|
|
|
|
Map of Europe Map of Middle East |
CIAO DATE: 07/04
Summer 2003 (Volume 2, Number 2)
Turkey’s Vision For The Transatlantic Partnership by Abdullah Gül
Membership to EU and a genuine partnership with the United States are not alternative policies. On the contrary, we see it in the framework of our ties with the western world and will pursue both. As part of the Euro-Atlantic world, we in Turkey have been following the transatlantic tensions with concern. Yet a strong Europe including in foreign and security affairs and a robust NATO and transatlantic link should be able to coexist. The fact of the matter remains that the Europeans and Americans continue to need each other. Unilateralism or narrow coalitions would end up duplicating efforts and wasting our resources for defense and security. Now that Europe finally has been successfully overcoming the division of the continent and virtually “ending European history,” time has come for another major project that would end the recent history in the Middle East. Lifting up the greater Middle East is an ambitious project. Neither the countries of the region, nor Turkey, nor the U.S. or Europe can tackle it alone. There needs to be a synergy in which Turkey too should be actively engaged.
Transatlantic Relations Today by Louis Michel
The terrorist challenge as illustrated by the September 11 tragedy was new, both in its dimensions and by reason of the feeling of insecurity it caused. Confronted with this new and unknown situation, we seem to have developed diverging perceptions and reactions in the United States and in Europe. Europe has an aversion for military solutions and a propensity to seek solutions based on mutual cooperation and interests. Yet we should beware of excessive confidence and idealism. Diplomacy cannot resolve everything. We should remain conscious that maintaining peace and stability in the world also requires clear rules, and with these, compulsory enforcement and actual power to sustain them.
Power, meaning mainly military strength, is indeed needed in the process of governing the world. It is required for the implementation of the rules and of the agreements that the world is designing for itself. The truth is that today, such military power is chiefly concentrated in the hands of one single nation, the United States of America. For a great power ready to apply its military muscle, there is a corollary. There is a responsibility, a duty, to listen to the international community. If not, its action becomes a problem in and of itself.
The shortcomings of the European Union could very well explain the difficulties that have arisen at a more general level in the transatlantic relations. The strengthening of internal consistency of the European Union in a defined area, with clear attribution of competence to a coherent body, generally leads to smoother management of the transatlantic interests in that area. The United States would have less feelings of occasional isolation and of abandonment by its allies if they could rely on a Europe that is better able to act coherently and efficiently. There exists a positive correlation between progress in Europe’s capacity to act on the world scene and harmonious transatlantic cooperation. More Europe also means more and better transatlantic relations, not less.
Transatlantic Relations At The Start Of The 21st Century by Kemal Dervis
The cold war has not left the stage to a world of peace, harmony and universal understanding. Globalization, accelerating at a breathtaking pace over the last twenty years, has created tremendous new challenges. Transatlantic relations that were geared to the cold war era, should evolve and adapt to these new realities. The current contrast between a globally active and interventionist US, with public opinion supporting a unilateral and power-based approach, and an inward looking Europe trying to build a system of governance based on constant negotiations and compromise has made transatlantic relations difficult and is more fundamental than just the disagreement that emerged over the nature of policy toward Iraq. The challenges of the future require both the United States and Europe to alter their current stance. The United States will soon recognize that despite all its military might, it needs the active support of other major players on the world scene to protect peace, stability and its own security. Europe, on the other hand, must realize that it must turn outward again, that it cannot simply ignore threats to stability and decency. Turkey has a key role to play in helping promote the right kind of transatlantic spirit. Turkish foreign policy should rise to the challenge by looking beyond our traditional narrowly defined interests, to make Turkey into a global leader in the realm of the ideas and values that will build the 21st Century.
Turkey And The United States: A Catalyst In The Euro-Atlantic Relationship by O. Faruk Logoglu
If concepts of “stability, democracy and friendship” drive US policy in this vast geography from the Middle East to the Balkans and from the Caucasus to Central Asia, and if eradicating terrorism is an overriding objective for the US, then the US will need Turkey on its side. While the US has a presence and interest in this wide space by virtue of being a superpower, in all these countries Turkey has a similar presence by virtue of its history, culture and location. This makes for a meaningful and effective partnership between the two. Not only is the Turkish-US relationship important in and of itself, but that it is also a link that could play a helpful role in the transatlantic repair process. Our relations, if successfully re-focused, could be instrumental in enhancing mutually supportive links across the Atlantic. This, in turn, might be critical in improving our international capacity to deal with the common challenges we face.
The Middle East After Saddam And Arafat by Alon Liel
In the past, America has often erred in its analysis of Middle Eastern crises. Washington’s self-confidence regarding the superiority of its democratic system, and the appropriateness of the free market concept as the economic model for the 21stcentury, may prove to be exaggerated with respect to Iraq and the entire Arab world. From its own short experience in Middle Eastern diplomacy, Israel has painfully learnt that democracy and modernisation are not necessarily the best tools for the advancement of peace and well-being in the Middle East, especially when marketed from Jerusalem or Washington. The expected American failure to transform Iraq into a pro-western democracy might, in the final analysis, also cause damage to the US’s staunchest allies in the area – Turkey and Israel.
The European Union plays a vital role in determining the future shape of the Middle East. The decision to enable practically all of Eastern Europe to join the EU has brought the borders of the Union significantly closer to the Middle East. Europe has also reached the critical point where it must decide whether to include Turkey as a full member of the EU. Such a decision will separate Turkey from the Middle East and make the region more Arabic and less democratic, making Israel feel even more isolated and disliked than before.
In this context, Israel should start reflecting about its own regional future, especially if and when its peace negotiations with the Palestinians resume in a manner that might finally conclude the conflict.
An Empire For You! And Something For The U.N.? by Altay Cengizer
The way the world’s only remaining superpower chooses to conduct itself on the world stage and project its immense power and resources on the one hand, and the readiness and propensity of its allies and partners to appreciate its true security needs on the other, have become the two interconnected parts of the central issue of our times.
Faced with the vexing question of terrorism US was forced to review its security assessments, the result of which was a paradigm shift and the majority of its allies were not even given the time to begin the process of thinking about the value of adopting a corresponding paradigm, a response of their own. Both the US and France and others in this instance, failed to avoid bitter divisions resulting in collateral damage being inflicted upon not only the international system, especially with regard to the shape of the Security Council, but upon the NATO alliance as well. One the one hand was the US, with its unrelenting commitment to its new but unrefined paradigm and on the other hand was most of its European allies with no corresponding and modernized paradigms of their own; both lacked a sense of overriding concern and an understanding of their larger responsibilities and international obligations.
Relegating the traditional tools of diplomacy along with the international system to a secondary position does not prepare us for a safer world. Only preventive multilateral diplomacy has a better chance to forestall the escalation of disputes into outright conflicts. The UN system plays the most important role in this respect, not only because it can ensure an integrated approach that brings together all relevant factors of a particular conflict, but also because of its ability to confer legitimacy to such quests. Moreover, given the diversity of political interests and many other determining factors, not all countries can get involved in all disputes. The world has to agree on a process of burden-sharing, and it can only do so within the UN system. Right now, the UN is trying to address volatile situations before they erupt into full-fledged threats to peace and security.
Nato's Future After The War In Iraq by Osman Yavuzalp
Despite continued doubts about its relevance since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been constantly called upon to take on new tasks. It was instrumental in extinguishing the flames of ethnic and nationalist rivalries in the Balkans. Far from completing its life cycle, at the Prague Summit in November 2002, NATO committed itself to modernize and transform to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It has now overcome the out-of-area or out-of-business dilemma, as it prepares to assume the command of ISAF. Despite the different vision of its members on some issues, NATO remains a twin-pillar alliance and the only institution capable of meeting new security risks.
The Iraq Crisis: International Law And The Un Security Council by Brian L. Colbert
The Iraq Crisis has led to an impassioned debate over whether the use of force was legal under international law and whether the future of the United Nations has been compromised. It is forcing the global community to examine the troubling and sometimes debilitating lack of enforcement in international law, as well as, the dysfunctional structure of the UN Security Council.
The crisis also highlights rifts between traditional allies and underscores the global power politics that dictate approaches to foreign policy and international relations. It illuminates the gulf between international law and the sovereign interests of nation-states and the extent to which the national interests of nation-states trumps international law. The Iraq Crisis ultimately brings to the fore the struggle between nation-states to decide the future structure of the international system.
Europe's Identity: A New Definition by Özdem Sanberk
The European Union is a movement for all of Europe, even if not all European countries plan to join it. Europeanicity is one of the main criteria for joining and something one might call the “European spirit” has been its driving force for several generations. So what is really meant when we talk about Europe is not simply a geographical area, nor even, a cultural entity where countries share cultural values, but about an active living Europe which is a forum for constant interplay between its members. It is for this very reason that we cannot see Europe simply in terms of Christian tradition.
The values of democracy, pluralism, freedom of thought, humanism, tolerance, and scientific rationality are the views which will provide the moral basis of the new Europe and the movement towards European integration. These have grown out of the common Christian culture of Europe, but they have also long since transcended it and created a society in which there is often pluralism of metaphysical beliefs, but basic agreement on matters of essential rights and freedoms. These are matters which we in Turkey, a major European power for centuries, but also a late-comer to modernity, have long reflected upon. We believe that the cultural/political frontiers of Europe are not to be defined by narrow denominational or confessional labels any more, but by a common political, intellectual, and legal culture.
Another criteria for appartenance to Europe should be the desire to participate in the life of Europe. We need to look at who participates and how along the edges of Europe. For this I propose a new concept that of a “Europe of Players”. “Players” in this case means countries that make active contributions in one or more fields in the life of the continent and who do not make an equivalent one elsewhere. This concept gives us a better working definition when trying to answer the questions “Where does Europe end?” By this definition, it is clear that based on its past, its present role and future aspirations Turkey is well within the boundaries of Europe.