Pulling Back the Bowstring

Turkey, using its nay vote along with Brazil on the United Nations Security Council’s sanctions aimed at Iran, brought axial dislocation into the spotlight once again.

United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the former prime minister of England, Tony Blair, claimed that the European Union would withhold its support as a permanent member of the Security Council. For those who believed that a new chapter had begun in Turkish-American relations in the wake of Barack Obama’s first visit to Turkey as president, this is a disappointment similar to that experienced as a result of the March 1st Memorandum. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that despite the sanctions, diplomatic relations with Iran will not be closed, and this message adds importance to the efforts of Turkey and Brazil, who signed the “fuel-swap agreement.” According to a New York Times editorial, however, it is unclear what kind of future results could come from the “security” crisis created by Ankara — no longer a docile ally of the U.S.

President Erdoğan is using Turkey’s regional and global opportunities as a tool for strengthening his position in domestic politics. The departure of the Davos to Gaza was the first sign of this. Israel’s attack last week on a humanitarian relief flotilla that killed nine Turkish nationals caused irreparable damage. Now Erdoğan is emerging as the head of a league of Middle Eastern nations opposing Israel.

Hardly a day passes without Istanbul showing hospitality to an Eastern neighbor or hosting a conference for the Arab nations. Ahmet Davutoğlu, the architect of this policy, contends that Turkey will remain close to the West even as it draws closer to the East. During his academic career, Davutoğlu tried to explain this policy that he dubbed “strategic depth” with the metaphor of a bow. We pull back the bowstring by bringing Iran toward us and pushing Israel away from us. It is not clear, however, if the West is the place the arrow is meant to land. Even if the arrow were directed at the West, we wouldn’t hear voices saying, “But where would Turkey go?”

While the government sets out on a mission to control Iran’s nuclear program through a “fuel-swap agreement,” it claims that the U.S. has approved of this agreement. At least that’s how it was in the beginning. Even if this consensus is continuing, Hillary Clinton would not qualify the agreement signed between Brazil, Iran and Turkey as a piece of “paper.” U.S. President Obama would not try to dissuade Erdoğan until the last minute.

The nay vote signals a new state of affairs in Washington-Ankara relations.

We will now see how Turkey, which has emerged in opposition to global power players in the U.N. vote on Iran sanctions, will use its regional influence to gain a new role in global politics. While establishing these new balances, the goal of the European Union must not be distanced. While building “neighborly” relations with Iran, Turkey must not support the “democracy and human rights” problems of its government. Additionally, while opposing Israel’s blockade in Gaza, Turkey must not come out in support of Hamas. Let’s not drop the arrow, while pulling back the bowstring!