Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 29 2007
Dialogue at Home, Dialogue in the World
Ali Aslan
The attendance of tens of thousands in the funeral of Turkish citizen
of Armenian descent and democracy martyr Hrant Dink demonstrated the
social dialogue attempts mostly led by religious civil initiatives
have started bearing fruits.
Turkey is in extreme need of dialogue at home and dialogue in the
world. And as a matter of fact, Turkey’s strategy of "zero problem
with the neighbors" contributed a great deal to our national security
by facilitating the dialogue and engagement with formerly hostile
regimes. However, the circle of peace is still missing some
indispensable parts.
Syria, an old times’ enemy of ours that we accused of protecting the
PKK and threatened with resorting to military means, is now a buddy.
Even our difficult-to-move President Sezer paid a visit to Damascus.
That is to say, establishing good ties with Syria is a ‘state
policy’. The rapprochement with Iran with which Turkey has long put a
distance because of its suspected support to PKK and eagerness to
export its Islamic regime is also striking. Old enemies Bulgaria and
Greece are now viewed as future partners in EU. It is pretty wise to
end tension policies that wasted Turkey’s energy and resulted in
allocation of our national wealth in defense expenditures. However,
Turkey is still suffering from lack of dialogue in regards to the
policies pursued vis-à-vis Iraq, Armenia and Cyprus.
Merely dialogue cannot guarantee to safeguard all mutual interests in
international relations. However, trying to stay connected with other
actors -friend or hostile- is the best strategy. In the long run,
dialogue would eradicate much of the hostilities. A Turkish saying
implies that sweet talk gets even the snake out of its nest. Dialogue
and sweet talk in foreign policy helps keeping the enemy in the nest?
Viewing dialogue attempts in advance as concessions is simply wrong.
Those who know the rules of foreign policy game for instance
criticize Bush administration for viewing dialogue and engagement
with Iran and Syria as a concession. Pragmatically, they even suggest
engagement with the Iranian regime, a vigorous enemy of U.S. They do
not think in the line of neo-cons who basically suggest, ‘We are a
super power, so we may talk whoever we like, and even without talking
U.S. can achieve its foreign policy goals.’ A Turkey fast advancing
towards being a
regional super power should draw lessons from policy failures of
U.S., a global super power.
Turkish foreign policy makers, under the bold initiative of the
current administration, has made a striking move in regards to Cyprus
policy by supporting the Annan plan which was essentially based on
dialogue and engagement. Some argue that Turkey did not benefit from
this move as the West did not sufficiently keep its promises to end
the isolation of Turkish Cypriots. However, the move essentially made
Turkey more prestigious in international arena and contributed to its
bilateral relations with especially some Western countries. Much of
the world does not see Turkey as responsible for the deadlock
anymore, since Greek side is now viewed as the uncompromising party.
The rigid stance of the Greek Cypriot government will sooner or later
hurt them.
Turkey has no diplomatic relations with Armenia. However,
constructive messages are exchanged between the parties through
unofficial means. Yet, the public opinions in both countries make it
hard to develop concrete dialogue and engagement projects. It was a
smart decision to invite leading figures from the Armenian
administration to Dink’s funeral as they had the opportunity to
witness the tolerant side of Turkish nation. Considering the positive
climate, the Armenians declared they were ready for unconditional
diplomatic negotiations. Those latest developments excited Washington
administration as well. They now wish if Turkey develops an offer and
publicly delivers it to Yerevan via a special representative. They
say such an act would also help with US administration’s efforts
against the Armenian genocide bill resolution expected to be
introduced in Congress.
Combating PKK and protecting national interests in Kirkuk also
require dialogue and engagement with especially Kurdish elements in
Northern Iraq. During the periods when Turkey was engaged with the
Kurdish leaders, it secured notable achievements in combating PKK in
Northern Iraq. However, today because we do not want to talk with the
Kurdish leaders, we constantly we constantly turn to US to address
the PKK issue. Of course, we have every reason to expect more from US
to alleviate Turkey’s security concerns. But eventually, PKK is not a
direct threat to the US interests; so it is only natural for them to
adopt a relatively lenient approach in this particular case.
Americans contend that Turkey’s direct engagement with Kurdish
leaders, including Barzani and Talabani, will be more fruitful for
both Turkey and the US. I agree.
In modern times permanent victories can only be achieved by surges of
dialogue. Real conquest is winning hearts and minds. Military tactics
are increasingly ineffective, since international law and global
public opinion increasingly tend to protect the weak. In the light of
these facts, Turkey should do better in implementing its strategy of
‘zero problem with neighbors’ in Armenia, Iraq and Cyprus.