/ 13Cornell: Turkish Foreign Policy

Changes in Turkey

Svante E. Cornell is research director of the Cen-tral Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Stud-ies Program, affiliated with Johns HopkinsUniversity’s School of Advanced InternationalStudies and the Stockholm-based Institute forSecurity and Development Policy.

AKP CHANGES FOCUSFROM WEST TO EAST

The basic tenets that guided Turkey’s for-eign policy since the founding of the republicincluded caution and pragmatism—especiallyconcerning the Middle East. An imperial hang-

curity infrastructure although more uneas-ily than before, but has a rupture with theWest already taken place, and if so, is itirreversible?

1 Hürriyet (Istanbul), June 13, 2011.

What Drives TurkishForeign Policy?

by Svante E. Cornell

T urkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkønma Partisi,AKP) was reelected to a third term in June 2011. This remarkable achievementwas mainly the result of the opposition’s weakness and the rapid economic

growth that has made Turkey the world’s sixteenth largest economy. But Ankara’sgrowing international profile also played a role in the continued public support for theconservative, Islamist party. Indeed, in a highly unusual fashion, Prime Minister RecepTayyip Erdoðan began his victory speech by saluting “friendly and brotherly nationsfrom Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, Amman, Cairo, Sarajevo, Baku, and Nicosia.”1

“The Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Balkans have won as much as Turkey,” heclaimed, pledging to take on an even greater role in regional and international affairs.By 2023, the republic’s centennial, the AKP has promised Turkey will be among theworld’s ten leading powers.

At the same time, Turkey’s growing profile has been controversial. As Ankaradeveloped increasingly warm ties with rogue states such as Iran, Syria, and Sudanwhile curtailing its once cordial relations with Israel and using stronger rhetoric againstthe United States and Europe, it generated often heated debates on whether it hasdistanced itself from the West. Turkey continues to function within the European se-

14 / MIDDLE EAST QUARTERLY WINTER 2012

over from the Ottoman era drove home the lessonthat Ankara had little to gain and much to losefrom interjecting itself into the acrimonious poli-tics of the region. Notwithstanding occasionaldifferences with the Western powers, Ankaraconcentrated on playing a role within Europe.

The AKP appeared to maintain this courseduring its first term (2002-07) as seen in its focuson EU harmonization as a means to join the union.But in its second term (2007-11) it departed sig-nificantly from this approach. Guided by the con-cept of “strategic depth” elaborated by Erdoðan’slong-term advisor-turned-foreign-minister AhmetDavutoðlu, Ankara increasingly focused on itsneighborhood with the stated goal of becoming adominant and stabilizing force, one that wouldfunction as an honest broker and project its eco-nomic clout throughout the region and beyond.2

The official slogan, which could be calledthe Davutoðlu doctrine, was “zero problems withneighbors.” Ankara rapidly developed relations

with the Syrian govern-ment to the level of a stra-tegic partnership; Turk-ish officials also begancultivating closer eco-nomic and political tieswith the Iranian and Rus-sian governments, bothlarge energy providers tothe growing Turkisheconomy. It also reached

out to the Kurdish administration of northern Iraq,a previously unthinkable move. In another boldbut ultimately failed move, the AKP leadershipsought to mend fences with Armenia; its prede-cessors had never established diplomatic rela-tions with Yerevan due to its occupation sincethe early 1990s of a sixth of Turkic Azerbaijan’sterritory, including the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh.

These moves were generally welcomed in theWest. Critics in Washington deplored Ankara’sovertures to Tehran and Damascus, but the in-

coming Obama administration went on to developrather similar outreach policies of its own. TheAKP argued that it could function as an inter-locutor with these regimes on Turkey’s borderwith which Brussels and Washington had onlylimited ties and that a more active Turkey wouldalso benefit the West. Ankara’s eagerness to me-diate in regional conflicts also brought goodwill.The Turkish government offered its good officesin bridging differences between Syria and Israel,Afghanistan and Pakistan, and between the rivalPalestinian factions of Fatah and Hamas. West-ern leaders generally gave the AKP the benefit ofthe doubt as it assured them that its outreachcould help moderate rogues and bring them withinthe international system.

AN AXIS SHIFT

Yet Ankara’s actual course soon began todeviate substantially from its official narrative.Three issues in particular have generated con-cern about the AKP’s foreign policy intentions:Iran, Israel, and Sudan—and more recently, re-newed belligerence on Cyprus.

Ankara’s policy of engagement with Tehranwas welcomed as long as it was influencing theIranians, rather than the other way around. ButErdoðan and his associates soon began to moveaway from the stated objective of acting as a me-diator between Iran and the West, becoming in-creasingly outspoken defenders of Tehran’snuclear program. In November 2008, Erdoðanurged nuclear weapons powers to abolish theirown arsenals before meddling with Iran.3 Soonafterwards he termed Ahmadinejad a “friend”4 andwas among the first to lend legitimacy to the Ira-nian president by congratulating him upon hisfraudulent and bloodstained election in June2009.5 Turkish leaders then began to publicly jux-tapose the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons with

2 See, for example, Ahmet Davutoðlu, Stratejik Derinlik:Türkiye’nin Uluslararasø Konumu (Istanbul: Küre Yayønlarø,2001).

Ankarabecame thechief castigatorof Israel ininternationalforums.

3 Hürriyet, Nov. 17, 2008; The Economist (London), Nov. 27,2008.4 The Guardian (London), Oct. 26, 2009; Sofia (Bulgaria)Echo, Oct. 26, 2009.5 Svante E. Cornell, “Iranian Crisis Catches the TurkishGovernment off Guard,” Turkey Analyst, June 19, 2009; Hürriyet,Feb. 2, 2010.

/ 15

Iran’s covert program,6 andin November 2009, ab-stained from a sanctionsresolution at the Interna-tional Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA) againstTehran that both Moscowand Beijing supported.7 InMay 2010, in a display ofdefiance, Erdoðan and Bra-zilian president Luiz InàcioLula da Silva made a well-publicized appearance inTehran on the eve of a U.N.Security Council vote ona new round of sanctionson Iran, holding handswith Ahmadinejad and an-nouncing their alternativediplomatic proposal tohandle the Iranian nuclearissue.8 In the scope of two years, Ankara hadbecome Tehran’s most valuable internationalsupporter.

The breakdown of Turkey’s alliance with Is-rael is another cause of concern. The AKP at firstsought to mediate between Syria and Israel aswell as between the two Palestinian factions, Fatahand the Islamist Hamas.9 Yet in 2007, followingHamas’s violent takeover in the Gaza Strip, An-kara broke the Western boycott of the movementwhen it invited Hamas leader Khaled Mesh’al toAnkara.10 Following Israel’s offensive againstHamas in December 2008-January 2009, Ankarabecame the chief castigator of Israel in interna-tional forums.11 In January 2009, Erdoðan fa-mously walked out of an event at the DavosWorld Economic Forum after starting a shoutingmatch with Israeli president Shimon Peres; Tur-

key subsequently disinvited Israel from plannedjoint military exercises under the NATO aegis.12

By the spring of 2010, a nongovernmental orga-nization closely connected to the AKP, the Hu-manitarian Relief Foundation, designed and imple-mented the notorious Gaza flotilla13 aimed at put-ting Israel in an untenable position regarding itsblockade of the Hamas-controlled territory. Wheneight Turkish citizens were killed in fierce clasheswith Israeli commandos boarding the ship,Davutoðlu called the event “Turkey’s 9/11,”14 anda series of Turkish leaders threatened to cut offdiplomatic relations with Israel while Erdoðanstated in no uncertain terms that he did not con-sider Hamas a terrorist organization.15 Ankara laterdowngraded diplomatic relations with Israel tothe level of second secretary.

More worrisome is Erdoðan’s military pos-turing, including threats of confrontation with Is-rael. In September 2011, he argued that Turkeywould have been justified in going to war with

Cornell: Turkish Foreign Policy

6 Middle East Online (London), Mar. 17, 2010; The WallStreet Journal, Apr. 8, 2010.7 Reuters, Nov. 27, 2009.8 The Economist, May 17, 2010.9 The New York Times, May 21, 2008; Ha’aretz (Tel Aviv),June 30, 2009; Reuters, June 10, 2010.10 Khaleej Times (Dubai), Feb. 19, 2006.11 Ha’aretz, Jan. 13, 2009; Eurasianet (New York), Feb. 4,2009; The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 13, 2009.

12 Hürriyet, Oct. 11, 2009.13 The Jerusalem Post, June 24, 2011; Michael Weiss, “Ankara’sProxy,” Standpoint, July/Aug. 2010.14 The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 6, 2010.15 Radikal (Istanbul), June 4, 2010; The Jerusalem Post, June4, 2010.

In a scene that would have been unimaginable a decade ago, thehead-scarved wife of newly reelected Turkish prime ministerErdoðan greets well-wishers with her husband. Turkey’s founderKemal Atatürk saw such public displays of religiosity as ahindrance to the creation of the new, secular Turkish Republic.

16 / MIDDLE EAST QUARTERLY WINTER 2012

Israel following the Gaza flotilla incident.16 In ad-dition, the Turkish navy was ordered to “ensurefreedom of navigation” in the eastern Mediterra-nean, including supporting the delivery of hu-manitarian aid to Gaza—raising the danger of adirect confrontation with the Israeli navy uphold-ing the blockade on Gaza, which a U.N. inquirycommission has deemed to be legal.17 Moreover,the Turkish air force has begun installing a newidentification friend or foe (IFF) system on its F-16s, replacing the built-in system that automati-cally designated Israeli jets or ships as friendlythereby preventing armed clashes between theTurkish and Israeli forces. The new system pro-duced by the Turkish company Aselsan doesnot automatically designate Israeli ships or jetsas friendly and will supposedly be deployedacross the Turkish armed forces.18

Ankara has repeatedly referred to Sudan as

its main “partner in Africa” though it isfar from being Turkey’s largest tradepartner on the continent.19 Ignoring thegrowing international outrage overcrimes against humanity committed byKhartoum-aligned militia groups inDarfur, Erdoðan voiced support forPresident Omar Bashir during a 2006visit, stating he saw no signs of a geno-cide.20 The Sudanese president wasinvited twice to Turkey in 2008, and by2009, Erdoðan publicly argued thatIsrael’s actions in Gaza were worse thanwhatever had happened in Darfur21—a mind-boggling assertion given thatthe Gaza fighting claimed about 1,200lives, an estimated 700 of whom wereHamas terrorists22 while in Darfur over300,000 people have perished. The pro-gression of Turkish policies in all threecases suggests a move from an honestbroker and regional peacemaker towardsiding with one of the parties in-volved—the Arabs in the Arab-Israeliconflict, Hamas in the Hamas-Fatah re-

lationship, and Iran and Sudan in their confronta-tions with the West.

Early in its tenure, the AKP proved willing toagree to far-reaching concessions on the Cyprusdispute—so much so that it provoked the ire ofthe Turkish general staff. But lately, Erdoðan hasreacted harshly to the Cypriot government’s de-cision to develop natural gas fields in the easternMediterranean, threatening to send in the Turk-ish navy and air force to the area to “monitordevelopments.”23 In so doing, Erdoðan seemedoblivious to the implications that a military dis-pute with an EU member would have on Turkey’srelations with Brussels.

The distancing from the West has led An-

Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan (left)consults with long-term advisor-turned-foreign-minister Ahmet Davutoðlu. Davutoðlu has writtenextensively about the conflict between Islam and theWest, encouraging the emergence of Islamic states.

16 The Telegraph (London), Sept. 13, 2011.17 The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2011; Today’s Zaman(Istanbul), Sept. 12, 2011.18 Today’s Zaman, Sept. 13, 2011.

19 Eurasia Daily Monitor (Jamestown Foundation, Washing-ton, D.C.), Jan. 15, 2008.20 Milliyet (Istanbul), Mar. 30, 2006.21 Today’s Zaman, Nov. 9, 2009.22 “The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre’s Re-sponse to the Goldstone Report,” Meir Amit Intelligence andTerrorism Information Centre, Gelilot, Israel, Apr. 4, 2011.23 The New York Times, Sept. 19, 2011.

/ 17

kara closer to both Moscow and Beijing—culmi-nating in Turkey’s joint military maneuvers withChina in October 2010, the first such with anyNATO country—in what has been described byAKP critics as an “axis shift.”

A CENTER OFWORLD POLITICS?

A number of factors have been cited to ex-plain the shift in Turkish foreign policy. WhileAnkara has undergone tremendous domesticchange in the past decade, an arguably more sig-nificant shift is Turkey’s emergence as an eco-nomic power. Since 1990, Turkey’s gross domes-tic product has quadrupled, exports have grownby a factor of five, foreign direct investment by afactor of 25, and the value of traded stocks by afactor of 40. While economists have increasinglybegun to issue warning flags regarding Turkey’scurrent accounts deficit and risks of overheating,such concerns have yet to translate into the po-litical field. It is only natural that Turkey’s newlyfound economic clout would translate into moreself-confidence on the international scene.Ankara’s “rediscovery” of the Middle East is partand parcel of this: Turkish exports are looking fornew markets, and hordes of businessmen regu-larly accompany Turkish leaders on their numer-ous visits to Middle Eastern states. Given theclose ties between politics and business in theregion, closer political ties provide Turkish busi-nessmen with preferential treatment. In Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq, the dynamic is inverted:The growing presence of Turkish businessesthere after 2003 helped open the way for a politi-cal rapprochement with the Kurdish RegionalGovernment in Erbil.

Secondly, alleged Western mistakes are of-ten viewed as an important factor in this trans-formation—including the view of former U.S.secretary of defense Robert Gates who blamedthe EU’s cold shouldering of Turkey for thecountry’s “drift.”24 While Ankara sided with

Western states in major foreign policy issuesin the past, this relationship was based on per-ceived reciprocity. However, since Turkey be-gan negotiating for EU accession in 2005, op-position to Turkish membership not only grewin Europe but became ever more clearly articu-lated in terms of Ankara’s cultural identity: WasTurkey in fact European at all? Overt calls byFrench and German politicians against Turkishaccession had a pro-found impact in Ankarawhere politicians of allstripes denounced thisstance. Most Turks nowbelieve that Ankara willnever join the EU, and in-ternal support for mem-bership has dwindled.Europe’s alienation fromTurkey has clearly hadforeign policy implications.

Meanwhile, ties with Washington sufferedprimarily as a result of differences over Iraq.Turkey’s involvement was crucial to the 1991Kuwait war, but Ankara was left dissatisfied bythe war’s outcome—chiefly due to the significantdamage to Turkey’s economy that Washingtondid little to soften, and the emergence of a defacto independent Kurdish entity in northern Iraq.The events since 2003 saw a rapid deteriorationof relations as the war in Iraq indirectly led to theresurgence of Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan(Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK) terrorism in Tur-key. Until 2007, the U.S. administration failed ei-ther to exercise sufficient influence on its Kurdishallies in northern Iraq to rein in the PKK or toallow Turkey to raid PKK bases inside Iraq.25 Thisgenerated substantial resentment across Turkey’spolitical spectrum.

To be sure, some of the differences that havearisen with the West may well be attributed toAnkara’s resurgent self-confidence, or what oneobserver termed “Turkish Gaullism”—a Turkeythat is “more nationalist, self-confident and defi-

Cornell: Turkish Foreign Policy

There is agrowing tendencyin Turkey’spolicies to sidewith Islamistcauses.

24 BBC News Europe, June 9, 2010. 25 Gareth Jenkins, Turkey and Northern Iraq: An Overview(Washington: Jamestown Foundation, 2008), pp. 15-20.

18 / MIDDLE EAST QUARTERLY WINTER 2012

ant.”26 The new self-confidence is explicit: For-eign Minister Davutoðlu often laments the trepi-dation and lack of self-confidence of previousgovernments, implying that a Turkey at ease withits identity and history can play a great role in theregion and beyond—one that is not locked intothe one-dimensional focus on Western alliancesbut rather appreciates the “strategic depth” thatTurkey had in the former Ottoman lands. In a 2009speech in Sarajevo, Davutoðlu laid out Ankara’sambition: “We will reintegrate the Balkan region,Middle East and Caucasus … together with Tur-key as the center of world politics in the future.”27

THE ROLE OF IDEOLOGY

Much as the AKP rejects any definition ofitself as “Islamist” because it rejects the term assuch,28 it equally opposes the idea that its for-eign policy is ideologically grounded, or that it isdistancing itself from the West at all. In a 2010

interview, for example,President Abdullah Gülrejected any notion thatAnkara had turned itsback on the West. Turkey“was now a big economicpower that had embraceddemocracy, human rights,and the free market.” Ithad become a “source ofinspiration” in the region,he said. “The U.S. andEurope should welcomeits growing engagementin the Middle East be-

cause it [is] promoting Western values in a re-gion largely governed by authoritarian regimes.”29

Such assertions notwithstanding, the growingtendency of Turkey’s policies to go from mediat-ing to taking sides—and to consistently side withIslamist causes—underscores the question ofwhether ideological factors are indeed at play.

The question is particularly relevant giventhe AKP’s roots in a strongly ideological milieu:the Turkish Islamism of the Milli Görüþ school,dominated by the orthodox Naqshbandiya or-der.30 The Naqshbandiya has been the hotbed ofIslamist reaction to westernizing reforms since themid-nineteenth century, thus predating the cre-ation of the republic. The Milli Görüþ movementwas its political vehicle, which mushroomed atfirst in Germany among expatriate Turks beforebecoming a force in Turkish politics in the late1960s. During a brief stint in power from 1996-97,leading figures in the Turkish Islamist movementhad called for the introduction of Shari‘a and pur-sued a foreign policy that sought to distance Tur-key from the “imperialist” West.31 The foundersof the AKP publicly broke with that movement in2001 in the aftermath of the military’s shuttingdown the main Islamist Fazilet party. The “youngreformers” led by Gül and Erdoðan openly repu-diated Islamism, emphasized their commitment todemocracy, cultivated an alliance with the Turk-ish liberal elite, and sought to have the new partyaccepted as a mainstream conservative force byperforming an 180-degree turn in embracing boththe market economy and Turkey’s EU member-ship aspirations.32

This ideological transformation was quite

26 Ömer Taspinar, “The Rise of Turkish Gaullism: GettingTurkish-American Relations Right,” Insight Turkey, Jan.-Mar.2011.27 Gökhan Saz, “The Political Implications of the EuropeanIntegration of Turkey: Political Scenarios and Major StumblingBlocks,” European Journal of Social Sciences, no. 1, 2011.28 Daniel Pipes, “Erdoðan: Turkey Is Not a Country WhereModerate Islam Prevails,” DanielPipes.org, updated Apr. 12,2009.29 The Times (London), July 3, 2010.

30 See, for example, Birol Yesilada, “The Refah Party Phe-nomenon in Turkey,” in Birol Yesilada, ed., Comparative Po-litical Parties and Party Elites (Ann Arbor: University of Michi-gan Press, 1999), pp. 123-50; Itzchak Weissmann, TheNaqshbandiyya: Orthodoxy and Activism in a Worldwide SufiTradition (London: Routledge, 2007), pp. 152-6; Svante E.Cornell and Ingvar Svanberg, “Turkey,” in Dawid Westerlundand Ingvar Svanberg, eds., Islam outside the Arab World (NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), pp. 125-48.31 Banu Eligur, The Mobilization of Political Islam in Turkey(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), chap. 3; BirolYesilada, “The Virtue Party,” in Barry M. Rubin and MetinHeper, eds., Political Parties in Turkey (London: Frank Cass,2002); Gareth H. Jenkins, “Muslim Democrats in Turkey,”Survival, Spring 2003, pp. 45-66.32 William Hale, “Christian Democracy and the AKP: Paral-lels and Contrasts,” Turkish Studies, June 2006, pp. 293-310;Sultan Tepe, “Turkey’s AKP: A Model ‘Muslim-Democratic’Party?” Journal of Democracy, July 2005, pp. 69-82.

The AKP’sconsolidation ofpower has beenfollowed by agrowth ofauthoritariantendencies and adistancing fromthe West.

/ 19

abrupt and top-down but while theAKP largely stayed true to suchdemocratic rhetoric during its firstterm in office, it is striking to whatextent its consolidation of powersince 2007 has been followed by agrowth of authoritarian tendenciesat home and a distancing from theWest in foreign policy.

Statements suggestive ofreassertion of Islamist ideology areplentiful. Addressing a crowd of16,000 Turks in the German city ofCologne in 2008, Erdoðan equatedthe assimilation of Turks, urged byGerman politicians, to “a crimeagainst humanity.”33 In reference toSudanese leader Bashir, he statedin 2009 that “a Muslim cannot com-mit genocide.”34 At the same time,the prime minister’s statements onIsrael show not only a growing an-tipathy toward the Jewish state butare strikingly evocative of the anti-Semitic tendencies pervading Islamist movementsacross the world. Thus, in 2009 he blamed “Jew-ish-backed media” for allegedly spreading liesabout the Gaza war. Similarly, when the Econo-mist endorsed the Turkish opposition Republi-can People’s Party (CHP) in the June 2011 elec-tions, Erdoðan accused it of working on behalf ofIsraeli interests, castigated the CHP’s leader forbeing an Israeli tool, and expressed regret overthe fact that the CHP, under Turkey’s second presi-dent Ismet Inönü, had recognized the State ofIsrael,35 alluding also to a growing perception“equating the star of Zion with the swastika.”36

Many of Erdoðan’s most combative state-ments have occurred during electoral campaignsand could be interpreted as electoral populism.Nevertheless, given his dominance of the Turk-

ish political scene, these stated views should notbe dismissed out of hand. Indeed, the formula-tion and conduct of Turkish foreign policy has inthe past several years been dominated by Erdoðanand Davutoðlu, who is widely considered the ar-chitect of the AKP’s foreign policy and a majorinfluence on Erdoðan’s views. With a long aca-demic career preceding his ascent to political fame,Davutoðlu has left a substantial trail of publishedwork that provides ample insights into hisworldview.

AKP’S ALTERNATIVEWORLDVIEW

While Davutoðlu’s best-known work is his2000 book Stratejik Derinlik37 (Strategic Depth),of equal interest are his earlier works: a doctoraldissertation published in 1993 as AlternativeParadigms: The Impact of Islamic and Western

Cornell: Turkish Foreign Policy

33 Der Spiegel (Hamburg), Feb. 11, 2008.34 Hürriyet, Nov. 9, 2009.35 Ha’aretz, Jan. 13, 2009; Reuters, June 6, 2011; Bugün(Istanbul), June 4, 2011.36 Sedat Ergin, “Can the Symbols of Nazism and Judaism BeConsidered Equal?” Hürriyet, June 22, 2010. 37 Istanbul: Küre Yayønlarø, 2001.

Turkish protesters burn an Israeli flag. Erdoðan’s antipathytoward the Jewish state is strongly evocative of the anti-Semitic tendencies pervading Islamist movements across theworld. In the June 2011 elections, he accused his chiefopponent of being an Israeli tool and denounced Turkey’srecognition of the State of Israel, speaking of a growingperception “equating the star of Zion with the swastika.”

Photo

will

not d

isplay

.

20 / MIDDLE EAST QUARTERLY WINTER 2012

Weltanschauungs on Political Theory,38 and his1994 volume Civilizational Transformation andthe Muslim World.39 These works are dense, theo-retical treatises, as are several lengthy articlespublished in the Turkish journal Divan in the late

1990s. While heavy go-ing, the main thrust ofDavutoðlu’s work couldnot be clearer: It is domi-nated by a deep convic-tion in the incompatibil-ity of the West and theIslamic world, and by re-sentment of the West forits attempt to impose itsvalues and political sys-

tem on the rest of the world.Davutoðlu argues that the “conflicts and

contrasts between Western and Islamic politicalthought originate mainly from their philosophi-cal, methodological, and theoretical backgroundsrather than from mere institutional and historicaldifferences.”40 He focuses on the ontological dif-ference between Islam and all other civilizations—particularly the West. While most of this work isalmost two decades old, Davutoðlu has contin-ued to reiterate the same views, showing theircontinued relevance to his thinking. In a 2010 in-terview, for example, he stressed:

All religions and civilizations before Islamiccivilization had established a demigod categorybetween god and man. In fact, civilizations ex-cept the Islamic civilization always regardedgod, man, and nature on the same ontologicallevel. I named this “ontological proximity.”…Islam, on the other hand, rejects ontologicalproximity between god, nature and man andestablishes an ontological hierarchy of Allah,man, and nature.41

Davutoðlu’s problem with the Western “mod-

ernist paradigm” lies in its “peripherality of rev-elation,” that is, the distinction drawn betweenreason and experience, on the one hand, and rev-elation on the other, resulting in an “acute crisisof Western civilization.”42 By contrast, Davutoðluunderscores the Islamic concept of Tawhid, “theunity of truth and the unity of life which providesa strong internal consistency” by rejecting themisconceived secular division of matters belong-ing to church and state.43 Such a view is neithermerely theological nor theoretical, and its mainimplication is that the Western and Islamicworlds are essentially different and that Turkey’slong-standing effort to become part of the Westis both impossible and undesirable. It is impos-sible because it goes against the country’s in-trinsic nature: the “failure of the Westernization-oriented intelligentsia in the Muslim countries… demonstrates the extensive characteristic ofthis civilizational confrontation.”44

As far as Turkey is concerned, Davutoðluconcludes that Atatürk’s republican endeavorwas “an ambitious and utopian project to achievea total civilizational change which ignored the realcultural, historical, social, and political forces inthe society.” Thus, “the Turkish experience in thiscentury proved that an imposed civilizational re-fusal, adaptation, and change … cannot be suc-cessful.”45 Moreover, it is undesirable, becausethe West is in a state of crisis. As early as 1994, heargued that capitalism and socialism were “differ-ent forms of the same philosophical background”and that “the collapse of socialism is an indica-tion for a comprehensive civilizational crisis andtransformation rather than an ultimate victory ofWestern capitalism.”46 Thus, the downfall of com-munism was not a victory of the West but thefirst step to the end of European domination ofthe world to be followed by the collapse of West-ern capitalism.47

38 Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1993.39 Kuala Lumpur: Mahir Publications, 1994.40 Ahmet Davutoðlu, Alternative Paradigms: the Impact ofIslamic and Western Weltanschauungs on Political Theory(Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1993), p. 2.41 Kerim Balci, “Philosophical Depth: A Scholarly Talk withthe Turkish Foreign Minister,” Turkish Review, Nov. 1, 2010.

42 Davutoðlu, Alternative Paradigms, p. 195; idem,Civilizational Transformation (Kuala Lumpur: Mahir Publica-tions, 1994), pp. 13-4.43 Davutoðlu, Alternative Paradigms, p. 196; Michael Koplow,“Hiding in Plain Sight,” Foreign Policy, Dec. 2, 2010.44 Davutoðlu, Civilizational Transformation, p. 64.45 Ibid., pp. 107-8.46 Ibid., p. 64.

Ankara’s growingcriticism ofAssad led to adeterioration inTurkish-Iranianties.

/ 21

Davutoðlu approvingly characterizes theemergence of the Islamic state as a response tothe imposition of Western nation-states on theworld but takes the argument one step further:Viewing globalization as a challenge to the na-tion-state system, he suggests that “the core is-sue for Islamic polity seems to be to reinterpret itspolitical tradition and theory as an alternativeworld-system rather than merely as a program forthe Islamization of nation-states.”48

Indeed, Davutoðlu’s worldview has impor-tant consequences for how recent, key worldevents are interpreted in Ankara. For example, sincethe 2008 financial crisis has affected the Westmuch more severely than emerging economies, itcould easily be taken as evidence of the sup-posed “acute crisis of the West” that Davutoðluwrote about twenty years ago, vindicating hisview of Western civilization in decline.

Not only do Davutoðlu’s writings andErdoðan’s statements dovetail, they also demon-strate the power of ideology that lies behind someof Turkey’s most controversial foreign policystances. Indeed, the tendency of the AKP gov-ernment to side increasingly with Islamist causes,its growing attention to non-Western powerscombined with its increasing criticism of the West,can be fully understood only if the ideologicalbackground of Turkey’s top decision-makers istaken into account. This is not to say that theother factors previously cited are not useful ingrasping changes in Turkish foreign policy. Butit suggests that they are insufficient and that theideological component must be factored in for afull understanding of Ankara’s evolving policies.

THE CHALLENGE OFTHE ARAB UPHEAVALS

The Arab uprisings of 2011 have been chal-lenging for Turkey, which has seemed to strugglewith formulating its stance in the face of unfold-ing events.

Ankara was an early cheerleader for theEgyptian revolution: Erdoðan called on Egyptianleader Hosni Mubarak to resign on February 2,2011,49 making him the first world leader to doso. This behavior was markedly different fromTurkey’s reaction to the 2009 events in Iran, whichotherwise bore great similarity to the Egyptianprotests. In the Iranian case, far from urgingAhmadinejad to step down, Erdoðan was amongthe first to congratulate him on his fraudulentreelection.50 Likewise, Davutoðlu repeatedly re-fused to discuss the va-lidity of the Iranian presi-dential elections, promis-ing “to respect the out-come of Iran’s politicalprocess”—in markedcontrast to the decisionto take sides in Egypt’sinternal struggle.51 Thisostensible inconsistencylay to a considerable ex-tent in the ideological affinity of Turkish Islamismwith the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (and forthat matter—with the Shiite Islamist regime inTehran) and the pervasive hatred generated bythe Mubarak regime within the global Islamistmovement as a result of its repression of theBrotherhood and other Islamist groups.

If Ankara was unequivocal on Egypt, Libyaproved more complicated. When violence in Libyaescalated, the Turkish leadership refrained fromtaking a clear stance. In fact, Erdoðan andDavutoðlu initially opposed U.N. sanctions onthe Qaddafi regime and rejected calls for a NATOoperation in the developing civil war. Erdoðan,Gül, and Davutoðlu cast doubt on Western mo-tives, referring to “hidden agendas” and theWest’s thirst for oil resources.52 Ankara eventu-ally relented when some of its reservations were

Cornell: Turkish Foreign Policy

The AKPgovernment mayhave grosslyoverestimated itsinfluence in theMiddle East.

47 Ibid., p. iii.48 Davutoðlu, Alternative Paradigms, p. 202.

49 Press TV (Tehran), Feb. 2, 2011.50 Halil M. Karaveli and Svante E. Cornell, “Turkey and theMiddle Eastern Revolts: Democracy or Islamism?” Turkey Ana-lyst, Feb. 7, 2011.51 Cornell, “Iranian Crisis Catches the Turkish Governmentoff Guard.”52 World Bulletin (Istanbul), Mar. 24, 2011.

22 / MIDDLE EAST QUARTERLY WINTER 2012

taken into account and later approved the NATOoperation, calling for Qaddafi’s resignation inApril,53 formally withdrawing its ambassador fromTripoli and recognizing the Transitional Councilin early July.54 Following the collapse of Qaddafi’sregime, Turkey tried to maximize its influence inthe country, and Erdoðan was received morewarmly during his visit55 than either French presi-

dent Nicolas Sarkozy orBritish prime ministerDavid Cameron.56

However, the dete-riorating situation inSyria proved the mostdifficult for Ankara tohandle. From a countrywith which Turkey al-most went to war in 1998,Syria had become whatone expert called “themodel success story for[Turkey’s] improved for-eign policy.”57 A seem-ingly solid rapproche-

ment developed between the two countries, in-volving the lifting of visa regimes, economic inte-gration, and deepened strategic relations. In par-ticular, Erdoðan developed a close personal rela-tionship with Bashar Assad. When Assad’s vio-lence against civilian protesters escalated overthe spring and summer of 2011, Ankara took uponitself to caution the Syrian regime to exercise re-straint. Despite repeated trips by Davutoðlu toDamascus, Turkish efforts appeared to yield noresult. By June, Erdoðan was declaring that “wecan’t support Syria amidst all this,”58 and in earlyAugust, Turkish leaders spoke of being unableto “remain indifferent to the violence” and de-manded reform in Syria.59 Later that month, Presi-

dent Gül stated that Turkey had lost confidencein Assad60 but did not call for his resignationthough it seemed only a matter of time beforeAnkara would be forced to take that step.

Ankara’s response to the turmoil in theMiddle East, thus, lends itself to several conclu-sions. First, it shook the policy of “zero problemswith neighbors” to its core. The refugees pour-ing across the Turkish border, fleeing Assad’scrackdown, triggered an inevitable test of theDavutoðlu doctrine. Ankara proved unable to useits clout with the Assad regime to affect any sig-nificant change. Moreover, its growing criticismof Assad led to a deterioration in Turkish-Iranianties: Official Iranian media outlets have openlycriticized Ankara’s stance on Syria since June 2011,hinting that it was doing the West’s bidding inthe region.61 The Turkish government’s decisionin the fall of 2011 to accept the stationing of U.S.missile defense systems was very much linked tothese new tensions with Tehran while also in alllikelihood an attempt to ingratiate itself with Wash-ington and reduce the impact of its increasinglyharsh anti-Israeli policies.

Davutoðlu’s “zero problem with neighbors”policy was always predicated on the unrealisticassumption that none of Turkey’s neighbors hadany interests or intentions that ran counter tothose of Ankara while neglecting the differencebetween the regimes and peoples of Turkey’sneighbors. Likewise, the alienation of Israel wasbased on the equally unrealistic assumption thatTurkey would never need the friendship of eitherIsrael or its allies in Washington. But mostly, per-haps, these policies have been based on the no-tion that the United States and the West needTurkey more than Turkey needs the West. Thismight make sense if Ankara is growing economi-cally while the West is in the throes of crisis, butit might well prove a dangerous assumption giventhe risk that Turkey’s economy could enter a cri-sis of its own in the not too distant future.

A second conclusion is that the AKP gov-ernment had grossly overestimated its influence

Islamistmovementsacross the MiddleEast haveemulated theAKP’s approachto gaining powerthroughdemocraticmeans.

53 Al-Arabiya (Dubai), May 3, 2011.54 Al-Jazeera TV (Doha), July 3, 2011.55 Bahrain News Agency, Sept. 14, 2011.56 The Guardian, Sept. 15, 2011.57 Henri J. Barkey, “Assad Stands Alone,” The NationalInterest, June 14, 2011.58 Today’s Zaman, June 10, 2011.59 The Turkish Daily News (Ankara), Aug. 1, 2011.

60 The New York Times, Aug. 28, 2011.61 Sobh’eh Sadegh, quoted in Burak Bekdil, “Zero Problems,a Hundred Troubles,” Hürriyet, Aug. 9, 2011.

/ 23Cornell: Turkish Foreign Policy

in the Middle East. Erdoðan’s hard line on Israelhas indeed made him a darling of the Arab street,and the AKP government spent significant ef-forts building trade relations across the region.While Ankara peddled its clout in the Middle Eastas a key reason for the West to be supportive ofits decisions, the events of 2011 suggest that atleast for now its rhetoric has not been matchedby actual influence. Erdoðan’s visit to Egypt inSeptember 2011, when the Muslim Brotherhoodappeared unwilling to adopt his suggestion thatthey emulate Turkey’s political system, is a casein point.62 This is not to say that Turkey is not arising power, rather that the country’s leadershiphas been unable to realistically gauge its true levelof influence. Indeed, building regional influenceof the type to which Turkey aspires is a processthat takes place gradually and incrementally overdecades and not as an immediate result of thehyperactivity of Davutoðlu’s diplomacy.

Finally, Ankara’s policies never squared thecircle of the AKP’s rhetorical embrace of democ-racy and human rights, on the one hand, and itsfocus on developing ties with the authoritarianregimes of the region on the other.63 Indeed, apolicy of “zero problems” essentially suggeststhe absence of principles or, for that matter, con-crete and well-defined national interests. Whilesome of the missteps in regard to Libya and Syriacan be understood against the backdrop of Turk-ish overconfidence, the dramatic divergence inAnkara’s attitude to the various countries in theregion cannot be so easily explained. Indeed, theslack that Turkey’s leadership was willing to cutIran’s Ahmadinejad or Syria’s Assad, or evenLibya’s Qaddafi, stood in marked contrast to thevehemence with which it denounced Egypt’sMubarak.

In the fall of 2010, the author asked a formerAKP minister and deputy chairman why Turkeywas so much more assertive on the Gaza issuethan the Arab countries. The answer wasstraightforward: One should not misconstrue the

Turkey andthe West willcooperate whentheir interestsalign rather thanas a result ofshared values.

Arab regimes with the Arab countries. These,he argued, are all monarchies that are doomedto collapse. When that happens, democraticforces sharing the AKP’s views on these issueswould seize power.64 While the response wasindeed prescient giventhe events that wouldfollow, it betrayed a deepdisdain for the pro-West-ern regimes of the Arabworld as well as an expec-tation that Islamic move-ments would replacethem and see Turkey asa leader or model.

Indeed, this seniorofficial’s perspective ech-oes Davutoðlu’s worldview. It indicates an ex-pectation of a fundamental remake of the MiddleEast with the demise of the pro-Western regimes.Thus far, the vision might not differ much fromthat of Western supporters of the wave of popu-lar protests sweeping the Arab world. The ques-tion, of course, is what would succeed the re-gimes that had hitherto been safely ensconced inpower for decades.

While in the early 1990s, Turkey was toutedfor its secularism and democracy as a model forthe newly independent Muslim-majority states ofthe former Soviet Union, in the wake of the Egyp-tian revolution, Ankara was looked to as a modelfor a different reason: In the words of The NewYork Times, it was perceived as “a template thateffectively integrates Islam, democracy, and vi-brant economics.”65

Indeed, Islamist movements across theMiddle East—primarily in North Africa—haveemulated the AKP’s approach to gaining powerthrough democratic means. The question, how-ever, is: Do these movements see a party thattruly democratized its ideology and accepted un-derlying liberal democratic principles, or a partythat successfully used the democratic system in

62 The Huffington Post, Sept. 13, 2011.63 M. K. Kaya and Halil M. Karaveli, “Vision or Illusion?Ahmet Davutoglu’s State of Harmony in Regional Relations,”Turkey Analyst, June 5, 2009.

64 Author interview with an AKP deputy chairman who re-quested anonymity, Ankara, Aug. 2010.65 Landon Thomas, Jr., “In Turkey’s Example, Some SeeMap for Egypt,” The New York Times, Feb. 5, 2011.

24 / MIDDLE EAST QUARTERLY WINTER 2012

order to achieve power without being commit-ted to democratic values and ideals? The jury isstill out on this question, but the developmentsin Egypt are indeed cause for concern given theMuslim Brotherhood’s growing dominance overthe country’s political scene.

As the AKP’s recent authoritarian tenden-cies have become increasingly acknowledged,its credibility as a force of true democratizationin the Middle East has suffered concomitantly.More and more it appears that the AKP—andTurkey—has adopted a rather simplistic under-standing of democracy as majority rule: In soci-eties where the overwhelming majority are con-servative Muslims, democracy will ensure thatthe political forces representing these conser-vative Muslims will be ushered into power.

CONCLUSIONS

While there is much to suggest thatTurkey’s role in the world is likely to grow, con-fidence appears to have turned into hubris. Atthe bureaucratic level, Turkey’s state appara-tus—especially the Foreign Ministry—is hardlyequipped to handle the load of initiatives com-ing from Davutoðlu’s office, and expanding theforeign policy machine can only happen gradu-ally. Thus, many Turkish initiatives have beenless than well prepared, suggesting a top-heavyapproach rather than balanced and serious plan-ning. This was true of the opening with Arme-nia, and similarly, Turkish leaders appeared trulysurprised when the Turkish-Brazilian deal on Iranfailed to prevent new sanctions against Tehranat the U.N. Security Council.

Nonetheless, Turkey is now an active andindependent player in regional affairs whoseclout is likely to continue to grow in coming

years. It is also a less predictable force than itused to be and one whose policies will occa-sionally clash with those of the West. This is, inpart, a result of Turkey’s economic growth, ofthe mistakes made by the West in alienatingAnkara, and of Turkish overextension, which isin turn related to an inflated view of its newlyfound role in the world. But the role of ideologi-cal reflexes and grand ambitions, in particularthose of Turkey’s two foremost decision-mak-ers, Prime Minister Erdoðan and Foreign Minis-ter Davutoðlu, must not be underestimated.These impulses are likely to continue to havepolicy consequences as Turkish leaders will in-terpret events from a distinctively different—and Islamically-tinged—viewpoint than theirWestern counterparts.

While a cause for concern, Ankara’s chang-ing foreign policy is not necessarily a cause foralarm. On many issues, Turkey is a power withwhich the West can work: As the Libyan opera-tion showed, suspicions of Western motivesnotwithstanding, Ankara came around to jointhe undertaking. The reaction to the Syrian cri-sis and Turkish cooperation on missile defenseare further examples of this possibility.

But significantly, whenever Turkey and theWest will cooperate, it will be because their in-terests happen to align rather than as a result ofshared values. Where the values of the Turkishleadership do not align with those of the West,most prominently concerning Cyprus and Israel,Turkish behavior will continue to diverge fromthe Ankara the West used to know. It is increas-ingly clear that the Turkish leadership does notconsider itself Western, a worldview that willinevitably have far reaching implications forTurkey’s role in the Euro-Atlantic community.