“Zero Problems” with America
Turkey is showing vague signs of moving away from one part of the West — Europe — but at the same time growing closer to America. As Cyprus takes the reins of the European Union in 2012, the direction of Turkey's movement should come into focus.
There have been claims in the past few years that Turkey is “shifting its axis.” The Justice and Development Party (AKP) supposedly broke with the West and leaned toward the Islamic world. Certain circles alleged that this was an extension of Turkey’s effort to isolate America in the Western world, which has been on its agenda for some time.
Government leaders have said, however, that “Turkey is working cooperatively with Western institutions like never before in history.” Both NATO and the UN have been given as examples in repeated explanations that Turkey has “zero problems” with its neighbors whether they be Islamic or otherwise. Furthermore, changing regional circumstances highlighted the need for Turkey to act independently from Western countries when necessary.
In my opinion, the claim of an “axial shift” is unfounded; the concept of multifaceted foreign policy is more appropriate. Turkey’s redefined relations with Israel do not signal a “break with the West.” Indeed, since the Arab Spring last year, it is now being written that Turkey under the AKP could be a model for the governments emerging in the Middle East. Turkey's opposition to Gadhafi and Assad has made Western countries, especially America, forget all that talk of an “axial shift.” What's more, support for to the NATO missile shield seems to have brought an end to all other disagreements. Lately, the papers have been writing about what good friends Obama and Erdoğan are and how U.S.-Turkey relations are entering a new “golden age.” The America that yesterday accused Turkey of trying to transform regional politics is now extolling its virtues, to which I do not object. I believe that Turkey must work with the United States. I do not believe, however, that Turkey should shoot itself on the foot that stands with Europe, destroying that relationship. This would create a lame and imbalanced relationship with the West. Those looking at the rapidly changing situation in the Middle East, Iran's rising influence on Iraq after the American withdrawal, and the struggle with the PKK [Kurdistan Worker’s Party] will say that “America has been rediscovered.” Okay, fine.
The problem is this: Is the Turkey that enacted a Western-oriented policy centered on Europe in 1999 now sliding toward America? What I mean to ask is whether the “axis of power” is changing in the West. This is not a meaningless question. Take a look at recent history: Anytime Turkey has a problem with Europe, it turns to America. After receiving harsh criticism from European organizations, governments and the public following the military coup in 1980, Turkey immediately sought closer ties with the United States. Later, toward the end of the Cold War, Özal adopted a policy toward the West totally devoid of consideration for Europe to spite them for rejecting Turkey's bid to enter the European Union. He used the dynamics created by the collapse of the Soviet Union to buddy-up with big daddy Bush senior. At the end of the 1990s, militarist-Kemalist circles proposed a foreign policy reliant on the U.S. as a strategic partner for fear that the process of accession to the EU would pave the way for too much transformation — that is, modernization in Turkey. No one listened to them, however, and Turkey focused on remodeling its politics, economy and legal system for the EU. It went a long way. Now we are talking about democratization according to our own rhythm and dynamics, independent of Europe. I will believe this completely if we can create a new constitution. So my belief is on a knife-edge. … How it thoroughly obstructed the EU accession process but instead developed a new “strategic language” with the U.S. confuses me. Cooperation is fine, but I'm not sure that America’s “strategic” ties in Turkey or the region include much of a “democratic vision.”
A Turkey that angrily turns its back on Merkel and Sarkozy and then enters into a “deep strategic alliance” with the U.S. is doing wrong. You could say, “The EU is busy with its own problems and didn't keep its promises to Turkey,” and you would be right. But in any case, I worry that exclusive relations with the U.S. could derail Turkey from the democratization efforts that it previously made its priority. The reason I say we must pay attention to the shift in power in the West is this: The strategic calculations accompanying these regional power struggles could throw us off from our domestic priorities of creating a more democratic country.
There have been claims in the past few years that Turkey is “shifting its axis.” The Justice and Development Party (AKP) supposedly broke with the West and leaned toward the Islamic world. Certain circles alleged that this was an extension of Turkey’s effort to isolate America in the Western world, which has been on its agenda for some time.
Government leaders have said, however, that “Turkey is working cooperatively with Western institutions like never before in history.” Both NATO and the UN have been given as examples in repeated explanations that Turkey has “zero problems” with its neighbors whether they be Islamic or otherwise. Furthermore, changing regional circumstances highlighted the need for Turkey to act independently from Western countries when necessary.
In my opinion, the claim of an “axial shift” is unfounded; the concept of multifaceted foreign policy is more appropriate. Turkey’s redefined relations with Israel do not signal a “break with the West.” Indeed, since the Arab Spring last year, it is now being written that Turkey under the AKP could be a model for the governments emerging in the Middle East. Turkey's opposition to Gadhafi and Assad has made Western countries, especially America, forget all that talk of an “axial shift.” What's more, support for to the NATO missile shield seems to have brought an end to all other disagreements. Lately, the papers have been writing about what good friends Obama and Erdoğan are and how U.S.-Turkey relations are entering a new “golden age.” The America that yesterday accused Turkey of trying to transform regional politics is now extolling its virtues, to which I do not object. I believe that Turkey must work with the United States. I do not believe, however, that Turkey should shoot itself on the foot that stands with Europe, destroying that relationship. This would create a lame and imbalanced relationship with the West. Those looking at the rapidly changing situation in the Middle East, Iran's rising influence on Iraq after the American withdrawal, and the struggle with the PKK [Kurdistan Worker’s Party] will say that “America has been rediscovered.” Okay, fine.
The problem is this: Is the Turkey that enacted a Western-oriented policy centered on Europe in 1999 now sliding toward America? What I mean to ask is whether the “axis of power” is changing in the West. This is not a meaningless question. Take a look at recent history: Anytime Turkey has a problem with Europe, it turns to America. After receiving harsh criticism from European organizations, governments and the public following the military coup in 1980, Turkey immediately sought closer ties with the United States. Later, toward the end of the Cold War, Özal adopted a policy toward the West totally devoid of consideration for Europe to spite them for rejecting Turkey's bid to enter the European Union. He used the dynamics created by the collapse of the Soviet Union to buddy-up with big daddy Bush senior. At the end of the 1990s, militarist-Kemalist circles proposed a foreign policy reliant on the U.S. as a strategic partner for fear that the process of accession to the EU would pave the way for too much transformation — that is, modernization in Turkey. No one listened to them, however, and Turkey focused on remodeling its politics, economy and legal system for the EU. It went a long way. Now we are talking about democratization according to our own rhythm and dynamics, independent of Europe. I will believe this completely if we can create a new constitution. So my belief is on a knife-edge. … How it thoroughly obstructed the EU accession process but instead developed a new “strategic language” with the U.S. confuses me. Cooperation is fine, but I'm not sure that America’s “strategic” ties in Turkey or the region include much of a “democratic vision.”
A Turkey that angrily turns its back on Merkel and Sarkozy and then enters into a “deep strategic alliance” with the U.S. is doing wrong. You could say, “The EU is busy with its own problems and didn't keep its promises to Turkey,” and you would be right. But in any case, I worry that exclusive relations with the U.S. could derail Turkey from the democratization efforts that it previously made its priority. The reason I say we must pay attention to the shift in power in the West is this: The strategic calculations accompanying these regional power struggles could throw us off from our domestic priorities of creating a more democratic country.