Changes in its own region and across the world have made it necessary for Turkey to develop a new security paradigm. An important dimension of this paradigm is a settlement process aimed at having the PKK abandon the use of weapons and building peace. Launching a ‘peace process’ aimed at having the PKK give up the use of guns and establishing peace is, to a large degree, linked to the new security paradigm and state mentality which Turkey has been obliged to develop in the face of changing regional and global circumstances. Undoubtedly the official mentality is not the only reason why the settlement process has been started but it is an important one. Mention of an official mentality does not imply any denial of the fact that the main area for the settlement process will be politics. The letter from the PKK’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, that was read out during the Nevruz celebrations contained references to regional and global developments and also consigned some things to history and thus confirms this interpretation. The Israeli apology to Turkey is also an initiative with important consequences for the Arab Spring and developments in the region, and Turkey’s role in relation to them.
In essence Turkey is undergoing a process in which politics are decisive; the political arena is broadening out. But we are aware that this process constitutes an important part of the response that Turkey is trying to make to changes happening both in the region and globally. Changes in its own region and across the world make it necessary for Turkey to develop a new security paradigm.
The Arab Spring
Because of the problems of Iraq, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, together with the transformation process accompanying the Arab Spring, and the crisis arising from it in Syria, the strategy which Turkey has designed is an effective response to the changes underway in North Africa and the Middle East.
Turkey was spurred to reflect upon a new security paradigm when regional and global events, starting with the aftermath of 9/11 and deteriorating further with the global economic crisis of 2008 assumed a ‘system-transforming’ character with the Arab Spring, combined to create a regional and global power matrix. Between 2001 and 2010, Turkey’s pro-active foreign policy operated on the basis of ‘zero problems with neighbours. The start of the Arab Spring in 2010 rendered this approach invalid and created a serious dislocation in foreign policy.
Until 2010 the goal of Turkey’s proactive foreign policy had been to modify the authoritarian regimes which existed in the region by fostering advanced economic and cultural relations within and encouraging the reform process. Turkey acted as a merchant state but this policy lost its relevance in the face of the Arab Spring. The latter gave voice to the desire for regime change in their countries by people eager for work, food, prosperity, and security. It viewed the Arab Spring as the conclusion of the post-colonial period in this part of the world, the normalisation of history, and the time for the participation of peoples as active agents in history. The Arab Spring took place in a part of the world where a notion of politics prevailed in the wake of 11 September which was reduced to occupations, wars, ‘otherisation’, and to the relations between friend and enemy.
Despite all the problems it is experiencing, the Arab Spring embraces the idea of restoring normality to history and permits the emergence of a new relationship between state and society. Despite all the uncertainties and risks the change is defined as a transition to democracy and good government. The Arab Spring is putting an end to the world order established after 9th September. A new process directed towards a combination of security, democracy, and economic development has emerged in response to the demands of the populations of the region for a new kind of government.
Despite all the variations of the Arab Spring some common characteristics have emerged in the countries where it has happened. In these countries people are no longer demanding things like identity, culture, and tradition from their governments but rather services in the areas of economics, prosperity, and democracy.
Changing power relationships
At the same time, there is no doubt that the great changes in the North African and Middle Eastern region between 11th September and today, including the global economic crisis and the Arab Spring, have brought a significant alteration in the balances and relationships on the regional and global chessboard in the game of power. The 11th September attacks produced a new Middle East. Because of the Arab Spring, a new North Africa and a different Middle East have begun to emerge. The process can no longer be reversed. We are passing through a stage when the old has finished but the new has yet to be completely reborn.
Strategic partnerships are ending, and old friendships are giving way to conflicts and new relationships are being born. In the region, the post-colonial nation states are entering a time of change. We live at a time when a new state and a new nation are being built. In a fast-changing world the equation between uncertainty, security, economics, and democracy is emerging in its clearest form in the lands of the Arab Spring. The future of Libya is doubtful. Tunisia and Egypt are changing. Syria is in a state of civil war. In Iraq there has been tremendous loss of human life, The Iranian problem is one which affects both democracy and nuclear power. Israel has been deeply affected by these changes. Turkey from now on will be an important player in the region. The Palestinian problem and Jordan and Lebanon are all shrouded with uncertainties.. With the USA and Europe going through an economic crisis, Russia and China play an important and unwelcome role in Syria in particular. The USA is unable to develop a clear-cut policy regarding the Arab Spring process. In the regions where the transformation is taking place, uncertainty and confusion are steadily increasing.
The new security paradigm
So at this point, when Turkey and its proactive foreign policy are being absorbed into the transformation and its management, the country feels the need for a new security paradigm designed in response to the transformation. The settlement process we are experiencing is an important dimension of this paradigm. Within this country and the rest of the region, a new official outlook based on the idea of cooperation between Turks and Kurds implies a new security paradigm–one which has as a priority the development of a new relationship dependent on cooperation, acting in unison, and living together. There must be a form of action aimed at living together in security and reform, economic development, prosperity and democracy. There must be a mentality that bolsters security on the foundations of peace and democracy. There must also be the notion of getting the PKK to lay down its arms and establishing peace inside Turkey while making this country strong both within its region and the world as a whole.
Everyone,(i.e. all the players involved) must also agree that peace and democracy will be beneficial and advantageous to Turkey, to the Turks, to the Kurds, i.e. to everyone, and awareness must also be boosted that they will gain from this.
The peace process is taking place inside both Turkey and Northern Iraq. If Turkey can play a positive role by helping to improve relations between the Kurdish Regional Government in Northern Iraq and the central government of Iraq, the peace process could begin to function throughout the whole of that country. Turkish-Iraqi relations are currently expanding, particularly in the field of economics and have the potential to grow further.
We are unable to reach a similarly optimistic conclusion about Syria. The resistance being put up by the Al-Assad regime and the consequent civil war in Syria pose great risks for Turkey. Turkey wants to cooperate with both Syria and with the Kurds in Syria. So in this respect the settlement process is a response to the risks coming out of Syria.
The new security paradigm was first completely outlined by Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Mr Ahmet Davutoğlu, at a speech he made at Dicle University on 15 March this year. In it he outlined details of the institutional underpinning of the paradigm which rests on the idea of cooperation between Turks and Kurds and acting together. The speech was entitled The Great Restoration: Our New View of Politics from the Old Order to Globalisation. In this speech the new security paradigm was described a great work of restoration made necessary by regional and global transformation and changes. According to Mr Davutoğlu the restoration consists of three interlinked points:
(a) Restoration inside Turkey: the emergence of a new psychological attitude and mentality.
(b) Restoration aimed at constructing an identity: a new common language based on a sense of shared and equal history and citizenship.
(c) Restoration in foreign policy: a new formula for liberty and security.
In conclusion, this speech will enable us to begin a more thorough discussion of the new security paradigm. Let us emphasize one point: what we are talking about is brand new paradigm which is emerging and working to develop itself. It is not a security paradigm whose content and boundaries have been fully worked out. With the solution process we shall experience and discuss the restructuring of Turkey’s proactive foreign policy on the basis of vision, capacity, and strategy as related and parallel processes.
No comments:
Post a Comment