Tweet
NEW FOREIGN POLICY DIRECTION FOR TURKEY; STATEMENT OF ROSS WILSON DIRECTOR, DINU PATRICIU EURASIA CENTER ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES
CQ Congressional Testimony
July 28, 2010 Wednesday
COMMITTEE: HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS
CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY-BY: ROSS WILSON, DIRECTOR AFFILIATION: ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF
THE UNITED STATES
Committee on House Foreign Affairs
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the honor of being invited to
speak at this hearing on Turkey and U.S. Turkish relations.
Turkey is a fascinating, sometimes frustrating, often confusing and
very important country in a key part of the world for the United
States. Figuring it out is a challenge. It is tempting, but always
misleading, to see black and white where grays are the dominant
colors. One of the most useful observations I heard while I had the
honor to serve as American ambassador in Ankara came from a colleague
who had been there many years and left shortly after I arrived. He
said, "Turkey is one of those countries where the more you know, the
less you understand." I hope that today's discussions will give me,
and maybe others, more knowledge and understanding.
The reasons for this hearing are self-evident. Questions are being
asked about whether Turkey has changed its axis and reoriented its
priorities, about whether it remains a friend and ally of the United
States or is becoming, as Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign
Relations recently suggested, a competitor or possibly a "frenemy."
That this debate is happening ought to be disconcerting to Turks who
argue - as many in the military, foreign ministry and government did
to me - that the United States is Turkey's most important and only
strategic partner. It frustrates the Obama Administration, which
has invested heavily in U.S.-Turkish relations, including when the
President visited Ankara in April 2009, when Prime Minister Erdogan
came to Washington last December, and at the nuclear security summit
here several months ago.
Of course, there have always been ups and downs in U.S.-Turkish
relations. Those who think they remember the halcyon days of yore
should read their history. Looking at reports in the U.S. embassy's
files put my problems into perspective while I was working there. Or
consider a Turk's point of view. He or she might have thought the word
frenemy (if it really is a word) applied to the United States when in
2003-2007 we barred cross- border pursuits of terrorists fleeing back
into northern Iraq after attacking police stations and school buses,
or when the United States imposed an arms embargo after Turkish forces
intervened in Cyprus in 1974, or when we accepted the brutal overthrow
of Turkey's civilian government in 1980.
But to stick with our own perceptions and priorities, a lot of
mainstream observers think that it is different this time. Whether fair
or not, or correct or not - and I think this is not an accurate image,
Turkey's picture in many circles here is monochromatic in unflattering
ways: friend to Ahmadinejad and supporter of Iran, friend to HAMAS,
shrill critic of Israel, and defender of Sudan's Bashir. The flotilla
incident and Turkey's no vote on UN sanctions against Iran sharpened
the issue. Several weeks ago, a senior U.S. military officer and great
friend of Turkey confided to me with exasperation, "What in the world
are we going to do with Turkey?" Uncertainty about Turkey and how to
proceed with it is widespread. And that is at least as much a problem
for Turkey - for Turks who value its five decade-old alliance with
the United States, to which I believe Turkey is committed - as it is
for anyone here.
One thing we have to do about our exasperation is fill out the
picture. How Turkey does see things, and what are its leaders
responding to and trying to accomplish? Picture Turkey on a map and
go around it.
Iran
Turkey borders on Iran. For Ankara, it is a problematic country,
a rival for hundreds of years. Most Turks I talked to believe the
recent rise of Tehran's influence has been fueled in part by the U.S.
invasion of Iraq and its consequences and by the unresolved
Israel-Palestinian conflict. They regard Iranian actions as
inconsistent with Turkey's interest in a stable, peaceful region,
and I think their local geopolitical contest for influence is one we
underestimate. But Turks also have to live next to Iran and do not
want its enmity. So Ankara's approach has been nonconfrontational
and continues to be so. It has worked indirectly to advance Turkey's
interests, including by developing non-Iranian Caspian energy export
routes, deploying troops to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, supporting
such moderates as Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri and Iraqi leader
Ayad Allawi, and engaging Syrian President Asad, whom it apparently
hopes to moderate by lessening his dependence upon - or prying him
away from - Iran.
Turkey does not want a nuclear-armed Iran. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and others worked in 2006-2007 to get Turkish
buy-in for the approach taken by the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council and Germany - the P5+1. They were successful. I
believe that Turkish leaders took a tough line on Tehran's need to
reassure the world by complying with its Non- Proliferation Treaty and
International Atomic Energy Agency obligations. But the legacy of the
Iraq weapons of mass destruction intelligence failures was that most
Turks, including in the military and throughout the political elite,
doubt the accuracy of Western intelligence on Iran's nuclear efforts
and fear the implications of war more than they fear the possibility
of an Iranian bomb. Hence the Turks insistence on negotiations -
an insistence on which the Turks are not alone, including among
our allies.
Administration officials can speak more authoritatively than I can
about how we came to crosspurposes on the Iran nuclear issue this
spring. Suffice it for me to say that at the outset Ankara believed,
with good reason, that the Obama Administration shared its objectives
on the uranium swap proposal and backed its efforts. There were
problems of timing, delivery and coordination, but this was not a
rogue Turkey heading off in a new foreign policy direction with which
the United States disagreed.
Obviously, Turkey's no vote in the UN Security Council was unhelpful.
In figuring out how we proceed on Iran with Turkey now, my overriding
priority would be to comport ourselves in such a way as to ensure
Ankara is with us in the next acts of the drama. I think the political,
defense and security implications of what Iran is doing are very
serious. Whatever the future brings, the situation requires us to have
the fullest possible support of all our NATO allies, and geography
puts Turkey at the top of that of that list. We can accomplish this
through the fullest possible information sharing on what we know
(and don't know) and involving Ankara in the diplomacy - not as
mediator probably, but also not as a bystander. It is a partner;
we expect it to act like one, and we should treat it as one.
Iraq
Turkey borders on Iraq, where we have poured so much treasure and
youth. Over 90 percent of the Turkish public opposed the U.S. invasion
in 2003, and a greater percentage opposes our presence there now.
Despite this, Turkish authorities want us to stay. They fear, and I
think the public at some level shares this fear, that we will walk
away too early and then Turkey will face a chronic crisis. Or, worse,
that Iraq might be taken over by some dangerous new tyrant, fall under
the control of another neighboring power, break up, or become a home
to anti-Turkish terrorists. The PKK problem along the northern Iraq
border is especially serious, but at least 2-3 years ago, so were anti-
Turkish al-Qaeda elements in Iraq. Since 2005 and especially after
March 2008, Turkey has been a constructive player on Iraq. We asked it
to help draw Sunni rejectionists out of violence and into politics, and
it did. At our request, Turkey helped facilitate the U.S. engagement
with Iraq's neighbors that the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended.
We asked it to deal with Kurdistan Regional Government leader Masoud
Barzani. It has done so, getting help on the PKK problem and making
itself a more effective player in supporting the Iraqi political
process, which will be important as our own role declines. Turkey's
role in Iraq is important and positive. To be frank, it got to be
that way because American and Turkish leaders decided to overlook the
March 1, 2003 disagreement at the start of the war and found common
ground in helping Iraq stand back up. While it did not seem so simple
at the time, in effect we dusted ourselves off and moved on. That is
not a bad model for policymakers now.
Middle East
Turkey borders on Syria and the Middle East. Even before I left for
Turkey, I heard people wonder what it was doing mucking about in
Middle Eastern affairs. In the U.S. government, the people dealing
with the Middle East are generally not responsible for Turkey, which
is handled out of offices dealing with European affairs. But Ankara
is far closer to Jerusalem than Riyadh is. (For comparison, Ankara is
only a little farther from Jerusalem than Washington is from Atlanta.)
There is Ottoman baggage with Arab populations that modern-day Turks do
not talk much about, but Turkey is a Middle Eastern country. It is not
surprising that Prime Minister Erdogan is popular there - of course,
his populist rhetoric adds to that, as he intends. In any case, we
should forgive Turks for thinking that they have a role there or that
they are entitled to their own perspective. This seems especially the
case when on the most important issues - Israel's right to exist,
the goal of two democratic states, Israeli and Palestinian, living
side by side in peace and security, and the need for a negotiated
(not imposed) solution - Turkey's perspective is the same as ours.
Within Turkey, in Israel and in the West, Prime Minister Erdogan has
been criticized for his shrill rhetoric toward Israel, especially on
Gaza. Turks do not, of course, universally support his government,
but they do almost universally share his underlying view that
Israeli-Palestinian stalemate has persisted too long, that what is
happening to Palestinians is unfair, and that they need help. I was
in Turkey shortly after the "flotilla incident." I heard many views
about whether the government's backing of the Mavi Marmara was wise,
properly done or in Turkey's interest; no one I talked to, and as far
as I could tell none of the people they talked with, thought that it
was wrong.
I don't know what the way forward on Middle East peace issues is.
Clearly, Turkey's estrangement from Israel limits any role it can play
for the foreseeable future. At no time soon will Ankara again be able
to mediate between Syria and Israel -an effort that showed its value
in keeping channels open after Israel's September 2007 destruction
of the Deir ez-Zor nuclear site in Syria. It is constructive that
Senator Mitchell has included Turkey among the regional powers that
he consults with from time to time, and I hope that continues.
Caucasus
Turkey borders on the Caucasus - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. I
know that you, Mr. Chairman, other members of this committee and many
Americans have strong views about the Turkey-Armenia piece and about
history that has not been entirely accommodated. The South Caucasus is
a volatile and fragile part of the world, as Georgia 2008 reminded us.
That conflict gave impetus to reconciliation between Turkey and
Armenia. When President Sarksian and President Gul stood together in
Yerevan a month after the Russian invasion of Georgia, the two leaders
seemed symbolically to say, 'we have a vision of the Caucasus, it's
not what just happened in Georgia, and we're determined to take on the
most difficult issues between us to try to achieve it.' Unfortunately,
Armenian and Turkish leaders concluded that they could not go forward
now to ratify the protocols that called for normalizing relations
and opening the border.
I think doing so can still build the confidence needed for resolving
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and
for Turks and Armenians to deal with their past, present and future
together in a forthright manner. I hope that Congress can support that
effort. In the interest of brevity, I have omitted mention of Cyprus,
Greece, the Balkans and the Black Sea, and such other active items in
U.S.-Turkish relations as energy, terrorism, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Suffice it to say that, in my view, on each of these we want
fundamentally the same things, there are of course differences of view,
and the United States and Turkey cooperate pretty well.
Change in Turkey
I noted earlier the rhetorical question of what other American ally
borders on so many problems of such high priority to U.S. foreign
policy. Looked at another way, is there another ally that has such
a large stake in how so many problems that are so important to us
get addressed?
A Turkey that is stronger than at any time in a couple hundred
years is now inclined to try to influence events on its periphery
in ways that it was not in the past. It does so partly because it
can, but also because it is good politics. This reflects important
and positive changes in Turkey. When it comes to foreign policy,
public opinion matters in a way it did not even just a few years
ago. Decades of pro-market policies have made Turkey's the 16th
largest economy in the world. Migration from rural areas to the
cities and an expanding middle class are two other trends with huge
political implications. In this more prosperous and confident Turkey,
voters do not want their country to be a subject of others' diplomacy
or a bystander on regional issues. They want to see their country
acting. They expect their government to do so. They expect it to act
wisely, and I think one of our jobs is to help it do so.
My answer to my military friend's exasperated question, "what in
the world are we going to do with Turkey," is that we have no choice
but to work with it and work with it and work with it. It is hard,
it is frustrating, and maybe it is messy. It is harder now with a
democratic ally in which power resides in several places - and that
is in general a good thing. It is the only way to go forward and the
only way not to go back into recrimination and anger that ultimately
could put American interests in the region at risk. It requires steady
senior-level engagement, visits to Turkey by members of Congress such
as you, Mr. Chairman, and not letting differences that are mostly
tactical overwhelm our strategic interests. I thought it was highly
important that President Obama met with Prime Minister Erdogan on the
margins of the recent G-20 Summit in Toronto a month ago. According
to the account I heard, the meeting was long, and the President was
very direct, tough and critical. That is what it will take.
Thank you.
From: A. Papazian
CQ Congressional Testimony
July 28, 2010 Wednesday
COMMITTEE: HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS
CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY-BY: ROSS WILSON, DIRECTOR AFFILIATION: ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF
THE UNITED STATES
Committee on House Foreign Affairs
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the honor of being invited to
speak at this hearing on Turkey and U.S. Turkish relations.
Turkey is a fascinating, sometimes frustrating, often confusing and
very important country in a key part of the world for the United
States. Figuring it out is a challenge. It is tempting, but always
misleading, to see black and white where grays are the dominant
colors. One of the most useful observations I heard while I had the
honor to serve as American ambassador in Ankara came from a colleague
who had been there many years and left shortly after I arrived. He
said, "Turkey is one of those countries where the more you know, the
less you understand." I hope that today's discussions will give me,
and maybe others, more knowledge and understanding.
The reasons for this hearing are self-evident. Questions are being
asked about whether Turkey has changed its axis and reoriented its
priorities, about whether it remains a friend and ally of the United
States or is becoming, as Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign
Relations recently suggested, a competitor or possibly a "frenemy."
That this debate is happening ought to be disconcerting to Turks who
argue - as many in the military, foreign ministry and government did
to me - that the United States is Turkey's most important and only
strategic partner. It frustrates the Obama Administration, which
has invested heavily in U.S.-Turkish relations, including when the
President visited Ankara in April 2009, when Prime Minister Erdogan
came to Washington last December, and at the nuclear security summit
here several months ago.
Of course, there have always been ups and downs in U.S.-Turkish
relations. Those who think they remember the halcyon days of yore
should read their history. Looking at reports in the U.S. embassy's
files put my problems into perspective while I was working there. Or
consider a Turk's point of view. He or she might have thought the word
frenemy (if it really is a word) applied to the United States when in
2003-2007 we barred cross- border pursuits of terrorists fleeing back
into northern Iraq after attacking police stations and school buses,
or when the United States imposed an arms embargo after Turkish forces
intervened in Cyprus in 1974, or when we accepted the brutal overthrow
of Turkey's civilian government in 1980.
But to stick with our own perceptions and priorities, a lot of
mainstream observers think that it is different this time. Whether fair
or not, or correct or not - and I think this is not an accurate image,
Turkey's picture in many circles here is monochromatic in unflattering
ways: friend to Ahmadinejad and supporter of Iran, friend to HAMAS,
shrill critic of Israel, and defender of Sudan's Bashir. The flotilla
incident and Turkey's no vote on UN sanctions against Iran sharpened
the issue. Several weeks ago, a senior U.S. military officer and great
friend of Turkey confided to me with exasperation, "What in the world
are we going to do with Turkey?" Uncertainty about Turkey and how to
proceed with it is widespread. And that is at least as much a problem
for Turkey - for Turks who value its five decade-old alliance with
the United States, to which I believe Turkey is committed - as it is
for anyone here.
One thing we have to do about our exasperation is fill out the
picture. How Turkey does see things, and what are its leaders
responding to and trying to accomplish? Picture Turkey on a map and
go around it.
Iran
Turkey borders on Iran. For Ankara, it is a problematic country,
a rival for hundreds of years. Most Turks I talked to believe the
recent rise of Tehran's influence has been fueled in part by the U.S.
invasion of Iraq and its consequences and by the unresolved
Israel-Palestinian conflict. They regard Iranian actions as
inconsistent with Turkey's interest in a stable, peaceful region,
and I think their local geopolitical contest for influence is one we
underestimate. But Turks also have to live next to Iran and do not
want its enmity. So Ankara's approach has been nonconfrontational
and continues to be so. It has worked indirectly to advance Turkey's
interests, including by developing non-Iranian Caspian energy export
routes, deploying troops to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, supporting
such moderates as Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri and Iraqi leader
Ayad Allawi, and engaging Syrian President Asad, whom it apparently
hopes to moderate by lessening his dependence upon - or prying him
away from - Iran.
Turkey does not want a nuclear-armed Iran. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and others worked in 2006-2007 to get Turkish
buy-in for the approach taken by the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council and Germany - the P5+1. They were successful. I
believe that Turkish leaders took a tough line on Tehran's need to
reassure the world by complying with its Non- Proliferation Treaty and
International Atomic Energy Agency obligations. But the legacy of the
Iraq weapons of mass destruction intelligence failures was that most
Turks, including in the military and throughout the political elite,
doubt the accuracy of Western intelligence on Iran's nuclear efforts
and fear the implications of war more than they fear the possibility
of an Iranian bomb. Hence the Turks insistence on negotiations -
an insistence on which the Turks are not alone, including among
our allies.
Administration officials can speak more authoritatively than I can
about how we came to crosspurposes on the Iran nuclear issue this
spring. Suffice it for me to say that at the outset Ankara believed,
with good reason, that the Obama Administration shared its objectives
on the uranium swap proposal and backed its efforts. There were
problems of timing, delivery and coordination, but this was not a
rogue Turkey heading off in a new foreign policy direction with which
the United States disagreed.
Obviously, Turkey's no vote in the UN Security Council was unhelpful.
In figuring out how we proceed on Iran with Turkey now, my overriding
priority would be to comport ourselves in such a way as to ensure
Ankara is with us in the next acts of the drama. I think the political,
defense and security implications of what Iran is doing are very
serious. Whatever the future brings, the situation requires us to have
the fullest possible support of all our NATO allies, and geography
puts Turkey at the top of that of that list. We can accomplish this
through the fullest possible information sharing on what we know
(and don't know) and involving Ankara in the diplomacy - not as
mediator probably, but also not as a bystander. It is a partner;
we expect it to act like one, and we should treat it as one.
Iraq
Turkey borders on Iraq, where we have poured so much treasure and
youth. Over 90 percent of the Turkish public opposed the U.S. invasion
in 2003, and a greater percentage opposes our presence there now.
Despite this, Turkish authorities want us to stay. They fear, and I
think the public at some level shares this fear, that we will walk
away too early and then Turkey will face a chronic crisis. Or, worse,
that Iraq might be taken over by some dangerous new tyrant, fall under
the control of another neighboring power, break up, or become a home
to anti-Turkish terrorists. The PKK problem along the northern Iraq
border is especially serious, but at least 2-3 years ago, so were anti-
Turkish al-Qaeda elements in Iraq. Since 2005 and especially after
March 2008, Turkey has been a constructive player on Iraq. We asked it
to help draw Sunni rejectionists out of violence and into politics, and
it did. At our request, Turkey helped facilitate the U.S. engagement
with Iraq's neighbors that the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended.
We asked it to deal with Kurdistan Regional Government leader Masoud
Barzani. It has done so, getting help on the PKK problem and making
itself a more effective player in supporting the Iraqi political
process, which will be important as our own role declines. Turkey's
role in Iraq is important and positive. To be frank, it got to be
that way because American and Turkish leaders decided to overlook the
March 1, 2003 disagreement at the start of the war and found common
ground in helping Iraq stand back up. While it did not seem so simple
at the time, in effect we dusted ourselves off and moved on. That is
not a bad model for policymakers now.
Middle East
Turkey borders on Syria and the Middle East. Even before I left for
Turkey, I heard people wonder what it was doing mucking about in
Middle Eastern affairs. In the U.S. government, the people dealing
with the Middle East are generally not responsible for Turkey, which
is handled out of offices dealing with European affairs. But Ankara
is far closer to Jerusalem than Riyadh is. (For comparison, Ankara is
only a little farther from Jerusalem than Washington is from Atlanta.)
There is Ottoman baggage with Arab populations that modern-day Turks do
not talk much about, but Turkey is a Middle Eastern country. It is not
surprising that Prime Minister Erdogan is popular there - of course,
his populist rhetoric adds to that, as he intends. In any case, we
should forgive Turks for thinking that they have a role there or that
they are entitled to their own perspective. This seems especially the
case when on the most important issues - Israel's right to exist,
the goal of two democratic states, Israeli and Palestinian, living
side by side in peace and security, and the need for a negotiated
(not imposed) solution - Turkey's perspective is the same as ours.
Within Turkey, in Israel and in the West, Prime Minister Erdogan has
been criticized for his shrill rhetoric toward Israel, especially on
Gaza. Turks do not, of course, universally support his government,
but they do almost universally share his underlying view that
Israeli-Palestinian stalemate has persisted too long, that what is
happening to Palestinians is unfair, and that they need help. I was
in Turkey shortly after the "flotilla incident." I heard many views
about whether the government's backing of the Mavi Marmara was wise,
properly done or in Turkey's interest; no one I talked to, and as far
as I could tell none of the people they talked with, thought that it
was wrong.
I don't know what the way forward on Middle East peace issues is.
Clearly, Turkey's estrangement from Israel limits any role it can play
for the foreseeable future. At no time soon will Ankara again be able
to mediate between Syria and Israel -an effort that showed its value
in keeping channels open after Israel's September 2007 destruction
of the Deir ez-Zor nuclear site in Syria. It is constructive that
Senator Mitchell has included Turkey among the regional powers that
he consults with from time to time, and I hope that continues.
Caucasus
Turkey borders on the Caucasus - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. I
know that you, Mr. Chairman, other members of this committee and many
Americans have strong views about the Turkey-Armenia piece and about
history that has not been entirely accommodated. The South Caucasus is
a volatile and fragile part of the world, as Georgia 2008 reminded us.
That conflict gave impetus to reconciliation between Turkey and
Armenia. When President Sarksian and President Gul stood together in
Yerevan a month after the Russian invasion of Georgia, the two leaders
seemed symbolically to say, 'we have a vision of the Caucasus, it's
not what just happened in Georgia, and we're determined to take on the
most difficult issues between us to try to achieve it.' Unfortunately,
Armenian and Turkish leaders concluded that they could not go forward
now to ratify the protocols that called for normalizing relations
and opening the border.
I think doing so can still build the confidence needed for resolving
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and
for Turks and Armenians to deal with their past, present and future
together in a forthright manner. I hope that Congress can support that
effort. In the interest of brevity, I have omitted mention of Cyprus,
Greece, the Balkans and the Black Sea, and such other active items in
U.S.-Turkish relations as energy, terrorism, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Suffice it to say that, in my view, on each of these we want
fundamentally the same things, there are of course differences of view,
and the United States and Turkey cooperate pretty well.
Change in Turkey
I noted earlier the rhetorical question of what other American ally
borders on so many problems of such high priority to U.S. foreign
policy. Looked at another way, is there another ally that has such
a large stake in how so many problems that are so important to us
get addressed?
A Turkey that is stronger than at any time in a couple hundred
years is now inclined to try to influence events on its periphery
in ways that it was not in the past. It does so partly because it
can, but also because it is good politics. This reflects important
and positive changes in Turkey. When it comes to foreign policy,
public opinion matters in a way it did not even just a few years
ago. Decades of pro-market policies have made Turkey's the 16th
largest economy in the world. Migration from rural areas to the
cities and an expanding middle class are two other trends with huge
political implications. In this more prosperous and confident Turkey,
voters do not want their country to be a subject of others' diplomacy
or a bystander on regional issues. They want to see their country
acting. They expect their government to do so. They expect it to act
wisely, and I think one of our jobs is to help it do so.
My answer to my military friend's exasperated question, "what in
the world are we going to do with Turkey," is that we have no choice
but to work with it and work with it and work with it. It is hard,
it is frustrating, and maybe it is messy. It is harder now with a
democratic ally in which power resides in several places - and that
is in general a good thing. It is the only way to go forward and the
only way not to go back into recrimination and anger that ultimately
could put American interests in the region at risk. It requires steady
senior-level engagement, visits to Turkey by members of Congress such
as you, Mr. Chairman, and not letting differences that are mostly
tactical overwhelm our strategic interests. I thought it was highly
important that President Obama met with Prime Minister Erdogan on the
margins of the recent G-20 Summit in Toronto a month ago. According
to the account I heard, the meeting was long, and the President was
very direct, tough and critical. That is what it will take.
Thank you.
From: A. Papazian