Question:
It was mentioned in the book Political Concepts (Mafaheem Siyasiyah), page 20, of the approved edition dated 1425 AH - 2005 CE, regarding the international situation: "...As for the state in the orbit, it is the state that is linked in its foreign policy with another state by an association of interest, not dependency, such as Japan with America, Australia with both America and Britain, Canada with each of America, Britain, and France, and Turkey (currently) with Britain and America."
The question is: Is it possible for the state orbiting in the orbit to depart in its foreign policy from the policy of the major power in whose orbit it revolves? For example, is it possible for Turkey to depart from the foreign policy of America in an issue such as Syria, for instance?
Answer:
A state orbiting in the orbit may depart from its orbit in a specific detail of foreign policy because its association is one of interest, not dependency; it seeks its own interest. However, one must observe the factors of influence and pressure exerted by the major powers of the orbit upon it, which prevent it from departing in any of these details. The strength or weakness of this prevention depends on the extent of the major power's influence on the ruling class's arrival to power in the orbiting state. If the major power's influence is strong, the orbiting state's detachment from any detail is extremely difficult. The less influence the major powers have, the more the orbiting state is able to detach itself in one or more details of the major power's foreign policy. We will clarify this with some examples, concluding with the subject of Turkey:
Japan: The system of government and the internal situation there are stable, and the state institutions are also stable; thus, it can depart from a specific detail of foreign policy while remaining in America's orbit without politicians fearing for their fate. However, the restrictions imposed on it by America at the end of World War II—such as preventing it from developing its strategic weapons, especially nuclear ones, as well as the security agreements imposed on it—alongside American pressure on the Japanese economy, have all created an American influence on Japanese politics, the ruling class, and the political parties. This is particularly true for the Liberal Democratic Party, which ruled Japan since 1955 for 54 continuous years, except for a brief period by the Socialist Party that did not exceed a few months, continuing until its defeat in the 2009 elections. Subsequently, the Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition returned to power at the end of last year, winning the general parliamentary elections on 15/12/2012. All of this created an intertwining between American and Japanese interests, as well as a strong American influence on Japanese politics, such that whoever is in power fears moving against what America wants or departing from a specific detail while orbiting its orbit. They fear that America might incite opposition parties against them or stir up economic problems that affect the Japanese economy, causing the government to shake or fall. Therefore, Japan has not departed from orbiting in the American orbit in the general foreign policy, but it used to distance itself from actual participation in some American foreign policy issues that were not very influential. For example, it refused to participate in the war against Iraq in 1991 and settled for symbolic participation during the occupation of Iraq in 2003, where Japan limited itself to participating with a thousand soldiers supporting American forces in the search for so-called weapons of mass destruction. However, it provided $13 billion in support to America to cover war expenses. That is, Japan departed in some details, but as you can see, they were not of great significance.
Canada: The rulers of Canada consider the interests of their country and move with this state or that according to what achieves them, or they distance themselves from following them when they see no interest in doing so. However, there is influence from the three countries—"America, Britain, and France"—in whose orbit Canada revolves, on Canadian foreign policy, according to factors different from Japan; meaning they are not military restrictions or security agreements, but other factors. Canada is linked to Britain through its Commonwealth, as half the population has origins from Britain; it is linked to France through its Francophonie, as about 16% have origins from France; and it is adjacent to America, sharing the longest unprotected border in the world, making them appear intertwined. They share free trade as the largest trading partners, participating in the Free Trade Agreement since 1988 and including Mexico in 1992. It joined the Organization of American States in 1990, which is under the influence of the United States. Because these factors are less influential than restrictions and agreements as in Japan, Canada is more capable than Japan of departing in specific details from the foreign policy of the three countries. Canada maintains official relations with Cuba and did not follow America in the blockade and boycott against it. It refused to participate alongside America and Britain in the war on Iraq in 2003, its position being closer to the French position. However, it does not depart from them in major matters affecting international policy. Therefore, we see it participated in the Afghanistan war alongside America and other NATO countries, being a founding member of it, and previously contributed significantly alongside America in the Korean War between 1950-1953. Earlier still, it participated in the First and Second World Wars alongside Britain. That is, Canada revolves in the orbit of these three countries due to the aforementioned factors, but the influence of those countries is not strong enough to prevent Canada from detaching in details of the foreign policy of the three countries; yet, as we said, it does not depart in important international policy issues.
Turkey: America's influence in bringing the ruling class to power is strong. Erdogan feels that he could not have reached power and consolidated his influence domestically except with America's help. He sees his fate as linked to America, which has gained significant control in Turkey such that it can control the governance, the rulers, the judiciary, the economy, the army, and the security apparatus. Thus, Turkey's economy became dependent on American support by opening the door to loans and economic facilities. Among these facilities: the International Monetary Fund not pressuring Erdogan's government as it did with his predecessor Ecevit's government, which the Fund brought down; foreign bank creditors not demanding the rescheduling of Turkey's accumulated debts; and international American rating agencies—from Standard & Poor's to Moody's and Fitch—not giving negative ratings to the Turkish economy, but rather giving positive points. Furthermore, the path was facilitated for Turkey to obtain investments abroad, and foreign companies were encouraged to invest domestically. Moreover, America is behind the achievements Erdogan made in the army by dealing a strong blow to British agents and bringing men who support him to the Chief of Staff, who are linked to America, as well as the achievements he made toward controlling the judiciary; all of this was done with American assistance. It helped him internally in security and the Kurdish issue; it was behind the PKK's acceptance of the peace plan and the cessation of rebellion, because Ocalan is one of America's agents and the Peace and Democracy Party follows Ocalan's line. Internal stability was achieved through the cooperation of other American agents and friends with him in other parties, organizations, and bodies.
For this reason, America's influence on the government in Turkey is strong, and thus Turkey's departure in any detail from American foreign policy is extremely difficult. We will review some facts to clarify how Erdogan adheres to American foreign policy:
a- Before the Syrian revolution, Erdogan strengthened the relationship with Bashar's regime—the Americans' agent—to the point of personal and family friendship, until he began saying "my brother and friend Bashar," even though Bashar was committing criminal acts inside Lebanon and inside Syria itself, such as the Sednaya prison massacre in 2008. Erdogan did not view it as a massacre! Bashar, through his security and intelligence apparatus, continued the process of humiliating and insulting people while Erdogan saw and heard, yet he continued to strengthen his relationship with Bashar because America wanted this relationship to continue.
b- When the uprising broke out, Erdogan continued to support Bashar and followed American moves and statements in his own actions and statements. When he recently called for military intervention and went to Washington on his last visit on 16/5/2013, we see him ceasing the call for intervention. When America called for Geneva 2 to conduct a dialogue between the opposition and the regime and form a transitional government from both sides, Erdogan's government stood up and announced its support for that.
c- When France called for intervention in Libya alongside the rebels against Gaddafi, Erdogan rejected it and attacked France, but when America decided to intervene there, Erdogan stood up and supported America.
d- When Erdogan wanted to visit Gaza at the end of last May, America asked him to postpone it. This came from the mouth of its Secretary of State Kerry on 22/4/2013 in a public statement during his visit to Turkey, which prompted the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc to say: "Mr. Kerry's statement (regarding his request to the Prime Minister to postpone his visit to Gaza) from a diplomatic and political perspective is reprehensible, wrong, and incorrect." (Reuters 23/4/2013). Arinc claimed, saying: "Only the Turkish government has the right to decide when and where the Prime Minister or any Turkish official travels." But this statement did not match reality, as the Prime Minister forgot about his planned visit to Gaza and stopped talking about it. Rather, when it was mentioned by officials that he would visit on July 5th, Turkish government sources rushed to deny the visit, in compliance with American orders.
These examples and others indicate that Turkey was unable to depart in any detail of foreign policy from the orbit in which it moves. Knowing that Erdogan wanted his visit to Gaza to strengthen his popularity, which was shaken because of his failure to help the people of Syria after promising to support them, saying: "We will not allow a second Hama..." yet Bashar's criminal regime carried out a second and third Hama in every city and village without Erdogan and his government moving. Rather, the Syrian regime shot down a Turkish plane and fired at Syrian camps inside Turkey and at Turkish villages and killed Turks, but Erdogan did not move, even though this was a sufficient reason to intervene, and he would have had the right to do so had he acted, but America prevented him from it.
It is worth noting that Turkey no longer orbits in the British orbit after a strong blow was dealt to the British forces in the army, where they were removed from the Chief of Staff, and arrests were made at the highest levels. They are still languishing in prisons, and purges are still being carried out against them in the army. More are expected to occur at the beginning of next month when promotions, freezes, or retirements for officers are reviewed annually. This is supervised by the Chief of Staff with the army commanders and with the approval of the Prime Minister. This means that Turkey currently orbits in the American orbit, and America's influence is strong in Turkey's affairs. If the situation continues as it is, with Turkey's strong association with America, Turkey may approach full dependency (taba'iyyah) on America, and its orbiting in the orbit would then become a matter of question!