The view across the Bosphorus

I was just looking at an old video tape. It was my first tentative attempt to record our overseas travel. My old Sony analogue video camera was a step up from still photography. At the time the cumbersome camera served its purpose, but now two cameras on in a digital era just before the next technological breakthrough, the results I achieved then appear clumsy and primitive. Just the same, for all its many imperfections the film possesses a unique beginners charm and I am thankful to have video filmed that first visit to Turkey.

I replayed the old tape in order to put me in the right frame of mind to contemplate the Turkish enigma. Those five days in Istanbul in 1994 were our first exposure to a Muslim majority culture. Admittedly we had a two-day encounter in Teheran in 1974, but that doesn’t count.Ruhollah Moosavi Khomeini was still in exile and Israelis were still welcome in Iran.

I think it was the view of the Bosphorus from the top of the Galata tower that imbued the full impact of our stay in an Islamic society. Istanbul’s horizon just before sunset with the city’s many minarets silhouetted against the sky was both beautiful and oppressive. A panorama of eleven million Muslims and more than 2,600 active mosques

A few years later when we visited Antalya I discussed the interests Israel and Turkey share with a retired teacher who was supplementing his meagre pension by working as a tour guide. I mentioned this conversation in a letter I wrote a few months ago. “We Turks like Israelis,” stated the teacher. I wasn’t sure if he was trying to patronise me or really thought we had a lot in common. “What’s to like? We are brash, ill-mannered, we trash and vandalise your hotels and tourist sites, why should you like us?” I asked him obviously exaggerating our negative attributes. “Well you spend a lot of money in Turkey and we have a common enemy – Syria.” He answered.

That was an eon ago and now everything has changed.

For Turkey, embracing Iran is a matter of building bridges, claims Sabrina Tavernise the New York Times bureau chief in Istanbul. She too was looking out across the Bosphorus from the its north shore, that tiny European enclave, too tiny to gain Turkey acceptance in the EU.

Quoting Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’ assessment that Turkey was “moving eastward,” a shift he attributed to the European Union’s tepid response to Turkey’s application to join it. Tavernise believes “That is a narrative that is gaining ground: Turkey, the East-West bridge, sided with the East because it had lost its way on its path to becoming more like the West.”

“But many here do not see it that way.” She claims, “Turkey is not lost, they say, but simply disagrees with the United States over how to approach the problems in the Middle East.”

Ms. Tavernise quotes local historian Halil Berktay “I would be appalled if Turkey cut itself off from the West and aligned with the Islamic world, but that’s not what’s happening. Turkey is saying, ‘You’ve been talking about building bridges. This is the way to build them.’ ”

Berktay was referring to the new alignment with Iran.

Tavernise quotes another source, a Turkish official who works closely with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan “For the United States, Iran is a rogue state intent on building a bomb and crazy enough to use it. Turkey agrees that Iran is trying to develop the technology that would let it quickly build a weapon if it chose, but says Iran’s leaders may be satisfied stopping at that. We believe that once we normalise relations with Iran, and it has relationships with other actors, it won’t go for the bomb,” he said.

“The prevailing sentiment in Washington is that the agreement is just another Iranian ploy and that Ankara has played into Tehran’s hands,” said Steven Cook, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

An unnamed diplomatic observer quoted by Tavernise said, “The consensus in the US administration is that the Iranians really aren’t going to negotiate away their nuclear programme.”

Sabrina Tavernise added, ”Turkey says it fears a nuclear-armed Iran, because it would upset the balance of power between the two countries, but it also worries that the Obama administration’s focus on sanctions is reminiscent of President George W. Bush’s rush to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, some here say it will lead to war. “

Quoting an American expert on Turkey Tavernise said, “ that the regional rise of Turkey was not to be feared. It counters the influence of Iran in the Middle East, and as a NATO ally with a powerful economy, a vibrant democracy and relations with Israel, has something to teach the Muslim world, and it cannot play that role by being an American instrument. However, the Turks are finding that the vision that they have is very good on paper, but striking the balance of being a close American ally and popular on the Arab street is awfully difficult to achieve.”

Well the advantage of having good relations with Israel is no longer valid, nevertheless, Israeli observers claim that Iran is happy with the new Teheran-Ankara- Damascus axis, but suspects that Turkey might be jostling for a position of dominance in the region, a type of neo-Ottoman aspiration.

Bernhard Zand a journalist who writes for Der Spiegel says, “Erdogan has indeed turned Turkey around. He has embarrassed everyone who once treated him as a religious simpleton. He has forced Turkey's all-powerful military against a wall, demoralised the republican establishment and transformed his country on the Bosphorus, once known for its coups and crises, into an Anatolian tiger. While neighbouring Greece struggles with national bankruptcy, the Turkish economy is expected to grow by more than 5 percent this year.”

Zand adds a critical observation, “At the same time, the country is growing into a role that modern Turkey has never played: that of a loud and arrogant regional power that is triggering international uproar as it jettisons a fundamental principal of its foreign policy.

It is a historic change of course. ‘The Turks have always gone in only one direction,’ Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish republic, said, ‘toward the West.’ But now, after seven years under Erdogan, Turkey is shifting its direction toward the East.” With regard to the special relationship with Israel Zand comments, “It is an alliance of convenience and values that the secular elites of both countries have supported and that has been in place for almost 60 years.”

Referring specifically to Turkey’s new eastern affinity Bernhard Zand says, “The turnaround is also reflected in the relationship with Iran, a country Ankara has eyed with suspicion since the 1979 Islamic revolution. A sign that has been posted at the Turkish-Iranian border since 1979 reads: ‘Turkey is a secular state.’ It is a statement of Turkey's opposition to the theocracy in neighbouring Iran.”

However when the Turkish ambassador raised his hand in the United Nations Security Council and voted against the package of sanctions with which Washington, London, Paris and Berlin -- and even Moscow and Beijing -- hope to stop Iran's controversial nuclear programme the change in Turkey’s orientation was clearly demonstrated.

Zand underscores the full significance of this strategic loss. “The West is shocked. A country that covered the southeastern flank of NATO for 60 years, and that stood by the side of the United States and Europe, with the second-largest army in the alliance -- from the Korean War to Afghanistan -- is suddenly a friend of the mullahs? The State Department in Washington calls it a ‘disappointment,’ while some in Israel, the United States and Germany are already predicting a new "axis of evil."

In an effort to pinpoint the beginning of the end regarding Turkey’s hopes for EU membership Zand says, “ Some time between Angela Merkel's assumption of office in 2005 and that of French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007, Erdogan's enthusiasm waned. If there is one issue on which these two leaders agree, it is their opposition to full EU membership for Turkey.

Erdogan understands that he doesn't stand a chance in Europe for the time being, and he is instead redirecting his energy toward the East. It isn't a particularly masterful way of releasing political frustration, but neither is it entirely surprising.”

A lead article in The Christian Science Monitor suggests that the Iraq war acted as a catalyst for change. “It resulted in a significant decrease in US influence in Turkey's neighbourhood, further enabled Turkish leaders to think big in terms of their nation's foreign policy.”

Like many other observers the author of the article in the CSM singles Turkey’s foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu as the key figure shaping the country’s ideological change.

“Mr. Davutoglu, has managed to convey Turkey's foreign policy with a simple message: ‘zero problems with neighbours.’ That means reaching out to Middle Eastern nations that Turkey has ignored for decades and carving out a niche as mediator of ancient and modern rivalries.” Well aiming for zero problems with its neighbours and interceding in local conflicts is commendable even if it is more like close-to-home foreign policy .

Tom Friedman wrote a letter from Istanbul to the New York Times adding a slightly different nuance: ”Turkey is moving away from its balance point between East and West. This could have enormous implications. Turkey’s balancing role has been one of the most important, quiet, stabilizers in world politics. You only notice it when it is gone. Being in Istanbul convinces me that we could be on our way to losing it.” Friedman too blames the EU for rejecting Turkey.

” The E.U.’s rejection of Turkey, a hugely bad move, has been a key factor prompting Turkey to move closer to Iran and the Arab world.

But as Turkey started looking more South, it found a vacuum — no leadership in the Arab-Muslim world. Egypt is adrift. Saudi Arabia is asleep. Syria is too small. And Iraq is too fragile. Erdogan discovered that by taking a very hard line against Israel’s partial blockade of Hamas-led Gaza — and quietly supporting the Turkish-led flotilla to break that blockade, during which eight Turks were killed by Israel — Turkey could vastly increase its influence on the Arab street and in the Arab markets. “

According to a damage assessment of the current crisis in relations between Israel and Turkey that appeared in Haaretz today Turkey may not return its ambassador to Tel Aviv. It’s quite likely that Ankara will opt to downgrade the ties between Turkey and Israel to the 'charge d'affairs' level.

The assessment dealt mainly with loss of exports to Turkey.

“Some of the 16 scrapped projects include a $5 billion deal in which Ankara was to receive 1,000 Merkava Mark III tanks from Israel, a $50 million plan to upgrade Turkish M-60 tanks, and a $800 million agreement to buy two Israeli patrol aircrafts and an Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft.

Turkey has also abandoned a $632.5 million deal for 54 F-4 Phantom, and a $75 million programme for 48 F-5 fighter bombers.

Bilateral corporate deals in the private sector would continue as usual unless the companies involved decided to cancel contracts.”

I’m tempted to speculate what would have happened if Israel hadn’t embarked on “Operation Cast Lead” and had waved the Free Gaza flotilla through to dock in Gaza without interference. I’m sure Prime Minister Erdogan would have faulted us for something else, probably our treatment of the Palestinians.

Once again we are in a no win situation.

Well we won’t be holidaying in Marmaris, Antalya or Istanbul this year. Instead we will be going to Norway. What the view from Geiranger across the fjord lacks in Levantine charm it makes up for in breathtaking beauty.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 17^th of June, 2010.