Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 3

Posted: October 19, 2012 in Sideviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

On the contrary, the prominent pro-government analyst (Part 2) has diagnosed, despite the long-time already known publicly massive Turkish support for armed anti-government fighters in the neighbouring country Syria, in her article, that only other countries and their hostile intentions against Turkey are responsible for the foreign policy problems of Turkey. Thereto she wrote, that Turkey would occasionally behave harsh, inflexible, and “even threatening” against its neighbours.

But she calls this a “reaction”, caused by the rejection of the zero-problem policy on the part of the Turkish neighbours, which has forced Turkey to become an “impending country”. Although it sounds like satire, Beril Dedeoglu means this really serious. And she further explains the details of the Turkish zero-problem-with-neighbour foreign policy, which could thereby stand below the kindly intentioned slogan “and if you are not willing, then I need violence”, in her article.

She wrote, that Turkey has taken, with the exception of Armenia, a serious effort with all its neighbours in order to establish new partnerships and to strengthen the regional stability. But Israel has committed perjury with its assault on Gaza, which has implemented tensions in the bilateral relationship, and the Mavi-Marmara crisis has caused further damage to the relations.

She further wrote that Turkey has become even angrier when Israel has intensified its relations with Azerbaijan and Cyprus in response to the Turkish answer. That the Turkish government has as part of its zero-problem policy made no decisive steps to improve relations with Armenia, one may not blame the lack of will for this so much on the Turkish government like the opposition. But that Turkey has reacted with fury attempts to strengthening relations with third parties among themselves, namely Israel, Azerbaijan and Cyprus, is clearly on the head of the Turkish government.

The pro-government columnist should have actually noted, that the angry, almost jealous attitude of the Turkish government is in a gross contradiction to the principle of Turkey’s zero-problem policy, that Turkey, and since the Turkish policy should be based on principles, as well as in other states, has the freedom to cooperate to their liking with other states.

But she did not notice it, or at least, she has carried it off well. Beril Dedeoglu has further mentioned in her insightful article, that Turkey has taken major risks by protecting Iran in the centre of the nuclear crisis. In exchange, Ankara had then asked Tehran to “let Syria go”.

Turkey was eager to help Syria that Syria is finally able to join the “international system”, and if Iran had agreed to keep its hands off Syria, then Turkey would have been ready to begin a solid partnership with Iran.  But Iran had decided, just as Israel, not to cooperate with Turkey in this “game”. She further wrote in other words, that Iran and Israel would have done everything possible in order to disrupt the politics of Turkey.

Here it is first of all to note, that Beril Dedeoglu contradicts herself. After she had explained a few sentences before, that Turkey would have undertaken serious efforts to build new partnerships with all its neighbours, except for Armenia, she further wrote that Turkey only would build up a solid partnership with Iran when the Iranian governments agrees that a policy change, presumably accompanied by a regime change, must be performed in Syria at the discretion of Turkey.

The Turkish pro-government columnist mentions nowhere, what Syria things about the Turkish intentions that Turkey want to perform a regime change in Syria and is also interested to disrupt the Syrian relations with Iran.

She is also not considering the possibility that Syria is at all not interested to join the “international system”, the WTO (World Trade Organization), NATO, the subjugation to international active banksters (derived from banker and gangster), the Zionism or the USA, or whatsoever she otherwise means with this. However, it becomes clear in her article, that Turkey has done with the support of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations of 2010 for Iran a peace serving pleasure for the region, and then asked for a completely outrageous counter performance, that is also contrary to all the principles of good neighbour relations, namely Turkey has demanded that Iran is reducing its relations to its closest strategic ally Syria as a return service, although the Iran is joined with Syria by a mutual military assistance treaty; Turkey even did this over the head of Syria, and thus, it has simply demanded a betrayal by Iran, that was promptly rejected by Iran.

Rather than to deal with the reality that the Turkish demands to carry out a “regime change” in Syria and to reduce the Iranian-Syrian relations are in a total contradiction to the declared Turkish zero-problem foreign policy and to all the behaviours of good vicinity, she has even accused Iran that it disturbs the Turkish politics.

Quite self-evidently, the pro-government columnist is convinced that the mighty Turkey has the right to perform a regime change in foreign countries as desired and to determine which relationships the neighbouring states should maintain among themselves.

Further, Beril Dedeoglu also reports, that the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) has simultaneously played a key role in accelerating the process of damaging the zero-problem approach of Turkey. Here, Beril Dedeoglu reverses the cause and effect. Wherein the strengthening of the armed group PKK, which is fighting against the government of Turkey, has its cause, however, is not further mentioned by Beril Dedeoglu.

But if she would explain it carefully, then she would notice the finding, that the Syrian government on the one hand has currently to use a lot of security forces to fight against the Turkey-supported armed groups in north-west Syria, which are fighting against the Syrian government, and that as a result of this, open spaces arise for the armed supporters of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) in the north-eastern Syria, and that Turkey is on top pumping a lot of weapons into the Syrian black market, what is likely to significantly ease the access of the PKK to weapons.

The problem would be effectively to combat if the Turkish government would cooperate with the Syrian government in the fight against the cross-border terrorism, instead to promote the cross-border terrorism with all the tricks.

So it’s totally the other way around as the pro-government columnist asserts: the strengthening of the PKK has a significant cause in the fact that Turkey has deviated from the zero-problem policy and also because Turkey has systematically denied the neighbourly cooperation with Syria in combating the cross-border terrorism.

In addition, Beril Dedeoglu makes the presumption, that Israel and Iran would have their short-term interest in mind and that they notice that Turkey is increasingly gaining influence in the region and, therefore, they would oppose the Turkish policy, despite the fact that the Turkish policy would offer to them the survival and security of their states.

How Turkey, which is in the need of foreign military equipment, investment and energy, should be able to offer the nuclear power Israel, and the regional power Iran, which could not be compelled by the super power U.S. after three decades, some “guarantees for their survival and their security”, is left in the dark by Beril Dedeoglu, because if she would seriously explain this further, she would have to asses, that Turkey has not the abilities to give any security guarantees to these regional powers, even if one would assume that Turkey would really have this honest intention(s).

If Iran should have the desire as victorious in the US-led war against Iraq to become a post-modern colony of the U.S., just as Turkey, then the Iran would certainly not need the help of Turkey to fill in the agreement of subordination to the United States, i.e. the membership application to NATO. Here, the Turkish megalomania is openly revealed, beside the utter disregard of the intentions of Israel and Iran on the desirable influential role of Turkey in the region.

Istanbul, Turkey

Istanbul, Turkey

But not enough. Beril Dedeoglu explains in the next few paragraphs, that what is going on would be much larger than Israel or Iran. Turkey’s policy and growing influence in the axis Caucasus-Eastern Mediterranean would have disturbed many other countries, which would probably think, it would be better for their own interests if Turkey would have tense relations with all its neighbours, as the pro-government columnist further mentions in her article in the newspaper “Today`s Zaman”, that is the most important English-language mouthpiece of the Turkish government. What Beril Dedeoglu is doing, is to spread a classic conspiracy theory.

The mighty Turkey, which was able to offer to Israel and Iran guarantees of survival and security, as just mentioned in the previous paragraph, is now allegedly prevented by many countries to establish tension-free relations with its neighbours, because these countries would not be happy about the growing influence of Turkey in the region, just as if it would not have been Turkey itself that has damaged the newly constructed zero-problem’s relations with its neighbours in the previous months by the, born in megalomania, anger, the threats of war and the imperiousness.

Beril Dedeoglu wrote in the next paragraph, to these countries, that would sabotage the relations between Turkey and its neighbours, because they did not like the growing Turkish influence, the USA of Obama would be definitely not be a part of them. In fact, Russia does appear too often in the background, if one looks at Avigdor Lieberman’s Israel, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Syria, Iran and Cyprus.

But Russia could well be able to contribute to the Turkish foreign policy while retaining its good relations with these countries. That would mean that Russia would not have enough reasons to push Turkey out of the “game”. That shall be the reason why it should be not so important to look alone at Russia to find all the answers. Beril Dedeogl further elaborates, that it would be more informative to take a look at the sides with whom Russia is establishing strategic relationships.

Thus, Beril Dedeoglu also sees the good Russian relationships with many of the countries with which Turkey has problems, and she sees simultaneously, that Russia has no strategic interest to stop the growing influence of Turkey, but she refuses to state the obvious conclusion, namely, that the Turkish problems with its neighbours are based on the aggressive and domineering Turkish behaviour.

The columnist overlooks the fact that Russia sees its important foreign interests in order to secure its territorial integrity, and also for the security of its soft Islamic southern flank, in the “near abroad” of the Asian countries that belong to the former Soviet Union and in Iran, and there were already vast attempts of a destabilization by NATO countries in the past few years, which have, according to the strategy of the green belt with Islamist indoctrinated terrorists that was pursued in the 70s by Zbigniew Brzezinski, severely damaged Russia.

Beril Dedeoglu concludes as keen as a razor that there must be something different behind the Russian policy than the direct Russian interest, because after all, the superpower Turkey permits its neighbour Russia to contribute to the Turkish foreign policy, and even in areas, where, as in the Caucasus and Central Asia, large Turkish interests are affected, and thereby, following the columnist, the conflicts of interests with Russia to exclude.

Also the idea that the wannabe regional power Turkey would permit the superpower of Russia to contribute in the near abroad, which is of a strategic importance for Russia, to “the Turkish foreign policy”, testifies the Turkish megalomania.

The reason what it should be, that is said to be behind the fact, that Turkey has growing problems with its neighbours, is stated by the prominent columnist Beril Dedeoglu in the next paragraph of her article in the main English-language pro-government newspaper of Turkey. Russia and the United States would seek to maintain a balance in their bilateral relations, but the balance would have two fragile components: The EU under the influence of the French-German axis and Turkey.

These two components have been asked to keep the balance, but the EU has not agreed to play its role and instead, the EU has pushed away Turkey. So Turkey has then decided to move closer to the U.S., while Russia has decided to cooperate with the EU. Beril Dedeoglu concludes her article with the words, that it could be clearer by this, what interests of which states are served with the situation when Turkey should fall into problems with all its neighbours.

To be continued…

Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 1

Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 2

Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 4

Source: nocheinparteibuch.wordpress.com


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s