An old issue has again occupied Turkey’s foreign policy vision: the Armenian question. On this, the Turkish government seems ready to bury all its foreign policy achievements of the last several years. Parliamentary decisions in the US and Sweden on the Armenian genocide claims are exaggerated. The reactions that we see towards these two countries are reminiscent of old policy perspectives.
Shall Turkey sever all of its relations with countries whose legislative bodies recognize the events of 1915 as genocide? If so, is it compatible with the government policy of establishing cooperative relations with all countries? Such a policy does not fit into the government’s assertive global opening policy.
In the recalling of ambassadors and threats to sever bilateral relations, I do not see a visionary and proactive position taken by Turkey’s foreign policymakers. Instead, they have fallen back to the old “reactionary” policy line. There should be more imaginative policies than recalling the Turkish ambassadors to Washington and Stockholm.
More imaginative and problem-solving steps should have been taken. This is expected of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), given its performance in the foreign policy arena.
But it appears that the government is settling for a typical “nationalist, pro-status quo position.” This might be the result of domestic political concerns. The government, with its tough stance on the Armenian question, maybe trying to restore its “nationalist credentials,” which even some in the AK Party perceive as damaged as a result of the government’s Kurdish initiative. Such a perception is not only wrong but also misleading for policymakers.
An exaggerated reaction by the AK Party government on the Armenian issue enflames nationalist fervor in Turkey. If the AK Party does not pursue a policy of cooling down the fervor but instead stirs nationalist sentiments, it may itself be inflamed by this fervor.
The AK Party has the power and prestige to smooth nationalist reactions. What the government should do is just be consistent with its own policy of “zero problems with neighbors.” The failure to implement this policy line on normalizing relations with Armenia further weakens Turkey’s hand. On this, the government made a big mistake by not approving the protocols right away after their signature. Surrendering to nationalist reactions coming from Turkish and Azeri quarters and linking the normalization process with that of solving the Karabakh issue were incompatible with the government’s claim to have a “problem-solving” policy stance. The same mistake was committed in 2005 on the Cyprus issue, by not approving the protocol signed to expand the customs union agreement with the EU to include the “government of Cyprus.” The result of this blind policy is the current deadlock in Turkey-EU accession negotiations.
A similar hesitant attitude towards the protocols signed with the government of Armenia has
wounded the normalization process. The AK Party government should be brave not only in reopening the old issues but in solving them.
15 March 2010, Monday
Shall Turkey sever all of its relations with countries whose legislative bodies recognize the events of 1915 as genocide? If so, is it compatible with the government policy of establishing cooperative relations with all countries? Such a policy does not fit into the government’s assertive global opening policy.
In the recalling of ambassadors and threats to sever bilateral relations, I do not see a visionary and proactive position taken by Turkey’s foreign policymakers. Instead, they have fallen back to the old “reactionary” policy line. There should be more imaginative policies than recalling the Turkish ambassadors to Washington and Stockholm.
More imaginative and problem-solving steps should have been taken. This is expected of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), given its performance in the foreign policy arena.
But it appears that the government is settling for a typical “nationalist, pro-status quo position.” This might be the result of domestic political concerns. The government, with its tough stance on the Armenian question, maybe trying to restore its “nationalist credentials,” which even some in the AK Party perceive as damaged as a result of the government’s Kurdish initiative. Such a perception is not only wrong but also misleading for policymakers.
An exaggerated reaction by the AK Party government on the Armenian issue enflames nationalist fervor in Turkey. If the AK Party does not pursue a policy of cooling down the fervor but instead stirs nationalist sentiments, it may itself be inflamed by this fervor.
The AK Party has the power and prestige to smooth nationalist reactions. What the government should do is just be consistent with its own policy of “zero problems with neighbors.” The failure to implement this policy line on normalizing relations with Armenia further weakens Turkey’s hand. On this, the government made a big mistake by not approving the protocols right away after their signature. Surrendering to nationalist reactions coming from Turkish and Azeri quarters and linking the normalization process with that of solving the Karabakh issue were incompatible with the government’s claim to have a “problem-solving” policy stance. The same mistake was committed in 2005 on the Cyprus issue, by not approving the protocol signed to expand the customs union agreement with the EU to include the “government of Cyprus.” The result of this blind policy is the current deadlock in Turkey-EU accession negotiations.
A similar hesitant attitude towards the protocols signed with the government of Armenia has
wounded the normalization process. The AK Party government should be brave not only in reopening the old issues but in solving them.
15 March 2010, Monday
