Below is an interview, first published in Der Spiegel with Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkeys new Foreign Minister, Before he was appointed he served as the Turkish prime minister’s foreign affairs advisor, with a special responsibility for Iran and the middle east. He played an important role in late December 2008, when he attempted to get the Israeli government to call off Operation Cast Lead and withdraw from Gaza.
I posted the interview as it gives a hint as to how Iran's close neighbor Turkey views the current crises in Iran; and how it differs from that of the UK government and media.
MH.
-----------------------------------------------------
With protests in Iran continuing, the Middle East seems as unstable as ever. Spiegel spoke with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, 50, about the regional implications of the unrest and about his country's difficult relationship with Europe.
Spiegel: Minister Davutoglu, Iran, Turkey's neighbor, is in the midst of the worst unrest since the Islamic Revolution 30 years ago. After having served for many years as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's foreign policy advisor, you are very familiar with Iran. What is your assessment of the situation?
Spiegel: Did you expect political developments in Iran to take such an explosive turn?
Davutoglu: Yes, absolutely. As a country with very close relations with Iran, we knew how dynamic both the society and the political culture there are. I noticed two particularities in this election. First, there was the extremely animated and fiercely contested campaign phase, and then there was the high election turnout. This led to the emergence of very different interpretations of results after the election. I think that we should take this as a sign that the political process in Iran is very healthy.
SPIEGEL: But it is precisely the result that all of the president's challengers are calling into question. According to the opposition, this election was seriously manipulated.
Davutoglu: We must leave the discussion of the issue to the Iranians. We cannot intervene from the outside.
SPIEGEL: Is there not much more at stake here, namely a struggle for democracy?
Davutoglu: That may be true, in the sense that the Iranian masses want to be heard. The people are unwilling to leave politics solely to the state, and they are very passionate. But I am not prepared to pass judgment as to whether or not the elections were properly carried out.
SPIEGEL: Have you congratulated Iranian President Ahmadinejad on his victory?
Davutoglu: Of course. This is standard procedure between two nations with friendly relations.
SPIEGEL: Perhaps you will have to congratulate a new Iranian president once again in the coming weeks.
Davutoglu: In any case, we will respect the outcome of the political conflict in Iran.
SPIEGEL: Then perhaps you could help us to better understand your neighbor Iran. Have we in the West underestimated the "green movement" of reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi?
Davutoglu: It isn't just about Mousavi. I believe that the West generally has a simplified view of the situation. The West is still dominated by a Cold War-like logic when it comes to Iran. This results in a black-and-white image of the country. The true picture is far more complex. Iran also has a system of checks and balances, and it has more than one center of power. And there are various competing movements and individuals. This "human factor" in Iranian politics is often overlooked in the West.
SPIEGEL: Let's talk about President Ahmadinejad, who visited Turkey in the summer of 2008. Doesn't the alleged victory of hardliner Ahmadinejad have to be described as a political step backward for the peace process in the Middle East?
Davutoglu: I don't believe that the ideological division into so-called hardliners or moderates is helpful. As far as relations with other countries are concerned, it is more important to look at a politician's pragmatism. It is in the interest of all parties in the Middle East that we achieve peace and stability, and that we transform our region into a shared zone of prosperity.
SPIEGEL: But Mousavi's "green movement" already enjoys significantly more sympathy abroad than the Ahmadinejad camp.
Davutoglu: Do you think this political color theory is really useful? Let's not talk about colors. The Iranians are proud people. All of us want to see them bring their own dispute to an end. We hope that these developments will end positively, in line with a participatory political culture.
SPIEGEL: We find it striking that all candidates support the Tehran government's decision to continue the Iranian nuclear program. Even Iranians abroad support it. And the Turkish government has also expressed sympathy for Iran's nuclear aspirations.
Davutoglu: Let me say this quite clearly: The Turkish government has repeatedly emphasized that Iran, like any other nation, is entitled to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. And we have also repeatedly encouraged Iran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Iranians, for their part, have assured us that they don't want nuclear bombs. As long as Tehran develops a peaceful nuclear program in cooperation with the IAEA, we have no objections.
SPIEGEL: Do you trust Tehran? The Europeans and Americans are considerably more skeptical on this issue.
Davutoglu: We think that two principles should be applied here. First, every country has the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy in consultation with the IAEA. Second, we must abide by the principle of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is important that all countries, including Iran, gain the trust of the international community. We too do not want a nuclear bomb at our doorstep. That's why we proposed the creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone in our region.
SPIEGEL: President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that there is no room for negotiations, at least not on the issue of halting uranium enrichment. How then, with Turkey having offered to serve as an intermediary, do you plan to bring Iran back to the negotiating table?
Davutoglu: I believe that the key lies in a new policy of détente in the region. It is important to reduce political tensions to give diplomacy a chance to work once again. In this respect, we very much welcome the position of the new US government of President Barack Obama, under which certain principles must apply to all countries in the region. And we are not just talking about the Iranian nuclear issue, but an entire range of problems in the Middle East. Turkey is assuming an important responsibility in this regard, because we enjoy the trust of all governments in the region, including the Iranian government.
SPIEGEL: The fact that you are on such good terms with Iran has another of your good friends worried: Israel. Could the Turkish-Iranian rapprochement come at the cost of the partnership with Israel?
Davutoglu: Rapprochement would mean that we had bad relations. No, Turkish-Iranian relations have long been good and stable. We want to have an untroubled relationship with all neighbors, which is precisely what we have achieved. Our relationship with Syria, which was troubled for decades, is now excellent. We are now on very good terms with Greece. We have invited all of the region's leaders to Ankara, including Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Israeli President Shimon Peres and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert…
The final part on the interview which covers other issues can be found here
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=3b46a934-ccda-4fb5-b550-c60af5a5d0e3)
Posts
10 comments:
Such a contrast to the seemingly unending desire of the western governments to manipulate and control what goes on in another sovereign country.
But Chris this is a red herring because Turkey itself is not a sovereign country, it is manipulated and controlled by the west itself. This of course is not a popular view amongst the European left who are in denial of their governments’ unhealthy influences and still believe that Turkey is independent. Mick’s claim that Ahmet Davutoğlu tried to stop Israel’s military operations against Palestine is evidence of that denial. Can a neo-colony of western Imperialism stop the actions of a fellow neo-colony?
Sinan
I feel it is a grave mistake to believe Turkey is some sort of post imperialist colony of the West, as it denies its post WW1 history.
As to Ahmet Davutoğlu shuttle diplomacy during the IDF war on the Palestinian people, it may have been based on Erdogan's political self interest, [a majority of his AK Party members were outraged by Israel's latest military incursion into Gaza] Nevertheless, I am certain at the time, this did not make it any less welcome by the Palestinians. Indeed the Turkish government was one of the few Nato members which came out of that period with any honor. [If one can call it that]
As you probably understand better than I, politics in Turkey is rarely black and white, but this does not make Turkey any less of an Independent nation than say the UK, now does it?
By the way I thought of issuing a health warning when I posted this interview, as I expected someone to claim I supported ever word of Davutoğlu, which I do not, but then I thought it is for posters to contain their own prejudices as I am not prepared to offer a health warning with every post as it would become ridiculous.
I feel it is a mistake to claim that this is a red herring, as there are clear differences between the stance of the UK Gov when it comes to Iran and most of the countries in that region.
By the way if Turkey is such a stoolie of the West, why did the AK Party government refuse to provide facilities and join the US and UK in the invasion of Iraq, as the USA demanded?
Few UK leftists are in denial about the negative impact of its governments foreign policy, not least because many of them spend a great deal of time opposing it. Nor are they unaware of the dreadful impact US foreign policy has on their own country.
One of the main reasons comrades over here understand so little about the Turkish left, is because sections of it prefer to throw insults at us rather than engage and offer us the ability to understand what is going on in Turkey. Few if any of the Left Turkish web sites, bar the Kurds are published in English.
The founding of the Republic of Turkey by Ataturk was an attempt to create an independent state free from colonial interference and this it was for many years. But similar to many other states or nations that successfully gained independence they in time became dependent upon imperialism, we can give the examples of the Philippines or many Latin American and African states. This is what is known as neo-colonialism.
If we look at Turkey today we can see that the economy is not controlled by an indigenous bourgeoisie but instead controlled by the IMF and World Bank. On the military side we know that the US ordered the army generals to make the coup in 1980 and have exerted a control ever since. There are countless foreign army and naval bases in Turkey many of which, contrary to what many think, were used and are still being used in operations against Iraq.
The Turkish speaking diaspora are active in most European countries particularly in Palestinian solidarity and anti-war work. The EU are busy banning these organisation and arresting their supporters, with few exceptions the left in Europe has little to say. When their own governments arrest people what excuse can be given for not knowing? The excuse of language cannot be offered in defence.
With respect you are being a little disingenuous in your replies, it is nonsense to complain that your indigenous bourgeoisie are no longer represented in the economy, I would suggest more of the corporations that operate within Turkey are locally owned that within the UK. The truth is both countries are in hock to US centric, multi national, neoliberal economics.
As to the influence of US fronts like the IMF and World bank, they have a major influence in Turkey because the secular politicians the indigenous bourgeoisie supported in the past, went cap in hand to them. This was done quite openly, it was hardly an imperialist conspiracy, indeed when these same politicians borrowed fast sums from IMF/WB they boasted about it, knowing full well it would not be them who had to pick up the tab, but the working classes of town and country.
To dismiss my comments about the English Language is a mistake and I think you may know that. The days when the party line was sent down the chain and comrades supported it without question is gone, people have to make up their own minds as to who they give support to. If they fail to get the information they need to make such a decision they move on, and support a cause they do understand.
I agree, this is not as effective as in the past but it is here to stay, thus if the Turkish left wishes to gain solidarity from the West European left, as they are entitled to, they need to keep us informed.
I have some sympathy with your anger at the left over here; and there is no doubt the majority within the UK left has little interest in what occurs in Turkey. If I post anything on Turkey on this blog, the number of page visits drops considerably.
All the best
You have misquoted me I said: “If we look at Turkey today we can see that the economy is not controlled by an indigenous bourgeoisie but instead controlled by the IMF and World Bank.” I did not say the indigenous bourgeoisie are no longer represented in the economy as you say. They are there but not in control of it.
I remember going to the SWP’s Marxism event in London many years ago because they were having a session on Turkey. This was rare for them; the motivation being the then recent capture of Abdullah Öcalan, pure opportunism. Like you they took the position that the indigenous bourgeoisie of Turkey are in control of the country’s economy. I got up and challenged that assertion and was booed and heckled: “The days when the party line was sent down the chain and comrades supported it without question is gone, people have to make up their own minds as to who they give support to” not on that day they didn’t. Similar to you the SWP were (not sure about now) saying that the British economy was no longer controlled by British capitalists and that Britain had become the 51st state of America. In recent years the anti-globalisation movement have also wrongly argued that capital is no longer linked to the nation state but is instead floating around in cyber space and that governments no longer have any power. The recent government bail out of the banks and the link between the nationalities of the companies being given contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that the link is still there. Of course this link only applies to imperialist states and not to neo-colonial ones. If you are arguing that the bourgeoisie of Turkey are more in control of their economy than their British counterparts then I am really shocked by that poor analysis.
When Turkey goes to the IMF/World Bank it is not just some pragmatic consideration to get a quantity of hard cash. The IMF/World Bank then dictates how the country is to be run and like you say it is all done rather openly. They demand that Turkey opens up to foreign companies, they also determine how much public sector workers will get paid. The army generals are the guarantors or underwriters of the package. No such parallels exist in Britain.
You have misquoted me I said: “If we look at Turkey today we can see that the economy is not controlled by an indigenous bourgeoisie but instead controlled by the IMF and World Bank.” I did not say the indigenous bourgeoisie are no longer represented in the economy as you say. They are there but not in control of it.
I remember going to the SWP’s Marxism event in London many years ago because they were having a session on Turkey. This was rare for them; the motivation being the then recent capture of Abdullah Öcalan, pure opportunism. Like you they took the position that the indigenous bourgeoisie of Turkey are in control of the country’s economy. I got up and challenged that assertion and was booed and heckled: “The days when the party line was sent down the chain and comrades supported it without question is gone, people have to make up their own minds as to who they give support to” not on that day they didn’t. Similar to you the SWP were (not sure about now) saying that the British economy was no longer controlled by British capitalists and that Britain had become the 51st state of America. In recent years the anti-globalisation movement have also wrongly argued that capital is no longer linked to the nation state but is instead floating around in cyber space and that governments no longer have any power. The recent government bail out of the banks and the link between the nationalities of the companies being given contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that the link is still there. Of course this link only applies to imperialist states and not to neo-colonial ones. If you are arguing that the bourgeoisie of Turkey are more in control of their economy than their British counterparts then I am really shocked by that poor analysis.
When Turkey goes to the IMF/World Bank it is not just some pragmatic consideration to get a quantity of hard cash. The IMF/World Bank then dictates how the country is to be run and like you say it is all done rather openly. They demand that Turkey opens up to foreign companies, they also determine how much public sector workers will get paid. The army generals are the guarantors or underwriters of the package. No such parallels exist in Britain.
Sorry if you feel I mis- quoted you, although you are hardly an innocent party when it comes to this, not once did I claim the UK was the 51st State, nor did I say or suggest the Turkish bourgeoisie are more in control of their economy than their British counterparts.
True, Turkey has been unique within Nato over the last three decades, in that the Generals under-write and become the Guarantor of an IMF loan, whether this will last into the future will depend on the outcome of the internal struggles going on within Turkeys ruling elite.
It probably will, as the AK are clearly up for a deal which will make them fully paid up members of Turkeys ruling elite, [as you have pointed out although not in these words] they are well on the way already.
The Stipulations the IMF make are much the same for all who sup at that pump.
Privatization has been one of its more insidious demands, especially within Africa where they have insisted water and Health care are turned over to the multi nationals. Although this type of contractual cancer I presume covers most countries who do business with the IMF/WB
Mick I have in no way misquoted you. The 51st state of America was a remark I heard the SWP say. True I did say that your remarks had some similarities. I said this because in the first paragraph of the fifth post you said:
“The truth is both countries are in hock to US centric, multi national, neoliberal economics”.
That implies that Britain is not economically independent of the US, when it is.
Did you say or did you not say that the bourgeoisie in Turkey are more in control of their economy than their British counterparts? You say you didn’t but again in the first paragraph of the fifth post you said:
“I would suggest more of the corporations that operate within Turkey are locally owned that within the UK”,
again that implies that the bourgeoisie in Turkey are more in control of their economy than their British counterparts, when that is not the case.
What I wrote means exactly what it says, nothing more nothing less.
The meaning of the two quote's you have posted, if read without prejudice are clear and mean what I intended and imply nothing beyond what I wrote.
That you have chosen to spin it to fit your own mindset and opinion of me, tells me this conversation has run its course. [yet again]
Post a Comment