'New Middle East'

MUMTAZER TURKONE
08.03.2006 Thursday - ISTANBUL 17:00

United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says it is time for a new Middle East. If we recall that the current Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Palestine were planned a year ago by former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, one can see a the emergence of a new phase.

“The new Middle East” refers to redefining the Middle East geography. It has been a long time since Sykes-Picot was signed during World War I. It is not difficult to redraw a meaningless political geography. “Great Middle East,” Greater Middle East,” and now “The new Middle East” show attention focused on meticulously-prepared plans on the region. Outrage to brutal Israeli attacks against civilians prevents many from seeing this hidden plan.

Rice adds that a lasting solution will be one that will strengthen peace initiatives and democracy. This jargon, as seen with Iraq that would more than match the Soviet propagandas of the past, that democracy, peace, and freedom meant just the opposite. We should realize once more peace means a bloody war, and democracy means political instability and chaos. Newt Gingrich supported the US rhetoric saying it is possible during the clash of civilizations to win an absolute victory through a brave and sound focus (The Guardian, July 20, 2006). Israel did not start the attacks to save the abducted soldiers. Plans made last year were implemented because the time was right. A miniscule detail: When a country starts a rampage because its soldiers were abducted, who can claim “no one was abducted.”

Then, what is the plan?

Rice implied “reframing the political geography.” A deep-rooted polarization axis is being built up in the Middle East. Shiite Iran, Iran-backed Syria, and Shiite Hezbollah will be on one side and Sunni monarchies the other side. It is strange that Shiite Iraqis are not included in this equation. First, Lebanese state will be wiped off the map. The initial political composition of the Middle East was set to allow for permanent interventions, and every corner of the region was infused with problems. This geography, an area for high stakes diplomatic games, far from peace, and face war whenever a problem occurs. Today, those who are drawing the existing map are being exploited by the US.

Are they exploited correctly? Are US calculations right?

The US government is having difficulties in persuading its taxpayers. Excessive use of force and its repercussions, escalating terror, benefit no one but Israel, which is accustomed to living under these conditions. The US cannot achieve its long-term goals under these conditions set up by itself. From World War II on, with rising US power, one will see that imprudence not wisdom has ruled. Dynamics of history cannot be completely controlled, and the self-appointed architects of the future are doomed to failure. The US desires to control the Middle East, especially oil-rich areas and crossroads, permanently. Permanence cannot be attained by brute strength and establishing a fragile equilibrium relying on this brute strength. May it be that the US is about to face a rude awakening more serious than Vietnam? An answer to this question may be found by putting the US in place of Britain in the 19th century. Except this time the US is not acting wisely and conditions are less favorable...

Turkey is involved in a war that has already commenced and is expected to last. We do not enjoy the luxury of being an onlooker to a fire so close. Volitionally or not, we must have an active role in this war. We are a part of this war. The new Middle East geography includes Turkey as well.

At the outset, we have to achieve two goals. First, we should eliminate the “PKK problem as being apolitical for others,” The solution is to ease the “Kurdish problem” through internal dynamics, and cut its links to terror. Second, to overcome “security-democracy” paradox empowering a democracy that is able to fight a war. Turkey could defend itself by solving its internal problems, and using tools of democracy. The goal is to become a country that could guarantee security of its people under democratic regime, intervene in regional problems as a democratic state.

In “the new Middle East” geography a potential briar patch, our greatest power lies in a democracy able to fight a war.