The distance between Cairo's Tahrir Square and Istanbul's Taksim Square is large. There can be no roadmap sufficient to using popular experience of the first in order to explicate the circumstances of the second. Many have tried to insist on the similarities between the two since it is fashionable these days to link newsworthy events, however worlds apart. Following the popular revolt that gripped Egypt in early 2011, dubbed with the ever-inclusive title “the Arab Spring”, intellectual jugglers began envisaging “springs” popping up all over the region and beyond. In recent weeks, when protesters took to the streets of several Turkish cities, comparisons ensued once again. Intellectual opportunism, however, is not a distinct phenomenon but a reflection of a wider Western conception of political opportunism. Once the “Arab Spring” was recognised as an opportunity of sorts, the US, Britain and France were quick to capitalise on it, either to politically reshape the Middle East region or to ensure that the outcome of the revolutionary fervour was to their liking. While Arab dictators brutalised mostly peaceful protesters, wars, in the full sense of the word, didn't actualise until the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries began meddling. In Libya, they guided an uprising with a limited armed component to a full-fledged war that resulted in the death, wounding and disappearance of thousands. The war in Libya changed the very demographic landscape of parts of the country. Entire communities have been ethnically cleansed. Benghazi, whose fate British Prime Minister David Cameron seemed particularly worried about, is now savaged by numerous militias vying for influence. Following recent clashes in the city, the interim head of the Libyan army, Salem Konidi, warned on state television on 15 June of a “bloodbath”. But this time, such a warning barely registered on NATO's radar. While selective “humanitarian intervention” is a well-known Western political style, the recent protests in Turkey demonstrate that Western countries' appetite to exploit any country's misfortunes to its advantage is insatiable. The Turkish government, however, has itself to blame for providing such an opportunity in the first place. When confronted with the Middle East high-stakes political game resulting from the violent upheaval in the last two years or so, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, hesitant at first, adopted a political style that was consistent with NATO's, of which Turkey is a member. For nearly a decade, Turkey had angled for a different role in the Arab and Muslim worlds, a choice that was compelled by the European Union's refusal to grant Turkey a membership. Germany and France led the crusade against Turkey's determined efforts to join the growing union. As the bloodletting reached Syria, the so-called Arab Spring posed a threat to Turkey's own southern regions and thus forced a hurried Turkish policy realignment, back to the very Western camp that precluded Turkey for so long. It was a peculiar position in which Turkey placed itself, posing as a champion of “awakened” Arabs, yet operating with the traditional NATO paradigm, itself grounded in interventionist agendas. The inconsistencies of Turkish policies are palpable and growing: as it settled its dispute with Israel over the latter's murder of nine Turkish activists on their way to Gaza in May 2010, it was hosting top Hamas leaders for high level talks. It is facilitating the work of Syrian opposition that are operating both politically and militarily from Turkish territories, while warning against any plots to destabilise Turkey. At the same time it is paying little heed to the sovereignty of northern Iraq, as it chased after its own armed opposition in the war-torn Arab country for years. Turkish behaviour was ignored, justified or sanctioned by Western powers as long as Ankara did so in tandem with the existing NATO policies. European countries, however, become particularly charged if Turkey steps over its boundaries, as was the case during the Turkish-Israeli dispute. And it appears that no matter how hard Turkish leaders try to impress, they will always fall short of fulfilling Europe's selective definition of democracy, human rights and other useful concepts. NATO's hypocrisy, even among its own members, is too obvious. Compare, for example, European responses to the police crackdown on the Occupy Wall Street movement protests starting 17 September 2011 and the massive campaign of arrests, beatings and humiliation of protesters. It turned out that both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security monitored the movement jointly through their terrorism task forces. This is what Naomi Wolf revealed in The Guardian newspaper on 29 December 2012. Where was the outcry by the US's European allies over such unwarranted practices including the most recent scandal of the US National Security Agency (NSA) spying on millions of people using social media and Internet technology in the name of trying to catch terrorists? Such practices have become so routine that they rarely compel outrage or serious calls for accountability, aside from such inane concerns as Bloomberg Business Week headlines: “Spying for the NSA is Bad for US Business.” While Arab nations are the most affected parties by the wars and upheavals that have destabilised the region, destroyed Syria and threaten the future of entire generations, they seem to stand as cheerleaders on the sidelines as David Cameron, François Hollande of France and Barack Obama, among others, illustrate the path by which Syria's future is determined, in ways consistent with their interests, and of course, that of Israel's “security”. But the response of some EU leaders to the anti-government protests in Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir in recent weeks was most sobering. Even Prime Minister Erdogan's best efforts are simply not enough to sway Europe from capitalising on Turkey's misfortunes. German Chancellor Angela Merkel quickly took a stance to block “moves to open a new chapter in Ankara's EU membership talks”, reported Reuters 20 June, supposedly because of her concern regarding the Turkish police crackdown on protesters. Of course, the chancellor is often forgiving when extreme violence is applied by Israel against Palestinians, since no political capital can be attained from such unwise moves. Meanwhile, Western powers will continue to play a most detrimental role in the Middle East, engendering and exploiting further chaos with the help of various regional powers, in the most brazen of ways in order to serve their interests. Not even Turkey, despite proving an irreplaceable asset in NATO's political and military drive, is invulnerable. Perhaps, Europe's double face will compel a rethink among Turkey's political circles as they calculate their next move. Will Turkey end its role as an outlet for NATO's policies in the Middle East? This is a question that Turkey must address before they too are engulfed by endless turmoil and inundated by Western intervention, the results of which are always lethal. Always.
