• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
18.04.2011

ON TURKISH POLICY OF NEO-OTTOMANISM AND DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ARAB WORLD

   

Ruben Melkonyan

R.Melkonyan - Expert of the Center of the Armenian Studies at “Noravank” Foundation

Back in 2001 the current Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Ahmed Davutoglu while analyzing regional and geopolitical interests and priorities of Turkey in “Strategic depth: Turkey’s International Position” published back in 2001, put forward a number of theoretical assessments and proposals. After accession to power of “Justice and Development” party (JDP) in 2002, many Turkish political circles started paying more attention to the views of the political scientist and analyst Davutoglu, and later, when he took the post of the Foreign Minister of Turkey, those theoretical postulates started to be implemented in the practical plane too. Today, among the theories elaborated by Davutoglu the most recognized one is the theory of neo-Ottomanism, some provisions of which are manifested in the foreign policy of Turkey. The simplest way to formulate the postulates of neo-Ottomanism are as follows: Turkey aspires to take political, diplomatic, economic, spiritual role, and even more it wants to take a role of a leader in a number of regions of the former Ottoman Empire, particularly in the Middle East, Balkans and North Africa. As for the Caucasus Turkey tries to use “no problem with the neigbours” principle, and at the same time it tends to play key role in the regional conflicts, thus turning into a kind of “judge and reconciler”. Besides, Turkey intensifies its presence (especially economic one) in the states of Transcaucasia, in particular, in Georgia and Azerbaijan.

Today among the specialists and not only an opinion is spread that Ahmed Davutoglu is a leader and architect of the ideology of neo-Ottomanism, but there are facts which show that there were reflections concerning neo-Ottomanism and appropriate discussions previously either; Davutoglu simply professionally systematized and cultivated them. There were direct references to neo-Ottomanism in the statements made by the ex-president of Turkey Turgut Ozal while speaking about Balkan Muslims1. Turkish essayist Asli Aydintasbas remembered the interview hold in the mid 1990s with Abdullah Gul who was the member of pro-Islamic “Refakh” party which was presented in the Turkish parliament at that time. In that interview Gul told that he and his accomplices dreamed to create a union between Turkey and neighbouring Arab countries where Turkey would play a key role2. Today, when the author of the aforementioned words is a president of Turkey, those aspirations acquired more systematized character and took serious place on the foreign political agenda of the country.

Now let us try to represent in outline the main directions of the activity of neo-Ottomanism and try to consider their practical implementation, particularly in the context of recent events in the Middle East. Neo-Ottomanism tends to spread eager diplomatic, political, economic activity in target-regions (Middle East, Balkans, North Africa, Caucasus), to undertake the role of the mediator in the regional processes, to become country which “exports” democracy and modernization to the Middle East, a kind of mediator between the East and West and thus, to increase the authority of Turkey in the target-regions. “To bring the ideas of neo-Ottomanism into life it is important to form in the Muslim and particularly in Arab countries appropriate moods and purposeful policy is carried out in this direction” 3. Let us mention that over the recent years Turkey actively works to set closer relations with Arab countries and to raise its authority. A vivid example is the rapprochement with Syria and stirring up of the economic relations with it. But according to many analysts the first and most vivid manifestation of neo-Ottomanism was in Davos where the prime-minister Erdogan sharply criticized Israel for its Palestinian policy and left the meeting. Some time later an incident took place in Ghaza between the Turkish ships and Israeli militaries which was followed by rather tough statements of the high-ranking Turkish officials and deterioration of the Turkish-Israeli relations. After that incident the image of Turkey in the Arab world has sharply increased and it was especially noticeable among the large sections of public: it is suffice to mention that in a number of Arab countries during the protests the demonstrators also hold Turkish flags, posters with Erdogan’s photos and etc. Alongside with the raising of the authority of Turkey in Arab countries the popularity of Erdogan is also rising. As a result, after the public opinion polls in the Arab countries he was announced a man of the year, children were named after him and etc. Turkish foreign policy has been praised in Palestine; Davutoglu has been considered modern Henry Kissinger and some near-eastern high-ranking officials consider the neo-Ottomanism a key for the solution of all the problems in the Middle East. The president of Libya Kaddafi also made rather remarkable statement which was spread in Turkish mass media very fast. According to that information while speaking about Libyan-Turkish relations Kaddafi said: “We are all Ottomans”.

Analyzing the ongoing processes in the Turkish foreign policy, one may state that Turkey carries out hyper-active policy in regard to the “target groups” outlined by neo-Ottomanism, but today, in our opinion, Turkish authorities mainly work over obtaining the trust of the public in the Arab countries, that is why, populist elements prevail in their actions.

Recent developments in the Arab world (events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya) give Turkey another occasion to interfere in the processes in the Middle East, thus adhering to the political priorities set by neo-Ottomanism. If we follow the level of being interested in the intra-Arab affairs on behalf of the third parties, one may definitely state that the most active actor in the region is Turkey. In particular, on the tensest moments of the events in Egypt many Turkish high-ranking officials made statements among which the statement by the “architect” of neo-Ottomanism Davutoglu who visited Middle East with the mediatory mission is distinguished. An eager interest of Turkey in the events in Egypt was explained by Davutoglu in a populist form: “The stability in Egypt is of strategic interest for us, and our activity should not be taken as an attempt to interfere in the domestic affairs of other state”. “For us Egypt is a brotherly and friendly state and this is based on historical roots”. “We consider the problems of our Arab brothers our problems and their concerns – our concerns”4. In his turn the prime-minister Erdogan appealed to Mubarak and Egyptian people and said that Turkey is concerned not only by its own interests but it also thought about wellbeing of neighbouring countries and people5. After the resignation of Mubarak, the government of Turkey also made a statement which summoned the government of Egypt to set democracy and to transfer the power to the authorities chosen by the people. Soon after the overthrow of Mubarak president of Turkey Abdullah Gul visited Egypt and repeated the aforementioned provisions of the official statement of the government of his country.

The active policy of Turkey in the Middle East also was noticed by the western analytics, and one of them Joshua Walker mentioned in authoritative Foreign Policy magazine that after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, already in the 21st century Turkey again aspired to return to the Middle East and become a defining regional power6. According to Walker since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and till now Turkey has never demonstrated such a diplomatic, economic and political activity in the Arab world.

Today Turkey eagerly “works” in the region on the level of the journalists and analysts. The Turkish journalists who are in the hot spots, besides broadcasting news, also study and through the mass media transfer information about the moods in the Arab societies in respect of Turkey. Turkish analytical circles are also rather active: e.g. TESEV research foundation has recently carried out research “Perceptions of Turkey in the Middle East”. Particularly in consequence of the public opinion poll among the Egyptians it was found out that for 15% of the respondents the Islamic image of Turkey and “Turkish model” of the Islamic state is attractive. It is not a mere chance that today, particularly in Turkish press the information of export of the “Turkish model” to the Middle East is kept discussing. According to a widespread opinion Turkey and, particularly, ruling “Justice and Development” party managed to successfully combine the Islamization and “clarity” for the West, that is why, this model can be attractive for other Muslim countries too.

In fact, one may say, that for today a hyper-active policy of Turkey in the Middle East has several components: firstly, Turkey tries to take an advantage of an absence of a distinguished leader in the Arab world and to fill in this vacuum; secondly, Turkey attempts to use the synthesis of Islam and “clarity” for the West and become an active mediator between the East and West. In this context the situation in the relations between Turkey and Israel is remarkable. Turkey on the one had openly and toughly criticizes Israel, and on the other hand it does not burn its ships and holds an ace; if necessary it can speak to Israel on behalf of the whole Muslim world. At the same time Turkey tends to enhance the economic ties with the Arab world, and Turkish economics and general social situation become more attractive for the Arab countries.

All the aforementioned examples are obvious manifestations of theoretical postulates of neo-Ottomanism and it is worth noting that Turkish authorities use it not only in the foreign policy. The usage of those principles in the domestic policy is rather predictable. Turkey’s ruling party on the one hand demonstrates to the Islamic world loyalty in the solution of all-Islamic problems, and on the other hand, in the domestic policy the JDP holds a kind of exam to its religious electorate. It is expected that all this will be manifested more vividly during the coming parliamentary elections.

But one should not think that the aspirations and claims of Turkey connected with the Arab world are taken unequivocally in the Arab countries. E.g. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Egypt rather toughly responded to the statements of Turkish officials and clearly mentioned that for their country neither the model of Turkish JDP, nor Turkish claims for the role of a “big brother” are acceptable. The Arab analysts very often with an unconcealed irony and criticism mention that very soon there will be no issue in the Middle East in which the Turkey is interfered7. And some Turkish analysts think that it is not right to make analyses and conclusions based on the wave of inspiration of the recent days, and one can not say today that an Arab world is ready to accept the leadership of Turkey. Here memory of the Arab people also plays an important role; in their memory the Turkish-Ottoman past is far from being seen through rose-coloured spectacles.

While speaking about incentives of hyper-active policy of Turkey in the Middle East, many analysts fairly underline the importance of the American factor. Till recently Egypt had been considered the representative of the American interests in the Arab world. But in the light of the recent events it became clear that the stakes of the US may also change. A number of analysts believe that the US is behind the ideology of neo-Ottomanism8 and as a proof they bring the benefits which are expected by this super-power. Particularly, in the complicated Middle East region it is more profitable for the US to act through a reliable partner which is not an alien in the region, but it also constitutes an important part of that region. The best candidate for the role of that interlink is the Turkey which “kindly” offered its services, thus getting the support of the US in return. The US also sends open “messages” to the world that the Turkey is an acceptable candidate for the role of the mediator and representative in the Middle East. In particular, Turkey was the first Muslim country which was visited by Barak Obama. And it is not a mere chance that today during the events in the Arab world Obama and Erdogan very often discuss those problems on phone, and it is widely covered in international mass media and rises the authority of Turkey. Here the Turkish diplomacy is rather flexible and under this situation it manages to become both the partner of the US and the representative of the interests of the Muslim world. So here the interests of almost all the actors have coincided and Turkey tends to derive benefits from it. “New Middle East policy of the US corresponds to the implementation of the ambitious programmes of Ankara in the Middle East to the best advantage” 9.

Summarizing we would like to mention that the hyper-active policy of Turkey in the Middle East reveals remarkable manifestations and developments and one may say that in the foreign policy neo-Ottomanism begins paying off.

1Симаворян А., Идеологические течения в контексте внешней политики Турции, http://www.noravank.am/arm/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=4956.

2Герман И., Турция идет на восток http://www.expert.ru/printissues/expert/2009/26/turciya_idet_na_vostok/#print.

3Симаворян А., Идеологические течения в контексте внешней политики Турции, http://www.noravank.am/arm/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=4956.

4Hurriyet, 04.02.2011.

5Свистунова И., Реакция Турции на события в Египте, http://www.iimes.ru/rus/stat/2011/25-02-11.htm.

6 Türkiye yeniden Ortadoğu'ya dönüyor, Radkal, 05.02.2011.

7Стратегия неоосманизма приносит успех турецкой дипломатии http://i-r-p.ru/index.php?show=page&stream=event&index=24557.

8А.Симаворян, Идеологические течения в контексте внешней политики Турции, http://www.noravank.am/arm/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=4956

9Герман И., Турция идет на восток http://www.expert.ru/printissues/expert/2009/26/turciya_idet_na_vostok/#print

“Globus National Security”, issue 2, 2011

Return
Another materials of author