• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "Marc Pierini"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Carnegie China",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Turkey’s Transformation",
    "Transatlantic Cooperation",
    "China’s Foreign Relations",
    "China and the Developing World"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Middle East",
    "Europe",
    "Türkiye"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Europe

A New Canal and Chinese Missiles

Turkey’s planned new canal and a missile defense system both send the message that Turkey will go its own way, swiftly and irrespective of the country’s international environment and commitments.

Link Copied
By Marc Pierini
Published on Oct 19, 2013

Source: Hurriyet Daily News

At first sight, there is little in common between the “Kanal Istanbul” project and Turkey’s purchase of Chinese missiles. Yet, these two projects, both still in their early stages, are very telling of Turkey’s willingness to go its own way, irrespective of the consequences.

Kanal Istanbul is a new artificial waterway to be dug between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara. Officially, the project is justified by the inherent dangers of transporting petroleum products, natural gas and chemicals through a city of 15 million inhabitants. 

Experts have already signaled some of the potential consequences for two of the globe’s most fragile seas. Levels of salinity and oxygen, the transfer of pollutants, marine life, currents, sea temperature and underground waters would all be affected by the new canal. 

On a regional level, six countries bordering the Black Sea and the Mediterranean would be affected by the project: Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine. In addition, Turkey is bound by several international environmental and maritime agreements on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, such as the Montreux Convention.

On a national level, the construction of such a major piece of infrastructure would have immense economic and social consequences on the price of land (due to speculation), the environment and population displacement. 

The project therefore needs solid national and international consultations before being put to tender, which was announced on Sept. 12. Bypassing such consultations may result in another episode of internal tensions and most certainly in an international dispute.

The forthcoming Chinese missile purchase seems an altogether different issue. Officially, the choice of a Chinese system over the competing US and French-Italian offers is justified by considerations of price and technology transfer. As long as the Chinese-built system would be operated in a stand-alone mode, there is little to object to.

Turkey, however, is a member of NATO, and as such, is bound by NATO “Smart Defense” and “Connected Forces” policies and the 2012 Chicago Summit decisions. The two key concepts are “Integration” and “Interoperability”. On Oct. 10, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: “It is … of utmost importance within an alliance that not only our armed forces, but also our military equipment can work and operate together. And I’m confident that the Turkish authorities are aware of that.” While it is technically possible to make a Chinese missile defense system integrated in and inter-operable with NATO’s systems, this will not happen for the compelling reason that the risk of Chinese infiltration is too high. It is that simple.

What is more, the Chinese company involved, CPMEIC, is under U.S. sanctions because of its dealings with Iran, North Korea and Syria. There is also an irony in Ankara asking NATO in August 2012 for a missile shield (which has been deployed since January 2013 in three provinces), only to turn its back on NATO for a new missile defense architecture. Similarly, there is questionable consistency in building a stand-alone missile defense while participating in NATO’s Missile Defense System which includes a radar based in eastern Turkey.

Turkey is now confronted with two choices: it can either reverse its decision for consistency’s sake or it can continue and distance itself from NATO’s policies. It’s not a comfortable dilemna. 

But what do a new canal and a missile defense system have in common? 

Both projects send the message that Turkey will go its own way, swiftly and irrespective of the country’s international environment and commitments. They illustrate a mix of haste and hubris. Were they to materialize, the two projects would generate significant turbulence in their respective spheres.

As a result, Turkey would lose more of its international standing. “Precious loneliness” would be on the rise. Is that what the international situation warrants?

This article was originally published in Hurriyet Daily News.

About the Author

Marc Pierini

Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

Pierini is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, where his research focuses on developments in the Middle East and Turkey from a European perspective.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for Europe

      Marc Pierini

  • Other
    Unpacking Trump’s National Security Strategy
      • Cecily Brewer
      • +18

      James M. Acton, Saskia Brechenmacher, Cecily Brewer, …

Marc Pierini
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Marc Pierini
SecurityForeign PolicyMiddle EastEuropeTürkiye

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • people watching smoke rising at sunrise from rooftops
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Bombing Campaigns Do Not Bring About Democracy. Nor Does Regime Change Without a Plan.

    Just look at Iraq in 1991.

      Marwan Muasher

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Axis of Resistance or Suicide?

    As Iran defends its interests in the region and its regime’s survival, it may push Hezbollah into the abyss.

      Michael Young

  • GCC foreign minister meeting in Kuwait City on June 2, 2025
    Article
    Can the Gulf Cooperation Council Transcend Its Divisions?

    Without structural reform, the organization, which is racked by internal rivalries, risks sliding into irrelevance.

      Hesham Alghannam

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Iran and the New Geopolitical Moment

    A coalition of states is seeking to avert a U.S. attack, and Israel is in the forefront of their mind.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    The Middle East’s Promising Gen Z

    Fifteen years after the Arab uprisings, a new generation is mobilizing behind an inclusive growth model, and has the technical savvy to lead an economic transformation that works for all.

      Jihad Azour

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.