Ankara appears key to new US foreign policy under Obama, writes Mustafa El-Labbad* President Barack Obama's recent visit to Turkey inaugurated a new chapter in the assignation of roles in the Middle East. It marked a clear recognition of Turkey's political and geographic importance in the region and gave a green light to Ankara's more active engagement in shaping international balances of power. The significance of this should not be lost on us. It marks the beginning of a new strategic partnership between the world's main superpower and a rising regional power, and its effects are certain to be felt for some time to come in that huge geographical arc extending from the southern borders of Russia through the Caucasus, Iran and Iraq, to Syria and the eastern Mediterranean. Although Turkey, whose Western orientation was integral to its rise as a republic, has been a NATO member and US ally for decades, the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 and the rise of an autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq deeply shook the Turkish conviction that the US-Turkish bond had unlimited validity. The US presence in the region had suddenly pulled the rug from under Ankara's feet as proxy, a role that it had performed so well, and to make matters worse the surge of Turkish national ambitions beneath the American umbrella in Iraq threatened to spill over into Turkey and ultimately threaten its territorial integrity. The resolve of the Obama administration to break with the Bush administration's policy has dramatically altered this situation. Washington is now set to withdraw from Iraq and it wants Ankara's logistical and political support. Only in this context can we understand the significance of the Obama visit. In addition to having been elevated to a new special footing with the US as a strategic partner and as the new American president's sole regional forum for addressing the Islamic world in the hope of repairing the American image so drastically damaged by Bush, Ankara has won additional kudos in NATO. In order to attain this higher profile, the Turkish prime minister staged a dramatic and controversial protest in Davos. During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan angrily protested against the Israeli offensive in Gaza and stormed off stage, winning widespread popular acclaim in the Arab and Islamic world, though he later apologised to Israeli President Shimon Peres saying that his outburst was occasioned by the show host's refusal to give him sufficient time to speak. He also objected to the appointment of Denmark's former prime minister during the outcry against the Danish cartoons insulting the Prophet Mohamed as the next NATO secretary-general. Because NATO decisions are taken by unanimous vote, Turkey had to be placated. After it received the post of assistant secretary-general it withdrew its objection. It is possible that this was also a test of the new US administration's intentions towards it in advance of Obama's visit. Ankara has played its cards deftly. Ahmet Davutoglu, chief foreign policy advisor to the Turkish prime minister, performed his part excellently during his recent visit to the US at the time of Obama's European tour. Stressing the common interests that his country has with the US in the region, he clearly and succinctly laid out the advantages Turkey offers to further the realisation of both. In fact, Turkey is an economic and military power that features a political outlook that is certainly attractive to the US at this juncture. However, Turkey's geographical location and its multi-faceted prospects were undoubtedly what clinched Washington's decision to rely on it in the coming phase in order to attain several major objectives. Covering an extensive area from the Caucasus to the westernmost point of Asia, Turkey sits atop two of the most important waterways in the world: the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, linking the Mediterranean with the Black Sea. It simultaneously borders the Balkans to the north and the Levant to the south. Such a springboard for qualitative manoeuvres in so many directions is too good an opportunity for Washington to pass up, especially at this crucial juncture. Through his visit, Obama proved to have presidential qualities of the first order, in the sense that he clearly placed his country's welfare above narrower party concerns or vested interests. So far, it seems that the most accurate description of US foreign policy in the Obama era is that it will realistically strive to promote long- range US interests, using kid gloves and deep strategic alliances. Obama's visit to Turkey took place against the backdrop of the American desire to withdraw from Iraq, reduce its presence in the Middle East and focus more intently on Afghanistan, and, simultaneously, of Turkey's discovery of a new role to play in the region. If indeed Turkey is to move into areas from which the US intends to phase out, this will require very close coordination which, in turn, will require the two sides to come to terms on various issues. On Iraq, the foremost US concern, Turkey has no objection to helping smooth the way for an American withdrawal; however, it will want reassurances that the Kurds will not take over oil-rich Kirkuk which would give renewed impetus to the Kurdish nationalist drive both in Iraq and in Turkey. Giving Turkey a free hand in Kirkuk and preventing that area from becoming an autonomous Kurdish region will most likely be the price Washington will have to pay in order to secure clear roads for withdrawing via northern Iraq. Another way to look at this is that in exchange for Turkey's cooperation, Washington will attempt to alter the final outcome of Bush's war by making Turkey another beneficiary of that war alongside Iran, instead of allowing Iran to emerge as the sole victor. This would have a powerful impact on the regional balance of power between Iran and Turkey. The second area of concern is Syria, which Washington, Ankara, Tel Aviv and the capitals of the "moderate axis" have a commonly shared desire to lure away from its alliance with Tehran in the hope of curtailing Iranian influence in the Levant. With regard to that other emerging regional power -- Iran -- and the part it is aspiring to play in the new regional arrangements, Washington does not necessarily need to rely on Ankara's mediating skills. But it does need Turkey to clip Iran's wings and it is largely for this purpose that Ankara stepped forward to engineer, sponsor and mediate indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations. However, the foremost obstacle on this front will be that the price Syria will demand is Lebanon and this only Washington can deliver. If Turkey and the US are almost in total agreement over how the balance of powers is to be shaped in the Levant, their views diverge somewhat in areas in which Turkish interests intersect with Russia's. While Turkey is not as militarily or economically powerful as Russia, it has a solid alliance with Azerbaijan and strong relations with Georgia. At the same time it is the route through which energy resources pass from the Caspian to Europe, making Turkey, in essence, a counterweight to Russia by freeing Europe from Russia's control over the gas taps. In this connection, it should be noted that Obama's meeting with Dmitri Medvedev in London proved a dismal failure, primarily because Moscow refused to play along with Washington and exert pressure on Tehran over the Iranian nuclear programme in exchange for the dismantlement of the US missile shield in central Europe. Obama, consequently, announced that his administration would press ahead with the deployment of missile systems in the Czech Republic and Poland. Because Turkey's sphere of influence in the Caucasus intersects with Russian influence there, Ankara has been careful to avoid friction with Moscow in that region. However, with the shift of the US-Russian tug-of-war from central Europe to Russia's backyard in the Caucasus, Turkey may be brought in, in the event of escalating tensions, to help contain Russia by blocking its access from the Black Sea to the warmer waters of the Mediterranean. In short, with all its strategic advantages, Turkey is in a position to help Washington achieve a whole gamut of objectives in the far-reaching geopolitical game that is unfolding on that vast board that stretches across the Middle East, Central Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Indeed, Turkey could well become the "joker" that the Obama administration will depend on to trump the US adversaries' cards in the different parts of the board. Although this administration is still in the process of getting the feel of all players, so far it appears that the Turkish card will prove an invaluable and reliable asset. * The writer is director of Al-Sharq Centre for Regional and Strategic Studies.
