Decision On Turkey Made

DECISION ON TURKEY MADE

Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments – 01 October 2014, 00:31

The negative attitude of Europeans to Turkey is explained by the
socio-cultural and religious estrangement of the country from the
Western Christian community to which claims to membership to the
European Union add, as well as Turkey’s ambition for a new role in
the world and the region. All this is sufficient to shape a negative
attitude to Turkey.

Turkey’s current foreign political goals defined by the minister
of foreign affairs Davutoglu have both attractive and apprehensive
aspects for the West which the Americans and European cannot ignore.

Turkish politicians hope that declarations of their foreign policy
are sufficient for a positive perception by their partners in the
West but this has not and could not have happened.

Concerns in the West, primarily in the United States had occurred long
before the emergence of the new foreign political doctrine of Turkey.

Developments back in the 90s spoilt the U.S.-Turkish relations. This
mostly happened in the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union,
and a new geopolitical situation formed in Eurasia together with the
emergence of hopes of several regional great powers to get a more
important place and role in the world.

The United States did not try to set Turkey against Russia and its
interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia because they did not wish
Turkey’s strengthening in these regions, earning Turkey’s first
serious complaints. The West has never had serious concerns about
possible close partnership between Turkey and Russia, determining the
form of the alliance. Russia is seen as a country that is interested
in blocking the Turkish policy in the Black Sea, Central Asia and
the Caucasus.

Currently, former points of view suggesting rivalry of three powers –
Turkey-Russia-Iran – have emerged on a wide geopolitical arena; it is
believed that favorable conditions have formed but this is happening
mainly in the assumptions of British and American analysts preferring
non-public forms of creativity.

It is understood that development of social and political processes
in Turkey does not eliminate the peculiarity of the West’s relation
to it. There is intensification or rather stronger denial of Turkey
by the West, and this may be a mutual process.

The attitude of the Western community to Turkey has formed in the
result of reactions to Turkey’s foreign policy. One cannot say that
plans on Turkey were made spontaneously, but something reminding
the tactics of falling back and attempts to catch up is in place,
and both supporters and rivals of Turkey in the West admit this.

Now Turkey can be perceived in the West only as a big political
problem, including the situation in NATO. The West is increasingly
forming a policy of reacting, and the key problem is the decision on
the place and role of Turkey in several Western states. Is Turkey a
partner and can it be seen as a rival?

At the moment such a decision has been made in the sphere of shadow
politics, and it is possible that the West will not express its real
position publicly, waiting for the outcome. The understanding that a
“denouement” is expected is becoming more obvious, no doubts are
left that Ankara is unable to keep to a neutral and more or less
harmless zone.

Turkey is increasingly moving towards the zone of a high level of
confrontation with the West without receiving credible signals of
gaining new partners in Asia. One can agree that there is not a more
distanced state as Turkey in the zone of NATO and U.S. policy and
such a position is highly specific, of course.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress