The relationship between Europe and Turkey has a long history, and it is not a happy history. While Europe outwardly reviles racism and “hate speech,” Europe inwardly seethes with ethnic prejudice. In fact, some Europeans hate the Turks. Four years ago, at answers.yahoo.com, a British woman wondered what the Greek attitude toward Turkey was. The “best” answer (chosen by vote) was from a Greek national who savagely berated the woman for daring to classify Greek hatred of Turks as racism. “Spare me the anti-racism,” he wrote. “Personally I don’t hide my hostility toward the Turks…. Racism has nothing to do with it…. The Turks have not lived in peace with anyone for too long.” A Greek woman commented on the thread, “Being Greek, my entire family has always had a grudge against Turks.” While this same thread contains comments on the admirable qualities of Turkish people, the legacy of Turkish power has led many Greeks, Armenians and Kurds to hate the Turks. At the same time, some observers would say that the treatment of Turkey by the European states has not been entirely fair. After all, is Turkey part of Europe or not? The European hesitates, stops short. He says he values Turkey, but acts otherwise. The deeper significance of Europe’s hesitation cannot have been lost on the Turkish people.
Globalization is supposedly a homogenizing process. Economic interests will bind the various nations together in a new global market-place, with the international division of labor supplying greater benefits for all. Gradually, through decades of growing prosperity, old ethnic hatreds will die. At least, that is the theory. In practice, ethnic hatreds persist. And the unhappy history goes something like this: More than half a millennium ago the Turks destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire, which was actually Greek. The fall of Constantinople was accomplished in 1453. The European powers were unwilling or unable to save the beleaguered city, and the Turks subsequently pressed deep into Europe, conquering the Balkans. In 1526 Hungary was defeated, with Turkish armies threatening Vienna. Some accounts claim that the Turks took a million Hungarian captives, thereafter flooding the slave markets of the Middle East. In those days Martin Luther called the Turks “the people of the wrath of God.” In A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue by Francis Grose, the Turk is defined as cruel and hardhearted. Prejudice against Turks has persisted, and so has military conflict – which flared up between Greeks and Turks over Cypress during the 1970s. And if the peace between Greece and Turkey has been uneasy, despite the fact that both are allies under NATO, imagine what will happen when they have something more tangible to fight over.
An oil field containing roughly two billion barrels has been discovered in the east Mediterranean, along with huge deposits of natural gas. Most of the gas lies beneath the coastal waters of Israel and Cyprus. This is problematic because Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus, and nearby Lebanon does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. How can a proper resource boundary be drawn in this case? The Island of Cyprus itself is divided between Greek and Turkish sections. To make matters worse, Turkey’s relations with Israel have deteriorated. Last year the Israelis boarded the so-called “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” which was attempting to break through an Israeli blockade. Activists aboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara attempted to resist the Israelis with iron bars and knives. Israeli forces opened fire, killing nine. (On the Israeli side, ten commandos were wounded.) As a result of this incident, Turkey suspended military ties with Israel, ordering the expulsion of Israeli diplomats. Turkey’s prime minister has since warned that Turkish warships will be stepping up their activity in the eastern Mediterranean.
The Israelis previously enjoyed good relations with Turkey, and hoped to repair the damage to the relationship. But this doesn’t seem likely now. Logically, the Israelis are compelled to align themselves with Greece. Meanwhile, Turkey is moving further into the Islamic camp, with the secularizing role of the Turkish military less and less in evidence. This is grim news for Israeli strategists because Turkey is militarily strong. If Turkey were to back an Arab alliance in a future war with Israel, the Israelis could find themselves in trouble.
All of these developments place the NATO alliance in an awkward position. Turkey is an extremely important country for NATO because it is Russia’s natural enemy (while Russia has been Europe’s natural enemy). If Turkey breaks away from NATO, serious complications arise. Previously unthinkable diplomatic and military combinations become possible. As the ancient defender of Balkan Christianity against the Turks, Russia could find an opening by which to escape from its semi-pariah status in Europe. At the same time, the United States would have to navigate a diplomatic mine field. Think of the absurdity of present U.S. policy in this event. Today the United States supports the Arab Spring, Israel, and its Greek and Turkish allies. If peace cannot be maintained between these parties, and arbitration fails, what side would the United States take?
A New York Times headline of September 18 reads as follows: “Turkey Predicts Alliance With Egypt….” Written by Anthony Shadid, the article refers to a “newly assertive Turkey” and a “starkly realigned Middle East.” Turkish politicians and diplomats are calling for the creation of a Palestinian state. They threaten Northern Iraq with renewed military incursions. “American influence in the Middle East seems to be diminishing,” writes Shadid. Turkey sees new possibilities in Egypt, especially as the Cold War regimes of the old dispensation give way to new regimes. Russia and America are both losing influence. Did anyone note the “day of rage” held by protestors in Syria? It was a “day of rage” aimed at Russia.
While final victory in Afghanistan eludes American policymakers (and Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons) the Turks are coming into their own. If Otto von Bismark could advise the Turks from his grave, he might suggest a little war if only to consolidate their new leadership position in the Muslim world. It would be a small war, perhaps, in the eastern Mediterranean. Given the sophistication they have shown thus far, and the distracted state of Europe and America, the Turks might achieve a diplomatic victory with a very little fighting (and the right kind of publicity). It would be, in fact, an instance of self-affirmation rather than military aggression. Yet, the creation of a new bloc opens the possibility of future aggression, only on a vast scale – whether in pursuit of untapped energy reserves in the eastern Mediterranean or in support of religious compatriots in Europe.
