It seems that in certain circles have started a new "axis shift" discussion concerning Turkey"s standpoint in its participation in the new US-led coalition against ISIL.
In the Wall Street Journal, or WSJ, there was an article, which was the most explicit in expressing this idea. The journal, which writes that Turkey is no longer a partner of the US in struggling against ISIL on an international ground, argues that Turkey abandoned its alliance with the US and its friendly gestures with the west a long time ago, even though it is still a NATO member.
First, we actually may say that the Wall Street Journal on a major scale reflected its own expectations of Turkey or the relationships of the US with Turkey. In many previous uprisings, the same journal showed a similar aloof attitude towards the current policies of Turkey. Moreover, it strived to take advantage of the axis discussion in Turkey in order to impose its own policy but as it happens in our media, the WSJ constantly failed to comprehend the facts.
For one thing, due to the recent diplomatic contacts which developed because of ISIL, the relationships between the US and Turkey have been improving much better through a positive dialogue even more than assumed. The unusual thing or what some people may have a hard time understanding is that in these negotiations the arguments of Turkey are majorly accepted. To be more explicit, Turkey"s admonitions are being taken into account seriously concerning the nature and the consequences of the struggle that is going to be pursued.
Turkey is not taking and imitating a kind of program without questioning and analyzing it; the program is diagnosed and determined across the Atlantic. Apart from everything, Turkey finds and points out the deficiencies in the diagnosis and the measures to be taken for precaution and hence contributes to the content of the struggle that is going to be pursued. There are circumstances which make the hands of Turkey stronger. First, the US is still paying for the price of one-sided assessments of threat from the time of the Bush administration, which implemented them without ever consulting with the allies, declaring their decisions in a manner of stubbornness such as "either you are with us or them".
On the other hand, all of the recent developments including the phenomenon of ISIL, are kind of incidents which Turkey had admonished about a long time ago and invoked taking precautions.
Speaking from a wider spectrum, Turkey anticipated and pointed out the problem with Assad in Syria and Maliki in Iraq, Sisi in Egypt and the arbitrary implementations of Israel against Palestine, its slaughters, settling behavior as the fundamental reasons in the Middle East for instability; the source of anger and violence.
Perhaps the American allies are not in the position to pay attention to Turkey for the cases of Israel and Egypt. However, especially the incidents taking place in Iraq and Syria are confirming the accuracy of Turkey"s policy and arguments. In addition, this situation will give Turkey more space and right to speak in the new term concerning the future policies that are going to be executed.
As a matter of fact, this might be bad news for the WSJ and other sources: both President Erdogan"s 85-minute private negotiation with Obama in Wales and the negotiations during the US defense and foreign ministers" trips to Turkey do not paint any picture for us that can be interpreted as Turkey keeping a distance from the US.
Of course, it is our hope that our arguments concerning the issues will be delivered to the US side and that they will be taken seriously. As a matter of fact, the most significant problem of the US since the occupation of Iraq has been the making of a unilateral diagnosis of the issues in the Middle East and againunilaterally imposing the measures to be taken for precaution.
This situation in the region is leading to unrest and drawing the US into an economic and political instability, which it still couldn"t get rid of.
On account of this perspective, which the WSJ along with the other affiliated sources are forming, and the aggressive policies, which they promoted, based on these kinds of suggestions accordingly, the US tried to bring democracy to Iraq but as a result could not bring democracy or stability there.
Despite all of this, we bump into analyses, which relate the need for democratization of the Islamic world on account of the occurrence of organizations such as ISIL. Unfortunately, the violence pornography of ISIL is obscuring and trivializing or even loitering things related to Islam.
Ironically speaking, there are some authors who relate the phenomenon of ISIL to the extreme and untimely freedom in the Islamic world. Chronologically speaking, since such approaches appeared after "democracy was brought" to Iraq, just as the US administration told its own people, it turns out that there are those in the market who can easily buy the argument of Neo-orientalism; that the Islamic world is not ready for democracy nor deserving it.
If we place the Arab spring into the same timeline, the same impression can be reproduced. After all, all these waves of violence and terror were stirred only after the Arabic spring developed as an incident towards democracy.
On the other hand, ISIS and other waves of violence occur because the waves of democracy coming from the deep bottom of the Arab world are obstructed, and that they are overlooked by the West. Having said that, it should be noted that the coup in Egypt overthrew an elected government, killed 3000 people in cold blood in only one day, imprisoned journalists and is keeping 40,000 people in dungeons for arbitrary reasons. However, the Muslim Brotherhood organization, which did not have any demand other than democracy, freedom and justice, did not attempt any act of violence until now.
By overlooking this fact, relating organizations such as ISIL to the need of democracy in the Islamic world is nothing but rewarding structures like ISIL.
