Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Turkish Dilemma: Can The Frayed Relationship Between The United Stat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Turkish Dilemma: Can The Frayed Relationship Between The United Stat

    TURKISH DILEMMA: CAN THE FRAYED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND TURKEY BE REPAIRED?
    by Jeffrey Azarva

    The Weekly Standard
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Pub lic/Articles/000/000/016/009jjztw.asp
    Jan 15 2009

    As I traveled across Turkey in November, optimism over Barack Obama's
    electoral victory was in the air. Several Turks told me stories of
    villagers who had sacrificed 44 sheep in honor of the 44th president's
    election. They were not alone in their jubilation: Indeed, many people
    I met believed President-elect Obama could restore U.S. moral clarity
    and mend the troubled U.S.-Turkish alliance.

    Such sanguinity does not surprise. Come inauguration day, the United
    States will enjoy, at least briefly, a spike of good will in global
    public opinion, if for no other reason than the fact that Obama is
    not George W. Bush.

    Nowhere might this bounce be more needed than in Turkey. In recent
    years, relations between Washington and Ankara have frayed. From
    Turkey's March 2003 refusal to open up a second front in Operation
    Iraqi Freedom to Congress' October 2007 deliberation of an
    Armenian genocide resolution, events have fed mutual distrust and
    recrimination. Today, polls consistently rank Turks as the most
    anti-American nation on Earth.

    Conventional wisdom in Turkey lays much of the blame for this crisis
    of confidence at the doorstep of the Bush White House. If only
    U.S. policymakers had appreciated Turkish concerns more in the run-up
    to the Iraq war and not stonewalled on providing Ankara assistance in
    its fight against PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) terrorists, Turks,
    the logic goes, would have far less reason to inveigh against the
    United States.

    It is naive, however, to think the reversal of Bush administration
    policy alone will induce a sea change in Turkish public attitudes. The
    burden of improved U.S-Turkish relations does not lie squarely on
    Obama's shoulders. To believe otherwise would exculpate Turkey's
    ruling Justice and Development Party--an Islamist-rooted party known
    by its Turkish acronym, the AKP--and its media organs of stoking
    rampant anti-Americanism.

    Indeed, under the AKP's stewardship, U.S. bashing has become something
    of a national sport. One of the most egregious instances of such
    incitement came in October 2003 when Yeni Å~^afak, an Islamist
    daily close to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, published a lead
    story accusing U.S. soldiers of raping thousands of Iraqi women. The
    scurrilous allegations served as motivation for a suicide bombing
    the following month that devastated HSBC's Turkish headquarters,
    killing eleven.

    Yet, Islamist media outlets affiliated with the AKP have since grown
    more unrestrained. Following the July 2008 attack on the U.S. consulate
    in Istanbul, the pro-AKP press again flew into high dudgeon. The daily
    Vakit accused U.S., British, and Israeli intelligence of orchestrating
    the attack, which killed six people, including three Turkish policemen,
    in order to push Ankara into Washington's lap. The AKP's subsequent
    silence did little to disabuse Turks of this notion.

    I observed the cumulative effect of such slander when I met with
    college students in the city of Adana. The meeting, part of a State
    Department-funded exchange program to bridge the gap in U.S-Turkish
    relations, revealed distorted views of the United States in the
    Turkish press. For example, none of the students knew anything of
    U.S. relief efforts after the 2004 tsunami, and several Turkish papers
    even blamed Washington for the natural disaster. Worse, all believed
    PKK terrorists received arms from U.S. forces in Iraq.

    The fact that the media peddles this latter myth is telling. Since
    2007, U.S. Kurdish policy has reversed course. Resentment may
    linger, but U.S. action against the PKK--whose presence in northern
    Iraq Washington once tolerated--is now resolute. Today, with both
    U.S. intelligence and acquiescence, Turkish warplanes regularly enter
    Iraqi airspace to strike PKK targets.

    Still, Turkish media continue to prevaricate. Following an October 4,
    2008, PKK attack that killed 15 Turkish soldiers, the mainstream daily
    Milliyet opined that the "heavy weaponry [used in the attack] cannot be
    moved, deployed, and implemented without [U.S.] authorities...receiving
    information about it." Milliyet may be secular, but its journalists
    find themselves under increased pressure to hew an AKP line.

    The AKP's media apparatus has endorsed similar conspiracy theories,
    too. But incitement is not just a sin of commission. The AKP leadership
    has repeatedly failed to repudiate anti-American rhetoric elsewhere
    that, left unchallenged, is often taken as fact. Though the AKP cannot
    be called to account for every incendiary comment, the reality is
    that anti-American sentiments have proliferated on their watch. Alas,
    more Turks now appear willing to act on what they hear.

    Washington can no longer countenance this situation. While Obama can
    help matters--enlisting Iraqi Kurdistan's support against the PKK
    would be a good start--he alone cannot solve them. The AKP must begin
    to tell it like it is and curb widespread anti-Americanism. Should it
    not, the answer to "Who lost Turkey?" will end up being far different
    from what the current narrative would have us believe.

    --Boundary_(ID_g6uam3Le4W9vzTKXCXgEOw)--
Working...
X