Turkey's political stock has plummeted in Washington over the last few weeks. For decades Turkey was widely viewed as a reliable Nato ally, prickly at times but safely in America's corner. Now, suddenly, it is being denounced as a turncoat, a "frenemy", a defector from the coalition of the virtuous and budding convert to to the Islamist cause.
This sudden turnabout is an emotional misreading of an evolving strategic relationship. Turkey is a new player on the global scene and has made some diplomatic missteps in recent weeks, but its new activism is actually positive for the United States. Both countries share long-term strategic goals and have open, democratic societies. By cooperating, they can achieve more in the Middle East than either can achieve alone.
Turkey's key interest in the region is the same as America's: stability. Only in a stable region can Turkey's economy continue to boom. For the US, only stability will allow the withdrawal of combat forces from the region, assure energy security, and calm tensions that stoke terror. So any policy that helps calm the Middle East is good for both countries.
That sounded fine until Turkey's desire to calm regional crises led it to Tehran.
Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva of Brazil thought they did the US a favour by negotiating the framework of a nuclear deal with Iran last month. But instead of welcoming the accord as a foundation for future talks, the Obama administration angrily rejected it as a transparent ploy by Iran, and suggested that the two leaders who brokered the deal were bumpkins who had been fooled by crafty Iranians.
Anger at Turkey escalated after a privately owned Turkish vessel challenged the Israeli occupation of Gaza, setting off a confrontation in which Israeli commandos killed nine Turkish nationals.
This was offered as further evidence that Turkey is turning on its old friends, not just in the US but in Israel. But the breach between Turkey and Israel is mainly over the occupation of Gaza, which has outraged prime minister Erdogan and many Turks; it is not part of a larger Islamist or anti-Israel policy.
Erdogan bears some of the blame for last week's tragedy on the high seas. He abandoned his government's proclaimed policy of conciliation and chose confrontation instead. Now Turkey is in a state of national outrage, and that is never a good time to make calm, forward-looking decisions.
Yet by showing its independence from Washington, Turkey has further strengthened its credibility in the Middle East. This credibility can be a strategic asset for the west, because Turkish diplomats can go places, talk to factions and make deals that Americans cannot. Yet the US has not been able to take advantage of it.
That is because beneath the new tension in American-Turkish relations lies a deep conceptual disagreement that goes beyond Iran or Gaza. It is over the best way to approach geopolitics, particularly in the Middle East.
Fearing the effect of violence and upheaval, Turkey seeks to resolve regional problems through diplomacy and compromise. It opposes sanctions on Iran and insists, to Washington's consternation, that there is still a diplomatic alternative.
Turks insist that the world is changing in profound ways, and that if the US wants to ease the fiendishly interlocked Middle East crises, it should take a new, more co-operative approach. To some in Washington, that smacks of surrender. They see the Turks as useful idiots or worse.
Would Turkey have developed such an independent approach to the Middle East if the European Union had not slammed the door in its face? Perhaps not, because a Turkey firmly anchored in Europe might have focused its global energies in that direction. By pushing Turkey away, the EU gave Turkish leaders reason to rethink their Eurocentric approach to the world.
Whatever the effect of Turkey's new foreign policy direction, it is not fixed for all time. It has changed considerably over the last decade, and the same could happen in the decade to come. National elections are expected next year. Panicking too quickly about one leader's impulses is unnecessary in a democratic state where alternation in power is an established tradition.
Good ties between Turkey and the US serve the cause of regional peace. So do good ties between Turkey and Israel. All three countries should do whatever necessary to salvage this "power triangle".
No comments:
Post a Comment