The real threat to Turkey and the missile shield
On May 29th, 1910, Britain's embassy staff in Istanbul compiled a report for power brokers back in London about who were to be the new leaders of the soon-to-be-formed Turkish republic. What became known as the FitzMaurice and Lowther report, David Fromkin writes in his epic book "A Peace to End All Peace" concluded that "the Young Turks leaders were foreigners, not Turks, and that they served foreign interests". Fromkin also writes, "This was the opposite of the truth, and led British observers to miscalculate what the Young Turk government would do."
As Oscar Wilde wrote, "Experience is one thing you can't get for nothing." So if history has anything to teach us, it is that in times of conflict, national interest will always come first and that Western diplomats stationed in Turkey are not so apt at reading between the lines. The Wikileaks cables demonstrate these miscalculations. There have often been wrong assumptions when it comes to Turkey, a country that is constantly criticised from within for not setting its own agenda but rather following one that is spoon fed by Washington. But is it time to perhaps turn this myth on its head? Sure Turkey can not act alone, its geography dictates that it must form an alliance of sorts in times of conflict. During both world wars of the twentieth century, Turkey chose to remain on the side of caution until it was forced to choose - a wise decision for a country that straddles Europe and Asia, bordering Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iran, Syria and Iraq not to mention Russia two days north by Sea and Egypt to the south.
The deployment of the NATO-led missile shield (worth an estimated 4 billions dollars) in Turkey with little or no opposition by a public who are seemingly anti-interventionalist - Turkish public outcry prevented the US from forming a northern front during the Iraq war - begs one question. Where does Turkey see, in the words of the US administration,"an imminent threat of incoming missiles"? An American lobbyist earlier this week claimed that Turkey was deploying the early-warning missile system against Iran. Tehran as expected reacted with harsh words of criticism stating its national interest will not be threatened by any country. But Turkey has not reacted to either commentary and why?
This week Turkish-Israeli relations reached an historic point of potential conflict after Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan promised to deploy the Turkish navy on the Eastern Mediterranean to escort aid ships trying to reach Gaza. In response, Israeli Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor described the comments as "grave and serious". And all of this because Israel arrogantly refuses to offer a simple apology for the deaths of nine Turkish activists who were slain onboard an international aid flotilla last year that attempted to break the blockade on Gaza.
Speaking to the vice-president of IHH charity, the organisation that lead the aid-flotilla, may provide some insight into why Turkey has not reacted to the Iranian posturing and rather is seeking to deploy the missile shield with little or no public opposition. Who do Turks view as the aggressor here? Their Islamic neighbour or the rogue state who seemingly doesn't respect the lives of nine of its citizens.
Huseyin Oruc, the vice-president of IHH, explains why he thinks Israel used such brute force against the Turkish ship."Maybe there are many answers. But from our side as a humanitarian organisation it is impossible to answer. We don't think like them. If they had an ounce of humanitarian thought they couldn't act like this. Therefore I couldn't understand. But what we have realised is that there is a very significant level of hostility against the Turkish nation. They are always talking about the friendship betweeen the Turkish government and the Israeli government, the Turkish nation and the Jewish people. But what we realise is that it's not true."
IHH has been accused by some Western governments of supporting a radical Islamists agenda, one that rejects Western ideals. Whether this is a fair assessment is not my argument. It simply can not be ignored that the charity does provide aid to millions of vulnerabe people world-wide from Somalia to Palestine and has a popular international following. It is this position that has exposed Israeli aggression to a mass audience for the first time. It can also not be ignored that people on the street in Turkey feel pretty much the same as Huseyin. Here are some voxpops we gathered on Friday from pro-secular non-AK party voters.
"I don't find them honest, I expected them to be more honest. They are not our friends," Ayse, 44-years-old.
"The US and Europe haven't criticised Israel enough. Israel tortures Palestinians, and Israel effects the world badly," Murat, 25-years-old.
"Israel is trouble for everyone. I think Turkey shouldn't have a relationship with Israel. We don't need them," Ahmet, 52-years-old.
Turkey recognised Israel in 1949, but the relationship has never been easy. And since Erdogan's AK Party come to power in 2002, it has taken a decidingly downward trend. Having improved some of its human rights issues while growing its economy, emboldened with a new confidence, Turkey no longer feels the need to heed Israeli policies in the region as it once did. Whether this translates into Turkish perceptions over an Israeli threat rather than the US driven narrative that Iran poses the problem is difficult to assess. But one only needs to listen to the many voices in Turkey to understand where Turks think the conflict resonates from.
Turkey feels Israel has reached a point of no return. The arrogance of Israeli hardliners is a sentiment that Turkish diplomacy can no longer stomach. It pains Turkish culture for the Israeli governent not to mourn the dead nine young peace activists who died on that fatal night.
James Baldwin wrote, "People are trapped in history, and history is trapped in them." Is Israel to be trapped by the modern history it is effortlessly now writing? The events of the past twenty-four hours should serve as a warning. Scenes of Egyptians storming the Israeli embassy in Cairo are quite telling. Protesters tore down the newly built security wall with their bare hands. Is this the new Middle East Israelis want to live in? One where their allies are no longer able to ignore the outpouring of popular protest and the hypocrisy of ambivelance.
