Perspectives on Turkey (II)

Though the analysts were kind enough not to directly refer either to the prospective Armenian genocide crisis in Turkish-American relations or the possible direct and indirect impacts of growing anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism due the neo-Ottomanist sentiments in Ankara, their assessments will perhaps help the ostriches in Ankara to understand that burying their heads in sand and, because they cannot see anything going awry, pretending as if everything is on right course will help no one. Particularly, Cagaptay’s six suggestions to the Obama administration underline at the same time to potential hot potatoes (from the fight against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, to Iran and Turkey’s EU bid) what not only the Americans, but the administrators in Ankara will have to deal with in 2009.

Mark Parris

"The Obama administration should help build liberal democracy in Turkey. Threats to this progress come in different forms, such as in 2007 when the Turkish military warned the AKP (Justice and Development Party) not to change the country's secular orientation. Europe is the key to keeping Turkey on the right track."

Soner Çağaptay

"The Obama administration should engage Turkey in a multipronged initiative, though one with strong gauges, to prevent the country's slide away from the West and liberal democratic values. Washington should treat Turkey as a Western country and take six concrete steps to rebuild bilateral ties. First, Obama should maintain strong cooperation against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, including ongoing discussions with Turkey, Baghdad, and the Iraqi Kurds to this end. Since 2007, U.S. assistance to Turkey against the PKK has helped improve Washington's standing in Turkey and built mutual confidence. Second, the U.S. administration should rebuild bilateral military cooperation and emphasize NATO's role in U.S.-Turkish ties. If the Obama administration cannot win the hearts and minds of mid-level Turkish officers, Washington cannot sustain military ties with Turkey in the long term. NATO also provides a gauge with which to check Turkish foreign policy's slip away from the United States. Once Obama builds a consensus in NATO, such as a common stance on Iran, he should expect to find Turkey onboard. The third step is to counter the new anti-Western paradigm of Turkish foreign policy. This is where the Turkish leadership has to step up to the plate. Turkey sits a fence between the Middle East and the West; pro-Western and anti-Western statements carry equal weight in shaping public opinion toward the West. Accordingly, to improve the U.S. image in Turkey, the Turkish government needs to highlight for the public the two countries' commonalities, including institutions such as NATO, values such as democracy and free markets, and regional interests such as a stable Iraq. Fourth, President Obama, while renewing transatlantic ties, must convince the French president to move ahead with Turkey's EU candidacy. Fifth, economic ties and energy cooperation should be promoted to provide a "shock absorber" to the U.S.-Turkey relationship.

Ian Lesser

"With the current international market instability, the implications of getting Turkey into the EU have become more costly. With the global crisis deepening, Turkey’s accession will be seen as a greater potential burden by European countries. At this point, it will be difficult for Turkey to get the Obama administration's attention. During this period of domestic troubles, the United States might be looking for low-maintenance partnerships, and Turkey has not necessarily been an easy partner to work with. Continued convergence between Turkey and its Western partners is desirable, but Turkey should not expect miracles from the Obama administration regarding its ability to change the EU's stance on Turkey. Still, the president should make a visit to Turkey as part of his European trip to underline Turkey's European identity."