INSTEAD OF SHORT PASSES
Ekrem Dumanli

Today’s Zaman
Oct 31 2007

Alright, we are seriously hurt by the terrorism of the Kurdistan
Workers’ Party (PKK) and we want something to be done immediately.

However, it is vital that we keep in mind that he who reacts in a
moment of anger brings destruction upon himself. The greatness of
states is brought out in such critical periods. A country with a
long historical experience cannot challenge everyone by shouting and
screaming like ignorant youths. Every strategic move has a plan B and
a plan C. Unfortunately Turkey’s alternative methods are crippled by
daily reactions.

Take the cross-border operation debate as an example. Is it really a
solution? Let’s say it is; is it such a deep and extensive solution
that it will wipe out the PKK, and even root out the sources it
feeds on? Is what matters satisfying our incited national feelings
or generating reasonable, consistent and logical policies for the
perpetuation of the state? According to some, Turkey will carry out
a cross-border incursion, and that’s it. This is preposterous! Of
course, a cross-border operation may be carried out; however, putting
all hope in a cross-border operation means laying the groundwork
for great frustration because the terrorist group is trying to gain
strength by exploiting a heap of neglected problems and is supported
by foreign forces.

Turkey can never determine its foreign policies based on a single
alternative. Those whom we are supposed to meet without any mediators,
those who are the third parties and those who have to take a stance
against PKK terrorism in the international arena… there are meetings
to be had with each one of them, and the message Turkey needs to give
each one of them is different.

What is currently being debated is whether Talabani would be received
with a military ceremony if he came to Turkey, and how he would greet
the military unit present to welcome him on that visit as well as
how the unit would respond. You cannot cause diplomacy to clog up
like this! Let Turkey not speak to the president of Iraq and let us
come to the verge of war with Iraq; is this what we really want? If
we close all diplomatic channels with Iraqi officials, our options
are reduced to almost none; we are then left with a single choice —
and that might not be a remedy for our troubles. You might not like
the person who is currently the head of the Iraqi state, you might
even hate him; however, when you act as if such a person doesn’t even
exist, you force yourself into taking a certain number of steps only
and you deprive yourself of all the alternatives. On the other hand,
there are many hated heads of state whose behavior gets on normal
people’s nerves, but we meet with them all the same.

We suffer the same trauma in the Armenian trouble. There is a country
called Armenia right next to our northeastern border. It is in need
of Turkey for everything and it has to remain friends with Turkey.

The geopolitical situation urges you to get along well with this
country. However, you try to resolve the Armenian problem by totally
disregarding Armenia, and you try to close all diplomatic channels.

Of course, Armenia has made grave mistakes. Is it possible to get
those mistakes rectified by severing diplomatic ties or by leaving
the door ajar and imposing some sanctions on them by means of coming
into direct contact with them through that half-open diplomatic door?

We need to contemplate these; be calm and cool-headed, and focus on
new diplomatic expansions instead of pushing logic and strategy to
the background.

Nobody is telling you to make concessions that will bring harm to
the interests of the country — and nobody can. However, we should
push every single opportunity that comes our way in order to make
Turkey’s serious stance felt. The most productive choices emanate
from pushing the diplomatic channels to the bitter end. When you try
all diplomatic channels, even a deadlock you may end up with opens
up new paths for you, eliminating opportunities others are likely to
use as a right to object to you.

I have to bitterly note that Turkey’s foreign policies are still
being pushed into the narrow frame of its domestic politics. Even
the most vital issues are used as instruments to create new camps
in society. So long as this disorganization persists within, it will
be very difficult to express ourselves in the international arena. I
wish we could see the entire field with a broader horizon rather than
remaining in confined areas, and take steps accordingly.