written by Giancarlo Elia Valori, Honorary Degree awarded by TOBB University of Economics and Technology Ankara
Over one hundred victims, near the central station of Ankara. A magnitude which, regardless of some reconstructions of events by the Turkish government, reminds us of the jihadist “declaration of war” in the 9/11 attack against the United States or the one in the Atocha station in Madrid – a gauntlet thrown down for the “holy war” in Europe – or the explosions in London on July 7, 2005 – an event commemorated a decade after an attack foiled at the last minute.
Irrespective of any analysis on those responsible for it, the significance of what has happened in Ankara is clear: the jihad has penetrated into Turkey.
Turkish analysts maintain that the Isis/Daesh may have been even “a tool” – and this seems plausible.
Hence the tool of a destabilization of the Turkish State which occurs after the Isis/Daesh being no longer at ease with the Turkish government, as well as tool of a series of actions designed to hit the stability of the NATO Eastern Flank – and finally tool of mass jihadization between Syria, Iraq and Turkey’s Sunni areas, in a context in which the regime of President Erdogan’s and Prime Minister Davutoglu’s AKP shows all its old and new weaknesses.
The weakness shown by Turkey, its uncertainty in supporting the ISIS/Daesh against the “tyrant” Bashar al-Assad, the unexpected response of the Russian Federation on the Syrian coast and the EU and NATO geopolitical non-existence are all factors which have left Turkey in a strategic void which paves the way for the jihadist destabilization.
The stronger the iron fist of President Erdogan’s regime, the greater the jihad mass of manoeuvre.
Moreover, since late August Turkey has launched several air strikes against the Isis/Daesh positions and the terrorist attack could be a Isis response to this US pressure on Turkey, which manages the base at Incirlik – the starting point of all strikes against the Syrian-Iraqi jihad.
Furthermore some people are spreading the idea – and we do not know to what extent it is grounded – that President Erdogan wants to lead Turkey to the war against Russia so as to get rid of the enemies inside and outside his AKP party, pending the waging of this war.
It is worth recalling that the AKP political grouping had been dissolved by the Turkish Constitutional Court due to the refusal of democracy and pluralism in the Statute of the AKP of the time.
After the attack against the Ankara station, Turkey may also be likely to accept a substitute role compared to the emasculated Western countries, thus forcing them to accept the war against the Kurds, while Turkey might increase their pressure on the Isis/Daesh, which is also a fierce enemy of the Kurds.
And to think that the least incapable and incompetent among European politicians talk about “arming the Kurds” against the Caliphate. Now, probably, we will arm Turkey which will wage a war against the Kurds, pretending it is fighting against the Isis/Daesh.
A true strategic masterpiece.
This Kurds/Turkey link is a paradox which is hard to be solved, especially if we think – as in the West – in terms of “tyrants” to be ousted and “democracies” to be built.
A “constructivist” mistake, as Karl Raimund Popper would have said.
History and politics are not Lego bricks which can be moved or rebuilt everywhere.
Another factor not to be neglected is that we might think of a “strategy of tension” by the AKP, ever less voted by the Turkish people, and in a much less favorable economic situation than the one which made the always gullible Westerners speak of the “Anatolian miracle”.
And the AKP was supported by the “new rich” people of Turkey’s extreme peripheries, while the urban electorate was much less compact.
If President Erdogan, who is considered one of the richest men in the world, chooses the internal fight, he will be in a position to attract all the votes which so far have not been obtained by the AKP, but at the cost of inflaming his country.
We Italians know all too well that the strategies of tension start with Carnival fireworks and end with massacres which – if President Erdogan begins to follow this strategy – will always be perpetrated by others.
As it has precisely happened in Italy.
Nevertheless if Turkey is deconstructed and disrupted, NATO will have no rampart or outpost – though not entirely reliable – towards the Persian Gulf and the Greater Middle East. Furthermore, if the Ankara area is destabilized, the jihad could reach Europe very quickly.
Once islamized Turkey, we can easily imagine the isolation of Israel, which could no longer play the card of the “far enemy”, namely President Erdogan’s AKP, against the “near enemy”, namely the Palestinian and Jordanian-Syrian violent Islam.
And, again, we can imagine the new permanent jihad of the Isis/Daesh, which would no longer have an ambiguous enemy at its Western border.
Hence a set of strategic equations to be analyzed collectively, and not separately as Western experts do.
It comes to our mind when a senior CIA officer admitted, in one of his recent books, that the Arab Springs had been favored by the West because “the liberated people would free themselves from Al Qaeda on their own”.
Therefore, from now on, it would be better for us to relinquish what Benedetto Croce defined the “seductions and enchantments of sorceress Alcina” in Ariosto’s Frenzy of Orlando. Let us forgo political myths and begin to think in terms of strength and rationality.