Turkey has difficulties in its relations with the Middle East (I)
Kemal Balci - The New Anatolian/ Ankara

Dr. Svante Cornell, the Research Director of the Central Asia- Caucasus Institute of Silk Road Studies, looks at the Turkish role in a volatile region.

From the controversy over the Turkish straits to the complications in the Turco-US ties, the expert on Turkey and the Caucasus points out the misconceptions of Ankara and its allies on key issues.

Here is the first part of his interview with TNA:

TNA: You're an expert on the Caucasian issue and you've been in Turkey for a long time and also studied here. First of all, how do you see Turkey in general, how do you evaluate Turkey in its region and its relations with Western countries? What kind of an impression do you have of Turkey?

CORNELL: The general situation in Turkey is basically focusing on foreign policy in Europe and the Middle East and not paying much attention to areas such as Central Asia, the Caspian and the Caucasus. Relations with the West are in general increasingly tense and interestingly at the same time, intense. Relations with both America and Europe proceed historically with some tension with one or the other but sometimes both at the same time. Turkey is trying to play a role in the Middle East, which I see as a nonstarter. Turkey has never been able to play a role in the Middle East because of its relations with Arabs and the way Turkey is perceived by our countries. Therefore, I don't think there's much that Turkey can gain from the policies it is now playing.

Of course also trying to describe the tendency of Turkey of being relatively, positively oriented towards regimes like the Syrian and the Iranian, both looks strange partly from Turkey's own interest giving that a nuclear armed Iran would immediately use leverage against Turkey, which Turkish policymakers and analysts don't seem to be aware of or realizing, and at the same time it worsens its relations with European and American partners, and which already especially with U.S. are tense.

TNA: What kind of a role can Turkey play in the Middle East, where there is both conventional conflict and nuclear armament? Or do you think that Turkey shouldn't get involved in this?

CORNELL: Well, it depends. I think everybody understands the importance of Turkey's role as a secular-progressive country that's not only oriented towards the West but integrated with it as a NATO member. It's a partner of its Western allies and tries to play a positive role of advising its Western allies on key issues.

But by the looks of it, Turkey has always been reluctant to see any change in the status quo -- be it in the Black Sea, the Caucasus or in Iran. Even toward positive changes, such as developments in Georgia and Ukraine, the Turkish reaction has not been very positive. I don't know, I think perhaps it has partly to do with the general caution in Turkish foreign policy. However, the status quo is one thing and stagnation is quite another.

What you have in places like Ukraine and Georgia was stagnation which was changed into a more positive and progressive development. This was in Turkey's favor. Likewise, what we see in Iran is neither a status quo nor a stagnation but a kind of a backlash against everything that the Turkish Republic stands for. I mean [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmedinejad is everything that is against the Turkish Republic, which is why it's so surprising to many people that Turkey's pursuing a such a positive policy towards Iran.

TNA: Can Black Sea countries become an alternative for Turkey, as Turkey's relations with the European Union aren't going well at the moment? What will Turkey do? It seems stuck in the Middle East and stuck in its relations with Western countries. Can Turkey have an opening from the Black Sea?

CORNELL: Well, first of all it's very important to define what we mean by the Black Sea. This discussion has become a problem in the relationship between the Americans and other Westerners and Turks, simply because of the terminology. When people say Black Sea, the Turks think that the Montreaux Convention is in danger.

People in the West, on the other hand, aren't aware of the Montreaux Convention and they have no intention of changing Montreaux. What they are interested is the Black Sea as a wider region, which stretches from Greece to Azerbaijan, and which is a way of conceptualizing areas like the Caucasus and Ukraine in the framework. What Western actors are trying to do increasingly is to find out how we fit areas like Ukraine, Moldova and the south Caucasus into a European framework and how do we link them to Europe.

And this larger Black Sea is precisely the definition that should be favored, particularly now when Turkey is in negotiations with the European Union, when Bulgaria and Romania are becoming members, with pro-Western governments.

TNA: We've experienced problems about the Black Sea when the US wanted to have its warships go through that sea. Can the warships of the countries that aren't parties to the convention go through the Straits and deploy at sea?

CORNELL: Well again, I don't think that's necessarily a problem. I think that happened because of a lack of understanding in the U.S. about how important the Montreaux Convention was for Turkey. But I think that Americans now understood that this is a very big Turkish concern.

The issue isn't warships - the issue is a wider strategy towards this region in having a way of visualizing the region. In this sense, I think this is where Turkey can play an important strategic role.

We've already seen that Turkey, for obvious reasons, has difficulties in its relations with the Middle East, and perceptions of Turkey in the Middle East aren't necessarily very positive. But what Turkey has is a track record of pursuing very positive relations and it plays a very important role for the West in general, in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

In this sense everybody acknowledges Turkey's role as a leading role in any kind of wider Black Sea region.

Americans and European have Turkey as a main partner in this region for advancing peace and stability in this region - that's essential. I think what you've seen in the past 10 years that the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline to support Turkey as an equal partner with Americans and others provided to Azerbaijan to Georgia even the countries in Central Asia was one that Turkey was successful and that's why Turkey - right under this government which is not very interested in this region -seems to be pursuing other priorities.

TNA: Let's ask this question in a reverse fashion. If Turkey and America come to an agreement and, in line with the agreement, if Turkey allows American warships to pass through the Black Sea, do you think that the neighboring countries are going to be irked?

CORNELL: I don't think the issues are related to the warships. Americans don't have a problem with that.

TNA: How do you see relations between Turkey and America? It's said that they've been damaged since the March 1, 2003 motion before the Iraq war. Does this stem from the government or is there a negative approach towards Turkey in general? Does America see Turkey as an Islamic country?

CORNELL: Well Turkish and American relations are very complicated. Right now, I think there have been attempts for a long time to repair relations on both sides. There are obviously problems which come from both sides. Iraq as well as the PKK (terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party) issue, which is obviously a very important one, I think, there's an increasing understanding in America that this is a serious problem. America can do and has to do a lot more to increase Turkish confidence in American foreign policy.

Other than that of course there's a general increase in concern about the character of the Turkish government. After coming to power, there was very much a positive reaction to this stability of the Turkish government from both Europe and the U.S., especially from President Bush. There was also the fact that this is a government that's not ideologically secularist like earlier governments but that it embraces its roots and religion within a secular framework. That was endorsed and supported by America, especially by President Bush, who is rather a religious person and who saw this as Christian Democrats and Muslim Democrats issue.

What happens now is that Turkish intellectual circles are beginning to question this government and its commitment to secularism. The same happened in the U.S., as they are beginning to worry whether these rumors and speculations have always existed or a hidden agenda is coming up. I think increasing numbers of people among the Turkish intellectual circles and among Westerners shows that they all have less trust in this government and in the commitment of this government to the founding principles of Turkish secularism.

TNA: The premier is going to meet with President Bush early next month. Do you think that there will be more developments in the region as well as relations between Turkey and U.S. after the meeting? Or will it be quite an ordinary meeting? What do you expect?

CORNELL: I'm not sure, but I think the main problems are 600 guerillas and the Iranian question. Of course, the Americans are in a very difficult position to try to find a way to deal with this Iranian problem. I think nobody really knows how to deal with it but they know that something has to be done. So I suspect that the American leadership will try to explore avenues for cooperation with Turkey regarding the Iranian issue. I don't know what it concretely means but I think what the American leadership seeks is to have a common policy together with its allies in the region such as Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan as concerns how to deal with the Iranian problem.

TNA: Do you think that America will attack Iran?

CORNELL: Everything is a possibility. There are very many different voices in Washington. Some people think that we can't have a military operation - the danger of having a nuclear Iran under a person like Ahmedinejad would be even worse. So it's very much up in the air still what would happen. Up to this point, the U.S. asks, "Can we resolve this problem without the use of force?" That's the preferred option. But if that's proved to be impossible, then I think the military option is on the table and this is what the government has been saying.

TNA: Do you think that Israel would hit Iran through its own initiative?