Democracy in the Middle East and the Difference between Washington and Ankara

What impression did Ahmet Davutoglu's trip to the United States last week leave?* Let's sum up the situation with this sentence: Bilateral relations are generally strong but some serious differences continue to exist. First of all, let's evaluate why the relationship, generally speaking, is healthy. The main reason for this is that on the issue of Syria, Iraq and Iran, their problems on the most critical and pressing issues have decreased.

On the issue of Syria, in recent days Turkey seems to be more constructive and willing to support a diplomatic process. The articles in the U.S. media highlighting Turkey's support of radical groups, which we had gotten used to seeing, have been decreasing. In contrast, the media seems to be giving the impression that Ankara is undergoing a constructive revision of its policy related to Syria. The U.S. media is also highlighting Turkey's changes in regard to Iraq. The general impression nowadays seems to be that Ankara is making an effort to get along with Baghdad. Davutoglu's communication with Iraq and al-Maliki's planned trip to Turkey at the end of the month are being seen as the beginning of a new era. Turkey's support for the reconciliation between the U.S. and Iran is also gaining general approval in the White House. Washington, which is under fire from allies Saudi Arabia and Israel for its negotiations with Iran, has a high regard for the support it has gotten from Turkey on the issue.

OK, then what are the continuing problems? At the top of the list come Israel and China. There are the obvious issues of Turkey's inability to normalize its relationship with Israel and its decision to purchase Chinese missiles. The second issue especially bothers the Pentagon because it has created a problem for NATO. This issue came up in the meeting between Davutoglu and Chuck Hagel. The two nations differ on another extremely important issue that has gone relatively under the radar when compared to the first two topics. This is the future of democracy in the Middle East. At the epicenter of this issue is Egypt. America's lack of a reaction to the coup in Egypt caused disappointment in Ankara. The events in Egypt were a decisive moment for the Justice and Development Party. For this reason, the main topic that Ahmet Davutoglu stressed in both his Foreign Policy article and during his trip was the idea of "common democratic values." This is as much a message of "strategic partnership" as it was one of a "partnership of values" based on democratic principles.

Ankara is afraid that Washington is going to resort to its old habit of relying on authoritarian regimes. Davutoglu says that compromises on democracy now could lead to serious losses in the future. He is trying to explain that the benefits of using realpolitik in the short term will, in the long term, be detrimental to America's national interest. Turkey, by playing up the assertion that its democratic values can result in a valuable partnership with the U.S., leaves itself open to criticism. This criticism may be seen in the current perception of Turkey in Washington. The continuing consensus after the Gezi protests is that, rather than being a real liberal pluralist democracy, Turkey is based more and more on majority rule. As a result Turkey's appeal to common democratic values is only somewhat convincing. When it comes to democratic values, Turkey needs to increase its credibility.