Abstract
This article analyzes regional events in the twenty-first century and identifies Turkey's relations with Arab countries, pointing out the serious deterioration that has occurred in those relations with its bordering Arab neighbors as well as Egypt and Lebanon. The article argues that Turkey's “imperatives of state,” as in the case of any other state actor, determine the foreign policy trajectory and consequently its regional and international relations. Turkey has chosen to ally itself with pro-Western regional states, namely Israel and Qatar, but not others, such as Egypt. Creating rivalry and animosity with bordering states is neither conducive to Turkey's long-term relations with those states nor to its ultimate political stability. Its NATO membership exacerbates animosity that would ultimately work against Turkey's regional influence. Consequently, Turkey's imperatives of state ironically stand in the way of achieving its regional ambitions.
Highlights
In the past decade or so, Turkish relations with several of its Arab neighbors have deteriorated so much so that they have generated serious unnecessary chasms, which, in turn, have helped propel the entire region into the abyss
It is critical to reiterate that, in terms of its imperatives of state, Turkey has depended on its main pillars of international relations (NATO and its relations with Israel) to arrive at its strategic goals that emanate from its new outlook on and role in the region
Egypt and Lebanon in particular have political positions that put them in a category of their own, though they may not be completely opposed to US and Israeli regional designs
Summary
In the past decade or so, Turkish relations with several of its Arab neighbors have deteriorated so much so that they have generated serious unnecessary chasms, which, in turn, have helped propel the entire region into the abyss. Turkey as a NATO member and yet be an enemy of the settler-colonial Israeli state, the creation of Western imperialism in the midst of the Arab world (Farsoun and Aruri, 2006: 57–104; Smith, 2007: 59–95) Those two elements have been the main pillars of Turkey’s international relations, based on the interests of its own ruling elites. The three concepts (competition, rivalry and animosity) may be utilized to discuss relations among Iran, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel.. It is critical to reiterate that, in terms of its imperatives of state, Turkey has depended on its main pillars of international relations (NATO and its relations with Israel) to arrive at its strategic goals that emanate from its new outlook on and role in the region. Egypt and Lebanon in particular have political positions that put them in a category of their own, though they may not be completely opposed to US and Israeli regional designs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
