The Greater Middle East Project: An Instrument of Imperialist Restructuring Process

Part I 

Although no specific project can be singled out, the “Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative” (BMENA) exemplifies an imperialist approach that has recently attracted considerable scholarly and political attention.[1]  This project forms part of the political strategy of the United States of America (USA), commonly described as the "new world order," which seeks global dominance and unilateral governance. It constitutes a key element of USA’s foreign policy. The project constitutes a tactical phase within the broader strategic objectives of United States (US) imperialism to establish global dominance.

The term “The Greater Middle East Project” (GMEP), commonly used in the Middle East and Turkey, is employed in this study to designate the project under examination. The use of the term “project” underscores the deliberate and calculated nature of this imperialist aggression.

For the realisation of the plan to make the 21st century the American century, controlling the world's energy resources is a sine qua non. The USA, recognised as the largest and most influential imperialist power both globally and within the “Greater Middle East,” has consistently sought to regulate inter-state and intra-state relations in the region to advance the class interests of its monopoly capital fraction, particularly capital groups controlling the oil and arms industries, as well as its own state interests. The “neo-conservatives” (The term is often used to refer to the most reactionary and aggressive representatives of US imperialism) who control the US administration are trying to carry out the political, economic and cultural restructuring[2] of a vast geography starting from Morocco and including Afghanistan.[3] They want to redraw the political map of a vast geography of the world's most significant energy resources.[4] In short, behind the mask of democratisation, the US wants to strengthen its domination over the oil and gas wealth and markets stretching from North Africa to Central Asia and expand its military bases and installations network.[5]

The GMEP, characterised by its extensive geographical reach and comprehensive scope, addresses a wide range of complex issues. The breadth of these challenges is such that this article serves primarily as an introduction to the project's multifaceted nature.

Theoretical Foundations and Practical Implementation of the Project

Project ideologues argue that internal conditions within regional countries are a primary cause of fundamentalism and terrorism. As more individuals are denied political and economic rights, extremism, terrorism, international crime, illegal migration, etc., are likely to rise.[6] More concretely, fundamentalism and terrorism are the product of a failed process of modernisation that has led to the emergence of weak states. What needs to be done now is to assist the modernisation process in the region (which you should read as capitalisation in every field).[7] The USA imperialists declare that they aim to bring “democracy and freedom” to the region through economic reforms and enhancing stability and security.

On February 26, 2003, George W. Bush delivered a speech at a meeting organised by the American Enterprise Institute, a reactionary think-tank and unconditional supporter of the state of Israel, which is one of the most ardent advocates of the war in Iraq. According to a news release issued by White House staff, Bush asserted that a liberated Iraq could demonstrate the United States' commitment to freedom and reform in this strategically significant region, thereby providing hope and progress to millions. Furthermore, the establishment of a new government in Iraq was presented as a potential model to inspire and motivate other countries in the region.[8] 

This imperialist strategy, which encompasses economic, political, social, and ideological-cultural levels, does not merely aim to overthrow political regimes that conflict to some extent with the interests of US monopoly capital and US imperialism, nor does it only seek to bring to power political regimes that will cooperate with the US. Simultaneously, it seeks to achieve or reinforce superiority over rival imperialist powers in the ongoing global imperialist re-division, particularly Russia, France, Germany, and Japan. Additionally, the Chinese state is identified as a potential future major imperialist power. This project also implements a policy of intimidation and suppression of the working classes and peoples, preventing possible revolutions in this vast region, a geography of class and national contradictions, and inter-state and regional conflicts. The GMEP must be considered within this framework, which has been determined in general terms. The intertwining of economic, political, social, and ideological-cultural processes must be the starting point for theoretical analysis and for drawing some conclusions.

An analysis of the regions encompassed by the GMEP indicates that United States imperialism, citing the attacks of September 11, 2001, as justification, has initiated a complex process of political and economic restructuring. These attacks have provided the United States with a significant opportunity to advance its regional strategic objectives. Military intervention and warfare have emerged as the primary instruments within this imperialist foreign policy framework. Political and economic “reform” initiatives, as well as efforts to exert ideological and cultural influence or to promote Western values and lifestyles, are implemented in accordance with the overarching strategy of military intervention.

The United States initiated military action against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after the regime refused to negotiate. Subsequently, the Taliban was overthrown, and a collaborationist political regime was installed. However, this new government failed to establish authority over the entire country. The territory controlled by Afghanistan’s central government remains limited, resulting in a de facto situation of multiple competing power centres.

The war against the Ba’athist regime in Iraq followed the war against the Taliban regime. The USA and its collaborators are in a more difficult situation in Iraq than in Afghanistan. There is a strong resistance against the imperialist occupation and the collaborationist-puppet political regime. The Bush administration wants to make Iraq an attractive “democratic model” for the Middle East. That is why, among other things, the US imperialists and their domestic collaborators, who are planning to hold parliamentary elections in January 2005 to give a democratic appearance to the collaborationist-puppet political regime, know no rules in the use of military means; they are bombing cities and neighbourhoods indiscriminately. 

Another point that should not be overlooked is the developments in Libya, to the West of the “Greater Middle East” geography. The Libyan state yielded to the pressure of imperialist states, especially the USA. The Gaddafi regime continues to make concessions to reduce tensions with the West, address external challenges, and end its isolation from the “international community.”

The so-called GMEP must not be analysed in isolation. It is a whole, a strategic plan consisting of many parts or tactical plans. For years, efforts have been made to create favourable ideological-political and psychological conditions for the states and peoples of the region to adopt the GMEP. According to the economic and political power holders in the USA, everything (terrorism, fundamentalist movements and others) that threatens the West originates from this region. What should be done then?

This region, the source of great evils, should be “helped” with a plan similar to the Marshall Plan implemented in Western Europe after the Second World War. “The U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative: Building Hope for the Years Ahead”[9], announced by US Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on December 12, 2002, is one of the components of the GMEP. The project aimed to establish the necessary ideological, political, and psychological conditions for the adoption of the GMEP. It also seeks to consolidate United States hegemony across various sectors in the region, including education and the development of civil society.

According to imperialist spokespeople, the plan will provide a framework and financial resources for the US to work with Arab states in the Arab world, as well as expand economic, political and educational opportunities for all. The project, coordinated by US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, will be managed by the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. The Free Trade Agreement between the United States and the Kingdom of Jordan, and the efforts to conclude a similar agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco, are elements of the political, economic, and cultural restructuring mentioned above. According to Powell, the second pillar of the Partnership Project is strengthening political participation at the regional level since open economies need open political systems to succeed.

 “Western civilisation” versus “Islamic civilisation”—or what some polemicists call “uncivilisation”[10]

When we look at the religious orientation of the people living in the region, which is advocated to be restructured in all respects, we will see that the vast majority of them adhere to Islam. The GMEP is a Western-led reorganisation of the Islamic world in this region. The GMEP may be understood as the reorganisation of a segment of the Islamic world within the region to facilitate alignment with Western civilisation. Neo-conservatives, recognised for promoting aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, within the US administration, support Western intervention in predominantly Islamic regions and countries. This perspective is echoed by numerous bourgeois scholars and intellectuals.

The historian Bernard Lewis, father of the concept of the “Greater Middle East” and a leading expert on Middle East history, is one of them. Bernard Lewis, a prominent advocate of United States foreign policy, contends that the “Islamic geography” should undergo democratization and restructuring. According to imperialist policymakers and Bernard Lewis, the trajectory of a civilisation -in our case Islamic civilisation- Islamic civilisation can be engineered through military intervention, diplomatic and political pressure, and forms of economic “aid” that function as instruments of leverage. Lewis contends that the central issue lies not in internal developments within the Islamic world, but in the broader conflict between Islam and the West.[11] From this perspective, the United States, Western countries, and Israel are portrayed as combating totalitarianism in the name of democracy and individual freedoms, thereby justifying their actions.[12] This conflict is framed not simply as a clash between civilizations, but as a struggle for civilization itself against totalitarian barbarism. Consequently, proponents of democracy are considered justified in using force, and responsibility for casualties on both sides is attributed to those perceived as threatening the Western way of life.[13]

An essential element of the GMEP, in which the Arab-Israeli conflict —specifically the very existence of the “Palestinian question” — is not even a matter of discourse, is the preservation of the State of Israel’s existence, the assurance of its security, and the reinforcement of its statehood.

The issue extends beyond the acceptance or imposition of economic and political systems. It encompasses the widespread enforcement of Western culture, including value judgments, behavioural codes, customs, habits, and artistic and aesthetic conceptions. Lewis argues that Western nations should encourage the adoption of “Western culture” within Muslim societies, although the ultimate decision remains with these societies. He further asserts that the “Greater Middle East” will likely remain unchanged until these societies make what he deems the “right” choices or until those who coerce their decisions lose the power to do so.[14]

Some reactions within the imperialist camp

The GMEP serves as an instrument through which imperialist powers advance their competition and facilitate the redivision of the world. Through the GMEP, the USA seeks to restrict the spheres of influence of both existing and potential rival imperialist powers within the region. Nevertheless, prevailing inter-imperialist power relationships compel the USA to make concessions to other major imperialist states, particularly Germany and France, thereby incorporating them as partners in the project. As US policy in the region often undermines the interests of these states, their opposition to the Iraq war has conferred a degree of prestige upon Germany and France among Arab populations.

Nicole Gnesotto, director of the European Union Institute for Security Studies, was critical of the US plans in the February 10, 2004, issue of the French newspaper Le Figaro. According to her, the “Greater Middle East” project fulfils three functions: Unifying the American strategy, simplifying the region's problems, and distracting from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Put differently, according to Gnesotto, the American discourse has to ensure that the arguments for war (against Iraq) are transformed from terrorism (not proven) and weapons of mass destruction (not found) into arguments for war against (Islamist) tyranny.

In favour of a “multilateral” approach, Gnesotto recalls the Barcelona process. This process, launched in 1995 with the Arab countries of the Mediterranean and aimed at economic and political reforms, should culminate in the creation of a free trade area by 2010. The European Union fears that the US project will undermine this process, in which billions of Euros have already been spent.[15]

An expert writing in the French newspaper Le Monde on February 27, 2004, expressed concern that the USA aims to utilise the resources of the European Union (EU) to achieve its geopolitical objectives and expects the EU to provide financial support.[16]

Responses across the Arab world

The reaction to the GMEP in this region was complex. While some groups supported the project, the majority opposed it to varying extents. Progressive and revolutionary political forces, particularly the latter, strongly opposed the project, viewing it as an attempt to establish or reinforce US hegemony.

If we take the media's coverage as a guide, we can see that the region's people reject the project. It is shown by the analysis entitled “Greater Middle East Initiative: ‘Essential’ Reforms Cannot Be Imposed”, based on 89 reports published in 22 countries between February 25, 2004, and March 11, 2004, by the US State Department International Information Programmes. According to the key findings of this analysis, right-wing writers and moderate Arab’s support “this grand plan to democratise the Muslim world,” while others argue that the Arab world should implement “its model of democracy” and not one “imposed from outside.” “Hardline” newspapers, on the other hand, reject the project and its "hidden American intentions for hegemony.”

The Egyptian state-owned Akhbar-al-Yawm argued that linking reforms to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would only delay the reforms and render them unattainable. In stark contrast, the Syrian state-owned Tishreen newspaper warned that the GMEP would “undermine Muslim beliefs” and pave the way for the “grand Zionist project.” Meanwhile, Moroccan and Lebanese observers believe that the GMEP is designed to undermine and obliterate the “Arab and Islamic cultural heritage,” a concern that resonates deeply in the region.[17]

Through this project, the United States, despite its longstanding collaboration with some of the most reactionary Arab regimes in the region, generated anger among its own allies. The GMEP poses a danger to the interests of the collaborationist Arab states, at least those of the current political power holders. The rulers of the Arab states, where bourgeois political freedoms are absent or extremely limited, are well aware of the dangers of a multifaceted regional restructuring, even under the hegemony of the USA, which has been their ally for decades. Once begun, the process of bourgeois reform cannot be known where and how it will end. In political geography, where political liberalisation, let alone democratisation, is unacceptable, there is nothing strange in the reactions to the GMEP, ranging from scepticism to resentment.

For example, according to Egyptian President Mubarak, reforms must come from within the country. Each country has its own characteristics, and imposing a single model on all Islamic countries is unlikely to succeed. It is important to be cautious and aware of the potential risks of external imposition. Stating that there was an unprecedented level of hatred against the Americans in the region, Mubarak emphasised that imposing reforms from outside would strengthen terrorism, contrary to what was intended.[18]

October 2004

------------------------------ 

Part II 

The previous section examined the theory and practice of the "Greater Middle East Project" (GMEP), as well as responses from both the Arab world and the imperialist front. This section analyses the intended roles assigned to the "New NATO" and Turkey within this imperialist project, which seeks to implement the United States' political strategy of unilateral global governance and represents the initial phase of global restructuring. The section concludes with key findings.

The “New NATO” as an Instrument of Contemporary Imperialist Strategy”

NATO is no longer the old NATO; it has moved far beyond the NATO of the “Cold War” era. Since the collapse of the Soviet bloc—whose character was defined by state capitalism—and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, much has changed on the international stage, including within NATO itself. Far from weakening its nature as an imperialist, aggressive military‑political force, NATO has become even more aggressive and an even more dangerous enemy for the workers of the world, the oppressed peoples, and the communist and democratic‑revolutionary political forces. Now there is a NATO that “recognises no borders” standing against the workers, the oppressed peoples, and the communists of all countries.

NATO is a military organisation and a tool that strengthens economic, political and military relations among member states. According to its official documents, it does not limit itself to protecting only member states; it also assumes new tasks. To ensure NATO's continued relevance, new roles that are acceptable and feasible to both the peoples of member states and the broader political landscape are being explored. NATO had to take on new tasks and be restructured. Otherwise, it would become unnecessary as a military organisation and become a platform for political discussion and thought production.

The new tasks assigned to NATO can be grouped into the following categories: preventive diplomacy, crisis management, peacekeeping, and collective security. The new concrete tasks of NATO that its leaders and advocates should emphasise are the fight against international terrorism, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, combating human rights violations, and peacekeeping. Now, "geographical borders" have been surpassed. Now, the "enemy" has diversified worldwide, but especially in regions where energy resources are located (!), it can be encountered and fought at any time. Therefore, it is necessary always to be ready and alert, and to keep rapid intervention forces on standby!

In the restructured NATO, the armed forces are divided into two categories: stability forces performing defence and deterrence functions and rapid response forces performing response and intervention functions. Significant changes are also being made to the NATO command structure. The first change is the transition from the cumbersome, crowded and bureaucratic command structure that manages deterrence to a command structure that will manage rapid and flexible movements. Units and bases deemed unnecessary are being closed, and the number of command levels and existing commands is being reduced. The second change is the removal of the air, land, and sea command separation within the units, and the rapid response forces, which will consist of approximately 9-10 thousand people, will host land, air and sea units at the same time and will be subordinated to a single command. The third change is the gradual shifting of forces and command centres to the East. In particular, forces and commands centred in Central Europe are increasingly shifting towards Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Turkey.[19]

As NATO's area of interest and influence shifts further east, corresponding changes occur in NATO's military deterrence role and operations. The third change identified above is particularly relevant to this analysis. Examination of the role assigned to Turkey in the GMEP, as well as the role the Republic of Turkey is prepared to assume, demonstrates that this change positions Turkey as a frontline country.

Marc Grossman, undersecretary of state for political affairs at the US Department of State, in his article "21st Century Nato: New Capabilities, New Members, New Relationships,” presents the USA’s perspective on NATO prior to the Prague Summit, referencing threats identified in the 1999 Strategic Concept. Grossman maintains that NATO members must continue to address substantial challenges. He highlights that the events of September 11 revealed that threats to NATO Allies and the Alliance can emerge unexpectedly and from multiple sources. Grossman argues that NATO now requires the ability to deploy balanced, adaptable, and well-equipped forces capable of conducting sustained operations across a range of military scenarios with minimal warning. He further contends that, to fight effectively alongside the United States, European forces must develop enhanced capabilities, including strategic transport, advanced precision-strike systems, and robust combat service support.[20]

Although the reasons that "required" NATO's establishment have been eliminated, the organisation is trying to continue its existence by creating new "threats" and enemies instead of dissolving itself. The "enemy" of the "Cold War" period was clear. This era was characterised by imperialist competition between two major blocs contending for world domination. Defending member states against military attacks from the rival bloc became the focal point of NATO policies in these historical circumstances.

After 1989, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, significant changes occurred in international relations and concepts. The "enemy" had changed, and so were strategic concepts. The enemy was no longer "communism" as an ideology and the "communist" Soviet Union as a state. It was international terrorism, states that fed and supported global terrorism, radical political Islam, weapons of mass destruction, and even all kinds of global uncertainty. The concept of the "enemy" had changed and expanded, and NATO's strategic concept had to change and did.

NATO's initial strategy[21], formulated in 1949-1950, focused on large-scale operations for regional defence. In the mid-1950s, the organisation adopted a "massive response" strategy, which prioritised deterrence. The subsequent "flexible response" strategy, introduced in 1967, aimed to communicate to adversaries that any attack would entail unacceptable risks.

At the NATO meeting in Rome in November 1991, a new "Strategic Concept" was adopted to address the evolving international context. In response to emerging “security” challenges, NATO revised its approach to flexibility and mobility. For the first time, NATO made its strategic concept available for public discussion. Although the 1991 Strategic Concept reaffirmed that NATO's primary objective was to ensure the security of its member states, the definition of security was broadened to encompass all of Europe. The 1991 Strategic Concept also prioritised cooperation over conflict with former adversaries.

NATO member states assert that the 1999 Strategic Concept reorganised the 1991 Strategic Concept to address the requirements of the 21st century.[22] The new Strategic Concept reaffirmed the 1991 Strategic Concept's assessment that the threat of a general war in Europe had been eliminated. However, it emphasised that NATO members and other states in the Euro-Atlantic region continued to encounter risks and uncertainties, such as ethnic conflict, human rights violations, political instability, economic fragility, terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. A defining feature of NATO's 1991 strategy was its integrated approach to security, which combined political and military instruments and emphasised cooperation with states that shared the Alliance's objectives. This comprehensive approach remains central to the 1999 Strategic Concept and includes the following key elements:

1. Maintaining the transatlantic link. The new Strategic Concept underscores the inseparability of European and North American security, highlighting the necessity of a robust and dynamic partnership between the two regions.

2. Maintaining effective military capabilities. This strategy requires military capabilities that operate effectively in foreseeable circumstances, from deterrence and collective defence to crisis operations.

3. Developing the European Security and Defence Identity within NATO. The Strategic Concept states that close cooperation among NATO, the Western European Union (WEU), and, where appropriate, the European Union (EU) is essential for developing the European Security and Defence Identity. The 1999 Strategic Concept also states that this cooperation enables Alliance resources and forces to be allocated to European-led military operations without direct NATO involvement.[23]

The 1999 Strategic Concept includes, alongside the struggle for world domination against major capitalist‑imperialist states such as Russia and China, elements aimed at controlling the contradictions and disputes among allied imperialist states.

 The GMEP and NATO as Instruments of Imperialist Strategy

The global restructuring of the capitalist system, initiated in the 1980s and characterized by the reconfiguration of power relations among large transnational corporations, capital groups, and states, has intensified in the 21st century. Eurasia has emerged as the principal arena for this restructuring and the associated imperialist competition. Projections indicate that by 2050, two-thirds of the global population will reside in Eurasia, particularly in Asia.[24] This region is anticipated to become a central hub for global production and trade, supplying the majority of energy requirements. The transformation of the vast region extending from North Africa to Pakistan constitutes a pivotal phase in this process. Notably, approximately 70% of the world's oil and natural gas reserves are situated within the countries encompassed by the GMEP geography.[25]

The main objective of restructuring this region is to accelerate and maximize the integration of its countries into the global capitalist system. This undertaking demands substantial and varied resources and capabilities. No individual state or its affiliated capital groups, irrespective of their economic, military, or political power, can achieve this project independently.

The USA, as the principal architect of global restructuring within the capitalist-imperialist system, plays a leading role in implementing the "Expanded NATO Project" and restructuring NATO to advance the "Greater Middle East Project" (GMEP), a significant phase in this process. NATO, currently a 26-member imperialist organisation with the majority of new members supporting the US foreign policy, functions as a principal political-military instrument for the United States in both global restructuring and the implementation of the GMEP. The United States places particular emphasis on NATO in the reorganisation of global economic, political, and military power relations. As the dominant actor in the transatlantic alliance, the United States seeks to transform NATO into a global alliance. Marc Grossman described September 11, 2001, the day of the attacks in Washington and New York, as “a day of great tragedy” and questioned whether it might also have been the day when NATO stood before its own future.[26] Following the September 11 attacks, Article 5 of the Treaty[27] was invoked for the first time in NATO's history, leading to an expansion of NATO's operational scope. Consequently, the United States utilises the military forces of other states, including those of its imperialist competitors, to further its expansionist objectives. By acting through an international organisation, the United States seeks international legitimacy for its aggressive foreign policy initiatives.

In this context, the September 11, 2001, attacks created an unparalleled opportunity for the United States. Drawing on these attacks as a further justification, U.S. imperialism redefined the concept of national security and revised its national security strategy document. In line with its new strategy, it launched the “Global Defense Posture” program, through which it restructured its entire military capacity worldwide. According to this new security conception, a significant portion of emerging threats originates from the geography encompassed by the GMEP. Establishing seven regional central commands across the globe, U.S. imperialism aims to deploy military units in the regions covered by the GMEP and to expand those already present. Morocco, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and Afghanistan are among the countries identified for such deployments. Marc Grossman, in evaluating NATO’s past and present role, writes that the Alliance has forged cooperative ties with member states and with the Caucasus, Central Asia, Russia, and Ukraine.[28] Among other things, the “New NATO” and the GMEP pursue the objectives of encircling Russia and restraining the Chinese state.

As a military and political organisation, NATO has represented the most significant institutional embodiment of the transatlantic imperialist alliance. Proponents of this alliance regard NATO as the fundamental guarantor of stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic region. Its principal function has been to safeguard the survival of the capitalist-imperialist system, particularly the states of Western Europe, against the threat of revolution and socialism, as well as against the "Soviet bloc”, its principal rival in the contest for global dominance. After the collapse of the "Soviet bloc”, NATO's primary mission of protecting the capitalist-imperialist system from the perceived danger of socialism remained unchanged. However, as previously discussed, NATO's strategy underwent a significant transformation. NATO is no longer the organisation defined by its founding treaty as confined to specific geographic boundaries and limited to responding to military attacks against its members. The NATO of the “Cold War”[29] era is now a historical entity. The organisation that once "recognised borders" has been transformed into one that "recognises no borders."

The global restructuring strategy pursued by U.S. capitalist‑imperialism necessitates both the expansion and the reconfiguration of NATO, incorporating states that cooperate closely with Washington or are inclined to do so. The United States has sought to employ NATO as an additional instrument of intervention and stabilization within this broader restructuring process. The military interventions in the Balkans, as well as NATO’s role in Afghanistan—its first major operation beyond the European theatre—illustrate the practical application of this approach.[30]

Despite being the world’s most powerful imperialist state in economic, military, and political terms, the United States lacks the capacity to unilaterally restructure and control the vast region in question. Consequently, it requires NATO, along with regional cooperation frameworks and partnerships, to achieve its strategic aims. In this context, NATO functions as a crucial “stabilizing force” for U.S. objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq.

At the Istanbul summit of 28–29 June 2004, NATO’s political wing introduced new initiatives to deepen dialogue with the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia, appointing special representatives to these regions, which had become areas of “intensified interest.” In the military domain, the Alliance adopted measures to strengthen its capabilities to counter emerging threats and to meet the demands of extending the defence sphere to a global scale. Within this framework, it endorsed plans to establish more flexible, rapid, and capable military units.

At NATO’s Istanbul summit, authorization was granted for member states to participate in the training of Iraqi security forces. This decision marked a significant shift in NATO’s role, as the alliance moved from providing logistical support to Poland to establishing a more direct presence in Iraq. Concurrently, Afghanistan emerged as the central issue of the summit, underscoring NATO’s expanding global scope and strategic ambitions.

Turkey’s Place within the GMEP

The collapse of the social‑imperialist bloc brought about radical changes in the international landscape, particularly in Eurasia's power relations. Turkey occupies an important geopolitical position within the vast geography that has been restructured in the aftermath of this collapse. It is a country that has experienced sudden, significant, and far‑reaching transformations to its west, north, east, and south, and it has been profoundly affected by these developments. Following a decline in prominence after the 1945–1989 “Cold War” period, Turkey's strategic significance in international affairs is experiencing a resurgence. This renewed importance is attributed to persistent regional instability and the United States' ongoing policy of political and economic restructuring in regions encompassing Turkey.

The Republic of Turkey, which has begun to assume a more comprehensive, versatile, and active role in international politics, is a significant regional power capable of playing an even greater role. Turkey's extensive cultural connections, including ethnic, historical, and religious ties with neighbouring countries, further indicate that it could assume a more prominent role in ongoing regional restructuring, a process expected to persist for an extended period.

While the establishment and development of institutional relations with the European Union remain priorities, the Republic of Turkey's long-term foreign policy is expected to emphasise engagement with the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The primary rationale for this strategic orientation, despite ongoing efforts to strengthen political ties with Western Europe and pursue EU membership, is Turkey's fixed geographic position. This geographic reality necessitates such a foreign policy approach, which is anticipated to persist.

The aforementioned transformations, combined with Turkey’s strategic geographical location and its status as a significant regional power, underscore Turkey’s critical role in the implementation of the GMEP. During an official visit to the United States in January 2004, Prime Minister Erdoğan emphasised that the United States should implement the GMEP through Turkey. Within the context of both the Global Defense Posture Review program and the GMEP framework, the United States has made several political and military requests of the Republic of Turkey, including the establishment of additional military bases, joint security provision in the straits, and the deployment of forces for cross-border military operations. Available evidence suggests that the Erdoğan administration has responded favourably to these requests, while the military leadership has maintained a cautious and reserved position.

The eastward expansion of NATO’s sphere of interest and influence has resulted in corresponding adjustments to its military deterrence role and operational activities. Evolving security strategies and practices of the United States, the European Union, and NATO have a direct impact on Turkey’s role within the alliance. As imperialist powers, particularly the United States, have redefined the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus as a new geography of threat, and as NATO has been restructured and increasingly utilised as an instrument of the GMEP, Turkey has transitioned from an “old” NATO flank country to a frontline state within the “new” NATO. From a military perspective, Turkey is now regarded as an “outpost.” According to Serkan Demirtaş, numerous studies within NATO indicate that 19 of the 22 hotspots in the European-Asia region are of direct or indirect relevance to Turkey. This development presents increased security risks for Turkey, while also strengthening its strategic relationships with the United States and NATO.[31]

According to the Decisions of the NATO Defence Planning Committee, which convened in June 2003, NATO’s High Readiness Force Headquarters (HRF HQ) were restructured. The 3rd Corps in Istanbul was approved as one of NATO’s high‑readiness headquarters under the designation NATO Rapid Deployable Corps–Turkey (NRDC‑T). In addition, within the framework of the restructuring of NATO’s Southern Regional Command, it was decided to relocate the Southern Regional Air Forces Command to İzmir.[32]

The Republic of Turkey is assuming an increasingly significant role within the restructured NATO. As Turkey’s dependence on and need for cooperation with NATO and the United States grow, its foreign policy is likely to take on a more aggressive, expansionist character. Consequently, the working class in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan, as well as other exploited and oppressed social classes and groups from Kurdish, Turkish, and other ethnic backgrounds, encounter escalating risks resulting from imperialist and collaborationist expansionist foreign policies.

Principal Findings

1. Eurasia constitutes the principal arena for competition among imperialist states, international and transnational capitalist corporations, and plays a central role in global restructuring processes.

2. Eurasia is also the central locus of socialist struggle against the capitalist-imperialist system.

3. Due to its position as the only imperialist state with global economic power, the United States must formulate a comprehensive global military strategy.

4. Although the United States' dependence on oil resources from the GMEP region is declining, the reliance of Europe, Japan, and China on these resources continues to increase. The United States aims to secure control over energy resources that are vital to its imperialist rivals and, where such control already exists, to further consolidate its position.

5. Amid the ongoing global political-economic and military restructuring process, with the GMEP phase as a central component, contradictions among imperialist powers are anticipated to intensify. State foreign policies are projected to become more aggressive. Within the context of global and regional imperialist competition, the position of U.S. imperialism and its collaborators at both global and regional levels is expected to be strengthened in their interactions with both U.S.-allied and non-allied imperialist powers.

6. Current developments suggest that, during the restructuring process, domestic policies in various states are likely to become increasingly stringent. The power of the workers’ movement, particularly trade unions, which are often viewed as obstacles to capital accumulation, will likely be deliberately targeted for weakening. In imperialist states, not only organised communist groups but also other political forces opposing the capitalist-imperialist system at various levels are expected to face suppression or a significant reduction in influence. While there is no immediate threat of revolution or socialism in individual countries or within the GMEP's geography, the prevailing national, regional, and international context remains conducive to the emergence of social crises at both country and regional levels. The GMEP is unlikely to achieve the outcomes desired by the United States unless domestic opposition is suppressed, workers’ and popular movements are controlled, and democratic-revolutionary as well as scientific-socialist political forces are both politically and militarily crushed.

7. Without the assignment of new missions and organisational restructuring, NATO would have been unable to maintain its effectiveness as a military organisation. This risk constitutes a primary rationale, especially from the United States' perspective, for expanding NATO's global organisational character.

8. NATO will be used with increased aggressiveness to prevent or remove risks and threats to global capital accumulation processes.

9. The restructured NATO also functions as a mechanism through which the United States maintains control over its allies. While the U.S. seeks to limit both the centrifugal tendencies of its NATO partners and their independent military capacities, it simultaneously strives to expand its own global military capabilities and resources as much as possible. U.S. policy opposes the development of autonomous military capacities within the European Union that could enable the European Union to assume an independent global military role. Instead, any such role by the European Union must operate within the NATO framework, thereby ensuring that the United States retains primary authority in strategic decision-making and the deployment of armed forces. From the U.S. perspective, the European Union or the Western European Union (WEU) serving as alternatives to NATO is considered unacceptable.

10. The United States’ foreign policy towards the “Greater Middle East” does not aim at political democratisation in the bourgeois sense in the states of the region, but rather at controlled political liberalisation or a transition to limited political pluralism. The U. S. seeks to create a political environment in which the desire or tendency among the peoples of the region to rebel against the dominant political forces cooperating with the U.S. has been eliminated—or at least rendered minimally threatening to its own interests and to the political power of its collaborators. The United States is unlikely to realise this policy objective in the short or medium term.

11. In the long term, the Republic of Turkey's foreign policy will focus more on the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia than on relations with the EU.

12. Within the broader restructuring of Eurasia, and particularly in the context of the GMEP's geography, the Republic of Turkey is expected to assume a significantly more prominent role than at present. Turkey serves as a principal regional actor.

February 2005

A. H. Yalaz
October 2004 & February 2005