For Whom Is the Cauldron Boiling?

I have no doubt that American officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, will be extra careful not to say anything to offend Ankara and especially the Turkish public at the American–Turkish Council (ATC) meeting, set to begin today. Needless to say, the same goes for the leading members of the Turkish Cabinet, during their visit to Turkey for the meeting.

Like every other year, officials will underline the importance of their alliance and will praise each other. Even the fact that the ATC meeting was postponed until this fall last March, when the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Armenian “genocide” bill, will not be an issue. Yet the apparent warmth will not override the fact that the cauldron has been boiling for Turkish–American relations with increasing — not declining — pressure.

Turkey’s Hand Is Now Stronger

Let’s have a look at what happened recently in Turkish–American relations: Turkey has been very disappointed by Washington’s “no” vote to the U.N. Human Rights Council report, regarding the Israeli attack on Mavi Marmara, which caused the deaths of nine Turkish citizens. I am sure the plans were made earlier, but Chinese aircraft participated in the “Anatolian Eagle” military exercises in Konya, Turkey, between Sept. 20 and Oct. 4. Former participants in the exercise, the U.S. and Israel, were not there. In addition, Chinese aircraft arrived in Turkey after refueling in Iran, another foe of the U.S. Finally, the American request from Turkey to install a missile defense system, within the security umbrella framework against Iran, has been hotly debated between Turkey and the U.S.

During his visit for the NATO meeting in Brussels on Oct. 14, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates denied American pressure on Turkey regarding the missile defense system and said they were discussing it as allies. Yet it is hard to deny U.S. pressure on Turkey on that issue. From the Turkish perspective, such a move would not be positive because its regional partners, Russia and Iran, could perceive it as a threat. Turkey wanted an official declaration that Iran was not identified as the threat, that the entire missile defense system would be located in Turkey and that each step would be carried out within the NATO framework. In contrast, the U.S. did not avoid pointing explicitly at Iran. We will witness the final round of the talks during the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal, in November. Apparently, Ankara is nearing a very critical juncture.

Turkey, which was one of the most predictable countries during the Cold War, has arguably been one of the hardest to convince within the Transatlantic Alliance during the post-Cold War period. Due to the fact that unanimity is sought for NATO decisions, Ankara, which prioritizes its national interests more than ever now, has a stronger hand in negotiating with its allies. Moreover, thanks to democratic and economic developments in Turkey over the last few years, the disagreements between Turkey and its Western allies over security matters cannot be solved only at the elite state level. The government and the Turkish public, which has been more influential lately, must be persuaded. So you can guess how bewildered Washington, which still does not seem to have mentally adapted to the “New Turkish Republic,” is these days.

Although the U.S., which saw Turkey as a primary buffer against the Communist threat during the Cold War, does not express it explicitly, this time it wants to employ Turkey as a frontier country in its war against “radical Islam.” When Jim Townsend, a senior official at Pentagon, was briefing the media about the missile defense system in Turkey, he used telling Cold War terminology. As he was stressing the significance of Turkey’s “geographic location,” Townsend said, “As we look at where the ballistic missile threats can come from, Turkey seems to us to be very much along the front lines.” Nonetheless, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s reflection on that comment can be seen as a direct response to such a Cold War mentality prevalent in the American administration: “We do not want the creation of an international conjecture that can, directly or indirectly, bring about bygone Cold War conditions. We do not accept for NATO to be divided into ‘pivotal’ and ‘buffer’ countries in this new international conjecture and for Turkey should be thought as a front-line country in NATO, as was the case during the Cold War.”*

Turkey and the West Cannot Part Ways

Turkey, which attempts to pacify Iran — whose regime is one of the most problematic among Muslim countries — in its goal to stabilize the vicinity, steps towards Russia, winks at China and is increasingly perceived by the U.S. as a country that is carrying its differences from the West from the tactical to the strategic level. The continuous tactical differences over security issues might weaken the existing ground for Turkish–American and Turkish–European relations. We might well hear new calls, in addition to those articulating the “privileged partnership” option with the E.U., for Turkey to remain in NATO only as a “privileged partner.” Bear in mind that some conservatives and pro-Israeli groups have already started to voice that call.

Neither the West nor Turkey can afford Turkey’s exclusion from NATO. Yet all our indicators evidence further souring of Turkey’s alliance with the West. The negotiations over the missile defense system will be a litmus test for the mutual value both sides accord to each other. I guess (and hope) that the West and Turkey will find a middle way, perhaps spreading the points of conflict over time and not parting ways. The West, led by the U.S. and Turkey, does not have the luxury for them to part ways.

*Editor’s Note: Efforts to verify the quotation from Ahmet Davutoğlu were not successful.