Turkish Columnists argue that it is time Turkey put on the brakes

Columnist Mehmet Ali Birand, writing in Turkish daily Hurriyet Daily News (online, 26.09.11), under the title: “It may be time to put on the brakes a little”, published, inter alia, the following commentary:

“Turkey’s foreign policy actions and the Prime Minister’s speeches have created the impression among both the international as well as the Turkish public that Ankara has begun showing its muscles for the first time and initiated a show of strength in the region.

Turkey today is viewed in many of the world’s capitals as ‘a country that is ready to engage in a contention or one that is even seeking an opportunity to do so’.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

It is out of question for Ankara to use its armed forces unless provoked or utterly forced to do so. One reason for the emergence of such an image has to do with events pushing Turkey in this direction. Another reason is the desire to intimidate now, so as to prevent more dangerous situations that could eventually arise in the future. The point, however, that everyone highlights is the abundance of speeches and the continual mounting of tensions through the choice of words.

The impression among the international public, in fact, began spreading with the conflict with Israel, the scuffle with Syria and southern Cyprus’ [Republic of Cyprus] gas exploration initiative.

Eyebrows have risen even further, when the statement is added on top that the ‘Turkish presence in the Mediterranean is going to increase. The Turkish Navy’s power is going to be reinforced’.

It seems, however, that the time has arrived to put on the brakes.

Even though such an image was born due to incidents not in Turkey, in the end, it is still we who have to pay the price.

Particularly Ankara and the Foreign Ministry are displeased about this appearance. I personally felt this over one week in New York…

It was the scuffle with Israel that most seriously disrupted Turkey’s external image.

The gas exploration efforts of southern Cyprus have also produced increasing rumours that ‘Ankara is muddying up the waters in the Mediterranean’.

Officials from the Foreign Ministry ask ‘What were we supposed to do? Tell them to go ahead and explore?’ They point out that this development took place independently of Turkey and that Turkey was forced to flex its muscles in consequence.

If one reason why southern Cyprus abruptly decided to explore for gas reserves at an unexpected moment is to increase tensions prior to negotiations in October, another reason is the rehearsals for next year’s presidential elections. President Demetris Christofias wants to project the image of a strong President.

On the other hand, it is an issue of curiosity how he will respond to the initiative of the TRNC [breakaway regime] on this matter.

No matter what, Cyprus has also paved the way for Turkey to wave its flag in the Mediterranean.

Even if responsibility belongs to southern Cyprus, Turkey has to pay the bill for its sternness.”

On the same issue, columnist Barcin Yinanc, writing in HDN (online, 26.09.11), under the title: “Permanent election campaign or tactical strategy?”, published, inter alia, the following commentary:

“‘I am no longer surprised by the surprise capacity of the Turkish Prime Minister’, said an observer on Turkey who is based in Brussels. Yet, Turkey’s policies continue to be a source of confusion in Brussels, which is understandable given the contradictory signals coming from Turkey. The Government’s Syria policy has shifted 180 degrees. Turkish envoys, who were trying to convince Europeans of the need to soften the isolation policy toward Damascus, are now encouraging Brussels to implement stronger sanctions against Syria.

Just a year ago, Turkey was seen as the main stumbling block against NATO’s plans to adopt a missile defence system. Now, Turkey has become a key country for the implementation of this system as it has agreed to host the U.S. radars.

Turkey’s realignment with Western policies has pleasantly surprised Brussels, but it is in turn perplexed by the Prime Minister’s harsh rhetoric on the Kurdish issue as well as the Cyprus problem.

‘It seems that Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan is in a permanent election campaign’, said another Turkey observer in Brussels. Turkey observers find it hard to understand why he is opting for a military solution in contrast to the expectation that he would push ahead with his democratic opening following his huge election victory. The reaction to Greek Cyprus’ decision to start drilling for natural gas is also seen as disproportionate.

Greek Cypriot leader Demetris Christofias, who is in a difficult situation both at home and abroad, has proved to be successful at diverting the attention from himself to Ankara, which seems to have fallen into that trap by using a harsh rhetoric. Yet Christofias might be falling into his own trap as well.

The Cyprus issue has long disappeared off the world’s radar screen; military escalation could well put Cyprus back on the agenda, resulting in more pressure on both sides of the island to heat up the peace talks.

There is ample experience on managing crisis diplomacy with the Turkey/Greece/Cyprus trio. Yet we have no track record on possible military escalation between Turkey and Israel. The Mavi Marmara experience showed that things can get out of control despite phone calls between three capitals.

At some stage (which will probably come following a change in government in Israel), realities on the ground are going to necessitate a reconciliation with Israel. At that stage, I would not be surprised if Turkey turns a blind eye to sharing the information coming from the radars based in Turkey with Israel and even starts negotiations to buy Israel’s Arrow ballistic missile defence system.