I think on U.S.' part, it is sensible to continue with the AK Party under a different leader.

- 11 / 05 / 2008 13:45

If it's claimed that the closure case in Turkey and some dynamics in the world are interdependent, or that one triggers the other, such claims become a conspiracy theory created by asking smart questions, rather than making rational analyses.

It's foolish to say that movements caused the closure case filed against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK party); and to say that this case triggered the movements around the world is absolute nonsense.

However, when we examine the Middle East's role in the happenings around the world, it is not wrong to say that the closure case is being scrutinized by various actors in various equations. Active actors in the world are trying to influence the case and the result of the case will play a role in the movements we see around the world.

The East-West game:

The name of the game is still the East-West game. Whoever dominates the energy lines will be the winner. On one side in the game, is the United States and the European Union, and the other side China, Russian and India.

Although the first thing that comes to mind is that these five players will only form Eastern and Western alliances, this is not the only game. Whom India will choose is not certain yet, neither is the degree of the Russian-Chinese alliance.

One (East) seeks new balances and incites the new world order. The other resists it and tries to maintain status quo. Don't get me wrong; the status quo is not on the defense but on the attack.

The claim of dominance over the energy lines placed the Caucasus and the Middle East in the center of the world. In the Middle East, having 65 percent of world oil reserves, gives rise to various actors but only two are the leading ones: Turkey and Iran!

While the U.S. tries hard not to lose the Middle East, it finds Iran as the strongest actor against itself. And the strongest actor U.S. has as an ally is Turkey! The U.S. cannot decide how much it can trust Turkey and the worse is to whom it should trust inside Turkey.

It sounds weird but to me, the U.S. trusts the National Movement Party (MHP) the most in the political arena because the MHP has kept all the promises it has made since 2002 and gives an impression that they are able to make smart game plans in partnerships.

The U.S. cannot trust the Republican People's Party (CHP) at all. Americans are comfortable with knowing that they cannot make any plans together with the CHP.

But U.S. gets confused when the AK Party and the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) come into the picture. When these two are at issue, neo-cons in Pentagon and the U.S. State Department have differences of opinion. During the March 1 deployment note period, both the AKP and the TSK flunked, but the happenings afterwards helped the State Department to get closer to the AKP and neo-cons' Pentagon to the old friend TSK.

As for the European Union, they are not positive about the closure case for two reasons:

1) In the EU's struggle to survive in the Middle East, the AK Party is both a practical tool and a possible positive model.

2) Among the political parties in Parliament, the only government party having a positive approach toward the EU, except the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP), is the AK Party.

As a twist of life, the CHP, founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's directive to take Turkey to the level of “modern civilizations” seems so very far away from the EU. However, the EU forgets in Turkey-related analyses that there are about 12 million voters who did not vote for the AK Party most of whom are not against the EU.

AKP with a different leader?:

As U.S. begins to examine the closure case, they get confused. In northern Iraq, the AK Party has started to take coordinated steps with the U.S. but the Iranian issue is still not clear. Answers to the questions of what are the Impressions of the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney during his visit to Turkey and how close Turkey is to the Pentagon in case of an attack against Iran are not clear either.

I think on U.S.' part, it is sensible to continue with the AK Party under a different leader.