Atatürk could only go west, experts say

CORRECTION: In an earlier version of this story, a statement by Mensur Akgün was mistranslated. This version reflects the clarification.

On the 71st anniversary of the death of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the people of the country he founded are grappling with questions about whether Turkey has shifted its foreign policy toward the East.

The decision to adopt pro-Western policies in the 1930s was a “must” for Atatürk due to then-existing realities in the region, experts said.

Mensur Akgün, a leading authority on Turkish foreign policy, said improving bilateral relations with the West was a “must” – not a “choice” – for Turkey because the most serious threats came from that direction at the time.

“When Turkey entered the 1930s, it was facilitating mutual dialogue with the Western democracies. As part of this policy, in 1932 it entered the [League of Nations], where France and Great Britain were influential on other countries,” said Akgün. “Atatürk signed the Balkan Entente to secure Turkey’s western borders because he was concerned about re-armament efforts by fascist Germany and Italy.”

The 1934 Balkan Entente sought to mutually guarantee the security of Romania, Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia’s common frontiers. The signatories agreed to suspend all disputed territorial claims against each other and their neighbors.

In that era, Atatürk was largely concerned about Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia and Germany’s re-armament efforts, according to Akgün, who is also the director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, or TESEV.

“Atatürk was closer to Great Britain, particularly after the Italian invasion and amid increasing political tension in the eastern Mediterranean region,” Akgün said. He added that the political rapprochement resulted in the Saadabat Non-Aggression Pact, which brought Turkey’s eastern neighbors together under its leadership.

Italy’s invasion in Ethiopia, which increased political tension in the Mediterranean, forced the eastern nations to develop a strong defensive mechanism. Amid growing concerns, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Turkey signed the Saadabat Pact in 1937 in to counter possible Italian threats and secure Turkey’s eastern borders.

According to Akgün, Atatürk had a pragmatic policy. While improving ties with the Western democracies, he also embraced Eastern nations under the yoke of the West. Apart from this, however, Turkey did not join any political organization to the east, Akgün said said.

İnal Batu, Turkey’s former ambassador to Pakistan, said Atatürk tried to set up a zone of influence for Turkey to the east, contrary to the public’s commonly held opinion.

Atatürk developed dialogue with whichever country he thought was valuable, Batu said. “However, the Middle East was experiencing its colonial era, so Turkey did not have many political choices in the east,” added Batu, who is now a Democrat Party, or DP, deputy.

According to Batu, it is wrong to say Atatürk ignored eastern developments. “The signing of the Saadabact Pact and the annexation of the Hatay province to Turkey were fruits of his policy,” he said.

Batu also emphasized that modern Turkey’s formation from the ashes of an oppressed country was a unique model for Third World countries’ independence struggles.

“The Kemalist model was admired by the intellectuals in many [developing countries] who believed that it would serve as a good example for the suppressed peoples of the East,” he said.

Kamran İnan, a veteran Turkish politician and former chairman of Parliament’s foreign relations committee, said Atatürk did not make any arbitrary discrimination between East and West in his foreign policy.

“He did not turn his back on the Eastern nations. However, how many independent political partners were there in the Middle East [with whom] to have independent political ties?” İnan said.

According to İnan, Atatürk gave priority to improving bilateral relations with Western democracies for political reasons.

“He was looking for an acceptable place for the newly born Turkish Republic among the democratic powers that shaped international relations in the 1930s,” he said.

Soli Özel, a foreign-policy columnist for the daily HaberTürk, said Atatürk was forced to look west because of the political climate of the 1930s.

“It was a must for Atatürk because he was looking for a zone of influence in the West,” he said. “He was trying to produce a far-sighted policy against possible threats that could come from Italy and Germany, which were ruled by fascist leaders in that era.”

İlter Turan, a political expert, said it was untrue that that Atatürk’s foreign policy was based on mutual relations with Western democracies.

“Atatürk stood closer to the West than to the East for political reasons because he wanted to see Turkey as a civilized culture in the Western part of the world,” said Turan, a political-science academic at Istanbul’s Bilgi University.

Turkish intellectuals and military officials said Atatürk’s death was a tragic loss to both Turkey and developing countries because Turkey’s modernization encouraged independence claims among Eastern nations in addition to opening an astonishing chapter in Middle Eastern history.

Nejet Eslen, a retired Turkish brigadier general, said Atatürk led the first uprising of oppressed nations under the yoke of imperialist powers.

“He was like no other statesman. He used all his courage for his nation. We are indebted to Atatürk’s peaceful policy for the birth of the first republic in the Near and Middle East,” he said. “Turkish people had a great victory in the war, but the heart of [the country’s] foreign policy still lies with Atatürk’s famous phrase, ‘Peace at home, peace in the world.’”