Hybrid Diplomacy

No, this is not an official term. It is a term I just made-up to describe the political mix of dialogue and military force. When I look at the world today and how it is conducting itself, I can't help noticing that from a political conduct perspective there are several groupings of countries. On the one hand, there are the so called traditional superpowers, such as the US, China and Russia, who still believe that they can do "trademark" based politics and push their agendas through without any counterpart resistance. Now, be that as it may, the winds of change appear to have reached all sides of the ocean and some adjustments have been made to this approach but seem to be mostly of a cosmetic nature.

Then there is this second group of countries who are aiming at the resurrection of their past glory. Countries, who conduct themselves in relation to others, just like an arrogant family member, who at a family gathering has opened-up the photo album of the past and freezes the pages at a picture in his prime and refuses from that point on to accept the wear and tear that time has inflicted upon his image. But then again, there is cosmetic surgery available which to a great degree is responsible for the revival of youth aspirations.

The third grouping of countries are the ones that never really mattered throughout the course of history, and only served one master or the other at particular moments in time. Countries that were thrown into the conflict of their masters with a third party, the same way we prefer to spend someone else's money today before we use our own, which for some probably egotistical reason we appreciate more. This grouping, is by default lacking any ability to form its own diplomacy handbook, as it usually operates as a pawn in a bigger chess-board.

It seems to me, that the world has progressed at an uneven pace. While most of the countries in the first grouping would give priority to dialogue and diplomacy in their political dealings over military engagement, as they view physical violence (i.e. the mobilisation of their army) as a tool which they would apply only to the less developed regions, where interests are at stake, but hardly against a peer, while the countries in the second grouping seem to have elected the conflict approach in a first step and only after their military has opened-up the way they engage in dialogue. Admittedly, sounds like a more efficient approach, if army operations are successful, however, it is also lacking diplomatic delicacy.

If I were to pinpoint the evolution gap between these two groupings, I would just focus on the timing delay in the decision making of each group to resort to war as a means of resolving conflict. It is without any doubt certain in my mind that the notion of aggression and physical violence is embedded in the DNA of the second group. But we must not forget that history is a cyclical process. Which brings me to the actual topic of this post. Turkey. Today's Turkey living in the shadows of the Ottoman Empire, which it so eagerly wishes to revive. For no specific reason, other than the satisfaction of Mr. Erdogan's vanity. In a conquer and divide fashion, safeguarding that conflict will be eternal and peace only a wishful theoretical concept in the wider region. Because violence feeds itself from more violence. To some degree I sympathise with the man. He is definitely a gifted leader, a horse-whisperer to his nation, and a skilled gambler. But what insanity is it that drives power-thirsty people to sacrifice the life of other humans only to satisfy their appetite for short-lived glory? For maybe a place in history, not necessarily a good one. When a back-seat in mankind's history will do. When being remembered for disaster and miss-fortune upon his people will also do. We all know the recipe by now. Every now and then an overly patriotic leader covered in the shell of megalomania sells the idea of "Empire" to uneducated and poor people, boosting their moral into the sphere of insanity, where dying for this noble ambition seems a fair price to pay.

Turkey, without any doubt, has shaped into a regional superpower in the last decade. Turkey has also become a military super-power in the region and keeps growing its military capabilities beyond grasp. Turkey, also understands that it stands no chance whatsoever to enter the European Union. Mr. Erdogan, was smart enough to understand that early in the game, so he gave-up that aspiration altogether and focused into becoming the regional superpower she is today, which in accordance with many political analysts of the past, should be Turkey's natural orientation. But power, is nothing without control, as the old advertisement of a tyre-manufacturer once said. And this begs the next question. Who and how, is to control Turkey's power today, where it questions all International Treaties of the past simply because she knows that she can amend the status-quo by means of military force? For quite some time, we were deliberating on the issue, of whether Turkey's power would have been easier to tame, if within the EU, rather than outside the EU. Well, gentlemen, this was a concern of the past. Mr. Erdogan, having violence embedded in his Turkish DNA would not hesitate one millisecond to turn his guns to our faces. The question is how do we respond?