The irresistible impossibility of volatile politics

I have written this many times: If you adopt a volatile foreign policy such as “zero problems with neighbors” without first having a secure anchor,

1) You will have no goal. That means you will have no principles. And a country without specific principles may end up losing its identity. In this case, values in that country would be approached with reservations and would be regarded as unreliable.

2) The “zero problems” objective is just a dream to please everyone. You may wish for “zero problems” with both (A) and (B) countries but (A) and (B) countries may have hostilities of their own toward each other that may keep you from your objective. Plus, you may find yourself in a very difficult situation.

***

For instance, Turkey may have the goal of pleasing Sudan (country A) while at the same time trying its best to get along with the West (country B). But Turkey may be left in the middle due to the hostility toward Sudan in the West. Besides, Turkey had to offend both Sudan and the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or COMCEC, despite all diplomatic efforts.

With this, Turkey has received a blow to its Africa policy, which is orchestrated through Sudan. Now, behind closed doors, Turkey has to explain to COMCEC countries why it kneels down before the West.

Plus, Turkey has become a country going nowhere in the eye of the West. Remarks by President Abdullah Gül and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan turned out to be null and void.

***

1) A few years ago, Turkey invited Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to Ankara. The European Union and the United States reacted fiercely. Ankara first challenged them, but then tried to save Erdoğan from the reactions. So he could not meet with Mashaal. In this case, did Ankara’s remarks – “We have contacts with Hamas to make them stop the terror” – remain only words?

2) As the West has reacted to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s visit to Turkey for a COMCEC meeting, Gül said: “That has nothing to do with them. Who is issuing a note to whom?” But the issued note did work and Turkey had to make a U-turn. How is President Gül feeling now?

3) Erdoğan declared there is no genocide in Darfur because he has not seen anything like that in the Sudan. “Muslims do not commit genocide,” he added. However, no one told him that the international community accuses al-Bashir of crimes against humanity and not genocide. It is quite difficult to understand. But the worst is who will explain to the West that Turkey does not change the axis.

“Jews commit genocide, but Muslims do not!”

4) Turkey kept saying if that al-Bashir was not backed, Sudan would dissolve. Will Sudan dissolve now? If that happens, will the government be accused of that?

5) Did COSCE countries, and Muslims in Africa in particular, buy the excuse “al-Bashir did not attend the meeting due to a hectic program in the country,” or do they think that Turkey might leave someone high and dry?

***

My late grandfather said, “Don’t make promises if you are not there to keep them.”

Double standards usually end up with broken promises!