Turkey under fire as it breaks away from past

Turkey is, admittedly, not a country with a particularly glorious political past. It has reached its present state under the ever-present threat of coups, military trusteeships and memoranda.
Like many other countries, it was under Western supervision. Mossad was able to have people detained in Turkey, and Turkish intelligence was capable of openly backing coups. The CIA had a hand in determining Turkish foreign, as well as domestic policies; Turkish intelligence always acted accordingly.
In the words of the Turkish writer Nasuhi Güngör, intelligence activity was based more on dependence than sense. Another Turkish writer and analyst, Mahir Kaynak described, this as, “An intelligence world dominated by relations based around family and friends or that reflected all the weaknesses of the political administration and the insecurity that followed in its wake.” That was the position of Turkish governments and the Turkish Intelligence Agency (MIT) until very recently.
Then things changed in Turkey. Shortly after the AKP administration took power, the “dependent” country began becoming independent. It began jettisoning internal dependencies as well as external ones. Turkey began growing once it escaped the dependence — as foreseen by the Constitution — on military trusteeship, coups and a terror organization established within the state. It was now both strong and independent.
MIT, which had once been the monopoly of various intelligence units, was also part of this change. The appointment of Hakan Fidan as the chief of the MIT was the beginning of this change in the MIT. With an emphasis on an agreement with the PKK and Erdogan’s explicit expression of confidence in the young undersecretary, all eyes turned toward Fidan. A powerful Turkey and an independent intelligence apparatus set alarm bells ringing in certain circles. For that reason, the agenda of the last two weeks was shaped by reports appearing in two US dailies, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. MIT chief Hakan Fidan was targeted in those reports. Accusations were made by some of the neo-conservatives who had long been uneasy over Turkey’s independent policies. Everyone naturally realized that the target here was Erdogan, who had stopped regarding the West as a patron and who was constantly criticized for his policy toward Israel; but we also need to see that the accusations also target US President Barack Obama. Following all this, a recent report prepared by former diplomats and neo-conservatives from the US Bipartisan Policy Center titled “From Rhetoric to Reality-Reframing US Turkey Policy,” came to the fore. The report is critical of Obama’s policies toward Turkey. With regards to the criticism of Hakan Fidan, the idea of Mossad under surveillance by the MIT and the fact this was complained about to the American media a year later, was no happy thought as far as Israel is concerned, and understandably so; both Israel and the USA are well aware that such a report will do no good for either country, while for Turkey, MIT’s prestige will go through the roof. Hence, last week, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor said, “It does not serve any Israeli purpose; the objective could make things more difficult between Turkey and Israel.” It would therefore be wrong to evaluate such a report at the government level.
Turkey has been accused of supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria. To suggest that a Turkish government that enjoys good relations with Iran also supports Al-Qaeda, its diametric opposite, undermines the credibility of the allegations. Could it be that those groups that have for long been uneasy over Turkey were unable to find a better pretext? Could it be that they are looking for a chink in the armor through which to depict Turkey as growing weaker in the Middle East?
Let us add a small footnote here; Prime Minister Erdogan denounced Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization in an address on Oct. 2, 2013, as did Foreign Minister Davutoglu on Oct. 9. On Oct. 15, the Turkish General Staff issued a statement that it had bombed Al-Qaeda positions in Syria. Perhaps Turkey should have said from the outset that in opposing Assad, it is also against radicals such as Al-Qaeda, as it is doing now. And some brief notes about Hakan Fidan for those who do not know: Fidan has a unifying mindset rather than a divisive one. He is a civil servant who seeks great and powerful friendships, rather than setting countries against one another or making enemies. If anyone seeks to use Fidan to damage Erdogan’s prestige, they have chosen the wrong person for that is the point at which they lose all credibility.
As for Turkey, the neo-conservatives in question need not worry. No great war of the kind they anticipate awaits the Middle East. Turkey is still their friend, not a threat or a naughty boy. Turkey has not turned its back on the West and Turkey’s Middle East policy certainly does not mean abandoning the West.

• The writer is a commentator on Turkish TV and a columnist.