Abstract
The AK Party’s
approaches to Central Asia and Caucasus are similar to those of
previous governments. For the AK Party, Central Asia, and
especially Eurasian geopolitics, are strategically very
important; therefore, they have desired to improve Turkey’s
existing relations with the regional states and strongly
supported inter-regional projects, such as the
Baku-Tbilis-Erzurum natural gas pipeline, Baku-Tbilis-Kars
railway and the Nabucco pipeline. For that reason, Turkish
officials have paid various official visits to the regional
states. With the assistance of these projects, the officials
believe that regional integration attempts will be strengthened
and welfare, stability and development will dominate regional
affairs. But the Turkish policy makers have had to change their
perspective about the region in favor of existing regional
conditions, and they have formulated more realistic and rational
policies, including a focus on more concrete projects.
Keywords:
AK Party, Central
Asia, Caucasus, Turkish Model, Energy.
Introduction
After the collapse of former
Soviet Union, Turkish policy makers assumed that Turkey had lost
its strategic importance in the eyes of the Western countries,
especially the United States;
therefore, by having close relations with the newly independent
Central Asian Turkic republics and Azerbaijan based on the
understanding of “big brotherhood”, Turkey could again regain
its strategic importance to its Western allies.
In that regard, Turkish policy makers shaped Turkey’s Central
Asia policy based on the slogan of “Turkish World from the
Chinese Wall to the Adriatic Sea”, and following that mentality,
they defined the following points as Turkey’s foreign policy
objectives regarding Central Asia and Caucasus: reshaping the
regional economies, providing direct support to the
nation-building and state-building efforts of the regional
states, even being a model, and helping them integrate into the
world system. In the course of time, they have clearly
understood that these objectives were not realistic in view
of the regional conditions.
Distracted by domestic political crises and Turkey’s membership
negotiations to the EU, they again slowly lost their attention
to the region as well as the regional affairs.
In 1997, when the European Union
rejected Turkey’s application for full membership, Turkish
officials, especially the nationalist groups and retired
military officials, immediately rediscovered the Eastern Bloc
option, consisting of China, Russia, Iran, Caucasian and Central
Asia states, including India and Mongolia, within the framework
of the concept of Eurasianism. But in reality that approach was
not made operational, due to the sui generis conditions
of the region and regional states.
In 1999, after the EU’s Helsinki decision about Turkey’s
application to full membership, Turkey again put that proposal
on a shelf. But after 2002, the AK Party government decided to
pursue a more active foreign policy toward the region within the
framework of its new understanding, called the strategic depth.
This study briefly puts
forward the AK Party’s foreign policy objectives regarding
Central Asia and Azerbaijan, as well as its concrete attempts.
Secondly, its Central Asia policy will also be analyzed from a
critical perspective. The paper argues that the AK Party’s
policy is similar to the approaches of previous governments and
thus its policy is unworkable as far as the region’s existing
conditions and Turkey’s abilities are concerned. In this
connection, Turkey should pursue such a policy that would view
the regional states and Turkey as equal partners, address the
needs and demands of the regional states, and take into account
the attitudes and concerns of other. This new policy should
contain more realistic objectives and project more concrete
attempts.
Background of Turkey’s
Central Asia Policy
In 1987 Turkey applied to the
European Community for full membership. But in 1989 that
application was rejected by the Commission. Turkish officials
were shocked. At the same time, the collapse of the Soviet Union
immediately after the military coup d’etat in August 1990 forced
Turkey to think about its strategic position in world politics.
As mentioned above, Turkey now was not the strategic or military
buffer zone of the Western world against the Soviet threat. and
on the contrary the Western world gave priority to the pro –
Western Russian government as well as political and economic
reforms in Russia.
Turkey started to occupy a marginal place in Western
calculations.
However, that apprehension did not
go on for a long time, because Turkey played an active role
during the 1990 Gulf Crisis. As a result of this role, Turkey
succeeded in displaying itself as a strategically important ally
of the Western world. The West began to advocate the idea of the
Turkish model as an alternative, for the Central Asian and
Caucasian states, from communism or Iranian-style Islamism.
The Turkish model suggested a message to the regional countries
about their future political and economic systems.
With the encouragement of the
Western countries and their ideological concerns, Turkish
officials supported the idea of a Turkish World from the
Adriatic Sea to the Chinese Wall. They discussed the
establishment of political and economic unions in this
geographic space. Naturally Turkey would be the leader of any
union, due to its cultural, ethnic, linguistic, historical and
religious characteristics. As a model Turkey would be a bridge
between the Western world and regional countries and the
initiator of integration of these countries to the world
community. Also with the assistance of Turkey, they would absorb
Western values. In this manner, by acting as a regional leader,
Turkey would affect global politics.
AK Party’s Foreign
Policy Mentality and Central Asia
The existing Turkish government in
general terms has two main foreign policy objectives: a)
Becoming a full member of the European Union, and b) bolstering
security, stability, welfare, friendship and cooperation around
Turkey, since it is located at the center of the Balkans,
Caucasus, Black Sea, Middle East, Mediterranean, and Central
Asia.
In this respect, the AK Party has supported the development of
strategic cooperation at both bilateral and multilateral levels
among regional states, and strengthening regional integration
attempts in the fields of economy, society, politics, energy and
culture. Separately, Turkish officials believe that the regional
states have to make serious efforts in democratization,
transition to a free market economy, and respect for human
rights, as well as in finding peaceful solution to the regional
frozen conflicts.
These Turkish encouragements aim to create a mutual dependency
among the regional countries, resulting in regional stability,
welfare and cooperation.
As far as Central Asia, or in
more general terms Eurasian geopolitics, is concerned, the AK
Party has pursued similar approaches to those of previous
governments. The Party’s officials have viewed Eurasia as a
geopolitical area, directly affecting the post–Cold War
international system, and described the Caspian Sea Basin as the
touchstone of Eurasia. Meanwhile Turkey and Azerbaijan have
formed the backbone of Eurasian geopolitics.
For the Turkish government, the region is strategically
important because of its vast energy resources and for the
security of energy supply to the world market. By using its
geopolitical advantage, located at the center of East – West,
North – South and South – North energy corridors, Turkey desires
to become an important energy transit country, energy terminal
and the fourth energy source of the European Union, after North
Sea, Russia and the Middle East.
From this perspective,
the AK Party’s official foreign policy objectives regarding
Central Asia and Azerbaijan can be summarized as follows:
·
Developing
bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the fields of energy,
economy, commerce, culture, society, politics, etc.
·
Assisting
them to find a peaceful solution to the frozen regional
conflicts.
·
Serving as
an energy terminal.
·
Prodiving
assistance to the regional states in their nation- and
state-building processes.
·
Helping them develop and maintain close relations with the other
countries.
Turkey therefore desires to
refresh its mutual relations, based on economy, literature and
culture, with the regional states, and views this process as a
historical obligation. For them, the relations have been
developed on the basis of concepts of brotherhood, common
language, common belief and common (Turkic) race. They mention
that “one nation and two state mentality” dominates the
relations, based on mutual trust and respect.
Consequently the AK Party provides technical assistance,
scholarships, training of representatives of civil society,
military cooperation and military training to the regional
states.
Turkey has advocated the
completion of the Baku-Tbilis-Ceyhan oil pipeline,
Baku-Tbilis-Erzurum natural gas pipeline and Baku-Tbilis-Kars
railway project, and invested significant energy for the
realization of the construction of Nabucco and South Europe Gas
Ring projects. In line with these energy projects, the Hopa
seaport has been repaired.
Turkey has also made serious
efforts for the establishment of a Turkish–Kazakh Commercial
Council, Turkish–Azerbaijan Mixed Economic Commission, and an
Intergovernmental Economic Commission between Turkey and
Turkmenistan. Recently, President Abdullah Gul and Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan paid official visits to
Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. They proposed a
most-favored-nation trade agreement with Azerbaijan, suggested
that Kazakhstan pump Kazakh oil to the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline,
and signed several agreements with Turkmenistan on the subjects
of economic cooperation, partnership and cooperation, education,
science, youth, sport, family, women and children.
In Turkey’s view, for
the exploitation and exportation of the regional natural
resources to the world market, multilateral cooperation among
the regional and non-regional countries is inevitably necessary.
To that end, Turkey has proposed the followings subjects on
which to develop the mutual relations.
·
Establishment of a Secretariat of Presidential Summits of the
Turkish Republics;
·
Creation
of an institution like OPEC, focused on regional gas suppliers;
·
Common
alphabet based on the Latin script;
·
Joint TV
channel;
·
Establishment of Academy of Science of the Turkish World, and
Science Museum of the Turkish World;
·
Publication of books on the common history, literature, culture,
and religion of the Turkic states;
·
Creation of political and economic union.
Evaluation and
Conclusion
When the AK Party’s
policy toward the region is analyzed, it can be said that its
policy is not realistic, due to the fact that this policy does
not take into account the regional realities and conditions, and
it does not put on the table more concrete proposals. Instead,
it mostly supports abstract projects which are usually advocated
by the nationalist parties and groups in Turkey. For example,
Turkish universities have tried to define a new common Latin
alphabet for all Turkish people in the world since 1991. For
that aim, Marmara University Institute of Turkish Studies
organized several international conferences. But so far, it has
been unsuccesful. In the meantime, Kazakh officials stated that
they did not feel any necessity to immediately adopt a Latin
alphabet. Additionally, the Central Asian states have desired to
complete their own nation-and state-building processes;
therefore, they have pursued more nationalistic policies that
reflect their own local values and characteristics. Such things,
such as common language, common history, and/or common culture
will remove them from their national/local approaches in state,
foreign, cultural and social policies; therefore, from the
beginning they did not prefer to see Turkey as a model for
themselves.
Due to dealing with
practically impossible projects and formulating its regional
policies based on incorrect perceptions, Turkey has not realized
its economic, energy, and commercial interests. Therefore, the
AK Party has to pursue more realistic national interests that
reflect the demands of the regional states. In the course of
time it has to regularly update its interests to account for the
changing regional conditions, and determine suitable foreign
policy actions which are relevant to Turkey’s power and
interests.
For instance, the
Turkish government should establish independent, private
research centers in both Turkey and regional countries in order
to collect reliable information about state systems, politics,
and social conditions in the regional states as well as regional
affairs. In the meantime, Turkey has to encourage foundations
and/or state institutions to establish new universities in these
countries, and ensure that they are under the direction and
management of Turkish professors. Turkish Cultural Centers must
become operational in all these states. Some state institutions
such as ministries concerned with foreign trade, and some
private and/or semi-private foundations, such as Chambers of
Business, have to open their own comprehensive
departments/bureaus in these states in order to collect
information about economic, commercial and political affairs as
well as to provide daily, effective data to businessmen and
academicians. These bureaus can be under the administrative
coordination of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and/or Turkish
Cooperation and Development Administration. For example, while
analyzing the needs of the region, they may have to determine
Kyrgyzstan’s need for a water institution and with this
information, Turkish universities may be obliged to create such
an institution in this country, collectively acting with the
Kyrgyz universities. Both upper and lower level Turkish
officials have to have close and cooperative relations with
their counterparts.
Turkey has to change its
perspective toward the region and Turkish officials have to
accept that these regional countries are equal partners, and
that close relations with the regional states are based on their
mutual interests. They have to refrain from sentiments such as
those in the following sentences in their speeches: “This
project will change history. It will radically reshape the
regional economy. It will create a common economic area”. These
sentences reflect to a great extent the romanticism of the
Turkish foreign policy.
The Baku-Tbilis-Erzurum natural gas pipeline or the
Baku-Tbilis-Kars railway will naturally encourage the regional
states to improve mutual economic and commercial relations
amongst themselves. This is a natural process. But it does not
mean that it will change a historical process. For example, the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline has not changed Eurasian
geopolitics and/or structure of the international system. Russia
and China still, in spite of the US and Turkey’s attempts, have
a considerable influence upon the regional states.
Turkey has overstated
the importance of the projects and/or official visits of the
leaders to the regional states. Turkish officials have also
exaggerated the Turkish business activities in the region.
Turkish firms have not dominated the regional economies, and
their activities are not even significantly more noticeable than
those of other firms.
Consequently, Turkey has
to accept that Azerbaijan, the Central Asian republics and
Turkey are equal partners and that relations among them are
based on mutual interests. Historical ties can only help them to
have close relations, and no more. Historical ties cannot
control all of Turkey’s relations with other countries and/or
vice versa. With this perspective, the AK party has to improve
its perceptions about the region according to the actual
regional conditions. They should not make speeches that aim at
solving fundamental problems of the regional states, which are
much bigger issues than Turkey, which lacks enough capability to
solve them alone. Simultenaously, the regional states do not see
Turkey as a savior, or big brother. In this respect, Turkey has
to define more short- and medium-term objectives, and focus on
more concrete projects rather than vague ones.
Bal,
İdris, “Turkey’s Relations with the West and the Turkic
Republics: Rise and Fall of the Turkish Model”,
Aldershot, 2000.