Making Sense of Turkey's Anger

Of all the geopolitical repercussions from the Flotilla Massacre, I think the stance taken by Turkey is the most compelling to look at. This is partly because the Turks have always been well-versed in the art of diplomacy, avoiding hostility at every turn. Of late, they even buried their long standing enmity with the Armenians, a rivalry that makes India-Pakistan look like a schoolyard tussle. Which is why the anger over the Flotilla is particularly surprising. The American press has clearly been caught off guard, as this perplexing New York Times editorial suggests. It is important however to look at this from a wider lens, because I feel Turkey’s stance is likely to have far-reaching implications on the region and its politics.

Historically, the country has subscribed to American foreign policy - opposing the Soviet Union during the Cold War, supporting George W. Bush's War on Terror, establishing a civil-military relationship with Israel and refusing to support Iran's nuclear ambitions. This was in line with its secular founder’s desire to be a part of the West, further manifested by its conscious distance from the Muslim world and courtship of the European Union.

That history seems to have turned, and in intriguing manner that. It is not the anger that Turkey displayed at Israel in the post-Flotilla era, but the nature and intensity that is significant. Among the things Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has stated include accusing Israel of “state murder”, warning it of “unspecified consequences” if the blockade of Gaza is not ended, and describing Hamas as "a resisting group struggling for its own land". President Abdullah Gul went even further saying, “Turkey will never forgive this attack.” These are strong statements, and they follow a chain of words that began last year when Erdogan stormed out of a World Economic Forum debate describing Israel's Gaza offensive as "crimes against humanity”.

These tensions come on the back of moves by Turkey to assert itself in the Muslim world. It has engaged with Syria, a country isolated on the international front. It has worked to bring Pakistan and Afghanistan to the negotiating table. Most importantly it has thwarted the West’s assault on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, opposing sanctions and the military option using its position on the Security Council and ties with Tehran.

Several analysts have described this shift a result of the futility of Turkey’s EU ambitions and its realization that the Middle East better serves its economic aspirations. But this theoretical explanation ignores the changing political landscape of the country. After eight years in power, the Islamic minded government appears to have dealt a decisive blow to the previously dominant secular establishment, which encompasses the military, judiciary and media. The arrest of a group of generals accused of plotting a coup earlier this year served as a signature move for this victory. The removal of a major obstacle to its agenda has allowed the government to move ahead with more confidence on the foreign front. By design or fortune, it has assumed the role of the statesman of the Muslim world.

The big question is what this means in the regional context. At least in the Middle East, the days of the US-Turkey partnership are over. On Iran and Palestine, the defining issues of the region, the two countries are rapidly moving apart. This is a blow to the US in particular, because Turkey with its secular outlook and NATO status was as ideal a Muslim ally could be. With Europe appearing wary of adventurism, China and Russia nurturing long standing grudges, the US suddenly finds itself bereft of strong geostrategic allies.

The US’s Muslim allies will feel vulnerable as well. The Turkish admonishment of Israel has earnt it heroic status on the Muslim street. This is unlikely to sit well with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan – all of whom have traded foreign policy independence for American security and economic assistance. Populations in these countries are rabidly anti-American, rivaling in emotion only the reverence their leaders have for Washington. Their people will inevitably cite Turkey as a model for what their state stance should be, further discrediting the government in public. This will prove dangerous when the Afghan war endgame, Gaza imbroglio and the Iran nuclear issue reach their climax, because it might require these countries to choose between domestic and international compulsions.

Turkey’s move is major in both its timing and impact. Whether it serves as a catalyst to a new future remains to be seen.