The Debate of Axis Shift and Turkey-Middle East Relations

Foreign policy of a state can be analyzed at system level, state level or individual level. At system level analysis, the effect of the system on states’ foreign policies are examined through defining a system paying attention to factors such as the structure of the system, alliances, distribution of power and blocs, etc. The Realist, Neo-Realist and Globalist paradigms analyze states’ foreign policies at the system level.

Besides, theoretical approaches that analyze foreign policies at the state level assume that factors such as states’ capabilities, interests, approaches and vital interest definitions influence states’ foreign policies.

Those theoretical approaches that analyze states’ foreign policies at the individual level analyze foreign policies of states by considering the decision-makers, bureaucratic structure, social structure and public opinion.

It is possible to analyze Turkey’s Middle East policy in all three levels. In this context, the factor that determined Turkish foreign policy after 1918 is the systemic structure rather than the domestic structure. As stated in several circles, the new Republic had been consolidating itself by emulating the West in economic, cultural and political aspects, thus did not look towards the Middle East. However, such debates neglect the political and military structure in the Middle East after 1918.

It is well known that Middle East has gone under the military, political and cultural hegemony of the great powers after 1918. Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine and the Gulf countries were under political and military dominance of Britain. In other words, Britain was the power that controlled the Iraqi side of the Turkish-Iraqi border. The British occupation in Iraq lasted until the 1958 coup d’etat as a de facto situation. The British influence in Iran lasted until the beginning of the 1950s. Britain’s political influence  over the Gulf countries except the Saudi Arabia remained until 1971. The British influence in Jordan still persists. Keeping in mind the fact that Britain was one of the most powerful countries in that period, it is obvious that Turkey cannot have a foreign policy toward Iraq of Qatar without considering Britain.

Besides, France emerged as a military and political power in the Middle East after the First World War as well. France established a military control over Syria and Lebanon and ruled those countries until the end of the Second World War. It is not realistic to ask why there were no relations between Turkey and Lebanon at that era. Within the same period, the Soviet Union has emerged as a great power, and conquered the whole of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Therefore, there were only Britain, France and Soviet Union for Turkey to establish relations and until the end of the Second World War, Turkey dealt with those states in economic and military aspects.

After the Second World War, the Middle East came under the influences of the USA and Soviet Union. The US sought to fill the void that emerged after Britain withdrew, and the Soviet Union cooperated with anti-Western regimes. Syria, Egypt and Iraq were under the Soviet military and political influence, while other states including Iran were under the US protection. As the Middle East was subjected to the Cold War competition, Turkey joined NATO due to the Soviet threats after the Second World War. The USSR’s rhetoric of military intervention in the crisis between Turkey and Syria in 1957-1958 demonstrated the extent of the great powers’ influence in the Middle East. The coup d’état sponsored by the CIA against Dr. Musaddeq, 1967, 1973 the Arab-Israeli War, the Civil War in Lebanon between 1975-1990, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s prevented Turkey’s normalization of relations with the Middle East. Therefore, it was not possible for Turkey to assume new roles in the Middle East during the Cold War.

Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, just after the Cold War’s end, has left its mark on the new period and paved way for the military control of the region by the West. Engagement by the US, British and French forces in the region due to the application of sanctions against Iran has hindered states such as Turkey to enter the region. That military presence, which was deployed in Turkey and Kuwait except the US military bases, prevented Turkey to develop an independent policy. It should be reminded that even Iran has resorted to moderate policies at that period.

However, the situation in the Middle East started to change after the United States’ invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 2003. With the invasion of Iraq, the US sought to control the Middle East with its close ally Britain. Nevertheless in 2005, the US failed in restructuring Iraq in military, political and economic aspects, in the way that it desired. A power void has emerged in the region, and global and regional powers sought to fill that void towards their individual political and economic interests. Iran had been the state, which was firstly aware of the changing situation and tried to expand its influence in the Middle East in a short time. Today, Iran is an influential state in the areas from Lebanon to Yemen. The Israel-Lebanon War in 2006 was in a way a war, in which Iran tested its strength. In this war, Israel, with the US explicit confirmation, fought for a total of thirty four days, however failed to destroy the military capability of Hezbollah. After that, the Gaza War and the Yemen Civil War was other areas in which the power struggle took place.

The struggle over Iraq goes on in an aggressive way, if one looks at the events during and after the March 2010 Elections. The US is gradually losing this struggle. The alliance of two Shiite parties, which was formed to hinder the Sunni’s rise to power, helped the Shiites retain the political power. Those developments are not independent from the Iranian influence. Although the US administration has supported Allawi’s list, its support were not enough to secure the post of prime minister for Allawi. Iran tries to protect the Shiite character of Iraq after the elections, in an aggressive way.  

From these points forth, it is not possible to ignore the historical balance of power in the Middle East, while analyzing Turkey’s foreign policy toward the Middle East. Especially, it must be seen that the US influence in the Middle East has been weakened, despite its military presence. Except the Özal period, Turkey has failed to grasp that the Cold War ended and there is a vacuum of power in the Middle East in the period 1990-2000. In the post-Ozal period, Ecevit was the leader that understood the change in the Middle East, and he showed that Turkey is an important power in the Middle East problems by criticizing Israel for committing “genocide”. After this, the former President of Turkey Ahmed Necdet Sezer went to Damascus for a historical visit despite all the opposition from the United States, which showed that Turkey started to understand the change in the region and at the global level.

The instability and conflicts after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 intensified the debates for the power vacuum in the region. The debates claimed that the US is not a power that is able to organize the Middle East. From this point on, Turkey found the opportunity to become an influential actor in economic and political aspects, for the first time after 1918. Turkey started to promote its interests in the region passively in 2000, in an active way after 2003, and in a pro-active way after 2006. In the period 2000-2003, Bulent Ecevit showed interest in the Palestinian question and made contacts with the Saddam regime. Between 2003-2006, Ahmet Necdet Sezer’s visit to Syria, conferences of Iraq’s neighbors, and talks with Iran showed that Turkey started to carry on an independent foreign policy. In the pro-active period exemplary developments are Turkey’s reaction to the Lebanon war in 2006 and its troop deployment in Lebanon, the radical change in the relations with Israel, taking an active role in the restructuring of Iraq, establishing strategic cooperation with Syria and the Gulf states, and providing the free movement of people and goods in an area comprising Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

 In a nutshell, Turkey’s move towards the Middle East is related to the systemic change in the power setting, rather than a shift in foreign policy axis. It is possible but not sufficient to provide a foreign policy analysis without considering the changes in the power setting of the system. However, Turkey has to solve its domestic problems with reference to global values, in order to boost its leverage in the Middle East and in global scale. Keeping in mind Turkey’s historical experience that is inherited from the Ottoman Empire, Turkey has the knowledge and experience to solve current problems. It is suitable to end this article with the phrase often used by students of International Relations. “There is no constant friend or foe in international relations. Foreign policy is a body that interests and struggle for power are realized through rational policies. Any change in the system will inevitably influence the behaviors of the actors within the system.”

»» Click here to access the full text of the article