Had Turkey not gotten involved in the Syrian crisis and had it followed a different foreign policy, what would Turkey gain? This question is worth exploring even only as a thought experiment. We assume this question was asked in the very beginning of the Syrian crisis. We can also safely assume that those who heavily criticize Turkey’s foreign policy would answer this question positively. Yet, it is not clear how they would arrive at this answer.
First of all, which Turkey are we talking about? The AK Party that came to power during the invasion of Iraq had to get involved with the “East” while maintaining the distance and carrying the burden that came with Turkey’s early republican Westernization legacy. Turkey drew its foreign policy in this uncharted field by being thrown into fire with the invasion of Iraq and the Arab Spring. Turkey owned the calls for democratization at once with what could also be interpreted as geopolitically risky moves.
It is obviously clear that those moves were Turkey’s, who stood against the Syrian crisis, prelude to its stance in the region for the next decade. This was the Turkey that stood, not with the Baath regime, but with the people who mobilized against the regime. Coming back to our original question: What could happen had Turkey not stood with the people and against the Baath regime?
Read more: Had Turkey supported the Baathists
No comments:
Post a Comment