Tactical Failure of Turkish Policy on Mavi Marmara Crises

Published by Huffington Post UK Blog, 3 September 2011

No matter what angle one looks at, it is undeniable that Turkey has every right to continue to demand an apology for the killing of her citizens, just as every country in the world would and should do in such an incident. Yet, Turkey has committed a tactical mistake in the process of achieving an apology.

With hindsight, it is clear that the build up to the killing of Turkish citizens on board the doomed boat is not that black and white. Before the boat sailed, both Turkey and Israel could have found a way of stopping or handling it, but both parties failed to do so and allowed things to reach to their nadir.

While vast majority of the people on the boat were peace activists, there was a small group of mujahiddeen-wannabes ready to 'retaliate'. The Israeli forces not only failed dramatically in the operational sense, but their wrong approach of trying to stop the boat triggered retaliation and not surprisingly use of brutal military force.

Israel had a brief window of opportunity to stop escalation of the issue. It could have been enough to state that operation went wrong and that its sorry for loss of life but still insist that the boats should not have been there, which would have defused the situation. AKP had no chance but to stand boldly against Israel and demand an apology as the entire Turkish public demanded so. Both parties were then engulfed in copying each other in harsher and bolder stands with growing myopia of the implications of their mimetic bravado for the entire Middle East.


Turkey could have made an apology from Israel a lot more possible if the AKP government has not included the lifting of Gaza blockade to its three fold demand from Israel, two of which asked for apology and reparations for the murdered citizens. However, the issue of Gaza and the issue of dead citizens are not inherently linked. It would have been so if those murdered were Palestinian dwellers of Gaza who were killed during an attempt to bring banned supplies to Gaza.

While Turkey might have a stand on Gaza and over all Israel-Palestine issues, by combining it with its rightful demand for an apology for its citizens, it undermined its own cause. The Gaza blockade emerged from Israel's policy, backed by all of the major stakeholders, to isolate and weaken Hamas. Thus, a demand for the lifting of blockade bumps into a much more complicated and long term tension involving many powerful stakeholders and Israeli public.

Unwittingly, Turkey has made the loss of its citizens a political tool for a larger policy on Israel. This only caused the hardened voices in Israel to mute others that see friendship with Turkey to be too important to loose. That is why even though the UN report clearly states the military failures and serious human rights abuses committed by Israel, it's dubious claims on the legality of the blockade was seen as a victory and a reason to never apologize to Turkey. In contrast, Egypt was able to get a quick and swift apology from Israel for the killing of its troops.

In diplomacy, one has to develop a game plan for the desired achievement. Turkey seems to have miscalculated and gambled far more than would have been possible to achieve. As for Israel, it once again found joy in being singled out by the world and loosing one more friend in such a critical conjuncture without ever realizing the long term costs of a temporary sense of pride and martyrdom.

So the winner stands alone now; a discredited UN commissioned report and its politically charged writers, unsuccessful outcomes of the Turkish gamble, delusional arrogance of Israeli foreign ministry under the Netanyahu government. The dead are still dead, their families are still mourning and sadly, many more will join their ranks.

How the press got the UK Home Affairs Committee report wrong


Published by Today's Zaman, 4 August 2011



The UK Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee released an important report titled “Implications for the Justice and Home Affairs area of the accession of Turkey to the European Union” on Monday.

Within the same day, the international press picked up on various themes in the report and by and large used sensationalist captions highlighting the report’s concerns. The Jerusalem Post stated, “UK lawmakers say Turkey must improve border security.” AFP was more dramatic with, “MPs warn over security risks if Turkey joins EU.” The BBC reflected the ever-present panic attacks over migration in Britain stating, “MPs warn over Turkey migrant risk.” Bloomberg echoed a similar alarm, “Turkey joining EU would pose border risks.” And the part of the UK with the lowest migrant population, Northern Ireland, had “Illegal immigrants fear over Turkey’s EU move,” on the Belfast Telegraph’s pages.

This was a superb chance for the UK Independence Party’s bewildered and insignificant leader, Nigel Farage, to declare that “Turkey should not be allowed to join the EU.” In a hearty dose of paradox, Farage represents an anti-EU party with seats in the European Parliament.

The titles and content of all of the press articles seem to suggest that the Home Affairs Committee’s report was asking for an end to Turkish accession talks. Yet the truth is far from it. The report does acknowledge serious patterns of organized crime and human trafficking that both Turkey and Greece get tangled in, as both countries serve as the main entrance route to the “old continent.”


What the press omitted, however, was the strong case the report makes for Turkish integration into the EU.

Paragraph 38 in the report’s recommendations suggests: “Turkish accession would be unlikely to lead to an increase of narcotics into the EU market, given that the major factors influencing drug flows into the EU appear to be production levels in the source countries and domestic demand in the EU Member States, neither of which would be affected. Furthermore, accession will bring opportunities for greater cooperation between Turkish and EU law enforcement agencies, which could bring about a more robust response to drug trafficking”

Paragraph 44 makes similarly strong findings. It states that in the long-term, “the risks that Turkish accession poses for organised crime in the EU are considerably outweighed by the potential benefits” and that “there is a risk that, if Turkey is not permitted to join the EU, the Turkish authorities may lose their incentive to prioritise tackling criminality which affects EU Member States to a far greater extent than their own population (Turkey does not have a big domestic drug market and most immigrants transiting the country do not intend to stay). … It is clear that the Turkish authorities are proving more effective than some of the authorities that lie within the EU border, such as Greece, and that bilateral arrangements -- for example, between SOCA and the Turkish authorities -- are maturing well.”

Paragraph 45 of the report even urges the EU to incorporate Turkey into European bodies such as Europol and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction “prior to” and “irrespective of full membership.” The report says that “not to admit Turkey to membership of those bodies would be to cut off the European nose to spite our face…”

Interestingly, in paragraph 106 the report shows a counter-trend, which is rarely raised in the European press: “We accept that both legal and clandestine migration from Turkey to the EU have declined in recent years to a combined annual figure of below 50,000, and that there is also evidence of negative migration from the EU to Turkey, particularly from Germany.”

The report also notes legitimate concerns over the expansion of EU borders to countries such as Syria and Iran, which have visa waiver agreements with Turkey. Yet the report’s tone is optimistic, and sees a robust and willing Turkish state, which will meet these challenges with the EU’s support.

In other terms, the newspaper captions have been misleading, telling us more about Europe itself then the findings of the report or the UK’s steadfast support of Turkish membership.

Dangerous Turkish Gamble on Cyprus and EU

























Foreign Policy Centre, 26 July 2011

A remarkable series of public declarations by Turkish officials last weeks are causing increasing concern over the future of Turkish-EU relations and possible solutions to the Cyprus problem.

It first started with comments made by the Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu two weeks ago. Davutoglu publicly stated that unless the Cyprus issue is resolved by early 2012, negotiations with the EU may be frozen. This deadline is based on the start of Cyprus' turn for EU presidency. Since Turkey does not officially accept the existence of the Republic of Cyprus, the FM argued that Turkey cannot engage with the EU presidency while Cyprus is in office; thus EU-Turkish relations will, de facto, be frozen.

Then came the harsher comments by the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan over the last week. Prior to his visit to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), the PM gave a series of interviews to the Turkish and Cypriot press, as well as some stronger public talks while on the disputed island.

The Prime Minister declared that the issue has to be solved at least in principle, and agreements reached before the EU presidency, underlining Turkey's preference for a federal unification of both sides of the island. In addition, Erdogan has retracted AK Party's (AKP) willingness to offer land swaps in certain areas and clearly asserted that if no agreement is reached by July 2012, Turkey and the TRNC will close negotiations and the island will forever be two independent states on current borders. This clear Turkish challenge puts the ball not only in the Greek Cypriot but also the EU's court.


Erdogan was key in triggering the initiatives undertaken by Kofi Annan, which came to an abrupt end when the Greek Cypriots voted 'No' to the UN's proposals. In contrast, the Turkish Cypriots voted 'Yes' with a clear majority. AKP had in fact put serious political capital behind the Annan plan.

While Kofi Annan gave up on solving the issue, the EU took a controversial decision and allowed the Republic of Cyprus into the EU without any concrete solution to the conflict. This has subsequently caused both the TRNC and Turkey to feel betrayed and disillusioned as they upheld their sides of the bargain.

Ever since, Greek Cyprus has vetoed EU-Turkish accession talks at every step of the conversation. Since EU countries remain divided on the Turkish bid, it is no surprise that Turkey believes that neither the Republic of Cyprus nor the EU actually want to solve this problem and quicken the Turkish accession into the EU.

The fact that the UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon recently initiated a preliminary meeting with Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders for a final UN attempt to unite the island, has triggered the latest escalation of Turkey's focus on the island. The General Secretary too sees these talks as a last chance. Until now, neither the EU nor Greek Cyprus seem moved by Turkish and UN timelines and demands, while sponsor country Greece is too troubled domestically to even engage on the issue.

A catalytic shock was indeed needed to conclude, positively or negatively, the nightmare problem that has caused so many diplomats and mediators severe depression. In such a scenario there are only three possible outcomes from this gamble.

Either, the EU will show their resolve and thus pressure the Republic of Cyprus to let go of maximalist goals and accept in principle a timetable for the unification of the island, thus compromise; or, this would indeed finally end all chances of unification, and see the TRNC and Turkey begin work on long term nation-building.

While the former result would have tremendously positive outcomes both for Cyprus, the EU, Greece, Turkey and the feeble Eastern Mediterranean, the latter would not only result in EU-Turkish relations being frozen during Cypriot presidency, eventual political solutions for EU-Turkey tensions would be much harder to identify.

Even though the populist French and German political mood might seem to argue for exclusion of Turkey from the EU, in actuality, all of the EU states are acutely aware that they need Turkey, both economically and increasingly diplomatically as Turkey deepens its regional power and appeal. While Turkey will never give up bilateral relations with European countries, it also looks less and less in need of EU membership.

The third outcome from this gamble might be that AKP will eventually have to retract its deadlines and harsh tones, and accept the status quo. Then, AKP would have to face serious loss of diplomatic capital and a weaker stand against the EU countries which oppose Turkish membership. This would enable Greek Cyprus to find a way out of being seen as the primary reason why the issue is not solved, and blame Turkey for being the unreasonable party.

It is high time, not only to show genuine will to solve the Cyprus problem, but also once and for all finalize whether Turkey will ever be an EU state. The AKP seem set to force the moment to a crisis to find a conclusion; a dangerous, but much needed gamble.

Public Talk in July 2011

On July 29, I will be speaking at the following Congressional briefing:

The Interplay between Religious Freedom, Extremism, and Security: Implications for U.S. Policy

WHERE: 2103 Rayburn House Office Building, U.S. House of Representatives

WHEN: Friday, July 29, 2011 --- 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm







The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) invites you to a staff briefing, “The Interplay between Religious Freedom, Extremism, and Security: Implications for U.S. Policy” on Friday, July 29 from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm in Rayburn 2103.

A panel of experts will discuss the interplay between religious freedom, extremism, and security with a particular focus on U.S. policy toward Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Three of the panelists, Daniel Philpott, Tim Shah, and Monica Duffy Toft, will present findings and offer policy recommendations from their recently published book, God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics. Current USCIRF Fellow Ziya Meral will speak about patterns of ethno-religious violence with case studies from countries he recently visited, Egypt and Nigeria. Questions and answers will follow.

Please contact Kristina Olney (at 202-786-0613 or KOlney@uscirf.gov) with any questions.

The Future of Turkish-Egyptian Relations

Published by Today's Zaman, 20 July 2011

When Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan publicly urged Hosni Mubarak to give up power, I was one of those who expressed concern. At that moment, none of us knew what would happen next. From a Turkish perspective, countless efforts to develop stronger economic relations with Egypt were now in jeopardy. Not to mention, an unstable Egypt could create serious challenges for Turkey. But I was also glad that Erdoğan followed his conscience and took the risk. Eventually, it turned out that the Turkish government was betting on the right side.

However, in the months following Mubarak’s departure, the old regime stood fast with only minor cosmetic changes. Would Turkish siding with the protesting masses backfire when the dust settled and revolutionary zeal gave way to disappointment with the realities of a crumbling country?

After countless conversations with activists, lawyers, diplomats, bankers, businessmen and journalists in Egypt, I became convinced that far from damaging Turkish-Egyptian relations, there was a growing space for them to advance. In every interview I conducted about the future of Egypt, my respondents showed immense interest in Turkey. They wanted to know about Turkey, but not merely to see how the model could be copied to fit the Egyptian context. They were curious to learn how the Turkish economy had recovered from the disaster of 2001. They wanted to understand how democracy, human rights, army-civilian relations and civil society had evolved in Turkey.
This gives Turkey a genuine connection with the future of Egypt. For this reason the Turkish government should urgently invest in more official, civil society and academic exchanges with Egypt, and create funds to bolster ties through education and grassroots projects.

While the Egyptian economy is facing haunting structural challenges, the country’s political instability is scaring away many investors. However, Turkish businesses are steadily breaking into the barren and vast lands of the country. Take the Polaris Group, for example, led by the visionary Tunç Özkan. Özkan has opened the first industrial park in the country, built on 2 million square meters of land. His ethical stance and investment in corporate responsibility projects have not only spared him from the recent arrests of corrupt business persons, but also won him deep respect in Egypt.

Another Turk rocking the Cairo scene is the general manager of hotel Kempinski. In less than a year, Fuat Köroğlu has made his relatively small hotel a major hub for diplomats and the high-flying elite. In fact, during the uprisings, he remained in the hotel during the long nights of ambiguity and arbitrary violence raging outside. His staff adores him for being there for them.

Turkish business persons in Egypt rightfully think that the Egyptian army and the new government will do nothing to harm businesses and will only seek to attract more foreign investment from countries with a good rapport. Thus, we should see a speedy increase in the number of Turkish firms and talents in Egypt’s chaotic but potential market.

Turkey has the right ambassador in place for shifting gears in Egypt. In a recent reception at the Turkish House in Cairo, His Excellency Hüseyin Botsalı dazzled Egyptian officials and elites by joining the music group with his saz -- a traditional Turkish instrument. His reputation in Egypt makes him the envy of other foreign ambassadors. His diplomatic experience in hot spots such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq make him the perfect man for the job.

As American and European officials are given the cold shoulder and Western businesses keep their distance, Turkish officials and investors find open doors. Turkey must seize this opportunity. It is a win-win scenario for both Egypt and Turkey.

Is the Egyptian “Revolution” a Revolution?

Published by The Commentator, 19 July 2011

It is impossible to not be inspired and moved by the tremendous courage and will of Egyptian people, who have risked it all and against all the odds dethroned a modern day dictator.

Yet, as the dust is settling in Egypt, it is time to ask the hard questions about what has changed and what has not changed in Egypt.

Clearly, one of the key changes is the fear factor. Egypt was a police state under Mubarak and the permanent state of emergency granted limitless powers to security forces. Even the slightest expression of criticism or political opinion often resulted in indefinite detention, physical abuse and intimidation with no recourse to justice and no sense of rule of law.

In Tahrir square, Egyptians took away the most important tool the security forces had; their illusion of omnipotence and omniscience. Now, Egyptians speak freely and boldly about the problems of their country.


The other clear change is that the collapse of Mubarak and his political apparatus brought political and social, albeit limited, empowerment of Egyptian citizens, who now feel that they have a say in Egypt’s future. It is exciting to see dynamic and at times over-zealous and over-emotional activists finding their way through new openings. There are high hopes from upcoming elections and new political parties are founded almost every other week.

However, these are simply not enough to call the impeachment of Mubarak a ‘revolution’. Even though the word revolution is used metaphorically today for everything from emergence of tablet computers to the latest makeup line, revolutions where an old system is forcibly changed into a new system are not too common.

The 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran was indeed a revolution, which changed the political and social topography of the country for good, but the so-called ‘Green Revolution’ in 2009-2010 Iran was not. It was an episode of unsuccessful uprisings.

So how about Egypt? There are legitimate reasons to think that while Mubarak and his top political, security and business partners have been forced out, the system that enabled and maintained his rule is still alive and kicking. Mubarak’s rule was not an ideological comradeship but a clientele and interest based power clique. Such things have their own life span outside of the person on the top of the pyramid. Thus, if it contradicts its own benefit the system will even sacrifice its head to be able to maintain its power.

In fact, the Egyptian Army has demonstrated this by dropping support of Mubarak in order to protect its own interests. The Army, which has always held the lion’s share of economy and power in the country, passed through the uprisings without a scratch. The notorious State Security Services has only changed its name and expelled a few minor officers, but kept its military core. Indefinite detentions, torture and unlawful imprisonment still continue and those asking for reform find themselves before military courts.

As new political actors are trying to learn politics and find support in an extremely chaotic political landscape, the Army keeps and will keep its power as it always has before. Parties, including those affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, are already playing the game of abiding within the Army’s red lines and good will.

No single party government will emerge from the September elections and weak coalition governments will need the backing of the Army to survive. Thus, ultimately they will perform within the Army’s dictates.

Egyptian law and the judiciary remain in dire need of complete reform and modernization, yet no coherent project to do so seems to be on the horizon. The Egyptian economy is facing a complete breakdown, yet no political party is even putting forward economists or coherent economic visions to their shop front.

Many of them support unsustainable subsidies and populist policies of expanding employment in state sectors. Attacks on non-Muslims and non-orthodox Muslims such as Sufis continue with minimal interference and even known attackers still roam free. The Egyptian state continues to brush all of the ills under the carpet with cheap talks of brotherhood of Egyptians and feeble public gestures.

That is why Egyptians are still protesting in Tahrir square. Rightfully so! The system that was personified in Mubarak is still there and transformation of Egypt has only begun and a true revolution is still many miles ahead.