Turkey
In the year
2009, Barack Obama invested politically in Turkish government due to multiple
reasons. The United States could not ignore Turkey’s role in the Middle East
and its strategic position on the global map. Therefore, America expects
President Erdogan and his regime to sustain stability in Iraq, combat terrorism
in the Middle East, and enforce sanctions so that Iran can shake off its
nuclear ambitions. In addition, the political investment on Ankara confirms Turkey as a vibrant secular democracy playing a
fundamental role in the NATO alliance while pushing for EU membership.
As Turkey and
the Washington enter the third decade of
strong relations, there are signs of new cooperation due to promises of integration
with the EU, strong economic ties, and Volatility in the Middle East. The
current political unrest in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria is a stark reminder to
US and Turkey of their complementary tactical perspectives and mutual
interests. Over the past decade, Turkey has made significant military and
financial contributions to US and EU’s mission in Afghanistan. Notwithstanding,
Ankara’s military efforts against PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) and the
country’s decision to join NATO underline the extent of cooperation between the two nations in a conflict-prone society.
Nevertheless,
stubborn issues plague the relations. While both countries aim at fostering the
relations, there are major points of divergence in their policies
and perspectives. Consistently, each side falls short of the other’s outlook,
unlike during the post-Cold War period when each country was aware of what to
give and receive in the partnership. For instance, Turkey is critical of US’s
infringement of its sovereignty by hosting Gulen and supporting his movement[1].
In addition, Washington does not
pressurize Israel onto the negotiating table to forge a two-state solution. On
the other hand, America is increasingly uncomfortable with the strengthening
ties between Turkey and Moscow and its support for Iran government.
Turkey’s Future
In the future, several factors are likely to shape Turkish-US relations.
The first aspect is how the America repositions itself as a global power by
shifting attention to Asia while minimizing military presence and expenditures
in the Middle East. The relationship is remarkably affected if Turkey opts for an
independent path to shape its future instead of cooperating with EU and US in
enforcing foreign policies. The Turkish public is highly skeptical about America’s motive in the region,
especially after a recent wave of violence and attempted coup in the country[2].
Therefore, the domestic political consideration in the United States and Turkey
will be another fundamental determinant. The public does not endorse Ankara’s
attempts to act on behalf of America or EU in the region. Instead, the people
want the country to push its independent agendas to regain its former glory as
an Ottoman Empire[3]. As
the America’s power wane, its fading profile in the Middle East is likely to
undermine regional cooperation among countries such as Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi
Arabia.
As various issues unfold, they shape the future of Turkish-American partnership.
Specifically, the Middle East’s popular uprising exerts pressure on the United States
and Turkey to cooperate in the regional
democratic transformation process. Besides, the two countries must compromise
their stances on how to deal with Iran’s nuclear deal and the Syrian crisis. On
the other hand, Russia’s role in Asia and the Middle East, as well as its influence in Turkey, shapes Ankara’s relations
with NATO. Similar to any relationship, the evolving partnership between US and
Turkey has a potential for deterioration and improvement. Still, it is the
United States that needs to strengthen ties with the former Ottoman Empire
since Turkey has other viable options at hand. For example, its relationship
with Moscow and China is warming up.
NATO
Turkey describes NATO as a cornerstone of its security and defense policy. Since it joined the alliance in
1952, the country’s significance has grown tremendously, especially in the face
of regional stability. Turkey’s geographical position makes it a pivotal
gateway to the Middle East, EU, and Russia. Therefore, it can provide Military
posts for any of its neighboring states[4].
NATO, for instance, projects its military capability beyond EU’s borders. In addition, Ankara contributes a significant
number of troops to NATO’s peacekeeping
missions in the Middle East.
However, Turkey’s relationship with NATO and the United States is turning sour. In the year 2009, the country
bluntly objected Anders Rasmussen’s appointment as NATO’s secretary general.
According to Turkey’s spokesperson, this appointment
highlighted the unusual decision-making structure in the alliance, thus
dampening the spirit of cooperation. In the same year, Turkey blocked Israel
from participating in the annual NATO joint military drill. Besides, the
country’s leader has hosted both Sudanese president and Iranian leader, thus
breaking NATO’s diplomatic consensus. While such activities pose no threat to
NATO’s longevity, they raise questions regarding Turkey’s role and commitment
in the alliance.
The American government and its NATO allies have to improve their
strategic relationship with Turkey by expanding energy cooperation. However,
the pre-condition is that Turkey should not use Iraq-Turkey gas pipelines for
exporting energy to Iran. Moreover, the US Energy Department ought to provide diplomatic support for Turkey’s Caspian
Basin projects. On the other hand, America must remind Turkey that the persistent support for the Iranian nuclear deal
and its sustained confrontation with the Jewish state has a potential of
jeopardizing intelligence and military cooperation. It is advisable that the
current US administration should mediate talks between Israel and Turkey to
ensure good relations in the future.
Furthermore, the United States, as a pillar of democracy and freedom,
has to monitor the rule of law, political climate, and civil freedoms in the
former Ottoman Empire. Given its close ties with European countries, the US
Helsinki Commission, US Human Rights Watch, and EU’s Organization for Security
Cooperation should closely scrutinize Turkey’s
transparency and track record on press freedom[5].
Additionally, America ought to express concern and anger on Russian-Turkish
military and economic ties, for instance,
the latest purchase of a nuclear reactor from Russia. At the same time, the
United States has to encourage Turkey to play a pivotal role in ensuring
regional stability, security, and resolving conflicts in the Caucasus. Ankara
and its regional partners must not
recognize the independence of South Ossetian and Abkhazian by rejecting
Russia’s military bases in these regions. Besides, NATO should emphasize that Armenian-Turkish rapprochement
is linkable to Karabakh conflict resolution, which included Azerbaijani
liberation.
Role of US
Moreover, the United States should fully support upgrading Turkish-EU
trade relations through FTA (Free Trade Agreements) and the ratification of Mediterranean-Euro
FTA. Besides Washington’s support for
Ankara’s accession to the EDA (European Defense Agency) should be
unquestionable. America should also not associate Turkey’s advocacy for
membership in the European Union as the Muslim world’s relations with the West.
Sharp contrasts exist between Turkey and other Muslim states such as Iran. At
one time, Iran (a former Persian power) engaged in a serious conflict with
Ottoman Empire. Disagreements still exist today[6].
Besides, there is a rivalry for regional dominance between Saudi Arabia and
Turkey. Lastly, the US government must request the deployment of additional
Turkish troops to Afghanistan for the provision
of material and removal of national
caveats. The air support for NATO troops should be unrestricted in Turkey. In
this way, the United States can deploy additional
Liaison and Operational Mentoring Teams to the war-torn
country.
Of keen to note is that on the
current trajectory, Turkish age-old strategic partnerships with the West could
degenerate into looser affiliation as the country enters into regional partnerships with Russia, Iran, and China. Some
of these powers are hostile to NATO. The backlash instigated by the AKP against
Israel has enabled Davutoglu and Erdogan to extend Turkey’s Islamist support
and reorient its foreign policy. The US and EU cannot stare idly as these
events unfold. Unless the emerging differences are
addressed immediately, they pose a threat to future engagement between
NATO and Turkey.
Kemalist mantra states that the see
surrounds Turkish people on three sides while their enemies are on four sides.
Perceptions such as this informed generations of Turkish policymakers and
students, thus reflecting the impact of Cold War and the country’s fragility. Turkey
is one of the Countries that froze into a geopolitical box in a bipolar planet
between 1950s-1990s. Throughout the 20th Century, the members of
Soviet’s Warsaw Pact allies and authoritarian Islamist regimes surrounded Turkey.
Others such as Greece had deep historical animosity with the Turkish people.
Turning
Point
The country embraced modernism n the
late 1990s, thus softening the siege
mentality and embracing close ties with the West. AKP’s success in the year
2002 marked an end to the era of hostilities with neighboring countries as the
conservative Prime Minister declared the ‘complex Turkey is now behind us.’ Erdogan
buried widespread misconceptions in the country, overcoming people’s
convictions that other countries in the
EU and the Middle East tried to hold
Turkey down[7].
In 2010, the government initiated a policy aimed at mending strained relations
with old foes for economic and political prosperity. However, the fruits of
this determination are yet to materialize, given the slow process of
implementation and internal political wrangles. Nonetheless, Turkey made a
significant step forward.
The change of heart and willingness
to cooperate with the Western countries injected optimism regarding the
isolated nation’s future. At last, there
was a chance to refute conspiracy theories in Turkey that referred to Western
imperialism to all regional conflicts and dynamics. Americans saw the new
strategy as a rational modern stance despite being conceived on a conservative ground. During the early 2010s, it was clear that Turkey’s new
ambition was to revive universalist views by pushing for EU membership while
engaging with the Levant[8].
Even better, Turkey’s government forged a Kurdish opening in the year 2009 to
demilitarize the country’s political system and to end a three-decade-old war
that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.
Considering
these advances and democratization, the Obama administration continued
Bush’s recast of U.S. relations with Turkey. Consequently, there were important developments between America and
Turkish people as the leaders sealed trade and security deals worth billions of
dollars. Still, President Erdogan used US’s commitment as a populist punch bag to elevate his political dominance domestically. On the contrary, the United States government
viewed the improving relations as a way of sustaining a durable partnership. In addition,
Obama argued that the move initiates democratic and economic reforms for
domestic legitimization. In this way, Turkey becomes a pioneer haven for
democracy in the region alongside Egypt.
However, political analysts argue
that America’s vision for a democratic Turkey has failed. The events that took
place between 2014 and 2015 painfully reveal that the West has to do more to
reverse the trend towards dictatorship and crackdown on the opposition. The chances are that the Turkey-US alliance is
another victim of regional upheaval and Russia’s rise. Today, the Turkish-US
interactions are hard-bargaining and testy affairs. In fact, the Turkish
president proposed a closure of US military base in the country, citing a lack
of cooperation on American part to extradite Erdogan’s staunch critic. The
attempted coup has seriously cost the US since it backfired. Whether America and EU were
involved is subject to debate, but Russia
is capitalizing on America’s failing policies. It has not gone unnoticed, given
that the American public is increasingly angry and pessimistic. The latest
polls show that majority of American taxpayers are against foreign military
spending and global projection of power due to heavy
costs incurred. Yet, the US cannot
neglect Turkey because the repercussions and retaliatory measures will benefit
Russia and China, two of its greatest economic and political enemies.
After decades of America’s
investment in partnership with Turkey,
the cultural and political differences
between the two giants cannot be ignored.
Ironically, Turkey’s close cooperation with Obama’s administration bolstered
Erdogan’s role as a president and prime minister.
America gets nothing in return. Turkey is aware of America and EU’s nervousness
due to declining influence hence Erdogan’s government bargains for more
privileges (such as EU membership and upper-hand in NATO decision-making) without reciprocating. What
they fail to realize is that AKP’s dictatorial and anti-western move isolates
the country[9]. In addition, it dents Erdogan’s ability to
shape regional policy than any other time in its modern history[10].
Despite this, the regime dismisses more US,
and EU offers more than it can accept. Undeniably, Turkey’s strategic position
is both a liability and an asset. Unless the Turkish people understand that genuine influences are built on reliable capabilities, they cannot exploit full advantages
of their Geographical position. On the other hand, America should track
regional shifts and introduce policies driven by allies’ national interests.
However, Washington should not compromise on democratic convictions to suit
religious paradigms.
While America cannot dictate terms
of Western relations with Turkey, it has the power to negotiate, induce,
confront and persuade Erdogan where necessary. As a result, the country may
agree to maintain shared interests and fulfill the current responsibilities.
Honesty should be a top priority for
Washington and Ankara regarding Turkey’s NATO and EU membership prospects. In
spite of Turkish accession status, the American government has to implement tangible projects to increase engagement
between EU and Turkey. It is true that the
United States needs Turkey to be a strong
and dependable partner in the region. However, the country has to exercise its
sovereignty by pushing its agendas in the same manner as the United States or
EU member states. Besides, the Western powers should not forget the existing cultural and religious differences
with the Middle East. Therefore, their activities in the region have to be measured through identification of the
long-term consequences. In particular, the United States must learn a critical
lesson from the recent waves of war in the Middle Eastern countries like Libya,
Yemen, Iraq, and Syria[11].
Unless Washington redrafts its foreign policy strategies, Turkey heads in the
same direction as Syria or Libya despite being geographically closer to EU.
Bibliography
Ankur, Müge. Democratic Consolidation in Turkey: State, Political
Parties, Civil Society, Civil-military Relations, Socio-economic Development,
EU, Rise of Political Islam and Separatist Kurdish Nationalism. Universal-Publishers, 2012.
Baran, Zeyno. Torn
Country: Turkey between Secularism and Islamism. Hoover Press, 2013.
Bay, Austin. Ataturk: Lessons in Leadership from the Greatest
General of the Ottoman Empire.
Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Heper, Metin, and Nur Bilge Criss. Historical
Dictionary of Turkey. Scarecrow Press, 2009.
Huntington, Samuel P. The
Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Penguin Books India,
2011.
Kibaroğlu, Mustafa, and Ayșegül Kibaroğlu. Global Security Watch--Turkey: A
Reference Handbook. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2009.
Linden, Ronald Haly, Ahmet O. Evin, Kemal Kirisci, Thomas Straubhaar,
Nathalie Tocci, Juliette Tolay, and Joshua W. Walker. Turkey
and Its Neighbors: Foreign Relations in Transition. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2012.
Mango, Andrew. The Turks
Today. Hachette UK, 2011.
Rabasa, Angel, and F. Stephen Larabee. The
Rise of Political Islam in Turkey. Vol. 726. Rand Corporation, 2008.
Stein, Aaron. Turkey's New Foreign Policy: Davutoglu, the AKP and
the Pursuit of Regional Order.
Routledge, 2015.
Yavuz, M. Hakan, and
John L. Esposito. Turkish Islam and the Secular State: The Gèulen
Movement. Syracuse University Press, 2003.
[1]
Yavuz, M. Hakan, and John L. Esposito. Turkish Islam and the Secular State:
The Gèulen Movement. Syracuse University Press, 2003.
[2]
Aknur, Müge. Democratic Consolidation in Turkey:
State, Political Parties, Civil Society, Civil-military Relations,
Socio-economic Development, EU, Rise of Political Islam and Separatist Kurdish
Nationalism. Universal-Publishers, 2012.
[3]
Bay, Austin. Ataturk: Lessons in Leadership from
the Greatest General of the Ottoman Empire. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
[4]
Linden, Ronald Haly,
Ahmet O. Evin, Kemal Kirisci, Thomas Straubhaar, Nathalie Tocci, Juliette
Tolay, and Joshua W. Walker. Turkey
and Its Neighbors: Foreign Relations in Transition. Lynne Rienner
Publishers, 2012.
[5]
Kibaroğlu, Mustafa, and
Ayșegül Kibaroğlu. Global
Security Watch--Turkey: A Reference Handbook. Greenwood Publishing Group,
2009.
[7]
Rabasa, Angel, and F.
Stephen Larabee. The Rise of
Political Islam in Turkey. Vol. 726. Rand Corporation, 2008.
[9]
Stein, Aaron. Turkey's New Foreign Policy:
Davutoglu, the AKP and the Pursuit of Regional Order. Routledge, 2015.
[11]
Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order. Penguin Books India, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment