In an exclusive interview with Today’s Zaman, Professor Arslan discussed the new era of relations between Turkey and the Middle East. Underlining that the history of the Middle East during the past 200 years has to be studied in detail in order to correctly analyze the current relations between Turkey and the Middle East, Arslan asserts: “Currently, there is a foreign policy strategy which is very similar to the multifaceted foreign policy practices employed during the time of Atatürk. Atatürk contacted the countries in the region as the UK was leaving the region. Now, the US is pulling out of the region, and Turkey is contacting the countries in the region in the same manner.”
Pointing out that after the end of the bipolar world, Turkey expended all of its energy on trying to enter the European Union, Arslan argues, “However, the EU has alienated Turkey, and now Turkey is taking advantage of the emerging opportunities.”
How do you see Turkey’s increased interest in the Middle East?
Although Islam is generally regarded as the religion of Arabs, it was the Turks who made it a global religion. Islam is a global religion and a global power today thanks to the Turks. The Turks took this religion out of the Arab Peninsula where it was contained and carried it to Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Arabs always asked for help from the Turks when they encountered difficult situations. The Turks always protected Islam against external threats. The Crusades mainly tried to destroy Arab Muslims.
So you say that Turks have turned Islam into a global religion?
It was the Turks who saved the Arab world from the Crusades in 1092 and prevented the Crusaders from achieving political domination in the region. After 1492, Spain and Portugal turned their eyes to the Middle East. In 1508, the Portuguese conquered Hormuz and Muscat. They even attempted to move the Prophet’s grave to Europe in 1512. Faced with the Portuguese conquering Medina and Mecca, Turkey took action. Realizing that the Portuguese, who were trying to take hold of the Suez region, would beat the Mamluks, Ottoman Sultan Yavuz Sultan Selim started a military campaign against Egypt. Meanwhile, it should be noted that the Mamluks cooperated with the Venetians.
Looking at Turkey’s foreign relations today, is this the first time since the Atatürk period that it has achieved the correct balance of relations?
Yes. Turkey seized another big chance after the end of World War II. In 1945, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen set up the Arab League. Turkey welcomed this step, and the Arabs appreciated Turkey’s stance. No problems arose when Syria became independent. In fact, during that time there was not even any mention of the Hatay problem. Syria said it accepted any agreement signed by France on its behalf, and Turkey instantly recognized Syria.
Why did relations start to change?
The Cold War era ruined this climate. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ [USSR] demands for Turkish lands and rights concerning the Bosporus Straits pushed Turkey into the arms of the US. Stalin made one of the biggest mistakes in his life, and until March 1, 2003, Turkey was never able to act independently of the US.
Do you think the rejection of the March 1 bill -- when the Turkish Parliament rejected a motion to allow the US to base troops in Turkey in order to wage war in northern Iraq -- was a milestone?
The March 1 bill had a huge role in these developments. Ever since the 1950s, Turkey constantly generated a foreign policy that was oriented toward the US. March 1 was the first time Turkey took a stance against the US in an incident that involved the US. The rejection of the bill renewed the image of Turkey in the eyes of the Arab world, which had seen Turkey as the US’s second partner in the Middle East after Israel. Turkey showed for the first time that it could act independently.
Looking back, would you say there was a change in this foreign policy after the end of the Republican People’s Party’s [CHP] single party administration?
No. [İsmet] İnönü’s policies were continued by the Democrat Party [DP]. Meanwhile, as NATO was being established, there were plans to set up a command post in the Middle East. While the UK wanted this post to be in Egypt, the US wanted it to be set up in Turkey. Unfortunately, at this time Turkey was still siding with the UK. Turkey failed to choose the right side once again. When problems started in Cyprus in 1954, Israel opposed Greece’s interest in the island. But instead of allying with Israel, Turkey moved away from Israel. During the Suez Crisis, France and the UK attacked Egypt. Turkey announced that the UK and France had violated the law but held Egypt responsible. That’s not all; Turkey also had a negative reaction toward Israel.
 Who is Professor Ali Arslan? Professor Ali Arslan, a professor of history at İstanbul University’s faculty of letters, is a prolific academic and author of a number of books, including: “Türk Cumhuriyetleri ile Türk Topluluklarından Türkiye’ye Gelen Öğrenciler” (Students Coming from the Turkic Republics to Turkey); “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Rum Basını” (The Greek Press in Ottoman State); “Kısır Döngü Türkiye’de Üniversite ve Siyaset” (The Vicious Cycle: University and Politics in Turkey); “Kutsal Ermeni Papalığı Eçmiyazin Kilisesi’nde Stratejik Savaşlar” (Strategic Wars at Eçmiyazin Church, Sacred Armenian Papacy); “Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Rum Basını” (The Greek Press from the Ottoman State to the Republic); “Balkanların Anahtarı: Önemi Bilinmeyen Ada Taşöz” (The Key of the Balkans: Taşöz, an Unappreciated Island); and “Avrupa’dan Türkiye’ye İkinci Yahudi Göçü” (The Second Jewish Migration from Europe to Turkey). |
How do you explain Adnan Menderes’ rapprochement with Russia?
Menderes is someone who paid the price of adopting an anti-Soviet policy domestically while strengthening relations with the Soviets in the realm of foreign relations at time when Turkey’s relations with the Arab world were deteriorating with his own life. Between 1960 and 1980 Turkey was very confused about its foreign policy.
How long did this confusion last?
After the 1974 Cyprus peace movement, Turkey developed a new foreign policy and defense doctrine. The reason for this was the arms embargo imposed by the US. This doctrine, which was prepared by [Bülent] Ecevit, aimed to free Turkey from its dependency on a single source in the field of defense. Ecevit decided that developing good relations with neighbors was the most powerful method of defense, instead of investing heavily in arms. Ways to develop joint weapons production with Iran and Libya were sought. Turkey tried to free itself from dependency on a single source until 1983. Even Kenan Evren, who staged a coup with support from the US, went to Moscow for weapons negotiations.
Is that what gave birth to the idea of a Turkish defense industry?
Turkey started taking steps to produce its own weapons in 1983 with Turgut Özal, who appeared to be a pro-American figure. Özal applied to the customs union saying: “Since you see me as inside the Western bloc then I want to be represented in an all-Western institution. I want a right to speak.” His application was denied in 1989. Turkey signed its biggest water agreement with Syria in 1987.
What does Turkey want to do now?
In fact, Turkey wants to take advantage of the chance it has. Turkey, which has been focused on its EU membership bid since the end of Cold War, has been deliberately kept away from this club by the EU itself. The US sought to become influential in the region; but its attempts failed. The US now has no power to control the region. It is encountering serious problems; the new power balance in the Pacific significantly affects the US. A Southeast Asian union is being created. This new formation will include China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and India. When this entity fully emerges, a new economic basin will be dominant. The US is not in a position to show interest in the Middle East.
But the opposition parties argue that this role of engaging with the Middle East has been given to Turkey by the US?
Is Turkey doing all this hand-in-hand with the US? No. To me, Turkey is seizing the opportunities presented to it. The US explained that it will withdraw [from Iraq]. During this withdrawal, everything in the region will concern Turkey. There is some correlation between Turkey’s eagerness to be involved in regional affairs and the US’s intention to withdraw. But this does not necessarily mean that the void is being filled. The US is reducing its influence in the region, but its sphere of influence will not disappear entirely. Maybe someday it will re-emerge. I think the foreign policy pursued by this government has some similarities with the style followed by Atatürk. The strength and power of every actor in the region has been taken into account, and a constructive relationship based on the recognition of mutual interests is being developed with every country in the region. Turkey is aware that without good relations with countries such as Iraq, Syria and Iran, it will experience negative impacts resulting from the developments taking place there.
What the West fears of most is the rapprochement between Turkey and Iran.
This relationship should not be misinterpreted. Any development regarding Iran may affect Turkey; Iran is a critical country, any move of which may affect the entire region. This is not acceptable to Turkey; for this reason, Turkey is taking measures [to improve relations with Iran], Iran needs us and Turkey needs Iran.
What would you say about the deteriorating relations with Israel?
It is not true that Turkey has given up on Israel. Turkey points to the wrongful actions by the Israeli government, not the state of Israel. The prime minister threatens the Israeli administration, not the Israeli state. He made some protests against its evil actions. Reasonable officials and authorities in Israel say what our prime minister says. Turkey will never try to destroy the Israeli state. It is the only Jewish state in the region. Its actions imply that it does not want the survival of any state in the region other than Israel. This is the actual source of the problem. Turkey wants the creation of a Palestinian state that will survive.
Have you observed a growing anti-Israeli sentiment among the public?
It is impossible that anti-Semitism will emerge in Turkey because of cultural reasons. This is just impossible. Turks embraced 500,000 Sephardic Jews in 1492. They did Jews the greatest favor in the early 1900s. In Europe, Jews were viewed as members of a nation that should be totally annihilated; they were subjected to inhumane treatment and persecution, including exile. The British and the French carried out such brutal campaigns. Most people believe that only the Germans committed massacres against the Jews. However, the others engaged in ethnic cleansing before the Germans. Even though the Ottoman state was aware of the Jewish community’s ambition to have a separate state, the Ottoman Empire reserved living spaces for the Jews in Bursa, İzmir and other areas. The current public reaction against Zionism in Turkey is due to the Palestinian question. However, this reaction cannot be viewed as anti-Semitism.
Do you think the EU’s attitude is also influential in Turkey’s eagerness to become more active in the region?
The status of privileged partnership offered by some EU countries resulted in disappointment for Turkey. Turkey is not a country that will agree to second-class membership. The EU actually pushed Turkey away with these actions. It would not be proper for Turkey to accept this offer. The EU has made Turkey suffer; most EU countries still oppose Turkey’s fight against terrorism. Even the US wants the [Kurdistan Workers’ Party] PKK’s second-highest ranking man because of his involvement in drug smuggling -- not for crimes of terrorism. In such an environment, Turkey is pursuing a multidimensional foreign policy consistent with the current state of the world. And it does so quite properly; so Western actors have no right to argue that Turkey is giving up on the West. In such a case, Turkey is entitled to even launch an Antarctica initiative because it has realized that it has to act this way in a global world.
Some call this neo-Ottomanist policy…
Neo-Ottomanism is not realistic; there is neither the will nor the power to conduct neo-Ottomanist foreign policy. The Ottoman Empire was dominant in the region because of global competition. The peoples in the region needed the Ottomans. Currently, Turkey has no potential to become a global actor. Also, the Middle Eastern countries looked at the Ottoman state through the lens of an Islamic perspective. However, the same countries now have a nationalistic perspective and approach. Most of these countries enjoy large oil revenues. It is not feasible to expect that these countries will embrace Turkey as they did the Ottoman state. For this reason, neo-Ottomanism is not an achievable goal.
Currently, Turkey relies on tactical Ottomanism. If it pursues an Ottomanist policy, Turkey will be unable to expand its sphere of influence. However, because there is no other argument that will put an emphasis on cooperation, the Ottoman state has become the main frame of reference; the countries in the region have a common past and history. Making reference to the coexistence in the past is not neo-Ottomanism.
Benzer Haberler 
