Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Sept 15 2013
Turkey should mind the gap
YAVUZ BAYDAR
The changes in major world politics are dizzying these days. Libya and
Egypt caused that with their own dynamics, but it is certainly Syria,
with its nightmare and intense symbolique, which succeeded in bringing
two vexed rivals, the US and Russia, together.
The deal in Geneva on listing, securing and destroying the chemical
weapons stockpile of Syria is historic on two levels: On a micro
level, it ends the Russian spitefulness, whose origins lie in the
Western powers’ perceived `hijacking of Libyan process,’ which ended
in the bombing of the country.
Moscow had only one way of interpreting this: The Cold War was not
over; it had only changed disguise. Thus, by entering the global stage
via Geneva, as the chef to prepare the meal, Russian leader Putin
signals, as it were, what began with Libya may very well end with
Syria; a new era can begin only with two to tango.
Indeed. If Syria had not existed on the world map, we would analyze it
differently. With its hugely complex domestic social fabric, its
regime’s reputation as the world’s most cunning one, its modern
history filled with episodes on aiding and abetting terrorism, and its
discreet and powerful global intelligence network, Syria has remained
a very tough nut to crack.
But most of us watching the spreading nightmare of butchery in Syria
have forgotten — or neglected — something we can only compare with
North Korea. It is one of the very few, dangerous remnants of the Cold
War. What distinguishes Syria even more is its location at the heart
of the cauldron in the Middle East. No wonder how little the Arab
Awakening meant for such a regime.
To deal with its utter inhumanity, you have to go the architects of
the very era that created it. Those who make it can break it, and vice
versa. Months ago, during a meeting with the media, the US ambassador
in Turkey asked for our analysis on a `way out of this devilish
problem.’
My response was, talk to the Russians and persuade them. They are the
masters of that house. Without them, there is no way out. Undesired as
it may be, it is thus. Those of us who oppose war, calling for utter
caution on regime change (particularly for Ankara), may at the end of
the day be proven right. However, that remains to be seen.
Thus, Turkey’s swift, cautious yet positive reaction to the Geneva
deal should be welcome. Surely everybody knows that the Bashar
al-Assad regime, shrewder than ever, can follow Saddam’s pattern and
play the `delay and let it rot’ game, and go on with other weapons of
mass destruction; as Foreign Minister Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu says that Turkey
does not want war but peace, this deal ought to be taken by Ankara as
a great opportunity to nuance, reframe and redefine Turkey’s
zero-problems-with-neighbors policy.
It has been tested, ever since the protocol fiasco with Armenia,
beyond its limits, showing many more failures than successes. Reality
is to blame, certainly; the deal has been far too wide in spectrum,
complex in dynamics and forces Turkey’s `soft power’ agenda out of
orbit.
A revision is timely because it gives Turkey an opportunity to
(re)synchronize its foreign policy with the West. Because, if Rami
Khouri from The Daily Star in Lebanon is right in his observation —
and I agree with him ` the Geneva deal is already signaling a `new
world order’ in the making. Noting that Obama also exchanged letters
with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Khouri calls for a more
inclusive, new regional architecture.
`This is a welcome development that should be expanded to include
other key actors engaged in Syria, such as Turkey, France, China and
Saudi Arabia, so that new regional orders and security architectures
can be established to replace the chaos of recent years in the Middle
East,’ he writes. `Rarely do we get to witness such historic
developments as they occur before us in real time. We might look back
on this week one day as the start of a new post-Cold War global
order.’
It is too early to say, surely. But, clearly, a new era of old
balancing acts between realism and idealism is under way. Mind the
gap.