Tweet
DID WE WIN OR LOSE THE AMERICAN ELECTIONS?
Ali H. Aslan
Zaman, Turkey
Nov 14 2006
With the Democrats taking control of Congress by overpowering the
incumbent Republicans last Tuesday in the mid-term elections, the
political landscape in Washington has changed. A new era is beginning
in America. The reason for President Bush's defeat is another analysis
entirely. So how will the current picture affect Turkey?
Ankara has been trying to repair the relations with the Republican
Bush administration that were seriously strained during the Iraq war.
However, giving precedence to strengthening relations with the party in
power didn't allow for the establishment of necessary communications
with the Democratic opposition. Until now, a big part of the work
was handled with the help of the lobbying firm of former Republican
leader Bob Livingston. But now the Congress is in the hands of the
Democrats...
Should Turkey take on an air of "the old king is dead; long live
the new king"? I think not, because although the Republicans have
lost the majority, close to half the Congress and the White House
are still in their hands. Consequently, even if they are weakened,
they still have power that shouldn't be underestimated. On the other
hand, there is no reason why Ankara shouldn't show the Democrats
flexibility in advancing relations. Even if we're a little late,
we haven't missed the train completely...
Most of the Democratic leaders who will hold key positions in
Congress' foreign policy have problems with Ankara for different
reasons. Future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Leader
Harry Reid, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden,
and House International Relations Committee Chairman Tom Lantos can
all be included in this category. It is important to dissipate the
chilliness with key Democratic leaders. If Prime Minister Erdogan
had been able to realize his Washington visit after January 2007,
and had been able to meet with Democrats instead of coming during the
election campaign period when Congress was on vacation, it would have
been much more productive...
The Democrats' general viewpoint on the issues of Iraq and the
alleged Armenian genocide, which carry near-future crisis potential
in Turkish-American relations, is rather far from Turkey's. They may
not be able to decisively implement everything they said before the
elections. However, many influential Democrats have become dangerously
engaged with the Armenian lobby regarding their genocide claims. When
it comes down to the bottom line, President Bush will interfere again,
but it's questionable as to how effective the Republican White House's
request to the Democratic leaders in Congress will be. An important
factor of most Democratic campaigns was Turkey's not looking favorably
on an immediate pull-out of troops from Iraq because of its anxiety
about its leading to increased chaos. It is known that some like
Senator Biden support possibilities that even include Iraq's being
divided into three different states.
If the Armenian resolution passes Congress in April, if steps are
taken in Iraq to deepen Turkey's concerns, and if concrete measures
are not taken against the presence of the PKK, we might very well
find ourselves in a new Turkish-American crisis in the spring. Just
the Armenian genocide issue alone is enough to poison Turkish-American
relations. Imagine how the already Washington-sensitive Turkish public
opinion and ruling establishment would respond. Fears of the eastern
part of the country being divided between the Armenians and Kurds would
hit the roof. The perception that the U.S. is not Turkey's friend would
be strengthened. With Ankara entering an election atmosphere, it would
not be easy to find a brave knight to stand up for Turkish-American
relations. And the common strategic vision between the two countries
could be seriously damaged.
Let's look at the bright side. The tracks Democratic President
Bill Clinton left behind in Turkish-American relations are an
important legacy. The Democrats' adopting a more internationalist
and world-harmonious image than the Republicans is an advantage for
Turkey. It is expected that the Baker-Hamilton Commission, which has
turned into a vehicle for salvaging the situation for both parties,
will recommend mechanisms that make Iraq's neighbors a part of the
solution. Consequently, our quotient of being listened to in Washington
can increase. The Democrats will try and draw a more realistic and
pragmatic foreign policy line than the idealistic, surrealistic
and maximalist line represented by the neocons. They might want to
put the breaks on democratization in the Middle East and partially
return to former pro-stability policy and spread reforms out over a
longer period of time. Most Democrats see diplomatic engagement with
Syria and Iran as more suitable to American interests. They want to
rejuvenate the peace process in the Middle East. All of these are
compatible with Ankara's line.
The change in the political picture in America can lead to tactical
variation in its foreign policy, but its general strategic stance
won't change much. It is a strategic necessity that the United States
not offend an important regional power like Turkey. Turkey can not
be taken for granted as before. If Turkey becomes offended, it can
not make a sufficient contribution to straightening out the grave
position of the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East, and the hands of
the radicals would be strengthened in the war against terror.
Turkish-American strategic relations should not be sacrificed to
internal political concerns in both countries. Train-wrecks could be
avoided by intense dialogue.
Ali H. Aslan
Zaman, Turkey
Nov 14 2006
With the Democrats taking control of Congress by overpowering the
incumbent Republicans last Tuesday in the mid-term elections, the
political landscape in Washington has changed. A new era is beginning
in America. The reason for President Bush's defeat is another analysis
entirely. So how will the current picture affect Turkey?
Ankara has been trying to repair the relations with the Republican
Bush administration that were seriously strained during the Iraq war.
However, giving precedence to strengthening relations with the party in
power didn't allow for the establishment of necessary communications
with the Democratic opposition. Until now, a big part of the work
was handled with the help of the lobbying firm of former Republican
leader Bob Livingston. But now the Congress is in the hands of the
Democrats...
Should Turkey take on an air of "the old king is dead; long live
the new king"? I think not, because although the Republicans have
lost the majority, close to half the Congress and the White House
are still in their hands. Consequently, even if they are weakened,
they still have power that shouldn't be underestimated. On the other
hand, there is no reason why Ankara shouldn't show the Democrats
flexibility in advancing relations. Even if we're a little late,
we haven't missed the train completely...
Most of the Democratic leaders who will hold key positions in
Congress' foreign policy have problems with Ankara for different
reasons. Future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Leader
Harry Reid, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden,
and House International Relations Committee Chairman Tom Lantos can
all be included in this category. It is important to dissipate the
chilliness with key Democratic leaders. If Prime Minister Erdogan
had been able to realize his Washington visit after January 2007,
and had been able to meet with Democrats instead of coming during the
election campaign period when Congress was on vacation, it would have
been much more productive...
The Democrats' general viewpoint on the issues of Iraq and the
alleged Armenian genocide, which carry near-future crisis potential
in Turkish-American relations, is rather far from Turkey's. They may
not be able to decisively implement everything they said before the
elections. However, many influential Democrats have become dangerously
engaged with the Armenian lobby regarding their genocide claims. When
it comes down to the bottom line, President Bush will interfere again,
but it's questionable as to how effective the Republican White House's
request to the Democratic leaders in Congress will be. An important
factor of most Democratic campaigns was Turkey's not looking favorably
on an immediate pull-out of troops from Iraq because of its anxiety
about its leading to increased chaos. It is known that some like
Senator Biden support possibilities that even include Iraq's being
divided into three different states.
If the Armenian resolution passes Congress in April, if steps are
taken in Iraq to deepen Turkey's concerns, and if concrete measures
are not taken against the presence of the PKK, we might very well
find ourselves in a new Turkish-American crisis in the spring. Just
the Armenian genocide issue alone is enough to poison Turkish-American
relations. Imagine how the already Washington-sensitive Turkish public
opinion and ruling establishment would respond. Fears of the eastern
part of the country being divided between the Armenians and Kurds would
hit the roof. The perception that the U.S. is not Turkey's friend would
be strengthened. With Ankara entering an election atmosphere, it would
not be easy to find a brave knight to stand up for Turkish-American
relations. And the common strategic vision between the two countries
could be seriously damaged.
Let's look at the bright side. The tracks Democratic President
Bill Clinton left behind in Turkish-American relations are an
important legacy. The Democrats' adopting a more internationalist
and world-harmonious image than the Republicans is an advantage for
Turkey. It is expected that the Baker-Hamilton Commission, which has
turned into a vehicle for salvaging the situation for both parties,
will recommend mechanisms that make Iraq's neighbors a part of the
solution. Consequently, our quotient of being listened to in Washington
can increase. The Democrats will try and draw a more realistic and
pragmatic foreign policy line than the idealistic, surrealistic
and maximalist line represented by the neocons. They might want to
put the breaks on democratization in the Middle East and partially
return to former pro-stability policy and spread reforms out over a
longer period of time. Most Democrats see diplomatic engagement with
Syria and Iran as more suitable to American interests. They want to
rejuvenate the peace process in the Middle East. All of these are
compatible with Ankara's line.
The change in the political picture in America can lead to tactical
variation in its foreign policy, but its general strategic stance
won't change much. It is a strategic necessity that the United States
not offend an important regional power like Turkey. Turkey can not
be taken for granted as before. If Turkey becomes offended, it can
not make a sufficient contribution to straightening out the grave
position of the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East, and the hands of
the radicals would be strengthened in the war against terror.
Turkish-American strategic relations should not be sacrificed to
internal political concerns in both countries. Train-wrecks could be
avoided by intense dialogue.