Sunday’s Zaman, Turkey
March 21 2010

Does recalling envoys really work as a foreign policy tool?

The presidents of Turkey’s leading think tanks recognize the
diplomatic message conveyed by recalling ambassadors but question its
effectiveness, particularly in the recent case of Turkey, which
employed the tactic in reaction to the passage earlier this month of
Armenian resolutions in the United States and Sweden.

Turkey first recalled Namık Tan, Turkish ambassador to the US, and
then Ambassador to Sweden Zergün Korutürk upon the approval of
resolutions branding the Word War I-era killings of Armenians
`genocide.’ Though both of the ambassadors are still in Ankara rather
than occupying their posts in the capitals they were appointed to,
Turkey seems to have reaped the fruits of its move as apologies
hastily flew in both from the US and Sweden. However, while some
well-known strategists in Turkey were not satisfied with the country’s
diplomatic move and found it rather counterproductive, claiming that
Turkey’s missions there were left with limited capabilities without
top diplomats, others argued that Turkey should not be too optimistic
about the ramifications of its actions and should not assume the
problems were completely solved after its move. Speaking to Sunday’s
Zaman, the presidents of Turkey’s leading think tanks analyzed
`recalling ambassadors’ as a diplomatic tool, particularly in the
context of Turkey’s recent frustration with the US and Swedish
resolutions.
`It is the lightest way of displaying a diplomatic reaction. However,
it cannot be a measure on its own, and it cannot be claimed that the
problem is solved as a result, ‘ said Professor Sedat Laçiner of the
International Strategic Research Organization (USAK). He added that,
however, he thought Turkey achieved what it was aiming for through
recalling its ambassadors. `It was a message particularly to the US,
and I think Korutürk was recalled just to maintain a consistent
reaction,’ he said. While asked if recalling ambassadors could hinder
Turkey’s representation there, he noted that presently Tan and
Korutürk are more useful in Ankara than they could have been in
Washington and Stockholm.

Turkey accepts that many Armenians died in the 1915 incidents, which
also claimed the lives of Turks, Kurds and other inhabitants of the
region at the time, but strongly denies the killings on the Armenian
side were systematic and constituted genocide. Turkey’s proposal to
open state archives for historians to study the relevant documents and
conclude the dispute was not welcomed by Armenia, which refuses entry
to its own archives. The resolutions in the US and Sweden narrowly
passed on March 4 and 11, respectively, immediately after which Turkey
recalled its envoys from both countries.

Süleyman Å?ensoy of the Turkish Asian Center for Strategic Studies
(TASAM) slightly differed from Laçiner in his assessment of Turkey’s
move, where he put a particular emphasis on the need for employing
tools of public diplomacy rather than coercive measures. `Recalling
ambassadors has its place in professional diplomatic language, and if
you do not give a proper reaction in the first place, the consequences
may worsen, too. However, a reaction to a decision taken under
pressure of non-state actors as was the case in the Armenian
resolutions should also be in the form of campaigns carried out by
non-state actors,’ he said, detailing his suggestion by stating
potential roles that could be played by NGOs and universities. `Ways
out of such matters certainly pass through public diplomacy,’ he
concluded.

Recalling ambassadors counterproductive

Stressing that the action should have definitely been more coercive,
Turkish Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies
(TÃ`RKSAM) President Sinan OÄ?an stated that recalling ambassadors was
too weak a measure against political decisions taken by states without
having substantial information regarding a historical dispute.
`Carrying out genocide is the heaviest of all crimes, and it is
terribly wrong for states that are not even aware of what really
happened almost 100 years ago to make political decisions here.
Nothing could therefore be more natural than Turkey reacting to them,
but the way to do that should have certainly been more coercive.
Recalling an ambassador carries no meaning other than giving a
message. And the message here was too weak,’ he said.

OÄ?an further argued that Turkey is essentially restricting the
capabilities of its missions abroad by recalling its ambassadors. He
said economic sanctions would always work better as they directly
affect states’ interests even in the short term. `Simply keeping them
out of public tenders is a brilliant option,’ he illustrated. OÄ?an
added that country-based measures should also be devised rather than
using the same generic method for all. `For example, if someone really
needed to be recalled to have extensive talks, I think the commander
of the Turkish troops serving with coalition forces in Afghanistan was
a better choice to put pressure on the US,’ he said.

21 March 2010, Sunday
MUSTAFA EDÄ°P YILMAZ Ä°STANBUL