Tweet
Turkey, America and Europe
The awkward partners
Sep 28th 2006 | ANKARA AND WASHINGTON, DC
>From The Economist print edition
Growing worries in the West over the risk of losing Turkey
AS AMERICA ponders its options on Iran, Turkey figures prominently in its
calculations. An old ally with NATO's second-largest army, Turkey may be the
only regional power with any clout in Tehran. That is one reason why
President George Bush is meeting Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime
minister, at the White House next week.
The trouble is that squabbles over Iraq have poisoned Turkish-American
relations. According to a recent survey of transatlantic trends carried out
by the German Marshall Fund, Iran is over twice as popular among Turks as
America is.
At the same time, rows over Cyprus may soon lead to the suspension of
Turkey's membership talks with the EU. This week the European Parliament
adopted a report that criticised Turkey for its human-rights failings. Since
support for EU membership has fallen to just 50%, from a high of 84% two
years ago, few Turks may care.
Indeed, pandering to a resurgent nationalism, Mr Erdogan is balking at EU
demands to scrap Turkey's notorious article 301 that has permitted the
prosecution of such novelists as Orhan Pamuk and Elif Shafak on charges of
"insulting Turkishness". Their acquittals have not deterred the Turkish
Jurists' Union from pressing similar complaints against others.
Relations may worsen again when the pope visits Turkey in November. Islamist
groups have said he should be arrested for quoting a Byzantine emperor's
unflattering remarks about Muhammad. One Turkish columnist even suggested he
should be killed. And all this comes just a year after Mr Erdogan's
government triumphantly opened membership talks with the EU.
"The consequences of a rupture of ties between Washington and Ankara, or
more darkly a Turkey that becomes strategically disoriented, would be
great," says Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Although Turkey's flirtation with Russia, Iran and Syria does not presage a
shift in its pro-Western stance, it cannot be taken for granted. Yet some EU
politicians seem oblivious to the danger of "losing" Turkey. They are
playing on public fears of letting in a poor, populous and mainly Muslim
country. Such attitudes have reinforced Turks' conviction that the EU is a
"Christian club".
In Washington, Turkey's threats to carry its battle against Kurdish PKK
fighters into northern Iraq are also concentrating official minds. Turkey
has long demanded that America fulfil its pledges to act against some 5,000
PKK fighters based in the Kurdish-controlled enclave. The Americans cannot
open a second front when their forces are stretched in the rest of Iraq. But
they won't let Turkey do the job, because such an intervention would
destabilise the only peaceful part of the country.
The Americans' stance is the biggest source of their new unpopularity in
Turkey. With every new casualty at the PKK's hands, pressure increases on
the government to pursue the rebels into Iraq. Should they do it, they may
find themselves fighting not only the Kurds, but the Americans as well.
Turkey's EU ambitions, once the best guarantee against any such
intervention, can no longer be counted on.
Can the meeting with Mr Bush make a difference? No, say Mr Erdogan's
critics. The meeting was Mr Erdogan's idea, and its real purpose, say these
critics, is to burnish his image as a world leader who commands America's
respect. Their cynicism is echoed by conservatives who blame Mr Erdogan for
the chill with America.
In truth, attitudes in America have been hardening ever since 2003, when Mr
Erdogan failed to use his party's big majority to pass a bill to allow
American forces to use Turkey as a launching pad in the war on Iraq. The
Americans later arrested 11 members of a Turkish special unit in northern
Iraq for allegedly plotting to murder an Iraqi Kurdish politician. By the
time they were released, anti-American passions had erupted within Turkey's
once staunchly pro-American armed forces too.
What angers Bush administration officials is that, far from dousing the
ensuing bout of America-bashing, Mr Erdogan and his party egged it on. Even
pro-Turkish congressmen watched in horror as Mr Erdogan called Israel "a
terrorist state" and Sunni insurgents who were killed in Fallujah "martyrs".
When Mr Bush met Mr Erdogan in June last year, many expected a showdown.
Instead, the meeting marked the start of a climbdown, with both sides
scrabbling for ways to turn their relationship around.
Next week's meeting is being held in the same spirit, insist officials on
both sides. Mr Erdogan's decision to override public opinion and contribute
some 1,000 troops to the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon is an encouraging
sign that Turkey's pro-Western orientation is intact. Turkey is also the
largest supplier of non-combat equipment to American forces in Iraq.
On the American side the big reforms in Turkey, spurred mainly by Brussels,
are starting to sink in. "For many years, this relationship [was conducted]
between security elites", observed Eric Edelman, now the number three in the
Pentagon, and formerly America's ambassador in Ankara, adding, in an
interview with a Turkish newspaper, Radikal, that "now, with a more
democratic Turkey, you have to deal not just with elites but also with a
broader public opinion."
To demonstrate goodwill, the Bush administration has appointed a retired
general, Joseph Ralston, as its "PKK co-ordinator". But the general's role
remains vague, and his assertion that military action against the rebels was
"the last option" has not helped. "Most Turks see Ralston as
window-dressing, as an attempt to buy time," says Omer Taspinar, of the
Brookings Institution. After three decades of fighting the rebels, many
Turkish officials privately concede that they cannot win by military means
alone. An amnesty that would allow PKK fighters to return home without
risking prosecution would do much to help. So would lowering the 10%
threshold for parliamentary seats that has kept out nationalist Kurds so
far. The lack of representation has created a vacuum that is being filled by
Islamic radicals in the mainly Kurdish provinces.
With Turkey's next election due to be held by November 2007, few believe
that Mr Erdogan can now risk alienating nationalist voters by accommodating
the Kurds. Recent opinion polls suggest that, although Mr Erdogan's party
retains its lead, two of his right-wing opponents might get into parliament,
along with the opposition Republican People's Party. A return to the sort of
fractious coalition governments that paralysed Turkey for decades until 2002
could even allow the generals to reassert their influence. Breaking this
vicious cycle will require courage and vision not only from Turkey's
leaders, but from its allies too.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displa ystory.cfm?story_id=7971046
The awkward partners
Sep 28th 2006 | ANKARA AND WASHINGTON, DC
>From The Economist print edition
Growing worries in the West over the risk of losing Turkey
AS AMERICA ponders its options on Iran, Turkey figures prominently in its
calculations. An old ally with NATO's second-largest army, Turkey may be the
only regional power with any clout in Tehran. That is one reason why
President George Bush is meeting Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime
minister, at the White House next week.
The trouble is that squabbles over Iraq have poisoned Turkish-American
relations. According to a recent survey of transatlantic trends carried out
by the German Marshall Fund, Iran is over twice as popular among Turks as
America is.
At the same time, rows over Cyprus may soon lead to the suspension of
Turkey's membership talks with the EU. This week the European Parliament
adopted a report that criticised Turkey for its human-rights failings. Since
support for EU membership has fallen to just 50%, from a high of 84% two
years ago, few Turks may care.
Indeed, pandering to a resurgent nationalism, Mr Erdogan is balking at EU
demands to scrap Turkey's notorious article 301 that has permitted the
prosecution of such novelists as Orhan Pamuk and Elif Shafak on charges of
"insulting Turkishness". Their acquittals have not deterred the Turkish
Jurists' Union from pressing similar complaints against others.
Relations may worsen again when the pope visits Turkey in November. Islamist
groups have said he should be arrested for quoting a Byzantine emperor's
unflattering remarks about Muhammad. One Turkish columnist even suggested he
should be killed. And all this comes just a year after Mr Erdogan's
government triumphantly opened membership talks with the EU.
"The consequences of a rupture of ties between Washington and Ankara, or
more darkly a Turkey that becomes strategically disoriented, would be
great," says Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Although Turkey's flirtation with Russia, Iran and Syria does not presage a
shift in its pro-Western stance, it cannot be taken for granted. Yet some EU
politicians seem oblivious to the danger of "losing" Turkey. They are
playing on public fears of letting in a poor, populous and mainly Muslim
country. Such attitudes have reinforced Turks' conviction that the EU is a
"Christian club".
In Washington, Turkey's threats to carry its battle against Kurdish PKK
fighters into northern Iraq are also concentrating official minds. Turkey
has long demanded that America fulfil its pledges to act against some 5,000
PKK fighters based in the Kurdish-controlled enclave. The Americans cannot
open a second front when their forces are stretched in the rest of Iraq. But
they won't let Turkey do the job, because such an intervention would
destabilise the only peaceful part of the country.
The Americans' stance is the biggest source of their new unpopularity in
Turkey. With every new casualty at the PKK's hands, pressure increases on
the government to pursue the rebels into Iraq. Should they do it, they may
find themselves fighting not only the Kurds, but the Americans as well.
Turkey's EU ambitions, once the best guarantee against any such
intervention, can no longer be counted on.
Can the meeting with Mr Bush make a difference? No, say Mr Erdogan's
critics. The meeting was Mr Erdogan's idea, and its real purpose, say these
critics, is to burnish his image as a world leader who commands America's
respect. Their cynicism is echoed by conservatives who blame Mr Erdogan for
the chill with America.
In truth, attitudes in America have been hardening ever since 2003, when Mr
Erdogan failed to use his party's big majority to pass a bill to allow
American forces to use Turkey as a launching pad in the war on Iraq. The
Americans later arrested 11 members of a Turkish special unit in northern
Iraq for allegedly plotting to murder an Iraqi Kurdish politician. By the
time they were released, anti-American passions had erupted within Turkey's
once staunchly pro-American armed forces too.
What angers Bush administration officials is that, far from dousing the
ensuing bout of America-bashing, Mr Erdogan and his party egged it on. Even
pro-Turkish congressmen watched in horror as Mr Erdogan called Israel "a
terrorist state" and Sunni insurgents who were killed in Fallujah "martyrs".
When Mr Bush met Mr Erdogan in June last year, many expected a showdown.
Instead, the meeting marked the start of a climbdown, with both sides
scrabbling for ways to turn their relationship around.
Next week's meeting is being held in the same spirit, insist officials on
both sides. Mr Erdogan's decision to override public opinion and contribute
some 1,000 troops to the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon is an encouraging
sign that Turkey's pro-Western orientation is intact. Turkey is also the
largest supplier of non-combat equipment to American forces in Iraq.
On the American side the big reforms in Turkey, spurred mainly by Brussels,
are starting to sink in. "For many years, this relationship [was conducted]
between security elites", observed Eric Edelman, now the number three in the
Pentagon, and formerly America's ambassador in Ankara, adding, in an
interview with a Turkish newspaper, Radikal, that "now, with a more
democratic Turkey, you have to deal not just with elites but also with a
broader public opinion."
To demonstrate goodwill, the Bush administration has appointed a retired
general, Joseph Ralston, as its "PKK co-ordinator". But the general's role
remains vague, and his assertion that military action against the rebels was
"the last option" has not helped. "Most Turks see Ralston as
window-dressing, as an attempt to buy time," says Omer Taspinar, of the
Brookings Institution. After three decades of fighting the rebels, many
Turkish officials privately concede that they cannot win by military means
alone. An amnesty that would allow PKK fighters to return home without
risking prosecution would do much to help. So would lowering the 10%
threshold for parliamentary seats that has kept out nationalist Kurds so
far. The lack of representation has created a vacuum that is being filled by
Islamic radicals in the mainly Kurdish provinces.
With Turkey's next election due to be held by November 2007, few believe
that Mr Erdogan can now risk alienating nationalist voters by accommodating
the Kurds. Recent opinion polls suggest that, although Mr Erdogan's party
retains its lead, two of his right-wing opponents might get into parliament,
along with the opposition Republican People's Party. A return to the sort of
fractious coalition governments that paralysed Turkey for decades until 2002
could even allow the generals to reassert their influence. Breaking this
vicious cycle will require courage and vision not only from Turkey's
leaders, but from its allies too.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displa ystory.cfm?story_id=7971046