Turkey's Foreign Policy, the Kirghiz-Tajik Conflict, and the Armenian Genocide

https://armenianweekly.com/2021/02/17/turkeys-pivot-in-central-asia-a-calculated-risk/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/24/us-formally-recognized-armenian-genocide-why-now-century-later/

Under Erdogan's leadership the Turkish state has shifted from being a Western-oriented and zealous member of NATO to a position often described as Neo-Ottomanism. Related to the Byzantine heritage, Neo-Ottomanism seeks to straddle the East-West divide and utilise its central geographic position as a means economic and geopolitical leverage. Instead of embracing the secularist nationalism of Kemalism, Erdogan has sought to rekindle the Islamic identity of the Ottomans.

This has led to considerable confusion in the West as any variety of political Islam is often quickly confused with Salafism, radical Islam, and the attempt to re-establish the caliphate. That's not what Erdogan has been trying to do. Instead he is attempting to triangulate between the two main forces in the Middle Eastern Cold War – the Wahhabi House of Saud and the Shiite Ayatollahs governing Iran. Erdogan has instead posited a conservative and yet fully modern form of Islam that has appealed to large numbers within Turkey and some Muslims in the wider region.

In theory Neo-Ottomanism turns Turkey away from the nationalist ultra-Turkism of Mustapha Kemal and the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1923. And yet, he has also embraced Pan-Turkism which was a unifying force within Eurasia and being utilised by NATO-allied Turkey long before Erdogan and the AKP came into power. While Erdogan has in some respects moved away from it – it's also clear that he finds it a convenient vehicle for projecting Turkish power especially within the larger Eurasian theatre. In essence the Pan-Turkish alliance creates yet another power axis that in this case confounds the exterior influences of other major regional players. Iran is of course Persian in language and culture and most of the rest of the Middle East is under strong Arab cultural influence. And yet, there are Turkish elements in many countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Syria and their presence is palpable in the Caucasus and dominant in Central Asia.

These topics have once more come to fore in light of the current border conflict between the Turkic Kirghiz and the Persian Tajiks.  Deep in the heart of Central Asia the region is already filled with tensions as not only powers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran vie for influence, the region is also deeply affected by the larger geopolitical struggle between nations like China, Russia, and the United States.

The current dispute harks back to Russia control of the region during the Tsarist and Soviet eras and the Great Game once played between Moscow and London. And yet the current states were created by Stalin and in many respects represent a divide-and-conquer strategy as he deliberately carved the states up in ways that would disunite them. His ghost still haunts the region as the states are now battling over water resources and borders.

Turkey is certain to ally itself with Kirghiz interests and the US is certain to use the conflict as a means to foster divisions between Ankara and Moscow – the latter having a reasonably close relationship with both nations. Turkish intervention (which historically was in line with US interests) will further agitate China as Pan-Turkism is viewed as a viable threat to them. Just across the border to the east, the Turkic Uighurs are the dominant population of Xinjiang and pressed by Beijing, the time is ripe for an uprising – one Washington and others will be keen to both foment and fund.

Another area of potential conflict between Turkey and Russia, one the US will wish to augment is with regard to Ukraine and Crimea specifically. The Crimean Tatars are another Turkic people with historical connections to the Ottomans. They are the small but vocal minority within the peninsula that has remained opposed Moscow's 2014 annexation. NATO has sought close ties with them and any Russian backlash is sure to irritate Ankara who views them as cousins and Pan-Turkic allies.

As tensions increase within the Black Sea, Turkey also has a part to play as they control the Bosphorus, the choke point or entry into the sea which has the potential to affect both Russia and the United States. It has long served as a nexus of intelligence gathering as NATO agents have carefully catalogued every ship passing in or out of the strait. Until 1992 this was supplemented by the US base located at Sinop which both tracked maritime movements via radar and functioned as a listening post. I'm sure at this point if US relations with Turkey were stronger, Washington would be pushing for new installations.

But instead, because of the growing antagonism between Ankara and Washington, the Biden administration has recently taken a huge step and acknowledged the Armenian Genocide of 1915. Previously, Washington gave Turkey cover on this issue as the acknowledgement opens the door to suits and tribunals in various courts, the UN, and possibly even the ICC. Turkey's position within NATO was always deemed too important and during the Cold War, Armenia was still a part of the Soviet Union.

This move made by Biden will of course thrill the international and domestic Armenian community and will allow Washington to gain traction in the Caucasus. And yet the move may prove to be a dead end as the United States will not want to harm its relationship with Armenia's most recent foe in Azerbaijan.

But the move has infuriated Turkey and will in that respect drive Ankara to give less consideration to US interests in the region. The Turco-Russian alliance is both informal and shaky and without historical foundation. But the politics are complicated because the US has inserted itself into the struggles surrounding the Black Sea and Caucasus region, not to mention Central Asia. The alien presence of the United States continues to turn the region's historic geopolitics on its head. More than anything and more than ever the US would like to see Erdogan removed and yet he has proven recalcitrant. During the Iraq War years he firmly entrenched himself and purged most of the US-dominated apparatus. In 1949 there were cries within the US government – Who lost China? I don't doubt that even today there are still bewildered and angry calls demanding accountability for the loss of Turkey – so long a stalwart NATO ally and tool of Washington.

Erdogan's dream of Neo-Ottomanism has had its moments, its starts and stops. Central Asia affords a great opportunity for him to project Turkish power but it could also lead to a backlash and Turkey could find itself isolated. Time will tell.