ANALYSIS
VARIABLE MIDDLE EAST
POLICIES OF TURKEY
FROM 1925 TO 1960
JANUARY 2016
BORD OF COUNTRIES
VARIABLE MIDDLE EAST
POLICIES OF TURKEY
FROM 1925 TO 1960
AHMET ZENGIN
JANUARY 2016
|
AHMET ZENGİN
Marmara University
Faculty of Political Science
Department of Political Science and International Relations
INDEX
Abstract ...................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 6
1923-1950; ONE RULING PART ................................................................... 7
DURING AND AFTER WW2; ISMET INONU TIME ......................................... 9
1950-1960; DEMOCRAT PARTY ERA.......................................................... 12
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................... 15
Abstract
Turkey has been the main actor who effects region by directly ruling or inspiring them as
well. Turkey had to leave the territory after losing the WW1. Following 5 years after
collapse of Ottoman was enough tough for Turkey to handle for itself. Especially
becoming a secular nation-state made the things complex, because of the religious and
national diversity which is inherited from The Ottoman Empire to Turkey. Such these
difficulties were not only living and influencing the interior policies but also strongly
influenced the external policies as well. But this new established country was having
some troubles with sustaining a stable policy for the Middle East. For a long time, Turkey
did not want to intervene the territory; but this was changing time by time due to external
forcements and internal pressures on governments. This paper attempts to analyze the
question of why Middle East Policies of Turkey were variable in the light of true source of
knowledge such as survey, poll and scholarly study.
Key words: The Middle East, Turkey, Discrepancy, Secularism, Arabs
5
INTRODUCTION
For a long time, nearly 400 years, Turks had ruled the territory of Mesopotamia
(todays Middle East). In this long period of being a strong power in the Middle East gave
strength to the policies and perspectives of the Turks to consider themselves as a
protector of not only the nations of Middle East but also every Muslim group on the
world. Since the Ottomans took caliphate title in the early 16th century, their influence
on the territory became unchallengeable. When we consider this privilege position of
Turks on the Middle East, Turkey has the tradition and experience of to be a great
power.1
But Turkey has changed its policies from the old ones that it used to follow
leading by the theocratic Ottoman reign. Its sharp turning made Turkey as a secular
nation-state rather than a theocratic empire. More than that, Turkey chased the
principle of ‘’peace at home, peace in the world’’ in its foreign policies in order to
reconstruct itself and implement the Neo-Turkish nation state ideas on the ground of
society and governmental institutions. However, Turkey’s policies changed sharply time
by time due to many different local political incidents like coup d’états, elections and
wars as well. In order to understand the question of why Turkey does not have a long
lived stabile policy for Middle East, we will categorize the periods of these political
changes of Turkey to 3 parts.
1
Imai, Khoei; Possibilities and Limit of Liberal Middle Power Policies; The Case of Turkish Foreign Policy
Toward The Middle East During The AKP Period
6
1923-1950; ONE RULING PART
After a regime change from constitutional monarch to parliamentary republic in
Turkey brought a set of different world views with it. Most observable one is as William
Hale says; ‘’ the most significant difference from the Ottoman era is new Turkish state is
more homogenous’’. Of course, due to the fact that Turkey had many problems to solve
in its territory in priority, Turkey wanted to sustain its stability inside and outside of the
country. To do so, as we mentioned above, Turkey follow the code of the peace at
home, peace in the World. According to the Mustafa Kemal’s statements; Iraq, Syria and
Yemen wanted to rejoin to Turkey after these regions invaded by British and French
forces, but he responded that Turkey has to deal with its interior problems, then maybe
we can consider some kind of a confederative solutions.2 This situation will have been
the picture that resembles the relations among Arabs and Turks in next 30 years.
Mosul and Hatay are the main two issues which Turkey had to deal with. The
thing is these issues were having with France and Britain. Mosul and Hatay had been
included to the Misak-I Milli programme, but agreements gave the authority to rule
these territories to Mandatory Forces; Britain and France. In Mosul, Turkey had to
accept to take %10 revenue of Iraq Petroleum Company for 25 years in order to leave it
to Iraq, because of the rebellion in Eastern Anatolia which was led by Sheikh Said
2
Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Gizli Celse Zabıtları, Devre: 1, Cilt: 1, (24 Nisan 1920-21 Şubat 1921), Ankara,
1985, s.
2-3
7
Said weakened the strength of Turkish Army to make any deterrent attempt for Mosul. 3
On the other side, Hatay was the part of Syria, but after France left the region, Turkey
appealed to League of Nations to discuss the question of Hatay, then League of Nations
accepted Hatay as an independent country. After 6 months, Hatay joined to Turkey.
Such this examples show us main thoughts which Turkey pursue in its Middle East
policy in post-WW1 period. Out of these 2 examples, Turkey did not want to intervene or
even interest to the region. As Hasan Duran mentions about the case:
’’ Turkey struggled in diplomatic and military ways to gain its liberty and
to demonstrate that it is not putting in a claim for the lands where were
the under rule of Ottoman Empire and now has border with’’.4
This situation has many reasons behind; first of all, Turkey had to stabilize its
internal policies which were facing with serious uprisings and protests. Especially
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was implementing new transformations almost in every sphere
of society. These works were composing the priorities of Turkish government.
Latter; Turkey was changing its state ideology which influenced by western values
rather than eastern İslamic ones. This direct the not only the Middle East policies but
also the whole foreign policies was aiming to progress economic, social, cultural and
political relationships with Western countries. By doing so, Turkey had to lest care about
its around and fully dependent upon West. Except Iraq and Iran, Turkey nearly had no
communication with any Arab country in the region.5
3
Ankara Treaty (1926), art 14
4
DURAN, Hasan ve KARACA, Ahmet, SINGLE PARTY PERIOD TURKISH-ARAB RELATIONS, Suleyman Demirel
University The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Y.2011, Vol.16, No.3, pp.203216.
5
ARMAOĞLU, Fahri, (1989), 20. Yüzyıl Siyasi Tarihi, 6. Baskı, Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, İstanbul
8
DURING AND AFTER WW2; ISMET INONU TIME
In that period, the world was living one of its most hard times ever in the history.
When deaths in the Asian theater are counted, the total death count rises to 70 million. 6
Powerful actors which held the actual control of the Middle East and around were
actively fighting with each other and this situation gives kind of a relief to Turkey to
follow an independent foreign policy for a while, because every side was taking into
account Turkey as ally. These times remind us the foreign policy of late Ottoman era
which is about the balancing every side with each other, but never choose one of it.
Although Turkey signed an alliance agreement with France and Britain; Turkey stayed
out of the mess of WW2 and declared itself as neutral that makes it, in same time,
unreliable for the Allies.7
What clears the picture of changing unstable policies of Turkey overwhelmingly is
corresponding with the political variations of power slipping which causes by the WW2
on the military and economic ground. This explains that Turkish government was aware
of their inadequacy to make its own specific policy, so they had to lie to someone bigger.
After resembling the common relevant issues that affected the role of Turkey in
Middle East, we can truly understand the cause of instability of Middle East policies.
Secularism defines the first obstacle for Turkish government in order to increase the
relations with countries in the region.
6
McKAY, Tom, One Incredible Visualization Reveals Just How Many People Died in WWII, for the related
source; http://mic.com/articles/120271/this-incredible-visualization-shows-just-how-many-people-diedin-wwii#.PmWRdx57X (access time: 12.18.2015 )
7
CUFALI, Mustafa, (2005), “Cumhuriyet Döneminde Çok Partili Hayata Geçişte Rol Oynayan Dinamikler”,
Liberal Düşünce, Y:10, S:38-39, Bahar-Yaz, Aydan Ofset, İstanbul. Ss. 55-67.
9
Most of its tries for increasing the associations with the region had been seen suspicious
and mistrustful by Arab countries. 8 When the Palestine issue emerged in 1948, Turkey
took side with the Arab countries in order to mend the broken connection with them.
Even though this move helped to fix relations even with Syria which had issues with
Turkey because of annexation of Hatay, in that time, after Israel won the war and
declared the freedom of its state, Turkey was the first Muslim country who recognized
it.9 Recognition of Israel made the relations worst. However, Turkey was seen as agent of
West in Middle East.
After the WW2, the World had witnessed the cold war competition between USA
and USSR. This has many foots on all over the world; Vietnam, Korea, Africa etc. but
maybe the longest one, maybe still effects even today, was living in the Middle East.
Post-WW2 forced the imperial powers; such as Britain and France who colonized or
mandated the nearly 30 country were decolonizing many of the lands. When we look at
the Middle East; Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and gulf states were controlling by Britain; Syria,
Lebanon, Algeria and Morocco were also mandated by France. After decolonization, a
power gap emerged in the territory. There was an upcoming Soviet threat over the
region. So America, by the support of Turkey, decided to come and fill the gap. We can
see that in the speech of Selim Sarper the Permanent UN Ambassador of Turkey in 1954;
‘We see the importance of Middle East to USA. If we do not fill this gap, USSR can
increase its hegemony over the region’’.10 Adam Groves explains the situation in its study
as;
‘’ In the context of the Cold War because oil and gas supplies from the Middle
East were vital to sustain the European and American economies. The Soviet
Union, recognising this, sought to compete with the West for influence in the
region, hoping to gain an advantage in the global bi-polar power struggle.’’11
8
DEMİR, Şerif, DÜNDEN BUGÜNE TÜRKiYE’NiN SURiYE VE ORTADOĞU POLiTiKASI, Turkish Studies, Volume
6/3 Summer 2011, p. 691-713 TURKEY
9
FIRAT,Melek ve KÜRKÇÜOĞLU, Ömer, "1945-1960 Arap Devletleriyle İlişkiler", Türk Dış Politikası Kurtuluş
Savaşından Bugüne Olaylar, Belgeler, Yorumlar, Edt. Baskın Oran, I, İstanbul 2001,s. 617; Ö. Yazgan, agt., s.
34-35
10
Cumhuriyet Gazetesi,19 Şubat 1954
11
GROVES, Adam,How did Arab Nationalism Affect the Course of the Cold War?, Dec 3 2007, University of
Wales, Aberystwyth, International Politics Department
10
Therefore Turkey, for a long time, had been took side with USA in order to eliminate the
Soviet threat in the region. Nonetheless, this political move put Turkey in other hard
positions in geo-politics and caused a bad perception of Turkey to the minds in the
territory. Even Democrat Party could not break the Arabs’ perception of Turkey which is
seen as exponent of Western powers in political realm.
11
1950-1960; DEMOCRAT PARTY ERA
Turkey, who tried to avoid from intervening any occasions on this field in the
time of one ruling party, had started to develop its relations with the region.12 Counter
to early Middle East perceptions of CHP/RPP; Democrat Party decided to increase the
mutual co-operations with Arab nations; but, due to the lack of a particular policy,
Turkey could not achieve to break the perceptions.
Israel also was one of the causes of Turkey’s discrepancy policies on the territory
and also this was blocking to progress the relations with Arabs.13 There are 2 major
factors which affected the Turkey’s Middle East Policies during 1950-60; NATO and
Soviet presence in the Middle East.
After a long one ruling party session, Democrat party had won the multi-party
election. DP was supporting by majority of people who could not embrace the RPP
policies which offensed to religious and conservative fragment of Turkish society. This is
because, the first action of DP as government was releasing the azan which was
prohibited for 18 years to be performed in original language;Arabic. That action can be
seen as a flash light to see clearly some further changes in perspectives about Islam and
Arabs.
Eventhough Democrat Party era was a rapprochement between Turks and Arabs,
Turkey relied on Britain and USA for its aims in the M.E. territory. Turkish government
was doing that in order to prevent Soviet presence in Middle East; but this also made
Turkish policies depended upon Western forces.
12
Larrabee F. Türk Dış Politikası : Belirsizlik Döneminde [e-book]. İstanbul : Ötüken, 2004; n.d. Available
from: Istanbul Sehir University Library Catalog, Ipswich, MA. Accessed January 3, 2016
13
YILMAZ, Türel, Türkiye-İsrail Yakınlaşması, İmaj Yayınevi, (2001), Ankara
12
NATO was the first political attack to gain a spot in European side.Turkey applicated for
full membership to NATO in Ismet Inonu government, but acceptence granted to
Democrat Party after sending Turkish troops to Korean War with UN forces. This was
because of the Russian desire over Strains and some provinces of Eastern Anatolia like
Kars, Ardahan and Iğdır. For such a threat was eough to force Turkish foreign policy to
find himself on the other scale of the balance; NATO which has been lead by USA against
to expansionist ideas of USSR and communism. On the other hand, as I mentioned in the
second title, Arab countries except Saudi Arabia and Jordan accepted the assistance of
USSR. Even though Turkey purposed
to improve the relationship with his Arab
neighborhoods, his being a NATO alliance became an obstacle for him to achive that
purpose. For many reasons, including enmity to Western countries, made closer Arabs
to USSR in some way. This intimacy also made Turkey lonely unwelcomed AmericanEuropean assistant in the region.
13
CONCLUSION
In a sense, Turkey could not achive to draw a stable policy Middle East between
1925-60. After establisment of Republican Parlemantary system was a new struggle for
Turkey to implement its codes over every corner of the country. This struggle kept him
much busy to deal with his own issues rather than Middle East’s problems. So early
Republican era’s notion of Middle East policy was about not being involved into the
region’s businesses. In the short run, this sense could be explain with solving interior
problems first. When we consider that the new government’s ideology depends on
Turkish nationalism which also have problems with Islam as well, removed Turkish policy
making process from plannes for Middle East Arabs. Pre- and post-Ataturk era had been
builded on this sense until Democrat Party time. But even DP has a tendency to Islamic
nations of the territory, they could not avoid of to be unwelcomed in Middle East.
As regards to discrepancy of Turkish Middle East policies from 1925 to 1960,
there are 5 main factors which affected to Turkish policies in those times; 1) changed
regime from theocratic-multinational to secular-national state, 2) interior issues to
handle primarily, 3) worst defined secularism concept which kept Turkey away from
Islamic Middle East countries, 4) NATO membership, 5) Raising Arab nationalism which
did not except Turks on the territory. These 5 factors has to be understand in order to
analyze todays effects on the territory and think on the case not romantically, but
rationally.
14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Imai, Khoei; Possibilities and Limit of Liberal Middle Power Policies; The Case of
Turkish Foreign Policy Toward The Middle East During The AKP Period
2. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Gizli Celse Zabıtları, Devre: 1, Cilt: 1, (24 Nisan 192021 Şubat 1921), Ankara, 1985, s.2-3
3. Ankara Treaty (1926), art 14
4. DURAN, Hasan ve KARACA, Ahmet, SINGLE PARTY PERIOD TURKISH-ARAB
RELATIONS, Suleyman Demirel University The Journal of Faculty of Economics
and Administrative Sciences Y.2011, Vol.16, No.3, pp.203-216.
5. ARMAOĞLU, Fahri, (1989), 20. Yüzyıl Siyasi Tarihi, 6. Baskı, Türkiye İş Bankası
Yayınları, İstanbul.
6. McKAY, Tom, One Incredible Visualization Reveals Just How Many People Died in
WWII, for the related source; http://mic.com/articles/120271/this-incrediblevisualization-shows-just-how-many-people-died-in-wwii#.PmWRdx57X
7. CUFALI, Mustafa, (2005), “Cumhuriyet Döneminde Çok Partili Hayata Geçişte Rol
Oynayan Dinamikler”, Liberal Düşünce, Y:10, S:38-39, Bahar-Yaz, Aydan Ofset,
İstanbul. Ss. 55-67.
8. DEMİR, Şerif, DÜNDEN BUGÜNE TÜRKiYE’NiN SURiYE VE ORTADOĞU POLiTiKASI,
Turkish Studies, Volume 6/3 Summer 2011, p. 691-713 TURKEY
9. FIRAT,Melek ve KÜRKÇÜOĞLU, Ömer, "1945-1960 Arap Devletleriyle İlişkiler",
Türk Dış Politikası Kurtuluş Savaşından Bugüne Olaylar, Belgeler, Yorumlar, Edt.
Baskın Oran, I, İstanbul 2001,s. 617; Ö. Yazgan, agt., s. 34-35
10. Cumhuriyet Gazetesi,19 Şubat 1954
15
11. GROVES, Adam,How did Arab Nationalism Affect the Course of the Cold War?,
Dec 3 2007, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, International Politics Department
12. Larrabee F. Türk Dış Politikası : Belirsizlik Döneminde [e-book]. İstanbul : Ötüken,
2004; n.d. Available from: Istanbul Sehir University Library Catalog, Ipswich, MA.
Accessed January 3, 2016
13. YILMAZ, Türel, Türkiye-İsrail Yakınlaşması, İmaj Yayınevi, (2001), Ankara.
16
17