WHY THE UNITED STATES NEED TURKEY AS AN ALLY

2011

Introduction

Turkey and the United States (US) have been a long time ally and they had been in cooperation since 1940s. Although it does not seem like a long time relationship, both countries went through a lot of events and it seems like they will probably have to continue their relationship in the future. Since the end of the Cold War and its bipolar structure that was led by the US and the Soviet Union (USSR), the world structure is being changed by the reshaping of the structures that seems more like a multipolar one in which regional alliances and regional powers would not leave the US alone. Turkey is one of the units in this system that is emerging as a power that influences her neighborhood in diplomatic and economical channels.

In this paper, I will argue the reasons for why the US needs to stay in cooperation with Turkey and how important Turkey is for the US from a neo-realist perspective. To better explain my argument, I will first mention the historical relations between Turkey and the US from 1940s to 2000s which is to form a base for further explanations. Then you will find a part that undergoes the structural and state-level analysis that is related to the relations between Turkey and the US, again from a neo-realist approach. In this last part, I briefly explain why the US significantly needs Turkey to stay as an ally and bring two practical cases to prove the importance of this relationship.

I. Relations Between Turkey and the United States From 1940s to 2000s

Relations between Turkey and the United States seem to get actually started in 1940s after the end of the World War II. To start with, Turkey had adopted a neutral position during the war which was resulted in a smooth process on behalf of Turkey during the conflicts but in an abyss afterwards. As Turkey did not select a side and join the battle, his hand was not very strong in the negotiations of polarization between the East and the West. After the end of the war, Soviet Union showed an aggressive attitude towards Turkey on the territorial concessions regarding the 1925 Treaty of Friendship which made Turkey lean towards the United States to be protected (Turkey MFA 2011). Actually, the US and the USSR was having a micro level Cold War in the Turkey case which was resulted as a Turkey-US alliance with the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan in the first step. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan were to help Turkey and Greece in economical and military aspects against the possible Soviet aggressiveness.

Another important step was Turkey’s NATO membership in 1952 which happened in exchange for Turkey’s military contribution to the war in Korea. This was requested by the West as an opportunity for Turkey to show which side they were on. A similar incident, as an evidence of polarization and the tense relations of the US and the USSR, occurred in the Cuban Missile Crises when the Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba and the Americans placed some in the Turkish land. It was a thrilling peak of the tense relations of Cold War when two world powers were threatening each other with their nuclear war heads (Global Security 2011). During the Cold War, Turkey adopted a mission as being a safety zone in the south eastern flank of NATO and as a neighbor against the East, the Warsaw Pact countries.

Until 1974, the two sides increased their relationship rapidly in economical, diplomatic and military aspects. However, Turkey’s Cyprus intervention in 1974 became a turning point in the alliance as the United States never wanted a Turkish intervention in the island and had warned them accordingly. Thus, the intervention resulted as an arms embargo by the United States starting from 1975 and ending in 1978. Although this incident caused considerably damage in the relations, as a reflection that their alliance focused on defense and security throughout the years, they signed a Defense and Economic Cooperation Agreement in 1980 which still forms the contractual basis between the two countries (Turkey MFA 2011). During the 1990s, the economical assistance given by the US to Turkey was decreased and turned into loans. In 1997, the mutual cooperation between the two sides was formulated in five topics: energy, economy and trade, regional cooperation, Cyprus and the defense and security cooperation (Turkey MFA 2011). In 1999, they officially called each other as “strategic partners”, which meant a multi-dimensional cooperation in a wide range of topics and regions.

The relations between the two countries went tense again in 2003 when the Turkish Grand National Assembly voted against the Americans’ desire to use the Turkish lands in their military operations during the Iraq war. However they were allowed to use the İncirlik Base during their operations along with the airspace of Turkey. To improve the relations, in 2006, both sides signed an agreement called “Shared Vision and Structured Dialogue to Advance the Strategic Partnership” which was the first time the two sides attempted to build their relations in a guided way that will define and direct the scope of the cooperation (Turkey MFA 2011). The agreement and the arrangements between Turkey and the United States show that the relationship between the two sides would be multi-level and multi-faceted in several topics and regions.

II. A Structural and State Level Analysis in a Neo-Realist Perspective

To better understand the relations between the two sides and the reasons that I will present for how significantly US needs Turkey as an ally, we should first have a look at the structural and state level of analysis of today’s world. It is obvious that the world is very different compared to the 20th century’s Cold War period of bipolar structure. The change of structures also reflected in the formation and relations of states with each other. In my opinion a neo-realist approach would be proper to explain the ongoing process in a rationalist perspective. Although some other approaches, like neo-liberal or constructivist, can also be adopted to explain the contemporary integration of foreign policies of two countries, a neo-realist approach seems enough to take a picture of the stances.

One of the prominent neo-realist thinkers, Kenneth Waltz, defines the international system as a composition of structures and interacting units (states) where every unit looks to take care of his own (Waltz 1979, 79). Waltz underlines that international politics is the realm of power and struggle and continues that the relations of units and the changes in the structure are two factors that are affected by each other to finally form a new system (Waltz 1979, 79). There are two significant examples that can be shown as evidences to that explanation. First one is the end of the World War II which is resulted as the emerging new world powers that are the US and the USSR and decreasing influences of once an imperial power the United Kingdom and the European countries such as France and Germany. Another example as an evidence of changed structures and its effect on the units is the end of the Cold War when the bipolar structure of the world that is influenced by the US and the USSR ended and led to a US-led unipolarity perception at first and a multipolar reality afterwards. In today’s world, regional powers and regional alliances and their influences in the world stage creates a multipolar environment. However, not only the structures, also the actions of the units that are taking care of their own benefits are also should be analyzed.

Waltz emphasizes that “the structure of a system changes with changes in the distribution of capabilities across the system’s units” (Waltz 1979, 97) which brings us to the movements of states that are trying to maximize their benefits in a rational understanding. To better comprehend the US’ noteworthy need for Turkey’s companionship in the reshaped world structure, the new foreign policy direction of Turkey should be carefully examined. After Ahmet Davutoglu came into power as the new Minister of Foreign Affairs of the state in 2009, Turkey adopted a “zero problem with neighborhood” policy which aims for a more stabile and peaceful environment in the complex settings of her region, especially the Middle East (Uslu 2009). Thus, Turkey is aiming to build a new position for herself by acting in a proactive approach which is different than the reactive policy in the bipolar structure of the Cold War.

What Turkey accomplished can be summarized in two dimensions. First is to increase the diplomatic relations with her neighbors and even attempt to be a mediator between the countries that are in tense relations. Being a mediator between Iraq and Syria, between Israel and Syria and finally between Iran and the Western hemisphere in the nuclear proliferation issue show the intentions of Turkey’s emerging desire to be proactive in diplomatic/political sphere. This attempt, a multi-level and proactive approach, is a restructuring of Turkish Foreign Policy, which is result of the end of the Cold War and its bipolar structure of nature, and very different from the policies of the past which was generally one dimensional that was very much influenced by the Western approaches.

Another dimension is the increasing economical relations with the Middle Eastern countries and its effects. The increasing economical trade numbers with the Middle Eastern countries, emerged with her diplomatic relations, created a public opinion that Turkey is abandoning her Western-oriented stance and turning back to the East. Thomas Friedman, in his article called “Letter From Istanbul” in June 2010, questions Turkey’s new stance as she is trying to join the Arab League instead of the European Union (Friedman 2010). The reason Friedman and similar thinkers ask such a question is the increasing relations with the East that is very active compared to the past. The search for stability and peace is not only rhetoric in Turkish Foreign Policy, but it is for to create an environment in the region where the economical relations could increase due to the increased stability and prosperity. It is important to remember that increasing trade numbers with the East does not necessarily mean a decrease with Western relationship. Also the energy related relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and especially Russia is an attempt to increase her alternatives in that topic. I firmly believe that what Turkey is trying to do is increasing her alternatives and maximizing her benefit which is quite understandable from the neo-realist perspective of Waltz. In addition, James Jeffrey, the former US ambassador in Turkey, shares this observation in his report to the government that is published by the Wikileaks: “Does all this mean that the country is becoming more focused on the Islamist world and its Muslim tradition in its foreign policy? Absolutely. Does it mean that it is "abandoning" or wants to abandon its traditional Western orientation and willingness to cooperate with us? Absolutely not” (Wikileaks 2010).

III. The Reasons for the Need of Turkey’s Alliance

In this part, I will try to analyze the reasons for why US needs Turkey to stay as an ally and how important Turkey’s alliance is for the US. As I have mentioned above, the world is different than the 20th century’s bipolar structure. Today’s world presents us the importance of emerging powers from different parts of the world that acts their foreign policies both alone and in regional alliances. Rise of the countries like China, India, Brazil and Russia alongside with Turkey and Iran and also the increasing enlargement and deepening of the European Union are reshaping the structures in a multipolar way instead of the unipolarity of US leadership. The rise of the alliances is a result of the power gap against the US due to the collapse of the USSR which urged several countries to establish multi-level cooperations with other countries.

The United States, who have long term plans for the Middle East region due to its energy resources, need Turkey as an ally in the region. I firmly believe that the reasons for the US to stick to her alliance with Turkey lie in Turkey’s Western and Eastern identities. Since her foundation, Turkey has a Western inclination with her institutions and shared values with the West. As a result, Turkey is the only country in the East that had adopted a Western approach other than Israel. On the other hand Turkey shares a common historical and religious background with the Eastern countries which makes her closer to the East at the same time. Thus, this double identity, which Turkish Foreign Policy officials seems to had realized and had been acting accordingly in their increasing proactivity, makes Turkey an invaluable asset for the US. First, the US can sit on the table with Turkey due to their shared values of West and second, Turkey can be a very good ally in relations with the Middle East due to her shared history and religion with the East. Actually, James Jeffrey summarizes Turkey’s situation very well: “Turkey will remain a complicated blend of world class "Western" institutions, competencies, and orientation, and Middle Eastern culture and religion” (Wikileaks 2010).

To draw the importance of Turkey on behalf of the US, apart from underlining the shared values of Western tradition and closeness to the East, I believe that an addition of practical incidents also should be observed. For this purpose, I selected two cases that US need the alliance and assistance from Turkey which are a) the implementation of NATO’s nuclear missile shield and radar system in Europe and Turkey and b) filling the power gap in the Iraq for the good of the US after they accomplish their withdrawal from the area. In both cases, due to the emerging multi-level structure of the world, the US does not have the power to accomplish alone.

It is not like the one in the Cold War but nuclear proliferation of Iran is still counted as a threat by the Western world and especially by the US. Nobody officially declare the possible threat from Russia but she also possesses the nuclear power that can be a threat in the future. In 2010, NATO, which seems to regenerate its influence by aiming international terror instead of the Soviet threat in the Cold War, agreed on a nuclear missile shield in Europe and a radar system in Turkey. The final details are not accomplished but the summary of the meeting was that a Western desire to unite against any serious nuclear threat from the East was occurred. Turkey accepted his part for the defense and underlined her possible importance for the Western world and the US against any threat from the East. The significance Turkey pointed out that she has the geographical importance which is being the link between the West and the East. As a result, Turkey’s geopolitical importance makes her such an ally that cannot be abandoned.

Second case is about the withdrawal of US troops and political influence from Northern Iraq and the probable power gap that can occur as a result. There are three prominent groups in Iraq which are Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. All these three groups need to compromise among themselves in order achieve in important issues like reconstruction of the country, sharing the resources, forming the government and also reshaping and stabilizing the bureaucracy. The United States’ military withdrawal does not mean they will be abandoning their purposes in the region and they will be in need of an influent ally which, the most probable, is Turkey. Many reports claim that Shias can be close with Iran and Sunnis can be close with the Arab world, whereas Kurds might be willing to cooperate with Turkey to further their stability and interconnection with the West (Rudaw 2010). David L. Phillips, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, supports the relations between Turkey-Kurdish Regional Government (KRG): "The KRG has been prudent by developing close diplomatic and commercial ties with Turkey. Ankara is an important strategic partner and acts as a counter-weight to Baghdad. The KRG should continue to strengthen those ties while maintaining constructive relations with others" (Rudaw 2010).

As it can be seen from these two cases, from a rationalist/neo-realist perspective Turkey can play a significant role to help the US achieve her goals which are to continue her influence in the complexity of the Middle East region and to have a defense mechanism that is like an alliance against any possible threats of violence. Furthermore, Turkey’ increasing activism in the Middle East region with the combination of Western linkages make her an invaluable ally for not only above mentioned two cases, but also for the future incidents. It was not the purpose of this paper to draw a frame for possible advantages of the US’ alliance for Turkey but needless to say that US support means a lot for Turkey in relations with Cyprus, Caucasus, Russia, European Union and Israel. Again, from the neo-realist perspective, there are many things that US can offer to Turkey in exchange for her benefits.

Conclusion

Throughout the paper, I argued about the importance of Turkey as an ally for the US and the reasons for the US to stick to his alliance with Turkey. From a neo-realist perspective, the change in the structures after the end of the Cold War resulted in multipolarity in the world where several soft/middle powers and regional alliances emerged. Turkey, as a country that share the Western traditions and institutions alongside the common history and religious background with the Middle Eastern countries, is a very important ally for the US as she is increasing her alternatives and maximizing her benefit through her “zero problem” policy. Turkey’s increasing diplomatic and economical relations with her neighbors make her a prominent actor in the region where the US needs a powerful ally in several issues.



Bibliography

Friedman, Thomas. 2010. Letter From Istanbul. The New York Times. Accessed January 16. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/opinion/16friedman.html

Global Security. 2011. Cuban Missile Crisis. Accessed January 16. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/cuba-62.htm

Turkey MFA (Ministry of Affairs). 2011. Turkish-US Political Relations. Accessed January 16. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkish-u_s_-political-relations.en.mfa

Rudaw. 2010. US Withdrawal Will Leave Iraqi Kurds More Dependent on Neighbors. Accessed January 16. http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurds/3142.html

Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Wikileaks. 2010. What Lies Beneath Ankara’s New Foreign Policy. 10ANKARA87. Accessed January 16. http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2010/01/10ANKARA87.html

Uslu, Emrullah. 2009. “Ahmet Davutoglu: The Man behind Turkey's Assertive Foreign Policy” The Jamestown Foundation, March 25. Accessed January 13, 2011. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34754

WHAT TO EXPECT FROM TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY IN 2011

2011

Although there is an optimistic way of thinking on the behalf of Turkey’s foreign policy steps due to its growing influence in her Eastern borders or Obama administration’s efforts for restoring trust through phone calls, nobody can assure that 2011 will be an easy and comfortable year for Turkish state officials. The reason Turkey is emerging as a significant regional player is not that simply she is between West and East but her significant economic and diplomatic influence especially in the Middle East. It seems that 2011 will bring many topics in Turkish foreign policy agenda such as stability of Iraqi government, Israeli tension, Iranian nuclear proliferation, Armenia relations and European Union membership.

Since Ahmet Davutoglu came into power as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2009, Turkey adopted a “zero problem” strategy with its neighbors. This proactive change is a step forward for Turkey to a more influential attitude in the region but the economic advancements and relations with Middle East members tell us that zero problem policy is a product of economic motivations. Nevertheless, the search for a more stable and peaceful environment in her East would mean a lot for Turkey in 2011 especially in reestablishment in Iraq. Compared to European investors, Turkish companies seem more comfortable in doing business in risky atmosphere of Iraq. The continuity of the newly formed Iraqi government will be a key issue for advancements of Turkish industry in the post-war region and the Turkish government will be having an important role for developing relations with her Iraqi colleagues in 2011.

Tension with Israel seem not to be decreasing as Turkey’s demands for an apology and compensation for “Mavi Marmara” deaths will probably not be answered by the Israeli government. Although the history and context of Turkey-Israel relations is big enough not to be replaced easily, Turkish Prime Minister’s aggressive statements to Israel make him a popular figure in the Middle East countries and this motivation seems enough to stand firm in the confrontation. In addition, Iran’s nuclear proliferation is another sensitive issue for Turkey to act wisely as a nuclear-muscled Iran is a sure threat to Turkey more than to US or Europe. At the end of January, Turkey will host a United Nations Security Council meeting that is about sanctions on Iran and despite the fact that Turkey will not a have a word in the meetings, still it will be a good event to further the bilateral and multilateral relations about the issue.

Efforts to normalize relations with Armenia is another topic in the agenda which will help the region stabilize especially for energy transportation. Protocols and agreements in 2009 was a good step for both countries as it was a good way to silence the Armenian lobbies across the ocean. Still, Turkey insists for a resolution of disputes between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to further the negotiations. The solution in this issue is important due to the fact that Azerbaijan is a significant neighbor for Turkey as she is an energy partner supported with ties of kinship. Besides, Armenia relations have a sensitive reflection in EU membership as Armenia is included in European Neighborhood policy. Furthermore the weakening relations of Turkey and EU which leads many people think that Turkey is shifting to the East. The fact is, Croatia, that is started membership negotiations with Turkey in 2005, is planning to successfully close all the chapters of negotiations in the first part of 2011. On the contrary, Turkey only managed to close one of the chapters and this insufficiency may lead Turkey to form her policy accordingly and maybe permanently in 2011.

I intentionally did not mention the role of United States above since the long-lasting relationship between US and Turkey seems to continue necessarily due to Turkey’s position to support policies of US in the region. The year 2011 have enough reasons for Turkish Foreign Policy not to decrease the tempo of 2010. The influential and proactive role that Turkey adopted will bring a need for stability and peace not just outside but also inside the boundaries and it is for certain that the increasing number of issues and problems that are mentioned above can have either a restraining or propelling role in Turkish Foreign Policy in 2011.

TURNING TO THE EAST: ILLUSION OR REALITY?

2011

Nowadays it is very popular to observe Turkey’s new role as a politically mediating and economically influential country in the Middle East. Since Ahmet Davutoglu came into power as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2009, Turkey adopted a foreign policy called “zero problem with neighbors” and this policy needed a proactive approach from the Foreign Policy officials in political and economical grounds. Despite their rise in the region, Turkey is heavily questioned for if they are shifting towards East and leaving their Western tendency that is embraced since the foundation of the Turkish Republic. The New York Times writer Thomas Friedman, a three times Pulitzer winner, is one of the doubters and he expressed his fears of Turkey’s leaning towards East in his article called “Letter from Istanbul” on June 15, 2010.

What Friedman heavily underlines is that once an antidote to “Bin Ladenism” due to her secular and democratic but also Muslim approach, Turkey is now turning from West to East for sure and there are mainly three reasons for this transformation which are the negative attitude of European Union, the possibility of being the leader of the Arab world and the need for being strong inside the borders. Although I am convinced that there are reasonable points to believe that Turkey seems to be shifting, structural changes since the end of the cold war and the emerging economic activities of Turkey with her neighbors made people question the issue. These two points were in fact the steps for increasing the number of alternatives and enlarging the capabilities for Turkey which was once only the ally of the United States. To better explain my argument, I will be partly referring to the neo-realist perspective and articles from Kenneth Waltz, Mustafa Aydın and Dietrich Jung.

The main argument in Friedman’s mentioned article is change of approach adopted by Turkey in which he claims that “Turkey’s Islamist government seemingly focused not on joining the European Union but the Arab League”. That’s a bit exaggerated but what he means briefly is that Turkey is shifting from West to East. According to him, first reason for this change is the negative attitude of the EU in the aspect of membership of Turkey despite her efforts to match the conditions. Secondly, the absence of a leader country in the Middle East is a motivation for the Turkish government to turn his back to the West. It is certain that being in a confrontation with Israel brings a reputation to Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. Lastly, the motivation to stay strong in the domestic sphere leads the government’s aggressive actions against the press and the army and acts for domestic popularity by accusing Israel in public speeches. My opinion for Turkey’s appearance of shifting East is different than Friedman’s, which I will explain through the structural changes and the growing economic relations of Turkey in the neighborhood.

To understand the international picture for the moment and Turkey’s position in it, we should first look at the neo-realist writings of Kenneth Waltz. He explains the international system as a composition of structures and interacting units (states) where every unit looks to care of his own. Waltz underlines that international politics is the realm of power and struggle and continues that the relations of units and the changes in the structure are two factors that are affected by each other to finally form a new system. “The structure of a system changes with changes in the distribution of capabilities across the system’s units” he writes, which brings us to Turkey’s efforts to maximize her capabilities by improving her relations with her neighbors. The last turning point in the 20th century is certainly the end of the Cold War which led the system from a bipolar to unipolar and finally to a multipolar stage. The US, the leader in the unipolarity, could not prevent the rise of regional alliances and new regional actors which brought us to a new distribution of capabilities.

I firmly believe that Turkish Foreign Policy is newly defining her role in this changed structure which led her to reposition herself between the West and the East. It seems that US has to compromise more than before, compared to the Cold War period aggressiveness of hers. That reestablishment is both the reason and the product of the newly emerging regional powers such as China, Russia, Brazil or Turkey. Turkey, once a pro-Western oriented country, is now trying to strengthen her hand by forming relationships with Russia, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Here I join Friedman’s thoughts that European Union’s unwillingness made Turkey look elsewhere which led not a leaning towards East in Turkish Foreign Policy but to an increasing alternatives and maximizing of benefits.

A proactive role in both diplomatic and economic spheres especially in the Middle East region seems to be the new approach but growing relations with Russia, Africa and the other parts of the world also cannot be denied. Though it is said to be the extension of Western approach, it is a fact that Turkey used to be an active member in the Middle East during 1950s when she was leading the Baghdad Pact and Middle East Defense Organization. So what makes people think that Turkey is different than before and closer to the East? The difference is the growing trade numbers and the interactions between Turkey and the Middle East countries. Turkey has enlarged his market enormously compared to the past and for now European Union countries are not the only buyers of Turkish products and services. Thus, Turkey is looking for a “zero problem” policy of stability and peace to further her economic relations with the East in a consistent way.

However I understand the concerns of the West about Turkey’s inclination to the East as the current Turkish government using an appropriate language and set of discourses to be engaged with the Middle East. As Jung tells in his article that Turkey was being perceived as a traitor in the region due to her Ottoman past of domination over Arabs and republican approach of adopting a secular system and redefining the role of Islam in the country. Today, Turkish government is seen as an Islam-oriented and conservative government with its proper set of behaviors and discourses. In addition, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is seen as a hero in the region after his speeches about the Turkey-Israel confrontation. Nevertheless, unlike Friedman, I would say that Turkey is not aiming to join the Arab league and leave the West but to increase the benefit, maximize the capability and create a suitable atmosphere for healthy economic relations. It is certain that abandoning relations with European countries would not maximize the capabilities of Turkey.

To summarize, I firmly believe that Turkey’s efforts of maximizing her capabilities and increasing the number of alternatives to interact cannot be seen as an inclination to the East as Thomas Friedman suggested in his article. In my opinion, structural changes since the end of the Cold War resulted in a new form of relations where the regional alliances and actors became influent. Furthermore, Turkey seems to be discovering her new role in the region newly and trying to be more proactive compared to past. This policy needs a more peaceful environment that will result in more stable economic relations between the countries in the region. It is for certain that Turkey cannot not leave Europe and the West in a heartbeat as some huge part of her roots lies in that hemisphere with a serious engagement of economic and diplomatic relations. I underline that Turkey’s turning back to East is just a illusion of her maximizing benefits and alternatives based on increasing diplomatic and economic relations with the Middle Eastern countries.

TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY IN THE EYES OF THE UNITED STATES

2010

On 28th of November 2010, Wikileaks, a voluntary organization that is aimed to reveal the secrets of governments to the public, started publishing documents of reports between US state officials, US bureaucrats and US embassies. Although it is active since 2007 and despite its successful revealing leaks on subjects like abuse and violation in Iraq and Afghanistan since then, no one (publicly and governmentally) discussed the organization’s efforts like that before. There are more than 250.000 documents to be published by Wikileaks and only a small portion of it was published since now which was enough to make a world-wide controversy. There are leaks from several US embassies in the world such as Madrid, Tel-Aviv or Buenos Aires but the Turkish Embassy of US in Ankara seems to be the Achilles’ heel as there are like 8.000 documents revealed from Ankara which is the biggest number among other embassies.

Throughout the published ones of 8.000 documents from Embassy Ankara, it can be seen that the aim of US officials in Ankara was to give an insight information of AKP government, bureaucrats and Turkey’s Foreign Policy approach to the US Secretary of State. There are some important comments about Turkish Foreign Policy in the documents, which are mainly focused on the arguable Neo-Ottoman posturing of Turkey based on her active diplomatic and economic efforts in the complex regions of Asia and Europe but especially in the Middle East. In this paper, I will evaluate a document written by Embassy Ankara on 20th January 2010 which is about Turkey’s recent foreign policy direction and its motivations.

To mention first, Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Foreign Minister since May of 2009, is the leading figure in Turkey’s active foreign policy efforts. With his “zero-problem” policy, Turkey is looking for creating balance in the complicated atmosphere of Middle East. Turkish officials are aiming for a pivotal role in the region and for that reason they increased the frequencies of visits to Iraq, Iran, Syria and several Arab countries. Nevertheless the bounds with European Union and United States are not broken and as a result, one may say that Turkey is far from having a pure identity as she is stuck between West and East. However this complexity helps Turkey build a calculated value-maximizing effort in international relations. Simply, Middle East countries respect Turkey because of her link with the West and Western countries respect Turkey because of her link with the East.

In the article called 10ANKARA87, published by Wikileaks, the former US ambassador James Jeffrey draws not only a comprehensive but also a simple framework of the recent Turkish Foreign Policy in addition to possible complications for the US side. In the introduction part of his report, he emphasizes the emerging desire of Turkey to be independently proactive, supported with an Islamic orientation. He summarizes the recent appearance of Turkey which was mostly Western oriented in the past: “Does all this mean that the country is becoming more focused on the Islamist world and its Muslim tradition in its foreign policy? Absolutely. Does it mean that it is "abandoning" or wants to abandon its traditional Western orientation and willingness to cooperate with us? Absolutely not.”

In his report, Jeffrey writes about the recent disturbances of Turkish elites and European Union members about Turkey’s orientation toward the East and Islamization. According to Jeffrey’s hearings, Turkish elites seem to be disturbed of the possible drift from Western world and EU seems to be disturbed of being a part of AKP’s Christian vs Muslim or Europe vs Middle East separation campaign. However, Jeffrey never mentions about a disadvantage for US in this separation. Despite the fact that US never desires an Islam Republic in Turkey as their companionship is built upon the Western-oriented perspectives and institutions, Jeffrey welcomes the option of sharing responsibility of the region with Turkey. As a result, US does not react Turkey in a negative manner for using Islam as a tool or ideology as long as they stay strong enough to help Americans in the Middle East. However a loss of control, such as losing the air space or Incirlik base, would be unacceptable for US.

Furthermore, another aspect of the recent Turkey Foreign Policy that makes US uncomfortable is Turkey’s Neo-Ottoman posturing around the Middle East and the Balkans. There is a quote from Davutoglu’s thesis in the report: “the Balkans, Caucasus, and Middle East were all better off when under Ottoman control or influence; peace and progress prevailed. Alas the region has been ravaged by division and war ever since.” On the other hand, Jeffrey claims that despite her active foreign policy and economic growth, Turkey still does not have enough power to compete with the region’s leading states like US, Russia or Iran. According to him Turkey is in need of an underdog to call for a help from her and show her capabilities as a result. This is a very good observation and it should be added that until that time Turkey will still be in need of the protection and support of Western countries. Actually Jeffrey simply summarizes Turkey’s condition with a metaphor and describe Turkey as a Rover with Rolls Royce dreams.

What US really wants from Turkey, apart from calming down the tension with Israel, is to draw Syria from Iran and begin achieving practical results, not just phone calls and conversations. Turkey is in calm relations with Iran and not opposing her strictly due to the nuclear power issue makes Turkey the only major country that is in friendly discussion with Iran. In return, US expects from Turkey to benefit from this positive relationship and be more demanding from Iran in Security Council meetings, to stop her nuclear progress.

To sum up, it is obvious that the changing direction of the Turkish Foreign Policy is being carefully observed by the US officials. Their arguments are mostly reasonable and it seems that US will not be interfering in Turkey’s turning back to East, whether in a Neo-Ottoman posturing or not, as long as they do not let go of the Western traditions and companionship of US, which is not a rational choice by the way. Actually, James Jeffrey summarizes Turkey’s situation very well: “Turkey will remain a complicated blend of world class "Western" institutions, competencies, and orientation, and Middle Eastern culture and religion.”

HAND-MADE SUPERIORITY

2010

“Bismillahirrahmanirrahim (Beginning with the name of God)”. That, starting the essay with calling the name of God, may sound a bit unusual for those who expect a more or less academic paper. But in my humble opinion, it will most probably attract attention while criticizing New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and his essay named “One Country, Two Worlds”. Friedman, as a very good writer in the meaning of drawing readers’ attention with a smooth and remarkable bunch of words, is likely to be mistaken to state his arguments on globalization by using a politically incorrect and practically unacceptable language and perspective in the mentioned article. In this paper, I will discuss how he is incorrect in his perceptions that he oversimplified and generalized Egyptian people and their traditions while making a comparison of them with Western traditions and as a result forming an imaginary Western superiority.

He starts the column with two images that grabbed his attention during his visit in Egypt. One is “the cell-phone symphony” as he calls, which happens in a train riding from Cairo to Alexandria. He underlines his discomfort with ringing phones and people talking with them. For me it is a bit ridiculous as cell-phones may be ringing publicly in every country and Europe as well and additionally people carry cell-phones in order to use them outside of their home. I seriously think that this perception is a way of lowering Egyptian and so-called Eastern portrait. Then he sees some Egyptian villagers from the train using old-style tools to work on their fields and makes a comparison between this and the technological cell-phone symphony. The fact is that it is probably more practical and cheaper to use tools that are not machinery in a small field. But he is most likely in a self-deception that every moment he experiences in this “Eastern” country seems annoying to him and they are like opportunities for him to create an inferior picture while comparing them with globalized and technological Western culture.

Second one is his encountering with the elevator operator, who is also described by him as a peasant earning money in a state building, and his praying before pushing the elevator button. He creates a link between Islamist practices and daily life traditions of one region and as a result he draws a conclusion that it is a dichotomy where technology and inferiority come together to form a “One Country, Two Worlds”. He creates a vision that dichotomy happens only in Eastern countries not in Western ones and only inferior people use a language of religion or God. On the contrary, people say “God bless you” to each other when they sneeze in both Christian and Islamist traditions. Besides it is written “In God we trust” in the American dollar and many state buildings in which there should be no linkage of God as those are irrelevant, the state institutions and the belief systems.

From those examples he comes to the point that globalization is a need for Eastern people but it is a difficult project to make real as, in his perception, Eastern people are communal and on the other hand globalization needs an individualistic sphere. He blames Islamist traditions and Eastern practices while explaining his argument that it is difficult for people who live in “two worlds”. In reality what he is doing is making a picture of inferior East and superior West by using an oversimplifying and generalizing language. In his opinion, although it is not very easy to adopt, he sees Eastern people’s emancipation with implementing globalization and its principles which are concepts of Western traditions. That is clearly a way of creating the thought of “superior West” by using religion, traditions and practices.

In conclusion, what he fundamentally lacks is his objectivity and his emotional arguments while creating a link between globalization, religion and culture and to leave rest of the possible variables aside. What he accomplishes with this essay is not only an inferior portrait of Eastern culture in the eyes of readers, but more than that, a superior Western culture which rhetorically has a ego to be fulfilled repeatedly.