fbpx
Research studies

Turkey and the West (Western alliances) as a model

 

Prepared by the researcher   :  Assistant Professor Dr. Ahmed Jassim Ibrahim – Babylon Center for Cultural and Historical Studies/Babylon University-Iraq

Democratic Arab Center

Journal of Iranian orbits : Twelfth Issue – June 2021

A Periodical International Journal published by the “Democratic Arab Center” Germany – Berlin.

Nationales ISSN-Zentrum für Deutschland
ISSN  2626-4927
Journal of Iranian orbits

:To download the pdf version of the research papers, please visit the following link

https://democraticac.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A5%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%88-%E2%80%93-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-2021.pdf

Abstrac

Since the establishment of the first Turkish Republic in 1923, Turkey has influenced the orientation towards the West and contributed to the alliances established to encircle the Soviet Union and the Arab region, in a manner that guarantees the protection of the security, economic and strategic interests of the United States and Western countries, as it accepted aid under the Truman principle, and joined all Western alliances in the region to confirm its pat From the West, and if it accepts under economic pressure and certain international developments on the Cyprus issue, it will adjust its stance towards the Arab countries, but its choice towards the West is more likely and it always wants Western Turkey to appear more than it is Muslim   Turkey.

Despite the dear reasons for Turkey’s delinquency towards the United States and Western European countries due to the Soviet threats and ambitions in its territories after World War II, as well as the financial distress and deterioration of its economy at the time. However, Turkey was used to implement the American-Western strategy in the Middle East, so it tried to link some Arab countries to bilateral agreements and defense alliances with them, and tried to exploit its position to play an active role in the regional conflict in the region, taking advantage of events on the international scene in order to implement its set policy towards Western countries and countries of the region. The Middle East, especially the countries of the Arabian Gulf,                   Western countries have found that Turkey is very close to the Arab countries in this case to play the role of enforcing its policy in this region, and that Turkey has the ability to defend its lands and may have the desire to reach other regions (the countries of the Arab East) to implement the Western policy, and from thi. The premise that Turkey played a prominent and indirect role in defending the region, and the goal of the United States, Western countries, and Turkey, of alliances in the Middle East, was to link the region with NATO through Turkey’s association with it. To tighten control over the Arab Gulf region and protect the region’s security due to its association with American security, according to their claim. Therefore, the United States relied on Turkey to implement these projects because it considered it an eastern complement to Western defense. Therefore, Turkey considered itself a bulwark in the Middle East, as it played an indirect role to defend the region

The first axis:The historical dimension of Turkey’s relations with the West

After the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal (1881-1938) [1] (Ataturk) adopted the concept of secularism by isolating religion from politics, abolishing the caliphate system, adopting European law instead of Islamic legitimacy, and replacing the Hijri calendar with the Gregorian, and Latin letters replaced the alphabet Arab countries, and sought to turn towards the West in all fields [2], and Turkey’s relations with its neighbors, as well as with the countries of Western Europe, gradually entered after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne in a friendly and normal phase, so a treaty of friendship and neutrality was concluded with the Soviet Union in 1925, and its relations with Britain settled over the mandate Mosul retained it within the Iraqi sovereignty in 1925 also, and sold its share in the Mosul Oil Company for half a million pounds sterling to Britain, and in agreement with Greece, it undertook a huge population exchange, and its rapprochement with the Balkan countries increased [3], and in the war of independence against Greece and its western protectors, Turkey requested Helping the Soviet Union despite Turkey’s knowledge of the Soviet’s intentions. When the United Nations Assembly in 1925 granted Mosul to Iraq, Turkey resorted to the Soviets and concluded a treaty of friendship and cooperation with them. In 1934, an agreement was concluded with the Sove granted a loan of eight million dollars to be spent on industrial equipment and paid for goods without interest.[4]

As a result of the increased risk of Italian fascist expansion in Asia and Africa, it led to an increase in rapprochement between Turkey, Britain and France, which resulted in an increasing coolness in Turkey’s relations with the Soviet Union, and the Montreux Conference was held on July 20, 1936, where a new system of Turkish harassment was established to stand in the face of Italian ambitions, Under this agreement, the passage system in the straits was amended[5], recognition of Turkish sovereignty over them, and the guarantee of their right to close them in case of war, as well as the abolition of the conditions for disarming them. It is worth noting that Turkish-British relations have worsened a lot in the post-World War I period due to the hard-line position of the British From Mustafa Kemal on the one hand and Britain’s support for Greece in heritage on the other hand, but the British government quickly changed its position on the Turkish government, taking advantage of the terms of the Lausanne Agreement,[6] Turkey settled its differences with France to amend the latest post-World War I arrangements over the Alexandretta Brigade, and regained full sovereignty over the straits of the Black Sea, as it held an alliance with Britain and France in October 1939 in which the three parties pledged to unite each other if one of them entered the war as a result of the Aggression in the Mediterranean, or against Turkey, and under this alliance, France obtained gains by opening the Turkish straits in the face of the French ships after they were closed to them in return for cutting off the Syrian brigade (Iskenderun), which was under the French mandate and making it under Turkish sovereignty.[7] Thus, France took advantage of the issue (the Alexandretta Brigade) to the appropriate time to put pressure on Turkey, improve its relations with it, and open its straits to French shipping.[8] And when the war extended to the Mediterranean and the Balkans, after Italy attacked France and Greece from the Balkans, the Turkish Franco-British alliance held in 1939 did not apply, and the Balkan alliance held in 1934 did not fulfill its promise. So Turkey is facing the danger of Germany and Italy on the one hand, and the Soviet on the other hand, so it mobilized its forces, but it became firmly determined to stay out of the war unless there was direct aggression on its territory.[9]

The pressure of the Allies increased on Turkey in 1944 in order to cooperate with it, and Turkey cut off its relations with the Axis powers in August 1944, and finally declared war on it on February 23, 1945 shortly before its end, aiming to avoid being invaded or entering a war that would deprive Turkey of the War of Independence.  And the achievements of the Kemalist Revolution.[10]

  Soviet ambitions began to increase towards Turkey, especially with the end of World War II, as the Soviet Union demanded the revocation of the Treaty of Friendship and Neutrality signed between them in 1925 and announced in June 1945 the price it wanted to continue the friendship, which is (establishing bases in the Turkish straits, and recovering the provinces of Kars and Ardhan, and gaveThe Soviet proposed a proposal to amend the Montreux Charter and replace it with what they called the joint defense of the straits), but Turkey withstood the Soviet demands despite the embarrassment of its geographical and diplomatic position.[11] Therefore, Turkey decided to go to the United States of America and Western countries to protect its security and achieve its interests.[12]

After World War II, the Soviet Union tried to turn Turkey, Iran and Greece into communist areas so that it could move freely in warm waters, and in order to control strategic areas, and Turkey was the most confronting of these countries with Soviet goals, and Turkey had two options, the first of which was to enter the Soviet camp and lose its entity to become a state Communist or heading to the United States, which is geographically distant, and asks for its assistance to be an independent state, so I preferred the second option. The Second World War had an impact on the politics of both the United States and Turkey. It has led to the crystallization of considerations of the American national interest towards the Middle East in general, which (it has become Turkish as a part of it) after it was in the past the owner of influence and power in it. The interests of America, which were dominated by the economic and cultural character in the previous period, And which expanded in the period between the two wars, it is no longer sufficient to express and achieve that interest. And “American national security” requires effective policy and diplomacy to support the military effort In addition to protecting oil resources, it also requires active diplomacy to confront the forces that could prevent the allies’ freedom to benefit from the Middle East oil fields.[13]

The interest of the United States and Western countries in Turkey increased after the Second World War due to its strategic importance, its proximity to the sources of oil, the emergence of the Soviet Union as a superpower after World War II and fear of communist infiltration in Turkey, Iran and Greece and its extension to the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region,[14] To exist And the exit of the British from it and the establishment of the State of Israel in it, and the positive role of Turkey towards the Zionist entity, as the United States promised that Turkey was the true focal point for directing and implementing its policy in the Middle East region, especially since the rest of this region was entering the British sphere of influence until then. Britain was still maintaining its bases in the Suez Canal and in Sudan, Libya, Iraq, Jordan, the Persian Gulf region and in southern Arabia.[15]    Therefore, the United States headed to Turkey to implement its plans and protect its interests in the Middle East after it was included in the aid of the Truman Principle in 1947, in an attempt to link it to alliances in the name of (the Joint Security Agreement of 1951, and according to this new agreement, American aid to Turkey was doubled)[16] Thus, Turkey entered the strategic plan of the United States because:

-Its geo-political position is important to the West in general and the United States in particular, as it forms the southern flank of the West in general.

-Its common civilizational legacy with the Arab countries and the role that bilaterarlrelations between them and these countries can play in bringing them closer to the United States and the West, especially since the countries of the region are considered to be newly independent despite their long-standing civilization and civil past, and possess religious characteristics that have an important influence in the composition . Its political, economic, social and cultural systemsNot to mention the dynamics of change in that structure, politically and economically, its importance, its impact on the stability of the region, and its implications for US interests..

Considering Turkey as an acceptable candidate to play an important role in any political-security arrangements for dealing with Arab countries in the event of failure to contain it to the extent that it serves the achievement of the American strategy that has come to consider the Middle East, the Arab world, important to the American national interest because of its oil reserves whichIt is considered a supplement to its reserves, and because it is a necessary market for its commercial interests.[17]

The interest of the United States in Turkey and Greece led to its admission into NATO on the grounds that Turkey is a country that enjoys political stability in the Middle East, and that it possesses the largest military force in the Mediterranean basin at that time, and that its strategic location is particularly important as a direct meeting point between Asia and Europe, And for its control over the main waterway and for its supervision over the Mediterranean and Black Bahrain and the immunity of its land and its many topography, which constitutes a ground barrier against the expansion of Russia towards the south, the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, and its ideal location for securing American military bases on its lands to attack Russia’s industrial heart in the Caucasus, Donets and Southern Siberia, and being a base Boss From it America draws its espionage information about the Soviet Union[18]. Turkey has a diplomatic role that is no less important than its defensive role, because with its participation in the alliance it helped extend Western defense to the Balkans and the Near East, and the importance of this role was reinforced by the failure to establish the Middle East Command in 1951[19].Turkey has a major role as a link between the colonial alliances (NATO, SANTO, SIATO) and its proximity to the Arab countries and the Arab Gulf states, and for its mediation of the Caucasian oil fields,[20] Bulgaria, the Arab Gulf and increasing American-Western dependence on it to protect their interests in the region and to ensure the flow of oil to those country, And because of Turkey’s importance as a land and air route between Asia and Europe, and because it is the main focal point for American policy and Western countries in southwestern Asia, and its importance has increased to link it to the policy of Western military alliances[21] .The United States and Western countries, and the defiant United States and to a lesser extent Western countries have welcomed this trend in Turkish foreign    policy.  [22]

Whatever the case, the “Truman Doctrine” was the actual beginning of the growth of American influence in Turkish affairs. And the aid provided according to it came as a result of the United States ’interest in Turkey’s political, economic and military security, in the service of American national interest and security considerations as the first consideration. This is because its inclusion in the aid program came because of the situation in Greece to contain Soviet influence in it, to keep such influence away from Turkey, which is close to Greece, and behind it the Arab countries, the oil reserves and the future economic market for American trade, under the pretext of helping free peoples or protecting democratic or moderate regimes. Hence, those regimes were neither democratic nor moderat.[23] In addition, that aid was not intended to provide Turkey with security in any possible confrontation with the Soviets, as it was a tool for linking it to the American strategy of besieging and containing the Soviet Union and keeping it away from Middle Eastern oil in the confrontation and Cold War climate that followed World War II.

The second axis: Turkey and the Middle East Leadership Project

Western countries feared the penetration of the Soviet Union into the countries of the Middle East after World War II, so Britain thought of establishing the Middle East Leadership Organization, so this idea crystallized in the early 1950’s, and Western countries made Turkey the best way to penetrate into the countries of the Middle East to deter Soviet ambitions in the regioBecause the Turkish geographical location also constitutes a barrier against the infiltration of the Soviet Union towards the Mediterranean and Western countries, especially the Arab Gulf states.[24] As a result, the Western countries, especially after Egypt canceled the Treaty of Alliance and Joint Defense signed between it and Britain in 1936, advanced a project aimed at establishing a collective military organization to defend the Middle East.[25] Turkey played an important role in establishing the Middle East Leadership Project, because it had previously promised Britain to play a pioneering role in establishing a defense pact in the Middle East after its admission to NATO, as Turkish diplomacy in the Arab region was undertaken to create the appropriate atmosphere for acceptance of this Western defense project. It was known as the “Middle East Leadership Project” or the “Quadripartite Leadership” project, in reference to the four countries that submitted it to Egypt on October 13, 1951, namely the United States, Britain, France andTurkey.[26]

The governments of the United States, Britain, France and Turkey have submitted similar memoranda to the governments of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen and Israel, requiring the establishment of a project to defend the Middle Eas [27]  The project stipulated the establishment of an allied leadership for the Middle East, in which the four countries would participate, and Egypt would be the center for this alliance, provided that Egypt would provide strategic defense facilities in its territory and allow the use of its ports and airports in times of war in exchange for Britain handing over its base in the Suez Canal to Egypt on the condition that it become a base Joint countries participating in the alliance, and the withdrawal of British forces from Egypt, and the four countries also submitted notes to the rest of the Arab countries to join this leadership[28] The necessity of the project of leading the Middle East with violent resistance by Arab public opinion because, that the Arab countries will become military bases for the American, French and Turkish forces in addition to the British forces present in them at the time, and because involving Israel in this leadership means recognition of the reality of Israel, and this is something that the Arabs do not accept.[29]

Egypt’s rejection after the July 23, 1953 revolution is based on the fact that the project guarantees to the West the continuation of its control over the Suez Canal base with its special strategic importance, and is inconsistent with Egypt’s independence and sovereignty with its desire to take a neutral position in the conflict between East and West just as Egypt cannot enter an allianceIsrael is a member of it, in addition to the Egyptian people’s rejection of these proposals and that the Arab League is sufficient to protect Arab national security, and the Western powers did not consult Egypt on this matter before submitting the project.[30]

This violent resistance by public opinion and Egypt’s refusal to join it had the greatest impact on the failure of this project, because the Arab countries would become foreign military bases, in addition to the fact that Egypt’s acceptance of it would mean an implicit recognition of the reality of Israel, which the Arabs did not acknowledge at the time.

The third axis: Turkey’s different relations.

The first topic:- Turkey and NATO

The United States and Western countries began to pay great attention to the Middle East region after the Second World War as a result of the communist infiltration in the Balkans and Iran. The United States did not let such activity spread and extend to the Middle East region, so it began to contribute financially and politically in order to limit communism and try not to infiltrate it into the sea basin. The Mediterranean through Turkey and Greece and to the Persian Gulf region via Iran and Iraq.[31] On the occasion of the celebration of US Army Day on April 6, 1946, US President Harry Truman expressed his interest in the Middle East region and its importance to American policy [32], as a result of Soviet pressure and ambitions in Turkey, as mentioned in the introduction to the research,[33] As the United States and Western countries did not stand idly by, the British Foreign Secretary declared in February 1946 that Britain would not allow Turkey to become a subsidiary of the Soviet Union, and the United States saw in the Soviet demands a threat to American influence in the region, and declared in an official statement that Turkey must remain It alone is responsible for protecting and defending the straits, and the Soviet Union should not interfere in this matter.[34] During this period, Turkey sent a memorandum to the US Congress, appealing to it to increase support for its economy, stating, “The weakness of the Turkish wing will pave the way for the Soviet Union to access oil reserves in the Arab region, and penetration into the eastern Mediterranean basin, and therefore it must be taken into consideration the strategic situation of Turkey in case of enteringThe United States is in a war against the Soviet Union, and it also appealed to it between 1946-1947 to increase its economic and military support to avoid the Soviet threats.[35]  In it, Truman announced the determination of the United States to provide military aid to the Turkish and Greek governments, with the aim of standing up to political influence in these two countries.[36]

Thus, Turkey began to turn clearly to the side of the West, and it is worth noting that Britain was providing aid during the Second World War to Turkey and Greece, but it declared its inability to fulfill its obligations after a century and a half of bearing that, so the United States became an ally of Britain to maintain the so-called balance of power, In accordance with the Truman principle, the US President announced assistance to Turkey and Greece and promised to defend it as a defense of American national security. Therefore, the United States provided material and military aid to them, if it provided funds of $ 400 million to help Turkey and Greece for the period ending on June 20. 1948.[37] Greece’s share became (300) million dollars, and this aid is the first major American movement against the ambitions of the Soviet Union.[38] The program of aid to Turkey and Greece lasted for nine months, as the European Economic[39] Recovery Program issued the Marshall Plan.[40] The US Secretary of State, as a result of the severe economic crisis that the countries of Europe were suffering from, and as a result of the Soviet penetration in these countries and for fear that the Soviet Union would exploit this economic crisis and turn it into a political crisis in which it intervened to control the situation in those countries, so the United States agreed to this project.[41] This project was coordinated with the programs that had been issued, including the Turkish-Greek aid agreement.[42] As the US Secretary of State (George Marshall) spoke at the opening of Harvard University, about preparing a program to help European countries, as well as Turkey and Greece, for standing up to the Soviet expansion in Europe, and this project was discussed and accepted by the United States and Western countries.[43] This American aid was limited to European countries with liberal regimes and did not include European countries traveling with passengers of the Soviet Union.[44] In 1950, the US Congress agreed to aid Turkey and Greece in the amount of (211.380,000) million dollars, as this American aid under the Truman Doctrine reduced the burden on the Turkish budget and the Truman Doctrine considered a new development in Turkish foreign policy, as soon after this principle was announced, it joined Turkey to NATO.[45]

The second topic:- Turkey’s accession to NATO

After the Second World War, Turkish diplomacy succeeded in approaching the United States and Western countries through the principle of (Truman), as it was able to convince the United States of its importance in the Middle East region as an instrument of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and as a result of this it concluded a set of bilateral agreements that Turkey was able to Through it, it obtained economic and military aid from the United States, and Turkey was also able to join the European Council in 1949[46]. The second and important stage in the series of collective security arrangements within the Western world came with the conclusion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This treaty was signed in Washington on April 4, 1949 and by each of the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Then Turkey and Greece joined it in 1951, and in 1955 the Federal Republic of Germany became an active member of the alliance under the Paris Accords of 1954 and after the signing of the Treaty of Western European Union[47].

Thus, it became the first military alliance in which the United States of America participated in peacetime, thus provoking the indignation of the Soviet Union on the one hand and the reservation of international bodies (such as the United Nations) on the other hand, and in order to prevent the contradiction between the Atlantic Charter and the United Nations Charter, the member states were keen to include it in Articles 7 and 8 requiring no contradiction. On the other hand, since its establishment, NATO has been clearly directed against the Soviet Union, as was stated in the statements of European leaders during the negotiations, including the statement of the French Prime Minister, who declared that the United States should not allow the Soviet Union to invade France and Western European countries as Germany invaded them. From befor.[48]

After their victory in the 1950 elections, the leaders of the Turkish Democratic Party sought to adopt the political and economic features of Western thought in Turkey, and the goal behind that was to join NATO, because they believed that the bilateral agreements signed between Turkey and the United States within the framework of the Truman Doctrine were insufficient for defenseOn the Turkish national security.[49] However, Turkish diplomacy met many difficulties in this regard, because Turkey, since the inception of NATO in 1949, has expressed its desire to join it, but the presence of opposition trends prevented it from joining it until 1951.

The Turkish leaders at that time could not stand alone in their struggle with the Soviets due to the economic and military conditions of Turkey at the time, and Turkey started looking for a large country to protect its security from external danger and found this guarantee in the West in general and the United States in particular.[50] The goal of the United States was to find the best way to achieve global security by establishing a series of alliances, directly or indirectly, and NATO came as the strongest alliance based on military force, and to be an impregnable dam to preserve the Western capitalist democratic heritage, and to stand against Soviet penetration and influence in Western Europe The United States also provided this alliance with the latest land, air and sea weapons, including nuclear weapons.[51]

Turkey has sought to join NATO since the first steps of its establishment, and the United States supported its desire in this request, but some member states of the alliance refused to Turkey joining it under the pretext that it is not located on the coast of the Atlantic, because the alliance will include a limited geography as well as the small countries in it, especially the countries The Scandinavians were opposed to Turkey’s accession on the grounds that its accession would lead to bearing enormous economic burdens, and that its accession to the alliance would lead to an increase in the risk of war with the Soviet Union and thus lead to the alliance expanding its commitments, as well as Turkey’s accession to the alliance would cause weakening of the alliance’s relations with the countries that want to join it, such as Egypt and Iran. Therefore, Turkey’s sovereignty can be guaranteed without joining the alliance through bilateral agreements with the United States, as well as the absence of any common interests between Turkey and the Scandinavian countries, as well as Turkey’s non-joining of the European Christian family, and the reasons for the Scandinavian countries ’refusal to join the alliance can also be attributed to it being It was receiving American economic and military aid, and in the event that Turkey accepts, a large portion of this aid will be spent on Turkey, and thus these countries will be affected. Because of it.[52]

 On the other hand, Britain opposed Turkey’s joining the alliance because it intended to establish an alliance in the countries of the Middle East, and it was preparing Turkey the mainstay to serve its interests in this region, but it retreated from its opinion after Turkey promised it to establish an alliance for the countries of the Middle East.[53] The United States wanted to find strategic air bases in Turkey, as US Air Force officers have strongly emphasized Turkey’s accession to NATO, since Turkey refused to lease air bases to America in its territory, unless it recognized it to join the alliance, so the Marshal (Montgomery) suggested. Creating two leaderships: the Middle East Defense Treaty, which includes Turkey, Greece, and countries in the Middle East such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, and possibly Pakistan and Israel, and the formation of a force independent of the Middle East Defense Treaty, which includes the air and sea forces .[54]

The United States played a prominent role in supporting Turkey and Greece to join the alliance, as it was the link between them and the NATO Council in October 1950, and as a result of intensive efforts by Turkey, and the unstable political situation in the Middle East in 1951, and the Iranian crisis helped Britain abandon its previous positionWith regard to Turkey and Greece, that is why Britain announced its support to join the aforementioned alliance, stressing Turkey’s role in creating security system arrangements in the Middle East.[55] At the (Ottawa) conference, and based on the recommendation of the NATO Council on September 21, 1951, Turkey’s accession to the alliance was accepted as a full membership, and it was decided in the (Lisbon) 1952 conference to invite Turkey and Greece to participate in it after the governments of the twelve countries were approved by their parliaments.[56]

On February 18, 1952, the protocol was implemented with Turkey’s accession to the alliance, and by its accession, the defense of the West would extend to the borders of Iran and fill the gap in the eastern flank of the Mediterranean basin .[57] And as a result of America’s continued aid and interest in Turkey and Greece, their participation in NATO membership at the end of 1951 and in the same year in which the joint security agreement was signed despite these two countries ’distance from the Atlantic Ocean, but the United States aimed behind their accession to the alliance to strengthen the relationship between the common European group. In it with Turkey and Greece [58], and after Turkey’s admission to NATO, it played an important role in the West’s defense plans by virtue of its strategic location and the influence of the main NATO bases on its territory, and through the strong army it possesses, in addition to the facilities it provided to obtain information. On Military Movements and Soviet Research[59]

After Turkey joined NATO, Turkey tried hard to bring Yugoslavia to it, but that was met with opposition from its side because the President (Tito) was accusing the alliance of his anti-communism as well as the member states’ opposition to joining it, but the West tried to find another solution to reconcile the conditions of Yugoslavia and NATO and on On this basis, the Balkan Pact between Turkey, Yugoslavia and Greece was established on February 28, 1953.[60]

  It is worth noting that, following Turkey’s accession to NATO, the Soviet government sent a memorandum to the Turkish government describing its acceptance in the alliance as leading to an abuse of the relationship between Turkey and the Soviet Union. Turkey responded to the memorandum that its accession to NATO is to defend its security within the framework of security. On February 30, 1952, the Soviet government sent another memorandum claiming that its accession to the alliance meant that there was a direct hostile plan between the Atlantic bloc against the Soviet Union, and that Turkey would be responsible for that, and the differences between Turkey and Russia continued until the death of Stalin in March 5, 1953.[61]                     Turkish leaders sought to strengthen their economic relations with the United States and European countries, especially within the European Common Market, and Turkey concluded many agreements with the United States after World War II, especially after the Truman Principle of 1947, and most of them were economic in exchange for Turkish concessions to the United States to explicitly interfere in affairs. The Turkish Interior[62] .as well as some secret and changing military agreements, most of which were related to the status of NATO forces on Turkish territory, the security responsibilities of these forces and bases, mutual security, and defense assistance issues, the most important of which was the secret agreement on military bases on June 23, 1954, then Joint defense cooperation agreement in July 1969, and on March 26, 1976 an agreement was concluded between the two parties after Turkey announced that all agreements concluded with the United States, including the 1969 defense agreement, lost their legal validity as a result of the US arms embargo on Turkey after the Turkish landing in Cyprus in 1974.[63] The last of these agreements was the Defense Cooperation Agreement between Turkey and the United States in March 1976[64]

   These agreements brought serious restrictions to the Turkish sovereignty in terms of their translation and interpretation, as it established about (100) American military bases through these agreements, without the knowledge of the Turkish Grand National Council, and there were Turkish military units responsible for the ostensible protection of these bases.[65] The total of the main American military bases (26) are bases to monitor the air and maritime activity of the Soviet Union, including espionage stations, radars to detect tests, Soviet missile launch bases, airports, bases, and stores, and a section of these bases has been designated to monitor the activities and movements of the military units of neighboring Arab countries such as Iraq, Syria, and the Gulf states Arabi.[66] These bases were established after Turkey’s entry into NATO, and in light of the bilateral agreements signed between them, and the area of Turkish land allocated to the Americans in 1966 amounted to about (34.5) million square meters, and these institutions and bases are protected by the Turkish forces, as well as entering them. It is not allowed even for Turkish army personnel, and the American bases in Turkey can be divided into the following:- Air bases: the air base in Gigli in Izmir, the Incirlik base in Adana, which is the most important air base in the eastern Mediterranean.[67]

-Strategic missile bases: the most important of which is the Cigli base in Izmir, then it was lifted after the Cuban missile crisis in 1963, when the United States decided to withdraw it from Turkey and Italy and provide them with submarines carrying Polaris missiles[68]

Intelligence and intelligence stations: There are three points in Turkey for the stationing of American electronic intelligence units, which are (a mission force in the Gulf of Azmat, in the city of Sinop, and in Samsun on the Black Sea) and there is another station in Diyarbakir that carries out activities (repelling Soviet missiles and military movements, and it is a center To monitor Soviet missiles, and there is an observatory near the capital, Ankara, that monitors and records Soviet nuclear research

-Intelligence and other institutions links: It is (Laurent-Vazvapuru station north of Marmara belonging to the US Navy to detect submarines and ships, and there are fourteen NATO control extending from Norway to Turkey that monitors and reports about any Soviet movement or attack at the time, and all have been linked Intelligence centers within a powerful network to the United States[69]

-The leadership of the aid group – local support: there is a leadership of the American support group in (Tuseleg) in Ankara that manages the services and works of the military personnel in Turkey, and there are also groups of warehouses and stores of equipment, ammunition and weapons in separate areas of Turkey, the most important of which is in Yamurtalik in Iskenderun (Hatay).[70]

-Undoubtedly, the United States used some of these bases against the countries of the Arab world. It used the Incirlik Air Base in Adana and (a thousand families) during the Lebanese crisis in 1958, without the approval of the Turkish Army Chief of Staff[71].

This provoked the reactions of the Turkish public opinion and demanded the removal of the American bases in Turkey, and under the influence of this, the US government announced its agreement in August 1967 to hand over the base (Trarli) west of Ankara to the Turkish government and a month after the workers of the military bases demonstrated against the US presence in Turkey The American military bases in Turkey are the main source of American information on the Soviet side, as well as the other duties and facilities provided by these bases[72].

It is worth noting that since the Cyprus crisis in the mid-sixties of the twentieth century, Turkish-American relations became tense, especially on November 17, 1967, when the Turkish government tried to invade the island of Cyprus, as the US government tried to prevent Suleiman Demirel’s government (1965-1971)[73] To reverse the decision to intervene on the island.[74] Since that date, the Turkish political parties began discussing the issue of the American presence in Turkey and demanding the amendment of some bilateral agreements, and in the midst of that, Turkey submitted during that period a proposal to the American government with a view to amending some bilateral agreements, and Turkey submitted during that period a draft to the NATO conference and announced its desire On the signing of a new agreement on the American military bases in Turkey, and this draft provided for Turkey’s supervision of these bases, the United States agreed to the proposal, and in June 1969 an agreement was concluded between the two countries in the matter of re-amending some bilateral agreements, according to which the number of American persons was reduced to Seven thousand people were transferred to the military airports and US radars to the Turkish military forces. As for the other military bases, new principles were established for them, and the means of launching nuclear weapons were also put in the American units stationed in Turkey, as they became available to the Turkish armed forces, except for the Incirlik Air Base in Adana.[75]

NATO went through a crisis during the Turkish landing in Cyprus in 1974, when the United States was forced to ban American weapons and stop economic aid to Turkey, but it returned and lifted the embargo in 1978.[76] Of Turkish significance. Especially after several events, including the fall of the Shah of Iran, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, and the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war. This necessarily led the United States of America to feel the importance of the Turkish strategy as a basic pillar that should be preserved and supported, and high-level military committees were formed between the two countries in order to improve and expand defense cooperation between them, and the United States continued to provide economic and military assistance to Turkey regardless of the reservations it expressed Other western countries[77]                                                                                                                          On the other hand, the US Secretary of Defense (Weinberger) affirmed that an industrial and military strong Turkey will certainly be one of the main pillars of NATO and that it will be able to help in stabilizing and maintaining security in the region. He also stressed the United States ’support for Turkey economically and militarily more than it can, and this will continue Support for the coming years for Turkey to be lost and the improvement of its forces. He also stressed on improving its position on weapons to improve the military situation of NATO’s southeastern wing.[78]

Turkey and the Balkan Pact  The third:- topic

After Turkey and Greece joined NATO in 1952, the member states of this alliance found that there is a void in the right wing of it, and that this wing includes a part of the Balkan countries, and therefore the Western countries devoted their efforts to forming an alliance of the Balkan countries and annexing Yugoslavia to it, after it opposed The last resort to join the North Alliance, because Tito accused this alliance of being anti-communist .[79] And that was when Yugoslavia split and expelled from the Cominform.[80]  Since 1948 it has become politically and militarily isolated from the Balkan countries, and the differences between Yugoslavia and Italy over the Trieste region have made it in a difficult position vis-à-vis Western countries. To get out of this isolation, Yugoslavia returned to the policy that it drew after the Second World War and tried through it to make Belgrade a center. For the Balkan alliance, and this policy was one of the important factors in severing its relations with the Soviet Union, and instead of heading to Bulgaria, President Tito decided to go to Turkey and Greece. [81]  Therefore, Yugoslavia influenced cooperation with the West and began to depend in its economic policy on American relations in the first place.[82] The first steps to introduce Yugoslavia to this new fold were the establishment of the Balkan alliance between Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia as a preparatory means for an attempt to include Yugoslavia in the membership of NATO.[83]

It is worth noting that relations between Turkey and Greece improved in a timely manner after its accession to NATO and after a series of reciprocal visits by officials of the two countries, as well as reciprocal visits between officials of Turkey and Yugoslavia, as the exchange of visits resulted in a meeting of the foreign ministers of the three countries Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia in BelgradeIn January 1953, after the conclusion of the talks, a joint charter was issued recommending a common agreement in the views, especially in the field of the common security of these countries[84] A preliminary meeting was held in Turkey between the delegations of the three countries for the period 17-20 February 1953, during which a new economic agreement was signed between Yugoslavia and Turkey.[85] On February 18, 1953, the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation was signed between the three countries, and on July 11, 1953, the foreign ministers decided to create a permanent secretariat for the alliance whose function is to prepare conferences for the foreign ministers of these  countries.[86]                                                                                                                          A flaw in this treaty is that there is no text in it that takes the collective motive in case of aggression against one of these countries, and Turkey has tried to include Italy in the Balkan Treaty, as well as it has made efforts to convert this treaty into a real treaty, as the three Balkan countries signed in (Bled) On the Balkan Pact on August 19,1954,[87]                                                                                                                         It stated, “Belief in the principles of the United Nations and the desire to contribute by uniting efforts to strengthen peace and develop international cooperation.” The treaty recognized Turkey and Greece’s commitments to NATO, and stated that aggression against any of the member states is an aggression against everyone. A permanent grouping of foreign ministers meets twice a year, establishing an advisory council for NATO, and after signing this treaty, Turkey had acquired a prominent international position, and that this policy enabled it to flow economic and military aid from the United States to it, but this alliance did not last long, as it began It loses its power in the spring of 1955 as a result of the rapprochement that occurred between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia after the death of Stalin and correcting his mistakes, a place for disagreements between Turkey and Greece over the Cyprus issue, the biggest impact on its declin.[88]

Although the Balkan Alliance is a strong right wing of NATO, it did not lay on solid foundations, in addition to that it is not possible to achieve cooperation in the political, economic and cultural fields between countries whose political and economic systems differ, as well as based on unrealistic defense rules. In fact, this The alliance is the result of some international circumstances and circumstances, and with its termination, the alliance has ended.[89]

Conclusions and Recommendations :

Turkey occupies an important strategic position in the Middle East region as it was and is still a link and a linking country between the three continents of the world, which gave it great strategic importance at the regional and international levels, especially after the Middle East region became one of the most important strategic areas in the world due to its possession of oil wealth. And huge global reserves, in addition to its possession of the only global maritime corridor that connects the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and its proximity to the former Soviet Union. Turkey tried to arrange its internal conditions after the declaration of the republic and the abolition of the caliphate, and it began with a phase of openness to the countries of its regional neighborhood, so it entered into many alliances, projects and Western strategies as a strategic ally since the end of World War II, and benefited from the large economic aid provided by the United States under the Truman and Marshall projects. Its association with the West, especially after entering NATO, has an important role in establishing Western political and military alliances in the Middle East region, with the aim of preserving the interests of vital Western countries, then it entered as a main party to the Baghdad Charter and the Middle East Leadership Project, and did not consider the Arab Mashreq region except within the framework of Its importance to Western strategy and as one of the pillars of that strategy based on containing the former Soviet Union and preventing the extension of communist influence to the region.

Because Turkey is located at the crossroads between Europe, West Asia, the Middle East and Africa, as international conflicts conflict. This strategic geographic location made Turkey a European country, and also made it from the Mediterranean basin and from the Balkan countries as well as from the countries of the Middle East. And Anatolia is a bridge between For this reason, Turkey was called the southern gate to Europe and at the same time the western gate to the east. There is no doubt that Turkey’s geographical location enabled it – in addition to the political realities that Turkey could assume a role in the alliance system. Turkey was forced, as is the case in the era of the Ottoman Empire, to search in order to find some concepts related to international balance. The geographical factor, pushed the Soviets after World War II, for strategic motives, to strengthen the position of their fleet in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and Ismat Inonu realized that Turkey should not remain withdrawn in its struggle with the Soviet Union, and therefore it has created ideological friendly relations with the Western powers.

  In view of this, Turkey joined the alliance, after the approval of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on September 21, 1951, to the alliance, and on February 18, 1952, the protocol regarding Turkey’s accession to the alliance was implemented. The nature of the Turkish relationship with the West regarding the Middle East region is governed by mutual motives for both of them. Turkish from the West, and what the West wants from Turkey. Although Turkey’s relationship with the West will remain constant despite the different ranges of its power, as long as Turkey’s regional options in Central Asia and the Middle East are linked to its relations with the West. So Turkey’s regional balance is first based on its relations with the West. We have reached the truth and nature of the motives and motives that explain the nature of the Turkish perspective on relations with the United States at the end of World War II, and then follow up the relationship between the two parties through the most important factors that formed the basic or fundamental motives for that perspective, and our main conclusion in this regard is: Despite the great importance of the events and changes that have taken place during that period, they did not change the essence of the Turkish perspective on relations with the United States as much as they led to a Turkish attempt to adapt to them, considering that the Its fight with the United States after World War II was, in essence, based on:

 -Providing an effective mechanism to a large extent to achieve a kind of balance of power that protects it from conflicts and potential rivalries of the major powers, especially Russia.

-Its need for a strong ally that would allow it some effectiveness with regard to its policies, as it is a major international party with broad international interests, in addition to what could provide it with reasonable margin of action to achieve its interests.

-To consolidate its position in the face of other external and even internal forces, competing with Turkey if not in conflict with it, such as mainly Greece, Armenia and Bulgaria to some extent, and the Kurdish nationalism at home.

-Turkey’s continuing need for US military and economic aid.

-Highlighting its regional role in the region, to maximize its gains, consolidate its position, and use the elements of its power (water, economy, and military influence).

-Seeking to make Turkey the major regional power and the element of stability and balance in the Middle East region. This explains why the successive Turkish governments during the republican era continued to support the approach of the United States in order to preserve the pro-Western and US regimes in the Middle East, in addition to its accession to the European Common Market, and its pragmatic and pragmatic stance on regional issues in the region.

-Seeking to include the Middle East region within the interests of NATO and to find a regional organization that would bring this region together with the West and Turkey to ensure the flow of oil to Turkey as a vital goal.

Based on that, it can be said as a strategic view, aiming to achieve national interest and build self-power. The Turkish perspective on relations with the United States was, and still, indicating motives and goals with regional connotations and orientation in the first place, whether political-security or economic, with the aim of influence and influence It was the mother of expansion in the regional environment of Turkey. On the contrary, we find that the American perspective on the relationship with Turkey is based on motives and goals that have global connotations in its content as well as in its significance and is specific to the Turkish regional environment. And if Turkey is described as an important country from a geo-political point of view, this is largely due to the importance The strategy that the United States attaches to this environment, the Middle East, especially the Arab Gulf region, as a “vital interest for American national security,” and then for the political-security function that Turkey can undertake within the framework of the American strategy for the region, in the service of American interests.

Therefore, the Western friendship factor was considered one of the pillars of modern or contemporary Turkish foreign policy, and the emergence of the Soviet power increased (Turkish concerns about the Soviets and their security problems with them pushed it to play a strategic role through its position as a link between East and West and proximity to the Middle East, as a belt against the threat. The Soviet Union aimed at achieving Western and American interests or preventing them from infiltrating them, and then taking them as a main pillar in the region. Therefore, the Turkish fear of the position and the Soviet requests provided a strong incentive for Turkey to search for a strong bond with the West. Starting by seeking to reconcile and unify the views of Western powers with the views And work to convince the United States of America that the convergence of the interests of the two countries constitutes a sufficient ground for American intervention to defend Turkish interests against the Soviets, as well as that a Turkish position gives the United States freedom of action and movement between the West and the East. It is still considered a tool for the West, especially the United States, in the Middle East and will remain so.

List of sources

  -Mustafa Al-Zein, Ataturk and his successors, 1st Edition, Beirut, 1982, pp. 111-113

-Written by a former Turkish officer, The Idol Man, translated by Abdullah Abdul Rahman, Al-Risalah Press, 2nd Edition, Beirut, 1978, P.57

-Muhammad Zaki Abdel Qader, Freedom and Human Dignity, Cairo, 1959, p. 234

4-IsmetBozbag, Bitmryehkavga: Ataturk- Inonu, Inoni- Bayar, Istanbul, 1993, PP. 11-78

  -Ahmed Nuri Al-Nuaimi, Turkish foreign policy after World War II, published master’s thesis, Freedom House for Printing, Baghdad, 1975, p. 22

-Batoul Hillel Jabir Al-Mousawi, Turkish policy towards the Arab Gulf region since 1991 and its future prospects, unpublished doctoral thesis, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Baghdad, 2005, p.6.

  -Roy McCreds, Approaches to Foreign Policy in the Countries of the World, Translation, Hassan Saab, Edition 2, Dar Al-Kitab Al-Arabi, Beirut, 1966, pp. 580-581

-Mehmet Gonlubol-cen sar ,Ataturk ve Turkiyenin Dispolitikasi (1919-1938) , Ankara,1990 ,p. 149-150 , Bulent Ecevit , Turkey s  security policies , survial , sept . / oct . , 1978 , p .198.

  -Khalil Ibrahim Mahmoud al-Nasiri, Turkish foreign policy towards the Middle East for the period from 1945 to 1991, unpublished doctoral thesis, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Baghdad, 1995, pp. 32-33

  -Riad Al-Samad, International Relations in the Twentieth Century, Part 1, the evolution of events between the two wars 1914-1945, An-Nahar Publishing House, Beirut, dt, p. 371; Norman  Hill , international Polities , New York ,harper and row ,1963 ,p.239.

  – Philip  k.hitti,the near east in history ,von nostrand , u.s.A. 1960 , p .372

  -Riad Al-Samad, International Relations in the Twentieth Century, C1, The Post-World War II Period, University Foundation for Studies, Publishing and Distribution, Beirut, 1983, p. 197

  -Seizai Orkont, US-Turkish Military Relations, translation, Research and Information Center, Revolutionary Command Council, Dr T, pp. 92-93

-Ahmed Nuri Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, The National Press, Amman, 1981, p. 343..

  Al-Samad, The Post-World War II Period, previous source, p. 131-

  -Muhammad Kamal Abdel Majid, The Middle East in the Strategic Balance, The Anglo-Egyptian Library, Cairo, 1972, p. 438

  Nabil Muhammad Selim, The Development of Turkish-American Relations, pg. 27 –

  -Revolutionary Command Council, Turkey, Greece and NATO, Research and Information Center, Political Studies Series No. (21) 1982, p. 6, Abdul Hamid, the previous source, pp. 439-440

  Abdul Hamid, the previous source, pp. 439-446 ;      Orkent, ibid., Pp. 97-98-

  -Khalil Ahmad Ibrahim and others, Contemporary Turkey, Center for Regional Studies, University of Mosul, 1988, p. 207

-thomas A. Bryson ,American Diplomatic Relations with the middle east 1784 -1975:A survey , the scarecrow press , U.S.A. 1977,p .147.

  Mukalled, International Political Relations, p. 360.-

  -A lecture by Dr. Ahmad Nouri Al-Nuaimi, on the Special National Defense Course, Baghdad, 1985

  -Spain James. W , middle East Defense : Anew Approach, The Middle East Journal, Vol. 98, No. 39.

  -Turkish Affairs Journal, Issue 1, Year Two, MICE, Institute for Asian and African Studies (canceled), Al-Mustansiriya University, 1985, p. 55

  -Turkish Affairs Journal, Issue 1, Year Two, MICE, Institute for Asian and African Studies (canceled), Al-Mustansiriya University, 1985, p. 55.

  Al-Samad, International Relations Post-World War II, pp. 127-128-

  -Muhammad Shaker Meshaal, “The Impact of Post-World War II Problems 1945-1965,

– Actions of the Second Conference on Arab-Turkish Relations”, Center for Guarding the Jihad of Libyans Against the Italian Invasion, Studies Series No. (9), Tripoli, December 1982, p. 722.

  -Georges .Troubled  Allianee: Turkish – American Problem in Historieal Perspeetive ,1945 -1971

-Washington .d.c. American en teerprise .institute for publie research , 1972 , p.184 .

  Al-Samad, International Relations Post-World War II, p.131-

  -Ismail Sabry Moqalled, International Political Relations, Study of Origins and Theories, Kuwait University Press, 3rd Edition, Kuwait, 1984, p.-

  -ference A. Vali , Bridges Across , the Bosphorus , Baltimore: the John Hopkins press ,1971 , p.36

  -Fadel Zaki Muhammad, Foreign Policy and its Dimensions in International Politics, 1st Edition, Shafiq Press, Baghdad, 1985, p. 178

  Al-Samad, International Relations Post-World War II, p.124-

  -Luqman Mahmoud Omar Ahmed, Turkish-American Relations 1975 – 1991, unpublished PhD thesis, Faculty of Arts, University of Mosul, 2004, pp. 39-40

  Orkont, previous source, p. 185 ;RCC, Turkey, Greece, and NATO, p. 8-

  -Revolutionary Command Council, Turkey, File III, C2, Research and Information Center, DT, p. 197

  -Nassif Jassim Al-Muttalabi, Turkish Armament in the Middle East and Its Impact on Arab National Security, Center for Third World Studies, College of Political Sciences, University of Baghdad, dt, pp. 36-40

  -Sabah Mahmoud Muhammad, The Geolitical Conflict, in the Arabian Gulf, Baghdad, 1986, pp. 62-64

  -Ahmed Nuri Al-Nuaimi, The phenomenon of multi-party politics in Turkey, Baghdad 1989, pp. 1750 186

-Saxfi Tashan , Introductory eemarks disoplitika, Ankara, Volume V, No. 5: 4- 4, 1991, 92

  -Richard N. Hass , Managiny nato s Weakest Flank :the uinieted state ,Greece , and Turkey ,Orbis ,A Journal of world affairs . vol .30,no .3 ,fall , 1986 , p.465

  -Al-Samad, International Relations Post-World War II, p.148Al-Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, p. 137;

  -Nabil Muhammad Selim, The Evolution of Turkish-American Relations in Light of Contemporary International Changes, Unpublished PhD thesis, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Baghdad, 1997, p.159

[1] He was born in the city of Thessaloniki in Turkey in 1881, graduated from the War College in Istanbul in 1905, and in 1910 he traveled to France on a military mission, then he fought in Tripoli in the West during the Italian War in 1911, participated in the Balkan War in 1913, and was appointed a military attaché in Sofia later. He became commander of the (19) division in the Ottoman army during World War One, and for his distinction in fighting Arabs (Kamal Pasha). He later led the national war of independence and the establishment of the modern state of Turkey after the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, then became president of the republic. He carried out many reforms in the country with a Western character aimed at separating Turkey from its Ottoman past, and he was extreme in that, as he supported the modernization trend in legal legislation I reached the limit of clothes. The rule of Mustafa Kemal, who was called (Ataturk) meaning the father of the Turks, continued until his death in 1938. For details, see: Mustafa Al-Zein, Ataturk and his successors, 1st Edition, Beirut, 1982, pp. 111-113; Written by a former Turkish officer, The Idol Man, translated by Abdullah Abdul Rahman, Al-Risalah Press, 2nd Edition, Beirut, 1978, P.57; Muhammad Zaki Abdel Qader, Freedom and Human Dignity, Cairo, 1959, p. 234; IsmetBozbag, Bitmryehkavga: Ataturk- Inonu, Inoni- Bayar, Istanbul, 1993, PP. 11-78.

[2] Ahmed Nuri Al-Nuaimi, Turkish foreign policy after World War II, published master’s thesis, Freedom House for Printing, Baghdad, 1975, p. 22; Batoul Hillel Jabir Al-Mousawi, Turkish policy towards the Arab Gulf region since 1991 and its future prospects, unpublished doctoral thesis, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Baghdad, 2005, p.6.

[3] A pact was concluded between the Balkan countries (Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Romania) on February 9, 1934, in which the states pledged to guarantee each other’s borders and consult in the event of any threat to peace in the Balkans and to adopt cultural and economic cooperation projects to enhance the spirit of unity. It is mentioned that this charter Is The charter of small and weak states that did not take into account the protection of their borders from the aggression of large countries, for more see: Roy McCreds, Approaches to Foreign Policy in the Countries of the World, Translation, Hassan Saab, Edition 2, Dar Al-Kitab Al-Arabi, Beirut, 1966, pp. 580-581; Mehmet Gonlubol-cen sar ,Ataturk ve Turkiyenin Dispolitikasi (1919-1938) , Ankara,1990 ,p. 149-150 , Bulent Ecevit , Turkey s  security policies , survial , sept . / oct . , 1978 , p .198.

[4] Khalil Ibrahim Mahmoud al-Nasiri, Turkish foreign policy towards the Middle East for the period from 1945 to 1991, unpublished doctoral thesis, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Baghdad, 1995, pp. 32-33.

[5] McCrides, previous source, pp. 582-584.

[6] Riad Al-Samad, International Relations in the Twentieth Century, Part 1, the evolution of events between the two wars 1914-1945, An-Nahar Publishing House, Beirut, dt, p. 371; Norman  Hill , international Polities , New York ,harper and row ,1963 ,p.239.

[7] Same source, p. 371.

[8] McCrides, previous source, p.585.

[9] Al-Samad, the previous source, p. 382.

[10] McCreds, ibid., P. 58 ; Philip  k.hitti,the near east in history ,von nostrand , u.s.A. 1960 , p .372 .

[11] Same source, p. 589.

[12] Riad Al-Samad, International Relations in the Twentieth Century, C1, The Post-World War II Period, University Foundation for Studies, Publishing and Distribution, Beirut, 1983, p. 197.

[13] Seizai Orkont, US-Turkish Military Relations, translation, Research and Information Center, Revolutionary Command Council, Dr T, pp. 92-93; Ahmed Nuri Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, The National Press, Amman, 1981, p. 343. Britain’s fear of the possibility of Germany’s invasion of the Caucasus and access to Baku’s oil did not mean that it had obtained the oil that it began to badly need, but also meant its destruction of the Russian fleet and the loss of the leadership of the Black Sea, which would prolong Turkish safety and necessarily pose a threat to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Palestine and thus threaten the Suez Canal (That is, oil sources and their supply routes): the war speechs of the r thon Winston Churchill , vol .2, cassell and company .ltd ., g.b.1952,p.169. p.41.

[14] Al-Samad, The Post-World War II Period, previous source, p. 131.

[15] Muhammad Kamal Abdel Majid, The Middle East in the Strategic Balance, The Anglo-Egyptian Library, Cairo, 1972, p. 438.

[16] .Al-Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, previous source, p. 22.

[17] Nabil Muhammad Selim, The Development of Turkish-American Relations, pg. 27

[18] Revolutionary Command Council, Turkey, Greece and NATO, Research and Information Center, Political Studies Series No. (21) 1982, p. 6, Abdul Hamid, the previous source, pp. 439-440

[19] McCrides, previous source, p. 593.

[20] Abdul Hamid, the previous source, pp. 439-446 ;      Orkent, ibid., Pp. 97-98

[21] Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, previous source, p. 343..

[22] Khalil Ahmad Ibrahim and others, Contemporary Turkey, Center for Regional Studies, University of Mosul, 1988, p. 207

[23] President Truman’s foreign policy of assisting non-communist countries against the “Soviet threat” has drawn objections from many in the United States. For example, Senator IG Thompson pointed out … that it cannot be said that this (Turkish) country is on the path of democracy. And that there are many considerations that push the United States to help dictatorial regimes that control their nations, and that this military assistance to this government will lead to strengthening the role of the dictatorial military establishment in the long run. See: Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, p. 84. As for George Kennan, a senior US State Department official and a major official responsible for the encirclement policy, he expressed doubts about the exaggerated nature of this policy and asked whether the United States could provide aid to all nations that might find themselves threatened by communism? And many historians of the left of the Americans expressed their conviction that this policy is linked in principle to economic motives. It lies in the need to secure new markets, and access to the oil-rich fields of the Middle Eas; thomas A. Bryson ,American Diplomatic Relations with the middle east 1784 -1975:A survey , the scarecrow press , U.S.A. 1977,p .147.

[24] .Same source, p. 228

[25] Mukalled, International Political Relations, p. 360.

[26] A lecture by Dr. Ahmad Nouri Al-Nuaimi, on the Special National Defense Course, Baghdad, 1985

[27] Spain James. W , middle East Defense : Anew Approach, The Middle East Journal, Vol. 98, No. 39.

[28] Ahmed and others, previous source, p. 215

[29] McCreds, previous source, p. 592

[30] Turkish Affairs Journal, Issue 1, Year Two, MICE, Institute for Asian and African Studies (canceled), Al-Mustansiriya University, 1985, p. 55

[31] Turkish Affairs Journal, Issue 1, Year Two, MICE, Institute for Asian and African Studies (canceled), Al-Mustansiriya University, 1985, p. 55.

[32] Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, p. 108

[33] Abdul Hamid, the previous source, p. 436

[34] Al-Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, p. 113

[35] -Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, p. 116

[36] Al-Samad, International Relations Post-World War II, pp. 127-128

[37] Al-Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, pp. 116-117

[38] Orkent, previous source, p. 94; The main motives for the Truman principle, the former Soviet Union after the end of World War II, acts that were interpreted as a threat to Turkey and the interests of the United States at the same time. As soon as the Soviets withdrew from Iran, they found a loyal regime, not to mention that the Soviet leaders began to wage a psychological war with their neighbors, especially Turkey. This prompted the United States to send naval vessels from the American fleet to the eastern Mediterranean as a deterrent element preventing the Soviets from carrying out any action against Turkey. The internal events in Greece (the arrival of the Communists to power) resulted in US President Truman’s motives to say and declare in January 1946 ((( That if he did not meet the Soviets with an iron fist, the world would be on its way to a third world war)). See: Muhammad Shaker Meshaal, “The Impact of Post-World War II Problems 1945-1965, Actions of the Second Conference on Arab-Turkish Relations”, Center for Guarding the Jihad of Libyans Against the Italian Invasion, Studies Series No. (9), Tripoli, December 1982, p. 722.

[39] McCreds, Ibid., 592

[40] McCreds, Ibid., 592

[41] Georges .Troubled  Allianee: Turkish – American Problem in Historieal Perspeetive ,1945 -1971 ,Washington .d.c. American en teerprise .institute for publie research , 1972 , p.184 . Harri

[42] Al-Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, p. 120

[43] Orcont, ibid, p. 96

[44] Al-Samad, International Relations Post-World War II, p.131

[45] Al-Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, p. 121

[46]   Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, p.96; Al-Nasiri, the previous source, p. 46.

[47] Ismail Sabry Moqalled, International Political Relations, Study of Origins and Theories, Kuwait University Press, 3rd Edition, Kuwait, 1984, p.

[48]

[49] ference A. Vali , Bridges Across , the Bosphorus , Baltimore: the John Hopkins press ,1971 , p.36

[50] McCreds, ibid., P. 593

[51] Fadel Zaki Muhammad, Foreign Policy and its Dimensions in International Politics, 1st Edition, Shafiq Press, Baghdad, 1985, p. 178

[52] Al-Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, p.128

[53] Ahmed and others, previous source, p.208

[54] Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, p. 126

[55] Same source, pp. 129-130

[56] Al-Samad, International Relations Post-World War II, p.124

[57] Al-Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, p. 129

[58] Abdel Hamid, the previous source, p. 441

[59] McCreds, ibid., P. 593

[60] Al-Samad, International Relations Post-World War II, p.148

[61] Al-Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, p. 135

[62] Ahmed and others, previous source, p.209

[63] Luqman Mahmoud Omar Ahmed, Turkish-American Relations 1975 – 1991, unpublished PhD thesis, Faculty of Arts, University of Mosul, 2004, pp. 39-40

[64] Orkont, previous source, p. 185 ;RCC, Turkey, Greece, and NATO, p. 8

[65] Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, pp. 145-147

[66] Same source, pp. 148-158

[67] Revolutionary Command Council, Turkey, File III, C2, Research and Information Center, DT, p. 197

[68] Orcont, ibid., P. 194

[69] Nassif Jassim Al-Muttalabi, Turkish Armament in the Middle East and Its Impact on Arab National Security, Center for Third World Studies, College of Political Sciences, University of Baghdad, dt, pp. 36-40

[70] Sabah Mahmoud Muhammad, The Geolitical Conflict, in the Arabian Gulf, Baghdad, 1986, pp. 62-64

[71] Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, pp. 148-152

[72] Ahmed and others, previous source, p. 212

[73] Suleiman Demirel was born in (Islamkoy) of the city of Sparta in 1924, and graduated an architect from the University of Istanbul, and was elected in the second congress of the Justice Party as the head of the party, and was appointed deputy prime minister in the government of Suad Khairyoglu in 1965, and his government resigned in 1971. The effect of the memorandum was announcedUndertaken by Turkish party leadersFor more, see: Ahmed Nuri Al-Nuaimi, The phenomenon of multi-party politics in Turkey, Baghdad 1989, pp. 1750 186.; Saxfi Tashan , Introductory eemarks disoplitika, Ankara, Volume V, No. 5: 4- 4, 1991, 92

[74] Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, p. 155

[75] The same source, p. 156, p. 158

[76] Ahmed and others, previous source, p. 212

[77] Richard N. Hass , Managiny nato s Weakest Flank :the uinieted state ,Greece , and Turkey ,Orbis ,A Journal of world affairs . vol .30,no .3 ,fall , 1986 , p.465

[78] Orcont, ibid., P. 90 13

[79] Al-Samad, International Relations Post-World War II, p.148

[80] The Cominform: The International League of Communist Parties founded in 1947 and comprising the Communist Parties that govern the countries of Eastern Europe For more, see: Ahmad and others, previous source, p. 213

[81] Ahmed and others, same source, p. 213

[82] Al-Samad, International Relations Post-World War II, p.148Al-Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, p. 137;

[83] Abdel Hamid, the previous source, p. 440

[84] Ahmed and others, same source, p. 213

[85] Al-Naimi, Turkish Foreign Policy, p. 139

[86] Same source, p.140

[87] Nabil Muhammad Selim, The Evolution of Turkish-American Relations in Light of Contemporary International Changes, Unpublished PhD thesis, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Baghdad, 1997, p.159

[88] McCreds, ibid., P. 594

[89] Same source, p. 594

المركز الديمقراطى العربى

المركز الديمقراطي العربي مؤسسة مستقلة تعمل فى اطار البحث العلمى والتحليلى فى القضايا الاستراتيجية والسياسية والاقتصادية، ويهدف بشكل اساسى الى دراسة القضايا العربية وانماط التفاعل بين الدول العربية حكومات وشعوبا ومنظمات غير حكومية.

مقالات ذات صلة

اترك تعليقاً

لن يتم نشر عنوان بريدك الإلكتروني. الحقول الإلزامية مشار إليها بـ *

زر الذهاب إلى الأعلى