Issue #6, Fall 2007

Tend to Turkey

In the wake of the Iraq debacle, the United States will occupy a position of greatly diminished stature and leverage among the many allies that stepped forward to offer unqualified support immediately after September 11, 2001. No relationship has been more badly damaged in this relatively short period of time, or is in greater need of repair, than the alliance between the United States and Turkey. Although America’s standing has declined precipitously across Europe, Turkey is the one NATO country at risk of becoming strategically unmoored.

The war has had a profound and disorienting effect on Turkey–the only Muslim nation anchored in the West through bilateral ties with the United States and membership in NATO. In some polls, Turks are reported to have the least favorable public opinion of the United States among countries surveyed. The Bush Administration’s actions have ominously alienated a generation of young people unfamiliar with the positive legacy of American global leadership. Across the population, a slow process of disenchantment and disengagement has taken place. If this negative trajectory is not reversed, Turkey could seek alternative affiliations–most likely with its Islamic neighbors or with Russia–at the expense of its connections to the United States and Europe.

How could such a dramatic rupture with Turkey have occurred? In short, American policymakers ignored or misread Turkish politics, disregarded legitimate Turkish concerns, and launched an invasion of nearby Iraq with substantial negative consequences for Turkish interests. In preparing to go to war, the United States aggressively sought Turkish permission for the Fourth Infantry Division to cross Turkey in order to enter Iraq from the north. The pressure Washington put on Ankara–and the perception in some Turkish circles that the United States sought to bribe the country to secure its agreement–redounded negatively in the domestic debate, resulting in the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s failure on March 1, 2003 to approve a resolution permitting U.S. troop transit into Iraq. In reaction, the Pentagon severely curtailed contacts with the Turkish military, essentially freezing it out of the action precisely at the moment that its leaders felt Turkey’s vital interests were being imperiled. On the policy side, high-level visits were postponed or canceled, and regular consultations between the Department of Defense and the Turkish military’s General Staff were suspended. Further, Turkish offers to send troops to Iraq were repeatedly rebuffed, reinforcing the impression that Turkey was being excluded from shaping events that would have serious implications for its security. At the time of the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of SaddamHussein, the Americans rejected a proposed Turkish deployment of 20,000 troops in the north on the grounds that it could lead to conflict between Turks and Kurds; later in 2003, when the U.S. sought support for peacekeeping and reconstruction, Turkey’s proposal to send 10,000 soldiers was rejected by Iraq’s Governing Council.

In Turkish eyes, the American war effort has substantially destabilized their neighborhood and severely exacerbated their most important security challenge: the continuing terrorist violence perpetrated by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). An unintended consequence of U.S. policy since the first Gulf War has been the emergence of a safe haven for the PKK in northern Iraq. This territory, largely controlled by Iraqi Kurds, has been the only relatively stable region of the country. As a result, American policymakers have resisted appeals to expand the U.S. presence there, concentrating forces on more volatile areas. Concomitantly, the Kurdish leadership of northern Iraq has failed to use its influence to effectively rein in PKK violence.

Finally, a separate but profoundly exacerbating factor in Turkish domestic opinion has been the reaction to the protracted process of negotiating accession to the European Union. As prominent European leaders–including the recently elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy–make xenophobic statements about how Turkey does not belong in Europe, Turkish popular feelings of alienation from the West are being stoked and nationalist and/or Islamist alternatives are becoming more attractive. Unfortunately, because the Bush Administration has squandered American credibility with it allies, Washington’s ability to influence European thinking and decision-making on this matter is at an all-time low. Looking to the future, the EU members’ failure to effectively respond to Turkey’s desire for inclusion may result in an irreparable breach with the Muslim world at a time when many European states face significant internal problems with integrating their own Muslim populations. The schism that could result from excluding the leading example of a Western-oriented, secular democracy from the European club will only reinforce those who believe that co-existence between Western and Muslim civilization is impossible.

All plausible scenarios for Iraq’s future are viewed with suspicion by Ankara, particularly the growing prospect of an independent Kurdistan. The Turkish military views Kurdish statehood as an existential threat to Turkey’s security. Sudden Kurdish autonomy could trigger a war pitting the Kurdish peshmerga–which have strong ties to the United States–against the Turkish army, to whom the United States and its NATO partners have Article V mutual-defense obligations. Although there is legitimate concern about instability on Iraq’s other porous borders, particularly the one it shares with Iran, American policymakers should not allow these preoccupations to distract them from the explosive potential of the Iraqi-Turkish frontier.

  • 1
  • 2
Issue #6, Fall 2007
 
Post a Comment

Gregory:

I find this article deeply flawed because of its use of American recieved wisdom.



Firstly she describes comments as 'xenophobic' that many Europeans do not see Turkey as a European country. What right to Americans have to say this? Are we pushing to make Mexico an American state? The main problem with Turkish/ EU relations is Turkey's shameful treatment of Cyprus. Yet no Turkish leader wants to negotiate this point, and thus appear weak.



Secondly her idea that Turkey is becoming distanced from the West. The West has always pandered to Turkey, especially over Cyprus. Turkey may be getting fewer free Western handouts but there is no economic or strategic impetus for the Turks to become closer to either Iran or Russia. These are both feeble impoverished countries, which the Americans are paranoid about. It is this paranoia which inflates the significance of moderately pro-Western countries such as Turkey.



Thirdly the lack of EU cooperation would not mean that insane fundamentalism will be seen as an answer.



I would agree that Turkey is an important geo-strategical partner, but simplistic American thinking has led to Turks receiving greater bargaining power than they deserve. It is this which has led to the inability to negotiate successfully with Europe, and is distancing them from the USA.

Sep 10, 2007, 6:48 AM
Objection:

Initially I would like to note a wise analysis made by the author in this article. Firstly, because she managed to "read" and understand correctly the change in the course of Turkish comprehension of its alliance with US. And I do not find Gregory's points justifiable. Especially on the issue of bargaining. I would like to remind him that "interests form a basis of international relations". Every country has its right to defend its national interests and "bargain", especially when it is a matter of national security. He fails to realize that it was exactly Turkey, which allowed using its military bases almost for free for a long long years, while US was paying millions of dollars to its French and Italian counterparts for the same "service". Moreover Turkey itself paid enough to be considered a pro-western country. On the contrary to Gergory's opinion I agree with the author that Turkey has another options as its foreign policy vectors, Middle East or Russia if it wants. However, it is US itself who uses EU as a carrot in order to keep Turkey tied to it and the west in general. Lastly, the Cyprus issue is a very sensitive one for both, Turkey and Greece. No "plan" can resolve this issue without considering both points of view. It sipmly would not be objective. i just wonder what Gregory meant by ""shameful treatment of Cyprus", which for turkey implies defending its people...Peace.

Nov 19, 2007, 1:27 PM

Post a Comment

Name

Email

Comments (you may use HTML tags for style)

Verification

Note: Several minutes will pass while the system is processing and posting your comment. Do not resubmit during this time or your comment will post multiple times.