Is the US closing Turkey in?

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=does-the-us-close-in-turkey-2010-10-15

Friday, October 15, 2010

Turkey faces another critical foreign policy decision about joining the proposed U.S.-led anti-missile system that would shield NATO members against mainly possible Iranian threats in the next decade. The new system essentially was put forward by President Obama a year earlier, replacing the Bush vision in which Russia was perceived as a main threat. Just last week, news reports indicated that weapons inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, warned that Iran had passed a crucial nuclear doorstep, bringing it even closer to being able arm ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.

While Iran is hastily climbing to the top of the U.S’ enemy list, Turkish leaders find themselves in an awfully awkward position. In its “New Strategic Concept,” led by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, NATO is shifting its security challenges, and sees that missile defense is an “essential military mission” for the alliance.

The U.S. has challenged Turkey to shift priorities and is pushing for the regional negotiator to join its ranks. Turkey feels compelled to counter perceptions that it is joining a club that is against one of its largest economic partners and Muslim neighbors. The Justice and Development Party, or AKP, repeatedly stated in recent years that it does not see Iran as a threat, as opposed to how the West views the Islamic Republic.

According to Jim Townsend, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy, Turkey tries to strike a balance in which it does not want to seem as “ambivalent” or “reluctant” to the U.S. demands, also not to offend Iran.

Many parts of the Obama administration’s foreign policy practices so far have been heavily criticized by international affairs authorities and former U.S. policy makers. From its war strategy in Afghanistan to its strategic and tactical missteps pre and during the Middle East peace process; its ambitious and so far failed outreach plan for the Muslim world to its weak stance against China’s unbending monetary policies to name but a few. However, there is one piece of the Obama foreign policy matrix that has received generally positive ratings so far: relations with Russia, which have been described as operating under a “reset button policy.”

In that, the Obama administration, to receive the Russians’ support on the front against Iran and being able to begin working towards the eradication of the nuclear weapons, chose to placate Russia’s demands to dismantle the earlier missile defense system for Europe. Nowadays, following 20 months of reset button policy, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen finds audacity to invite Russia to join the new project as a member of the shield, instead enemy.

The U.S. officials admitted last week that they have visited Turkey “a couple of times” to hold talks over the faith of the new missile plan and informed the Turkish side. According to the U.S. officials, even before the ministerial meeting on Thursday in Brussels between Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu and Defense Minister Vecdi Gönül with their U.S. counterparts Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, ball was in Ankara’s court, and that Ankara must decide which direction it wants to pursue.

There is clarity on the U.S. side and the decision is taken. And for Turkey’s geographic location, its proximity to the future Iranian threats plays an important role for the phased adaptive approach, “as we look at where the ballistic missile threats can come from, Turkey seems to us to be very much along the front lines,” Townsend said.

The U.S. leadership wants Turkey to own NATO’s new strategic vision of the next decade and asks Turkey to join new agreement to making a territorial missile defense as an alliance capability.

The Obama presidency, while closing ranks with the Russian leadership on many issues, applied track two policy to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. The AKP administration rejected the notion and countered those U.S. arguments by claiming sanctions do not work. 

According to a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, by coming between the sanctions, Turkey did no do any favor to Iran or served for the peaceful future in the region, instead encouraged Iran on its non-consensual behavior and increased any military operation’s chance.  

Now, as a further or secondary step, the U.S. is rallying the NATO members around a missile defense system, closing to strike a deal to construct a 21st. century’s umbrella for its members for a protection.

According to Steven Pifer, Director of the Arms Control Initiative at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, Turkey should at least see the plan as an “insurance policy” against Iran, even if it does not believe that Iran wants nuclear weapons.

Sally McNamara, senior European affairs policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, stated that “Obama is seeking NATO’s approval to make missile defense a core competency of the alliance. It is critical that Turkey supports him on this... Ankara is being asked to support the upgrading of missile defense to be a key NATO responsibility, which will be enshrined in the new Strategic Concept set to be agreed at the upcoming Lisbon Summit.

NATO already has theatre-based missile defenses... However, this is no longer an adequate defense posture in today’s environment, where the proliferation of ballistic missiles is growing, to both state and non-state actors. European missile defenses must be expanded to protect populations and territory.”

Semih İdiz, on his Friday column in the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review, laid out clearly how the tension between Turkey and Israel was still boiling during Erdoğan’s late Pakistan visit and how this strained relationship is further spilling over into U.S.-Turkey relations, which İdiz recognizes as an “ideological divide between Turkey and the U.S...”

It appears that Turkey wishes to take its time before it decides on the matter, perhaps leaving a decision until as late as November, when the NATO summit convenes.

Nevertheless, the U.S.-led NATO leadership has taken a decisive turn, leaving very little room for Turkey to maneuver, or oppose the alliance's new strategic step. 

What will or can Turkey do beside support the new vision, willingly or unwillingly?

 

20 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - dr p 2010-10-18 16:57:57		@maninthemiddle: i agree that turkey hasn't gotten its due from the west, but quest ion yiour comment "Turkey will NOT be treated as a doormat in Asia." given past history, please consider what will happen once turkey's perceived usefulness to the orient fades: the arab street will vive you what it gave you after ww1, china will use your bazaars as dumping grounds for its nass-produced sweatshop shlock, and iran will make obedient twelvers out of its akp dupes.

Guest - ManInTheMiddle 2010-10-17 22:23:25		I certainly don't agree with everything the AKP is doing, but one policy the AKP has pursued correctly is strengthening its relations with the "East", at the same time maintaining its relations with the "West". There are some noises being made in the Western and Turkish media about it turning against the West. Nonsense. Turkey is the ONLY card the West has for keeping its interest in the "new Middle East", as Condi Rice and Rumsfeld called it. Turkey's semi-democratic system is the ONLY show in town for the West to be assured its democratic "values" can exist among Muslims in the New-Middle East. Some are reminiscing about the front line "role" for Turkey. The reality is Turkey was a door-stop. Her role was to provide cannon fodder as Turkish soldiers, to slow down the Soviet's move towards the Mediterranean until real "NATO" gets into action. That's all. There are always crumbs that fall on the doormat. Turkey will NOT be treated as a doormat in Asia. Guess which way she'll go.

Guest - Human 2010-10-17 19:37:44		Babadog: You said : "You (Turkey)have protected the eastern flank of Nato for half a century against real and hostile USSR activity ... ". Here is a link to a map of the area: http://www.aboutromania.com/WorldEuropeCountriesMap.gif With reference to the map, please explain how Turkey was able to protect Nato's eastern flank.

Guest - Murat 2010-10-17 16:38:06		"In the 1970s and 80s, when Turkiye was a frontline deterrent against communism, no EU or US actor took a stance on issues that would offend Turkiye..." Maybe you are not old enough to remember when "Midnight Express" came out, when some US seantors even proposed carpet bombing Turkish opium regions, and when US instituted an arms embargo after the operation in Cyprus in 74. 70s and 80s were the worst period in Turkish history economically and politically. Frontline deterrant means just that, no special honor and not the way to gain respect. One shoud have self respect first.

Guest - wtf 2010-10-17 03:30:17		The Headline should read " Does Ergogan close in Turkey ".

Guest - Kadri Ersoy 2010-10-17 02:18:55		This is a chance for Turkiye to reclaim its former frontline status as a NATO and US ally. We are being offered a tremendous opportunity: if Turkiye regains her former status as a frontline NATO member, there will no longer be any anti-Turkish propaganda regarding Armenian lies or the Cyprus issue in western parliaments. I know these resolutions have no meaning, but they are of a degrading and insulting character against the Turkish people, and an assault against realities and justice, and they should not be tolerated. I think this is the overture that the US is trying to convey. In the 1970s and 80s, when Turkiye was a frontline deterrent against communism, no EU or US actor took a stance on issues that would offend Turkiye, it would be so again today. We can reverse the negative trends that we have suffered from in the post-Cold War era of the 1990s and early 2000s whence Turkiye’s strategic position was seemingly reduced, and which was duly exploited by anti-Turkish criminal lobbies and other criminal/racist elements in the West. The AKP should not miss this opportunity. It is now time to test how much strategic vision Mr. “Strategic Depth” really has.

Guest - Kadri Ersoy 2010-10-17 02:11:47		This is a chance for Turkiye to reclaim its former frontline status as a NATO and US ally. We are being offered a tremendous opportunity: if Turkiye regains her former status as a frontline NATO member, there will no longer be any anti-Turkish propaganda regarding Armenian lies or the Cyprus issue in western parliaments. I know these resolutions have no meaning, but they are of a degrading and insulting character against the Turkish people, and an assault against realities and justice, and they should not be tolerated. I think this is the overture that the US is trying to convey. In the 1970s and 80s, when Turkiye was a frontline deterrent against communism, no EU or US actor took a stance on issues that would offend Turkiye, it would be so again today. We can reverse the negative trends that we have suffered from in the post-Cold War era of the 1990s and early 2000s whence Turkiye’s strategic position was seemingly reduced, and which was duly exploited by anti-Turkish lobbies and other criminal/racist elements in the West. The AKP should not miss this opportunity. It is now time to test how much strategic vision Mr. “Strategic Depth” really has.

Guest - gokturk 2010-10-17 00:30:51		Andy from dc, will it matter when Turkey has its own nukes?

Guest - HAKAN 2010-10-17 00:28:03		Turkiye has a chance to decide to change about future in Middle East . It can be a most valuable country how it behaviours . In fact what does Turkish people think about that , U.S or Iranian ? All decides depend on ,than, AKP will have been critized by...

Guest - babadog 2010-10-16 21:57:11		So Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and could strike the west at any moment.Whoever beleiived that fairy tale will also beleive that Iran will nuke the west sometime in the future so an alliance of the worlds greatest nuclear force ever assembled needs even more protection from little old Iran in the form of a colossal nuclear shield.What a load of tosh.Ask yourself do you beleive this Zionist/USA propoganda in other words are you a childish fool who has his eyes closed ears shut and cannot discern between fact and fiction? This Islamaphobic Iran hating is all to do with the survival of Israel and everything is expendable including countries and civilisations. I say to Turkiye stay on course and look to the East and forget extravagant ventures like the missile shield.You have protected the eastern flank of Nato for half a century against real and hostile USSR activity so wheres the recognition and thanks you cant even join a rubbish EU organisation because of prejudice.

Guest - George 2010-10-16 18:39:09		Turkey joining the proposed U.S.-led anti-missile system? One will see this as much as one saw Turkey voting for sanctions on Iran. Nope that is.

Guest - Murat 2010-10-16 17:52:16		Maybe the time to re-evaluate all these military alliences has come. Turkey's geography and cultural heritage and economic ties and geeral interests require it to be the Switzerland of ME, except well armed. It is a myth that NATO or anyone else will ever rush to Turkey's aid in case of a real need anyway. Military alliences need to be seperated from cultural and economic ties and relationships. Unfortunately, the perception is, and this is very intentional, a Turkey that is NOT an enemy of Iran (I have little respect for their regime), is an enemy of the West. Turks can not afford to fall into this trap. Even though a pure defensive system, built by heavy Aselsan participation and TSK sharing the command and control should not be a problem for anyone.

Guest - Gary 2010-10-16 16:55:38		Turkey will soon find that its policy of Iran appeasement has its limits (just learn from the Arabs). But the NATO Missile train will leave the station by that time. Ultimately, Turkey needs to do what it is comfortable with, but misaligning the Turkey political priorities with those of its allies is dangerous. You can always blame Israel at the end, but who will buy this?

Guest - harman 2010-10-16 14:25:20		Maybe Prime Minister Erdogans close relations to Iranian President Ahmadinejad say more about Erdogans true agenda than the whole AKP program.

Guest - osman 2010-10-16 13:54:31		I would like to know who can believe that Iran will attack the entire Western military alliance?It is as ridiculous a thought as Switzerland attacking France. Once again the arrogant bully and its mercenaries are lying like ever before.

Guest - The Prisoner 2010-10-16 11:51:54		Make no mistake, the USA will start a war with Iran and what will Turkiye do then? 90% of the free world is against Iran and recognises it for what it is: anti democracy and pro confrontation. Its attack on the legitimate goverment of Lebanon proves its committment to conflict in the Middle East and now the AKP wants it be an ally! Bad times coming I think.

Guest - Hulya 2010-10-16 09:42:23		The author writes about Iran "largest economic partners and Muslim neighbors". That is not really correct. Around 4% of our import comes from Iran (2007 figures, could not find later) and the export is very very low (not even mentioned at the list). The main partner is EU with exports 56% and imports 40%. Personally I think we should stick to the same type of relationship with Iran as the rest of the world has with Iran, i.e. trade, but keep it to trade and nothing else.

Guest - andy fr DC 2010-10-16 02:44:31		Wow,the author may be slightly misinformed: 1) Ms Albright has not been Sec of State for 10 years. 2) Iran has been America's enemy since 1979. Every year it vies for North Korea as the most hated dictatorship in polls of Americans. That has been true for over 30 years. A little thing called the Iranian Hostage Crisis occurred , perhaps you missed it? Perhaps we object to Iran getting a nuke because their entire revolution is based on hatred of the USA. Or do you not bother to read Iran's papers or watch their rallies ? As for Turkey participating in a missile shield, no one in the USA could care less. Turkey is simply not a topic of discussion in public or the newspapers. If Turkey chooses to leave NATO it may matter to Turkey, it will matter little to anyone else.Your choice, your future.

Guest - Cautious 2010-10-16 02:29:19		No offense - but while Turkey has the strategic location and the potential to be a great mediator/arbitrator between cultures - it has the diplomatic skills of Israel (which is almost non existent). Diplomacy requires skill levels that are apparently not present in the current administration. Turkey is going to be left with a choice - stay with the people who have honored/protected it for decades - or make a change. Either choice is better than trying to straddle the middle.

Guest - Curious 2010-10-16 00:42:50		Can someone please explain to me how the AKP brought Turkiye into a position in which she defends Iran and Palestinians more than she does Azerbaijan, and TRNC? How did it come about that Turkiye is pursuing the interests of Iran and Russia while neglecting her own interests on Cyprus, Karabakh, the Aegean, northern Iraq, etc. applying such submissive and detrimental policies on these issues that affect Turkiye?