the one hand, Turkey increases its commercial,
social, and cultural links with the region, and on the other, strives
to eschew the eruption of yet another war. It does not find it fit
with its national interests and in the interests of the region to
have the events in Iraq rerun in Syria and Iran. Thus, it can be said
that this approach is in line with the EU’s Middle East policies. To
summarize Turkey’s approach regarding the Middle East, it can be said
that it has a three-stage integration plan:

1) National Integration: To preserve the national integrity of the
region’s countries within the framework of democracy, human rights,
minority rights, and free market principles.

2) Regional Integration: To improve relations and lines of
communication between the region’s countries, to be followed by
cooperation and regional integration. At this stage, integration
could be bilateral or trilateral and may eventually cover sub-regions
and the Middle East as a whole.

3) Global Integration: The Middle East’s failure to integrate with
the global system adversely affects regional stability as much as the
world. Many problems in the post-Cold War era are due to the lack of
integration between the Middle East and the rest of the world. In
this respect, one of Turkey’s basic objectives is to fully integrate
the Middle East to the global system.

Having mostly solved its problems with the countries of the region,
with its “zero problem with neighbors” motto, the current
government’s motion is the strategy that the EU is looking for.
Hence, Turkey’s full membership will both present the EU the
opportunity to pursue its strategy and also allow it to increase its
leverage through a weighty actor like Turkey. Furthermore, Turkey’s
full membership would significantly contribute to solving problems
originating from the Middle East. Especially with the items of
terrorism and drug trafficking, it is very hard for dangers to wither
away.

Another worry regarding the Middle East is that Turkey’s EU
membership will enable the US to manipulate the EU in the Middle East
through Turkey. Some individuals even likened Turkey to a ‘Trojan
horse’. However, despite sustaining great economic losses of billions
of dollars, Turkey denied access to the American military before the
Iraq War and adhered to the EU’s policies.

To sum up, at the present state of affairs, the EU already neighbors
the Middle East and is adversely affected by problems emerging from
that region. Conversely, it lacks the weight and decisive role that
it desires dearly. As a country that knows the region and has a
significant role, Turkey will contribute to the EU’s regional
policies.

What the Middle East Needs: Democracy and Legitimate/Just Policies

Since World War I, the Middle East has been one of the most
problematic regions of the world. Policies that have created the
region’s problems with time have been portrayed as the solutions to
those problems, creating an impasse. Middle Eastern peoples were
first seen as unfit for self-rule, needing guardianship and this
culminated in the establishment of authoritarian regimes.
Administrations of foreign mandates acted with a focus on security,
rather than on education and the economy and were followed by the
kings and emirs who were mere clients of the West. While social and
economic problems were attributed a secondary status, governments
raised barriers at home and much more problems on the international
scene to keep their armies and peoples occupied. Much of the
resources and energy was reserved for security forces. It is obvious
by now how misled these policies were. Middle Eastern peoples did not
attain higher living standards under foreign mandate, on the
contrary, democracy and administration degraded remarkably. Countries
living under colonial rule or their own dictatorships failed to
develop, while conflicts did not come to an end.
Now is the time for a new approach. Without disregarding security,
social and economic problems need to be addressed:

Economies, in general, have to be more inclusive and productive.
Relying on a few items such as oil and natural gas, economic
structures hamper the incorporation of society and halt genuine
economic development on the one hand, and on the other, leaves
decision-making to a select few, causing policies to be more oriented
on war and conflict. In a similar fashion, the countries in the
Middle East need to allocate their resources for the benefit of the
new generations, particularly for education and health. The current
situation intensely breeds terrorism and radicalism. While it might
appear paradoxical, the solution lies in the improvement of
democracy. Having governments elected to office through fair and
competitive elections would enable popular will to affect
decision-making. While this may at first cause some problems, the
masses would ultimately see the need to preserve the decision-making
mechanism. In that case, decisions will be more pragmatic and
reflective of the peoples’ and the countries’ interests,
strengthening national power. Currently, while decisions are taken
within a very limited confine, they are also more ideological and
much more personal. The capricious attitude of an individual may lead
a country to war. The remarkable correlation between democracy and
prosperity can be exemplified. The richest Moslem countries of the
world are not the oil-rich ones. On the contrary, the largest Moslem
economy of the world, Turkey, is perhaps the poorest in terms of
energy resources. In contrast to Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Turkey does
not even have enough oil and natural gas for self-consumption. In
terms of per capita income and economic size, the noteworthy
appearance of countries such as Egypt, Malaysia, Iran, and Indonesia
on the upper portions of the list proves the point that access to
decision-making positively affects economic power. In contrast, that
the historical process that brought Iraq to this point is due to the
Saddam Hussein regime is an undisputable fact.

The second basic problem is due to the West’s policies towards the
Middle East. Western countries that pay great attention to legitimacy
and rule of law at home, behave quite differently in the Middle East.
For example, while Israel has been developing nuclear weapons for
years, the reaction towards Iran, Iraq, and Libya is at best
discordant. Similarly, for so many years after supporting the Saddam
Hussein regime while it served interests, even with its systematic
torturing and gross human rights violations, then invading Iraq with
the pretext of Saddam Hussein’s regime and punishing Iraq seems
rather unfair. Even as Saddam Hussein virtually publicized his
understanding of authority starting from his first days in office and
that he used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, the West
did nothing. Worse, while all these occurred, he was armed to the
teeth by the countries that have now turned against him. While Saddam
Hussein’s case is quite telling, it has done great damage to the
West’s credibility in the region.

The biggest problem in the relations between the West and the Middle
East is the Palestinian question. Since its establishment, Israel has
ignored other countries and the Moslem world. Continuously expanding
on other countries’ lands, Israel refuses to set its borders under
the United Nations systems and constructs settlements at the expense
of Palestinians on the lands that it has occupied. This fact is
repeatedly raised by international organizations and even
occasionally confirmed by Israel. Israeli soldiers “clashing” with
Palestinian children is an image taken for granted.
Recently, the most tragic Israeli policy is assassination. It
involves attacking a predetermined vehicle as it moves along a
street. To kill only one person in the car others in the car or
innocent bystanders may be sacrificed. Furthermore, no matter how
guilty an individual is, it is a terrorist organization’s method to
assassinate someone, not a government’s.

Another Israeli method is to punish a criminal’s family by harming
them. Following a suicide bombing or a similar attack, the
assailant’s house is bulldozed, sometimes with his family inside. The
principle of the individuality of crime, established by humanity
thousands of years ago, is violated through such methods, leaving
many innocent people dead, homeless, and distrustful towards the rule
of law. Such methods hurt the conscience of people all around the
world, and foremost that of Moslems countries. Israel acts in an
“I’ll do what I want, my affair is no one’s business” mindset. Worst
of all, Israel harms itself as well as others. The time has come for
a country, which has lived under bombs and clashes since its day of
foundation, to question itself.
The greatest negative impact of the Israeli-Palestinian problem is on
Moslem populace. The devastation wrought on holy shrines, disregard
for the basic principles of law, and the perception that the US and
the EU are inert strengthen the sentiment that the West is
discriminatory towards Moslem countries. For example, the fact that
while Israel possesses nuclear weapons for decades and some Moslem
countries, not in possession of these weapons, come under intense
pressure for the possibility that they may seek to acquire nuclear
weapons, fortifies questions of double standards. Certainly, no
reason can justify international terrorism. On the other hand, the
creation of a sense of injustice in such a large segment of people
and the ascription of a privileged position for some countries to
violate international law leaves those people with little options to
struggle for their rights and for voicing their opinions. A majority
of Moslems fear that should they quarrel with Israel, they would end
up like Palestinians and thus, the justice of Europe and the US
cannot be trusted.

As a matter of fact, the events in former Yugoslavia augment these
fears. From the viewpoint of Moslem countries, at the hands of a
well-armed group, thousands of people have been massacred at the
center of Europe merely because they were Moslems, unarmed,
defenseless, and had nowhere to run. Tens of thousands of Bosnian
Moslem women were raped, thousands of people endured inhumane
treatment in prison camps. The EU and European countries just watched
while all these events took place. The understanding of truth is more
important that how it is interpreted and how the European states
defend themselves. The general understanding regarding Bosnia is that
European countries and institutions have failed.

Another event that increases the sense of despair in relations
between the West and Islam is Chechnya. Looking at the policies of
violence in Chechnya, people see it unfair that Moscow treats those
demanding freedom and those demanding their basic rights as
criminals, along with Moscow’s indiscriminate categorization of any
opposition as “terrorist.” Human rights violations and extreme
security measures in Chechnya are at a paramount. Chechen people are
on the verge of annihilation. In this case, Russia’s security should
naturally be given attention and those Chechens using terrorism as a
tool must be severely punished. However, the existence of security
forces that seek to obtain results solely by violence and by the
methods of terrorist organizations must not go unnoticed. Warning
Moscow in the early 1990s with a rather caustic overtone, the US and
the EU have unfortunately not been insistent and congruous in their
attitudes. Especially following the attacks of September 11, the US’s
and the EU’s shift in their policies to support Moscow’s policies
towards the Chechens have created a serious crisis of trust in the
international arena. This shift has created the sense that the West
is taking self-centered approaches towards terrorism. In other words,
the contradictory attitudes of Western countries before and after
terror strikes directed against them is received very negatively.

The US’s policies in Iraq following the invasion further consolidates
this sentiment. Especially with the images of torture and
maltreatment that disrespects even the most basic principles of human
rights and international law from Ebu Gureyb and Guantanamo, the
hatred targets not only the US, but also the West as a whole. As the
scenes from Iraq increasingly resemble those in Palestine, there is a
feeling that Western countries are now repeating those mistakes they
criticized in the past. The violations in Iraq and Afghanistan create
worries that the West has different standards for itself and
non-Western countries.

Finally, Nagorno-Karabakh stands out as the event that has lead
Moslems to question the West’s sincerity in its claims to justice and
legitimacy. Over 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s territories are invaded
by Armenian forces backed by Russia. Approximately one million people
have become refugees. This situation has been dragging on for over a
decade and represents a much more severe violation of law than the
case of former-Yugoslavia. Furthermore, since the first days of the
invasion, US and EU statements that criticize Azerbaijan and support
Armenia is viewed as a Moslem-Christian divide by some.

When closely examined, it can be seen that in the post-Cold War era
all massacres and human rights violations from Chechnya to Palestine,
from Iraq to Afghanistan, and from Bosnia to Karabakh involve
Christians and Moslems with the Christians committing, supporting,
and inciting the atrocities. The Moslems are the ones who are
victimized, invaded, and subjected to cruel treatment and torture.

Of course, we Turks do not view these events as such. We are aware
that they are not Christian-Moslem conflicts. However, we can hardly
dismiss ever-increasing double-standards. Moreover, these practices
that discard Moslem opinion, weaken moderate groups, and strengthen
radicals are perceived as discrimination and are reminiscent of the
Crusades. In the light of these facts, this position that strengthens
terrorism and pushes the masses towards radical groups must be
closely scrutinized. The West should not be faultfinding only about
the Moslems with their integration to the global system, but should
also be critical about its own role. Important responsibilities fall
on the EU’s shoulders in this respect. In comparison with the US, EU
countries are much more insightful and should they wish to obtain the
tools and the power to break this vicious circle, they would easily
find them. Turkey’s EU membership would grant the EU the most
effective instruments that it seeks. The greatest Moslem economy, and
also the most effective Moslem polity, Turkey is obviously in a
perfect position to represent Moslems. By taking Turkey as a member,
the EU will show that it is not insincere towards Moslems.

To sum up, what the Middle East needs most in the years ahead is
democratization and for the West’s policies towards the Middle East
to be fair and congruous with the ones that it applies at home. It is
clear that whether it becomes an EU member or not, Turkey will have a
peculiar position in bringing about both needs.

Relations With Iraq

There is a dire need to address the question of Iraq with the US’s
latest operation and the impact that Turkey’s EU membership will have
on Iraq’s special position with its oil, terrorism, minorities, etc.

Following Turkey’s membership, the EU will neighbor Iraq. However, it
can be said that with the latest events, Iraq is close to the EU as a
neighbor and the incidents there seriously affects the EU. From oil
to terrorism and migration, from Christian-Moslem relations to global
restructuring, the EU is affected just like the rest of the world.
Some EU members, such as Britain, even participated in the Iraq War
while some others gave logistical support. While there were other
members that opposed the war, such as Germany and France, the
developments in Iraq constituted much of the agenda in these
countries as well, ranging from domestic politics to security. With
NATO’s Istanbul Summit in June 2004, many NATO countries also EU
members began engaging in Iraq. Contrary to this case, the EU does
not have adequate means to steer and influence the events in Iraq
that so profoundly affect it. Most importantly, it lacks the support
of a country with a strong regional position.
When looking at the Middle East and Iraq, two points of view seem to
be in conflict. The first of these, the “hawkish” approach, envisions
to transform the Middle East more with the help of military options.
If need be, just as in Iraq, it is foreseen that the regimes and
leaders of countries such as Syria, Iran, and Libya can be changed
and even their borders can be redrawn to fit the needs of religious
and ethnic groups. The more “dovish” approach, on the other hand,
advocates socio-economic instruments and dialogue. The previously
mentioned three-staged Turkish initiative is at the center of this
approach. Force may be utilized if need be. However, this force may
be employed only in conformity with law, within the confines of
legitimacy, and with the consent of regional governments and the
international community on a limited basis. Another subject that
Turkey has been continuously bringing up is the preservation of
national boundaries and regime change without the use of violence.
For regimes and leaders are a product of that environment rather than
the root of the troubles. In this respect, it is verified that the
hawkish approach in Iraq has failed and that forced leader or regime
change does not yield any results. Today, Iraq of the post-Saddam
Hussein era is arguably more unstable and suitable for terrorism to
breed than ever. Inter-ethnic tension is increasing steadily while
bombing raids are almost a daily matter. Accordingly, to resort to
similar mechanisms in Syria and Iran will be a great disaster for the
Middle East, the EU, and the rest of the world. The global system
will not sustain such an occurrence.
Coming back to Iraq, the country needs to preserve its security,
stability, and integrity first and foremost. All groups in the
country, ethnic or otherwise, deserve a balanced representation at
the national level. However, efforts aiming to disjoin Iraq should
not be supported. Iraqi Kurds have a special role here. While some
try to portray Iraqi Kurds and Turkey as opposing parties, Turkey has
been Kurds’ greatest support for a long time. Following the First
Gulf War, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled to Turkey from Saddam
Hussein’s brutality. Until the Iraq War, Iraqi Kurds were protected
by the Hammer Power (Operation North Watch), to which Turkey provided
with bases and personnel. In the intermittent clashes between Celal
Talabani’s PUK and Mesut Barzani’s KDP throughout the 1990s, Turkey
acted as a mediator and extended economic help and technical
assistance to Iraqi Kurds. The establishment of TV stations and
educational facilities, along with other infrastructure investments,
came about with the help of the Turkish government and Turkish firms.
The gate with Turkey offers the greatest source of income for
Northern Iraq. It must not be forgotten that the oil produced in
Northern Iraq is transported to world markets from the Mediterranean
via pipelines in Turkey. In short, Turkey has been the greatest
supporter of Iraqi Kurds and many Iraqi Kurds are residing in Turkey
today. Following the Iraq War, relations with Iraqi Kurds are still
going on. Despite some conjunctural statements and tensions, Turkey
is one of the most active countries in Northern Iraq. It continues to
support the area through the border and by participating in various
projects. Turkey’s activities in the region mostly aim for the
region’s economic development and greater convergence between Turkish
and Iraqi markets.
In the same light, Turkey urges the employment of similar
socio-economic instruments for Iraq as a whole. It argues that once
the basic infrastructure and security problems of Iraq are solved,
increased regional economic and cultural transaction would bring
stability to Iraq and to the region.

In political and military matters regarding Northern Iraq, Turkey has
a set of priorities. These can be summarized under three headings:

1) Iraq’s territorial integrity must be maintained. Shiites, Sunnis,
Kurds, Turkmens, Assyrians or any other ethnic or religious groups
should not struggle to secede from Iraq and form another state.

2) Regional countries should not become the target of terrorism
stemming from Iraq. Especially Northern Iraq should not be a haven
for terrorist networks.

3) In administrations at the national and local level, ethnic and
sectarian differences must be respected. The inattention towards
Turkmens must come to an end.

As a matter of fact, almost all parties (US, EU, Israel, Arab
countries including Iraq’s neighbors) officially adhere to these
sensitivities. The problem is about fulfilling the word. Despite all
official statements, there are countries and groups in Iraq that
support secessionist factions. Some allied countries, including the
US, strengthen separatists with their words or deeds. Especially the
encouragement given to Kurds and Shiites for separation escalates
conflict in the country on the one hand, and worsens the possibility
of ethnic strife in the years ahead. It is not possible whatsoever
for any groups to secede from Iraq and to maintain statehood.
Contrary to expectations, disintegration would not even be to the
instigators’ benefit. For example, the establishment of a Kurdish
state would create a feud between Kurds and Arabs which the region
has of no use. The experience from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
must be recalled and the same mistakes should not be repeated. The
Middle East does not need any further divisions and conflicts but new
unions and integration. In this framework, neither Kurds, nor
Turkmens, nor Shiites, nor any other Iraqi group can afford the
luxury to act unilaterally. They should not create hostility amongst
themselves or encourage other countries’ intervention by acting
unilaterally.

In this respect, it can be said that Turkey has the will and the
means to deliver stability to Iraq. The said will has been proven
over and over again since the Iraq War. As far as the means are
concerned, Turkey’s swelling trade volume with Iraq and its
neighbors, its ever-expanding investments in these countries, and its
growing relations with their governments reflect Turkey’s power. At
this point, Turkey’s power rests on the support it has from the
region. Today, the Syrian Prime Minister not only calls Turkey’s
policies towards Iraq as “correct and constructive,” but also praises
them for being ‘shrewd.’ The relations between Turkey and Syria are
developing at an unprecedented scale. Similarly, Iran is increasing
economic and political cooperation with Turkey particularly in the
field of counter-terrorism. Regarding Iraq especially, the two
countries have given their explicit support to Turkey. This grants a
vital advantage to Turkey, whose relations with the US and Israel is
already robust: regional support.

It is obvious that Turkey can be a major contribution to Iraq.
However, the extent of Turkey’s contribution will be determined by
economic and political limits. Full EU membership would further widen
these limits. Turkey, member of the EU, could make Iraq a less
dangerous place.

The Palestinian Question

The events of September 11 and the aftermath once again confirm that
the Palestinian question does not only concern Israelis and Arabs. It
feeds misunderstandings between civilizations on a global scale, lays
grounds for terrorism, and damages international law, stability, and
security. Even though it is the US that is greatly harmed from this
situation, the special relationship between the US and Israel keeps
Washington from acting as an effective catalyst in solving the
problem. Meanwhile, Arabs and Israelis have proved time and again
that they cannot solve their problems without outside mediation. It
is such that almost no one exists on the world genuinely believing
that Israelis and Palestinians can co-exist. However, this ‘miracle’
did exist in the past. There was a nation in history that let the two
live together peacefully. They were the Turks. During the Ottoman
era, there was almost no widespread ethnic clash in the Middle East.
Jerusalem functioned as a divine location for many religions and
sects while these groups practiced their religions freely under
Ottoman rule. But there is no point in resurrecting the Ottoman
Empire for the sake of good old days. Many empires came about in
history, but few achieved a peace like the peace of Jerusalem. The
secret lies in Turks’ understanding of religion and their historical
and cultural conditions. Embracing Jews who were fleeing Spain,
Turks, never had any anti-Semitic sentiments and clung to their
stance until today. Similarly Turkey did not implement anti-Semitic
policies in the modern times: First of all, “the Turkish Republic
took in hundreds of refugees from Nazi persecution during the 1930s,
including leading professors, teachers, physicians, attorneys,
artists and laboratory workers as well as thousands more less well
known persons.”

As Shaw put it “just as important as providing a haven for Jews who
had lived in the Ottoman Empire for centuries was Turkey’s role in
helping rescue many Jewish Turks who were resident in Nazi-occupied
western Europe during the Holocaust”: The Turkish government not only
refused German demands that it turn over the Jewish refugees for
internment in the death camps but instead it went out of its way to
assist passage into its territory of Jews fleeing from Nazi
persecution in Poland, Greece and Yugoslavia as well as in Western
and Central Europe. As Kiriþçi put it “there are no definite figures
for the number of Jews that benefited from temporary asylum in Turkey
until their resettlement… However, it is estimated that around
100,000 Jews may have used Turkey as their first country of asylum.”
During the Second World War, Turkey was the only continental European
country that refused to turn Jews over to Nazi Germany and
understandably prides itself with this heritage.
Arabs were ruled by the Ottoman administration in the same spirit,
enabling them to keep their language and ethnic roots intact. There
are many Turks who were Arabized in due course but Arabs did not face
remarkable assimilation. Even though the Ottoman past was discredited
first by French and British colonial administrations, and later by
nationalist leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Hafez al-Asad, Turks
still enjoy great reverence in the region. Especially in the Holy
Lands, Turkey is one of the few countries that maintains genuine ties
with both parties notwithstanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Even though it is a Moslem country and directs the harshest
criticisms towards Israel, Turkey has always maintained its
credibility vis-a-vis Israel, and Israelis have refrained from
replying to criticisms in due harshness. For example, the Turkish
Prime Minister at the time, Bülent Ecevit, equated Israel’s
operations against Yasser Arafat to “genocide” while Prime Minister
Tayyip Erdoðan labeled Israel’s policy to assassinate Palestinian
leaders as “state-sponsored terror.” Even though they claimed that
they were “having a hard time in withholding their replies,” Israeli
officials did always underline that Turkey was a real ally for Israel
in the region. As a matter of fact that neither Ecevit’s, not
Erdoðan’s statements are acceptable in terms of diplomacy. It can be
said that even the US cannot raise such harsh criticisms against
Israel. But both Ecevit and Erdoðan, immediately after their remarks,
also stated that they were concerned for Israel as well, and both of
them warned Israel about that these Israeli policies in Palestine
were also going to harm Israel itself. In other words, it was proven
that these censures were not from an enemy, but from an ally.

A similar situation also exists among the public. Many Jews lead
their lives in Turkey without any troubles. In contrast to many
Moslem countries, or even non-Moslem countries for that matter,
anti-Jewish sentiments are very limited. Even though Israeli policies
are disapproved, this disapproval does not translate into racism. The
criticism is against Israel’s policies, not Judaism. In this respect,
as Turkey can function as a mediator between Israel and the Arabs, it
can also work to improve the EU-Israel relationship that has been
deteriorating for some time. At least Turkey’s full membership would
increase the EU’s disposition over the Palestinian question.
Meanwhile, trade between Israel and Turkey is steadily increasing.
The forecast for the coming year is USD 5 billion. Similarly, in
trade relations with Syria and other Arab countries, there is a
geometrical progression. Even a closed regime like Syria, in line
with its trade relations with Turkey, reduces tariffs and takes steps
to increase economic integration. With the ever-increasing commerce
with Turkey, a visible opening up is underway in Syria. Turkey-Syria
trade volume in the 1990s was about 100 million US dollars. When two
countries solved the bilateral political problems, and Syrian
government refrain its support from the terrorist activities in
Turkey the trade between Turkey and Syria rocketed to more than 1
billion US dollars.

Another project undertaken by Turkey is to interconnect energy lines
in the Turkey-Syria-Lebanon-Israel-Jordan-Egypt axis and the
modernization and integration of transport routes in the region.
Water has been another tool that Turkey has used for integration. The
dire need of the region’s countries for water, combined with Turkey’s
offer to carry some of its water to the region through pipelines
would facilitate further convergence. In this respect, Turkey, that
is already sending fresh water to Northern Cyprus via sea-routes, is
also going to deliver water to Israel through the Mediterranean.
Actually, Turkey’s water pipeline project is much broader. The
project that would encompass all of Middle East would bring many
countries from Turkey to Saudi Arabia together around their water
needs.

While Turkey has partially succeeded in struggling to increase the
movement of goods, people, energy and capital between Israel and Arab
countries in the past 25 years, it is apparent that without a strong
supporter like the EU, it will take a long time for these efforts to
fully succeed. With EU membership, as integration will hasten, so
will stability and security in this most troubled region gain a
strong foothold. The EU would have a new market. In the long run, the
aim should be to further integrate Eastern Mediterranean and to
liberalize and democratize the lands from Eastern Europe to North
Africa. In reaching these goals, Turkey stands out with its
relatively strong economy and political system as well as with its
cadre that truly believes in these goals and integration.

To summarize, Turkey’s membership will enhance the EU’s projection to
solve the Palestinian question. Just as with Palestine and Israel,
Turkey can also arbitrate between the EU and the regional parties.
Moreover, Turkey’s policy to harmonize the region’s countries and
peoples through social and economic instruments is in perfect
compatibility with the EU’s outlook and can contribute to the
solution of many of the Middle East’s problems, including the
Palestine-Israel conflict.

Impact On Relations With Iran

With the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran became the symbol of
radical movements in the Islamic world and was perceived as defiance
to the West especially by the US. While this may be an overstatement,
Iran’s experiences since the Revolution clearly illustrate its
failure to integrate to the global system politically and
economically. While the role of the US’s containment policies against
Iran, as well as the manipulation emanating from Israel cannot be
disregarded, neither can Iran’s role. As a matter of fact, Iran does
seek integration with the world and promulgates its corresponding
will. Some countries, including the US have taken some steps to
integrate it to the world system and to make it more receptive to the
outside world. However, the lack of determination on the part of the
sides, flawed methods, lack of patience, lack of vision, and
conjunctural factors failed to deliver success. As a result, Iran was
labeled as a member of the US’s “Axis of Evil.” It was reiterated
that Iran was the next target after Iraq. Meanwhile, Israel
continuously reminded Iran’s intention to produce nuclear weapons and
repeatedly threatened to strike Iran. While the Khatami government
has shown eagerness to make Iran more liberal and democratic in the
recent years, it has failed to achieve that goal. Especially the war
with Iraq left the countries’ liberals weakened even further and in a
sense helped the revolutionaries to renew themselves. In short,
relations between Iran and the West have not normalized since 1979.
However, winning Iran is of utmost importance. First and foremost,
Iran has a very great strategic location. The only non-Arab country
of the Persian Gulf, it has full authority over the Gulf’s eastern
shores and serves as a key to liberalization and democratization in
the Arab world. In the same sense, as a part of the calculations in
the Indian Ocean and south Asia through the Arabian Sea, Iran is also
an important country for Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and southern
Arabia. Having ethnic, religious, and historical relations with
Central Asia, Iran will no doubt deeply affect the region. An
important portion Iran’s population is composed of Azerbaijani Turks
and as a Caucasian state, it is an indispensable part of the regional
equilibrium. In close analysis, it can be seen that Central Asia, the
Caucasus, the Persian Gulf, and the Arab world an important segment
of the world’s energy resources. In this respect, Iran, itself also
an important owner of oil and natural gas, is at the hub of these
reserves. Thus, the securing of the Turkey-Iran route and its nearing
to the EU would suggest that in the future the EU’s energy needs
would be secured.
Iran’s economic potential and the network that it weaves around
itself is important to all; Turkey, the EU, and other powers.
However, Iran’s prime contribution at the present state of affairs
would be to aid inter-civilizational dialogue and the elimination of
religion as a source of violence. As it was pronounced before, Iran
has become the symbol of a radical interpretation of Islam. Even
though it does not support terrorism per se, there is a clear link
between many Iranian-based groups and terrorism. Worst of all,
occasionally even the Iranian administration has a hard time in
controlling these groups. In the same light, many radical groups see
Teheran as a source of inspiration. Intentionally or not, Iran has
become a center of radicalism. Iran’s retreat from its current
symbolic status would first of all be a great spiritual and
ideological blow to religious extremism and cast a green light for
dialogue between various cultures. There are not many centers to
resist a current that would emanate from a wave of positive change in
Iran, combined with the one already in Turkey. In other words, the
inclusion of Teheran to Ankara would make it much simpler for the
integration of the Islamic world to the globe.

The road to Iran’s integration to the world certainly passes from
Iran’s attainment of a more open system. A more liberal economy, a
regime that is more democratic and respectful towards different
opinions, the growth of minority rights and endorsement of human
rights are but the first steps to be taken and all of these are of
equal importance. Meanwhile, Iran has proven time and again that it
will not change due to outside pressure. For Iran to change, help and
encouragement should come from those who resemble it. Pressure should
come from those perceived as friends rather than foes. Transition
should be dictated by necessity. The internal dynamics of Iran,
ethnic and religious, need to be in motion. From this perspective, in
opening Iran to the West and inspiring its inner dynamics, Turkey is
the most suitable country.
First of all, almost half of Iran’s ethnic composition is formed of
Azerbaijani Turks. Speaking Turkish and having historical, cultural,
religious, lingual, and ethnic ties to Turkey and Azerbaijan, these
people are quite open to the change from Turkey. In relaying the
change from Turkey to Iran, this group plays a special part. Second,
Iranians do not perceive a threat from Turkey. Neither has the
Turkish-Iranian border been changed for centuries, nor have the two
countries engaged in a fighting ever since. Accordingly, Turkey’s
counsel would be received more positively than those coming from
elsewhere. Third, Turkey is a Moslem country and is a successful one,
moreover, it does what it says it will do. In other words, Turkey is
not telling Iran to implement a fantasy. On the contrary, it shares
its own experience. Fourth, Turkey does not have an imposing
attitude. It gives priority to mutual security and commercial
relations. To exemplify, the trade between the two countries has
increased dramatically in recent years, along with the construction
of an oil pipeline. Fifth, the benefit that Iran can make by
expanding its relations with Turkey is great and this fact has been
appreciated in the past few years. Turkey is a great market for Iran
in all respects and Iran has much to gain by cooperating with Turkish
firms in the markets that it tries to access. Sixth, during and after
the Iraq War, US policies have alarmed Iran just as they did with
Syria. Iran has seen the need to improve its relations with regional
powers and has approached Turkey. Iran has been one of the countries
that has observed Turkey’s policies with admiration and this has
opened the way for cooperation in all fields. As a matter of fact,
having been lenient towards the PKK for many years, Iran has
conducted military operations in 2004 in line with Turkey’s requests.
Also useful to note that as Turkey captured Abdullah Öcalan, the head
of the PKK, with the help of the US and Israel, it is getting rid of
the remnants of the PKK with the help of Iran and Syria. This case
illustrates how Turkey’s regional policies foster cooperation with
all parties.

To summarize, Turkey is a very important country in opening Iran to
the outside world and setting its inner dynamics into motion. At the
same time, Turkey offers itself as a useful example and guide for the
attempted transformations in Iran. Bearing in mind the failure of
US’s policies in this regard, Turkish partnership would be more than
effective for the EU that seeks alternative approaches to Iran. With
EU membership, a Moslem-Democrat Turkey could be a true model for
Iran and similar countries. It is certain that the EU will also
benefit from this affair. While security problems caused by Iran will
decline, energy routes will safely lead to Europe from Central Asia,
the Caucasus, and the Middle East. Furthermore, the Europe-Indian
Ocean, Europe-Central Asia, and Europe-Middle East transport lines
will become safer. And naturally, the EU will become a more effective
actor in the said areas.

Syria

Syria has a special status in the future of the Middle East, the
solution of the Iraq question, the conclusion of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and the repression of radical religious
violence. When looking at Syria’s political influence in the Arab
world, its importance in shaping the Arab world can be clearly seen.
The demise of the Baathist regime in Iraq increases Syria’s
predominance on Arab nationalism. In mean time, Syria can be taken as
a miniature of the Middle East with its numerous ethnic and religious
groups. Also, due to its special relationship with Lebanon, the two
countries must be considered together. Despite its complex ethnic and
religious setup, Syria and Lebanon have remained relatively peaceful
under the Ottoman Empire. With the 20th century, the two have entered
a period of much conflict and clashing. While Lebanon is struggling
to recover from the wounds of the civil war, the impact of the Iraq
War and the resurgence of religious extremism are sources of much
worry. Atop these worries, the explicit military threats from the US
and Israel make Syria a ‘potential Iraq or Afghanistan’ of the near
future. The question that needs to be asked at this point is whether
the world, the EU, and Turkey can sustain another Iraq or
Afghanistan? While this question is a concern for the world, it is
much more vital for the EU and Turkey. For both, Syria and Lebanon
are neighbors. While Turkey’s proximity is clear, some in the EU are
not yet aware of their neighborhood with Syria. However, there is a
narrow stretch of sea between EU-member Cyprus and Syria and Cyprus
is much closer to Syria than any other EU member. The short distance
through the Mediterranean between the EU and Syria is so marginal
that Syrian ports and lands serve as a staging point for immigration
and illegal smuggling. No matter how distant some people in the EU
would like to think of Syria, the closest EU airfield is only a
half-hour’s flight away.
In short, Syria is both Turkey’s and the EU’s neighbor and a
development similar to that in Iraq will cause substantial losses on
all sides and significantly injure international peace and stability.
Just as in the case of Iraq, if the ‘hawkish’ approach in the US,
together with the ‘Sharon’ factor in Israel, tries to ‘integrate’
Syria to the system by force, this will be a punishment not only to
this country but also to the EU and Turkey. As Al-Qaeda does not have
a breeding ground in Syria at the moment, just as it had not have in
Iraq before the invasion, the organization will choose Syria as its
third base of operation after Afghanistan and Iraq. The instability
in Lebanon in the 1970s and 1980s and its effect on regional turmoil
should be forgotten. Syria’s and Lebanon’s complex ethnic and
religious setup might offer itself as an even better medium than Iraq
for terrorist groups to operate. Hawks claim that they are also aware
of these risks but advocate that there is no peaceful way to
integrate Syria to the global system. However, the change of
administration and the incumbency of Beshar al-Asad in Syria have
created the ideal setting for the country’s connection to the
international community. The country that has most closely felt this
wind of change has been Turkey. Damascus supported leftist groups and
later the PKK, one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the
world, throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s and gave them logistical,
technical, and financial support against Turkey. Today, not only has
Syria withdrawn its support from these groups, it also seeks avenues
of political and economic cooperation with Turkey. This rapid
transformation in the relationship between Turkey and Syria has some
invaluable lessons. The first reason that improved Turkish-Syrian
relations was Turkey’s harsh warning to Syria that it was going to
consider Syria’s support for the PKK and Abdullah Öcalan’s residence
in Syria as an act of war. Unwilling to risk belligerency, Syria
deported Öcalan and signed a document promising not to support
terrorism. As a matter of fact, similar threats did also come from
the US and Israel and these countries’ armed forces are strong enough
to cause worry to the Syrian army. However, neither country has
complemented these military threats with any other tangible action.
Turkey, while warning Syria of the possibility to use force, made it
clear that its intention was not to punish Syria, marginalize it on
the global scene, or to dishonor it, but merely to put an end to
terrorism. As Syria took steps against terrorism, relations improved,
written assurances were exchanged, commercial, political and most
importantly social ties were encouraged to foment between the two
sides. Syria was given time to adjust to the new status quo and care
was taken to avoid any provocation. More than 45 visits have been
made on the ministerial level for the last four years in which many
accords that are making the legal ground for the bilateral ties
inked. While Turkey encouraged the Turkish businessmen to invest in
Syria, the Syrian official bodies have granted facilities for the
investors. Syria’s new leader Bashar Al-Assad paid his first foreign
visit to Turkey in February 2004 and considered the level of
Turkish-Syrian relations almost perfect:

“My visit coincides with a period when Syrian-Turkish relations are
reaching a peak… We have moved together from an atmosphere of
distrust to one of trust. We must create stability from a regional
atmosphere of instability.”

In short, Turkey aimed ‘not to beat up the owner of vineyard, but to
eat grapes’ as an old Turkish maxim puts it. The Iraq War and the
common dangers it delivered have brought Syria closer to Turkey.
Investigating ways to liberalize the country and to open it to the
world, the new Asad administration tried to work with the region’s
countries, especially with Turkey, and expected Turkey in
ameliorating its relations with the West. Meanwhile, there was some
serious progress in bilateral relations. The leaders of the two
countries have exchanged visits. Firstly, effort was made to increase
the trade volume, cross-border commerce, and Turkish investments in
Syria. These steps are yielding surprisingly great results on such a
short amount of time. From tough adversaries, Syria and Turkey have
evolved to become close partners. This swiftness both shows Syria’s
desire to integrate to the world system, and Turkey’s receptiveness
to this desire.
In this respect, it is evident that a Turkey that has become an EU
member or is on the verge of becoming one can contribute greatly on
the question of Syria and Lebanon. On the one hand, Turkey can bring
Syria closer to the EU and the US, play a role in the resolution of
the region’s problems, and on the other, promote the EU’s interest in
the region. It has to be borne in mind that in some of the provinces
of southern Turkey, such as Gaziantep, Adana, Kahramanmaraþ, Mersin,
Hatay, etc. there are many citizens who have close ethnic, religious,
sectarian, and linguistic ties with Syria, along with some families
that are dispersed across the border. The advantages that this may
have on trade and the influence of Turkish investors in introducing
the Syrian market to the EU can be imagined.

When the EU decided to start membership talks with Turkey in 17
December Brussels Summit, Syria hailed the news. Syrian Information
Minister Dr. Mehdi Dahlallah expressed Syria’s support for Ankara’s
bid to join the EU and said “Turkey will be a bridge between Arab
countries and the EU”. Dahlallah told the CAN that Syria is very
pleased that Turkey will be an EU member in the near future, making
them a neighbor to the EU. Similarly Syrian President told Turkish
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan that Syria takes Turkey as a model for
Syria’s foreign policy. Esad said in Erdogan’s Damascus visit on 22
December 2004:

“You (Turkey) follow a honorable foreign policy. We admire of you. We
take you as model for our foreign policy… Turkey’s EU membership
process is being watched by the Arab world. We are pleased, Turkey
will be EU member. This will be crucial for us and for our region.
When you enter the EU we will be neighbor of Europe”.

As a result, the use of force is not the only option to ‘tame’ Syria.
Turkish-Syrian relations offer a priceless experience and opportunity
for the EU and the world. Turkey, working with the EU in tandem on
the question of Syria, can thwart the possibility of a new Iraq War
and can deliver economic and political advantages to itself, Syria,
and the EU.

————————————————-
Sedat LACINER: Director, International Strategic Research
Organization (ISRO-USAK), Ankara and IR lecturer, Onsekiz Mart
University.

–Boundary_(ID_IsenROEHuiSSJPfJs4QdSw)–