KONA, Gamze Güngörmüş (2003). “Turkey And The Central Asian Republics: Future Scenarios - Part II”, August 2003, Stradigma academic e-journal, Ankara. http://www.stradigma.com.tr/
TURKEY AND THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS: STRATEGY MODELS AND FUTURE SCENARIOS (II) - FUTURE SCENARIOS
The main aim of this second part of the article is to present some future scenarios that Turkey might face following the application of four different strategy models for the Central Asian republics, explained in the previous volume of Stradigma. For this reason, we are going to overview the probable advantages and disadvantages Turkey might face regarding the Middle East region, U.S., Russian Federation, Greece and EU as the result of the application of strategy models for Central Asia. We will evaluate Turkey’s probable position; following the application of strategy models for the Central Asian region; regarding the mentioned region (Middle East), the mentioned states (U.S., Russian Federation and Greece) and the international organization (EU) since Turkey has either expectations or problems mostly with these. So, we will present some negative and positive scenarios for Turkey in these areas probably to emerge following the application of strategy models for Central Asia.
It is worth explaining the method we are going to use to assess Turkey’s probable position regarding the Middle East region, U.S., Russian Federation, Greece and EU following the application of strategy models for Central Asia. We are going to put forth future scenarios mainly based on future scenario planning. Future scenario and Future Scenario Planning are the terms which are closely interrelated. “Future scenarios are narratives or outlines that depict preselected future environments at some near or far-off time. They largely consist of knowable things, conditions, and situations in new relationships that when projected into the future evoke new concepts and ideas about change... they define future environments and provide insights that allow today’s planners, policymakers, or decisionmakers to influence the future....they provide a background for planning alternative strategic courses of action and for assessing defence and security policies”. (Taylor, 1993, pp. 1-3) Future scenarios should refer to the past through today to near or distant tomorrows or futures.
Furthermore, scenario planning is a technique used for creating future scenarios. “Scenario planning is a structured, disciplined method for thinking about the future” (Yergin and Gustafson, 1991, p. 8) According to Yergin and Gustafson, “scenario planning is an effective technique for tackling questions about the future and reducing complexity. It can facilitate an earlier recognition of change, thus promoting flexibility. Scenario planning does not, of course, tell us the future; only fortune-tellers can do that. Rather, it encourages the judgement and engagement of the decision-maker. Thinking the unthinkable and idle speculation are essential to scenario planning. It creates plausible stories of the future”. (Yergin and Gustafson, pp. 8-12)
Under the title “Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East, U.S., Russian Federation, Greece and EU” we are going to put forth negative and positive future scenarios based on scenario planning. We are going to number the scenarios from the most plausible one to the least plausible one and give maximum 60 percent of realisation chance for the most plausible scenario taking the possibility of the emergence of wild card (negative) scenarios into consideration.
However, the number of the negative scenarios may cause complexity in the minds of readers. The readers may think that it is not practical for the writer of this thesis to develop strategy models for the Central Asian region if the likelyhood of the emergence of the number of negative scenarios is rather high, in other words, if Turkey would rather take more risks than advantages. However, it should be kept in mind that probable negative developments to be included in negative scenarios which Turkey may face are not fairly easy to emerge since the states intended to develop contra-policies against Turkey’s initiatives in Central Asia would certainly face Turkey’s counter attempts through political and economic support of the U.S. or some regional and European powers which are in search of political or economic advantages in Central Asian region and which believe that they would gain these advantages through cooperating with Turkey more easily.
We hope that future scenarios will draw the panorama in which Turkey may probably find itself in the future following the application of strategy models for Central Asia.
I : Future Scenario I: Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East Region As the Result of Strategy Models Developed for Central Asia
a. Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East Region As the Result of Strategy Model I Developed for Central Asia
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Turkey - Covered by the U.S. Security Umbrella in the Middle East:
Along with the realisation of Strategy Model I, Turkey’s importance for the U.S. might upgrade. While Turkey has been an important country for U.S. Middle East politics since the Cold War period, following the Turkish-American cooperation in the Central Asian region Turkey might become an inevitable country for the U.S. both for its Middle Eastern and Central Asian politics. So, the U.S. would do its utmost in order to guarantee Turkey’s security in both regions believing that anything that would endanger Turkey will certainly be resulted with its own losses there.
Scenario II: Turkey - Economically and Politically Equal to Israel in the Middle East:
In addition to Turkish-American historical solidarity in the Middle East, Turkish-U.S. cooperation in Central Asia might intensify the relations between these two countries. This might present Turkey some economic and political advantages in the Middle East region too. Turkey, which would become a faithfull ally of the U.S. in Central Asia, might reach the position in which the U.S. will give equal importance and value both to Israel and Turkey in the Middle East region. This will help Turkey be economically and politically stronger in this region.
Scenario III: Less Activist Syria - Iran and Iraq:
Turkish-U.S. close relations in Central Asia might also be a preventing factor for the Middle East countries with which Turkey has some deep-rooted peoblems. Turkey, to be supported economically and politically by the U.S., might be more advantageous against the Middle East countries such as Syria ve Iran which support PKK and Islamic fundamentalism.
Scenario IV: Turkey - Economically and Politically More Powerful in International Platforms:
Turkey might also benefit from the U.S. support in international arena since the U.S. is the most powerful in international politics. Turkey might present her economic and political problems in international economic and political institutions through the U.S. easily and gain support. Since Turkey has to deal with many political problems with the Middle East countries in question very often, this might help Turkey become more powerful in international politics in regard to the Middle East region.
Negative Scenarios:
Scenario I: Russia - Iran Strategic Partnership in the Middle East:
As the result of Turkish-American cooperation in the Central Asian region it is probable that Iran might turn its face to Russian Federation and try to balance its isolated position with her since she was excluded from the mentioned cooperation. With in this strategic partnership, both Russian Federation and Iran might develop common policies which might endanger the status quo of the Middle East and also Turkey’s position in this region.
Scenario II: Armenian - Russian - Iran Strategic Partnership in the Caucasus Region:
Iran might also blockade the transit route of Turkey passing through the Caucasus region through developing Armenian-Russian-Iran strategic partnership in the Caucasus region.
Scenario III: More Powerful Hezbollah and More Effective Kurdish Insurgency:
Iran, excluded from the cooperation process, might increase its support to Hezbollah and Kurdish insurgency which would result in internal political instability and increase in domestic budget deficit of Turkey.
Scenario IV: Less Cooperative Israel:
Israel might develop two behaviour patterns: She might either present unwillingness towards improving relations with Turkey and concentrate on developing relations with Syria which would openly mean that Turkey may lose her one of the most important allies in the Middle East region and not maintain its former power in the region or Israel might intensify its relations with Turkey available in the Middle East region to take part in cooperation strategy model I developed by Turkey for the Central Asian region.
b. Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East As the Result of Strategy Model II Developed for Central Asia
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Turkey - Israel Regional Leadership in the Middle East:
As the result of the U.S.-Turkey and Israel cooperation Turkey, to be supported by the U.S., might hold the leadership in the Middle East with Israel. Although the Middle East states would not accept the pioneering role of Turkey and Israel very willingly they would have to accept Turkey’s leadership indirectly due to her influence in the region.
Scenario II: Turkey - More Powerful Before the U.S.:
Turkey’s initiative to cooperate with Israel in Central Asia might influence her position in the Middle East. The cooperation of these two democratic and Western-orientated Middle East countries might help Turkey be stronger before the Middle East countries who provoke the PKK terror and Islamic groups. Turkey might also benefit from Turkish-Israel close up since Israel has deeply rooted ties and has powerful lobby in the U.S..
Scenario III: Israel and the U.S.– Less willing in regard to the establishment of a Kurdish State in Northern Iraq:
Turkey, through siding with the U.S. and Israel for the Central Asian region, might eliminate the possibility of the support to be given particularly by the U.S for the establisment of a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq since as seen in the past of Turkish-American relations, the U.S. has never done anything that would give damage to Turkish national security interests as long as Turkey has served for the well being of the U.S. So, this mentioned support of the U.S. would directly reflect its influence on Israeli policies and Israel would refrain from realising any policy that would not be proper for the U.S. and Turkey in the Middle East region.
Negative Scenarios:
Scenario I: Less Supportive Middle East Arab States:
The Arab states in the Middle East might refuse to give assistance to Turkey when she is in need of, as seen in history, since Turkey’s cooperation with Israel is very often regarded as a kind of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab initiative. However, depending on the lack of energy sources such as oil in Turkey it is highly possible that Turkey would need the assistance of oil-rich Arab states.
Scenario II: Russian Federation - More Cooperative With Iran in the Middle East:
Both Russian Federation and Iran might revive startegic partnership in the Middle East against U.S. as experienced in the Cold War period. While Russia might be involved in this strategic partnership in order to draw the attention of the U.S. to the Middle East region to isolate her from the Central Asian politics; Iran might plan that she might increase its influence in the Middle East and be the leader of the Middle East region through this partnership. This would mean that the status quo in the Middle East might change and Turkey might face difficulties in this probable balance of power.
Scenario III: Iran - More Involved in PKK and Hezbollah Provocation:
Iran, isolated from this cooperation process, might reinforce its relations with the Russian Federation, and in order to weaken Turkey she might use PKK and Hezbollah.
Scenario IV: Russia - Arab States’ Anti-Israel Campaign:
Some states which are largely involved in Arab-Israeli peace process in which they bear high political expectations might begin developing anti-Israel campaigns. It is also possible that Russian Federation, in order to upgrade its existence in the Middle East region, might back politically and militarilly these Arab states against Israel, which might result in a radical change in the balance of power in the Middle East region, which will be rather disadvantageous for Turkey’s position in this region.
c. Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East As the Result of Strategy Model III Developed for Central Asia
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: More Cooperative Iran in the Middle East:
The U.S.-Turkey and Iran cooperation might lead Iran to behave toward Turkey more cautiously and to limit Iran’s hostile policies against Turkey. The support given to Hezbollah and the PKK activities by Iran might either be decreased or eliminated.
Scenario II: Less Revolutionary Iran:
Iran who will prefer to cooperate with laic and secular Turkey might possibly give up her attempts to establish Iranian-type Islamic state in Turkey thinking that this kind of attempt would detoriate her possible regional and international advantages to be offered by the U.S. and Turkey via this cooperation process. This might create quite positive development for the stability of Turkey’s internal politics. Furthermore, the possibility for the radical Islamic groups in Turkey to present Iran, who set up cooperation with the emperialist U.S. and laic, secular Turkey as a kind of state model, may be eliminated directly.
Scenario III: Less Effective Russia in the Middle East:
Turkey through cooperating with Iran might eliminate the Iranian factor which causes a real threat in the Middle East region for her. In addition to this, Russia might be deprived of an important supporter such as Iran in the Middle East and might not be able to realise her Middle East politics via Iran. This would refer that a possible Russian attempt to create a sphere of influence in the Middle East region might be rather difficult or removed indirectly.
Negative Scenarios:
Scenario I: Russia - Syria Cooperation in the Middle East:
In case of Iran’s involvement in the cooperation process for the Central Asian region, Russian Federation might improve relations with Syria in order to strengthen its policies in the Middle East. Russia-Syria cooperation in the Middle East region might lead Syria to gain power against Turkey and to increase its anti-Turkish policies such as hosting PKK supporters.
Scenario II: Israel - Syria Strategic Partnership in the Middle East:
Israel might regard Turkey’s cooperation with Iran in the Central Asian region as a kind of cooperation developed against her and might seek for the ways to intensify its relations with Syria, which might be rather disadvantageous for Turkey.
Scenario III: Palestine - Lebanon Cooperation Against Israel in the Middle East:
Palestine and Lebanon, witnessing isolation of Israel from cooperation for the Central Asian region, might develop anti-Israel behaviour patterns which might directly detoriate peace process and balance in the Middle East. The possible unsuccessfulness in peace process might provoke the states which give support to illegal activities in the region and they might not refrain from developing any terrorist attempts against Turkey.
d. Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East As the Result of Turkey-Central Asian Republics Cooperation in Central Asia
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Turkey - Less Dependent on Middle East Oil:
Economic advantages related to oil and gas to be gained as the result of positive relations with the Central Asian republics might decrease the level of dependence of Turkey on oil and gas in the Middle East region. This might also help Turkey leave dual policy that she has adopted toward the Middle East countries until present. In other words, the policy of duality, based on intensifying relations with the Arab Middle East states whenever we are in need of oil or applying negative foreign policy against the same states when we do not need their economic or political back up, might be replaced by a more stable Middle East policy.
Scenario II: Democratic-Secular-Laic Turkish State Model For Anti-Democratic-Authoritarian-Totalitarian Middle East State Structure:
On condition that the Central Asian states accept and adopt Turkey’s secular and democratic state structure and show interest in developing relations with her with in these limits in their region, in the long run, Turkey might change the anti-democratic state structure of the Middle East states and might present a democratic state model for the autocratic and totalitarian countries in the region as she would realise in the Central Asian region. So, Central Asian region might represent a kind of positive political pattern for Turkey in order to affect or change anti-democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian state structures of the Middle East countries.
The positive future scenarios indicated in four groups above are not unreachable for Turkey. The realisation of these plans largely depend on well-established cooperation strategies that Turkey would develop for the Central Asian region.
II : Future Scenario II: Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the U.S. As the Result of Cooperation Strategy Models Developed for Central Asia
Depending on the military, economic, political importance that the U.S. represents for Turkey we might argue that U.S.-Turkey cooperation in the Central Asian region would be quite advantageous for Turkey. As the result of intensified relations with the U.S. for the Central Asian region, Turkey might face both some positive and negative scenarios. The possible positive advantages and possible negative developments Turkey might come across following the Turkish-U.S. cooperation in the Central Asian region might be as follows.
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: U.S. - Politically and Economically More Permissive Towards Turkey:
The relations to be intensified through the U.S.-Turkey cooperation in Central Asia might be quite advantageous for Turkey’s political and economic position. Besides the southern flank responsibility imposed on Turkey by the U.S. and the balancing mission shared by Israel in the Middle East, which are quite important for the U.S., Turkey’s new position which helps the U.S. be closer to the Central Asia might make the U.S. more Turkey addict and this might bring about U.S. political support for Turkey in international platforms. U.S. might also increase its financial assistance to Turkey in order to make her develop policies in Central Asian region freely in stead of herself.
Scenario II: Turkey - An Indispensable Ally of the U.S. in the Balkans - Middle East and Central Asian Regions:
As mentioned before, the U.S. has arranged the policies related to Turkey according to her own benefits during the Cold War period. In this context, the U.S. has opposed Turkey several times. Johnson letter sent following the 1963-64 Cyprus Crisis and arms ambargo on Turkey after 1974 Cyprus Peace Operation were only two examples of the U.S. opposition. The reason of the U.S. opposition against Turkey was obvious. At that time the U.S. was able to compansate Turkey’s position in the Middle East with Iran until the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979 and Israel during the Cold War period, in the Balkans with Greece and in the western block with other allies. In other words, according to the U.S., Turkey could be replaced by other several states which were able to realise the same responsibilities that Turkey was supposed to do. However, in this newly-emerged political system, “...Turkey’s growing importance is much more powerfully defined by its centrality to regions of major instability and conflagration in which the long range policies of Turkey could undergo significiant and unprecetented change”. (Fuller, 1993, p.5) According to Jane Holl, the chairperson of the board of a think tank institution, named Carnegie Preventing Fatal Conflicts Commission, Turkey is in the list of potential states. The strategy of the U.S. is that: provide less risky future through strengthening these potential states. (Davis, 1999) In the new world order, Turkey is extremely important for the Central Asian region and con not be balanced by any other state. From the U.S. point of view, there is no alternative except for Turkey against the Russian Federation in her Central Asian politics. Under this circumstance, the importance of Turkey in Central Asia has been added to her vital responsibilities in the Middle East region and in the Balkans. So, Turkey has become the most important ally of the U.S. in the post-Cold War period.
Scenario III: Turkey - More Powerful In the Nato With Its Dual Role - Southern plus Eastern Flank Responsibilities:
Turkish-U.S. cooperation in the Central Asian region might help Turkey’s economic development and increase its prestige with in the Nato in indirect ways. In fact, Nato’s new security concept reflects the U.S.’ own formal policy related to global security. Unlike in the Cold War period, Nato is not only responsible for solving the conflicts among the states or ending the wars between two parties but also holds the authority to intervene in the conflicts or wars between states. For this reason, any conflict or war in the Central Asian region, possibly to be caused by the Russian Federation and in which the Russian Federation would take place, might accross with Nato’s intervention. So, in case of any war in the Central Asian region, eastern flank responsibility to be imposed on Turkey by Nato for the defence and security of the Central Asian region against the Russian Federation might emerge in addition to the Nato’s southern flank responsibility emposed on Turkey by U.S. during the Cold War period for the defence and security of the Middle East region against the Soviet Union. Under this circumstance, Turkey’s importance within the Nato structure might automatically augment and the U.S., assuming the security needs of Nato, might lead Nato to increase the amount of financial assistance given to Turkey for the security of the region in question.
Scenario IV: U.S. - More Determined About Turkey’s Admission into EU:
U.S. seems quite insistent on Turkey’s EU full membership since she believes that politically and economically powerful Turkey would be an advantage for her Middle East, Balkan and Central Asian policies. In other words, according to U.S., Turkey’s strength in economy and politics might get U.S. realise her policies in the mentioned regions easily and fast. U.S. supports the idea that when Turkey is admitted to the EU full membership she would be supported economically with in the EU and the Kurdish problem would be softened in international platforms through EU membership. Depending on the reasons mentioned above it can be assumed that U.S. might provide necessary economic support for Turkey’s attempts to be made for realising necessary rearrangements almost in every structure of the state, planned after the acceptance of Turkey’s cadidancy for EU full membership on December 10, 1999 by the members of the EU in Helsinki summit.
Scenario IV: U.S. - More Pro-Turkish In Regard to the Cyprus Matter:
Taking the incomparable importance of Turkey for the U.S. in three regions into consideration, the U.S. might back up Turkey fully in international plarforms. (Manisalı and Manisalı,1999) This would mean that Turkey might behave more independently regarding the Cyprus Issue, Kurdish and Greece policies. In other words, from now on it seems rather impossible for the U.S. to agree to anti-Turkish attempts of the Greek lobby in the U.S. Congress and to give full support to Greece for the Cyprus matter as she did in 1963-64 and 1974.
Negative Scenarios:
Both of the negative scenarios are related with U.S. sudden decision to withdraw itself from the Central Asian region depending on either Russian strong resistance or change in her foreign policy decision.
Scenario I: U.S. Withdrawal From Cooperation Due to Russian Resistance:
The worst future scenario that may occur related to the U.S.-Turkish cooperation in Central Asian region might be the decision to be taken by the U.S. related to the withdrawal from Central Asia in case the emergence of a severe Russian resistance against herself. U.S. decision to isolate herself from Central Asian policies would mean that Turkey might face direct Russian threat regarding Turkey’s Central Asian policies and will have to cope with difficulties to be caused by Russian Federation in the region. In addition to this, Turkey might lose hopes for the Central Asian region since she will not be able to resist Russian Federation by herself. This fact will affect all its political and economic plans established on Central Asian region.
Scenario II: U.S. Withdrawal From Cooperation Due to Exceeding Allocations From U.S. Budget:
Turkey will also have to suspend its Central Asian policies following any U.S. foreign policy change related to the the Central Asian region. The possibility of the emergence of this second negative future scenario may be rather high since U.S. regards this region as not primarily important. If U.S. realises that U.S. budget has to allocate exceeding amounts to Central Asia, U.S. administration has to set up so many military installations in this region and that she has to deal with many problems there, she might give up cooperating with Turkey for this region and she might begin to concentrate on other regions which in the end she would gain more strategic advantages in an easier way. Under this circumstance, U.S. might look for the ways to develop strategic friendship with other more strategic partners in more strategic regions. This would mean that Turkey would have to leave its Central Asian policy and resist Russian risk alone.
III : Future Scenario III: Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Russian Federation As the Result of Cooperation Strategy Models Developed for Central Asia
Undoubtedly, Turkey would have some pros and cons before the Russian Federation in the region along with the application of the mentioned cooperation strategy models for the Central Asian region. Possibly, these may include:
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Turkey - More Powerful in Oil Transportation Politics:
In line with the natural extension of U.S.-Turkish cooperation in Central Asian region, U.S. might intensify her insistence on oil transportation route taking her advantages into account. Thinking that the Russian Federation, with its internal political and economic decline and international problems, would not dare to begin an oil-related Cold War II period, would not resist Baku-Ceyhan transportation route. This might lead two positive developments for Turkey. Firstly, Turkey might gain financial benefits as the result of oil transportation passing through Baku-Ceyhan route. Secondly, Turkey, by eliminating Russian preference based on transporting oil through the Straits, might secure the Black Sea Straits and also prevent possible Russian presence in the Straits.
Scenario II: Russian Federation - Less Effective on Azeri Oil Transportation Route:
Turkey’s stable policies in Central Asia and cooperation with U.S. might also be influencial on Russian prevailing and future policies in the Caucasus region. Regarding the oil reserves in Caucasus, Russia is developing policies related to this region in order to have a word in this area. Russian Federation is aimed at realising her policies either by causing conflict and giving military support or by directly involving itself in internal affairs of the regional states as in Nagorno-Karabakh and Georgian-Abkhaz matters. The first aim of Russia related to the Caucasus region is to take Turkish-Azeri relations largely based on transportation of Azeri oil through Turkey under its control and secondly to keep Turkey away from Central Asia by causing conflict in the Caucasus region since Russia is aware of the geographical fact that Caucasus is the sole transit route for Turkey passing through the Central Asia.
Scenario III: Iran - Isolated From Russian Federation Policies In the Middle East and Central Asian Regions:
Turkey-U.S.-Iran cooperation may have an impact on Russian-Iran relations too. Iran accepting to cooperate with U.S. and Turkey for the Central Asian region might avoid adopting policies which would give harm to its relations with U.S. and Turkey. This would mean that she might refrain from serving Russian benefits in the Middle East and Central Asian regions, hosting PKK, transfering its Islamic regime into Turkey and cooperating with some Middle Eastern states about which Turkey feels restless. Along with the mentioned changes in Iran’s foreign policy Russia would lose one of its significant partner in the Middle East and Central Asian regions. As the result of downgrading relations with Iran Russia might possibly face difficulties in having a place in the Middle East, in arms selling trade with Iran and in developing alliance with Iran against Turkey.
Scenario IV: Russian Federation - Less Effective in the Middle East Region:
A strong Turkish economic and cultural existence in Central Asia together with U.S., including Iran, might also form an obstacle against Russian attempts to improve relations particularly with Syria and Iran which would endanger Turkey’s position in the Middle East region. This should be remembered that in the Cold War years Russia did not hesitate to develop profound relations in order to have allies in the Middle East against the U.S. increasing interests in the mentioned region and that this detailed relationship caused the emergence of some serious problems for Turkey as the result of this close relationship between Syria, Iran and the Soviet Union.
Scenario V: Turkey - More Powerful in the Balkans Against Probable Russian Pan-Slavist Policies:
Stronger Turkey in the region might possibly decrease Russian desire to revive Balkan Slavic nationalism which had consisted a real threat for the Ottoman Empire. It is evident that Russia is accustomed to using her Slavic Orthodox ethnicity in the Balkans against the Turks whenever Turkey is economically and politically weak. So, it is highly possible that Russia might be extremely cautious about any provocative attempts in the Balkans against Turkey as the result of U.S.-Turkish cooperation in the Central Asian region.
Scenario VI: Russian Federation - More Reluctant and Smooth Neighbour:
Russian support to the illegal group, PKK, has been regarded as an Russian foreign policy tactic developed to weaken Turkey in the Black Sea region and Balkans. When we take Turkey’s important geographical location which can easily form an obstacle (if needed) for the Russian interests in the mentioned regions, it can be argued that Russian support to the illegal groups, which has been busying Turkey’s internal politics and which Turkey has been making effort to cope with for years, is a part of her policies related to the Straits, Black Sea fleet in the Black Sea region and Slavic nations in the Balkans. However, it would not be realistic to assume that strong U.S.-Turkish alliance in the Central Asian region would immediately remove the mentioned Russian negative policy against Turkey but this might surely lead Russia to develop more stable and smooth policies related to Turkey.
Scenario VII: Russian Federation – Capitalist:
Russian Federation might isolate itself from its responsibilities in Central Asian region believing that she would not be able to resist U.S. existence in the region and she might reach an agreement with U.S. This development might both help Turkey realise its policies freely related to the region and also lead Russia to adopt capitalism. Through this, Russia might get more assistance from U.S. in order to amelorate its economic, political and military shortcomings.
Negative Scenarios:
Scenario I: Russian Federation - Provocative in the Central Asian Region:
It is possible that Russian Federation might cause chaos in the Central Asian region, as she did in the Caucasus region, in order to regain its economic, political and military power in the region.
Scenario II: Central Asian Republics - Less Cooperative With Turkey Due to the Probable Russian Threat:
Russian Federation might apply pressure on Central Asian republics and this might spoil the relations between Central Asian states and Turkey. The Turkic origin states in the region, feeling the Russian threat upon them and dependent on Russian economic, military and political power strictly, might naturally refrain from cooperating with Turkey and its partners.
Scenario III: Turkey - In Natural Gas Crisis:
Russian Federation might also try to give damage to Turkey in order to make her isolate from Central Asian policies through cancelling its trade with Turkey. Keeping the reality in mind that Turkey’s natural gas supply depends largely on the natural gas agreement concluded with Russian Federation, Turkey might go under economic crisis to be caused by Russia.
Scenario IV: Turkey - Faced to Russian International Law Violations in Regard to the Straits:
Russian Federation might cause problems in regard to the Black Sea straits through violating international rules. This might lead to political crisis with the Russian Federation.
Scenario V: Turkey - Faced To Russia - Greek Strategic Partnership:
Greece and Russian Federation might develop strategic partnership. While the Russian Federation might develop this kind of attempt to exclude Turkey from the Central Asian region, Greece might be in favour of this attempt to make Turkey be deprived of improving alternative economic relations which would help her be economically and politically stronger in the Balkans, Middle East, Black Sea and Central Asian regions.
Scenario VI: Turkey - Troublesome Due to Probable Russian Provocation in the Balkans:
Russian Federation might provoke Slavic Orthodox nations against Turkey. Even though this would not cause a war between Turkey and the Slavic nations in the Balkans, this might busy Turkey in stead of concentrating its political and economic energy on Central Asian region.
Scenario VII: Turkey - Less Secure in the Middle East Due to Russia - Syria Triple Grouping:
Russian Federation might improve relations with some states in the Middle East such as Syria to facilitate its Middle Eastern policies. The possible intimate relations between Russian Federation and Syria might endanger Turkey’s position in the Middle East region.
Scenario VIII: Russia - China Strategic Partnership Versus U.S. - Turkey - Israel - Iran Strategic Partnership:
Russia, taking all negative side effects into consideration, might cooperate with another super power, such as China, against the super power U.S. in the Central Asian region. This might lead U.S. to behave more cautiously and give up cooperating with Turkey in the region. Under this circumstance, Turkey might not find enough U.S. support and withdraw from the region.
Scenario IX: Russian Federation – Communist:
If the power rivalry in the Central Asian region reaches the limits which would threaten Russian available hegemony over the Central Asian states, Russia might turn to Communist system so as to reestablish its former authority upon these states. Although this might sound rather improbable, Russia would dare to realise the mentioned radical change since she is in need of natural sources in the Central Asian region and since she wants to use its political and military superiority in the region as a kind of political maneouvre against other states which are in search of power rivalry in the same region. However, a communist Russia in the region might not only deprive Turkey of its aims related to Central Asia also endanger Turkey’s national security.
We might conclude that depending on the experiences in history Turkey should always be economically and politically strong before Russia. However, this assumption should not be regarded as the power rivalry between Turkey and Russia but as an effort of both states to survive in the same region despite each other. So, cooperation strategies to be developed by Turkey for the Central Asian region might partly prevent Russian negative policies against Turkey; yet, might create some other unexpected problems in terms of Turkey. The balance between these two sides would openly depend on Turkey’s ability to benefit from cooperation process in Central Asian region.
IV : Future Scenario IV: Future Scenarios on Turkey Regarding Greece As the Result of Cooperation Strategy Models Developed for Central Asia
As forecasted for the Middle East region, U.S. and Russian Federation, Turkey might face some positive and negative scenarios regarding Greece, too following the cooperation strategy models developed for the Central Asian region. These include follows:
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Greece - Less Prestigious in International Platforms Due to Its Agressive Way of Behaviour Towards Turkey:
It is real though it is interesting that Greece begins to behave more radically when Turkey is involved in a new political and economic initiative in one of the regions which may possibly present Turkey some positive outcomes. In other words, any advantage Turkey might gain in international platforms faces anti-Turkish propaganda of Greece interestingly. In fact, this agressive-type of policy of Greece causes her to lose prestige in international politics. Attitude adopted by Greece in Abdullah Öcalan’s case exactly supports our assumption since Greece was criticised, though not openly, by some other states and organizations. The same development might occur when Turkey begins to have some economic and political advantages following the cooperation strategies to be developed for the Central Asian region. The possible agressive attitude of Greece might help Turkey bring Aegean-related problems and Cyprus matter into international platforms more easily and to defend these problems with other states more independently.
Scenario II: Politically and Economically Powerful Turkey in the Region Against Politically and Economically Powerful Greece in the EU:
It is obvious that Greece has the power of influencing the policies in its region and in world politics through its EU membership and through the impact of Greek lobby in the U.S. congress. Turkey might obtain the same prestige and status in its region, though not in world politics, through the advantages she might gain as the result of cooperation strategies in the Central Asian region. Remembering the political power Greece maintains and uses against Turkey by the help of EU membership, it might be highly possible that through the advantages to be obtained as the result of cooperation strategies in the Central Asian region, politically and economically stronger Turkey might impede Greece to provoke EU members to take anti-Turkish Cypriot and pro-Greek Cypriot decisions with in the EU structure and also to form obstacles before Turkey’s admission into the EU.
Scenario III: Greece - Deprived of U.S. Back:
It is evident that since the World War II Greece has had an important place in the U.S. and this economic and political power of Greece in the U.S. led her to gain some advantages in world politics, in its region and before Turkey. Through the mentioned superiority of Greece to Turkey, the Greeks have been more advantageous in terms of Cyprus matter, Aegean-related problems and the U.S. economic assistance since 1950s. However, when the U.S. begins to gain advantages in the Central Asian region through Turkish-U.S. cooperation developed for the same region, U.S. might adopt pro-Turkish policies about Cyprus and Aegean-related problems before Greece.
Scenario IV: Turkey - More Influential In Regard to Cyprus Matter Before Greece:
The possible advantages Turkey might gain in the Central Asian region might also have an impact on Turkish political stand in regard to Cyprus matter and the status quo of Turkish Cypriots on the Cyprus island. Economically and politically stronger Turkey in the region might become more influential over Cyprus matter and enlarge the area of influence of the Turks living in Cyprus.
Scenario V: Greek Lobby - Less Effective in the U.S. Congress:
It can be said that Greece feels quite powerful in international politics, in its region and before Turkey depending on Greek lobby’s economic and political strength in the U.S. congress and she can activate and direct the U.S. congress to take anti-Turkish decisions as experienced following the military intervention of Turkey in Cyprus in 1974. However, as long as U.S. advantages in the Central Asian region continues through Turkish-U.S. cooperation, it might be rather difficult for Greece to maintain anti-Turkish decision through using the political strength of Greek lobby in the U.S. congress. So, Turkey might have a chance to eliminate one of the most important and influential factors which sometimes directs the U.S. foreign policy-makers to take anti-Turkish decision.
Negative Scenarios:
It should be remembered that negative scenarios Turkey might face regarding Greece as the result of cooperation strategies in Central Asia will be based on Greek attempts to weaken Turkey and to detoriate the advantages Turkey might gain in the Central Asian region since both states’ foreign policy principles are largely based on the manaouvres which they develop agaist eachother.
Scenario I: Turkey - Faced to Greek Anti-Turkish Propaganda in EU:
It can be said that Greece, taking the advantages that its EU membership presents to her in various fields and particularly before Turkey, has been and will become a preventive state which puts obstacles before Turkey’s admission into EU. Parallel to the probable benefits Turkey might obtain as the result of cooperation strategies in the Central Asian region Greece might continue to develop anti-Turkish propaganda in the EU even after the acceptance of Turkey’s cadidancy in EU full membership on December 11, 1999. This might directly cause retard in EU full membership of Turkey, planned to be materialized in 2010 by Turkish decision-makers.
Scenario II: Greece - Involved in Convincing the European Powers About the Socalled pan-Turkist Threat:
She might put forth the idea that Turkish administration has entered the Central Asian region to realise its pan-Turkic and imperialist ideals in this region and that she will keep on holding pan-Turkic aims in Cyprus over Greek Cypriots and in the Aegean Sea. Depending on this assumption Greece might try to convince European states that with this hard nationalist stand Turkey will cause serious threat in the Central Asian and Middle East regions and in the Balkans. Parallel to this assumption the EU members might suspend Turkey’s full membership in the EU and Turkey’s stand in international politics might downgrade gradually.
Scenario III: Greece - More Engaged in Bringing Human Rights Violations Issue into International Political Agenda:
It is a well-known fact that the EU members have founded very close connection between the political stand of the Kurds in Turkey and Turkey’s admission into the EU. In a way they regard the well-being of the Kurds in Turkey as a precondition for Turkey’s EU full membership. In addition to this, the EU members also closely observes anti-democratic developments in Turkey such as human rights violations principally associated with the status of political prisoners, extremist political party members and Kurdish minority, and they determine several defects related with these. So, the mentioned handicaps in Turkey might facilitate probable anti-Turkish policies of Greece and she might persuade some European states to adopt anti-Turkish policies through bringing the human rights violations issue and the defects in democracy in Turkey into international political agenda. This negative development might lead Turkey to maintain its political and economic requests in international politics with difficulty.
Scenario IV: Greece - More Provocative in PKK and Kurdish Insurgency Matters:
Greece takes quite sensitive stand in regard to PKK matter and Kurdish insurgency and has been trying to benefit from the PKK matter and Kurdish insurgency in favour of it own political pragmatism. According to the official declarations given by Turkish officials, Greece supports the PKK and Kurdish insurgency in Turkey.* Greece uses these two problems either as a policy to weaken Turkey internally or as an anti-Turkish campaign through bringing these two issues into international political agenda. So, it can be assumed that Greece might continue to support PKK and Kurdish insurgency and cause political problems in terms of Turkey.
Scenario V: Greece - More Influential Over Greek Government of South Cyprus:
It is obvious that Cyprus conflict is not a problem prevailing between Turkish and Greek communities in the island of Cyprus. Since the Cyprus conflict has been posed as an international problem in the General Assembly of the UN in 1954, both Turkish and Greek states have been involved in supporting them and even uniting Turkish and Greek communities in Cyprus with Turkey and Greece. While Greece regards Cypriot Greeks as a community a part of Greek state, Turkey stands as a guarantor state ready to defend the rights of Cypriot Turks before Cypriot Greeks and Greek state. So, it can be argued that Greece, taking Turkey’s activities and close relationship with the Central Asian states and the probable advantages that Turkey might gain in this region, might search for the ways of breaking Turkey’s influence over the Cypriot Turks.
Scenario VI: Greece - More Effective in Agean-Related Problems:
Through supporting the idea that Turks entered the Central Asian region together with pan-Turkic aims not with economic or cultural ideals, she might convince the European states to back the assumption that Turkey’s initial aim in the Aegean Sea is to turn this sea into Turkish sea through annexing the islands in the Aegean Sea into the Anatolian land. She might also assume that Turks are violating its own right in the Aegean. This might cause Turkey to lose its word in Aegean-related matters in international politics.
Scenario VII: Greece - In favour of Russian Probable Pan-Slavist Policies:
Depending on the historical developments experienced before the establishment of Greek state in 1830 and in two Balkan Wars, it can be said that Greeks and Russians might cooperate with each other and provoke Slavic nationalism in the Balkans against Turks when necessary. So, it is possible that if Turkey increases its political and economic power following its initiatives in the Central Asian region Greece might provoke the Slavic Orthodox nations in the Balkans backing Russian stand toward this issue in order to weaken Turkey’s influence which she regards as a threat against herself. Although Slavic Orthodox revival in the Balkans will not cause a direct threat for Turkey it might lead discontent and busy Turkish decision-makers and this might result in lack of concentration on Central Asian policies.
Scenario VIII: Greece - Backer of the Russian Federation in Regard to Its Middle East Policies:
As mentioned before Russia sees the Middle East as an important region for its foreign policy. It is also quite clear that during East-West confrontation Russia developed some policies in this region so as to upgrade its influence among the Middle East states against the U.S. So, it is possible that although Greece has never had any vital advantages associated with the Middle East region, she might support Russian probable negative policies in this region in order to make some Middle East states such as Iran and Syria to take negative stand toward Turkey through provoking them.
Scenario IX: Turkey - Faced to Greek Assimilation Policies Over Turkish Minority in the Western Thrace:
Greece might develop policy of oppression over the Turkish minority in Western Thrace in order to draw Turkish foreign policy attention to other matters. By doing so, they might direct Turkey to focus on Central Asia less.
V : Future Scenario V: Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding EU As the Result of Cooperation Strategy Models Developed for Central Asia
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Turkey - Less EU Addict:
Along with probable political and economic advantages to be gained as the result of cooperation strategies in the Central Asian region, Turkish decision-makers might leave the idea that EU full membership is the only way to become one of the respectful member of world community but there are some other alternatives. By doing so, Turkey might become less permissive in regard to EU demands and behave more independently in its relations with EU. This might also remove the feeling of inferiority wide spread among Turks before Europeans which has been dominant since the begining of the decline of Ottoman state.
Scenario II: U.S. - More Pro-Turkey in Regard to Turkey’s EU Membership:
If the U.S. obtains economic and political prestige and advantages in the Central Asian region following the cooperation strategies, she might give economic assistance to Turkey in order to help her make necessary political, economic and societal rearrangements for EU integration and even she might initiate some attempts in order to facilitate Turkey’s full membership process in international platforms. Furthermore, when we take the importance of reciprocal benefit principle in international relations for any state into consideration, we might argue that U.S. will back Turkey in any foreign policy issue which represents vital importance for Turkish decision-makers as long as she continues to obtain political and economic benefits through U.S. - Turkey partnership in the Central Asian region.
Scenario III: Turkey - More Acceptable Economically by the EU:
It is quite obvious that deficiencies in Turkish economy; such as high inflation rate, high level of unemployment, remarkable budget deficit, high dependency on foreign markets; consist secondarily important reasons following the primarily important reasons; such as Turkey’s Kurdish policy, human rights violations, anti-democratic political developments; which cause delay in its admission into EU. The probable positive impact of cooperation strategies in the Central Asian region on Turkish economy; such as probable decrease in inflation rate, unemployment, budget deficit, dependency on foreign markets; might convince the EU members that Turkey would not bring so much economic difficulty into EU in case its full membership. The mentioned probable positive development might lead EU to admit Turkey into full membership in a shorter time than Turkey expects.
Negative Scenarios:
Scenario I: False Image of Turkey By the EU Members:
The EU might interpret economic attempts of Turkey in the Central Asian region as the attempts designed to set up Turkist-Islamic Union based on political pragmatism. EU might suppose that Turkey has nationalist and fundamentalist aims related with the Central Asian region taking the fact into consideration that Turkey has intensified its relations with the Muslim Arab states after 1980s, which have been frozen since the begining of Cold War period, and she has initiated relations with the Central Asian republics following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, concentrating on ethnicity, mutual historical past, mutual cultural features, mutual language and mutual religion. The mentioned supposition of the EU members might lead them to delay Turkey’s full membership for long years.
Scenario II: Probable Greek Vetoe:
Greece might assume that she would be surrendered by a heavily Muslim populated belt as the result of the cooperation strategies developed by Turkey for the Central Asian region, and that this attempt would cause a direct threat for its security. So, she might conduct anti-Turkish propaganda in the EU in regard to Turkey’s admission into EU. Under this circumstance, Turkey might have to wait for its admission into EU for long years.
Scenario III: EU Against U.S.:
When we take the fact into consideration that EU was established in order to maximise political and economic benefits of the states in the Europe continent compared to the benefits of the states in other continents, principally the benefits of the American continent, EU might suppose that Turkey’s admission into the Union would not serve to the interests of the European continent but would serve to the political and economic interests of the U.S. in the Middle East and Central Asian regions since Turkey has always been ready to do anything for the well-being of the U.S. This assumption might lead the EU members to suspend Turkey’s admission into EU.
CONCLUSION
Turkey has initiated multi-lateral relations with the Central Asian states following decleration of independence. Foreign policy aims of Turkey related to these states are to gain economic and political power in its region through improving multi-dimentional relations with these states, help them in solving their economic, social and political problems, facilitate these states’ economic, political and social development, present its liberal economic structure and democratic system as a model to these republics. In the first years of relationship, Turkey’s attempts were accepted with enthusiasm and pleasure by these republics. Several official visits were paid, bi-lateral and multi-lateral economic, social and cultural agreements were signed, ambassies were opened, seminars and conferences were organised, agencies, institutions, associations were set up.
However, Turkey was not able to realise its foreign policy goals in the Central Asian region. Foreign policy goals adopted in regard to this region by Turkish decision-makers became materialised only partially due to the external e.g. increase in power rivalry in the region, change in Russian policy over the Central Asian states in 1994, decrease in the interest of the Central Asian states toward Turkey, and internal reasons e.g. lack of satisfactory strategy, Turkey’s economic deficiencies, lack of historical information about these states, Turkey’s internal political problems, pan-Turkist political discourses toward these states and broken promises.
Depending on the reasons above, in this study we have developed four “cooperation strategy models” for the Central Asian region to help Turkish decision-makers maximize Turkey’s political and economic advantages in this region and also we have forecasted what kind of political, social and economic advantages or disadvantages Turkey would face in the Middle East region, before the U.S., Russian Federation, Greece and with in the EU in 2020 or 2030 through “future scenario planning” method in order to inform Turkish decision-makers about Turkey’s probable stand in the future following the application of the mentioned strategy models.
We obviously reached this conclusion, parallel to the application of the strategy models developed in this study, despite each negative development probably emerge during time, Turkey’s military, economic and political stand before Iran and Syria in the Middle East region; political stand before the Russian Federation in the former Soviet geopolitical area; military, economic and political stand before Greece in the Balkans; political stand before the U.S.; economic and political stand before the EU will be much more promising in the year 2020 or 2030. We also reached the conclusion that the strategy models developed only for the Central Asian region will have an impact on Turkey’s military, economic and political stand on not only Turkey’s position in the Central Asian region but on the Middle East region, before U.S., Russian Federation, Greece and EU.
We also determined the fact that strategy development and future scenario planning are two important notions which help maximize any state’s foreign policy goals, and that these two necessitates a group study, in which both the decision-makers and academic circles should cooperate fully in order to gain maximum outcome.
We hope this study will help the interested bodies to discover the importance of strategy development and future scenario planning for the success of Turkish foreign policy in the Central Asian region.
References
Başar, C. (1993). Terör Dosyası ve Yunanistan. İstanbul, 1993.
Davis, Bob (1999). “The U.S. has to make a priority list regarding her global interventions”. Finansal Forum, 1 Mayıs 1999.
Fuller, Graham E. (1993). From Eastern Europe to Western China-The Growing Role of Turkey in the World and Its Implications for Westren Interests. Santa Monica: RAND.
Karaosmanoğlu, Ali L. (1996). “Turkey: Between The Middle East and Western Europe”. Kemal H. Karpat (Ed.), Turkish Foreign Policy: Recent Developments. Wisconsin University Press.
Manisalı, Erol (1999). “Operasyondan ABD ve Türkiye Kazançlı Çıktı”. Cumhuriyet, 9 Nisan 1999.
Manisalı, Erol (1999). “Şeytan Üçgenindeki Ülke: Türkiye”. Milliyet, 14 Nisan 1999.
Taylor, Charles W. (1993). Alternative World Scenarios For A New Order Of Nations. Pennsylvania: U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.
Yergin, Daniel and Thane Gustafson (1991). Russia 2010 and What It Means for the World. New York: Random House.
* Turkish decision-makers express their concern about the support given by Greece in regard to PKK and other terrorist activities and warn Greece diplomatically quite often. This became obvious along with the PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan’s decleration in his trial that he was kept by Greek officials in the Consulate of Greece in Kenia. However, in order to remove hesitations about Greek stand toward these two issues; the book Terör Dosyası ve Yunanistan (Terrorism and Greece) by C. Başar, 1993, İstanbul; can be recommended to the ones who are interested in these matters since the mentioned reseach explains the support given by Greece since 1967 to terrorist activities in Turkey together with official documents.
TURKEY AND THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS: STRATEGY MODELS AND FUTURE SCENARIOS (II) - FUTURE SCENARIOS
The main aim of this second part of the article is to present some future scenarios that Turkey might face following the application of four different strategy models for the Central Asian republics, explained in the previous volume of Stradigma. For this reason, we are going to overview the probable advantages and disadvantages Turkey might face regarding the Middle East region, U.S., Russian Federation, Greece and EU as the result of the application of strategy models for Central Asia. We will evaluate Turkey’s probable position; following the application of strategy models for the Central Asian region; regarding the mentioned region (Middle East), the mentioned states (U.S., Russian Federation and Greece) and the international organization (EU) since Turkey has either expectations or problems mostly with these. So, we will present some negative and positive scenarios for Turkey in these areas probably to emerge following the application of strategy models for Central Asia.
It is worth explaining the method we are going to use to assess Turkey’s probable position regarding the Middle East region, U.S., Russian Federation, Greece and EU following the application of strategy models for Central Asia. We are going to put forth future scenarios mainly based on future scenario planning. Future scenario and Future Scenario Planning are the terms which are closely interrelated. “Future scenarios are narratives or outlines that depict preselected future environments at some near or far-off time. They largely consist of knowable things, conditions, and situations in new relationships that when projected into the future evoke new concepts and ideas about change... they define future environments and provide insights that allow today’s planners, policymakers, or decisionmakers to influence the future....they provide a background for planning alternative strategic courses of action and for assessing defence and security policies”. (Taylor, 1993, pp. 1-3) Future scenarios should refer to the past through today to near or distant tomorrows or futures.
Furthermore, scenario planning is a technique used for creating future scenarios. “Scenario planning is a structured, disciplined method for thinking about the future” (Yergin and Gustafson, 1991, p. 8) According to Yergin and Gustafson, “scenario planning is an effective technique for tackling questions about the future and reducing complexity. It can facilitate an earlier recognition of change, thus promoting flexibility. Scenario planning does not, of course, tell us the future; only fortune-tellers can do that. Rather, it encourages the judgement and engagement of the decision-maker. Thinking the unthinkable and idle speculation are essential to scenario planning. It creates plausible stories of the future”. (Yergin and Gustafson, pp. 8-12)
Under the title “Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East, U.S., Russian Federation, Greece and EU” we are going to put forth negative and positive future scenarios based on scenario planning. We are going to number the scenarios from the most plausible one to the least plausible one and give maximum 60 percent of realisation chance for the most plausible scenario taking the possibility of the emergence of wild card (negative) scenarios into consideration.
However, the number of the negative scenarios may cause complexity in the minds of readers. The readers may think that it is not practical for the writer of this thesis to develop strategy models for the Central Asian region if the likelyhood of the emergence of the number of negative scenarios is rather high, in other words, if Turkey would rather take more risks than advantages. However, it should be kept in mind that probable negative developments to be included in negative scenarios which Turkey may face are not fairly easy to emerge since the states intended to develop contra-policies against Turkey’s initiatives in Central Asia would certainly face Turkey’s counter attempts through political and economic support of the U.S. or some regional and European powers which are in search of political or economic advantages in Central Asian region and which believe that they would gain these advantages through cooperating with Turkey more easily.
We hope that future scenarios will draw the panorama in which Turkey may probably find itself in the future following the application of strategy models for Central Asia.
I : Future Scenario I: Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East Region As the Result of Strategy Models Developed for Central Asia
a. Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East Region As the Result of Strategy Model I Developed for Central Asia
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Turkey - Covered by the U.S. Security Umbrella in the Middle East:
Along with the realisation of Strategy Model I, Turkey’s importance for the U.S. might upgrade. While Turkey has been an important country for U.S. Middle East politics since the Cold War period, following the Turkish-American cooperation in the Central Asian region Turkey might become an inevitable country for the U.S. both for its Middle Eastern and Central Asian politics. So, the U.S. would do its utmost in order to guarantee Turkey’s security in both regions believing that anything that would endanger Turkey will certainly be resulted with its own losses there.
Scenario II: Turkey - Economically and Politically Equal to Israel in the Middle East:
In addition to Turkish-American historical solidarity in the Middle East, Turkish-U.S. cooperation in Central Asia might intensify the relations between these two countries. This might present Turkey some economic and political advantages in the Middle East region too. Turkey, which would become a faithfull ally of the U.S. in Central Asia, might reach the position in which the U.S. will give equal importance and value both to Israel and Turkey in the Middle East region. This will help Turkey be economically and politically stronger in this region.
Scenario III: Less Activist Syria - Iran and Iraq:
Turkish-U.S. close relations in Central Asia might also be a preventing factor for the Middle East countries with which Turkey has some deep-rooted peoblems. Turkey, to be supported economically and politically by the U.S., might be more advantageous against the Middle East countries such as Syria ve Iran which support PKK and Islamic fundamentalism.
Scenario IV: Turkey - Economically and Politically More Powerful in International Platforms:
Turkey might also benefit from the U.S. support in international arena since the U.S. is the most powerful in international politics. Turkey might present her economic and political problems in international economic and political institutions through the U.S. easily and gain support. Since Turkey has to deal with many political problems with the Middle East countries in question very often, this might help Turkey become more powerful in international politics in regard to the Middle East region.
Negative Scenarios:
Scenario I: Russia - Iran Strategic Partnership in the Middle East:
As the result of Turkish-American cooperation in the Central Asian region it is probable that Iran might turn its face to Russian Federation and try to balance its isolated position with her since she was excluded from the mentioned cooperation. With in this strategic partnership, both Russian Federation and Iran might develop common policies which might endanger the status quo of the Middle East and also Turkey’s position in this region.
Scenario II: Armenian - Russian - Iran Strategic Partnership in the Caucasus Region:
Iran might also blockade the transit route of Turkey passing through the Caucasus region through developing Armenian-Russian-Iran strategic partnership in the Caucasus region.
Scenario III: More Powerful Hezbollah and More Effective Kurdish Insurgency:
Iran, excluded from the cooperation process, might increase its support to Hezbollah and Kurdish insurgency which would result in internal political instability and increase in domestic budget deficit of Turkey.
Scenario IV: Less Cooperative Israel:
Israel might develop two behaviour patterns: She might either present unwillingness towards improving relations with Turkey and concentrate on developing relations with Syria which would openly mean that Turkey may lose her one of the most important allies in the Middle East region and not maintain its former power in the region or Israel might intensify its relations with Turkey available in the Middle East region to take part in cooperation strategy model I developed by Turkey for the Central Asian region.
b. Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East As the Result of Strategy Model II Developed for Central Asia
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Turkey - Israel Regional Leadership in the Middle East:
As the result of the U.S.-Turkey and Israel cooperation Turkey, to be supported by the U.S., might hold the leadership in the Middle East with Israel. Although the Middle East states would not accept the pioneering role of Turkey and Israel very willingly they would have to accept Turkey’s leadership indirectly due to her influence in the region.
Scenario II: Turkey - More Powerful Before the U.S.:
Turkey’s initiative to cooperate with Israel in Central Asia might influence her position in the Middle East. The cooperation of these two democratic and Western-orientated Middle East countries might help Turkey be stronger before the Middle East countries who provoke the PKK terror and Islamic groups. Turkey might also benefit from Turkish-Israel close up since Israel has deeply rooted ties and has powerful lobby in the U.S..
Scenario III: Israel and the U.S.– Less willing in regard to the establishment of a Kurdish State in Northern Iraq:
Turkey, through siding with the U.S. and Israel for the Central Asian region, might eliminate the possibility of the support to be given particularly by the U.S for the establisment of a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq since as seen in the past of Turkish-American relations, the U.S. has never done anything that would give damage to Turkish national security interests as long as Turkey has served for the well being of the U.S. So, this mentioned support of the U.S. would directly reflect its influence on Israeli policies and Israel would refrain from realising any policy that would not be proper for the U.S. and Turkey in the Middle East region.
Negative Scenarios:
Scenario I: Less Supportive Middle East Arab States:
The Arab states in the Middle East might refuse to give assistance to Turkey when she is in need of, as seen in history, since Turkey’s cooperation with Israel is very often regarded as a kind of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab initiative. However, depending on the lack of energy sources such as oil in Turkey it is highly possible that Turkey would need the assistance of oil-rich Arab states.
Scenario II: Russian Federation - More Cooperative With Iran in the Middle East:
Both Russian Federation and Iran might revive startegic partnership in the Middle East against U.S. as experienced in the Cold War period. While Russia might be involved in this strategic partnership in order to draw the attention of the U.S. to the Middle East region to isolate her from the Central Asian politics; Iran might plan that she might increase its influence in the Middle East and be the leader of the Middle East region through this partnership. This would mean that the status quo in the Middle East might change and Turkey might face difficulties in this probable balance of power.
Scenario III: Iran - More Involved in PKK and Hezbollah Provocation:
Iran, isolated from this cooperation process, might reinforce its relations with the Russian Federation, and in order to weaken Turkey she might use PKK and Hezbollah.
Scenario IV: Russia - Arab States’ Anti-Israel Campaign:
Some states which are largely involved in Arab-Israeli peace process in which they bear high political expectations might begin developing anti-Israel campaigns. It is also possible that Russian Federation, in order to upgrade its existence in the Middle East region, might back politically and militarilly these Arab states against Israel, which might result in a radical change in the balance of power in the Middle East region, which will be rather disadvantageous for Turkey’s position in this region.
c. Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East As the Result of Strategy Model III Developed for Central Asia
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: More Cooperative Iran in the Middle East:
The U.S.-Turkey and Iran cooperation might lead Iran to behave toward Turkey more cautiously and to limit Iran’s hostile policies against Turkey. The support given to Hezbollah and the PKK activities by Iran might either be decreased or eliminated.
Scenario II: Less Revolutionary Iran:
Iran who will prefer to cooperate with laic and secular Turkey might possibly give up her attempts to establish Iranian-type Islamic state in Turkey thinking that this kind of attempt would detoriate her possible regional and international advantages to be offered by the U.S. and Turkey via this cooperation process. This might create quite positive development for the stability of Turkey’s internal politics. Furthermore, the possibility for the radical Islamic groups in Turkey to present Iran, who set up cooperation with the emperialist U.S. and laic, secular Turkey as a kind of state model, may be eliminated directly.
Scenario III: Less Effective Russia in the Middle East:
Turkey through cooperating with Iran might eliminate the Iranian factor which causes a real threat in the Middle East region for her. In addition to this, Russia might be deprived of an important supporter such as Iran in the Middle East and might not be able to realise her Middle East politics via Iran. This would refer that a possible Russian attempt to create a sphere of influence in the Middle East region might be rather difficult or removed indirectly.
Negative Scenarios:
Scenario I: Russia - Syria Cooperation in the Middle East:
In case of Iran’s involvement in the cooperation process for the Central Asian region, Russian Federation might improve relations with Syria in order to strengthen its policies in the Middle East. Russia-Syria cooperation in the Middle East region might lead Syria to gain power against Turkey and to increase its anti-Turkish policies such as hosting PKK supporters.
Scenario II: Israel - Syria Strategic Partnership in the Middle East:
Israel might regard Turkey’s cooperation with Iran in the Central Asian region as a kind of cooperation developed against her and might seek for the ways to intensify its relations with Syria, which might be rather disadvantageous for Turkey.
Scenario III: Palestine - Lebanon Cooperation Against Israel in the Middle East:
Palestine and Lebanon, witnessing isolation of Israel from cooperation for the Central Asian region, might develop anti-Israel behaviour patterns which might directly detoriate peace process and balance in the Middle East. The possible unsuccessfulness in peace process might provoke the states which give support to illegal activities in the region and they might not refrain from developing any terrorist attempts against Turkey.
d. Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Middle East As the Result of Turkey-Central Asian Republics Cooperation in Central Asia
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Turkey - Less Dependent on Middle East Oil:
Economic advantages related to oil and gas to be gained as the result of positive relations with the Central Asian republics might decrease the level of dependence of Turkey on oil and gas in the Middle East region. This might also help Turkey leave dual policy that she has adopted toward the Middle East countries until present. In other words, the policy of duality, based on intensifying relations with the Arab Middle East states whenever we are in need of oil or applying negative foreign policy against the same states when we do not need their economic or political back up, might be replaced by a more stable Middle East policy.
Scenario II: Democratic-Secular-Laic Turkish State Model For Anti-Democratic-Authoritarian-Totalitarian Middle East State Structure:
On condition that the Central Asian states accept and adopt Turkey’s secular and democratic state structure and show interest in developing relations with her with in these limits in their region, in the long run, Turkey might change the anti-democratic state structure of the Middle East states and might present a democratic state model for the autocratic and totalitarian countries in the region as she would realise in the Central Asian region. So, Central Asian region might represent a kind of positive political pattern for Turkey in order to affect or change anti-democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian state structures of the Middle East countries.
The positive future scenarios indicated in four groups above are not unreachable for Turkey. The realisation of these plans largely depend on well-established cooperation strategies that Turkey would develop for the Central Asian region.
II : Future Scenario II: Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the U.S. As the Result of Cooperation Strategy Models Developed for Central Asia
Depending on the military, economic, political importance that the U.S. represents for Turkey we might argue that U.S.-Turkey cooperation in the Central Asian region would be quite advantageous for Turkey. As the result of intensified relations with the U.S. for the Central Asian region, Turkey might face both some positive and negative scenarios. The possible positive advantages and possible negative developments Turkey might come across following the Turkish-U.S. cooperation in the Central Asian region might be as follows.
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: U.S. - Politically and Economically More Permissive Towards Turkey:
The relations to be intensified through the U.S.-Turkey cooperation in Central Asia might be quite advantageous for Turkey’s political and economic position. Besides the southern flank responsibility imposed on Turkey by the U.S. and the balancing mission shared by Israel in the Middle East, which are quite important for the U.S., Turkey’s new position which helps the U.S. be closer to the Central Asia might make the U.S. more Turkey addict and this might bring about U.S. political support for Turkey in international platforms. U.S. might also increase its financial assistance to Turkey in order to make her develop policies in Central Asian region freely in stead of herself.
Scenario II: Turkey - An Indispensable Ally of the U.S. in the Balkans - Middle East and Central Asian Regions:
As mentioned before, the U.S. has arranged the policies related to Turkey according to her own benefits during the Cold War period. In this context, the U.S. has opposed Turkey several times. Johnson letter sent following the 1963-64 Cyprus Crisis and arms ambargo on Turkey after 1974 Cyprus Peace Operation were only two examples of the U.S. opposition. The reason of the U.S. opposition against Turkey was obvious. At that time the U.S. was able to compansate Turkey’s position in the Middle East with Iran until the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979 and Israel during the Cold War period, in the Balkans with Greece and in the western block with other allies. In other words, according to the U.S., Turkey could be replaced by other several states which were able to realise the same responsibilities that Turkey was supposed to do. However, in this newly-emerged political system, “...Turkey’s growing importance is much more powerfully defined by its centrality to regions of major instability and conflagration in which the long range policies of Turkey could undergo significiant and unprecetented change”. (Fuller, 1993, p.5) According to Jane Holl, the chairperson of the board of a think tank institution, named Carnegie Preventing Fatal Conflicts Commission, Turkey is in the list of potential states. The strategy of the U.S. is that: provide less risky future through strengthening these potential states. (Davis, 1999) In the new world order, Turkey is extremely important for the Central Asian region and con not be balanced by any other state. From the U.S. point of view, there is no alternative except for Turkey against the Russian Federation in her Central Asian politics. Under this circumstance, the importance of Turkey in Central Asia has been added to her vital responsibilities in the Middle East region and in the Balkans. So, Turkey has become the most important ally of the U.S. in the post-Cold War period.
Scenario III: Turkey - More Powerful In the Nato With Its Dual Role - Southern plus Eastern Flank Responsibilities:
Turkish-U.S. cooperation in the Central Asian region might help Turkey’s economic development and increase its prestige with in the Nato in indirect ways. In fact, Nato’s new security concept reflects the U.S.’ own formal policy related to global security. Unlike in the Cold War period, Nato is not only responsible for solving the conflicts among the states or ending the wars between two parties but also holds the authority to intervene in the conflicts or wars between states. For this reason, any conflict or war in the Central Asian region, possibly to be caused by the Russian Federation and in which the Russian Federation would take place, might accross with Nato’s intervention. So, in case of any war in the Central Asian region, eastern flank responsibility to be imposed on Turkey by Nato for the defence and security of the Central Asian region against the Russian Federation might emerge in addition to the Nato’s southern flank responsibility emposed on Turkey by U.S. during the Cold War period for the defence and security of the Middle East region against the Soviet Union. Under this circumstance, Turkey’s importance within the Nato structure might automatically augment and the U.S., assuming the security needs of Nato, might lead Nato to increase the amount of financial assistance given to Turkey for the security of the region in question.
Scenario IV: U.S. - More Determined About Turkey’s Admission into EU:
U.S. seems quite insistent on Turkey’s EU full membership since she believes that politically and economically powerful Turkey would be an advantage for her Middle East, Balkan and Central Asian policies. In other words, according to U.S., Turkey’s strength in economy and politics might get U.S. realise her policies in the mentioned regions easily and fast. U.S. supports the idea that when Turkey is admitted to the EU full membership she would be supported economically with in the EU and the Kurdish problem would be softened in international platforms through EU membership. Depending on the reasons mentioned above it can be assumed that U.S. might provide necessary economic support for Turkey’s attempts to be made for realising necessary rearrangements almost in every structure of the state, planned after the acceptance of Turkey’s cadidancy for EU full membership on December 10, 1999 by the members of the EU in Helsinki summit.
Scenario IV: U.S. - More Pro-Turkish In Regard to the Cyprus Matter:
Taking the incomparable importance of Turkey for the U.S. in three regions into consideration, the U.S. might back up Turkey fully in international plarforms. (Manisalı and Manisalı,1999) This would mean that Turkey might behave more independently regarding the Cyprus Issue, Kurdish and Greece policies. In other words, from now on it seems rather impossible for the U.S. to agree to anti-Turkish attempts of the Greek lobby in the U.S. Congress and to give full support to Greece for the Cyprus matter as she did in 1963-64 and 1974.
Negative Scenarios:
Both of the negative scenarios are related with U.S. sudden decision to withdraw itself from the Central Asian region depending on either Russian strong resistance or change in her foreign policy decision.
Scenario I: U.S. Withdrawal From Cooperation Due to Russian Resistance:
The worst future scenario that may occur related to the U.S.-Turkish cooperation in Central Asian region might be the decision to be taken by the U.S. related to the withdrawal from Central Asia in case the emergence of a severe Russian resistance against herself. U.S. decision to isolate herself from Central Asian policies would mean that Turkey might face direct Russian threat regarding Turkey’s Central Asian policies and will have to cope with difficulties to be caused by Russian Federation in the region. In addition to this, Turkey might lose hopes for the Central Asian region since she will not be able to resist Russian Federation by herself. This fact will affect all its political and economic plans established on Central Asian region.
Scenario II: U.S. Withdrawal From Cooperation Due to Exceeding Allocations From U.S. Budget:
Turkey will also have to suspend its Central Asian policies following any U.S. foreign policy change related to the the Central Asian region. The possibility of the emergence of this second negative future scenario may be rather high since U.S. regards this region as not primarily important. If U.S. realises that U.S. budget has to allocate exceeding amounts to Central Asia, U.S. administration has to set up so many military installations in this region and that she has to deal with many problems there, she might give up cooperating with Turkey for this region and she might begin to concentrate on other regions which in the end she would gain more strategic advantages in an easier way. Under this circumstance, U.S. might look for the ways to develop strategic friendship with other more strategic partners in more strategic regions. This would mean that Turkey would have to leave its Central Asian policy and resist Russian risk alone.
III : Future Scenario III: Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding the Russian Federation As the Result of Cooperation Strategy Models Developed for Central Asia
Undoubtedly, Turkey would have some pros and cons before the Russian Federation in the region along with the application of the mentioned cooperation strategy models for the Central Asian region. Possibly, these may include:
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Turkey - More Powerful in Oil Transportation Politics:
In line with the natural extension of U.S.-Turkish cooperation in Central Asian region, U.S. might intensify her insistence on oil transportation route taking her advantages into account. Thinking that the Russian Federation, with its internal political and economic decline and international problems, would not dare to begin an oil-related Cold War II period, would not resist Baku-Ceyhan transportation route. This might lead two positive developments for Turkey. Firstly, Turkey might gain financial benefits as the result of oil transportation passing through Baku-Ceyhan route. Secondly, Turkey, by eliminating Russian preference based on transporting oil through the Straits, might secure the Black Sea Straits and also prevent possible Russian presence in the Straits.
Scenario II: Russian Federation - Less Effective on Azeri Oil Transportation Route:
Turkey’s stable policies in Central Asia and cooperation with U.S. might also be influencial on Russian prevailing and future policies in the Caucasus region. Regarding the oil reserves in Caucasus, Russia is developing policies related to this region in order to have a word in this area. Russian Federation is aimed at realising her policies either by causing conflict and giving military support or by directly involving itself in internal affairs of the regional states as in Nagorno-Karabakh and Georgian-Abkhaz matters. The first aim of Russia related to the Caucasus region is to take Turkish-Azeri relations largely based on transportation of Azeri oil through Turkey under its control and secondly to keep Turkey away from Central Asia by causing conflict in the Caucasus region since Russia is aware of the geographical fact that Caucasus is the sole transit route for Turkey passing through the Central Asia.
Scenario III: Iran - Isolated From Russian Federation Policies In the Middle East and Central Asian Regions:
Turkey-U.S.-Iran cooperation may have an impact on Russian-Iran relations too. Iran accepting to cooperate with U.S. and Turkey for the Central Asian region might avoid adopting policies which would give harm to its relations with U.S. and Turkey. This would mean that she might refrain from serving Russian benefits in the Middle East and Central Asian regions, hosting PKK, transfering its Islamic regime into Turkey and cooperating with some Middle Eastern states about which Turkey feels restless. Along with the mentioned changes in Iran’s foreign policy Russia would lose one of its significant partner in the Middle East and Central Asian regions. As the result of downgrading relations with Iran Russia might possibly face difficulties in having a place in the Middle East, in arms selling trade with Iran and in developing alliance with Iran against Turkey.
Scenario IV: Russian Federation - Less Effective in the Middle East Region:
A strong Turkish economic and cultural existence in Central Asia together with U.S., including Iran, might also form an obstacle against Russian attempts to improve relations particularly with Syria and Iran which would endanger Turkey’s position in the Middle East region. This should be remembered that in the Cold War years Russia did not hesitate to develop profound relations in order to have allies in the Middle East against the U.S. increasing interests in the mentioned region and that this detailed relationship caused the emergence of some serious problems for Turkey as the result of this close relationship between Syria, Iran and the Soviet Union.
Scenario V: Turkey - More Powerful in the Balkans Against Probable Russian Pan-Slavist Policies:
Stronger Turkey in the region might possibly decrease Russian desire to revive Balkan Slavic nationalism which had consisted a real threat for the Ottoman Empire. It is evident that Russia is accustomed to using her Slavic Orthodox ethnicity in the Balkans against the Turks whenever Turkey is economically and politically weak. So, it is highly possible that Russia might be extremely cautious about any provocative attempts in the Balkans against Turkey as the result of U.S.-Turkish cooperation in the Central Asian region.
Scenario VI: Russian Federation - More Reluctant and Smooth Neighbour:
Russian support to the illegal group, PKK, has been regarded as an Russian foreign policy tactic developed to weaken Turkey in the Black Sea region and Balkans. When we take Turkey’s important geographical location which can easily form an obstacle (if needed) for the Russian interests in the mentioned regions, it can be argued that Russian support to the illegal groups, which has been busying Turkey’s internal politics and which Turkey has been making effort to cope with for years, is a part of her policies related to the Straits, Black Sea fleet in the Black Sea region and Slavic nations in the Balkans. However, it would not be realistic to assume that strong U.S.-Turkish alliance in the Central Asian region would immediately remove the mentioned Russian negative policy against Turkey but this might surely lead Russia to develop more stable and smooth policies related to Turkey.
Scenario VII: Russian Federation – Capitalist:
Russian Federation might isolate itself from its responsibilities in Central Asian region believing that she would not be able to resist U.S. existence in the region and she might reach an agreement with U.S. This development might both help Turkey realise its policies freely related to the region and also lead Russia to adopt capitalism. Through this, Russia might get more assistance from U.S. in order to amelorate its economic, political and military shortcomings.
Negative Scenarios:
Scenario I: Russian Federation - Provocative in the Central Asian Region:
It is possible that Russian Federation might cause chaos in the Central Asian region, as she did in the Caucasus region, in order to regain its economic, political and military power in the region.
Scenario II: Central Asian Republics - Less Cooperative With Turkey Due to the Probable Russian Threat:
Russian Federation might apply pressure on Central Asian republics and this might spoil the relations between Central Asian states and Turkey. The Turkic origin states in the region, feeling the Russian threat upon them and dependent on Russian economic, military and political power strictly, might naturally refrain from cooperating with Turkey and its partners.
Scenario III: Turkey - In Natural Gas Crisis:
Russian Federation might also try to give damage to Turkey in order to make her isolate from Central Asian policies through cancelling its trade with Turkey. Keeping the reality in mind that Turkey’s natural gas supply depends largely on the natural gas agreement concluded with Russian Federation, Turkey might go under economic crisis to be caused by Russia.
Scenario IV: Turkey - Faced to Russian International Law Violations in Regard to the Straits:
Russian Federation might cause problems in regard to the Black Sea straits through violating international rules. This might lead to political crisis with the Russian Federation.
Scenario V: Turkey - Faced To Russia - Greek Strategic Partnership:
Greece and Russian Federation might develop strategic partnership. While the Russian Federation might develop this kind of attempt to exclude Turkey from the Central Asian region, Greece might be in favour of this attempt to make Turkey be deprived of improving alternative economic relations which would help her be economically and politically stronger in the Balkans, Middle East, Black Sea and Central Asian regions.
Scenario VI: Turkey - Troublesome Due to Probable Russian Provocation in the Balkans:
Russian Federation might provoke Slavic Orthodox nations against Turkey. Even though this would not cause a war between Turkey and the Slavic nations in the Balkans, this might busy Turkey in stead of concentrating its political and economic energy on Central Asian region.
Scenario VII: Turkey - Less Secure in the Middle East Due to Russia - Syria Triple Grouping:
Russian Federation might improve relations with some states in the Middle East such as Syria to facilitate its Middle Eastern policies. The possible intimate relations between Russian Federation and Syria might endanger Turkey’s position in the Middle East region.
Scenario VIII: Russia - China Strategic Partnership Versus U.S. - Turkey - Israel - Iran Strategic Partnership:
Russia, taking all negative side effects into consideration, might cooperate with another super power, such as China, against the super power U.S. in the Central Asian region. This might lead U.S. to behave more cautiously and give up cooperating with Turkey in the region. Under this circumstance, Turkey might not find enough U.S. support and withdraw from the region.
Scenario IX: Russian Federation – Communist:
If the power rivalry in the Central Asian region reaches the limits which would threaten Russian available hegemony over the Central Asian states, Russia might turn to Communist system so as to reestablish its former authority upon these states. Although this might sound rather improbable, Russia would dare to realise the mentioned radical change since she is in need of natural sources in the Central Asian region and since she wants to use its political and military superiority in the region as a kind of political maneouvre against other states which are in search of power rivalry in the same region. However, a communist Russia in the region might not only deprive Turkey of its aims related to Central Asia also endanger Turkey’s national security.
We might conclude that depending on the experiences in history Turkey should always be economically and politically strong before Russia. However, this assumption should not be regarded as the power rivalry between Turkey and Russia but as an effort of both states to survive in the same region despite each other. So, cooperation strategies to be developed by Turkey for the Central Asian region might partly prevent Russian negative policies against Turkey; yet, might create some other unexpected problems in terms of Turkey. The balance between these two sides would openly depend on Turkey’s ability to benefit from cooperation process in Central Asian region.
IV : Future Scenario IV: Future Scenarios on Turkey Regarding Greece As the Result of Cooperation Strategy Models Developed for Central Asia
As forecasted for the Middle East region, U.S. and Russian Federation, Turkey might face some positive and negative scenarios regarding Greece, too following the cooperation strategy models developed for the Central Asian region. These include follows:
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Greece - Less Prestigious in International Platforms Due to Its Agressive Way of Behaviour Towards Turkey:
It is real though it is interesting that Greece begins to behave more radically when Turkey is involved in a new political and economic initiative in one of the regions which may possibly present Turkey some positive outcomes. In other words, any advantage Turkey might gain in international platforms faces anti-Turkish propaganda of Greece interestingly. In fact, this agressive-type of policy of Greece causes her to lose prestige in international politics. Attitude adopted by Greece in Abdullah Öcalan’s case exactly supports our assumption since Greece was criticised, though not openly, by some other states and organizations. The same development might occur when Turkey begins to have some economic and political advantages following the cooperation strategies to be developed for the Central Asian region. The possible agressive attitude of Greece might help Turkey bring Aegean-related problems and Cyprus matter into international platforms more easily and to defend these problems with other states more independently.
Scenario II: Politically and Economically Powerful Turkey in the Region Against Politically and Economically Powerful Greece in the EU:
It is obvious that Greece has the power of influencing the policies in its region and in world politics through its EU membership and through the impact of Greek lobby in the U.S. congress. Turkey might obtain the same prestige and status in its region, though not in world politics, through the advantages she might gain as the result of cooperation strategies in the Central Asian region. Remembering the political power Greece maintains and uses against Turkey by the help of EU membership, it might be highly possible that through the advantages to be obtained as the result of cooperation strategies in the Central Asian region, politically and economically stronger Turkey might impede Greece to provoke EU members to take anti-Turkish Cypriot and pro-Greek Cypriot decisions with in the EU structure and also to form obstacles before Turkey’s admission into the EU.
Scenario III: Greece - Deprived of U.S. Back:
It is evident that since the World War II Greece has had an important place in the U.S. and this economic and political power of Greece in the U.S. led her to gain some advantages in world politics, in its region and before Turkey. Through the mentioned superiority of Greece to Turkey, the Greeks have been more advantageous in terms of Cyprus matter, Aegean-related problems and the U.S. economic assistance since 1950s. However, when the U.S. begins to gain advantages in the Central Asian region through Turkish-U.S. cooperation developed for the same region, U.S. might adopt pro-Turkish policies about Cyprus and Aegean-related problems before Greece.
Scenario IV: Turkey - More Influential In Regard to Cyprus Matter Before Greece:
The possible advantages Turkey might gain in the Central Asian region might also have an impact on Turkish political stand in regard to Cyprus matter and the status quo of Turkish Cypriots on the Cyprus island. Economically and politically stronger Turkey in the region might become more influential over Cyprus matter and enlarge the area of influence of the Turks living in Cyprus.
Scenario V: Greek Lobby - Less Effective in the U.S. Congress:
It can be said that Greece feels quite powerful in international politics, in its region and before Turkey depending on Greek lobby’s economic and political strength in the U.S. congress and she can activate and direct the U.S. congress to take anti-Turkish decisions as experienced following the military intervention of Turkey in Cyprus in 1974. However, as long as U.S. advantages in the Central Asian region continues through Turkish-U.S. cooperation, it might be rather difficult for Greece to maintain anti-Turkish decision through using the political strength of Greek lobby in the U.S. congress. So, Turkey might have a chance to eliminate one of the most important and influential factors which sometimes directs the U.S. foreign policy-makers to take anti-Turkish decision.
Negative Scenarios:
It should be remembered that negative scenarios Turkey might face regarding Greece as the result of cooperation strategies in Central Asia will be based on Greek attempts to weaken Turkey and to detoriate the advantages Turkey might gain in the Central Asian region since both states’ foreign policy principles are largely based on the manaouvres which they develop agaist eachother.
Scenario I: Turkey - Faced to Greek Anti-Turkish Propaganda in EU:
It can be said that Greece, taking the advantages that its EU membership presents to her in various fields and particularly before Turkey, has been and will become a preventive state which puts obstacles before Turkey’s admission into EU. Parallel to the probable benefits Turkey might obtain as the result of cooperation strategies in the Central Asian region Greece might continue to develop anti-Turkish propaganda in the EU even after the acceptance of Turkey’s cadidancy in EU full membership on December 11, 1999. This might directly cause retard in EU full membership of Turkey, planned to be materialized in 2010 by Turkish decision-makers.
Scenario II: Greece - Involved in Convincing the European Powers About the Socalled pan-Turkist Threat:
She might put forth the idea that Turkish administration has entered the Central Asian region to realise its pan-Turkic and imperialist ideals in this region and that she will keep on holding pan-Turkic aims in Cyprus over Greek Cypriots and in the Aegean Sea. Depending on this assumption Greece might try to convince European states that with this hard nationalist stand Turkey will cause serious threat in the Central Asian and Middle East regions and in the Balkans. Parallel to this assumption the EU members might suspend Turkey’s full membership in the EU and Turkey’s stand in international politics might downgrade gradually.
Scenario III: Greece - More Engaged in Bringing Human Rights Violations Issue into International Political Agenda:
It is a well-known fact that the EU members have founded very close connection between the political stand of the Kurds in Turkey and Turkey’s admission into the EU. In a way they regard the well-being of the Kurds in Turkey as a precondition for Turkey’s EU full membership. In addition to this, the EU members also closely observes anti-democratic developments in Turkey such as human rights violations principally associated with the status of political prisoners, extremist political party members and Kurdish minority, and they determine several defects related with these. So, the mentioned handicaps in Turkey might facilitate probable anti-Turkish policies of Greece and she might persuade some European states to adopt anti-Turkish policies through bringing the human rights violations issue and the defects in democracy in Turkey into international political agenda. This negative development might lead Turkey to maintain its political and economic requests in international politics with difficulty.
Scenario IV: Greece - More Provocative in PKK and Kurdish Insurgency Matters:
Greece takes quite sensitive stand in regard to PKK matter and Kurdish insurgency and has been trying to benefit from the PKK matter and Kurdish insurgency in favour of it own political pragmatism. According to the official declarations given by Turkish officials, Greece supports the PKK and Kurdish insurgency in Turkey.* Greece uses these two problems either as a policy to weaken Turkey internally or as an anti-Turkish campaign through bringing these two issues into international political agenda. So, it can be assumed that Greece might continue to support PKK and Kurdish insurgency and cause political problems in terms of Turkey.
Scenario V: Greece - More Influential Over Greek Government of South Cyprus:
It is obvious that Cyprus conflict is not a problem prevailing between Turkish and Greek communities in the island of Cyprus. Since the Cyprus conflict has been posed as an international problem in the General Assembly of the UN in 1954, both Turkish and Greek states have been involved in supporting them and even uniting Turkish and Greek communities in Cyprus with Turkey and Greece. While Greece regards Cypriot Greeks as a community a part of Greek state, Turkey stands as a guarantor state ready to defend the rights of Cypriot Turks before Cypriot Greeks and Greek state. So, it can be argued that Greece, taking Turkey’s activities and close relationship with the Central Asian states and the probable advantages that Turkey might gain in this region, might search for the ways of breaking Turkey’s influence over the Cypriot Turks.
Scenario VI: Greece - More Effective in Agean-Related Problems:
Through supporting the idea that Turks entered the Central Asian region together with pan-Turkic aims not with economic or cultural ideals, she might convince the European states to back the assumption that Turkey’s initial aim in the Aegean Sea is to turn this sea into Turkish sea through annexing the islands in the Aegean Sea into the Anatolian land. She might also assume that Turks are violating its own right in the Aegean. This might cause Turkey to lose its word in Aegean-related matters in international politics.
Scenario VII: Greece - In favour of Russian Probable Pan-Slavist Policies:
Depending on the historical developments experienced before the establishment of Greek state in 1830 and in two Balkan Wars, it can be said that Greeks and Russians might cooperate with each other and provoke Slavic nationalism in the Balkans against Turks when necessary. So, it is possible that if Turkey increases its political and economic power following its initiatives in the Central Asian region Greece might provoke the Slavic Orthodox nations in the Balkans backing Russian stand toward this issue in order to weaken Turkey’s influence which she regards as a threat against herself. Although Slavic Orthodox revival in the Balkans will not cause a direct threat for Turkey it might lead discontent and busy Turkish decision-makers and this might result in lack of concentration on Central Asian policies.
Scenario VIII: Greece - Backer of the Russian Federation in Regard to Its Middle East Policies:
As mentioned before Russia sees the Middle East as an important region for its foreign policy. It is also quite clear that during East-West confrontation Russia developed some policies in this region so as to upgrade its influence among the Middle East states against the U.S. So, it is possible that although Greece has never had any vital advantages associated with the Middle East region, she might support Russian probable negative policies in this region in order to make some Middle East states such as Iran and Syria to take negative stand toward Turkey through provoking them.
Scenario IX: Turkey - Faced to Greek Assimilation Policies Over Turkish Minority in the Western Thrace:
Greece might develop policy of oppression over the Turkish minority in Western Thrace in order to draw Turkish foreign policy attention to other matters. By doing so, they might direct Turkey to focus on Central Asia less.
V : Future Scenario V: Future Scenarios on Turkey’s Position Regarding EU As the Result of Cooperation Strategy Models Developed for Central Asia
Positive Scenarios:
Scenario I: Turkey - Less EU Addict:
Along with probable political and economic advantages to be gained as the result of cooperation strategies in the Central Asian region, Turkish decision-makers might leave the idea that EU full membership is the only way to become one of the respectful member of world community but there are some other alternatives. By doing so, Turkey might become less permissive in regard to EU demands and behave more independently in its relations with EU. This might also remove the feeling of inferiority wide spread among Turks before Europeans which has been dominant since the begining of the decline of Ottoman state.
Scenario II: U.S. - More Pro-Turkey in Regard to Turkey’s EU Membership:
If the U.S. obtains economic and political prestige and advantages in the Central Asian region following the cooperation strategies, she might give economic assistance to Turkey in order to help her make necessary political, economic and societal rearrangements for EU integration and even she might initiate some attempts in order to facilitate Turkey’s full membership process in international platforms. Furthermore, when we take the importance of reciprocal benefit principle in international relations for any state into consideration, we might argue that U.S. will back Turkey in any foreign policy issue which represents vital importance for Turkish decision-makers as long as she continues to obtain political and economic benefits through U.S. - Turkey partnership in the Central Asian region.
Scenario III: Turkey - More Acceptable Economically by the EU:
It is quite obvious that deficiencies in Turkish economy; such as high inflation rate, high level of unemployment, remarkable budget deficit, high dependency on foreign markets; consist secondarily important reasons following the primarily important reasons; such as Turkey’s Kurdish policy, human rights violations, anti-democratic political developments; which cause delay in its admission into EU. The probable positive impact of cooperation strategies in the Central Asian region on Turkish economy; such as probable decrease in inflation rate, unemployment, budget deficit, dependency on foreign markets; might convince the EU members that Turkey would not bring so much economic difficulty into EU in case its full membership. The mentioned probable positive development might lead EU to admit Turkey into full membership in a shorter time than Turkey expects.
Negative Scenarios:
Scenario I: False Image of Turkey By the EU Members:
The EU might interpret economic attempts of Turkey in the Central Asian region as the attempts designed to set up Turkist-Islamic Union based on political pragmatism. EU might suppose that Turkey has nationalist and fundamentalist aims related with the Central Asian region taking the fact into consideration that Turkey has intensified its relations with the Muslim Arab states after 1980s, which have been frozen since the begining of Cold War period, and she has initiated relations with the Central Asian republics following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, concentrating on ethnicity, mutual historical past, mutual cultural features, mutual language and mutual religion. The mentioned supposition of the EU members might lead them to delay Turkey’s full membership for long years.
Scenario II: Probable Greek Vetoe:
Greece might assume that she would be surrendered by a heavily Muslim populated belt as the result of the cooperation strategies developed by Turkey for the Central Asian region, and that this attempt would cause a direct threat for its security. So, she might conduct anti-Turkish propaganda in the EU in regard to Turkey’s admission into EU. Under this circumstance, Turkey might have to wait for its admission into EU for long years.
Scenario III: EU Against U.S.:
When we take the fact into consideration that EU was established in order to maximise political and economic benefits of the states in the Europe continent compared to the benefits of the states in other continents, principally the benefits of the American continent, EU might suppose that Turkey’s admission into the Union would not serve to the interests of the European continent but would serve to the political and economic interests of the U.S. in the Middle East and Central Asian regions since Turkey has always been ready to do anything for the well-being of the U.S. This assumption might lead the EU members to suspend Turkey’s admission into EU.
CONCLUSION
Turkey has initiated multi-lateral relations with the Central Asian states following decleration of independence. Foreign policy aims of Turkey related to these states are to gain economic and political power in its region through improving multi-dimentional relations with these states, help them in solving their economic, social and political problems, facilitate these states’ economic, political and social development, present its liberal economic structure and democratic system as a model to these republics. In the first years of relationship, Turkey’s attempts were accepted with enthusiasm and pleasure by these republics. Several official visits were paid, bi-lateral and multi-lateral economic, social and cultural agreements were signed, ambassies were opened, seminars and conferences were organised, agencies, institutions, associations were set up.
However, Turkey was not able to realise its foreign policy goals in the Central Asian region. Foreign policy goals adopted in regard to this region by Turkish decision-makers became materialised only partially due to the external e.g. increase in power rivalry in the region, change in Russian policy over the Central Asian states in 1994, decrease in the interest of the Central Asian states toward Turkey, and internal reasons e.g. lack of satisfactory strategy, Turkey’s economic deficiencies, lack of historical information about these states, Turkey’s internal political problems, pan-Turkist political discourses toward these states and broken promises.
Depending on the reasons above, in this study we have developed four “cooperation strategy models” for the Central Asian region to help Turkish decision-makers maximize Turkey’s political and economic advantages in this region and also we have forecasted what kind of political, social and economic advantages or disadvantages Turkey would face in the Middle East region, before the U.S., Russian Federation, Greece and with in the EU in 2020 or 2030 through “future scenario planning” method in order to inform Turkish decision-makers about Turkey’s probable stand in the future following the application of the mentioned strategy models.
We obviously reached this conclusion, parallel to the application of the strategy models developed in this study, despite each negative development probably emerge during time, Turkey’s military, economic and political stand before Iran and Syria in the Middle East region; political stand before the Russian Federation in the former Soviet geopolitical area; military, economic and political stand before Greece in the Balkans; political stand before the U.S.; economic and political stand before the EU will be much more promising in the year 2020 or 2030. We also reached the conclusion that the strategy models developed only for the Central Asian region will have an impact on Turkey’s military, economic and political stand on not only Turkey’s position in the Central Asian region but on the Middle East region, before U.S., Russian Federation, Greece and EU.
We also determined the fact that strategy development and future scenario planning are two important notions which help maximize any state’s foreign policy goals, and that these two necessitates a group study, in which both the decision-makers and academic circles should cooperate fully in order to gain maximum outcome.
We hope this study will help the interested bodies to discover the importance of strategy development and future scenario planning for the success of Turkish foreign policy in the Central Asian region.
References
Başar, C. (1993). Terör Dosyası ve Yunanistan. İstanbul, 1993.
Davis, Bob (1999). “The U.S. has to make a priority list regarding her global interventions”. Finansal Forum, 1 Mayıs 1999.
Fuller, Graham E. (1993). From Eastern Europe to Western China-The Growing Role of Turkey in the World and Its Implications for Westren Interests. Santa Monica: RAND.
Karaosmanoğlu, Ali L. (1996). “Turkey: Between The Middle East and Western Europe”. Kemal H. Karpat (Ed.), Turkish Foreign Policy: Recent Developments. Wisconsin University Press.
Manisalı, Erol (1999). “Operasyondan ABD ve Türkiye Kazançlı Çıktı”. Cumhuriyet, 9 Nisan 1999.
Manisalı, Erol (1999). “Şeytan Üçgenindeki Ülke: Türkiye”. Milliyet, 14 Nisan 1999.
Taylor, Charles W. (1993). Alternative World Scenarios For A New Order Of Nations. Pennsylvania: U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.
Yergin, Daniel and Thane Gustafson (1991). Russia 2010 and What It Means for the World. New York: Random House.
* Turkish decision-makers express their concern about the support given by Greece in regard to PKK and other terrorist activities and warn Greece diplomatically quite often. This became obvious along with the PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan’s decleration in his trial that he was kept by Greek officials in the Consulate of Greece in Kenia. However, in order to remove hesitations about Greek stand toward these two issues; the book Terör Dosyası ve Yunanistan (Terrorism and Greece) by C. Başar, 1993, İstanbul; can be recommended to the ones who are interested in these matters since the mentioned reseach explains the support given by Greece since 1967 to terrorist activities in Turkey together with official documents.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder