Tweet
DEMOCRACY, COUP AND WASHINGTON
By Ali H. Aslan
Zaman, Turkey
Sept 29 2005
An anti-war rally held in Washington over the weekend manifested the
extent to which the freedom to speak out against official views and
discourses can reach in a democracy.
During the rally, attended by hundreds of thousands of people, which
took place on the same day the Armenian conference was held in Turkey,
the Bush administration was vilified. US citizens accused their own
government of imperialism and bloodthirstiness. I am sure the White
House, Pentagon and most other government officials did not like what
was said very much. Nonetheless, thanks to their democratic grasp,
they were able to restrain themselves.
Looking from the US, it is encouraging to see that Turkey is
progressing towards a similar political maturity. The pro-freedom
stance adopted by the Erdogan administration especially during the
recent controversy over the Armenian conference, has been welcome in
Washington. Yet this appreciation is combined with a suppressed feeling
of disappointment. Certainly, some people cannot hide their emotions
or do not feel obliged to do so. For instance, the outburst by Tom
Lantos, an influential leader of the Jewish lobby, which has always
stood by Turkey, during the vote on the Armenian bill in the House of
Representatives, shows that the fire of Iraq in bilateral relations
has not completely turned into ashes yet. Furthermore, Washington has
not been able to draw Turkey to its hard-line stance on Syria and Iran.
However, the executive wing does not have the luxury of behaving as
emotionally as Lantos. They have to be calmer and more pragmatic.
That dealing with Turkey is no longer a cakewalk is well understood.
Americans are aware that more dialogue is needed to draw Turkey to
their line. The level and intensity of the recent diplomatic traffic
between the two nations confirm this. Prime Minister Erdogan and
Foreign Minister Gul are as if they have become residents of the
United States. Ankara was one of the stops in Condi Rice's first
trip abroad as US Secretary of State. White House National Security
Adviser Stephen Hadley continued with this tradition. Hadley, one of
Bush's right-hand men on foreign policy, visited municipal facilities
in Ankara, mingled with the people, posed with young folk dancers and
played table tennis, in a clear effort to show that US is determined
to mend its shattered public image in Turkey as well. Washington is
aware that to obtain Ankara's support without winning over the public
is getting ever more difficult, whereas in the past convincing a few
big-shot elites have been enough.
Americans are definitely exerting more efforts than before to
have relations back on track and to understand Turkey better. As
a matter fact, a close-to-public conference on Turkey was held
last Tuesday at the US State Department. The subject was Turkey's
relations with countries other than the US, particularly with Middle
Eastern countries. Turkish, American and Arab speakers were among
those attended the brainstorming. Since US foreign policy focuses
on shaping the Middle East and combating terrorism that originates
from the region, the United States overlooking an important regional
player like Turkey, would be unimaginable.
At this point, the following question comes to minds of the some:
"Would the US encourage anti-democratic formations in Turkey in
order to be able to move the policy into the direction that she
likes?" My answer to this question is a categorical no. To tell you
the truth, from Washington's perspective, relations with Turkey can
be pursued neither with nor without the Justice and Development Party
(AK Party). An American I talked to told me that Erdogan's 'learning
curve' has been a bit long. He could not comfortably say "yes" when
asked whether he has learned enough. However, no one here envisages a
military coup as an alternative to the AK Party government. Because,
first and foremost, such a move would mean the failure of Washington's
strategy to integrate Turkey into the West through the EU membership
process and collapse of the Bush administration's whole democracy
discourse in the region.
All right then, where do these coup rumors emanate from? Here is what
I heard: The discontentment of some circles in the Turkish military
with AK Party administration, has reached to the ears of high-ranking
officials in Washington in the form of most extreme possibility,
due to a series of misunderstandings and misevaluations. Until the
fact of matter was realized, there has been some anxiety. In addition
to that, there are attempts by some civilians who cannot read the
conjuncture very well. They think they could get over their problems
with the AK Party administration by inciting Washington. Some even
want to undermine the administration by contracting lobbyists in
Washington. These also bring the military card to the fore. However,
reliable sources I have spoken to said those people were given a
chance for preliminary talks in Washington, partially because their
objectives were not known, however, they would have no second chance
now that their real intentions are clear.
It is true that a consolidated Turkish democracy has in the short run
reduced Washington's ability to convince Turkey to her relatively
unpopular policies on Iraq, Iran and Syria. But in the long run,
this is perfectly consistent with the ideal of having a Turkey fully
integrated to the Western system. Therefore, no one either in the US or
in Turkey should expect Washington become a tool for anti-democratic
plots. Even you might sometimes hear things that you do not want to
hear, or from time to time get obstructed by it, democracy is always
a good thing...
By Ali H. Aslan
Zaman, Turkey
Sept 29 2005
An anti-war rally held in Washington over the weekend manifested the
extent to which the freedom to speak out against official views and
discourses can reach in a democracy.
During the rally, attended by hundreds of thousands of people, which
took place on the same day the Armenian conference was held in Turkey,
the Bush administration was vilified. US citizens accused their own
government of imperialism and bloodthirstiness. I am sure the White
House, Pentagon and most other government officials did not like what
was said very much. Nonetheless, thanks to their democratic grasp,
they were able to restrain themselves.
Looking from the US, it is encouraging to see that Turkey is
progressing towards a similar political maturity. The pro-freedom
stance adopted by the Erdogan administration especially during the
recent controversy over the Armenian conference, has been welcome in
Washington. Yet this appreciation is combined with a suppressed feeling
of disappointment. Certainly, some people cannot hide their emotions
or do not feel obliged to do so. For instance, the outburst by Tom
Lantos, an influential leader of the Jewish lobby, which has always
stood by Turkey, during the vote on the Armenian bill in the House of
Representatives, shows that the fire of Iraq in bilateral relations
has not completely turned into ashes yet. Furthermore, Washington has
not been able to draw Turkey to its hard-line stance on Syria and Iran.
However, the executive wing does not have the luxury of behaving as
emotionally as Lantos. They have to be calmer and more pragmatic.
That dealing with Turkey is no longer a cakewalk is well understood.
Americans are aware that more dialogue is needed to draw Turkey to
their line. The level and intensity of the recent diplomatic traffic
between the two nations confirm this. Prime Minister Erdogan and
Foreign Minister Gul are as if they have become residents of the
United States. Ankara was one of the stops in Condi Rice's first
trip abroad as US Secretary of State. White House National Security
Adviser Stephen Hadley continued with this tradition. Hadley, one of
Bush's right-hand men on foreign policy, visited municipal facilities
in Ankara, mingled with the people, posed with young folk dancers and
played table tennis, in a clear effort to show that US is determined
to mend its shattered public image in Turkey as well. Washington is
aware that to obtain Ankara's support without winning over the public
is getting ever more difficult, whereas in the past convincing a few
big-shot elites have been enough.
Americans are definitely exerting more efforts than before to
have relations back on track and to understand Turkey better. As
a matter fact, a close-to-public conference on Turkey was held
last Tuesday at the US State Department. The subject was Turkey's
relations with countries other than the US, particularly with Middle
Eastern countries. Turkish, American and Arab speakers were among
those attended the brainstorming. Since US foreign policy focuses
on shaping the Middle East and combating terrorism that originates
from the region, the United States overlooking an important regional
player like Turkey, would be unimaginable.
At this point, the following question comes to minds of the some:
"Would the US encourage anti-democratic formations in Turkey in
order to be able to move the policy into the direction that she
likes?" My answer to this question is a categorical no. To tell you
the truth, from Washington's perspective, relations with Turkey can
be pursued neither with nor without the Justice and Development Party
(AK Party). An American I talked to told me that Erdogan's 'learning
curve' has been a bit long. He could not comfortably say "yes" when
asked whether he has learned enough. However, no one here envisages a
military coup as an alternative to the AK Party government. Because,
first and foremost, such a move would mean the failure of Washington's
strategy to integrate Turkey into the West through the EU membership
process and collapse of the Bush administration's whole democracy
discourse in the region.
All right then, where do these coup rumors emanate from? Here is what
I heard: The discontentment of some circles in the Turkish military
with AK Party administration, has reached to the ears of high-ranking
officials in Washington in the form of most extreme possibility,
due to a series of misunderstandings and misevaluations. Until the
fact of matter was realized, there has been some anxiety. In addition
to that, there are attempts by some civilians who cannot read the
conjuncture very well. They think they could get over their problems
with the AK Party administration by inciting Washington. Some even
want to undermine the administration by contracting lobbyists in
Washington. These also bring the military card to the fore. However,
reliable sources I have spoken to said those people were given a
chance for preliminary talks in Washington, partially because their
objectives were not known, however, they would have no second chance
now that their real intentions are clear.
It is true that a consolidated Turkish democracy has in the short run
reduced Washington's ability to convince Turkey to her relatively
unpopular policies on Iraq, Iran and Syria. But in the long run,
this is perfectly consistent with the ideal of having a Turkey fully
integrated to the Western system. Therefore, no one either in the US or
in Turkey should expect Washington become a tool for anti-democratic
plots. Even you might sometimes hear things that you do not want to
hear, or from time to time get obstructed by it, democracy is always
a good thing...