Neo-Ottomanism

[Biomiast]

Here I discuss an article I found about Neo-Ottomanism. Full text pdf article can be read here:

_http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=22209

It is obviously a better policy than Kemalists used up until this time, but I think it hides something dangerous underneath the surface. If you just think that Obama is used by PTB for giving hope of change and how he didn’t stop the war or economic recession, I think a similar deal will be seen in this policy change.

I want to reiterate that I am against Kemalist ideology, and in my opinion Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had some schizoid tendencies in his life in addition to other pathologic conditions. This is reflected in the Kemalist ideology and shaped the future of this society, most especially Kurdish challenges as the article discusses. I am not going to post the whole article, but it is a good summary of the perspectives of Kemalists. On the other hand, the author of the article is pro-Islamist, so be aware that he attempts to use Islam to be denominator between certain groups in the idea of Neo-Ottomanism. He also praises Ottoman Empire more than it actually deserves. Thinking that Ottoman Empire respected its minorities equally is absurd, as we know this isn’t the case from history.

In the article it claims Ottoman Empire respected Kurdish tribes, but we know that the simple reason for this was its lack of power. It didn’t care how Kurds live as long as it doesn’t disturb the empire. Anatolia was a like cellar for Ottoman Sultans where they take money and soldiers when they need and ignore at other issues. Kemalists, because of their schizoid legacy, took the mission to “educate” those tribes.

After many decades of passivity and neglect toward the Middle East, Turkey is once again becoming an active player in that region. For most of its republican history, Ankara did not consider the Middle East a foreign policy priority. The official ideology of the republic, Kemalism, turned its back on the Islamic world and pursued an exclusively Western path. This one-sided orientation began to change with the end of the Cold War, parallel to new geostrategic horizons, threats, and opportunities in regions surrounding Turkey. As a result, first under the late Turgut Özal (prime minister 1983–1989; president 1989–1993) and more recently, since 2002, under the Justice and Development Party(AKP), Turkey has become more involved in the greater Middle East. In recent years, Ankara has taken a more active approach toward the Israeli–Palestinian confict; sent troops to the NATO mission in Afghanistan; contributed to UN forces in Lebanon; assumed a leadership position in the Organization of Islamic Conference; attended several Arab League conferences; established closer ties with Iran, Iraq, and Syria; and improved its economic, political, and diplomatic relations with most Arab and Muslim states.

Not everyone is happy about Turkey’s new engagements. …In one camp, the secularist critics of the AKP government maintain that Turkey’s activism in the Middle East betrays the republic’s Western vocation and orientation. These skeptics usually focus on AKP’s Muslim political pedigree and tend to see a hidden Islamic agenda behind openings to the Arab world. In the opposing camp are those who argue that such an Islamic agenda simply does not exist, mainly on the grounds that the AKP is the most pro-European Union political party on the Turkish scene. Despite its Islamic roots, the AKP has indeed worked much harder than previous Turkish governments to improve Ankara’s chances of EU membership. Such efforts were eventually rewarded with the opening of accession negotiations between Turkey and the European Union in December 2005.

I personally think AKP government is dangerous and pathological for many reasons, on the other hand, I admit that they took more brave steps and they worked harder than the other governments in Turkey. Many of those steps were for short-term and their words didn’t match with their actions in many cases, but they have a perfect ability to appear benevolent in the eyes of people.

Neo-Ottomanism is at odds with the Kurdish-centric focus for a simple reason. Turkey’s Kurdish challenge is defined by the Kemalist norms of the republic, which neo-Ottomanism seeks to transcend. Kemalism considers Kurdish ethnicity and nationalism as existential threats to the national and territorial integrity of the Turkish Republic. Even Kurdish language and cultural rights are deemed dangerous, on the grounds that they make the assimilation of Kurds into the Turkish nation (the offcial policy of the Kemalist Republic since 1923) much more diffcult.

Neo-Ottomanism, by contrast, seeks to rise above this Kemalist paradigm. Compared to Kemalism, neo-Ottoman instincts are more self-confident and less focused on the Kurdish threat. Neo-Ottomanism embraces a grand, geostrategic vision of Turkey as an effective and engaged regional actor, trying to solve regional and global problems. Since the concept of neo-Ottomanism may evoke an imperial agenda, one important point needs clarifcation: Turkey, in this neo-Ottoman paradigm, does not pursue a neo-imperialist policy aimed at resurrecting the Ottoman Empire. Instead of imperial nostalgia, neo-Ottomanism is essentially about projecting Turkey’s “soft power” - a bridge between East and West, a Muslim nation, a secular state, a democratic political system, and a capitalistic economic force.

I don’t know if you guys followed it or not, but one of Obama’s first visits was to Turkey. And when he was here, he used the exact words the author used(secular state and democratic political system) and asked for Turkey’s help in the parliment. One wonders what is the deal with neo-Ottomanism that is pursued actively after Obama made it to the White House. In addition to this, the cabinet change which caused Ahmet Davutoglu(the mastermind of Neo-Ottomanism) to be Minister of Foreign Affairs was done a few weeks after Obama visited Turkey. Now, we have come to Ahmet Davutoglu part of the story:

Since the AKP came to power in late 2002, its foreign policy has been based on what Erdogan’s top foreign policy advisor, Ahmet Davutoglu, calls “strategic depth.” Davutoglu, formerly a professor of international relations at universities in Turkey and Malaysia, argues that Turkish foreign policy had been unbalanced, with an overemphasis on ties with Western Europe and the United States to the neglect of Turkey’s interests with other countries, particularly in the Middle East. He argues that, unlike other imperial powers, for the frst 80 years after its founding in 1923, the Turkish Republic largely ignored relations with the states that had been formed out of the former Ottoman provinces in North Africa and the Middle East, and that today Turkey needs to play a greater role there.

Davutoglu’s “neo-Ottoman” vision, it should be noted, is very different from policies promulgated by Necmettin Erbakan. While Erbakan sought to create an Islamic alliance with Muslim countries like Libya, Iran, Malaysia, and Indonesia as an explicit alternative to alliance with the West, AKP leaders today want to reach out to the East to complement their ties to the West, not replace them. Their vision, which builds on the approach of former President Özal, is one in which Turkey rediscovers its imperial legacy and seeks a new national consensus where the multiple identities of Turkey can coexist. It reminds Turks that they once had a great multinational empire that ruled the Middle East, North Africa, the Balkans and parts of Central Europe. Such emphasis on the Ottoman legacy is not part of a plan to Islamize Turkey and Turkish foreign policy. Rather, it is an attempt to balance and broaden the horizons of Kemalism and its over-obsession with Turkey’s Western identity and trajectory.

Three factors help define the neo-Ottoman tendencies of the AKP. The first is the willingness to come to terms with Turkey’s Ottoman and Islamic heritage at home and abroad. Neo-Ottomanism does not call for Turkish imperialism in the Middle East and the Balkans. Similarly, it does not seek to institute an Islamic legal system in modern Turkey. Instead, neo-Ottomanism favors a more moderate version of secularism at home, and a more activist policy in foreign affairs. In this neo-Ottoman paradigm, Ankara exerts more “soft power”—political, economic, diplomatic, and cultural infuence—in formerly Ottoman territories as well as in other regions where Turkey has strategic and national interests. This broad vision for Turkish foreign policy requires an embrace of Ottoman “great power” legacy and a redefinition of Turkey’s strategic and national identity.

They have already done this with various projects they did with Arabs and other countries. One example could be Nabucco project, a pipeline that starts from Anatolia and goes over the Balkans to Austria. Another could be the Cooperation Council of the Gulf..

…This more flexible mindset, in turn, leads to the second characteristic of neo-Ottomanism: a sense of grandeur and self-confidence in foreign policy. Neo-Ottomanism sees Turkey as a regional superpower. Its strategic vision and culture refect the geographic reach of the Ottoman and Byzantine Empires. Turkey, as a pivotal state, should thus play a very active diplomatic, political, and economic role in a wide region of which it is the “center.” Such grand ambitions, in turn, require a nation-state at peace with its multiple identities, including its Muslim and Ottoman past.

This started with Erdogan’s storming out at Davos, which I think was planned in advance for certain ends and it seems to work in this case. Also, Turkey tries to be a bridge between Western and Eastern worlds, solving issues in Middle East, like starting peace talks between Israel and Syria etc. This desire to dominate with “soft power” isn’t limited with the region since Turkey is really active about the recent events in Urumqi, China.

Another issue seems helping out U.S.A. at Afghanistan and Pakistan. Turkey has good relations with both of them. If I am not mistaken, Afghanistan was the first country that recognized Turkish Republic as a state. Also the founder of Pakistan, Mehmet Ali Cinnah supported Ataturk and Independence War of Turkey and the people of Pakistan has great respect for people of Turkey. It is said that even Taliban doesn’t attack a military convoy if it sees a Turkish flag on the cars. Both historical bonds and “denominator Islam” seems to make Turkey a useful ally in Middle East for American policy-makers.

The third aspect of neo-Ottomanism is its goal of embracing the West as much as the Islamic world. Like the imperial city of Istanbul, which straddles Europe and Asia, neo-Ottomanism is Janus-faced. Even at its deathbed, the Ottoman Empire was known as the sick man of “Europe” and not of Asia or Arabia. In that sense, the European legacy matters a great deal to neo-Ottomans. They are as open to the West and Western political infuences as they are close to the Muslim legacy. Such pragmatism and flexibility is largely absent in the “orientalist” mindset of Kemalist hardliners, who consider Islam, multiculturalism, and liberalism as potential enemies of the Kemalist revolution. Not surprisingly, the AKP’s ability to embrace the West and the European Union has not impressed the Kemalists, who suspect a hidden Islamic agenda. In fact, the Kemalist establishment is now increasingly suspicious of the EU and the United States, whom they see as naïve toward Islamists and dangerously tolerant of Kurdish nationalism.

After reading all of those policy changes, you may ask: “So what is the problem? Isn’t it what we want, open dialouges between West and East, peace, a balanced world view?” You are right, that’s all we want, but Obama’s close relationship with Neo-Ottomanism, and the implications of the policy are somewhat disturbing. I can’t say something certain right now, but I think this issues will be more clear in the future. If we remember that Obama avoid the words Armenian Genocide, it seems to me he expects some things from Turkey.

Ahmet Davutoglu, starts from nothing and with this “strategic depth” ideology he became the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As I follow his trips abroad, I realised he visits the countries either right before or right after Obama does. This was the case in Germany and Russia trips. After Obama’s Russia trip, Putin decided to come to Turkey in August. It seems to me, Turkey will follow a more active relationship with Afghanistan and Pakistan now. It is a good possibility that it distances itself from Israel in appearence since it wants to form strong bonds with Arab world. In addition to this, Turkey became the temporary member and President of the United Nations Security Council and Ahmet Davutoglu represents Turkey there for this term. Curious indeed.

The funny thing about Ahmet Davutoglu is, he looks harmless, he is intelligent, charming and confidence inspring. I don’t want to label him as psycopath, but considering the policies he made, I think he may be a schizoid. As always, we need more data, and time will tell who is who, but this is what I have seen from where I stand for the time being, fwiw.