This week the American people are electing their next president. No doubt this election carries global implications. Is it time for a change, as advocated by Obama's supporters, or is it a time to be cautious and carry on with neocon American unilateralism? We will see.
Turkey has always been interested in US elections. Every election season, Turks tune in to hear what the candidates are saying about two particular issues: Cyprus and Armenian genocide claims. It is widely believed that Greeks and Armenians are powerful enough to impose their agendas on candidates during their election campaigns. A Republican president who prioritizes "interests" over "values" is expected to be more sympathetic to the Turkish cause. The logic is simple: A power-politics perspective that is informed by geopolitical necessities in the region understands and appreciates the importance of Turkey much better than an "idealist democrat" would.
This rather old-fashioned analysis was spectacularly invalidated during the presidency of George W. Bush when Turkish-American relations experienced one of their worst periods ever and the popularity of the US and its policies declined drastically.
The Bush presidency proved that instead of being interested only in what the American president thinks of Turkey, we must watch how he runs his own country to understand what he truly means to us. The foreign policies of a statesman are not independent of his general political outlook.
Sticking to an old habit from the Cold War and imprisoning Turkish-American relations to a mere strategic alliance, a policy promoted in some circles in both Ankara and Washington does nothing to improve the relationship between the two countries. What is needed is not merely a strategic alliance but a "democratic partnership."
Thus cooperation against a terror organization is a good starting point for the improvement of relations, but it is not the end of it. The US, as a "democratic partner," should do more than declare the [outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party] PKK a terror organization and share intelligence on the group with Turkey. This is an old paradigm based on the notion of fighting together against the common enemy. What about a positive vision shared between the two countries? How about a partnership to building peace and democracy in the region? It is time for a "positive alliance," one that is not based on "against" this or that, but rather "for" a shared vision.
This requires treating Turkey as a "democratic partner." An American administration that is not sensitive to Turkey's quest to perfect its democracy will lose the faith of the Turkish public by being seen as allied with anti-democratic forces. This is in fact what has happened during the last couple of years when the US administration failed to show solidarity with democratic forces in Turkey. As a result, anti-American nationalists, as well as pro-Western liberals, have grown critical of the American attitude. The result was a "double alienation" of the American administration in Turkey.
To avoid this, America should understand that its partner in Ankara is the elected government, not a "few good men in the Turkish military." Turkish-American relations have gone beyond cooperation for security and into diverse and sophisticated issues. Even in order to continue cooperating on security, America's counterpart in Ankara is the democratically elected government, not the chief of general staff. Treating Turkey as though Cold War conditions are still prevalent would be a grave mistake on the part of an administration headed by Obama or McCain since it would mean that they fail to understand the "democratic reformation" that has taken place in Turkey in recent years, a process Americans could have contributed as much to as the EU has.
I think it is time for a change in Turkish-American relations as well. An Obama presidency in the US is more likely to add a "democratic vision" to the "strategic perspective" that still prevails in Turkish-American relations.
03 November 2008
Turkey has always been interested in US elections. Every election season, Turks tune in to hear what the candidates are saying about two particular issues: Cyprus and Armenian genocide claims. It is widely believed that Greeks and Armenians are powerful enough to impose their agendas on candidates during their election campaigns. A Republican president who prioritizes "interests" over "values" is expected to be more sympathetic to the Turkish cause. The logic is simple: A power-politics perspective that is informed by geopolitical necessities in the region understands and appreciates the importance of Turkey much better than an "idealist democrat" would.
This rather old-fashioned analysis was spectacularly invalidated during the presidency of George W. Bush when Turkish-American relations experienced one of their worst periods ever and the popularity of the US and its policies declined drastically.
The Bush presidency proved that instead of being interested only in what the American president thinks of Turkey, we must watch how he runs his own country to understand what he truly means to us. The foreign policies of a statesman are not independent of his general political outlook.
Sticking to an old habit from the Cold War and imprisoning Turkish-American relations to a mere strategic alliance, a policy promoted in some circles in both Ankara and Washington does nothing to improve the relationship between the two countries. What is needed is not merely a strategic alliance but a "democratic partnership."
Thus cooperation against a terror organization is a good starting point for the improvement of relations, but it is not the end of it. The US, as a "democratic partner," should do more than declare the [outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party] PKK a terror organization and share intelligence on the group with Turkey. This is an old paradigm based on the notion of fighting together against the common enemy. What about a positive vision shared between the two countries? How about a partnership to building peace and democracy in the region? It is time for a "positive alliance," one that is not based on "against" this or that, but rather "for" a shared vision.
This requires treating Turkey as a "democratic partner." An American administration that is not sensitive to Turkey's quest to perfect its democracy will lose the faith of the Turkish public by being seen as allied with anti-democratic forces. This is in fact what has happened during the last couple of years when the US administration failed to show solidarity with democratic forces in Turkey. As a result, anti-American nationalists, as well as pro-Western liberals, have grown critical of the American attitude. The result was a "double alienation" of the American administration in Turkey.
To avoid this, America should understand that its partner in Ankara is the elected government, not a "few good men in the Turkish military." Turkish-American relations have gone beyond cooperation for security and into diverse and sophisticated issues. Even in order to continue cooperating on security, America's counterpart in Ankara is the democratically elected government, not the chief of general staff. Treating Turkey as though Cold War conditions are still prevalent would be a grave mistake on the part of an administration headed by Obama or McCain since it would mean that they fail to understand the "democratic reformation" that has taken place in Turkey in recent years, a process Americans could have contributed as much to as the EU has.
I think it is time for a change in Turkish-American relations as well. An Obama presidency in the US is more likely to add a "democratic vision" to the "strategic perspective" that still prevails in Turkish-American relations.
03 November 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment