Two Different American Analyses of Turkey
Published in Sabah
(Turkey) on 16 August 2010
by Ömer Taşpınar (link to original)
Lately there have been two main outstanding points in Washington’s analyses of Turkey. The first is anger at the European Union for giving Turkey the cold shoulder. Last week, both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Obama himself raised this point in a statement made to the Italian press. The second point consists of the positives and negatives of Turkey’s recent increase in self-confidence. Before speaking to this point in more detail, an important distinction must be made: Turkey is on America’s foreign policy agenda as it has never been in the past. Whether it is due to the Obama administration or intellectual circles, everyday interest in Turkey is rising. For example, whereas there used to be one or two American experts on Turkey in a given Washington think tank, now these organizations are starting up whole programs related to Turkey. The number of experts who spend time puzzling over Turkey is rising. Furthermore, every month think tanks are releasing lengthy reports on Turkish foreign relations. Of course, Turkey is seeing a higher rate of interest in the American press than ever before.
So, why so much interest in Turkey? The answer is simple: Turkey is on the Middle East agenda. Ankara is one of the newest and most important players in the region. As always, the Middle East is on Washington’s agenda because of Iran and Israel. Ankara’s attitude toward Iran and the crisis with Israel following the Mavi Marmara incident have pulled Turkey into the center of the Middle East. Related to this is a rising interest in Turkey among the American public. This new situation makes the Obama administration have to work harder at speculating about Turkey and also encourages think tanks to do more serious projects related to Turkey.
As a result, the two points discussed in our analyses gain importance. It is apparent that the Obama administration is not pleased with Turkey’s policy toward Iran. Neither Obama nor Gates, however, are bitterly declaring that “Turkey is towing the Islamist line” or that “axial dislocation” is taking place. Instead of making such accusations, they are asking, “Why would Turkey be acting this way?” In order to answer this question, they are looking at Turkey’s disappointment over issues with the EU, domestic nationalist reactions and social dynamics. It could be said that rather than blaming Turkey, they are showing empathy with Turkey by being similarly frustrated with Europe.
Alongside this, a quite different analysis of Turkish politics is going around Washington. A certain sect sees Turkey as having gained a good deal of self-confidence. They would claim that rather than feeling a sense of victimization, Turkey sees itself as too good for the West — given its newfound regional influence. Those who think this way must be looking at the dynamics of the Turkish economy. With Europe experiencing a financial crisis of late, Turkey’s accelerating rate of development, stable macroeconomic data and its balanced budget are hard to overlook. As a result, it is the talk of the town that the West is face-to-face with a new Turkey — one that looks after its own economic and political interests without bowing to pressures from the West. It seems that there will be some very serious discussion ahead regarding what advantages and disadvantages this new Turkey will have for America and Europe.
So, why so much interest in Turkey? The answer is simple: Turkey is on the Middle East agenda. Ankara is one of the newest and most important players in the region. As always, the Middle East is on Washington’s agenda because of Iran and Israel. Ankara’s attitude toward Iran and the crisis with Israel following the Mavi Marmara incident have pulled Turkey into the center of the Middle East. Related to this is a rising interest in Turkey among the American public. This new situation makes the Obama administration have to work harder at speculating about Turkey and also encourages think tanks to do more serious projects related to Turkey.
As a result, the two points discussed in our analyses gain importance. It is apparent that the Obama administration is not pleased with Turkey’s policy toward Iran. Neither Obama nor Gates, however, are bitterly declaring that “Turkey is towing the Islamist line” or that “axial dislocation” is taking place. Instead of making such accusations, they are asking, “Why would Turkey be acting this way?” In order to answer this question, they are looking at Turkey’s disappointment over issues with the EU, domestic nationalist reactions and social dynamics. It could be said that rather than blaming Turkey, they are showing empathy with Turkey by being similarly frustrated with Europe.
Alongside this, a quite different analysis of Turkish politics is going around Washington. A certain sect sees Turkey as having gained a good deal of self-confidence. They would claim that rather than feeling a sense of victimization, Turkey sees itself as too good for the West — given its newfound regional influence. Those who think this way must be looking at the dynamics of the Turkish economy. With Europe experiencing a financial crisis of late, Turkey’s accelerating rate of development, stable macroeconomic data and its balanced budget are hard to overlook. As a result, it is the talk of the town that the West is face-to-face with a new Turkey — one that looks after its own economic and political interests without bowing to pressures from the West. It seems that there will be some very serious discussion ahead regarding what advantages and disadvantages this new Turkey will have for America and Europe.
Previous article![]( "Is 2012 the Minor Doomsday for President Obama?")
