THE FORGOTTEN OPTION:TURKISH EURASIANISM

Turkey, which has been making its future plans according to the prospect of the EU membership for 40 years, is now facing the ambiguity of the ?open-endedness,? that has been offered to, or rather imposed on us at this stage of the accession negotiations. What does the EU plan for Turkey, while the Turkish society seems to be completely focused on the EU affairs and our once untouchable and nonnegotiable red lines have gone pink?

Cyprus, which is about to be lost in the same way that Crete was lost, Aegean Sea, which is subject to the schemes aiming at Turkey?s geostrategic eminence in the region, and Greek designs over Istanbul and incessant Armenian demands that have both received the generous support of the EU, are the signposts on the long, narrow and crooked road and warn against the danger awaiting. The EU for which we have greatly compromised our identity and national honor seeks to play an influential role beyond the north-eastern border of Turkey. Whereas we turn our faces to the West, the western countries try to extend their influence to Central Asia which is the fatherland of Turks. This region, which has been central to theories of world supremacy throughout history, is known as Eurasia. The EU?s newly emerged interest in the area is simply based on the existence of abundant energy resources there, but for us, it is the homeland of Turkish states and the nourisher of Turkishness.

Where is Eurasia?

It is possible to answer this question in 10 different ways. Answers vary according to one?s nationality and historical and political convictions; hence remain relative. Our versions of definitions of Eurasia are listed below.

? It is the vast region that encompasses the entire Europe and Asia from Atlantic to Pacific and Lisbon to Vladivostok.
? It is the region stretching towards the west and east of the Ural Mountains.
? It is the region sheltering the Turkish and Slavic peoples (Turkish, Mongolian, Slavic, Hungarian, and Finnish) for centuries.
? And finally, in its narrowest sense, Eurasia can be defined as the region where the Turkish states, in other words the Turkish world, dwell on.

Eurasianism in the Early Twentieth Century

It was a truism in the nineteenth century that the power who commanded the oceans would be much more advantageous than its rivals. From the early twentieth century on, however, with the advancement in the railroads the territorial powers acquired the same degree of mobility as the maritime powers. Within this context, the power that had the potential to command Eurasia territorially would emerge superior to the maritime powers which had to sail miles and travel costly in order to arrive at the point where the land powers reached with much ease through shortcuts offered by the railroad.

Therefore, one of the commonplaces of the early twentieth century was that the state which controlled the heart of Eurasia could also control the entire Europe and Asia -and even Africa to some extent. Although such commonplace had its part in the eruption of the two World Wars, the subsequent advancement of the naval-air forces, such as the US, rendered an extra-region actor the hegemon of this globalizing world. This fact should be seen as the confirmation of what some American strategists suggest ?which is, the control of the centre lays in the power of the peripheral states. However, we can not claim that this rule saying ?who commands the peripheral states commands Eurasia, who commands Eurasia determines the world?s future? applies perfectly. Nevertheless, today it is apparent that the US acts on a strategy based on subordinating the peripheral states of Eurasia with the purpose of preventing Russia from emerging in the region as a global power.

Eurasian Strategies during the Cold War Period

Even after the dissolution of the USSR, the strategic assessments concerning Eurasia ?no different than those pertaining to the Cold War era- focus on hindering in the region the supremacy of Russia which is today world?s second biggest nuclear power and hence the Russian attempts at becoming once again a world power. For this particular reason, the US demonstrates much interest in the Turkic countries and deploys forces there. It seeks to both stop the spreading of the Russian influence through Eurasia and protect China from Russia. The nuclear assets of China, which is considered as an eminent nuclear power, do not, in fact, exceed the capacity stored in a Trident-type submarine of the US. Therefore, against the common point of view, it is not likely in the future that China will challenge the US?s global power. Furthermore, the scarcity of its energy and uranium resources setbacks the Chinese development. As China proceeds towards the end of its development strategy, its oil demand increases considerably. All in all, it can be argued that the US, in order to pursue further its Greater Middle East Project, counterbalance Russia and safeguard its abundant investments in China, seeks to settle down in Eurasia. Meanwhile, the pretext that China needs American support in the region serves conveniently this design of the US.

?Eurasian Balkans?: Where the empires of the past encountered

Over the past fifty years, the role to be played by Eurasia in the world-supremacy plans have been assessed by taking into consideration the developments on the three fronts, namely Europe, Neareast and Fareast. Recently, into these three fronts are included Turkey-Caucasia and Central Asian Turkish Republics, which are together called by Brezezinski the ?Eurasian Balkans.? This new front, with its unique underground richness and oil resources, has an immense geostrategic value.

Eurasia has a central place not only in the formation of Turkish identity but also in the Russian designs of supremacy. Under the strategic guidance of his consultant Alexander Dugin, the Russian President Vladimir Putin has been forcing Turkey out of any plans concerning the future of Eurasia, which is in fact inherently Turkish. The motive behind such exclusive attitude could possibly be explained by Russia?s urge to be cautious towards the Turkic Republics in the region and their potential to be one day powerful and unified. On this account, Russia has been following the Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Tehran-Tokyo axis in shaping its Eurasian policy. Nevertheless, Putin?s latest visit to Turkey and his offer of cooperation and friendly advice not to be so much caught up with the EU affairs could be understood as a sign that Russia may put an end to its attempts to exclude Turkey from Eurasia. Also, Dugin?s latest visits to Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the speeches that he delivered there signal a change of heart in the Eurasian policies of Russia and thus underpin our argument. Dugin highlights the vast possibilities of cooperation ranging from economic to strategic ?even in Eurasia.

Dugin?s theory of Eurasianism bears much resemblance with the Soviet Imperialism of the past. First and foremost, it is essentially anti-Americanist. The Putin administration, which has been seeking ways to increase even further its influence in the Central Asia through a kind of neo-imperialism, is also active in the region by means of successful organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Commonwealth of Independent States. Thus Russia enhances its regional existence by strong bonds of economy, culture and politics. However, Putin who envisages challenging America?s design of world supremacy through Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Tehran-Tokyo axis in accordance with Dugin?s viewpoint, has chosen to neglect the Turkishness embedded in the characteristics of the region. Implication of this express negligence as a policy in Eurasia will soon weaken Russia in the region where the Turkish elements are predominant and will eventually facilitate the entrance of the US into Eurasia as an extra-regional but omnipotent actor. Still, Putin?s visit to Turkey indicates that a change in this attitude is on the horizon.

The Theories based on the Turkish-Slavic Unification

There is another theory based on a Turkish-Slav Unification proposed by Bagramof, which is more realistic than Dugin?s theory of Eurasianism. This theory suggests the restoration of the rights of Turkish Muslim minorities and Altınordu in the region.

Within this approach, as orientalist Alexander Kadirbayev emphasized, the ideal of stronger Eurasia lays in the unification of Turkish and Slavic peoples. According to Kadirbayev, ?Eurasianism is grounded on the steppe and forest, in other words on the unification of the Turkish and Slavic peoples. Expansionism, crossing borders and foundation of mighty states are all results of the steppe culture. This is how the Turkish character was formed. The consciousness of coming from Turan and partaking in Turkish Union has prevented the assimilation of the Turks.? In compliance with the maxim saying ?what makes the Eurasian continent is not the geographical union but the cultural one,? extra-regional actors such as the US and Germany, which is encouraged by Russia to be active in this region, are incompatible with this nature of the region. Therefore, designs built on the existence of the outsiders are not realistic. As Kadirbayev held, the Soviet imperialism rose on the harmonious co-existence of the Turkish and Slavic cultures. The most important determinant of the Eurasian culture is, however, the Turan (Turkish) element. Still, the third continent situated between Europe (West) and Asia (East), namely Eurasia, stands on the harmony of its Turkish-Muslim and Russian components. The first is represented by Turkey, whereas the latter by Russia. Both countries built empires in the region and had a say in the shaping of Eurasia?s future.

US?s Quest for Supremacy in Eurasia

Against this background, it would not be wrong to suggest that the American endeavors such as the Greater Middle East Project and North African Project are indeed the tools of an American Eurasianism. Today, consequent to a shift in its rationale, the US seems to ground its strategies in the notion of ?land power? and thus aims to extend its support, through land forces deployed in Eurasia, to the Anglo-Saxon naval civilization, which is in fact greatly under American control. The invasion of Afghanistan, acquisition of military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, obtaining of military permit for passage to Central Asian Republics could be perceived as the unfolding of the Eurasianism as Brezezinski prescribed. Next steps in this American version of Eurasianism will probably be Iran and Syria. Despite Russian resistance, American supremacy in Caucasus, which has started in Georgia, could continue growing.

The confirmation of the Eurasianist theories -in terms of territorial superiority and power- could be seen in the fact that the civilizations, which advanced to greatness in the region, built long lasted empires. Roman, Great Alexander?s Macedon, Genghis Khan?s Mongolian, Persian, Russian, Turkish Seljukid and Ottoman Empires can all be shown as an example to this. Therefore who commanded this heartland commanded not only Eurasia but also the entire world and thus became a super power.

Fully aware of this historical fact, the US aims to keep the peripheral states of Eurasia under its influence and prevent Russia from acquiring global power once again. Within this context, by manipulating the peripheral states such as Korea and the Philippines in the Fareast and Germany and Poland in Europe, the US strives to hinder Russia?s dominance over Eurasia.

Extended Eurasianism - New Eurasianism

Given the varying perceptions of Eurasianism and the diversity of its peoples, though after considerable hardship, it is likely that a new concept of cooperation depending on multipolarism will emerge. Today, it could be possible for Turkey, Iran, the Turkic Republics, Ukraine, Russia, China and even Japan to unite around a certain Eurasianism defined in terms of politics and economics. However, as a realistic Eurasianism requires geographical and cultural unity and the above mentioned countries lack such unity, especially with respect to their cultural identities, their version of Eurasianism does not seem to be a viable option.

Another view, which is similar to the one recently acknowledged in Russia as ?Neo Eurasianism? claims that ?At the heart of Eurasianism could only be Turks.? As this view goes, ?Russia could partake in Eurasianist designs only under the condition that it recognizes the Turkish-Muslim reality and acts accordingly. This principle does not divide Russia, but unifies it instead.? The Russian intellectuals, who argue for this ideal, desire religion to be important, while they at the same time pursue a secular Eurasianism.

If Iran comes to a secular line, it will be a realistic approach to include it into this Eurasianism and it is important to mention that Iran is a country where, in fact, the peoples of Turkish origin founded empires and states until 1924. Although the Eurasianist tendency that exists among Turks and Slavs do not exist among the Persians, the presence of the Turkish element in that country?s demographic profile could lead to such a development.

However, such Eurasianism encounters fierce opposition from the mainstream political groups in Russia and the pro-Atlantic and -European Union groups in Turkey. Additionally, in Russia the views similar to those of Dugin in their anti-imperialist approach and to those of Putin in their quest for making Russia a global power may overshadow this Eurasianist argument.

Nevertheless, in the pursuit of Eurasianism in the region Turkey should be cautious of the manipulative attempts of both the US and Russia, as Eurasianism requires cooperation and in the disguise of cooperation there may come subordination.

A realistic Eurasianism should not be dominated by one power, cause religious conflicts and antagonize the peoples of the region. Besides, not being against any state, alliance and ideology will increase the chances of this Eurasianism to be successful. This ideology can succeed on its own terms. Meanwhile, it will also be realistic to form a Turkish-Eurasianist integration as well.

If Neo-Eurasianist doctrine presupposes a Turkish-Slavic Union, by allying with Turkish Eurasianists, Russians could remain influential in the east of the Ural Mountains where the Turkish peoples are predominant. The world?s one of the greatest energy resources in this region encompassing the Caspian region, Tataristan and Siberia indicate that economic cooperation within Eurasianism, which could lead to the emergence of modern welfare states, is a very profitable prospect. Because Russia is not recently very successful in building solid alliances on its own and feels the potential threat of the American oil companies that are active in the region, it should seriously take into consideration the Eurasianist option requiring a Turkish-Slavic Union. In the near future, Russia might experience a second dissolution. In order to prevent this, it should cease seeking eminence through the hallow Eurasianism of the Tsarist era.

Turkish Interpretation of Eurasianism

If Russians choose to neglect completely the prospects of cooperation with Turkish, then Turks should not hesitate to concentrate on Turkish Eurasianism and help it flourish in the Turkish world.

Whereas Slavs are the majority in the west of the Ural Mountains, they seem to be outnumbered by the Turks and semi-Slavic and Mongolian peoples in the east. This situation, hinting a perfect geographic and cultural integrity in Turan, offers a fine starting-point for Turkish Eurasianism.

Of course, certain hardships today hinder the further enhancement of Turkish Eurasianism. From Dugin?s point of view particularly, Turkey, which has been on the opposing front of Russia, gave up on its imperial pursuits subsequent to its transformation to a nation-state. It has now an overtly pro-Atlantic stance. According to this viewpoint, Turkey and Russia, two rival powers, will remain in constant clash in the region and Turkey could build relationships with the Turkic states only in the degree that Russia allows. Furthermore, Russian statesmen living in the nostalgia of the Soviet days will always stand in the way of a real cooperation with Turkey. Yet, another obstacle to the Turkish Eurasianism is evidently the US.

At the outset, American version of Eurasianism and, as its extension, the Greater Middle East Project aimed at the limitless access to the natural resources of the Central Asia by the help of a friendly Turkey and pacified Iran. All was, in fact, in compliance with Brezezinski?s Eurasianism. Nevertheless, the US presently requires no help to enter the region, as it stands powerful at the heartland of Eurasia thorough its military bases in Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan as well as its military presence in Iraq. On this account, it is questionable to what extent the US will need a potentially rival Turkey in the region or whether it will permit Turkey to be active in Eurasia.

In line with the current trends of Eurasianism and consequent to the US-Russian alliance, the US has enabled Russia to dominate the Turkish geostrategic zone which was once safeguarded by the US to serve the Turkish interests. This fact reveals that it is imperative for Turkey to dwell on an Eurasianism designed solely for the Turkish world.

Once pursued, such Eurasianism would provide Turkey with many considerable benefits. Turkey could, above all, bridge between the Central Asian Republics and EU and skillfully manage an energy network spread all through both continents. In comparison with the EU, Turkey is vastly more advantageous an actor in the region given its geographical, ethnical and cultural proximity to the Central Asian states. It would not be wrong to suggest that at the summit of December 17, 2004 the EU did not completely rule out the possibility of Turkey?s accession in spite of the fact that the materialization of this possibility will make Turkey the biggest member state, because Turkish Eurasianism is likely to result in a very profitable union from which the EU would not want to be excluded.

In the future, Turkey should, on one hand, preserve its national borders and unitary structure and, on the other hand, summon the Turks, Persians, Uzbeks, Azerbaijanis, Kyrgyzs, Kazaks and Turcomans under a geographical unity. It is Turkey?s historical mission to grow from a regional to a semi-global power by means of first economic cooperation and then political integration.

Turkey?s most helpful tools in its quest for greatness are its geostrategic advantages in the areas where oil pipelines are being constructed as well as its military power and human resources fortified by technological training. Its commitment to democracy is also another asset that would bring along the leadership that Turkey aspires to.

Turkish Eurasianism envisages advancement towards a full integration between Turkey and Azerbaijan. ?One nation, two states? is a motto shared by both countries. However, not hiding their discontent with the prospect of such rapprochement, Russia and Iran seek ways to prevent any integration between these two major Turkish states of the region. Their support to Armenia and opposition to Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline should be understood within this context. Russia, which aims to subordinate Azerbaijan, and Iran, which pursues very cautious policies towards 30 million Azerbaijani Turks within its borders, both desire to pacify Azerbaijan by the help of Armenia and obstruct the communication and cooperation within the Turkish world.

Resistance against the EU?s interference with Turkish Eurasianism

Another step to be taken within Turkish Eurasianism is to reinvigorate the Economical Cooperation Organization (ECO). This organization has the potential to be the motor that will inactivate an enhanced industrial, commercial and cultural integrity amongst Turkey, Azerbaijan, the Turkish Republics of Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, our commitment to the EU acquis does not allow enhancing further the current integration with these countries. When Turkey entered the Customs Union, the EU promised full membership in return. Subsequent to Turkey?s entrance to the Customs Union, most of our small and medium scale enterprises could not compete and bankrupted in the end. Our importation from the EU member states has constantly increased over the past 11 years and finally reached to the amount of 28 billion dollars this year. Our current trade deficit amounts to 5,8 billion dollars. Among the countries to which the EU exports most, Turkey ranks sixth. It is now time to say no to the Customs Union, which has virtually made our country an open market for the EU, curtailed the progress of our relationship with Turkish world and simply enslaved us. If the open-ended negotiations with the EU mean to leave Turkey in a vast ambiguity and uncertainty for a period of 10 to 15 years, then we should freeze commitments to the Customs Union until a final date for accession has been set. We therefore demand the right to trade freely again with the neighboring and brethren countries in our region. It is vital and urgent for Turkey to put an end to the unfair and asymmetric relation with the EU and take a stand against its impositions and assertions which should in fact remind us of the historical phenomena ?the Capitulations!