|
 |
Ihsan Bal
Head of USAK Science Committee |
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
One may easily see the breeze of happiness blowing in a global sense from Latin America to the Middle East after the presidential elections in the US. Turkey is not an exception. People of Gurtepe village, in Van, sacrificed 44 sheep for the appraisal of Obama’s lection as the 44th president of the US[1] This is just one of the examples that people showing their hopes and expectations from the new term in the US foreign policy. After experiencing democracy and liberal ideas to lose ground in George W. Bush’s term, everybody is hoping for stability and peace, at least efforts of US diplomacy in this framework.
Turkey-US relations were primarily built on strategic security alliance and security remained the dominant characteristic of relations for a long time. This was a natural consequence of the Cold War realist rationale. Yet, at the beginning the democratic, liberal values based on free market economy represented by the US and West played an important role in Turkey’s pursuit of its niche in this bloc. Especially, Turkey’s strategic location and border with the Soviet Union as well as the claims of Stalin were the main motivations of both sides to cooperate under NATO’s umbrella. The relations continued with ups and downs in similar terms up until the late 1980s.
Turgut Özal’s activism in the foreign policy in these years can be also seen as a new phase in Turkey-US relations that started just before the Cold War came to an end. Özal attempted to diversify the relations between US and Turkey in Reagan’s and his successor, George H. Bush’s presidency terms. Özal worked for developing economic ties between the two countries. He followed proactive policies in order to increase Turkish exports to the US and requested for an increase in the textile quotas applied to Turkey. Not only economic ones but also political issues were brought into the agenda throughout this period. Turkey manifested its secular, democratic characteristics to be a model for the other countries in the region. Turkey emphasized the post-Soviet countries in the Central Asia and the importance of these counties’ integration with the West. In addition, Turkey’s cultural and historical dynamics with its potential to promote stability in Balkans and Caucuses was underlined. Thus, the relations that restrained to the security issues before diversified into the political and economic aspects. This diversification was crucial for Turkey-US relations after the demise of Soviet Union.
The conventional wisdom about Turkish–US relations in the Post Cold War era was expectation of a certain decline based on realist theory suggesting the end of alliance after the defeat of the common threat. Nevertheless, these prophecies did not come true and collapse of Soviet Union revealed the true potential of Turkey and its strategic importance. Bill Clinton declared this in his speech in November 1999 at Turkish National Grand Assembly (TBMM). Clinton asserted these ideas through his speech in the TBMM as:
Since the Cold War ended, we have learned something quite wonderful. We have learned that our friendship does not depend upon a common concern with the Soviet Union, and that in fact, in the post-Cold War era; our partnership has become even more important. Together we are adapting NATO to the demands of a new century. We are partners for peace in the Balkans and the Middle East. We are developing new sources of energy to help the entire region. Last year, our trade was over $6 billion. It has risen 50 percent in the last five years alone.[2]
This approach was not a part of spontaneous daily politics. It was actually compatible with the “new world order” values that the US stood for. The values of democracy, human rights, rule of law and market economy reiterated as the foreign policy parameters in this era again instead of purely relying on military power. This is the reason that Clinton gave his speech in the Turkish parliament in Turkey and did not include any visit to military officers in his schedule as a signal of supporting democracy underlining this message with the statement of “it is a great honor for me and my family and for our delegation to appear before this body, the repository of Turkish sovereignty which, as the words behind me affirm, belongs unconditionally and without exception to the people.”[3]
The US under Clinton administration responded Turkey’s diversification attempts. Turkey’s political importance and economic potential in the region along with its rich cultural heritage taken from the Ottoman Empire were acknowledged by the Clinton administration. The relations developed in terms of trade and efficient use of regional resources. The US recognized Turkey’s role in the region. In reference to Clinton speech in Turkish parliament:
“Since people have been able to draw maps, they have pointed out the immutable fact of Turkey’s geography -- that Asia Minor is a bridge between continents. Less than a kilometer separates Europe from Asia at the nearest point along the Bosphorus. And, in reality, there is no separation at all, thanks to the bridges you have built -- to the commerce that spans Turkey every day to the communications revolution that links all parts of the world instantaneously”[4]
In these years, Turkey had the closest relationship with the US. The relations evolved to the strategic alliance and diversified. The two countries cooperated in different areas. They cooperated in Central Asia and Caucasus regarding the integration these countries to the West. The cooperation continued in Middle East and Balkans for the peace and stability in these regions. Furthermore, in the security issues especially about the PKK terrorism, cooperation with the US peaked and the leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan, is captured with an operation coordinated by two countries. This cooperation increased the trust between countries and public opinion polls in Turkey indicated Clinton as the most successful president for the security and peace of the world. [5]
However, these accomplishments faded in George W. Bush term. There was an expectation of policy shift from the Clinton administration but 9/11 exacerbated the rupture. The US began to use means of unilateral policies, pre-emptive strikes and exclusion of UN from the process. Thus, the Bush administration ignored the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law which Jimmy Carter tried to point out in his book called “Our Endangered Values”. The main theme of Bush foreign policy became hard power instead of soft power which is the backbone of US foreign policy success. These new foreign policy parameters caused problems with Turkey as it did with most of other countries. Besides, the neo-con projects at Turkey’s vicinity made it more complicated. Especially, the Iraq War and the March 1 Bill caused a historic rupture in Turkey-US relations.
The parliament that decided to reject the bill was ironically addressed by Clinton as “there are now billions of people around the region and the world whose future depends upon decisions made in this very room over the next 25 years”[6] and applauded him over ten times. Certainly there are reasons for both applause and rejection. First, Bush administration ignored previous acknowledgements of Clinton on Turkey. The neo-cons underestimated Turkey and acted as if Cold War terms were still applicable may be even harsher. The US could not convince the Turkish society about legitimacy of Iraq War and even did not make any attempt. Especially, Rumsfeld and Grossman reliance of “a couple of guys in Ankara”[7] instead of the Turkish society may present the great difference between Clinton administration and Bush about Turkey. Thus, Turkish society pressured Turkish parliament in order to reject the bill and the US dictating style to convince Turkey caused this reaction. As a response to March bill, Bush turned towards different alliances and followed policies that covertly punish Turkey. These policies exacerbated the relations that would not significantly improve until the end of Bush presidency.
What will happen in the Obama’s term? Will Turkey and the US get closer again or worse? It is hard to predict, but there are some dynamics that are important for the relations. The primary dynamic is again the security and the others are regional interests of two countries in Caucuses, Central Asia, Balkans and the Middle East. Obama’s pursuit of Clinton example or Bush will probably bring the parallel reactions in the Turkish parliament, but one of the first test will be the policies in Iraq.
The expectation is the US withdrawal from Iraq and leaving the security of the country to the Iraqi government gradually until 2011. The US policies in Iraq until this date are quite important. Turkey is closely interested in the region because of sharing border and as a neighbor and especially, because of the PKK terrorist organization that is established in the north region of this country. PKK issue is a delicate topic for Turkey. Just making emphasis on the relations regarding combat with terrorism is of course a reductionist approach, but it is one of the determinants of its relations with the US. In addition, Turkey’s contributions to construction of the new Iraq are quite important. This contribution may include training of Iraq army, cooperation on economy and support for the consolidation of fragile Iraqi democracy. The main obstacle for Turkey to do these contributions is again the PKK terrorism in the region. Thus, we may expect that convincing Bagdat and Barzani, Obama administration will solve this problem. There are three pillars for this expectation.
First, all the power centers other than the Iraqi government has an effect on instability and insurgencies in Iraq. Thus, Obama administration will be intolerant to these power centers for a stable Iraq. Second, the raison d’être of PKK has begun to lose ground as Turkey’s democratic reforms gained impetus while satisfying Kurdish population in the region.[8] This is the reason why PKK targeted the democratization process of Turkey. Third, Turkey and the US are getting closer in sharing the similar policies in the Middle East. The expectation of the US return to the American values and subordination of the Pentagon and hard power in the foreign policy and tendency in this context may help Turkish – US rapprochement. We may add other reasons to the abovementioned ones. Yet, the main determinant of the next term will be the shared interests of the two countries in the regions of Caucuses, Balkans, Central Asia and Middle East. Thus, it is also important and necessary for Turkey to declare and propose alternative projects and views for the well being of the region.
In sum, everybody expects something from the changing discourse of Obama. Obama’s adoption of American values of democracy, human rights and rule of law again will create a certain niche for cooperation and shared interests. The two countries play their roles and cooperate. Nonetheless, the opposite is also possible. It is naïve to think that everything will be perfect in Obama’s term. In addition to the PKK problem, the claims of so-called Armenian genocide, the different policies about Iran and Middle East are the main fragile issues in the US-Turkey relations.
However, Obama has the chance to recover the relations between the US and Turkey that had been negatively affected in Bush era, which caused anti-Americanism to peak in the country. There is a certain credit given to Obama already. Sacrificing 44 sheep for celebrating Obama’s election as the 44th president of the US is just a micro picture showing the expectations from the future. We will see how Obama will use this credit in his term in the office.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ihsan Bal
Head of ISRO Center for International Security, Terrorism and Ethnic Conflict Studies
For your comments:
ihsanbal@hotmail.com
[1] “Vanlilar Obama için 44 Koyun Kesti”, NTVMSNBC, 8 November 2008; http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/465172.asp.
[2] http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/New/html/19991115.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ISRO Polls on the Turkey-US relation perceptions, March12, 2005
[6] http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/New/html/19991115.html
[7] Turan Yavuz, Çuvallayan Ittifak. Destek Yayinlari, Ankara,2006, p. 189
[8] Turkey’s reforms can be grouped into two; socio-politcal and cultural rights, and reforms made on improving human rights conditions. Some amendments regarding the latter can be stated as broadcasting in Kurdish language programmes on state television TRT, opening Kurdish courses, expanded political rights (as known Kurds are represented by 75 moderate Kurdish MPs and 20 PKK affiliated Kurdist MPs in the parliament). In terms of human rights there is no tolerance to any kind of maltreatment or abuse and this right is protected by law. Moreover, even in the corporate crimes custody period is limited with 4 days unless magisterial degree.
A Time Collapse in the Kurdish Problem
