The wave of transformation that recently has overcome us is not good for Turkey. It is not good for Gaziantep, either.

I was in Gaziantep when I first saw a leaflet on the investment climate in Syria. At that time, Syria had recently opened a consulate in the city. The consulate was distributing leaflets that said, “Invest in Syria.” By the way, the leaflets were written in Turkish, obviously. Back then, Syria was a blessing for Gaziantep. But how about today? Is it bad for Gaziantep that it is a neighbor of Syria? At first glance, it might look as if it is. In reality, however, it is not exactly. We need to look under the hood to answer this question. Yes, the Syrian crisis will affect Turkey differently in each region. The industrial centers which predominantly export to the Middle Eastern markets will be affected by the crisis to a higher degree. Recently I argued, “Anatolia is not in the Customs Union yet.” Taking departure from this argument, let me comment on the Syrian crisis today. Let me tell you how the Syrian crisis might affect Gaziantep.

There are two types of cities in Turkey: those that have been able to enter the Customs Union and those that have been not. The main reason for the disparities in skills and opportunities sets of cities is that the logistic infrastructure that will connect certain regions to the European markets is not well developed. Cities with weak connectivity hardly can compete in distant markets. Therefore, if there are no measures in place to improve the connectivity, the fate of certain cities is left in the hands of geographical conditions. It becomes the geography which decides how much a certain city will develop. This, in fact, is another way of leaving everything to God when cities have to develop an industrial and services infrastructure that will respond to the demands of the proximate markets. Then, suddenly, Syria becomes the destiny of Gaziantep.

And now the basics: Did you ever check the trade partners of Gaziantep? Fifty-six percent of the city’s exports go to the Middle East and North Africa. The top trading partners of the city are Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the US, in descending order. The share of Iraq is 37 percent. The share Saudi Arabia and the US are as low as 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively. The weights of the trading partners other than Iraq in exports are quite low. Gaziantep has diversified its export markets, when the top partner Iraq is excluded. The highway between Mersin and Gaziantep, which was an exceptional structure for Turkey back then, was able to change the fate of Gaziantep, connecting the city to the rest of the world. 

Border crossing is also problematic

What is critical for Gaziantep is that the border crossing at the Habur gate must keep working. The chaos that was signaled after the US forces left the region is bad for Gaziantep. It is not Syria alone. The country is important also for transferring goods to the south, towards Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Since the Syrian crisis began, life has become more difficult for containers which carry goods to the south. Life is harder now at the Syrian border gate. According to a recent article in Today’s Zaman, a similar problem is probable at the Iranian border gate. All of this is bad news. Eastern Turkey trades with underdeveloped countries which do not have market mechanisms in place. Having connections to Turkey means a transformation process for them, and export diversification for us. The head start for doing business in that region is to have good relations with the capital cities. This is why the zero-problem policy is a natural foreign policy framework for Turkey. The zero-problem policy is that of a patient country which says, “I am interested in trade only” should seek.

The wave of transformation that recently has surrounded the region is not good for Turkey. It is not good for Gaziantep, either. Trade hates chaos; it needs order for peace. The chaos in Syria is bad. Considering the rising importance of ideologies in foreign politics, the picture becomes even worse. If you try to do to your neighbor what you think is good for it, it will have the right to do the same against you. And this is bad.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 27.03.2012