“To paddle through”, or “to remain afloat” are two antonyms in the politics of navigation of nations towards a destiny. In the former, the firm grip on the paddles is a display of determination and drive. The steady and synchronous motion of the arms is an indication of resolve to reach a target anchor. Every flap against the waves, and the propulsion it creates, steers the vessel towards its destination. Alternatively in the latter, the movement is determined by that of the flow and ebb. Maritime aptitude and nautical knowledge are not required, only the ability to remain afloat. Rowing is too much of an effort, and the oars are only used to sweep away from a whirlpool. Otherwise, the vessel wanders around aimlessly and its mooring is where the current leads.

This metaphor applies to two countries in the Middle East: Turkey and Egypt. Turkey chooses to paddle through the Bosphorus to the outside world, and to impose its presence in the international arena. Egypt, on the other hand, is left adrift on the Nile. If some are paddling in the Bosphorus, and others are floating on the Nile, those on the Potomac are bound to watch closely. The importance of this comparison cannot be understated. When Obama decided to open a dialogue and launch an outreach to the Muslim world, there seemed no better podiums to bridge the gap than Ankara and Cairo. As much as the administration sought similarities in its selection of these two locations, the dissimilarities can not be dismissed. Turkey and Egypt are marching towards alternate routes either in delineating their spheres of influence or in their prospects of internal stability. This comparison, between those adamant on using their soft power and those who are adamantly soft in using their power, merits attention.

1. A Part of it or Apart from it

1.1. Turkey

Turkey is embracing a dynamic strategy and a vibrant policy in the global stage. The visionary Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is the architect of the newly adopted approach in foreign affairs. The ambitious policy is designed to invigorate Turkey’s engagement and to convert it into a power that radiates influence in all directions. This flurry in its international profile allows Turkey to take vast strides in extending its weight beyond its traditional spheres of influence. The dividends reaped are its growing international clout and its enormous levers of influence. The pillars of this policy is: the normalization of relations with traditional foes and historically hostile neighbors, facilitating efforts to prevent conflicts, expanding visa free travel, ramping up trade and commerce, extending infrastructure, forging strategic relationships and engaging in multilateral platforms. This revival has attracted increasing attention for the intensity of its new initiatives, and its blooming portfolio.

The nomenclature earned by Turkey’s new policy makers is the neo Ottomans. Their approach is perceived as an attempt at a resurrection of an exalted and resplendent past. It was observed that the neo Ottomans shift axis eastwards in an era of Pax Ottomana. The advocates of this approach emphasized that the declared foreign policy goal of zero problems is predicated on a peaceful Middle East. Turkey’s rapprochement with those in its southern periphery is, thus, expedient. This is instigated by the impact of instability in the Middle East on its security interests, and its desire to secure markets for its expanding industries. Turkey leverages its shared heritage and cultural identity to facilitate political convergence and forging good terms even with its traditional foes and competitors. It also utilizes its economic clout to strengthen integration and interdependence with neighboring countries. For many of these neighbors, the winds have shifted as they became the benefactors of Turkish courtship. Burgeoning friendships allow Turkey to resolve lingering problems and to overcome historical grievances. This is reflected in a dramatic popular opinion turnaround from the typical antipathy towards its Ottoman past. Turkey’s diligent engagement enhanced its prestige in the area, and enriched its coffers by increasing trade, tourism and cultural exchange.

Turkey also adopts a proactive and preemptive peace diplomacy which aims to contain crises before they escalate to a critical situation. In this context, Turkey displayed an aptitude to overcome the difficulty of balancing different factions with diametrically opposed points of view. Accordingly, it touted its position as an adept mediator. For instance, as the traditionally acrimonious relations with Syria turned friendly Turkey launched mediation efforts between Syria and Israel. Turkey also brokered negotiations between Moscow and Tbilisi during the Georgian crisis. Its mediation skills are manifested in its efforts to sponsor the Serbia Bosnia reconciliation, to launch a dialogue between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to mediate between Iraq and Syria. Being an unbiased interlocutor permitted Turkey to extend its savvy diplomacy in an endeavor to contain thorny issues in turbulent countries and precarious areas. Forging good terms with all Iraqi factions, boosted Turkey’s chances to encourage a Sunni-Shiite reconciliation. This is in addition to a pragmatic engagement with the Kurds, in which they have overcome the traditional fear that autonomy for Iraqi Kurds would inspire its own Kurdish minority. Turkey also attempted to bridge sectarian divisions in Lebanon, and to lend a hand in the conciliation process between Palestinians.

The credibility of Turkish leadership was solidified by its sympathy with the Palestinians in their plight. Turkey became a primary champion of the Palestinian cause. This is reflected in the unremitting barrage of criticism on Israel that exposed the impotence of Arab regimes in delivering on their rhetorical support for Palestinians. This deviation from a long standing strategic alliance with Israel was inevitable between a country exerting its efforts to contain conflicts, and another whose security concerns are acute and the infusion of a sense of prowess is its only source of solace. Turkey launched a blistering criticism on the Gaza assault as a betrayal of its attempt to broker mediation between Israel and Syria. Erdogan lambasted the Israeli president, and stormed out of the session at the World Economic Forum. Turkish Israeli relations reached its lowest ebb especially after the latter’s interdiction and assault on the Turkish flotilla that tried to break the blockade of Gaza.

On another front fraught with problems, Turkey attempted to utilize its diplomatic competence in the Iranian predicament. Turkey adopted a trilateral diplomacy with Brazil to persuade Iran to accept a Uranium exchange deal. According to its terms, Iran would send low enriched Uranium in exchange for higher enriched fuel rods for its medical reactor. Some interpreted this as a face saving opportunity for Iran to circumvent and forestall sanctions. From the Turkish point of view, this was an attempt to diffuse a looming confrontation and an effort that both coaxes and pressures Iran to accept international verification of the peaceful use of its nuclear program. The Turks also consider the deal a promising start to the painstaking task of nudging Washington and Tehran towards broader negotiations.

Despite its shift eastwards, Turkey remains an aspirant to the European Union. It is firmly tethered to Europe, and its commitment to accession never wavered. The lengthy plea to integrate Turkey into Europe has always been challenging and a cause for frustration. Europe’s continued rebuff of Turkey is attributed to the mainstream European xenophobia, and the fear that Turkish accession will shift European borders from the Bosphorus to one straddling the Middle Eastern arc of instability. Turkey continues its attempts to satisfy the EU standards in order to nibble, one day, at the Union’s preponderance. However, becoming one of the largest economies in the world, a major energy hub, and a transit corridor for Caspian energy that traverse Turkey to Europe, implies that its increased weight is what might impel the aspired-for to seek the aspirant one day.

1.2. Egypt

As much as the Turkish presence is looming large over the entire region, the Egyptian one is fading away. What is left of Egypt is a shadow of what used to be. Egypt was once a center of gravity in the Arab world, and in the entire Third World. Some assert that it is Egypt’s fate to be influential, and its role to be a regional leader is its inescapable destiny. Egypt, under its current policy makers, perceives this role as a burden that it can not continue to bear, and comes with a bill that the country can not afford.

Accordingly, Egypt has demonstrated extreme discretion in its conduct of foreign policy. Egypt was frugal in its engagements, restrained in its initiatives, and prudent in its positions. In several occasions, Egypt chose to become a tepid observer rather than an engaged partner. In other instances, it continued to watch from the sidelines and lacked the initiative lest it steps on the tows of others. The adopted policy can be described as a reactive rather than a proactive one. This is translated into a withdrawal of Egypt from its spheres of influence. Accordingly, the country’s influence dwindled and its international standing waned.

Egyptian foreign policy became obsessed with strengthening ties with the West only. Egypt has continued to be a steadfast ally of the United States. This approach was a way to ensure that Egypt is sheltered from the lamentable fate that other unfortunate countries had to endure during the tumultuous times of the post Cold War era. To “bend to the wind” seemed, in the opinion of the Egyptian policy makers, the sagacious option compared to a reckless confrontational approach. Relations with the West, however, came on the expense of that with the rest. The fact that Egypt overlooked other venues proved detrimental to its national security. The latest impasse with the riparian countries over the distribution of the Nile water is but an example of the consequences of this approach.

The evidence to the Egyptian retreat from the regional equation is abundant. The lack of initiative and engagement in the Sudanese file caused its worst nightmare to come true: the looming separation of southern Sudan. This possible scenario further entangles the complicated problems of the Nile basin. The Egyptian stance in the Gaza blockade puts it in an awkward moment with the Arab world public opinion, as it tarnished the image of a country acclaimed the leader of the Arab world. Egypt’s less than impartial position towards the Palestinian Authority constrained its ability to extend to other factions, and is translated into its incapacity to conclude the conciliation process between the Palestinians. Its open endorsement of one side of the Lebanese political landscape does not permit Egypt to play a critical role in Lebanon either. The Egyptian presence in Iraq is almost non palpable. In addition, the rupture of relations with Syria and Iran renders Egypt more irrelevant in the regional arena. The accusations that Egypt is subservient to the United States also alienated the country from several active players. Therefore, its ability to influence events, and to extend communications with all parties, has been greatly curtailed. As Egypt continued its withdrawal, others such as Iran and Turkey stepped in to fill the vacuum. Thus, Egypt cedes its once prominent position to other regional players.

2. In the Name of the Nation or in that of the Son

2.1. Turkey

As Turkey takes giant leaps in the international scene, an overhaul of the internal front is undertaken as well. Turkish politics was rife with shocks, reflected in a penchant for military coups. This has haunted political figures for decades, as the army intervened several times to depose civilian governments. As self proclaimed guardians of Kemalism and bastions of Turkey’s uncompromising secularism, their intervention was justified as an attempt to safeguard these principles. As the possibility of military intervention lessened due to European Union accession conditions, the judiciary began to take on this protracted tutelage mechanism. The judiciary declared themselves as staunch secularists, and declined to countenance any other vision. The judicial bureaucracy took over the job of system guardianship and made overtly political decisions. This was an impediment to political activities as the judiciary interpreted the law through a partisan lens.

Nevertheless, the burgeoning social consciousness set the scene for a drastic change: the Justice and Development Party dominating the political landscape. Faced with the continuous fear of a military interference, the party introduced reforms. This was declared not an overturn of the long cherished secularist ideals and Kemalist values, as much as an attempt to tame the army and thwart the specter of coup d’etat. Accordingly, the militarists became increasingly the subject of scrutiny despite their best attempts to turn back the clock on Turkey’s democracy.

The package of amendments to several articles in the constitution was to be decided in a referendum. This was one of the clearest challenges to the ideological underpinnings of the establishment and gave a clear mandate to the ruling party to reform political life. The attempt ushers in a set of amendments to: empower civilian courts, reduce the jurisdiction of military courts, increase judicial accountability, make the judiciary more attuned to the transformations by broadening its composition, and relax the reins of the judicial bureaucracy over the legislature and the executive branches. In addition, these amendments increase civilian control over government, and enhance the latitude of civilian leaders to legislate and govern. They also strengthen individual freedoms and promote human rights. Finally, they expand collective bargaining rights, curtail immunities, and make it harder to disband political parties.

Public debate and political discourse ahead of the vote turned vitriolic. Polarization and frantic political maneuvering were the common theme. The adversaries claimed that this is the current government’s attempt to cement its own ideological institutions, and to advance its own agenda. Tinkering with the makeup of the court also stirred concerns that this intends on chipping away at the secular state. With all the warnings, the results of the referendum allowed the winds of change to buffet Turkey. Despite the criticism that the ballot is packed with elements that should not be decided in sum, this is considered a significant step in tilting the political equation in favor of the national will. This also endows a democratic Turkey the ability to carry forth with a reckoning of its past, which was impossible with the hitherto assured immunities of the entrenched traditional powers.

2.2. Egypt

As the skies clear in Turkey, they turn cloudy in Egypt. Serious concerns float to the surface about Mubarak’s ability to fulfill his duties, with the recurrent relapses, and who will follow in his footsteps. Egypt is obsessed, nowadays, with the succession issue. With this in the background, the scene is prepared for the forthcoming parliamentary elections. This will be followed by presidential elections in the coming year. The former is considered a prelude to the latter, as the presidential candidates are required to seek the endorsement of the members of the parliament. As the parliamentary elections approach, the regime imposed restrictions on SMS exchange, sacked a dissident editor-in-chief of independent press, banned the broadcast of several satellite channels, restricted the ability of political parties to advertise their campaigns, continued to crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood members, and imposed a ban on brandishing their political slogans. The regime also amended the constitution to obviate judicial oversight, and declared any international monitors are not welcome. All these efforts lead observers to foresee circumscribed elections, whose purpose is to allow the ruling party to promote its candidate for presidential elections without obstacles.

Mubarak has not disclosed his intensions if he is seeking another term in the upcoming presidential elections. The predicament is amplified by the fact that there is no successor in sight. Unlike his predecessors, Mubarak has been reluctant to appoint a vice president. This inconspicuous position left analysts to scour for clues over the identity of the successor. The rumors abound that Gamal Mubarak is being groomed to carry his father’s mantle. These fears are confirmed by the latest amendments to the constitution, to determine the conditions on candidacy to the presidential office. These amendments stipulate that only high ranking party leaders satisfying threshold requirements could contest elections. Thus, the stifling provisions preclude any one to mount a realistic bid without the backing of the ruling party. These stringent requirements drastically diminish the potential pool of candidates. The fact that Gamal is one of few who satisfy the criteria is not a coincidence. The speculations on presidential candidates are thus constricted to either the father or the son.

This is not surprising in the Egyptian politics. The regime has always been impervious to change. Mubarak used to lead without relenting to any of the public demands on political reform. He continued to stress stability, even on the expense of the aspired-for-reforms. This attitude precluded any but cosmetic changes. The emergency laws continued to be in effect. No discussion on constitutional reforms and the reinstatement of presidential term limits was ever entertained. The morass of restrictions, security scruples, and containment policies, all acted to cripple conventional party politics. To conclude, Egyptian politics lack transparency with bitter cynicism on any prospect of change. This leads observers to voice their concern about the prospects of stability in Egypt.

3. Foreign Policy

This is an appropriate context to discuss one of the most contentious issues of foreign policy. In foreign affairs, there are two approaches: either to stand for the promotion of democracy, or alternatively to safeguard interests even if it entails fostering alliances with totalitarian regimes. The former implies that any administration should elevate democratic imperatives and voice opposition whenever it encounters serious violations to democratic practices. The latter is a pragmatic approach aimed to ensure the strategic interests, and is willing to overlook non-democratic behavior as long as other practices are conducive to achieving foreign policy objectives. The comparison between Turkey and Egypt sheds light on this dichotomy.

In this context, it is imperative to realize that democracy and prospects of stability are intertwined. If stability safeguards interests, then democracy promotion cannot be dislodged on the premise that it is not practical to pursue. The succession scenario, as planned, will cause a focal country like Egypt to be susceptible to instability in the future. The repercussions of that possibility on the region can not be remedied easily. On the other hand, the reforms will cause Turkey to enjoy stability and avoid the specter of coup d’etats. These reforms will not only benefit Turkey, but could act as a source of inspiration to the entire region as well. In this context, Turkey’s most valuable contribution is its synthesis of Islam and democracy. Turkey provides a pattern to be promoted and a standard to be emulated in the Muslim world. The steady advance of Turkish progressive ideals also exposes the unpopularity of the totalitarian regimes in the region and their legitimacy deficits. In addition, it provides a model where modernizers advocate reforms but preserve the traditional culture at the same time.

This is also a context to discuss whether the United States should seek allies who enjoy a degree of freedom that allows them to move and maneuver in the international arena, or obedient ones who concur without any genuine contribution of their own. Alternatively, should the United States seek loyal unquestioning allies, or can it rely on independent diplomatically inclined partners to promote security and prosperity in a complex world. The comparison between Egypt and Turkey sheds light on this dilemma as well. The latter is one that exhibits signs of independence as expressed in its diplomatic forays. The appraisal of its approaches caused some to conclude that a return to the halcyon days of close ties is untenable. Turkey is a rising star in the international scene, and is becoming influential in one of the most critical geographies: the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even though its policy is touting of controversy, the Turkish claim it is to the tangible benefit of their allies by affording them access and channels to actors they would otherwise be unable to reach. In this context, the Turkish swagger makes it a valuable asset and increases its utility. Obama’s administration’s international approach emphasizes diplomatic engagement and multilateralism. For an administration that puts a premium on these virtues, what is needed is not an appreciation of obedience but an encouragement of assertiveness.