Turkey’s perception problem continues, if not worsens in Washington

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkey8217s-perception-problem-continues-if-not-worsens-in-washington-2010-11-26

Friday, November 26, 2010

Following the Turkish agreement on the NATO missile defense system last week in Lisbon, contrary to expectations, Turkey’s perception problem and questions about its direction have not ended in Washington. Instead, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s stern messages to Israel from Lebanon, where he visited this week, the new matrix of Washington politics since the midterm elections, in which the Republican opposition is much more stronger, and a set of issues expected to stem from the missile shield system continue to promise a hideous winter for the Turkish-American & Israeli, or TAI, relations.

The big question this week was why Turkey’s consensual agreement on the NATO missile system did not ease the jittery relations between Turkey and the U.S. Wasn’t the biggest contemporary sticking point between the two allies just nicely resolved? Turkey’s opposition to the missile system would have indeed damaged the image of Turkey far worse than many would have anticipated. However, in the real world, Turkey had very few other options beside accepting the new NATO defense plan to begin with, as I concluded my Oct. 15 column, five weeks before the summit, “What will or can Turkey do beside support the new vision, willingly or unwillingly?” Turkey, indeed, could have not opposed the rest of the 27 members of the alliance’s decision to defend themselves just because it did not share the same concerns.

Nonetheless, despite last week’s agreement, it appears that discussions over Turkey’s position will be still up for debate for the next few months. This week, the most relevant senior American diplomatic and military officials, when asked, said that it is indeed not certain if Turkey will actually host the radar installment, and Erdoğan confirmed that the decision has not yet been determined by his government either.

Discrepancies over concerns, questions and statements about the NATO missile shield are the crisp indicators that shed light on the edgy relations between Washington and Ankara these days, and they come to the surface when one finds the audacity to compare notes and do sort of a cross-examining of the senior administration officials, as I just did this week in Washington.

For instance, at the Brookings Institution this week, U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Ivo Daalder, who spent years preparing for the summit, chuckled and clearly rebuked me when I repeated Turkish President Abdullah Gül's statement over Turkey’s shaping role at the NATO summit, “If Turkey was not in the summit, the summit would have been concluded within 10 minutes.” Then he snubbed another question in which I, once more, voiced Ankara’s repeated concerns over an Israeli role related to the shield; Daalder stated coldly and briefly: “NATO is requiring this capability to protect its territory. Period.”

U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Adm. James Stavridis also gave a press briefing and one of my questions, a much-vocalized talking point in Turkey especially among pundits, was on which country will be making the most money out of the planned defense shield, which is expected to cost billions of dollars. The initial response by admiral, once more, was a spontaneous chuckle, then he continued: “The good news for NATO is that the United States has already borne a great deal of the cost of the research and development of the systems. For example, the Aegis defense system was developed here. That will be adapted and moved ashore. So a great deal of the costs have already been spent in the development of the R&D portion of this thing. In terms of the European side of this thing, the cost is actually relatively low, because it's a command and control system that plugs into hardware that is being offered up by the United States at this point. So the command and control side of this thing will be in the low hundreds of millions of dollars. The actual infrastructure is, indeed, in the billions of dollars, but much of those costs will be borne by the United States.”

 Before the summit, senior U.S. officials shied away from giving any kind of description about the command and control structure of the new missile shield, and simply stated that this issue will be worked out in coming months. Immediately following the summit, this week, it sounded like they have a pretty good idea of what the system should look like. According to Daalder, the issue “is actually not that complicated. ... NATO already has an integrated air missile defense system that has been operation under the single command-control system for decades, with the NATO supreme allied commander in charge. And we are going to have a very similar set up for the missile defense system.”

In brief, where the radar component of the shield will be deployed, and whether the Turkish administration will be satisfied by the described-precise command structure and Israel’s role in the whole cast, will be still the sticking points that are expected to suck a lot of the oxygen from the TAI relations during the first half of 2011.

The other significant menace for the U.S.-Turkey relations is undoubtedly Turkey’s worsening relations with Israel. I had a lengthy phone conversation with Mr. Dan Mariaschin, executive vice president of B'nai B'rith International, a global Jewish community group, a week ago and one thing clear to me from the whole conversation was that vociferous Jewish Americans have no hope for better relations between Turkey and Israel, as long as the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government in Ankara.

Make no mistake: I, among many other observers, do believe that Israel owes an apology and that reparations must paid to those families who experienced losses following the flotilla incident.

However, it is also clear to me that Ankara has no interest in giving the Israeli administration the chance to step in that direction. Because it is a well-known secret that if Ankara really wants to make things better between the two, it has plenty of diplomatic skills to create that environment.

Erdoğan’s attack on Israel was met with a great enthusiasm in the streets of the Middle East, as his hero’s welcome confirmed once more in Lebanon this week. Though the same attacks met with an even greater distaste and increased hostility in the streets of Washington and worse, the halls of the Congress.

The Nov. 2 midterm elections reverberated the Israeli lobby’s power in Washington and made it even stronger; however, the Netanyahu government appears to be isolated in many parts of the world. As Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, wrote on his blog on Thursday: “Netanyahu is telling various close friends that he has the U.S. Congress in his pocket and can largely ignore the White House. ... Netanyahu wants to bring down President Obama, when it is Obama who should be destabilizing the far right coalition of the Netanyahu government.”

Some commentaries appeared this week in the Turkish press which suggested that the Turkey-U.S. relations are going through the toughest period in the last 40 years. I have not been around that long and cannot echo the statement fully. What I am afraid is to predict sadly that the TAI relations might be entering into one of the most gruesome winters of recent history.

 

11 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - ilker/cyprus 2010-11-29 11:34:02		The Netanyahu might have Obama in his pocket but he hasnt got Erdogan in his pocket.Its no secret that Erdogan dislikes Netanhayu and that relations with Israel is on hold while he is in power.Weither relations with America stay stable is up to the Americans.

Guest - NoBS 2010-11-28 02:32:41		Come on, it's not Netanyahu who wants to bring down Buraq Hussein Osama, but exactly the opposite. Recep the Arab Erdogan himself has also stated that he would like to bring down the current Israeli government and help replace it with one that will lick his own bedouin sandals when told to do so.

Guest - George 2010-11-27 23:13:51		The problem is that Ataturk failed to truly secularize Turkey. His act of injection of extreme nationalim in the lives of the Turks has ironically now helped the return of political islam and watering down of Ataturk's secular state. Proof to that is PM Erdogan and his blind doings.

Guest - Ben Yacob 2010-11-27 22:08:15		To all those who think and write that Israel should apologize or pay to those families who experienced losses following the flotilla incident I suggest one thing, to read the full report of the Mavi Marmara incident in The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. To express sorrow yes, to apologize, why ?.

Guest - dickerson 2010-11-27 19:55:38		FROM HAARETZ, 11/26/10: The United States Embassy in Tel Aviv has informed the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem that the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks was planning on releasing hundreds of thousands of American diplomatic cables, some of which might deal with Israel-America relations. wikileaks has lots of leaks for Turkey-America relations and sure they will rock the boat.. winter starts this weekend^^

Guest - Octothorpe Asterisk 2010-11-27 17:15:47		The ruling AKP, its supporters and the Turkish media are currently in the same mood as Obama, his supporters and the American media in the run-up to the 2008 elections. The Turks have a leader who can read his fans' mood, tell them what they want to hear and make them feel proud of moving toward the East. All that will keep him in power and garner praise from the likes of Libya but it will not work in the long term. Mid-East players have a way of turning against anyone with too much influence. They all want to maintain their own power and have a high disdain for meddlers. So while it might work at home, like it did in USA for Obama, it will cause some parts of Turkish society discomfort and it will fall apart. I believe, like Faza, the AKP worked behind the scenes with militants and terrorist-linked organizations to force Israel's hand in dealing with the Mavi Marmara. On the other hand, Israel's military should have forseen that possibility and had a plan to deal with it.

Guest - Cautious 2010-11-27 17:15:00		It's nice to know that at least one author admits that Turkey prefers conflict over resolution and would prefer that Israel not apology or give compensation. The constant stoking of the fire of discord has long term consequences that outweigh the short term benefits of pandering to an extremist support base - that's the core issue that concerns Washington.

Guest - Yaacov 2010-11-27 17:04:58		The AKP regime of religious fanatics is leading Turkey to ruin and ruination. It is not only their continuing scathing criticism of Israeli, it is their fumbling away of Turkey's EU prospects over the asinine issue of Cyprus, their botching of the Armenian relationship, the coddling to Isran, Syria and HAMAS, angering Greek-Americans over Aegean disputes and on and on. Davutoglu was glowingly praised in the Turkish media 2 years ago, but in fact he's the worst FM in Turkey's modern history. He's mishandled nearly every major foreign policy item he's gotten involved in. And Erdogan and his unrestrained rhetoric are destroying whatever goodwill the US had towards Turkey.

Guest - Faza 2010-11-27 12:24:57		I think the Turkish people should be the ones to make the apology on behalf of their extremist government who incited,supported and ideologically backed the militant aggressive Hamas supporters who quite clearly were using weapons with the intent of causing harm or death. The other ships in the flotilla carried the humanitarians , that is why there was no violence on those ships. Just the Mavi Marmara carried these violent militants. The whole world saw what happened. We know the truth.

Guest - babadog 2010-11-27 04:46:48		Ofcourse Netanyahu has got the American congress in his back pocket and can even dictate to Obama in the White House.This is why the Zionist Israelis can kill and maim with impunity and steal and colonise as much land as they see fit and to completely take over Jerusalem, the holy city of all religions. The USA has in essence become a colony of Israel.If I were an American I would be ashamed and would want to take my country back. Turkiye has dumped the so called Jewish lobby in congress after realising they are nothing but a bunch of control freaks who indulge in blackmail as their daily sport.We are not concerned what congress votes for as far as the Armenian issue was concerned so the Jewish lobby is obsolete and thus history.Its futile targeting the AKP in Turkiye with negative propoganda because a nuclear bomb cant dislodge them from the centre ground of Turkish politics.Israels best bet is to apologise and make repairation payments to the relatives of the 9 Turks murdered.

Guest - dude 2010-11-27 00:35:18		"Make no mistake: I, among many other observers, do believe that Israel owes an apology and that reparations must paid to those families who experienced losses following the flotilla incident." In other words - Let me keep my job, I am on the AKP side

Can Lisbon help AKP find its own voice?

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=can-lisbon-help-akp-find-its-own-voice-2010-11-19

Friday, November 19, 2010

Exceptionalism is usually a term that the Americans love to couple it with their own country, and that generally refers to the extraordinary nature of the U.S. as “a uniquely free nation based on democratic ideals.”

Certainly, in order to talk about Turkish exceptionalism in this sense, Turkey has much ground to cover in terms of even reaching moderate democratic ideals, starting with a moderate freedom for its press. Though, on the foreign affairs track, Turkey has been able to play a much different and confident role, one that carries more colors of a Turkish exceptionalism. In this spirit, Turkey, in recent years, often found the audacity to opt for policy options that proved Turkey does not want to be restricted by the old way of Western alliance line ups.

However, the NATO alliance, led by the U.S., decided that it is about time to renew its collective commitment to each other and be sure that everyone on the same page about the future threats (ballistic threats that are expected mainly from Iran and non-state actors), the current monumental struggles (Afghanistan war and financial crises which continues to make a dent in defense budgets) and new strategic friendships (hopefully with Russia).

The alliance’s largest shareholder, the U.S., set an ambitious agenda for the Lisbon summit to reinforce and display this solidarity, which will be presented in the new strategic concept, for the first time during the post-9/11 period.

President Obama’s high ratings among Europeans, especially when comparing those ratings with the previous U.S. president, also come in handy and played an important factor in gaining the backing of the public.

One exception that seems to be ever more resentful to the Obama magic, besides America, unsurprisingly, is the Turkish public. Low ratings on the U.S. presence and policies in the region further encourages Turkey’s Justice and Development Party, or AKP, to voice objections more freely in the absence of any penalty or backlash. Currently, the nationalists and securalists in Turkey are even madder at the U.S. administration’s policies in recent years towards Turkey.

During the week, in Washington, U.S. senior administration officials made a series of briefings over the upcoming Lisbon summit. The officials were extremely careful not to criticize Turkey every single time they were asked about the situation.

Dr. Philip Gordon, an assistant secretary of state, who has toed a tougher policy line against Turkey in the past, was committed to not making a single statement that could be interpreted as criticism towards Ankara.

I was determined to push Gordon, out of a basic reporters curiosity, and asked: “Before the Toronto meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, you invited an AP reporter and stated that ‘we think Turkey remains committed to NATO, Europe, and the U.S., but that needs to be demonstrated.’ Do you think Ankara’s decision over this new NATO missile system is one of those moments” that should be understood in the same category of demonstration of commitment to the West by Turkey? Gordon did not reject the notion of the question, though he was not going to draw ire before the summit. He stated: “We believe there is a growing threat from ballistic missile proliferation, particularly short- and medium-range ballistic missiles that can threaten all of the alliance ... and that’s why the United States puts such a high priority on moving forward on missile defense. ... What we would like to see at the Lisbon summit is for all allies to take a further step and endorse a NATO capability in this regard and we’re hopeful that we can achieve that goal.”

Before the Lisbon summit, one hurdle seems to be unsolved, and it is to find out who would command the radar system that would be deployed in Turkey. Erdoğan made it clear this week that he sees the command-control issue as a pre-condition and stated, “If ... our entire territory is considered, then it [the command] should be given to us ... otherwise, it is not possible to accept such a thing.”

The U.S., over the command-control issue, clearly holds a different position, and considers it more of a technical matter to be dealt with in later phases. As Gordon stated this week, the U.S. administration wants the members of the alliance to make a fundamental decision about whether the alliance should have the capability to protect its territories and population against the ballistic threat. Gordon, when pressed further about the discrepancy over the issue and the Turkish pre-conditions, stated simply: “Well, I’ll let the Turkish government represent itself. I’ve described what we hope the alliance will agree to at Lisbon.”

Despite some drawbacks before the summit, not many in Washington believe that Turkey will reject the missile shield system, mainly because it is believed that the stakes simply are too high for such opposition.

Most believe or wish to believe that Turkey, despite its objections and even apparent unwillingness, at the end of the day, will come aboard. However, agreeing in Lisbon does not mean the rest of the process will just go smoothly. In later implementation phases of the adaptive missile approach, promise great challenges handle.

As Turkey’s constituency in the East is growing, so too does the need on Ankara’s part to satisfy this constituency’s expectations.

The decision that Ankara has to make this weekend in Lisbon, would be a wake-up call to review the kind of constituency Ankara wishes or has limits to entertain. For instance, is Turkey competing with Iran to reach the hearts of a radical and extremely conservative Muslim constituency in the East, or to win the moderate Muslim constituency?

Because if the Iranian rhetoric is the one Turkey would like to compete with, Turkey needs to beat statements such as what the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said this Tuesday: “The possible deployment of NATO missile defense systems in Turkey is solely aimed at defending Israeli interests.”

One of the potential best upshots of the Lisbon summit might be to start a realization process for Ankara that it needs to find its own authentic and moderate voice to address its eastern neighbors and that it does not have to vie with Iran’s out-of-touch and radical rhetoric.

The AKP, when it came to the power in 2002, went through a similar kind of realization process by breaking with its Islamist past, setting the Copenhagen criteria as a target and slowly moving to the center right.

Turkey’s positive response this weekend would push Ankara to steer away from its radical fans in the East, disappoint them and show that the AKP steers a country that has its own unique set of circumstances and would not leave the West so easily and so fast.

In Washington, the U.S. senior administration officials made it clear this week that they want to win Turkey, they want Turkey to search for its own moderate voice and surely they want Turkey go forward with the missile shield.

 

2 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - Rahj 2010-11-22 20:34:21		If Iran wanted to nuke Europe, they would just send a truck or a shipping container, not a missile. Missiles can be traced. Shipping containers and trucks are cheaper and harder to trace. We have a very effective deterrent. You Nuke us or our friends, we Nuke you, 50 times over (we have enough Nukes to do this). Maybe we also take out Syria, Lebanon, and any other trouble makers in the area.

Guest - babadog 2010-11-20 04:14:36		Turkiye has at long last started to stand on its own two feet as far its foreign policies are concefrned, thanks largely to Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Ahmet Davutoglu and as such has earned the Turkish people a great deal of self esteem. When Turkiye was a front line country against the Soviet Union it was decorated with very large numbers of nuclear arsenal representing a considerable threat aimed at the heart of the Soviets.Turkiye served and protected the USAand Europe despite representing great risk to itself.Today,like the British prime minister stated, we defend the tent but still have to sit outside it because our partners in NATO are ungrateful and hypocritical Thats history and Turkiye has learned well its lessons.So its only natural that Turkiye puts into place all the checks and balances for any missile shield its going to entertain on its premises and which is going to seriously affect its Eastern constituencies.I have confidance we are negotiating justifiably at long last

Imponderable Turkey heads to Lisbon summit

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=how-determined-is-washington-not-to-let-turkey-into-talks-2010-11-12

Friday, November 12, 2010

For over a week, the White House team of policy actors has been in Asia for meetings and visits at a time Washington is going through a post-midterm election rehabilitation session.

One of the results of the historic midterm election earthquake that just happened is to bring President Barack Obama’s policy and legislation making limits under the spotlight, at the same time the administration is stepping back from its solid campaign promise not to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

On the other hand, even though the NATO summit will be held in Lisbon, Washington has been occupying itself with countless discussions and panels to analyze possible scenarios.

In that sense, if nothing else, Turkey’s Justice and Development Party, or AKP’s, unpredictable foreign affairs posture when it comes to deciding on big issues brought a mixed amount of surprise and unexpectedness to Turkey’s image and also makes the country relevant to many other wider U.S. foreign policy discussions that are not directly linked to the bilateral ties of the U.S.- Turkey.

A considerable amount of this mixed of unexpectedness has been injected into the U.S.-Turkey relations as well, which consequently elevated the relations to a roller coaster ride in 2010.

This week, at the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, while assessing the future of the U.S.-Turkey relations, three of the panelists who were arguing different points of views over Turkey, agreed on one point, namely that of the improbable posture of Turkish foreign policy heading to the Lisbon summit.

During the discussion, Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, compared the AKP’s democratization path to a mixed bag, in that on the one hand the AKP administration had enabled Turkey to live through the best democracy ever in its history, but on the other, that authoritarian aspects constantly hang over the country, as evidenced by the administration going after political opponents using the Ergenekon investigations or levying inexplicable tax fines on the outspoken press.

While Cook stated that he found Turkey’s mixed bag is “positive” overall and has a potential for better days as a democratic country ahead, another panelist at the same discussion, Soner Çağaptay, a Turkey expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, repeatedly argued that the new constitution, which the AKP promises to produce, would be a litmus test to prove if indeed AKP is for liberal democracy and the country is indeed going in a positive direction.

Çağaptay, while analyzing the referendum results, pointed that the 42 percent of dissent in the country cannot be digestible or wished away by the other chunk. Therefore, for Çağaptay, the new constitutional discussions could be a launching pad for the new social contract in which all parts of society can be represented.

Michael Werz, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank that can be described as the think tank most closely linked to the current White House, painted a very favorable picture of Turkey’s “mixed bag.”

Werz noted the tremendous changes that are occurring in Turkey. Werz concluded that these changes are not about the Islamic revival in the country, but have merely resulted in a large amount of energy being “unleashed” after it gathered within Turkey during the Cold War. Werz insisted that most of today’s power struggle in Ankara was due to newly rising Anatolian entrepreneurs, who now want more say in the ruling class, as well as more foreign markets to expand in the Levant.

While the Lisbon summit looms, this week I also sat down and talked with Daniel Fata, a former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy from 2005 to 2008, who was a key advisor to both secretaries of defense Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates in that capacity and was responsible for developing and executing earlier version of the NATO missile shield.

Fata argued that a new “strategic concept” that tries to illustrates who the threats that NATO alliance will face over the next decade and is expected for approval by the member states has some uncertainties to handle.  The Afghanistan situation, how to approach Russia and continuing financial crises are some of the monumental issues that Fata argued makes it extremely difficult for the alliance members to concentrate on the strategic concept on top of sharp budgetary constraints.  

Fata, as one of best experts over the old and new missile versions of the NATO shield, defended Turkey when answering a question about Turkey’s dealing with Iran.

“Turkey is approaching Iran and its nukes problems very realistically. They are living in the neighborhood. They avoid saying or doing anything that would make them a target. However, Turkey also does not want Iran to go nuclear. So they are trying to find a constructive role preventing a crisis from happening that would threaten them, concern them. However the Americans did not like some of the new Turkish rhetoric,” Fata said, adding that some of Turkey’s activities over the year seemed to block the P5+1 negotiations getting a better and more effective result.  

Fata, when asked to make a prediction what Turkey would do next week, said that according to his interactions with people who are involved with the discussions or know about them, “things are going in the right direction,” meaning that Turkey is getting ready to be part of the shield. However, Çağaptay, argued at the CAP panel that even though the AKP may approve of the plans, during the system’s implementation phase, the AKP most likely would bring bureaucratic difficulties into play to not deploy the system.

Iran and P5+1 talks

At the State Department this week, P.J. Crowley, assistant secretary and spokesman for the State Department, had to encounter quite a few tough questions about Turkey’s role in upcoming Iran and P5+1 negotiations. Dodging several questions on Iran's offer to resume talks in Turkey, Crowley finally had to leave the door ajar for a potential role for Turkey to play.

“If we are successful in getting a process going, not just one meeting but a series of meetings and a serious engagement on the nuclear issue and other issues, we can envision that there will be many potential locations for this series of meetings,” Crowley said.

So, just a week before the Lisbon NATO summit, a very small light at the end of tunnel has appeared for Turkey to play a hosting role for the P5+1 meetings.

It was also obvious in Washington this week that the U.S. officials do not want to bring Turkey into the talks.

Iran's request to include Turkey into the meetings could be a critical step, yet the beginning of a very slippery road, in which Turkey can be cast as an "enabler" actor for the Iranian nuclear program in the longer term, once more.

Though in the short term, if Turkey hosts even some of the West vs. Iran meetings, that would be a big victory for the Turkish side.  

We will just watch and see in the coming weeks how determined is Washington not to let Turkey grab this role.

 

6 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - ilker/cyprus 2010-11-14 18:03:54		Turkey will use a excuse not to have the missile shield to protect israel.Turkey stands to lose to much.The zero problems policy with its neighbours would be seen as a joke and a threat to Iran,Russia,syria, the neighbours that Turkey wants a free trade zone with and has signed agreements with russia to build nuclear plants and with iran to supply gas and oil useing turkey to supply the eurozone turkey would risk loseing all this trade with its neighbours just to protect israel.I have said all along Turkey will leave nato or be pushed out and it will happen next year after the elections.Turkey should not be taken for granted any longer said president Gul.Turkey is changing weither the west likes it or not its up to the west to keep turkey or not.So far the Germans and french are very hostile to wards turkeys membership they may regret they actions.

Guest - ilker/cyprus 2010-11-14 17:46:34		The Turkish president said recently on the bbc. that Turkey is commited to nato and to the eu membership.The german foreign minster guido westerwelle stated recently that turkey will join the "club of democracies" Turkey has been offered a privileged partnership which it dont want.So to all those turkey haters @paul ponem and @ john from london read em and weap. The Turkish president Gul also said turkey even when excepted it might change its mind and not join.You might think turkey would be crazy not to join but Gul could be right and turkey being the hub for europes energy needs could be better off outside the union that way the union will have to pay turkey for the transit of their energy ie gas and oil and useing its airspace and ports etc being a part of the customs agreements with the union means turkey loses out to the union on these transit charges.Maybe thats why Gul has said we might not join after all.Its the european union who will need turkey as a partner.

Guest - Jon from London 2010-11-14 15:45:06		The Turkey of Ozal (arguably the most positive "CEO" that the country has had since Ataturk) is unfortunately no longer the Turkey of today. While Turkey was, until the end of the Soviet Union, an asset to Nato, the question really is : is it an asset (a Nato asset) today ... The answer is in the heads of the other nato leaders, and not necessarily is their acts in Lisbon (which is not about the expulsion of Turkey). It does seem unlikely that a country friendly to Iran, and Syria, and hosting Hamas people, and the indicted President of Sudan would TODAY be "chosen" to become a member of Nato. That is the logic I think. I suspect that while the Status Quo is that Turkey is there. when this becomes estranged from the reality .... then after a while reality wins out, whatever the status quo.

Guest - Paul Ponemi 2010-11-14 01:33:53		Germany will never allow Turkey to become a full EU member. Mind you, there are countries in the EU now who I would question whether they are fit countries for EU membership. While I do not believe Turkey should be allowed into the EU, I would explore how the EU could improve its relationship with Turkey with a view to binding Turkeys economic interests to those of the EU and finding a way for both Turkey and the EU to mutually profit from a balanced trade relationship. It is certainly not in the interest of the EU to spurn the most secular Muslim state with a population of 70 million plus and turn it into a hotbed of fanatical fundamentalism. After all of this, my point is, Turkey also must say no to NATO shield.. why not?

Guest - ManInTheMIddle 2010-11-13 23:45:38		Turkey must be directly involved in the forthcoming talks between Iran and 3 EU + 3 without any hesitation. In fact Turkey deserves to be part of Iran's nuclear negotiations much more than Britain and Germany for the obvious reasons. The Turks "live in the neighborhood" and their input and collaboration with Iran in terms of the latter's economic and security needs and interests are immense. What rights do England and German have to be part of the negotiations? Does anyone know? As babadog has aptly pointed out, Turkey has been a steadfast defender of Western interests throughout the cold war, and now that it is over, Turkey needs to look after its own interests. Plain and simple. On the issue of the so-called missile defense, the 500 ton guerrilla in the room is not Iran, but Russia. Russia considers the "shield" as a threat to its national security and I'm sure Turkish officials are well aware of that. I'm surprise others are not talking about that!

Guest - babadog 2010-11-13 00:46:53		Turkiye has raised the bar and its own profile in the area to a considerable extent and so much so that it is beginning to worry the Israelis, the neo-cons in the USA and the right wing openly racist elements inside the EU with whom we are supposed to be an accession candidate. Turkiye is much better able to defend its interests primarily because we have men of calibre and vision like Abdullah Gul, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ahmet Davutoglu, Bulent Arinc, Babacan.....the list goes on I am prous and pleased to say,at the helm. The missile shield is basically there to protect Israel not Turkiye or any other country for that matter and as such if Turkiye is going to endorse such a system to be located on Turkish soil then it has the right to negotiate terms, and also to ask for revenue and controlling power locally.We have defended Europe from the USSR as a front line nuclear power for decades too cheaply with little or no reward.The price now is much much higher to compensate.

Post midterm perspectives for Ankara on Obama administration

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=post-midterm-perspectives-for-ankara-on-obama-administration-2010-11-05

Friday, November 5, 2010

“A shellacking,” United States President Barack Obama called the results of Tuesday’s midterm elections, on the administration's saddest day ever, this Wednesday, when he invited 130 American and foreign journalists to a press conference in the White House’s East Room.

Obama’s face was grim, as the midterm results for his administration, while standing up against some tough, if not humiliating, questions and comments from veteran White House reporters. “Is it possible voters can conclude you're still not getting it?” was one of these follow-up questions, from a reporter who thought her first question was not adequately addressed by the president. Even as reporters did their best to extract the headline-making question of the day, Obama’s “shellacking” comment gained prominence among the clash of phrases in the period following the election.

Obama, for the first time in his better known history, came against a crashing defeat which could not be doctored in any way.

Until last Tuesday, the Obama presidency was up to a debate in terms of its domestic and foreign policy initiatives and achievements into the ending phrase of his second year in governing. The historic health care and financial overhaul bills, the Keynesian spending packages, which included hundreds of billions of dollars, and setting the tone to extend the Bush tax cuts for the 98 percent of the American people before the year end, only some of Obama’s legislative victories that are argued as monumental success stories for the country.

However, Obama’s plans and the American political scenery fundamentally were changed, when the majority of the independent voters decided that Obama’s spending policies did not work as envisioned and proved to be shortcoming towards solving problems the of America.

John Boehner, a prospective house speaker, elaborated the results in the following fashion: "When you have the most historic election in over 60, 70 years, you would think the other party would understand that the American people have clearly repudiated the policies they've put forward in the last two years."

Sen. Mitch McConnell, whose posture is boosted but at the same time failed to grab the Senate’s Majority leadership, set a tough tone for any compromise going forward, “when the administration agrees with the American people, we will agree with the administration. When it disagrees with the American people, we won't... If the administration wants cooperation, it will have to begin to move in our direction.” McConnell also stated that his party’s primary legislative goals are to “repeal and replace the health spending bill, and shrink the size and scope of government.” In brief, a perfect recipe for anti-Obama policies.

However, as much the long list of domestic priorities and policy preferences appear to promise for a challenging legislative year ahead for Obama administration against a new Washington, Obama surely knows that he will be hard-pressed on the foreign policy issues by the opposition as well, especially those that are linked to the Middle East Peace Process, relations with the current Israeli government in particular and of course going at Iran.

It is not a secret that the Republican leadership in the Congress, and its own policy writers and strategists at various think tanks tend to defend the hawkish Israeli government. And it will not be a surprising development to see if the newcomer conservative lawmakers tool themselves with last decade’s traditional ‘near unconditional support for Israel” policy in the 112th US Congress.

Obama, on the other hand, finally began his long planned Asian trip this weekend in which he and his entourage are set to visit India, Indonesia, S. Korea and Japan, and will also participate at the G20, G8 and Asia-Pacific Economic Council summits.

After 10 day-long Asia trip, Obama will be in Lisbon, Portugal to attend the NATO summit on the 19th and 20th, during which the NATO alliance is expected to make its decision over the proposed anti-missile shield. Ankara is still assessing the plans, and weighing different options and seeking various returns for, what seems to be a looming limited Turkish cooperation on the missile system.

Obama’s Iran policy will continue to be a crucial test in a Republican boosted Washington environment, and Turkey’s approach to this policy might draw even a larger audience and consequences in there.

I asked Mike Hammer, a spokesperson of the National Security Council of the White House on Thursday about possible Turkish role going forward to the talks between P5+1 and Iran. Some suggested in past week that Ankara will or should play an effective role in terms of facilitating these negotiations, and hosting them in Turkey. Hammer responded, “It is not yet clear that the Iranians have accepted Lady Ashton’s invitation to discuss their nuclear program,’  pointing out to the vagueness of the current status of the talks.

However, Hammer responded what potential role Washington sees for Turkey: “We have constant dialogue with Turkey, even if we’ve had disagreements, particularly as it relates to the vote on sanctions.  So I can’t forecast in terms of in the future what exactly Turkey’s role will be or that of other countries. But this process is being managed through the P-5+1.  That’s what’s been working so far.  The international community writ large supports this effort and Iran knows what it needs to do. And the first thing is to begin by accepting the invitation for talks on their nuclear program, and then we’ll take it from there.”

Analyzing this respond, one prominent observer of the Turkey-US relations noted that Washington wants Turkey to “keep it out,” when it comes to negotiations with Iran, rather than any effective role Ankara expects to play.

At a time when the Russians and Chinese, lend a supporting hand to Washington, the Obama administration feels it does not have a comforting and full-supporting corresponding voice in Ankara.

In post-Tuesday world, Obama acknowledged that he drew lessons from the elections returns. 

Would the post-Tuesday world also a good time for Ankara to reckon its own relations particularly with the Obama administration?

More clearly, does today’s Ankara find Obama is a formidable and fitting partner going forward to work on host of regional issues? Or it considers the good-old Republican administration in Washington always would be a preferable choice?

One little detail must be noted though and it is that today’s majority of newcomer Republicans are much different than the traditional Republican voices of the past. Many new conservative newcomers have very rigid views on Islam, and have made inroads into Washington riding the waves of Islamophobia. It will be a certainly an interesting occurrence to observe how newly boosted Republican leadership react to confident, pro-Islamic administration in Ankara, which cozies up with Iran just fine and bickers with Israel, every possible chance it gets, in coming months.

If Turkey believes that it is its own destiny to become a regional power once more in its region, one that will create a Pax-Turca, it ought to start re-considering its relations with Obama administration in this post-election season, while studying the alternative administration of the future, which is in the fast making since Tuesday.  

Such a reassessment might help Ankara to view the wounded Obama administration and its policies through very distinct perspectives.

 

1 Comment      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - ManInTheMiddle 2010-11-07 20:09:29		What? No comments?! Maybe because it's very difficult to discern what the heck the author is talking about. Having said that, here are my comments: More ridiculous sounding comments about the GOP's meager "victory" which gave them only a slight majority in the House, while the Senate and the WH are still under DEM's control, are the naive and knee-jerk musing of a talking head warning Turkey that the new GOP is make up of tough pro-Israel and anti-Islam or Iran people. So what? Why should Turkey alter its sound geo-political policies because bunch of neo-cons have won only a small section of American politics? The American people voted for a few GOPers with a mandate to fix the economy, not pick a fight with Turkey over Iran or any other matter irrelevant to their pocket books. If the Republicans spend their political capital to create mischief to save Israel, the American people will throw them out. Have you thought about that Mr. Tanir, all all?! If not, I suggest that you do.

The decision that Ankara hates making

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=the-decision-that-ankara-hates-making-2010-10-29
Friday, October 29, 2010

“Did you read the latest Turkey report in The Economist,” Dr. Carol Henry, a chemist and professorial lecturer at George Washington University, asked me during our meeting following her speech at the Appropriate Use of Science in Public Policy discussion in Washington, D.C. Not only The Economist, but many other Western foreign policy journals these days are producing more sophisticated and nuanced studies on Turkey than ever before.

Turkey’s fast-growing economy, its geographic location and close proximity to much of the regions that America has great difficulty dealing with make this 87-year-old young republic even more attractive to wider public policy discussions in Washington. The Justice and Development Party, or AKP’s, nearly decade-long rule brought a political stability to Turkey, but also clear and unusually high-profile disagreements to the relations with the United States. The latest development that makes Turkey the center of many discussion circles in Washington is not surprisingly Turkey’s unwillingness to decide quickly on new NATO anti-missile plans.

Turkish officials, from the top-down, repeatedly stated in recent months that they don’t see Iran as a threat to Turkey’s national security. Dr. Henri Barkey, Turkey expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, when asked about Turkey's warm feelings towards Iran, stated, “Even though Turkey does not see Iran as a threat, the other 27 members of the NATO alliance do.”

All together, Turkey is increasingly perceived as a "difficult partner" in the alliance, Barkey underlined. Last time Turkey had disagreements with the NATO leadership over Rasmussen's election. Now another critical decision and if Turkey appears to be in another bargaining posture, this seems to becoming a "pattern," Barkey concluded.

“So many sincerity tests come Ankara’s way at once,” one Turkey observer said this week. “Latest NATO anti-missile offer,” said the source, who has very close proximity to the Ankara administration, “shows the limits of the Obama administration’s multilateral worldview.” In other words, the Obama administration seems to introduce another “with us or against us” constraint on Ankara at a time when its administration has just started to fancy steering its own wheel of interest in its wider region, pursuing its own independent policies at an unprecedented level.

Steve Clemons, director of public policy strategies and senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank, said in an interview that the relationship between Turkey and the U.S. is currently being recalibrated. “Both sides, following the recent unexpected events, happened to give cold showers to each other. These differences also played the role of wake-up calls for both sides. In fundamental terms though, Turkey’s significance is rising. Turkey is not a reactionary country anymore in terms of its foreign affairs. Turkey is now creating its own circumstances. This is also good for the U.S., because the U.S. needs responsible partners that can work together in other regions."

Clemons, who also publishes a very popular public policy debate blog, The Washington Note, sounded well reversed with the latest developments surrounding Turkey and its relations with NATO and the U.S. “Turkey must be careful when it gambles,” warned Clemons, “and be careful not to compromise the NATO alliance while it is following its own interests.” Saying no to a new NATO shield, predicted Clemons, “might produce results which would be strategically consequential in a very negative sense.”

Clemons said: "The Turkish side deserves credit for many of its policies in recent years that it has undertaken. However, today the world including China and Russia recognizes Iran as security threat and takes their own measures. And that would be a very big mistake for Turkey to overlook this security concern. In that case, Turkey would appear to be appeasing Iran’s rising military capacity. Having harmony in the region or zero problems with neighbors should not mean Turkey is seriously compromising its long term security needs.”

I asked one high-level U.S. military official this week, who held an important military post in Turkey in the past and has vast interest and expertise on relations with Turkey currently, to explain the potential implications if the Turkish administration did not want the radar system to be deployed in its soil as part of the adaptive phase approach. “In military perspective,” the official stated, “the entire NATO missile system would not be destroyed. It would certainly limit the effectiveness of it. ... There would be a need to redesign the architecture of the system. However, it would move forward. Politically, Turkey has been tracing its own interests in various regions. Even though the EU is still the biggest trade partner of Turkey, its eastern neighbors, including Iran, fast on the rise. Turkey has to communicate with its Eastern neighbors, and explain to them that the new NATO anti-missile project is not aggressive in its mission, it is a defensive one. And it is expected to bring more security and stability in the region, therefore better environment for more trade.”

Steve Flanagan, senior vice president and Henry A. Kissinger chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me that “the new NATO anti-missile shield is essentially a reinforcement of overall solidarity between the NATO members. If Turkey says a flat ‘no’, that would be very damaging in Turkey’s standing in the alliance.”

Flanagan said: “President Obama justified the new NATO missile shield, which is a different version of the Bush administration. This was about extending a missile defense system to ensure all ally countries’ safety. This version is a cost-effective system compared to the previous one, not excessively requiring a military notion.”

Turkish high-level diplomats, on the other hand, were extremely careful this week not to let any daylight get in between the countries on the matter and rejected any friction.

According to Barkey, the conditions that have been put forward by Ankara would be a face-saving solution, "if these conditions are met, then Turkey will be able to say to its base at home, and even to the Middle Eastern audiences that its demands have been met."

In Washington, the common perspective is that Turkey’s potential rejection of the NATO anti-missile shield would reinforce the perception that Turkey is drifting away from the West as the loudest, sharpest and in a clear statement.

Ankara, even though it wishes to get along well with all sides, including U.S. and Iran at the same time, now has to remember its commitment to its decades-old NATO alliance.

Turkey hates that it is being pushed to choose either and to make a statement about where it is standing once more.

And that is why Turkey hates making this decision.

 

4 Comments      PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - harman 2010-11-01 16:24:18		Again, looking at Taksim, why should we deal or support those guys in Europe, while channels like Roj TV are free to coordinate attacks and terrorism in Turkey from countries like Denmark. Note that the extreme right Danish Peoples Party wants to ban Al_Jazeera and Al_Arabia from danish television as that party accuses them from provoking hatred, whereas channels supporting terrorism abroad fall under freedom of expression according the Danes.

Guest - harman 2010-10-31 21:56:04		Look at Europe, leaders like Merkel and Sarkozy do not want to deal with Turkey in a sincere way. And guys like Wilders simply hate Turks. Why should Turkey carry NATO's missile shield? I guess Turkey should not. Of course, Iran poses a major risk. But if Iran deals with Turkey in a bad way because of the missile shield, can Turkey count on the European partners in NATO. I don't think so. So let's forget about it.

Guest - Dimitrios 2010-10-31 14:38:39		I am not saying that Turkey should or shouldn't support the missile system but on Murat's comment on NATO membership the rule of the game is 'collective security' and within it all NATO members give part of their sovereignty. The amount of sovereignty Turkey will have to give up relies upon the cost-benefit calculation amongst alliances-old (NATO) and potential (Iran) that is all the article above underlies.

Guest - Murat 2010-10-30 18:51:02		No NATO member, including Turkey, should be forced to make a compromise on key national interests for the sake of others. It would be difficult for Turkey to move ahead on this system as long as it singles out a major neighbor. This much should be clear to all. If the purpose is to corner Turkey but not a develop a system of defense, then certainly this would be a good way. Also, let us not be naive, best offense can be a defense at times. What prevented a WWIII was the balance of terror, not a single sided defense capability, which most likely increases a chance of conflict, and not decrease it as some would like us to believe.