As Americans celebrate the annual Thanksgiving Day holiday, the Grand Prince thought it would be a great time to talk about Turkey. Expanding on a previous article about the geo-political eastern drift of Turkey, it would be erroneous not to discuss the evolving relationships Turkey has with the European Union, her long time regional rival Greece, and the geo-political pragmatism of Turkey in Afghanistan. Whereas most of the lame stream media will be talking about Black Friday and other traditional stories related to Thanksgiving such as the annual Presidential pardon of a pair of turkeys from the butchers block, the Grand Prince will further illustrate and put into context the continuing geo-political ascension of the Republic of Turkey.
Perhaps the best way to begin to put the geo-political ascension of Turkey into context is to evoke the popular phrase; follow the money.
While the 2003 unilateralist attack on Iraq by the United States was widely unpopular with the Turkish population and prompted Turkey to reevaluate her affiliation with the United States, the 2008 global financial crisis created by the collapse of an American speculative finance bubble, further prompted Turkey to shift geo-politically towards the east and south. As Beppe Grillo pointed out in a recent blog posting,
Greece and Turkey
In addition to the growing economic power of the BRIC countries, the recent economic demise of Greece, Turkey’s long time regional rival, is increasing the power of Ankara with the European Union and Greece. One interesting and severely under reported aspect of the Greek financial crisis is how Greece’s bloated defense spending, which is the highest in Europe in proportion to GDP, is now forcing Greece to improve its relationship with its traditional Aegean rival and shifting the regional balance of power towards Ankara.
While NATO recently unveiled a draft version of its 10 year strategic vision for the military alliance entitled, “Strategic Concept”, the 10 year strategic vision emphasized the need for NATO members to maintain defense spending at two percent of GDP, if the Alliance is to continue its effort in Afghanistan and deal with threats from terrorism and cyber warfare. Due to the 2008 financial crisis and the demise of the Soviet Union over 20 years ago, only six of NATO’s 26 European members are currently meeting their defense-spending target of two percent of GDP. Heavily indebted Greece and its rival Turkey are two of these countries. This fact highlights how the NATO military alliance has always been an offspring of the American military industrial congressional complex and has not been as unified and cohesive as most Americans have been led to believe.
Although the financial crisis in Greece is causing the government to institute a broad range of austerity measures and is influencing Greece to improve her relationship with Turkey, the Greek government has been vague as to how much the Greek military budget may be cut or what programs will be cut. Even though Germany was at first reluctant to back the financial bailout of Germany as a result of public outcry, several of the nations backing the bailout, including Germany, are also major suppliers to the Greek military. As Spyros Economides, senior lecturer on international relations at the London School of Economics declared after a presentation on the Greek financial crisis in May,
It was reported that during the 110-billion-euro bailout from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund that France pushed Greece to buy six French built frigates, 15 helicopters and up to 40 top-of-the-range Rafale fighter aircraft. The pressure by French President Sarkozy underscores how government leaders are sometimes nothing more than puppets to their corporate masters and how military spending is a textbook example of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.
The insistence of French President Sarkozy for Greece to buy French built frigates and the change of attitude by German Prime Minister Merkel, in spite of widespread public opposition to the financial bailout of Greece, is hampering Greek officials to give Turkey’s new “zero problems” approach to foreign policy the recognition and respect Ankara was seeking. Due to the unneeded and expensive naval assets Greece is being pressured to buy from French and German defense firms, the arms purchases by Greece will cause Turkey to match the arms purchases, further continuing a decades old arms race between the two Aegean Sea rivals.
In a possible retaliation to both Greek and European Union influenced military spending, Turkey may have allowed refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan and several African countries to penetrate the European Union border through a 7-mile porous river and land border between Turkey and Greece. The breach in the border was so bad in the summer and early fall that the European Union authorized the deployment of armed European guards be dispatched to Greece to patrol the country's border with Turkey in an attempt to stem steeply increasing illegal immigration into Europe.
The deployment of the Rapid Intervention Border Teams, assembled from the border guard forces of other European countries, will be the first time Brussels has deployed multinational-armed units on the EU's external land border. While the surge in illegal immigrants is seen by some analysts as the result of the closure of Mediterranean migration and trafficking routes into Spain, Italy, and Malta through sea patrols, Bulgaria, which has a longer land border with Turkey than Greece, has not detected a substantial increase in illegal immigrants seeking entry into the EU.
The recent deployment of European Union Rapid Intervention Border Teams on the border with two NATO countries, underscore how extraneous and outmoded the 61 year old military alliance has become in the ever changing 21st century.
Turkey, Afghanistan and the United States
While Turkey and other NATO countries may be contributing forces to NATO’s International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, a critical analysis of the 2,230 ISAF deaths in Afghanistan reveal how countries with more conservative governments and countries wanting to join NATO have substantially higher casualties than Turkey.
Even though Turkey has the second largest standing force in NATO, since joining the ISAF campaign in 2003, Turkey has limited its participation in Afghanistan to only a non-combative support role. In contrast, Greece does not have any NATO troops in Afghanistan supporting the ISAF mission. This is due in large part to the high amount of anti-American sentiment among the Greek population as a result of American support for the military coup by Greek colonels in 1967.
Written by Aydemir Erman, who was Turkey’s special coordinator for Afghanistan from 1991 to 2003, Mr. Erman remained involved as an adviser in Afghanistan until his retirement from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2009. The article by Mr. Erman is an appropriate way of summarizing the continuing geo-political ascension of the Republic of Turkey and why the United States should follow some of the soft power examples offered by Turkey.
Perhaps the best way to begin to put the geo-political ascension of Turkey into context is to evoke the popular phrase; follow the money.
While the 2003 unilateralist attack on Iraq by the United States was widely unpopular with the Turkish population and prompted Turkey to reevaluate her affiliation with the United States, the 2008 global financial crisis created by the collapse of an American speculative finance bubble, further prompted Turkey to shift geo-politically towards the east and south. As Beppe Grillo pointed out in a recent blog posting,
as the G-6 countries (Germany, Italy, France, United States, Great Britain and Japan) prop up their ailing economies with deficit spending, the GDP of BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) is about to be greater than the G6 countries. Further highlighting the changing shift of global economic power from the G-6 countries to the south and east, the BRIC countries have a very low public debt to GDP ratio: Russia 6%, China 18%, Brazil 45%, and India 59%.Compare this to the United States, which has a 90 percent public debt to GDP ratio, it explains why Turkey is developing more of a relationship with the southern country of Brazil and the eastern country of China and not focusing as much attention on joining the EU economic bloc.
Greece and Turkey
In addition to the growing economic power of the BRIC countries, the recent economic demise of Greece, Turkey’s long time regional rival, is increasing the power of Ankara with the European Union and Greece. One interesting and severely under reported aspect of the Greek financial crisis is how Greece’s bloated defense spending, which is the highest in Europe in proportion to GDP, is now forcing Greece to improve its relationship with its traditional Aegean rival and shifting the regional balance of power towards Ankara.
While NATO recently unveiled a draft version of its 10 year strategic vision for the military alliance entitled, “Strategic Concept”, the 10 year strategic vision emphasized the need for NATO members to maintain defense spending at two percent of GDP, if the Alliance is to continue its effort in Afghanistan and deal with threats from terrorism and cyber warfare. Due to the 2008 financial crisis and the demise of the Soviet Union over 20 years ago, only six of NATO’s 26 European members are currently meeting their defense-spending target of two percent of GDP. Heavily indebted Greece and its rival Turkey are two of these countries. This fact highlights how the NATO military alliance has always been an offspring of the American military industrial congressional complex and has not been as unified and cohesive as most Americans have been led to believe.
Although the financial crisis in Greece is causing the government to institute a broad range of austerity measures and is influencing Greece to improve her relationship with Turkey, the Greek government has been vague as to how much the Greek military budget may be cut or what programs will be cut. Even though Germany was at first reluctant to back the financial bailout of Germany as a result of public outcry, several of the nations backing the bailout, including Germany, are also major suppliers to the Greek military. As Spyros Economides, senior lecturer on international relations at the London School of Economics declared after a presentation on the Greek financial crisis in May,
the military arms sales between Germany and Greece are often called offset agreements, but in the case of the German backed bailout to Greece, they are actually offside agreements. Economides expanded on this by declaring, “They really undermine the whole process, if you give with one hand and take with the other in this kind of crisis.”
It was reported that during the 110-billion-euro bailout from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund that France pushed Greece to buy six French built frigates, 15 helicopters and up to 40 top-of-the-range Rafale fighter aircraft. The pressure by French President Sarkozy underscores how government leaders are sometimes nothing more than puppets to their corporate masters and how military spending is a textbook example of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.
The insistence of French President Sarkozy for Greece to buy French built frigates and the change of attitude by German Prime Minister Merkel, in spite of widespread public opposition to the financial bailout of Greece, is hampering Greek officials to give Turkey’s new “zero problems” approach to foreign policy the recognition and respect Ankara was seeking. Due to the unneeded and expensive naval assets Greece is being pressured to buy from French and German defense firms, the arms purchases by Greece will cause Turkey to match the arms purchases, further continuing a decades old arms race between the two Aegean Sea rivals.
In a possible retaliation to both Greek and European Union influenced military spending, Turkey may have allowed refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan and several African countries to penetrate the European Union border through a 7-mile porous river and land border between Turkey and Greece. The breach in the border was so bad in the summer and early fall that the European Union authorized the deployment of armed European guards be dispatched to Greece to patrol the country's border with Turkey in an attempt to stem steeply increasing illegal immigration into Europe.
The deployment of the Rapid Intervention Border Teams, assembled from the border guard forces of other European countries, will be the first time Brussels has deployed multinational-armed units on the EU's external land border. While the surge in illegal immigrants is seen by some analysts as the result of the closure of Mediterranean migration and trafficking routes into Spain, Italy, and Malta through sea patrols, Bulgaria, which has a longer land border with Turkey than Greece, has not detected a substantial increase in illegal immigrants seeking entry into the EU.
The recent deployment of European Union Rapid Intervention Border Teams on the border with two NATO countries, underscore how extraneous and outmoded the 61 year old military alliance has become in the ever changing 21st century.
Turkey, Afghanistan and the United States
While Turkey and other NATO countries may be contributing forces to NATO’s International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, a critical analysis of the 2,230 ISAF deaths in Afghanistan reveal how countries with more conservative governments and countries wanting to join NATO have substantially higher casualties than Turkey.
Even though Turkey has the second largest standing force in NATO, since joining the ISAF campaign in 2003, Turkey has limited its participation in Afghanistan to only a non-combative support role. In contrast, Greece does not have any NATO troops in Afghanistan supporting the ISAF mission. This is due in large part to the high amount of anti-American sentiment among the Greek population as a result of American support for the military coup by Greek colonels in 1967.
The often-unreported internal fragmentation within NATO, in addition to the United States trying to use military force to suppress an armed insurgency, explains why the American led NATO operation in Afghanistan is now longer than the involvement of the Soviets in the 1980s. Perhaps a recent Associated Press article sums up the quagmire, in which Afghanistan has become with the following phrase from the article.
The Soviet Union could not win in Afghanistan, and now the United States is about to have something in common with that futile campaign: nine years, 50 days.
Heavily influenced by the domestic political pressures of the military industrial congressional complex, in addition to the overconfidence and pride associated with imperial hubris, the United States led NATO mission in Afghanistan is doomed to failure. Instead of continuing to use military force to try to win the hearts and minds of Afghani citizens, the United States should start employing some of the soft power tactics that the Republic of Turkey has used in Afghanistan, due to the unique and special relationship Turkey has with Afghanistan
The unique and special relationship Turkey has with Afghanistan was recounted in a brilliant Christian Science Monitor article entitled; How Turkey can help NATO in Afghanistan.Written by Aydemir Erman, who was Turkey’s special coordinator for Afghanistan from 1991 to 2003, Mr. Erman remained involved as an adviser in Afghanistan until his retirement from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2009. The article by Mr. Erman is an appropriate way of summarizing the continuing geo-political ascension of the Republic of Turkey and why the United States should follow some of the soft power examples offered by Turkey.
Turks have aided the Afghan government and its people since the days of Amir Abdur Rahman Khan, the “Iron Amir” who unified the country during his reign from 1880 to 1901 and embarked on a path of modernization. Afghanistan was the second country to recognize modern Turkey in 1921 after the USSR. Modern Turkey was instrumental in establishing the military academy, medical school, Kabul University and its faculty of political sciences, the music conservatory, and the public health service of Afghanistan.
Good relations between Turks and Afghans are based on three factors:
First, we do not share a common border and thus have no disputes on that score.
Second, as a young republic that was a successor to a great empire, Turkey never displayed any imperial overtones as it embraced the young Afghan nation, which had suffered at the hands of the British and Russian empires, after independence. Undergoing its own process of modernization at the time, Turkey treated Afghanistan as an absolute equal. We never had a special agenda and had relations with all elements of the Afghan nation.
Third, we share the religion of Islam.
As a NATO ally true to its obligations, Turkey sent troops to Afghanistan after 9/11 on the condition that they would not take part in combat operations. Despite pressure from allies, Turkey sticks strictly to this policy. Our presence in Afghanistan, both military and civilian, has been based on treating people with respect and as equals, not with paternalism or the imperial arrogance of an occupying power.
Turkish troops deployed to Kabul have been under strict orders to treat Afghans with dignity. They have not broken into homes. Most patrols are conducted on foot and not in armored carriers. Troops wear no sunglasses in order to maintain eye contact. Touching women is totally taboo. Medical personnel serve Afghan people as well as their own forces. Turkish troops have thus not only contributed to the security of Kabul but became an unobtrusive part of Afghan daily life.
President Karzai made a point at the London Conference of stressing Turkey’s mediating role, following upon the “trilateral” Turkey-Afghanistan-Pakistan meeting he had earlier attended in January in Istanbul with Pakistani President Asif Zardari. Unfortunately, India’s absence so far in this process has weakened the Turkish initiative. It is critical to get them on board because the Afghan problem cannot be solved unless India and Pakistan come to terms over their interests in Afghanistan.
The international community in general, and the allies in particular, should lend their support to Turkey.
Turkey’s NATO membership and historical soft-power capacity can make a critical difference in Afghanistan. Those who know and are trusted historically by the Afghan people can show the way for those who truly want to help the Afghans stand on their own feet.
If NATO sticks to a clear mandate within a defined time frame for withdrawal and the international community allocates sufficient resources, Afghanistan can be brought back into the fold of the international community. Turkey helped them join the world when Afghanistan was a young nation. It can do so again today.
0 comments:
Post a Comment