1 Malmö University International Relations
Global Political Studies Spring 2011
International Relations Adviser: Anders Melin
The Influences of Kurdish Question on Turkish Foreign Policy
In the post-Cold War Era
H. NUR OZCAN 860714-T341
2 Table of Contents ABSTRACT ABBREVIATIONS Chapter I I1. Introduction ………... 4 I1.1. Background ….……...……….. 5
I3. Research Aim and Question ……….……. 7
I4. Methodology and Literature Review ………... 8
I5. Delimitation ……….…... 9
Chapter II II2. Theoretical Framework II2.1. Introduction ………...……… 10
II2.1 Realist Approach ……..……….. 11
II2.2 Soft Power Approach ….……… 13
Chapter III III3. Turkish Foreign Policy and the Kurdish Question After the Cold War III3.1. A Brief Introduction to the Kurdish Question in Turkey ………….………16
III3.2. Turkish Foreign Policy Dimensions Between late 1980s to 2002………... 19
III3.3. Strategic Depth Approach ………..…. 22
III3.4. Influences of Kurdish Question ………... 27
III3.4.1. Regional Influences……… 27
III3.4.2. Relations with Western Bloc and Russia……… 30
Chapter IV IV1. Concluding Remarks ….………... 35
IV2. Executive Summary ………...………37 REFERENCES
3 ABSRACT
The end of Cold War and aftermath has brought many challenges to the states. Ethnic problems increased dramatically, and became the most significant issue in the agenda of states. Even though, foreign policy refers to external relations of states, most scholars agree that there are many dimensions which affect foreign policy decision of policy makers except structural influences like internal challenges. Foreign policy has been as an extension of domestic policy and any transformation in domestic policy has also affected the foreign policy doctrine. While Kurdish question seems to be as domestic, later it organically infused the foreign policy thinking of contemporary Turkish policymakers. In fact the Kurdish problem provides suitable position to be used against Turkey for foreign power involvement in Turkish internal affairs as well as limits its capacities in foreign affairs. Last but not least, by affecting Turkey’s position, the cluster of this problems create a certain number of deadlocks in its foreign affairs, and even create pressures on it and considerable risks in terms of national interest and security. In this context, this research survey aims to analyze the factors of foreign policy making in order to evaluate the Kurdish issue’s effects on Turkish foreign policy especially after the 1980s.
4
Chapter I
I1. Introduction
The historical visit of Turkish Prime Minister to the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in the north of Iraq in March 2011 has been one of the most significant signs and result of the influences of Kurdish question on Turkish foreign policy (TFP) in the period of post-Cold War. Whilst Turkey had always been anxious about any Kurdish autonomy in Iraq just before a couple of years ago, now it has recently noticed that the Kurdish issue has already potential to impact its internal dynamics but at the same time foreign policies. Therefore, it has had to consider improving bilateral relations gradually. In fact, this kind of changing in TFP is strongly related with Turkey's new foreign policy approach which has employed since the end of the Cold War but particularly since the 1999. However, this transformation in TFP has brought some challenges to Turkey that was suppressed since the foundation of Turkish Republic and thus, Turkey faced the Kurdish question. Despite the fact that Kurdish Question is a domestic problem for Turkey, it has casted a long shadow on the formulation and conduct of TFP. In this context, Barkley suggests that “ all Turkish foreign policy priorities have become subservient to this issue or that other countries' perceptions of and behavior toward Ankara determined by” (Barkley, 1996). Indeed, the Kurds stands in the midpoint and refers as a “foothold” of the Middle East which surrounded by Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Russia. Hence, it’s not absurd to define the Kurdistan geography as a possible clash of national interest area.
Therefore, Kurdish question has been a national security problem for Turkey even it stands on the top of the foreign and domestic policy agenda. Thanks to traditional traces of Turkish political understanding like ignoring and denying the problem, Turkey could not save a serious attempt during the 1990s until the end of decade. This decade has been considered as the most crucial and deadlocked
5 period for Kurdish question, but the significant developments came out after the
1999. Some important developments were the capturing of Kurdish terrorist group (PKK)’s leader, the candidacy announcement of European Union (EU) membership in December 1999, and the Islamic rooted party Justice and Development Party's (JDP) electoral victory in 2002 that launched a “Kurdish Initiative” in other word “Democratic Opening” process in summer 2009 to provide constitutional rights of Kurdish minority, and removing PKK's terrorist activities. The government has also been the source of “new” TFP approach which emphasizes more active and multi-dimensional policies than any time in the history of Turkey in the international scene. Unlike the policies which were employed by the policymakers in the past, Turkey has become to seek de-securitization of important domestic issues most importantly towards Kurdish problem especially under the pressure of European Union membership process and the democratization efforts (Kramer, 2010).
I1.2. Background
In the early 1980s, the collapsing of Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, have brought to new challenges to the states and these developments led to face the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural demands all over the world, “the rising tide of cultural pluralism and “the disuniting of the nation” in other words as C. Young suggested (Kirisci 2003: 273). In particular, Turkey also has faced an increasing question about its national identity from its Kurdish population. In fact, Kurdish issue has came to agenda during the foundation of new Republic, however the significant signals was given with the emergence of PKK (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) in the 1984 has led to the deaths of thousands of civilians and the displacement of masses of people, as well as severe. The internalization of the problem started especially at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991 and it caused for coming to control a significant proportion of Turkish foreign policy.
There are two main approaches to consider Kurdish issue in Turkey in which one of can be seen as extreme conservatives or statists whose had seen the problem as externally driven, thus Turkey has to pursue basically a military to control Kurdish minority, and the others are called as the moderate liberals and pro-reformists those considered Kurdish issue as the problem which caused due to denial of
6 Kurdish cultural and ethnic identity, thus they advocate the political reforms and
support democracy and pluralism in Turkey. For instance, economic reforms should aim to achieve greater development in the east and southeast of Turkey where the Kurdish population live. Unsurprisingly the statist approach has been dominated long years on decision making organs in both domestic and foreign policy. It is necessary to take a look this understanding cautiously to see their their influences in Turkish politics. As an example “Sevres Syndrome” or some define as “Sevres Phobia” is a term which based on Sevres Treaty signed in 1920 between Ottoman Empire and Allies of First World War, but never ratified by Turkish parliament. According to the claims, Turkey is surrounded by enemies (the neighbor countries, the West) who are trying to control and manipulating of both domestic and foreign relations of Turkey. Regarding with Kurdish problem, the PKK had always been identified as an externally-supported organization whose purpose was to weaken and divide Turkey (Kirisci, 2004). The perspectives and taboos towards Kurdish issue in Turkey both in public and state started to change by the 1999. At the same time, the reformists shifted their influences to improve relations with the West and implicitly about Kurdish problem. The EU membership process has forced Turkey to introduce political reforms about the solution of Kurdish issue due to liberalization process in public sphere which led to strengthen the sub-national identities (Bacik, 2010).
In brief, Turkey has begun to a new era at the end of 1990s with developments both in domestic and foreign relations. In this period, the influence of statists approach has eroded on policymaking, while moderate liberal approach gained influence in addressing to the Kurdish problem. Correspondingly together the EU, reformists emphasize on democracy and pluralism, the rights of Kurds as individuals Turkish citizens rather than group or minority rights. However, democratization process might be at risk, if hard-liners would become dominant again and such an outcome would be deadlocked the problem for Turkey (Kirisci 2003: 303). Although all developments mentioned above, we cannot claim that security-driven statist approach completely abolished from Turkish politics. In state institutions, parliament, and public, they are ready to rise again and exploit any chaos that comes out from terrorist activities. At the same time, in Kurds have extreme groups and moderates on their own and some of them are in favor of an independent Kurdish state which would cover a part of Turkish territory; another
7 half demands an autonomous Kurdish region, political and cultural rights in the
constitution. In this context, if Turkey’s foreign relations are related with its Kurdish problem, no doubt the solution does not seem to overcome smoothly at least in the country.
Except domestic actors, until recent years Ankara has blamed external powers for somehow their involving to the problem and support Kurdish side. While the PKK has been almost universally branded as a terrorist organization, the aggressive strategies toward Kurdish insurgency and human rights violations have been increasingly bearing the wrong results. Some of the external influences dealing with Kurdish issue can be juxtaposed as Russia, Syria, Iran and Greece which are ready to use this issue against Ankara. From this point of view, the troubling times with Syria in 1998 and Russia’s desire to access to the Gulf region are some of the threats for Turkey from its neighbors. For Turkey’s friends and foes in Europe and the U.S. the Kurds may increasingly appear as “underdogs” and therefore create a moral dilemma (Barkley and Fuller 1997). Internationally recognition of Kurdish problem has appeared especially during the First Gulf War in 199, and the war led to face the humanitarian aspect of Kurdish problem by international community and Turkey. Hence, even though the conflict has been ongoing in Turkey since 1984, Turkey found itself in a situation that it is not possible to ignore anymore the Kurdish problem in international level.
I1.3. Research Aim and Question
The Kurdish question has remained unresolved and a challenge for Turkish national interests. It’s been seen as a significant factor which cannot be ignored in the construction process of foreign policy. Therefore, this paper purposes to analyze the influences of Kurdish Question on TFP after the end of Cold War along with theoretical background of contemporary TFP. Kurdish Question is very critical for TFP like in domestic sphere, because it has begun to be achilles heel of Turkey in foreign relations with especially the EU, the surrounding regions like the Middle East, particularly Iraq, Syria and Iran, even with Russia and the United States. Apart from international actors, Turkey's national security policy, the efforts to be regional soft power, energy policies (such as Nabucco Project),
8 and domestic and sustaining regional stability are strongly related with Kurdish
problem. Also, Kurdish question covers three countries except Turkey those are Iraq, Syria and Iran. In this context, it is necessary to evaluate that question from domestic, regional, and international aspects to understand how Turkish foreign policy actions are affected by the Kurdish question. At this conjunction, this thesis aims to evaluate the following questions; How has Turkish Foreign Policy
influenced from the Kurdish Question since the end of the Cold War?, To what extent the Kurdish Question has been perceived by foreign policy makers since the late-1980s until present?
I1.3. Methodology and Literature Review
The term case study methods refer to both within-case analysis of single cases and comparisons among a small number of cases. Bennett states “Many influential research findings in political science have come from single-case studies” (Bennett, 2004: 19-55). This research has chose a single case study thereby evaluating theories from the International Relations (IR) literature based on the systemic, domestic, and individual levels, as well as theories based on the arguments of scholars and policymakers.
Most case study researchers have argued that single-case studies can provide tests that can support or refute theories. The case study methodology is used in order to provide an insight into the advantages of this research. Naturally, it provides a depth analysis of International Relations research, and has been used since the emergence of the discipline. Typically the case study methodology is used to answer questions like how or why and there is no or limited control over selected events. In that sense, this methodology refers that contemporary events are focused and the questions are also constructed by how question. Theoretical orientation guided to the analysis and empirical findings that have formed the design of the case study (Yin, 1994). Also, the case study method has been used in order to provide basis for the application of theoretical perspectives or ideas and understand the complexity of case with this way. As suggested, case study method is a multi-perspective analyzes which means that the consideration of not just the voice and perspective of the actors, but also of the relevant groups of actors and
9 the interaction between them (Tellis, 1997). Hence, this research also emphasis on
the interaction between foreign and domestic circumstances and actors.
In the literature material, it’s been found many articles about contemporary Turkish Foreign Policy and most of them underline the periods that are the end of 1980s and the early 90s, as well as TFP after 1999. In this context, the numbers of articles has been evaluated in order to analyze Turkish foreign policy directions and the effects of Kurdish problem since the end of the Cold War as secondary sources. In addition, news and opinions from magazines and newspapers is used to catch the ongoing developments. As primary sources the speeches and declarations of Turkish President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister as well as other political actors’ has included to thesis in addition to the European Union progress report on Turkey, and governmental institutions’ reports related with case study. To reach the sources the academic journals, and the academic databases like JSTOR, Project Muse, Cambridge Journals Online etc. are used besides the books and websites.
I1.4. Delimitation
In order to consider the importance of Kurdish question in TFP, thesis examines the developments of Turkey’s foreign relations after the internalization of this question especially after the First Gulf War. Furthermore the ongoing solution efforts and some domestic developments linked with the topic have been included to the paper.
In the limitation of this survey, it is not examined the deep history and the evolution of the TFP and its Kurdish issue but only consists the theories which “underlie especially contemporary TFP, and the considerations of the international and domestic factors and parameters those related with title. The period between 1993 and 1999 is not analyzed specifically due to instable political environment internally, rather focused on the critical points and aftermath. In addition, the Cold War era also will not be deeply considered except emergence and rising of Kurdish rebellion and showing the traditional aspect of TFP toward the Kurdish question. Also, survey does not evaluate a description or deep analysis of the political identity, or identity based explanations but might be mentioned in order to show the roots of problem. The point of thesis is to prove the serious role of
10 Kurdish question on Turkish foreign policy except other variables, in that sense
paper will be neither ethnic based analysis nor a comparative analysis with other ethnic questions in the world.
11
Chapter II
II.1. Theoretical Framework
The general consideration of foreign policy has been defined as “outcome of complex optimization process at the national and international level” (Ozturk, 2009). Turkish foreign policy traditionally has been based on realist point of view that emphasizes on the anarchic structure of international politics. International relations are seen as a win-lose game in which the outcome is often determined by the “hard power” capabilities and use of coercion. States need to create a strong military capability, prepare themselves for win-lose outcomes. The decisions of foreign policy should not be contentious and national security should be prior in both economic and political issues. All in all, the Kurdish question and the security challenges because of the existence of the PKK fueled Turkey’s importance on military capabilities and methods rather than democratic governance. In brief, this research uses both realist theory as a traditional aspect, and also discusses liberalism’s soft power theory as its sub-field in order to evaluate Turkey’s foreign policy strategies after 2002. Regarding with Kurdish question, I’ll try to highlight theoretical background, dimensions and the standing point of TFP towards the Kurdish issue.
II1.1. Realist Assumptions
This research is based on a realist set of assumptions as its theoretical framework which particularly evaluates the characteristics of realist theory and sometimes links to the theory of TFP. K. Waltz argues that “theoretical analysis is bound to the explanatory power of their relevant theories” (Waltz, 1979). So, the dynamics of TFP both traditional and contemporary have been complicated to explain from different aspects. Arguably, no theory has emerged which is able to explain completely the international politics, therefore existing theories are often
12 inadequate to explain whole picture due to difficulties of international structure.
On the other hand, for realists, every state in the system has at least one aspect of realist theory that is primarily based upon some specific concepts like power, national interest, self-help, competition and anarchy. In traditional assumptions, classical realists like Morgenthau (1960) described the international politics as competitive and insecure environment and states’ key value was the national security which defined as whatever increase or prevent a country’s security, its influences in terms of military and economic power (Rourk, 2005: 27). Realists assumed that state itself should avoid the worst risks and costs of international competition (Beasley, 2002). Hence, foreign policy has to be under the guard against threats and the actions of competitors. Moreover, in such a competitive order war is inevitable, that’s why states seek to gain power which is relatively distributed in the international structure (Waltz, 1979). Realists also advocate that power the most fundamental feature of world politics. Using hard power points out to the military power focused by the classical realism. Furthermore, economic power is significant for the neo-realist ideology to become influential by coercive diplomacy, finding alliances, and economic sanctions. The dynamics of world politics have been explained with the reference to these powers by realism.
According to Waltz who is pioneer of structural realism, international system is anarchic and self-help where the security of states is not guaranteed and states have to seek their survival. International structure might lead to change states’ positions and their political motives. That’s why; to reach to states aims can be different according to their position and their capabilities in international order. Hence, all states according to realism must be ready to react to potential threats regardless of their military capability and their place in the international system. If a state has lesser power, it must find an alliance that is more powerful to protect itself. For instance, in the bipolar system, a middle power faces strong pressures to become a compatible partner of a major power and as a result abandon the autonomy in its foreign policy for the sake of security. For structuralism, in order to understand states behavioral patterns and position, it’s very critical to analyze the international conjuncture and conditions. As an example, during the Cold War the capabilities of Turkey were bounded with providing stability and inactive. In this context, Turkey's traditional decisions making were constrained by the decision of western alliances, and structurally, its capabilities were restricted to
13 challenge the conditions those were dictated by the Cold War bipolarity. On the
other hand, in a multi-power system, middle powers often have the most autonomy and regional influence because there is greater choice in alliance partners when the major powers are competing. Likewise, Turkey in the post-Cold War era, have been less limited and restricted. Apart from international structure’s domination, realists underestimate domestic influences on foreign policy making. A well known realist thinker Fareed Zakaria makes clear that realists do not deny that internal influences on foreign policy, but they contend that "the pressures of (international) competition weigh more heavily than ideological preferences or internal political pressures”. In that vein, while for structural neo-realism domestic politics is not very important or necessary to explain significant foreign policy decisions or at least international political outcomes, a good explanation of foreign policy should not ignore domestic politics, national culture and individual decision-makers, but it must separate the effects of the various levels of international politics (Zakaria, 1992).
Furthermore, balance of power theory as a central concept of neo-realism is desirable due to providing interdependence between states which creates equilibrium and promotes peace and order. States may act in “either balancing or bandwagoining” way within the balance of power system. The main objective of states is to provide their own security and safety and to reach a balance because of self-preservation and to avoid from dominancy of one particular state along with allying themselves with other states for balancing. The balance of power politics also the tenet of realpolitik perspective which focuses on policymakers should achieve equilibrium of power in the international relations to prevent other countries possible coalition (Rourke, 2005). As mentioned earlier, the ways to prevent them is to find ally or to ability to divide rival coalitions. Realist point of view and specifically realpolitik seems to logical foreign policy strategy in the Cold War environment, and in the critical national security issues today. However, in contemporary world system it cannot be only theory that states should pursue. The system has been more complicated, and needs to different tactics which do not include hostility and prejudice unlike realism. If one assumes the state as an individual, realism is just like the tradition of this individual that is still cared and saved, but cannot be adequate to reach to the objectives.
14 Empirically, Turkey closed the doors to international developments, to neighbor
regions and chose to be ally of western world in the bipolar system. The post-Cold War order changed the balances and Turkey eventually has started to act independently since the last decade. Because of damage that realist theory has taken during this process, these remarkable changes in almost all foreign policy strategies has happened naturally in such a dramatically changed system. However, the world is living the rise of realist theory since 9/11. For instance, Turkey has considered itself as a regional power and tried to get equilibrium in the Middle East especially after the Iraq War in 2003 and collapsing of Saddam regime due to increasing power of Iran. This is a simple balance of power strategy. Also, the relations with Israel and Iran in recent years also can be seen from this point of view. Whilst this thesis chooses realist theory to evaluate the arrangement of units in the international system, it’s not enough to explain Turkish politics. In that sense, this research uses the theory in the following section which based on the classical explanation liberalism and soft power approach to analyze the contemporary Turkish foreign policy understanding.
II2.2. Soft Power Approach
Traditional international relations theories are based on power concept. Just like Realist theory, Liberals emphasize on power, but differentiate it through non-aggressive way. Realpolitik as a dominant paradigm of the Cold War has been challenged and questioned by liberal perspectives in the beginning of post-Cold War. After dissolution of Soviet Union, a spirit of optimism became dominant all over the world. The idea on high politics issues in the Cold War such as war, security, defense, military issues, have lost their priority and importance and low politics issues like economy, democracy, human rights, environmental and social issues etc. became the driven forces. While the early liberalism focused on the democracy, self-determination and free market economy, the neo-liberalism based on the growth of international economic interdependence, and the spread of globalism that will provide more cooperation between states. The countries should promote the cooperation with international organizations; even to improve themselves to sacrifice their sovereignty. Also, despite the fact that neo-liberalism seems to against to use of power, but it’s not unwilling to use coercion towards
15 states like economic sanctions rather than military force. Neo-liberalism as a rival
theory condemns the using hard power and the realpolitik view.
Soft power was coined by J. Nye in his book “Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power” in which he defines soft power as the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments (Nye, 2004) and also refers to “positive incentives” unlike the hard power (Rourke, 2005:234). Nye explains that the soft power occurs from the attractiveness of a country which are the “real but intangible” factors such as culture, political ideas etc. and these are more important than any hard power options. In addition, according to Nye, soft power the soft power term has been “stretched and twisted” and there has emerged broader and narrower explanations. While cultural influences are seen as narrow sense, additionally economic power is identified as broad sense. When a state’s policies are found as legitimate in the eyes of others, that means the soft power is enhanced. All power depends on context of circumstances and conditions but soft power depends more than hard power upon the existence of willing to cooperate. Moreover, attraction often has a spreading effect, creating general influence rather than producing an easily observable specific action (Nye, 2004). No doubt, the emergence and rising of soft power is strongly linked with globalization and neoliberal theory. The source of soft power has been identified as the result of globalization process such as popular culture, media, spreading of one common language etc. All these means that, if a country achieves intercultural interaction using by soft power, it’s possible avoid the necessity of using hard and expensive power. For instance, neo-Ottomanism can be seen as an example of soft power of Turkey. It’s used due to the historical and cultural connections with especially Middle Eastern countries, and the Balkans. In addition, religious culture is another element to improve the cooperation with them. Despite the vulnerability of realism tin explaining world politics, neorealism also is not analyzed whole the picture. States is willing to use liberal terms and discourses, but in practice especially if it is an important national security problem, they tend to act with realist policies (Rourke, 2005: 31).
Empirically, Turkey has become an attractive country in recent years for especially the Arab World and in the Balkans due to its relatively democratic structure and western orientation as well as cultural and religious background. As
16 the Foreign Minister Davutoglu scrutinized that Turkey should pursue the balance
between soft and hard power and promote peace and stability in the surrounding regions. However, Turkey’s recognition as a regional soft power depends on not only international factors in Europe and beyond but also depends on domestic political actors which some point here to the Kurdish question of Turkey therefore to the democratization process (Fotiou, and Triantaphyllou, 2010: 106-107). The rising democratic implementations and pluralist political system have been Turkey’s changing inside along with civil society’s shifting influence in both domestic and foreign affairs. The country started to talk about its Kurdish question and trying to solve it that was a taboo in the past. Whilst the process is going slowly, Turkey abandoned to reject the issue itself and even began to use the terms like Kurdistan. Similarly, in the Armenian problem and Cyprus issue, Turkey has become softened its perspective. Despite the fact that Turkey has been willingness to use soft power in foreign relations since the beginning of twenty first century, it is still under the influence of hard power necessities that left from traditional roots, and in addition external factors like the characteristics of regions, other powerful entities, and its domestic challenges like Kurdish question. These outcomes can be ensured by willingness and ability to rely and deploy soft power rather than hard power (Kirisci, 2006). To sum up, Turkish policymakers realize that the contemporary world order is based on the realist terms, but states tends to liberal terms to solve the problems of Turkey and the troubles in the region that they live.
17
Chapter III
III.3. Turkish Foreign Policy and the Kurdish Question after the Cold War
III3.1.The Kurdish Question at Glance
In the beginning of nineteenth century, the Kurds in Iraq, Iran, and Turkey have sought to gain their national rights. However, due to the circumstances of both global and regional, it was not possible to build a Kurdish nation state. In Turkey, as a consequence of nation-building policy of Turkish Republic, “Turkish” had been only definition for citizenship in the 1924 constitution, because all ethnicities should be integrated including Kurds to the system. They were perceived as backward elements and potential threats to the unity of Turkish state. Therefore, as a nation building project Turkey has tried to obliterate the existence of the Kurds by assimilating them and claimed that they were just “mountain Turks”. The Kurdish language legally banned as well as their culture and geographical places' names changed along with other restrictions. By pursuing such actions Turkey itself radicalized its Kurdish problem and in short “sowed the seeds” (Gunter, 2000).
It is necessary to mention that the suppression policy of state could not prevent numbers of riots in the early republic. The most critical one was Sheyh Sait riot in 1925 which compressed by the state and Kurdish riots never showed itself until the mid-1970s. Aftermath, an increasingly significant proportion of Kurdish people in Turkey have actively begun to demand cultural, linguistic, and political rights as Kurdish identity. Meanwhile, Turkey was combating with communist ideologies, and most of the Kurdish groups composed from Marxist-Leninist ideology which led to a double suppression from state. The government has harshly rejected demands of Kurdish people, thus it caused to fuel extremism and the emergence of the PKK. Therefore in 1984, Abdullah Ocalan launched PKK as Kurdish insurgency that has resulted in more than thirty thousand deaths,
18 destroying the many villages, and millions of people immigrated from their
hometown. The conflict has become more serious between the 1984 and 1999. Nevertheless Kurdish issue has remained a source of fear in domestic as well as foreign policy of Turkey.
This is the most serious internal problem throughout Turkey’s history. Most Western countries see this problem differently from Turkey which based on the oppression and denial of rights of minority by the dominant group. First of all, the national identification on Kurds underlies Turkish state and society. The Kurdish question is also a part of democratization process in Turkey which means while it is wrong to reject the ethnic facet of the conflict, the Kurdish problem has “oft-neglected social, economic, political, ideological, and international dimensions” that showed itself in various forms during the last two decade (Gunter, 2000). The uncertain international environment and unstable domestic structure of Turkey during the Cold War were the source of unable policies. According to Sozen, Turkey could not adapt to the global changing in post-Cold War successfully due to economic and political instabilities during the 1990s. Moreover, Turkey was in struggle also against the PKK during the 1990s and this conflict was not only exhausted Turkey’s attention and energy, but also cost for Turkey billions of dollars.
At the same time, the conceptualization of national security of Turkey has become to change to be more complicated and multifaceted. However, Greece and Middle East were still the major sources of security threats due to their considerable logistical as well as political support to PKK. Therefore, Turkey found itself in the struggle with not only its domestic problem as PKK but also in foreign relations even those were its neighbors during the 1990s (Sozen, 2006:1-9). Meanwhile, the former foreign minister of Turkey Sukru Elekdag who was from traditional ecole and a retired ambassador and also former deputy undersecretary of the Foreign Ministry, described the situation of Turkey as “Turkey should prepare itself to fight “two and a half wars” that against Greece, Syria, and the PKK“ in the mid-1990s (Elekdag, 1996). Undoubtedly, these assumptions have showed the influences of orthodox mentality, and Kurdish question on TFP. All in all, the Kurdish question has been one of the main prisms of TFP and it’s been seen as fundamental threats of Turkish state along with the fear of Islamic
19 fundamentalism (Oran, 2005), (Ozturk, 2009).
The accelerated developments happened at the end of 1990s in comparison to last decade. These turning points were the capture of PKK's leader in 1999 and ceasefire, in December 1999 the announcement of EU candidacy, the U.S. intervention to Iraq in 2003, and the rejection of March 1st Bill, lastly the JDP
government in 2002 with its new vision of foreign policy. In 2001, the definition of national security priorities has changed especially along with decreasing of PKK and civil society’s role increased in domestic as well as foreign policy making. The emergence of Kurdistan autonomy in northern Iraq, Kurdish issue increased the attentions towards the Middle East. The Iraq War in 2003 and defeat of Saddam regime, as well as Turkey’s EU candidacy furthered this importance. In some analysis, the conflicts are inevitable results in the Middle East like after the down of Arab-Israeli disputes over long years. The importance of this issue is come from the characteristic of Kurds’ location which strategically vital due to oil and water resources (Gunter, 2004:197). However, this creates a dilemma for Kurdish people to gain their full independence in the region. Because an authority over the resources is not something that other powers would allow like Turkey, Russia and Iran. As always reminded by Turkey, no one in the region is willing to an independent Kurdish state, but accept only an autonomous government.
Obviously, Turkish state discriminated and tends to assimilate ethnic minorities for the long years. However, all governments and military establishment denied, and further see that question problem is mostly constitutional and socio-economic, thus the PKK is a terrorist organization and, the political order that refers to the unitary structure, is undisputable. The individual rights should be provided instead of group rights due to political threats on Turkish state’s independence. In contrast, for DTP (Demokratik Toplum Partisi – Democratic Society Party) which is one of the opposition parties in the parliament as representative of Kurdish population, the PKK should participate to political sphere, and an ethnic based autonomy should establish in Turkey. Furthermore, Kurdish identity should be specifically stated in the constitution like the examples in the world Scotia, Kosovo and Iraq (Efegil, 2010). By its very nature, the Turkish state rejects to negotiate with the PKK, defines the PKK as an ethnic based separatism and
20 terrorist organization. No doubt, there will be no solution unless the disarmament
of the PKK, and negotiated on democratic rights. Nevertheless, the most important problem in Turkey’s Kurdish question is neither regional nor external actors, but as Unver suggested before that the Kurdish question has lack of definition in Turkey which means there is no unified answer to the question of what is the Kurdish problem, and also the demands and expectations are different. To be understood all aspects, the Kurdish problem has to be defined and negotiated explicitly (Unver, 2010).
III3.1. Turkish Foreign Policy Dimensions: late 1980s until 2002
Turkey’s foreign and security policy has undergone revision and redefinition in response to changes in Turkey’s security environment as well as domestic pressures since the end of the Cold War (Keyman, 2009). The constitutive dimensions of pro-active and “new” TFP identity engaged with geopolitics, modernity and democracy. Traditionally TFP was based on conventional security threats those arising from the threat of Soviet Union as well as Greece, Iraq and Syria throughout the Cold War. Another characteristic of traditional TFP was the domination of certain political and military elite and realpolitik perspective in foreign policy decisions (Kirisci, 2006:31). In contrary in recent years unlike the traditional approach, Turkey has sought to initiate a pro-active, multi-dimensional, and constructive foreign policy in various areas, such as involving to peace and stability in the Middle East to play an active role, opposing terrorism and extremism, from being a new energy hub and to act as one of the pioneers of the inter-civilization dialogue initiative and aiming at producing a vision that based on dialogue and tolerance in the world (Keyman, 2009:4-5).
The sources of traditional TFP which still have influences on contemporary TFP were explained by Murinson in four periods. These sources can be summarized as “the historical experience of the Ottoman Empire (the tradition of the balance of power); the nationalist Kemalist revolution and creation of the republic itself (isolationism); western orientation expressed in the policy of Europeanization and modernization; the suspicion from foreign powers and interests that also defined
21 as the Sèvres Syndrome of Turkey” (Murinson, 2006: 945). The Kurdish problem
consists almost all periods in different levels. However, it firstly emerged in the late Ottoman Empire and then suppressed in after the Kemalist revolution and the early-republican era, and finally reemerged during the Europeanization process after the Cold War. In addition, the PKK has always seen externally supported and it created a great suspect to the other states.
The most important concept of traditional TFP has been the Sèvres Syndrome as mentioned before that led to shy away Turkey from cooperation, efficient foreign policies and alienated especially towards its surrounding regions. Sèvres Syndrome refers to Treaty of Sèvres which was signed in 1920 by the Ottoman Empire and Allies of the First World War and sought to division of former Ottoman Empire to create an independent Kurdish, and Armenian states and to add the west of Turkey to Greece (Kirişçi, 2003: 284-294). This syndrome has been attributed with the long-standing realpolitik perspective of TFP, thus it caused to emerge a latent mistrust towards West and the Middle Eastern neighbors for long years. The military establishment increased its efficiency as a result of realpolitik view of world and TFP characterized by a deep sense of suspicion and tendency to move away from cooperation. Even though, in the Sevres Treaty the independency was promised to Kurds a homeland, it has never been granted, therefore the Kurdish question has caused to a great deal of violence to gain its independence and has occupied both domestic and foreign policy of Turkey in varying degrees for over eight decades (Yavuz and Ozcan, 2006: 102-103). The ideology of Kemalism was another driving force of traditional TFP based on the philosophy of Turkish Republic’s founder Ataturk which maintained pro-western orientation and secular character of Turkish state. The modern Turkey definition of Kemalism sees it as a western society which consists Islamic, Asian and the Middle Eastern alternatives. This realpolitik approach of TFP based nationalist and statist doctrines of Kemalist ideology were institutionalized in the bureaucratic-authoritarian organs of state (Murinson, 2006). The dramatic changes in the international system after the dissolution of Soviet Union, Turkey realized that it began to lose its importance for western allies. Unlike the bipolar world, insecurity and instability could increase in this new and uncertain environment. Under the leadership of Turgut Ozal, the transformation of Turkish politics had been affected by either domestic such as the beginning of liberalization process,
22 and international changing that refers to the abolishing of Cold War's balance of
power (Aydin, 2005: 3-4).
Turgut Ozal was the first Prime Minister and then the President of Turkey from 1984-1993 who launched the Neo-Ottomanism approach in TFP and filed the traditional security-focused Kemalist ideolody. The original background of Ottomanism was based on a nineteenth century liberal political movement that was aiming to a formation of a civic ottoman national identity overarching ethnic, linguistic and religious identities (Grigoriadis, 2010). But the modern Neo-Ottomanism characterizes the foreign policy as repositioning of Turkey in the international system in the current international order and rediscovering of Turkey's historical ties in the former multi-national and multi-ethnical community of the Ottoman Empire in its contemporary type (Kramer, 2010). Furthermore the concept of Turkish-Islamic synthesis is also adopted along with this philosophy which focuses on Turkish nationalism and Islam as key contributors to the international standing of Turkey. Hence, the combination of historical legacy of Ottoman and Islamic culture was seen as a key approach to be a regional soft power (Murinson, 2006: 7-11).
TFP under Ozal administration sought to continue to be strategic alliance of the West because it is seen only way to increase Turkey's role in regional as well as global world. Therefore, he advocated to join the European Community (EC) and believed that Turks are Muslim Europeans into the European political system. Besides, the first Gulf War was significant development for Turkey due to its geostrategic importance, and to strength relations with the west. Turkey saw the conflict as an opportunity for Turkey to hold more active policies. Thereby, despite the oppositions of the army, Turkey supported the US against Saddam regime in Iraq. The aim here was to provide awareness about Turkey's strategic importance and to benefit from economic and political opportunities in the post-war position. This action is considered as significant departure from Turkey’s traditional policy line that emphasized to avoid deeply involvement to the world affairs. Moreover, thanks to Ozal government, Turkey focused on the economic aspects of external relations as well as tried to solve other problematic issues with increasing economic cooperation. Neo-liberal mottos had been used; also both TFP and domestic affairs had been shaped according to liberal point of view.
23 Instead of security-oriented policies, Turkey was developing its economy and
taking care to seek an active foreign policy to protect its economic interests in the world. Accordingly, the growing Turkish exports forced Turkish policymakers to look at the “neglected regions” such as the Balkans, the Black Sea and the Middle East. In this regard, Turkey was in crisis with Bulgaria, Greece, Lebanon and Syria in the 1980s, but achieved to improve economic relations with them.
Turkey sought to develop activeness after the war both in domestic and foreign relations. In that sense, it was necessary to revise the main pillars of the republic which are Turkish citizenship, unity, individual rights, and state's responsibilities as a result of neoliberal perspective. Laciner argues that as a “synthesis of liberalism, Turkism, Islamism and Ottomanism” second republicanism has been produced in domestic politics and “liberal, moderate religious and economy-oriented” foreign policies has been called as neo-Ottomanism. (Sedat Laciner, 2009). All these events reinforced of the current position of Turkey to the heritage of Ottoman Empire (Murinson, 2006: 946).
III3.2. Strategic Depth Approach
This section analyses the further situation of neo-Ottomanism as well as in the actions of state officials after the Justice and Development Party by 2002. The external relations such as enhancing relations with Syria and Iran, and increasing public reaction to the Iraq occupation were the developments those caused a dramatic shift and change in TFP vision (Murinson, 2006: 948-49). The new perspective of Turkey is based on vision, soft power, a universal language, implementing such consistent foreign policies in different parts of the world. To be active in the West, the North, East and South and trying to work hard on all of these fronts without creating an issue of axis- to defend regional and global peace (Davutoglu, 2009). The current foreign policy agenda has extended by Foreign Minister Davutoglu ans his book that is called as ‘Strategic Depth’. It’s imporant to keep in mind that this foreign policy vision is in parallel with previous Foreign Minister Ismail Cem’s vision. Similarly, Cem was pointing out that the TFP should be based on a multilateral understanding of international relations which refers Turkey should conduct a “multipronged” foreign policy. Also, Turkey
24 should not pursue the Cold War strategy, which was based on mutual cooperation
with the West in all scopes, while neglecting the neighbor regions, but should consider them equally upon their relative importance whether strategic or economic. The historical role of Turkey in the region and its potential is very significant for solution in one of the most conflict prone regions of the world (Szymanski 2009a: 129-130).
When it comes to Strategic Depth1 approach, as mentioned it’s been constructed
the new pillars of Turkish foreign policy throughout the last nine years. The main thesis of this doctrine can be described as strategic depth is based on “geographical depth” and “historical depth” which means there are two permanent realities of states those are their geography and history, other factors may change in the context of international, regional or domestic circumstances. Geographical situation refers to being at the center of many geopolitical areas such as the Middle East, Balkans, and Caucasus. Also, in order to become a regional power, Turkey needs to practice caution and to arrange Turkish foreign policy within ‘strategic parameters’ which set by the great powers. From this point of view, Turkey has started to get involved to global issues thereby using the international platforms which signify a transformation for Turkey from a central country to a global and regional power (Davutoglu, 2008:83). According to some, the international and domestic context today make that vision more applicable for Turkey than they might have been in the past (Fotiou, and Triantaphyllou, 2010).
In case of need to take a look, Strategic Depth approach has three methodological principles and five operative principals that constituted the basis of current TFP. First methodology is a visionary approach implementing a vision-oriented foreign policy in other words which based on vision mutual respect, stability, peace and prosperity instead of a crisis oriented approach. The second methodological principle is a consistent and systematic framework that means Turkey's vision for the Middle East shouldn't contrast to approach in Central Asia or Balkans. The final methodological principle is trying to have a new style, in the sense of political rhetoric and tools as an instrument that is called by Davutoglu in one word as “Soft Power”. According to him Turkey should provide balance between
25 soft and hard power and all of these principles can be summarized as vision
orientation; a systematic framework; using soft power are all compatible with European values and transatlantic orientation (Davutoglu, 2009).
The most controversial operative principle of strategic depth approach is “zero problems with neighbors”. With this principle, Turkey purposes a maximum cooperation, and economic integration with all neighbors to provide peace and stability. The JDP government has established constructive relations with the different religious and ethnic groups in Iraq, such as the Kurds, Turcomans and the Sunnis in order to achieve zero problems with neighbors. In addition to Iraq, relations with Syria, Iran, Armenia, Russia has been improved as a result of this approach. Nevertheless, zero problems with neighbors has always been criticized due to Turkey's increasing close relations with Muslim countries and claims about Turkey’s shift away from West. Also, the intense atmosphere between Turkey and Israel because of flotilla crisis since last summer, the Arab spring and its dramatic impacts to change the balances of region, rising tension with Syrian regime will increase critics and questioning the strategic depth principles as a foreign policy strategies. In summary, strategic depth approach calls for active engagement with all regions in Turkey's neighborhood. The geographic and historical identity are needed to rediscovered along with the position vis a vis regional and global issues. In addition, Turkey would transform itself into a global actor in addition emphasizing the importance of economic independency in the globalizing world and it needs to build strong economic linkages with all regional states.
By the neo-Ottoman discourse the contemporary TFP aims to take more assertive role as a regional player. Turkey has been willing to solve regional conflicts with diplomatic efforts to bring a peaceful resolution to the chronic issues. The actual intention of JDP behind is to decrease other powerful states' intervention toward Middle Eastern affairs as current president Abdullah Gul states:
“If we don't take the control in the region and ignore the problems, than others will try to solve their way and interfere in our affairs, and this interference will take place in the wrong way because they don't understand our sensitivities, our habits, cultures and social structure”.
26 The crisis of 1st March Bill in 2003 can be an example, which was decision of
parliament regarding the rejection to allow American troops southeastern territory for Iraq invasion (Murinson, 2006:954). It’s not wrong to say that the JDP seeks to formulate more independent foreign policy decisions and more conservative than the adopted strategies in 1990s. If Turkey would allow the U.S., it would never catch the current position and prestige in Arab world. No doubt, political spectrum of JDP has been influenced from a certain degree of the liberal conservatism on the foreign policy agenda, and the politically realist-pragmatic objectives.
In addition, Turkish Syrian relations during the 1990s were in tens but in the post-JDP period Turkey has been prepared to play a significant role in Syrian politics with the political rapprochement as well as economic cooperation. Simultaneously along with the JDP government as domestic change, Turkish-Iranian relations have improved after the Iraq War in 2003 due to provide balance and prevent the rising of Iran in the region. Turkish Israeli relations have been also in tense due to Palestinian conflict. JDP has attempted to solve Israel-Palestine conflict and JDP's attitude towards plight of the Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza became a prominent factor in TFP and this inevitably affected Turkish-Israeli relations. As a result of extreme Israel attacks to Gaza, Turkey clearly criticized Israel's policies and called it as a “terrorist state”. The JDP has ability to uphold good relations with all important actors in the region from U.S. to Hamas. Turkey's ambitious to provide a peaceful region as a result of strategic depth doctrine and the JDP government as an implementer Turkey started to be mediator to solve the problems of region, between Syria and Israel first. After several attempts by Turkey to solve that problem, Turkey could not reach any solution and exhausted its diplomatic efforts over divergence of position of both Syria and Israel. Also, Davos incident between Turkish Prime Minister and Israeli President in 2009 has had a negative impact on bilateral relations between Turkey and Israel as well as on Turkey's image as a peacemaker and honest broker.
After the second term of JDP since 2007, Turkey seems to be increasingly pursuing a regional soft power. This has realized except the JDP government and the perspective of Strategic Depth but also due to challenges in Turkey’s immediate neighborhood like protracted conflicts in Caucasus and the Middle East, energy issues and EU's prioritization of the need for energy diversification,
27 migration management, stability and security in its wider neighborhood.
Nevertheless, Turkey's soft power has been challenging and limiting due to the characteristics of the region which have been formed by fragmentation and conflict. For instance, because of the domination of hard power in the region, mediations have failed (Altunisik, 2008:41-54).
The constructions of the Nabucco pipeline, as well as Turkish–Russian cooperation in the South Stream project are critical in energy game in the EU– Russia–U.S. triangle. In addition, the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq will be a test for American–Turkish relations. At the same time, the rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey, ultimate opening of borders in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh question will be negotiated (in relation to Azerbaijan’s and Russia’s strategic interests) – to the extent that these issues are perceived positively by Western governments and this accelerates for Turkey’s recognition as a regional ‘‘soft power’’. But the multifaceted foreign policy approach and regional soft power desire is challenging and testing in such examples that are possible Armenian–Turkish rapprochement without a resolution of the Nagorno– Karabakh issue. It could impact negatively on Azerbaijan’s possible involvement as a natural gas supplier to the Nabucco project. Also, at the domestic level, the Armenian–Turkish rapprochement involving the thorny issue of the Armenian genocide, the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh question, and relations with Azerbaijan and Russia may raise the voices of the nationalists, if not handled cautiously. Last but not least, Middle Eastern actors’ recognition of Turkey as a regional leader seems to be accepted by neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia nor Egypt. Turkey still has to consider a number of waiting and ongoing issues which its relations with Kurdish citizens, and northern Iraq, reopening borders and the implementation of additional Protocol to Ankara agreement with Armenia, the eventual situation of Cyprus, and the settlement of the Aegean dispute with Greece, in addition the tension between Russia and Georgia, and Nagorno-Karabakh crisis in the Caucasus, while pursuing the zero problems with neighbors vision (Fotiou, Triantaphyllou, 2010: 109-112).
Unlike the past, for JDP Turkey's EU membership is desirable but it cannot be Turkey's unique strategic orientation. However, the EU membership is very critical to apply democratic reforms and democratization process especially
28 towards domestic conflicts. Since 2005, EU accession of Turkey has going down
in the context of implementations; at the same time the violation and attacks from Kurdish insurgency has increased, and gained acceleration after 2005. Turkey should pay attention to this coincidence because without EU, Turkey will keep to have challenges in context of its soft power aspirations (Grigoriadis, 2010: 3-5).
III3.4. Turkish Foreign Policy under the Influences of Kurdish Question The Kurdish problem has a great impact on the general view, domestic dynamics and bilateral relations of Turkey after the Cold War. Primarily, it has threatened the national unity and territorial integrity of Turkey; also the international dimensions have made it the one of the most important problems in foreign policy of Turkey (Kurubas, 2009). As the current President Gul argued that “the biggest problem of Turkey is the Kurdish question. Whether you name it as a terror problem, a Southeastern Anatolia problem or a Kurdish problem, this is the first question of Turkey. It has to be solved.” (Todays Zaman, 2010)
Kurdish issue and its impacts on Turkish foreign policy have been perceived as a domestic problem of Turkey by the policymakers for long years. Turkey has been the most repressive country in cultural policy toward Kurds, denying their existence as a separate nationality within Turkey until very recently. International conferences in Paris in 1989 and in Stockholm in 1991 have brought Kurdish entity together and focused greater international attention on them as a community. With the Gulf War, the greatest opportunities yet have emerged for the Kurds to assert their aspirations for the autonomy as their minimalist goal.
III3.4.1. Regional Influences
The presence of Kurds in the region is strongly related with Turkey’s relations with Iran and Iraq. All three governments have opposed to the Kurdish nationalist movements in their territory and in the region. This common opposition is one of the most important reasons of the cooperation between them along with economic interdependence. The Kurdish tragedy during the Gulf War (Halabja incident) led
29 to face Turkey with the humanitarian aspect of the Kurdish issue. The refugees
migrated from Iraq to Iran and Turkey. Even though Ankara was not very willingness to accept huge amount of migration, it was not possible to ignore and reject them in front of the international community due to humanitarian reasons (Hale, 1992). The Kurdish aspiration for autonomy in northern Iraq and possible negative repercussions has become the common concern for both countries. Thanks Kurdish aspirations, the new relationships have been based on sharing common interests, historical links, and common policy in the preservation of Iraq's territorial integrity.
Instrumentally, Turkey has been trying to build good relations with Iraq and particularly Kurdistan Regional Government to eliminate the role of PKK, and because of trans-border trade and other economic activities towards the region. Kramer claims that the events on Iraq, U.S. administrations decisions and traditional national security concerns have been the factors which underlie the Turkey's Iraq policy rather than the Strategic Depth approach or zero problems with neighbor’s principle. After the defeat of Saddam regime, JDP’s policy towards Iraq constructed traditional national security considerations and sought to have more influence in Iraq with the large opposition to the emerging entity in northern Iraq. Furthermore, Turkey’s priority has been its national security and territorial integrity rather than the stability and peace in Iraq and the region regarding with its Kurdish question (Kramer, 2010: 12-13). However, without peace and stability in surrounding regions, Turkey cannot provide its national security and territorial integrity; therefore there is a linkage and balance between them rather a fragmentation that Turkey has already realized. The dispute on Mosul and Kirkuk provinces in relations with Baghdad has become to shape Turkey’s strategies toward Kurdistan regional government after the Iraq War. The issue depend on these provinces’ major oil reserves that would potentially provide an economic foundation for the Kurdish autonomous entity. This has been perceived as a direct threat to the stability of Turkish state by military and civilian decision makers. Kirkuk and Mosul has Turcoman population except Kurds, and Turkey began to support them increasingly at the same time, and has warned the international community that Kurdish leaders might conduct an ethnic cleansing on Turcoman in these provinces to provide the majority. Any majority there would serve a territorial base for the creation of an independent Kurdish state. Regarding
30 with this, Turkey views these developments extremely dangerous, a threat to Iraq's
security, territorial integrity and long term existence. Especially Kirkuk is considered as the linchpin of Iraq, and even according to some it is seriously important for Iraq’s territorial integrity (Murinson, 2006). While the fragile relations with Iraq due to the Kirkuk question and ongoing operations of the PKK from northern Iraq, Turkey’s economic relations with north Iraq has increasing day by day. It consists seventy per cent of exports towards Middle East. Also, in 2010, Turkey started a diplomatic relations with Kurdistan regional Government and opened a consulate in Arbil. So, it’s been noticed that Turkey cannot be a regional power with ignoring a significant part or the ethnic group of the region. However, under such sensitive relations no one can guarantee the stability and regularity.
Turkish Iranian relations in the context of the Kurdish question might be considered as mutual security cooperation, or common fight. In 1998 a Turkey-Iran High Security Commission was established in order to construct a common fight against PKK, and PEJAK (Freedom Part of Kurdistan) which is Iranian Kurdish insurgency. In addition, Iran and Turkey signed a memorandum as an operation Scheme on security cooperation including the sharing armed intelligence in struggle towards Kurdish terrorist organizations. Also, it includes a joint commitment for security cooperation in struggle against the PKK and keeping Iraq’s territorial integrity. The Kurds in Iran are more passive in politics due to authoritarian regime, in contrast to Turkey. To be reliable energy partner such a region also another challenge for both countries that steer them into cooperation. However, something should not be ignored that, Iran is the most complex state in the region which means its agenda has always been fuzzy. Iran acts according to their sectarian roots, and in case of damage interest, it would not hesitate to use the vulnerabilities.
Turkish and Israeli relations have always been in route even was the most successful one in the Middle East except recent developments during the last year like Israel’s ruthless embargo on Gaza, Turkey’s reaction due to this embargo in Davos 2009, and Gaza Flotilla crisis that resulted the death of nine Turkish citizens in last summer. Economic and especially military cooperation reached to peak during the 1990s. Israel supported Turkey’s struggle against Kurdish separatists by support of military technology and sometimes cooperated in the
31 military operations. After the second term of JDP, the tension erupted after the
Hamas's electoral victory which designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and the EU in Palestine. Hamas’s meeting with Turkish politicians caused to waste the mediator plans of Turkey between Israel and Syria. Israel bitterly responded and declared that what the Turkish reaction would be if Tel Aviv has invited Abdullah Ocalan who is now imprisoned leader of PKK, to Israel for talks. Also, Israel has always reminded Turkish fight with Kurdish separatists when Turkey criticized its policies towards Palestine. Israel also another state which will never hesitate to use this discourse against Turkey until the solution of Kurdish question (Kramer, 2010). Inevitably, Turkish-Israeli relations have been still upside-down during the disputes on the flotilla crisis, thus Israel shadow forth to cooperate with the PKK against Turkey to discourage from its demands from Israel. Clearly, Turkey’s Kurdish question will keep its importance as a trump to use against Turkey as long as it’s solved.
III3.4.2. Relations with the Western Bloc & Russia
In the West, Kurdish question affected Turkey's relations with Greece when Ocalan expelled from Syria. Because Ocalan got permission from Greece to pass the country, and even he captured in the Greece Embassy in Kenya, Nairobi. While, Turkey Greece crisis also reached to peak during this process, especially two foreign ministers Ismail Cem and Yorgo Papanderou got effort for rapprochement. As a consequence, with the support of Greece, Turkey was declared as candidate country for EU membership at Helsinki EU summit in 1999.
During the 1990s, some of the European Parliamentary members pushed Turkey to make more concessions about the Kurdish problem, such as the release of jailed DEP (Democracy Party) parliamentarians the representative of Kurdish population, and the others were satisfied with little constitutional changes and the modification of the infamous Article 8 of the penal code. However, Turkey was unwilling to consider the reforms that were the basic fundamental freedoms and supported by the EU (Moustakis, 2005). While Turkey was actively pushing for inclusion into the Customs Union, it did not move away from confrontations with European Union member states over the Kurdish issue. Both Belgium and the Netherlands
32 were severely criticized for allowing the Kurdish parliament. The presence of
Kurdish diaspora in Europe has increased the involvement of European governments because they were politically mobilized, and Kurdish activities have helped sustain the pressure on Ankara (Kirisci, 2003). In the report of European Commission on Turkey’s membership progress, announced the meeting the Copenhagen political criteria, which require stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities which particularly point out to the Kurdish issue and non-muslims status in Turkey. Also, the report notes that, “as regards freedom of expression, an increasingly open and free debate continued on a wide scale in the media and public on topics perceived as sensitive, such as the Kurdish issue, minority rights, the Armenian issue and the role of the military. Pressure on newspapers discussing the Kurdish question or publishing in Kurdish increased” (EU Commission Turkey Progress Report, 2010). Moreover, it indicates that there has been some progress in the area of culture but no progress on legislative alignment. However, Turkey’s EU accession has started to going down due to Cyprus issue, and EU’s increasing pressure on the democratic solution of Kurdish problem by 2006. All in all, the membership process is directly linked to Turkey’s Kurdish question, even one of the critical titles along with Cyprus issue. However, the new foreign policy of Turkey has not been directly linked with the EU anymore; therefore the EU is not only force to influence Turkey towards its Kurdish question. No doubt, getting away from EU regarding the solution is not going to result in favor of Turkey.
The most crucial factor in Turkey’s geopolitical location is its relations with the United States (U.S.). In the 1990s, President Ozal was the first to start a new era in Turkish-American relations, despite increasing domestic opposition, in joining the multinational coalition towards Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. As mentioned earlier Turkey in the Kurdish question, was more willing to follow policy choices outside and was less willing to “demonize” the United States and the West at that time. However, Turkish foreign policy accessed its previous position in the relations with the US which based on distant in the mid-1990s. Apart from the Cold War discourses towards U.S. in Turkey, the pro-American policies of Ozal government have increased anti-American parts both in the political and social life of Turkey. Ozal was strongly criticized for country’s
33 support in the Gulf War, and also economically dependent situation. The source of
anti-American opinions has been the U.S.’s strategies in the Middle East. Even the U.S. has always been a suspect who supports and provides to the PKK military and logistical bases. In this context, according to surveys among Turkish citizens in 2009, for more than eighty per cent majority, U.S. is still one of the powers who work for destroying Turkey.
Despite the pro-Turkish positions of U.S. administrations, the Kurdish question invades on the U.S.-Turkish dialogue in three areas: “policy toward Iraq, and northern Iraq in particular; human rights violations in Turkey; and concern for Turkey’s long-term stability in the face of potential civil war there” (Barkey, and Fuller, 1998). In this context, Operation Provide Comfort (OPC), as a protective measure for the Kurds in northern Iraq, ensured migration of half a million Iraqi Kurdish refugees towards Turkey after the Gulf War. However, the returning of the refugees created high ranking debates in the Turkish parliament about the relations with the U.S. The OPC was perceived by some parties in Turkey as an apparatus to support the PKK, and the preparation for Kurdish state in the north of Iraq. While Turkey is very strategic and valuable ally in the region and one of the pro-U.S. countries with Israel, the humanitarian and moral aspect of Kurdish question cannot be ignored. The aftermath of Iraq War (2003), the U.S. has been in favor of Turkey’s participation in rebuilding and economic development of Iraq (Olson, 2006). All in all, Turkey is not willing to destroy the closer relations with Iraq and especially with Kurdish government, because both U.S. and Turkey regards Turkey’s role in the post-U.S. Iraq. Additionally, regarding with PKK, the U.S. has supported Turkey’s views and accepts PKK as a terrorist organization. The fear of the U.S. is breaking up of Iraq, thus weakening of Turkey which would allow the rise of Iran, and would create a great instability in the Middle East. However, Kurdish self-determination does not seem to close to the U.S. because it’s potentially make upside down the balances and structure of the region (Moustakis, 2005). As mentioned in the previous sections, TFP has been still trying to get the balance in the relations among all the actors of region, therefore the Turcomans, Shia, as well as Kurds and other different entities of Iraq are important for Turkey to overcome the fragile situation.
