Shall Turkey sever all of its relations with countries whose legislative bodies recognize the events of 1915 as genocide? If so, is it compatible with the government policy of establishing cooperative relations with all countries? Such a policy does not fit into the government’s assertive global opening policy.In the recalling of ambassadors and threats to sever bilateral relations I do not see a visionary and proactive position taken by Turkey’s foreign policy makers. Instead they have fallen back to the old “reactionary” policy line. There should be more imaginative policies than recalling the Turkish ambassadors to Washington and Stockholm.
So far what we have seen would have been the line of a nationalist coalition government of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). More imaginative and problem-solving steps should have been taken. This is expected of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), given its performance in the foreign policy arena.
But it appears that the government is settling for a typical “nationalist, pro-status quo position.” This might be the result of domestic political concerns. The government, with its tough stance on the Armenian question, may be trying to restore its “nationalist credentials,” which even some in the AK Party perceive as damaged as a result of the government’s Kurdish initiative. Such a perception is not only wrong but also misleading for policymakers.
First of all the AK Party cannot compete with the CHP and MHP on a “nationalist” stand. They are the “real owners” of the nationalist and isolationist bloc.
Secondly, an exaggerated reaction by the AK Party government on the Armenian issue enflames nationalist fervor in Turkey. If the AK Party does not pursue a policy of cooling down the fervor but instead stirs nationalist sentiments, it may itself be enflamed by this fervor. Such an attitude would only play into the hands of the nationalist bloc, not the AK Party.
The AK Party has the power and prestige to smooth nationalist reactions. What the government should do is just be consistent with its own policy of “zero problem with neighbors.” The failure to implement this policy line on normalizing relations with Armenia further weakens Turkey’s hand. On this the government made a big mistake by not approving the protocols right away after their signature. Surrendering to nationalist reactions coming from Turkish and Azeri quarters and linking the normalization process with that of solving the Karabakh issue were incompatible with the government’s claim to have a “problem-solving” policy stance. The same mistake was committed in 2005 on the Cyprus issue, by not approving the protocol signed to expand the customs union agreement with the EU to include the “government of Cyprus.” The result of this blind policy is the current deadlock in Turkey-EU accession negotiations.
A similar hesitant attitude towards the protocols signed with the government of Armenia has wounded the normalization process. The AK Party government should be brave not only in reopening the old issues but in solving them.
The AK Party leaders, including Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, should note that the “old Turkey,” with its undemocratic mentality and institutions, may make a comeback through foreign policy issues like the Armenian question.
