Synopsis
Michael Rubin discusses Turkey's geopolitical influence, its alliance with Pakistan, and India's strategic responses to Turkey's support for Kashmiri terrorists.Key Takeaways
- Turkey's growing ties with Pakistan pose challenges for India.
- Abdullah Ocalan's influence on the PKK is limited due to isolation.
- India needs to adopt a more assertive diplomatic posture.
- Erdogan's ideologies drive his support for terrorism.
- Congress is increasingly skeptical of Turkey in the U.S.
New Delhi, March 14 (NationPress) In an in-depth and exclusive dialogue with IANS, Michael Rubin, a prominent authority on the Middle East, analyzes the intricate and shifting geopolitical dynamics surrounding Turkey, the Kurdish liberation movement, the ramifications of Turkey's increasing friendship with Pakistan, and India's strategic alternatives in light of Turkey's backing of Kashmiri terrorists.
Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Director of Policy Analysis at the Middle East Forum, shares his extensive background—including experiences in post-revolution Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey—to contribute to this vital conversation.
Excerpts:
IANS: What do you make of Abdullah Ocalan's recent plea for the PKK to disband? Is this a demand made under pressure, or is there more to it?
Michael Rubin: Abdullah Ocalan has been incarcerated since 1999. Thus, for over 25 years, he has not only been imprisoned but has faced isolation on an island where he is the sole inmate. This means he has not directly commanded the PKK for a significant duration. He has had the opportunity to write and read, evolving into a political thinker. However, he lacks day-to-day command of the PKK. I believe President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey misjudges this situation. He may believe he can showcase Ocalan, perhaps under duress, but the PKK, having diversified its leadership and military strategies due to his arrest, has two key responses. First, they assert they'll vote on this issue. Second, they state that while Ocalan's call for a ceasefire is appreciated, they cannot disarm while under attack from the Turks. Historically, significant ceasefires occurred in 2012 and 2015, but they collapsed. The aim was for the PKK to disarm in Turkey and relocate to Syria, something that Turkey countered with assaults on Kurds in Syria. This has led to widespread skepticism among the PKK and Kurds, who respect Ocalan as a founding father but do not strictly follow his directives. Interestingly, Kurds have often compared Ocalan's imprisonment on Imrali Island to that of Nelson Mandela on Robben Island. Both began as radicals engaging in violence but transformed during their incarceration. The distinction lies in the fact that Mandela was released into a society that embraced democratic transition. Therefore, one must ask in Turkey: will Ocalan be released from prison? What about Erdogan's resignation? Where is the Truth and Reconciliation Committee to address the last 20 years of Erdogan's rule?
IANS: Can you elaborate on how Turkey's rapport with Pakistan affects India's regional and strategic interests? Can supporting the Kurdish movement serve as a diplomatic countermeasure for India?
Michael Rubin: The brief answer is yes. It’s important to recognize that Erdogan was part of Turkey's first Islamic party when he was Mayor of Istanbul. After that government fell, Erdogan briefly served time for inciting religious sentiments. Upon his release, he claimed he had transformed into a pragmatist. His new Justice and Development Party (AKP) gained power, and despite his past, he was celebrated for his pragmatism as he managed to link democracy with Islamism. To his credit, unlike many previous Turkish political parties that mismanaged the economy, Erdogan focused on constituent services, attracting support from business-minded individuals and conservatives. However, he once stated, 'Democracy is like a streetcar. You ride it as far as you need and then you step off.' We, in the West, were naive to overlook this. Erdogan has leveraged his control over the economy to impose authoritarian governance. Essentially, he is an ideologue—a Muslim Brotherhood ideologue—who cannot tolerate seeing any Muslims under non-Muslim governance. This drives his active support for terrorism, whether it be regarding Hamas in the Gaza Strip or his engagement in Kashmir. He seeks plausible deniability by working through Pakistan, but he has consistently met with Kashmiri militants and Chechen terrorists. We should advocate for the Kurds based on their merits; they are a population of 40 million spread across four nations and deserve statehood. Erdogan, as an ideologue, will not abandon his support for Kashmiri terrorists; they are indeed terrorists, not mere militants. However, the pragmatist in him might realize that if India responds in kind by supplying weapons to the PKK, he may need to divert his focus to other regions.
IANS: What other strategic approaches can India take to counter Turkey's terrorism support and its role as a terrorism hub in Pakistan?
Michael Rubin: India must cease being overly diplomatic. As the world's largest democracy and most populous country, it often appears to be one of the least assertive in diplomatic matters. India must adjust its strategies in response to the actions of its adversaries. We've witnessed Pakistan engaging in cross-border terrorism, prompting India to respond with justified airstrikes. Despite the challenges, Turkey's support for Kashmir terrorists cannot be overlooked.
IANS: How does the West perceive Turkey's ambition to be a hub for Islamists? Are Trump 2.0 and Europe aligned in a containment strategy for Turkey?
Michael Rubin: In relation to Turkey, there is uncertainty about whether the United States and Europe share a unified stance, given the unpredictability of Trump. Trump, for instance, has shown strong support for Israel, but Turkey's role as a primary supporter of Hamas creates a conflict. Historically, Trump has favored autocrats, maintaining rapport with Erdogan until Erdogan detained an American pastor, Andrew Brunson, during Trump's first term. Trump’s frustration led to sanctions on Turkey's steel industry, which resulted in Turkey's currency crashing and Brunson's eventual release. However, the current climate reflects growing skepticism toward Turkey in Congress, where discussions revolve around designating Turkey as a state sponsor of terrorism. Previously, Turkey had a robust presence in Congress, but that influence has waned significantly, with growing recognition of Turkey as a terrorist sponsor. The debate is not about honoring Erdogan but rather whether to label Turkey a state sponsor of terror. Thus, if Trump pushes too far in his relationship with Erdogan, Congress may step in to redefine the U.S.-Turkey relationship.
