Sunday, March 20, 2011
There's been a fair amount of chatter in the Turkey-related blogosphere lately about Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's allegedly soft line regarding Qaddafi and his reluctance to sign off on force in Libya. Louis Fishman, echoing the sentiments of many people in Turkey, called upon Erdogan to return the "peace prize" (and the money associated with it) that Qaddafi awarded him last year, calling into question Erdogan's integrity in the process. Meanwhile, a couple of days ago in Juan Cole's Informed Comment blog Howard Eissenstat argued that Erdogan is more interested in Turkey's trade and financial dealings with Libya than in the cause of freedom:
With only the barest lip service to democratic values, Turkey has made
clear its opposition to international action in support of the
revolution in Libya. It used its effective veto to stifle discussions
within NATO and Erdoğan publicly and loudly criticized the unanimously
approved UN Security Council sanctions on Libya imposed on February 26.
It has made its continued opposition to international intervention
clear, arguing that sanctions will only bring more pain to the Libyan
people. To its credit, Turkey has indeed been at the forefront of sending humanitarian aid to Libya.
True, true, all true, both Fish and Ice make good points here, particularly with respect to the necessity of at least calling on Qaddafi to step down (something that Erdogan has now done).
But as far as the question of intervention is concerned: is it really necessary for Erdogan to be corrupt, or to only be interested in money or trade, in order to oppose NATO (or non-NATO) air strikes on Libya? Is it not possible that there might be other, less nefarious, reasons behind this opposition?
Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi may well be on his way out--but only if he can take some Jack Daniels with him
|