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

BEING A WORLD POWER: ILLUSIONS AND REALITIES

2009

Years after the Second World War (1939-1945), it was understood that the year 1945 meant not only the end of war but also the start of a period when new power structures were being shaped and new world powers were being emerged. It is also the year that signifies the beginning of Britain’s imperial power impoverish which was realized years later. In this paper, considering the 1946-1961 period, I will try to show why Britain changed her mind to join the European Economic Community in 1961 which she once ignored to be a part of.

My theory is that once an imperial world power, Britain could not protect her place after the Second World War (WWII) and in the time of emerging new powers that are US and USSR, she decided to link herself with the newly rising European Economic Community to strengthen her position. Throughout the paper, to support my theory, there will be several points to be emphasized such as how US and USSR became world powers after the Second World War; in which circumstances Britain lost its imperial power and how European countries gathered together and established an economically and in some respect politically rising community that grabbed attention of Britain.

In the beginning, to understand the spirit of the time, we should look closely at the post-war surroundings. After the WWII, when European countries were in poor conditions both physically and morally, many people expected Britain to take the lead in reorganizing Europe because of her wartime role (Urwin 2007, p. 18). In spite of that, Britain was highly negative about any form of integration with other European countries mostly counting on their proud wartime role and history of sovereignty-first perspective. Their understanding of foreign policy was based on relations with US and Commonwealth countries and not with devastated European countries which could possibly distract her from being a self-independent world power (Dinan 2004, p. 24). In addition, this solitary perspective of Britain can be testified from the first hand which is the British President of the time, Winston Churchill.

In 1946, Winston Churchill gave a speech at Zurich University where he clearly showed the road map of his country: “The first step is to form a Council of Europe (…) In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America and Soviet Russia must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe” (Nelsen and Stubb 2004, p. 11). Although Britain showed European countries some courage, in reality they were in need of the political leadership of Britain, due to her post-war confidence and prestige. Certainly it was a tactical mistake of British headquarters to stay passive which they paid for most years to come where US and USSR became replacing world powers (Mander 1963, p. 188).

To describe how US gained her world power status while getting rid of her isolationist policies, two striking approaches should be carefully examined. One of them was the Marshall aids, which was to help European countries that were ruined economically after the WWII. By the help of this recovery program, US was looking to establish a solid market ground for her exports by gaining companionship of European countries (ENA, Historical Events). Another initiative by US was North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which was formed for the aim of military alliance, whereby United States were now committed to Western Europe’s defense and so that continental Europeans were less dependent militarily on Britain (Dinan 2004, p. 36).

On the other hand, in the Eastern Europe, Soviet Russia already proved herself as a militarily strong country by standing still against the Nazis in the WWII. Moreover, their expansionist and aggressive ideas over Western Europe which were also supported by the rising communism ideology and her superior technological advancements comparing with the continent made them one of the Cold War actors alongside with the US. These formations were leading the world to a politically bipolarized form for many years to come which is also indicating the point I will come in the upcoming paragraphs: the decline of the Britain as a world power.

The political and economic contradictions and competition between the Cold War actors, the US and the USSR, led to not only a geographically but also a politically compressed Europe. Before coming to the reasons of Britain’s decline, I see a necessity to explain how European unification is shaped and caught attention of Britain in the late 1950s. First of all, one possible outside stimulus that brought weakened post-war countries of Europe together was the Cold War contention between US and USSR, which was fueled by initiatives such as Marshall Plan and NATO of US and the offensive and expansionist ideas of the Soviets (Mander 1963, p. 184).

Nevertheless, it was the decision and determination of European countries to form a unification that might lead them to a fresh exit from the economically and physically obscure atmosphere of that time. Consequently, the idea of supranational authority was accepted one way or another and after several theoretical debates European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was formed with the pioneering cooperation of France and Germany to help the continent compose an economically more stable ground (Urwin 2007, p. 18). This alliance continued under the formations of European Economic Community (EEC) and Euratom owing to the agreement named Treaty of Rome in 1957 (Lee 1996, p. 283).

In a narrow perspective, it can be seen that the main objective of European Unification was to provide an economical integration so the member countries might get better conditions under the regulations that facilitate the commercial relations. But more than that, although the agreements were made under the topic of “economics”, the long term aim was to establish the political unification of Western Europe (Shanks and Lambert 1962, p. 165). As a result European nations had embarked on a road which would lead in the end to all major economic and also political decisions being made on behalf of Europe as a whole (Beddington-Behrens 1966, p. 18). In addition, it was the start of a century, which was already suffered enough of wars, that economical power was now the heart of having a strong political position in the world. This unification process of European continent led to an economical and political rise in 1950s whereby Britain’s power was waning as a consequence of her post-war tactical mistakes and illusions of still being an independent world power (Hörber 2006, p. 340).

While European countries were unifying to form an economical and political influence and the US and the USSR were emerging as newly world powers, Britain, on the other hand, was experiencing a declining process which can be plainly portrayed by the consequences of two main incidents: Decolonization of Commonwealth countries and Suez Crisis. First to mention, decolonization process of Asian and African countries, which generally took place in 1940s and 1950s, was mostly encouraged by the post-war international climate and the two anti-colonialist superpowers, the US and the USSR (ENA, Historical Events).

As the perception of economically counting upon the colonized Commonwealth countries was in the core of their politics, the most effected world power from this independence trend was Britain. Not only she lost her links with countries like India that she trusted in political issues but also she lost her strength in overseas markets while the newly independent countries started to link commercial links with countries other than Britain (Lee 1996, p. 290). The United States, the anti-colonialist and triggering power of the independence trend, was now the main commercial partner of former Commonwealth countries owing to her highly developed economy and large population of 180 million people (Beddington-Bahrens 1966, p. 133).

While decolonization process of Commonwealth countries is indicating the decline of Britain’s economic power, Suez Crisis shows how Britain lost its world power status through the political consequences of the incident. After Egypt’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal in 1956, Britain and France sent troops to Egypt to gain control of the canal. Although they were militarily successful, they had to leave the Suez Canal due to the threat of nuclear bombings to London and Paris by the anti-colonialist Soviet Union. Likewise, despite being the traditional allies of the European powers, the United States did not appreciate this kind of neo-colonial diplomacy and used extreme financial and diplomatic pressure on British government through the United Nations (ENA, Historical Events). The obvious conclusion that the Suez Crisis exposed was that Britain, alongside with France, was no longer a world power, being beaten by the US and the USSR on political, economical, technological and martial circumstances (Hörber 2006, 340).

Contrasting to newly emerged world powers which are the US and the USSR and the significance of the recently unifying European countries through several economic agreements such as the Common Market, Britain soon realized that she had to increase her activities in economical aspects. After several failed attempts of Britain to make economic arrangements and form a free trade area with the six countries of the Common Market, she later established the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) with non-members of the EEC which are Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland (Dinan 2005, p. 44).

But the outcomes of the EFTA was not like Britain had desired as the EFTA members were vitally interested in trading with the rest of the world and were looking for a more integrated European market (Beddington-Behrens 1966, p. 48). In the meantime, EEC members continued their closer economical integration. As a result, the lacking free access of Britain to the necessary European markets made her notice that she could not compete with the EEC since her economical performance were far less than the members of the union (Lee 1996, p. 290).

In this atmosphere of changing power structures, Britain had to replace herself in the updated political and economical senses, in a different direction than before (Lloyd 1986, p. 373) One of the options, the most probable one which helped me construct my theory, was joining the EEC which was establishing its political unity increasingly out of economical integration. In a political atmosphere in which new and greater world powers were emerged, Britain had to change her existing perception and take a different way to stop her weakening in the political issues. Continental Europe was now a political force which Britain had to reckon and eventually she applied for membership to the EEC in 1961 (Urwin 2007, p. 24).

One question can be asked: Was joining the EEC the only option that Britain had to improve her political and economical status? Apparently it was the most sensible decision Britain made in the period of 15 years. Other than joining the EEC, one option could be strengthening links with her historical partner, the US. However it was irrational that the US, in the process of the Suez Crisis, had already shown her desire to be a world power alone without the help of Britain. On the other hand, although the USSR were showing a good perspective of being a partner that was technologically and militarily rising, the main reason that Britain had stayed away from her was the ideological difference, considering the Communist regime of the Soviets (ENA, Historical Events). The last option might be to strengthen ties with the Commonwealth countries again while it was obvious that the independence trend led an irreversible change of character for the former member nations. In the end, Britain could not reproduce her former devoted relations with the newly-independent nations anymore.

After the WWII it was the passive and non-involving presence of Britain which made a decrease in her world power. Success of the new EEC institutions alongside with the economical arrangements were the positive consequences of European countries’ progressive approaches to take their fate into their own hands, which Britain could not match. When it was most needed for her own benefit, not taking an active role in world politics and on the contrary continuing her conservative policies and unenthusiastic point of view for a supranational authority, changed Britain’s formerly esteemed position in the world politics and it was a necessity to alter her mind and apply to be a partner of EEC members where a chance of political and economical progress might appear eventually.


BIBLIOGRAPHY


Shanks, Michael and Lambert, John. 1962. Britain and the New Europe: The Future of the Common Market. London: Chatto and Windus.

Mander, John. 1963. Great Britain or Little England. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Beddington-Bahrens, Edward. 1966. Is There Any Choice? Britain Must Join Europe. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Lloyd, T. O. 1986. Empire to Welfare State. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lee, Stephen J. 1996. Aspects of British Political History 1914-1995. London: Routledge.

Nelsen, Brent F. and Stubb, Alexander. 2004. “The Tragedy of Europe” Speech of Winston Churchill at Zurich University in The European Union: Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Dinan, Desmond. 2004. "What Kind of Union" in Europe Recast. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Dinan, Desmond. 2005. "Uncertain Terrain, 1958-1972" in Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Hörber, Thomas. 2006. The Foundations of Europe, European Integration Ideas in France, Germany and Britain in 1950s. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag Für Sozialwissenschaften.

Urwin, Derek W. 2007. "The European Community: From 1945 to 1985" in European Union Politics. Michelle Cini. New York: Oxford University Press.

ENA (European Navigator). Historical Events. http://www.ena.lu/ (accessed in December 27, 2009)

ALIENATION OF A CUBAN ELITE IN THE WAKE OF REVOLUTION

2009

Most of the people see Havana as an attractive and exotic tourism center of Cuba, a center for prostitution, a backyard for honeymoons or a playground for vacations, where you can find yourself getting carried away with illicit pleasures and risky amusements. (Perez Jr, p.468) Cuba and its capital city, Havana, are more than that of course. It would be a great mistake and disrespectfulness to refer Havana as an amusement park as it was once a shocking case for the entire political world with its brave strife against U.S. hegemony. In this paper, I will first give a short summary of independence of Cuba starting in early 1900s than analyze the Cuban movie named “Memories of Underdevelopment” in the perspective of development – underdevelopment challenge of Cuban people.

To begin with, Cuba, an export oriented country with a tropical economy, lies in the south of the United States of America. Before coffee and tobacco, the most important export product of Cuba is sugar cane which Cuban economy vulnerably leans its back against. Along with the geographical importance of the island, this economic dependence on one product caused sovereignty issues several times in Cuban history, especially in the relations with U.S. and U.S.S.R.

After the Spanish-American war in the late 1800s, with the defeat of Spanish troops, Cuba declared its independency, which was ensured by the Platt Amendment signed between the U.S. and Cuba. Platt Amendment made U.S. have legal involvement in Cuban affairs in both foreign and domestic policies of the island. (Skidmore and Smith, p.261) Until 1933, the start of Batista regime, we see a number of U.S-free independency efforts in the island with some democratic try outs. With the help of United States, Fulgencio Batista ruled the country as a dictator until 1959 revolution and during this time he made the island a casino and prostitution based tourism center. During this period an economic pyramid of a large rural proletariat, a tiny middle class and a rich foreign landlords group was shaped. Beside this most of the people were suffering because of poverty and they were fed up with the Batista regime.

In 1959, under the command of Fidel Castro, a middle class member of the society with a socialist background, the revolution against the U.S. involvement in Cuba occurred. This meant the removal of U.S. forces from the island and the real independency of Cuban people over their territory. This also meant a difficult task for Castro and his friends as they took the lead of an underdeveloped and corrupt society with an economy of mainly underlying an unequally distributed possession of goods. While facing the embargo of U.S, they got close to Soviet Russia which is the cold war opposition of Americans. With the help of U.S.S.R, Cuba tried to maintain its sovereignty and get rid of underdevelopment in economic, social and political spheres through adopting communism, centralizing economy, nationalizing private institutions and building a national and independent identity.

It is not surprising that Cuba was unintentionally underpinning the tension between Cold War actors because of the island’s strategic closeness to U.S. When Cuba got close to Soviets economically and politically, it severely damaged the ongoing U.S tradition of protectionist policy which started with the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. According to this doctrine, any interventionist European power in the North and South Americas would be accepted as aggressive and let several harsh measures to be taken. Soviet relationship of Cuba meant Monroe Doctrine to be spoiled unavoidably and this indicated as a national security and integrity problem for the U.S. side. (Perez Jr, p.470) The peak of this Cuba-related Cold War tension was in 1962 when Soviet nuclear missiles were installed in the Cuban island to threaten the Americans and avoid them interfere the integrity of the island. Moreover, there is the Bay of Pigs incident in 1961, in which the unofficial U.S. troops tried to invade the island and overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro but failed. (Castaneda, p.199) These were times that Americans seemed to be obsessed with the Cuba issue and they were repeatedly overcome by Castro and his friends.

Memories of Underdevelopment, which takes place in the year 1961, is the story of a Cuban elite named Sergio who unlike many other Europeanized Cuban elites decides to stay in Cuba and not to leave his revolutionized country. In several scenes, we see that nicely dressed elite people leaving the country for the hope of a better place, better than a communist land. They probably think that Havana, the Paris of Caribbean, will now leave its European atmosphere and be a less developed, bald city. In contrast, Sergio is eager to find out what will happen next in the island. He chooses not to participate in politics but to be an obscener like a political scientist. In one scene, Elena, a 16 year old uneducated girl he seduces, states his neutral standing as being nothing: “You are neither a revolutionary
nor a counter-revolutionary. You are nothing” she says. Maybe he escapes from the possible trouble in getting into the complicated politics in Cuba, maybe he prefers to be outside and just observe or maybe he believes that he doesn’t have the power to change things but the point is that although he seems impartial, throughout the movie he questions the underdevelopment issue of his country and in a materialized and minimal way he tries to change the women he meets to be more developed.

During the movie, Sergio, the elite macho that seduces women and classifies them as developed or underdeveloped, is usually contemptuous over underdeveloped people, especially women. Feeling alienated and alone in the new political era of the island and still not leaving the country, he tries to change things in his own way. We meet with four women in his life: first one is his ex-wife who leaves him for not being as she prefers him to be; second one is his housekeeper whom he sexually dreams of; third one is Elena which is mentioned above and the last one is Hanna which he likes and misses most as she projects a more developed woman. Early in the movie one can feel that Sergio is shaping and determining his life over women and sexuality. But throughout the movie it is understood that it is the way of him reasoning development-underdevelopment challenge in his mind. He asks himself repeatedly: “How do you get rid of underdevelopment?” The point is: does he ask this question as an elite writer of the society or an elite playboy who enjoys being with women? How and where are the women situated here for him? What do they mean to him? A materialized and symbolized way of the country or a sexuality object?

The most detailed relationship that is shown in the movie is the one with Elena, the uneducated slum girl who dreams of being an artist. As Sergio loses his sexual interest of her, he starts questioning about her level of development in his standards. "She doesn't relate to things," he tells himself. "It's one of the signs of underdevelopment. Elena, like other Cuban women", he says, “has an "inability to relate to things, to accumulate experience, to develop." At that point, it is obvious that he symbolizes Cuba and the society’s underdevelopment in Elena’s prospect. He takes her to art galleries and the museum of famous writer Ernst Hemingway but cannot make her interested in these. At one point he reflects, "I discovered Elena didn't think as much as I did. I try to live as a European and she makes me feel the underdevelopment at every step." While the movie shows this dissatisfaction in many scenes, it doesn’t mention how to get rid of underdevelopment or how elites should behave to level up the underdeveloped population. Is being more involved in arts be sufficient to be more developed? Is an art gallery the place where you are developed?

In brief, Memories of Underdevelopment is the story of a frustrated Cuban elite that is stuck between his intellectual convictions and the reality of Cuban life in the wake of the revolution. His alienation from the underdeveloped society and desire to observe the newly revolution’s effects is the core of the film while the director gives us an idea about the current issues in these times using documentary cuts about Bay of Pigs invasion and missile crises. This is an admirable effort by the director who makes the audience feel the same way Sergio feels and question the society as he does. The last question in my mind about the film and Sergio is: Does his inability to keep his interest in underdeveloped women or incapacity to change them in the way he wants make him believe that he is not that powerful alone to change the country in a more developed understanding? Isn’t it possible that this parallelism make him confused and alienated?