THE DILEMMAS OF TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY: SOME THOUGHTS ON IRAQ AND CYPRUS

Fuat Aksu*

Lousanne Peace Agreement was the basic contract that proved the regional and international reliability of Turkish Foreign Policy in its formation process, without endangering the national independence and existence. Since Atatürk period to present, although different political governments had varied political, economic, military and cultural priorities, the basic philosophy provided by this agreement has generally dominated Turkish foreign policy. In the Second World War and afterwards, national boundaries changed besides regional and international balances and priorities, but Turkey was devoted to the balances created by Lousanne and tried to strengthen its relationships on cooperation and trust basis by respecting the integrity of its neighbors and the responsibilities originating from agreements. Nevertheless, in this process, some governments put forward different requirements especially originating from the relationships in alliances of USA and NATO axis. But immediately the deficiencies of these decisions were understood and returned to the main line and it was understood that any irrational approach in foreign policy shakes the prestige of nations.

Recently Turkey has been in a process of transformation in its foreign policies as in its domestic policies. The philosophy of state administration and foreign policy priorities of the political power, determines its role in solving regional and international problems being sensitive to national interest, security and priorities. Still the international relations' basic actor, nation state's reliability and determination in its foreign policies, largely affect the consistency of their strategies to be implemented. If evaluated from this point of view, the present approaches of Turkey to foreign relations problems is not reflecting this reliability, determination and consistency. The diversification and the uncertainty of the foreign policy that Turkey follows in the diplomatic process related to either European Union, or Iraq issues, negatively effects reliability of proposed thesis.

When evaluated in the realities of the new international political system, it is clear that the "national power" is still the basic determinant of the relations among the main actors. Besides the variety of actors, in an international medium where reciprocal interactions and dependence is increasing, the belief in normative values and the implementation of international law largely weakens. Because of this, especially after September 11 attacks; since power and hegemony dimension is coming forth in USA's international strategy, the countries, which have interests in potential conflict regions, are moving into asymmetrical power relationships. We observe its reflections clearly in Iraq sample. The "impatience" of USA to the results of efforts in the framework of the UN on one hand; the emphasis on the USA's military intervention in all cases to eliminate Saddam Hussein's regime whatever the UN's auditor report is on the other hand, main laws and reliability of the United Nation is shaken and normative values to solve issues peacefully is disregarded.

The foreign policy strategy of the Turkish Republic considered in this period, beyond its economic, military and political interests, is in a dimension to affect directly its existence and territorial integrity. Regionally, any support or being a part of the USA's military intervention to Iraq shall mean a change in the status quo based line of foreign policy, applied since 1923. After a military intervention, to be a part in the efforts to change Iraq's boundaries shall be a historical mistake for Turkey. Any judgment, shared about the change in boundaries in the Middle East, like in the Balkans, has the risk to start a process of discussions the statue of Turkey, which was established and taken under security with Lousanne. If evaluated from this angle, like a Kurdish state created in the region and an instable Iraq administration, a long term USA existence in the region is also a threat to Turkey. What Turkey tries to secure is the establishment of a stable and workable administration in which democratic values and institutions are dominant. But realization of it is mostly related with the country's domestic dynamics and political culture. Any outside interventions, though help short term stabilization, shall lead keener regional instabilities.

Similarly, parallel to negotiations between two societies, the plan prepared under the auspices of UN's Undersecretary Kofi Annan; has forcing Turkey to change its policy on Cyprus, following EU's decision to accept South Cyprus to membership. The administration of Northern Cyprus shall either accept Annan's plan though all its negative aspects or produce new solutions by risking EU membership, shall accept to be and announced as the "uncompromising" side. During "search for solutions", it will not be easy for Cyprus Turkish Republic and for Turkey to resist national and/or international pressures and reactions. Following EU's acceptance Southern Cyprus to full membership, the public opinion works for the acceptance of Annan Plan in Northern Cyprus, and the power of Denktaş, who leaded negotiations, is obviously decreased. A political power, having no public support is shown as an obstacle for solutions, suggests that both Northern Cyprus and Turkey's deficiency in supporting Cyprus policies' economic and political dimensions with tangible projects. On the other hand, while Southern Cyprus is introduced as the center of welfare with UN membership, with the media supported propaganda; it is observed that Northern Cyprus citizens are prioritizing welfare distribution issues rather than "security" and "identity", and not envisaging possible future threats.

Turkey's national interest, besides its security and territorial integrity, for the welfare and safety of its citizens, must be to support negotiations and peaceful approaches rather than any method that may lead conflicts and destruction in the region. The citizens of the regional states, if share this understanding with determination and sincerely, than it can be possible to create an environment of cooperation based on trust. Taking decisions in foreign policy after daily interests, will sure losses in long-term interests and rights. Especially and if Cyprus sample is considered, what must be searched for, should be a structure of two independent, but cooperative "states" in which Turks and Cypriots have equal rights and statues. It should not be forgotten that the past misery of the Turks and today's conflicts are mostly the responsibility of Cypriots and Greece. The administration of Southern Cyprus and its supporters Greece and EU are responsible to take measures to eliminate distrust. The minority statue that is enforced for Turks can never be accepted. In the history of struggle against imperialism there are times to criticize or to stop a while to think again. That should never lead to be daunted. Independency and to be an independent state, is a value the price of which is paid with blood, tear, and personal losses. It can never be sacrificed.

National pride is another value that cannot be sacrificed. How Turkey wants for itself an environment in which contemporary democratic values are dominating, also at the same time wants for the other region's states, a structure in which those values can operate. Turkey is in the conscious of, as emphasized, the way of it is not to eliminate a dictator to bring another one to the power. What is essential is to eliminate the liberators and this is directly proportional to settlement of national conscious.

All those brings forth a new opportunity to Turkey. In contrary to today's pessimistic climate, there are ways for salvation. The most important step to it is correct perception of the present conditions and having the understanding that freeing from our dependencies lies at our national sources. Actually at present the problems encountered in Turkish foreign policy are shaped with the conditions created by that dependent relations. In international relations, as major states digress from equality and reciprocality principles, it becomes harder for Turkey to solve its foreign policy problems by protecting national interests. Gradually this condition turns power relations to an asymmetrical quality when supported by foreign dependency and loaning as created by Turkey's own development strategies. While the asymmetric power relation/balance is operating positively for Turkey with its relations with the other states of the region, it turns against Turkey's interests in its relations with the alliance relations and in integration dimension. Especially this condition, when considered in EU relations, raises problems for Turkish foreign policy.

Nevertheless the present political medium creates new alternatives for Turkey. An environment of multi-polarization while it was bi-polar and accepted as an issue of stability during Cold War period, united with western values European-Atlantic alliance, has entered in a search to find a new benefit/power balance base within themselves. It is probable to have new conflicts within EU countries and/or their relations with USA since the "nation state" qualities are still the base of balance of interests within the EU. As a matter of fact, as in the Balkan War of 1990's and genocides and intervention to Afghanistan and Iraq today, it is observed that disparity of views on military and political issues are deepening. This is a kind of threshold for Turkey as well as it is for EU countries and for the countries in the stage of expansion. While Turkey wants the negotiations with EU to begin; also sees that EU spoils these negotiations. On the other hand, there is suspicion of Turkey's complete disintegration with Europe in considering military and political cooperation with USA.

In the cases of Turkey's non-membership to the EU and Turkey's rejection of those asymmetrical relations; we may say that EU's expansion policy and strategic priorities of Mediterranean axis will face with serious difficulties. Since, the boundaries of the EU without Turkey will be ended at the Mediterranean, realization of such a condition, in contrary to what is believed will relieve Turkish foreign politics. And at the Mediterranean, the EU shall satisfy only with the advantages secured by the Southern Cyprus. This clearly creates a strategic value to Turkey in the competition of USA and EU. Turkey, may provide many of the advantages that could be gained by EU membership, by rationally utilizing its national resources in the development of its political and economic structure, Turkey owns this potential. What needed is the political will.

When evaluated in this context, USA and EU have roles in the economic and political instabilities that Turkey faces. In the Cold War period and afterwards, the countries who benefited from the instabilities of Turkey for their own interests by supporting terrorist activities and contributing to the waste of economic and political sources have not been only the Turkey's neighbors, NATO and EU countries also contributed that process by placing themselves against Turkey. Turkey could reverse this process, which was a threat to its existence and to its vital interests by declaring and exhibiting its determination to take certain measures including military ones. Turkey must use the same determination in the economic and political obstructions, which is a requirement of its national interest.

If we return to present, as well as political and juridical, EU made a historical mistake by approving Southern Cyprus to full membership by violating the expansion criteria and the status anticipated by 1960 Agreements. The one who will get the advantages of this mistake will be the USA by increasing its effectivity. The position of Turkey or the Turkey's power in the role of balancing at EU-USA axis will be changed completely by the opportunities offered by the parties. Especially in this condition, EU's attempt to take fore Turkey's membership will be the main step to solve Cyprus- Turkey- Greek problems in the common trust environment to be created within the EU. Certainly that will lead to reaction of Greece and some EU countries, but the gains of EU will be more than its losses in the long run. Turkey's presence in EU in the sharing of regional balances and effectivity areas, on the other hand, will assist EU and also NATO being in a more harmonious environment, by effecting USA to implement smoother policies/strategies. In a contrary situation, following a EU decision not to accept Turkey and Northern Cyprus as a EU member, USA, which is to intervene Iraq and in search of a strong regional base for its effectivity, USA's efforts for the acceptance of Cyprus Turkish Republic on the international arena and its membership to the United Nations, will limit EU's effectivity boundaries. It is natural that in that boundaries Russian Federation and Turkey will not take place. But at the same time, a new era will begin in which the functionality of NATO is discussed. Despite the USA's and Turkey's and also Great Britain's effectivity at NATO, the weakening of that security umbrella, together with Germany-France cooperation, and in considering EU's deficiencies in the framework of AGSP, the problem becomes more sensitive. In an environment in which the tensions in the Balkans still prevail, it is still unknown that EU and Balkans would have sufficient stability medium. That will certainly clarify the failure of Europe in intervening regional instabilities, in a potential conflict.

Spare of views between USA and EU are becoming rather conflict of interest. EU is not in consensus to give support to Iraq intervention, after the support given in the framework of the United Nations and decision to operate Article 5 of NATO in Afghanistan intervention. Though it is understandable to have a UN decision before legitimizing the full support of NATO and EU both nationally and internationally, it is clear to see the conflict of interest between USA and Europe. When Turkey's priorities are questioned as the element of strategic balance between USA and EU during this conflict of interest, EU showed its uneasiness from Turkey-USA partnership like in the Copenhagen Summit. EU forced Turkey to review its relations with USA and/or to make its choice in a way in this context. European countries acted in the same direction while Turkey requested the operation of Article 4 of the NATO in a potential Iraq intervention with the possible threat to its security. While the Council of NATO processed Turkey's application, France, Germany and Belgium opposed to this request and after long negotiations, they gave their consent and so the Defense Planning Committee could take required measures. Though all those developments indicate changes in EU's policies, they are far away to meet Turkey's expectations in relation to EU membership and finalization of Cyprus problem. In a process in which Turkey's expectations are truly met, Turkey, for the time being, follows an official policy to keep up this balance being able to make its choice either on EU or USA. But how long this process takes, is unknown. While suggesting Iraq administration in negotiations to avoid any action to be a cause of intervention, on the other hand Turkey is sensitive to any unexpected developments that might arise with USA's military intervention to Iraq besides its own initiative. It is natural that Turkey would not be silent, if though wishes, at a military intervention legitimized with the decision of the United Nations.

All these developments are also very instructive to exhibit how USA effectively uses its power in the framework of bargaining and deterring strategy in the agenda of international political system. USA, by declaring that even without a UN decision, may do the military intervention, exhibits to the whole world its determination and power for the realization of its own national interests. The multi-polarized Post Cold War period is also creating its alternatives. Either the USA's hegemonic power will be accepted or a new power -in alliances- to balance it will emerge. But for the time being nothing is clear enough.

The history is full of evidences of discussions on the rationality of decisions made by the political decision makers facing dilemmas. The history is being written today with the decisions taken.