POLITICS MARCH 13, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Turkey’s boldest response to the crisis in Syria came last week, when Prime Minister Erdogan called for the establishment of humanitarian aid corridors to help civilians there. But those hoping that Ankara’s aggressive rhetoric will soon be matched by equally assertive action will be sorely disappointed. If Turkey has one priority these days, it’s maintaining its soft power and popularity within the Middle East—and any sort of military intervention involving Turkish boots on the ground in Syria would directly undermine that.
A recent survey by TESEV, an Istanbul-based think tank that measures perceptions of Turkey in the Middle East, encapsulates Ankara’s dilemma in Syria. According to the poll, Turkey is the Middle East’s favorite country: A whopping 78 percent of the people across the region say they like Turkey more than any other country. Iran, Ankara’s only political and military competitor in the region, gets 45 percent, while the United States receives a mere 33 percent.
What explains Ankara’s rise in popularity? It stems from Turkey’s successful projection of soft power across the Middle East over the past decade. Turkish products, which dominate shops across the region, have brought Turkey clout the way Japanese cars ushered in global respect for Japan in the 1970s and 1980s. And Turkish soap operas depicting emancipated women against the background of a modern and functioning society have likewise appealed to the region’s population, suggesting an appealing social model that is within reach. “Most people in the Middle East view Turkey’s accomplishments as being replicable,” an Arab friend of mine suggested to me. “Turkey was once like us, and that is why we like it, for it suggests a way forward.”
Turkey’s newfound popularity across the Middle East is its greatest foreign policy asset; for Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, it is key to restoring the country’s regional power status. But imagine what a Turkish occupation of Syria would do to Turkey’s popularity in the Arab world. A Turkish intervention, even if it removed Assad, would turn the Turks into occupiers in the eyes of the Syrian people, a trap that the United States experienced in Iraq. And Turkish military action in Syria would evoke the memory of Ottoman Turkish hegemony in the Middle East, creating further antagonism. There is simply no easy way for Turkey to kick out Assad by sheer military force if it hopes to continue being liked in the region.
Ankara was able to avoid this problem in Libya by providing strong political support for change while maintaining a limited military role. Turkey spoke out publicly against Qaddafi and provided unpublicized background support, while refusing to take a visible role in the NATO operation. In fact, this dual policy only added to Turkish popularity: According to the TESEV poll, “Turkey is seen as the country that has played the most positive role” in the Arab Spring, with 77 percent of the region’s people saying they like what Ankara has done so far. In Libya, that number is 93 percent.
But any military intervention into Syria is unlikely to incur the same benefits. In fact, Turkey’s favorability has already taken a nosedive within Syria since the uprising began. In 2010, a record 93 percent of Syrians liked Turkey; in 2011, this number dropped to 44 percent, as Syrians wary of the uprising oppose what they see as Turkey’s interference. This is the case with Syrian Alawites, who make up around 15 percent of the population—and deeply oppose Ankara’s support of the rebellion. (In my recent visit to Antakya, a Turkish town on the Syrian border, I witnessed this first-hand when I ran into a pro-Assad demonstration attended by Turkish Arab Alawites, who chanted anti-Ankara and pro-Assad slogans.) A less extreme version of this reaction can be seen among the Christians, Druze, and upper-class Syrian families who are not yet convinced that the uprising will succeed and are therefore wary of Ankara’s intervention. Turkey faces additional resistance from the Kurds in Syria, who take issue with Turkey’s Kurdish policy, and would likely oppose Turkish intervention even if it would liberate them from Assad’s yoke.
Any military intervention on Turkey’s part would risk decreasing its already tenuous hold on Syrians’ affections. And so from Turkey’s perspective, the ideal Syria policy would mirror its Libya strategy: Ankara speaks out publicly against Assad, gathering international support for political action against him, but tries to stay in the background when it comes to military action. You might call it “leading from behind.”
Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
24 comments
This is silly. If the pro regime supporters in Syria already blame Turkey for their problems, Turkey has nothing to lose by ensuring they do.
- rusty
March 13, 2012 at 12:04am
Today Turkish soft power? Tomorrow the reconstruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
- skahn
March 13, 2012 at 12:11am
Finally a sensible and perceptive analysis of what is really going on in the region. No beating of the little tin drum of war like Sen. John McCain's recent hysterical article in TNR. Already Chris Hughes has changed the editorial slant of this magazine. Now if he could just gradually ease out Marty "Pusillanimous" Peretz from the magazine.
- rewiredhogdog
March 13, 2012 at 1:02am
"Tomorrow the reconstruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?" Day after tomorrow.
- ironyroad
March 13, 2012 at 3:45am
Turkey is not popular with the Kurds, a substantial stateless nation of over 25 million people. Nor is it popular with Iran. Nor is it popular with Israel, Armenia, and the Christian states in the Balkans. Why should we intervene in Syria if Turkey won't?
- amidut
March 13, 2012 at 6:40am
"Tomorrow the reconstruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?" I understand that the food was out of this world. Particularly the pastries.
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
March 13, 2012 at 7:47am
"Tomorrow the reconstruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire." Paging K2K...
- wildboy
March 13, 2012 at 10:20am
Erdogan: all talk, no action. Unless you're a Kurdish peasant in the Iraq-Turkey border areas suspected of pro-PKK sensibilities. In which case you stand a good chance of being on the receiving end of a missile strike from a Turkish-manned Israeli drone. Oh the hypocrisy!
- Singlpayer
March 13, 2012 at 11:27am
Singlpayer, you do realize that "Turkish-manned Israeli drone" is a contradiction in terms?
- wildboy
March 13, 2012 at 12:08pm
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/03/13/the_kurdish_quiet_spring_99955.html "...one of the most important of which is the quiet revolution taking place in Greater Kurdistan, namely among the Kurds of Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. The best illustration of the new Kurdish dynamism was the congress held on February 19, 2012, in Irbil, Iraq, to commemorate the 66th anniversary of Kurdistan Republic, better known as the Mahabad Republic. ..." I look forward to the dismemberment of Turkey, the rump of the former Ottoman Empire, and the expulsion of Turks back to to Central Asia, leaving the Alevi to finally enjoy freedom of religion in their ancient homeland of Anatolia, and an Alevi alliance with Greater Kurdistan. 03/13/2012 - 9:20am EDT | wildboy " "Tomorrow the reconstruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire." Paging K2K..." Huh? You can send the bat-"dolt" signal wildboy, but, I only have two thoughts about the Hapsburg Empire that was dismembered at Versailles 1919: 1) the EU and NATO seem to be working out ok these days as a replacement for the former Hapsburg Empire, and 2) both my grandfathers managed to emigrate from their respective birthplaces in Hungary and Austria to the USA before WW1 (and one of them also brought his parents and eleven brothers and sisters, one of whom changed world history for the better in the 1940's-50's, with his American education in physics).
- K2K
March 13, 2012 at 12:18pm
never mind singlpayer. Erdogan and his tamed military are buying helicopter-gunships from the USA for the Kurd-killing, the new stage of Turkey-shoot, avidly supported by Erdogan's bff, Obama.
- K2K
March 13, 2012 at 12:21pm
"In 2010, a record 93 percent of Syrians liked Turkey; in 2011, this number dropped to 44 percent, as Syrians wary of the uprising oppose what they see as Turkey’s interference. This is the case with Syrian Alawites, who make up around 15 percent of the population—and deeply oppose Ankara’s support of the rebellion. . . . A less extreme version of this reaction can be seen among the Christians, Druze, and upper-class Syrian families who are not yet convinced that the uprising will succeed and are therefore wary of Ankara’s intervention. Turkey faces additional resistance from the Kurds in Syria, who take issue with Turkey’s Kurdish policy, and would likely oppose Turkish intervention even if it would liberate them from Assad’s yoke." So fantastical are most articles in TNR concerning the middle east, Syria in this case, that an article stating the obvious is jarring. Disputes between groups are almost always at bottom sectarian, yet TNR insists on maintaining the fiction that "their" side is monolithic. Assad is a minority Alawite (Shia) in a predominantly Sunni country, whose eventual removal from power will please the other Sunni regimes including our friends the Saudis and Turks, but most definitely will not please our Shia friends the Iraqis or our Shia enemies the Iranians. I suppose some see strength in division, and wish to exacerbate the division on "their" side by encouraging another full-blown Sunni-Shia war. As for the Kurds: the poor bastards are caught in the middle.
- rayward
March 13, 2012 at 2:32pm
I am having trouble making sense of the comments in this discussion thread for many reasons, most probably my own fault. I have often wondered if human beings can ever life in peace unless they segregate themselves into completely separate and homogeneous groups. Men only with men, women only with women. White people only with white people. Black people only with black people. Heterosexuals only with heterosexuals and homosexuals only with homosexuals. Arabs only with Arabs. Jews only with Jews, Christians only with Christians (and then subdivided into every possible sect). Turks only with Turks, Kurds only with Kurds. Then the Muslims will have to be divided into ... well, I am not as sophisticated in this regard, I am sure, as many people here. Just looking at Rayward's last comment I see Alawites, Druze, Shia, Sunni. Oh, yes, there are the Iranians. So is the solution to divide the Middle East into how many little strictly segregated little units? How many would this take? 1,000? 10,000? My fingers weary.
- skahn
March 13, 2012 at 4:23pm
Supposed to be "live in peace." Bad sign.
- skahn
March 13, 2012 at 4:24pm
"Today Turkish soft power? Tomorrow the reconstruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?" http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5Z4LWgH66v8J:coteret.com/page/2/+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca Hardly a joking matter, considering Turkey's mega aspirations for re instating its hegemony over the Middle East. "The central idea that was put forward by Davutoglu, which he has been trying to promote by means of a number of journalists and Turkish government officials, is that Israel as an independent state is illegitimate in the region and, as such, is destined to disappear. That assessment is rooted in a deeper ideology that aspires to restore to Turkey the historic influence it wielded during the era of the Ottoman empire, which ruled the Middle East for close to 400 years. Davutoglu said on a number of occasions that he believed that peace would be restored to the Middle East only in the wake of deep and substantial Turkish intervention. In other words, Davutoglu and Erdogan aspire to set a new regional order — Erdogan by means of populist rhetoric and closer ties with Turkey’s neighbors, Syria and Iran; Davutoglu by means of promulgating the ideological basis. This new order, as noted, has no room for Israel as an independent state. Both Erdogan and Davutoglu have been advancing a policy that promotes closer ties with Syria and Iran, and moves away from the West. Davutoglu added in his meetings with the journalists and academics that the historic powers, (Britain and France) which conquered the Middle East from the Ottomans, are the ones that are responsible for the difficult situation that currently reigns in the Middle East, since they drew the borders in a way that suited their own political and military interests, without taking into account the demographic affiliation of the region’s residents."
- noga1
March 13, 2012 at 8:06pm
Erdogan’s Big Fat Turkish Idea Walter Russell Mead http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/17/erdogans-big-fat-turkish-idea/
- noga1
March 13, 2012 at 8:12pm
I don't have any obvious evidence, but I tend to think that Iran has something to do with Turkey's staying out of Syria. Yes, the Kurds might be a factor, but not a decisive one.
- arnon1
March 13, 2012 at 9:36pm
The simple answer to why Turkey hasn't intervened more directly is that it's a mission impossible situation. NO ONE, and no likely alliance of someones, could send troops into the current Syrian context and do anything but make a bad situation worse. Syria has a real army well-supplied with modern weapons, and it hasn't given any serious indications that it wouldn't defend the current regime, which has substantial support in other parts of the Syrian society, effectively. How about "Why Hasn't Syria Put a Man on the Moon?". Duh.
- Robert Powell
March 14, 2012 at 6:17am
Uh, "Why Hasn't TURKEY Put a Man on the Moon?". The duh's on me....
- Robert Powell
March 14, 2012 at 6:19am
Some more explanations for Turkish "inaction": (1) Syria has large quantities of chemical-biological weapons. US and others are concerned lest these materials are either used by the Assad regime or fall into hands of non-state actors. (2) Erdogan and Davatoglu lead a militant Islamist regime. They have nearly finished purging the historically secular Kemalist officer corps and intimidated the large secularist and religious minorities in Turkish society. E and D have used their military forces to intimidate non-Muslim states, lately Greece, Cyprus, and Israel, as they seek to develop their respective Mediterranean gas fields.
- amidut
March 14, 2012 at 7:22am
amidut: both fine points. I would add to your clarifier-point about E and D "to intimidate...Greece, Cyprus, and Israel, as they seek to develop their respective Mediterranean gas fields" that Russia is also involved with their own intimidation - Russia has naval basing rights in Syria (Latakia if my memory is still working), and wants to try to maintain Russia's natural gas supply chokehold on Europe. I do not sense that Russia is in tandem with Turkey on this - I think Turkey wants the offshore natural gas for themselves (as does Hezbollah and Syria), and intimidating Greece and Cyprus has long been a national Turkish sport, whether Ottoman or Kemalist :) And, the conclusion from a very thoughtful read today in JPost: The case of Syria could prove different By AVIGDOR LIBERMAN 03/13/2012 23:15 [concluding] "...My view is somewhat different. It is precisely Syria that has an encouraging social profile: well-educated youth, a well-established intellectual elite, a merchant class steeped in a venerable tradition of commerce and trade and dynamic businesspeople who are well acquainted and interwoven with the external world. This is a Syria which could turn out to be the antithesis of the Libyan model and join the enlightened democratic camp which the Middle East needs so dearly. Perhaps this is an unrealistic dream and perhaps not. The outcry of a Syrian intellectual against the iniquities of the old Arab world, and even more so, the humanistic spirit which it represents, provide some hope that perhaps this time, things might turn out differently." http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=261738
- K2K
March 14, 2012 at 1:19pm
Sidebar: "Subheading in the Economist: “Egypt wobbles to the finish line of its transition to democracy.” This is how the Economist views documents like this: http://jerusalemcenter.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/the-new-egyptian-parliament-takes-aim-at-the-camp-david-accords/ The new Egyptian Parliament recently issued a statement undermining the 1979 peace agreement by proclaiming it was Israel’s bitter enemy. On March 12, 2012, Dr. Mohamed Al-Saed Idris, Chairman of the Arab Affairs Committee in the Parliament, presented the committee’s official outline of Egypt’s regional policy, as approved by a parliamentary majority that included the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafi party, and the Egyptian Left parties. Idris is one of the founders of the Kefaya protest movement and a member of the leftist al-Karama party, which has formed an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party. The statement of the Arab Affairs Committee is important in its wording and content. The term “the State of Israel” is not mentioned and is replaced throughout by the terms “Zionist entity” and “the enemy.” The statement focused on recent tensions between Israel and Gaza (Israeli attacks against Palestinian terrorist organizations and the launching of hundreds of rockets into Israel). It celebrates Palestinian terrorism, which is called “resistance,” and denies the very existence of Israel, which it defines as “an imperialist settlement entity” which is of “an aggressive nature” and which “drove a nation from its land by force to establish a racist state.” The U.S. is also blamed by the Egyptian parliament for its unconditional support of Israel. The committee’s statement included a list of operative recommendations to the political echelon, including: An official definition of Israel as an enemy – “Post-revolutionary Egypt will never be a friend, partner or ally of the Zionist entity, which we see as the foremost enemy of Egypt and the Arab nation. Egypt will treat this entity as an enemy, and the Egyptian government should reconsider its entire relationship and agreements with this enemy and the threat it poses to the security and national interests of Egypt.” Severance of diplomatic relations with Israel – “The expulsion of the Israeli ambassador from Egypt, returning the Egyptian ambassador from Tel Aviv, cessation of the export of Egyptian gas to that entity, freezing of activities under the QIZ agreement [the Qualified Industrial Zones trade agreement] whose terms violate the sovereignty and national interests of Egypt.” Full support for the armed struggle against Israel – “Providing all means of support to the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank, in order to allow this nation to stand firm against Israel’s policy of aggression. Adopting resistance in all its forms and manifestations, and referring to this path as the strategic path to the liberation of occupied land, after the leaders of the Zionist entity stressed that the so-called peace process is nothing but a track of lies and red tape in order to gain time to Judaize and annex all of what that entity wants to Judaize and annex in the land of Palestine.”
- noga1
March 15, 2012 at 3:40pm
noga - I take another day off-line, and return to read that Egypt's Arab Affairs Committee 'sees' Israel as Egypt's "enemy". I guess Obama should return his Nobel Peace Prize in protest, while I return to watching bluejays fight starlings over suet in my failing attempt to stop the news from ripping my heart out. I assume most TNR commenters will cheer the death of sanity in their bizarre embrace of Egypt's "democracy".
- K2K
March 16, 2012 at 10:05am
March 16, 2012 "Potential Gas Conflict in the Mediterranean" [a thoughtful analysis] By Nizar Abdel-Kader http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/03/16/potential_gas_conflict_in_the_mediterranean_99965.html "...The discoveries of gas fields by Israel and Cyprus are stirring the pot of regional turmoil and provoking various reactions from the other players in the Eastern Mediterranean. It looks as if the region is on the verge of a very volatile and highly complicated situation. It is perhaps no surprise that the sudden interest of Hizballah in the potential hydrocarbon wealth of the Israeli and Lebanese coastlines could turn the Mediterranean into a new theatre of conflict ..." K2K adds: And, perhaps Egypt's new position on Israel is because of the 250Billion barrels of shale oil southwest of Jerusalem...
- K2K
March 16, 2012 at 10:50am