WHEN TURKEY THREATENS TO JUMP
Ha’aretz, Israel
Nov 1 2007
"She’s going to talk primarily about the U.S.-Turkey bilateral
relationship and talk about the fact that it is a good, strong
relationship," claimed State Department spokesman Sean McCormack in
his daily briefing to the press Monday. "She" is Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice; the "talk" will happen on her trip to Turkey later
this week; and that "strong relationship" is in trouble. The Turks have
recently re-learned that they can influence America’s decision-makers
and policies, and they’re going to use that power again.
Last month, the Turks and their friends in the administration defeated
Nancy Pelosi, a determined, commanding speaker of the House.
The passage of a resolution that would label the 1915 killing of
Armenians by Ottoman Turks as "genocide" was postponed indefinitely.
Pelosi’s friends on the Democratic side of the House were kind enough
to save her from even greater embarrassment: The sponsors asked her
to delay the vote?and she agreed.
This was a political blunder. The speaker, as committed as anyone to
passing the symbolic legislation, was humiliated by an even stronger
and no less committed Turkish lobby. However – as often happens
with acts of foolishness committed by Congress – the price will
be paid by another branch of government, the executive. The check
will be submitted later this week to its senior representative,
Secretary Rice. A week later, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan will visit an even higher authority, President George Bush,
with the same purpose.
America lost twice in this congressional battle of political will?by
losing the chance to gain the high moral ground by recognizing the
Armenian tragedy and by angering an important ally. Turkey was able to
benefit twice: It defeated the bill, but it was also handed an excuse
to get angry by its earlier passage through the House foreign affairs
committee. Now it can feel justified for its somewhat vindictive mood.
America, as a Pew Global Attitudes Survey showed just last week, is not
the hottest political commodity in Ankara these days. "[N]egative views
of the United States are indeed widespread and growing in Turkey,"
the study concluded. "Only 14% [of Turks] think the U.S.
considers the interests of countries like Turkey when making foreign
policy decisions," the study found. Ankara’s demand that Washington
increase its efforts to curb a wave of terror that originates in
the Kurdish part of Iraq provides the U.S. administration with the
perfect opportunity to show that it does "consider the interests of
countries like Turkey."
The strategic relationship between Turkey and the United States
has a long and complicated history. However, Turkey’s importance to
Washington can be easily, if somewhat simplistically, summed up in
a slogan borrowed from the world of real estate: location, location,
location.
But it now has a problem, which happens to come from an area controlled
by the United States, namely Iraq. The PKK, a Kurdish terror group
dedicated to a radically separatist cause, is harassing and killing
Turkish soldiers and citizens, and Turkey wants it to stop. In the
past couple of weeks, Turkey has muttered threats of invasion, while
maintaining talks with American and Iraqi leaders.
But talk will not be enough. Washington will have to do something
about the PKK.
The problem is that the Iraqi government can make promises,
but it can’t deliver on them in the difficult northern terrain
that’s controlled by the Kurds. America might be able to do more,
but it is reluctant to use its already strained forces, and it is
reasonably afraid of destabilizing the only region in Iraq that has
been relatively calm all along.
The Pentagon isn’t happy with Turkey, which could have been far more
helpful in 2003 and since. Diplomats are also worried, as they see
the Islamist government moving away from the West and toward a more
regionally focused strategy. Relations with Israel aren’t as good as
they used to be. Commerce with Syria is well-established. Discussions
with Iran are frequent?though Turkey has no desire to hand Tehran
a victory. Ankara can even maneuver between the United States and
Russia?not that Turkey wants to help Russia, a longtime nemesis.
Turkey, it seems, has more leverage over the United States than
the other way around. It can eliminate crucial supply lines for
American forces in Iraq. It can invade Iraq. It can destabilize
it. These threats were all used by the U.S. administration?backed
up by high-ranking military commanders?to persuade Congress to back
down on Armenian genocide. These same threats will be now used on
the administration and, even more so, against reluctant CENTCOM
officials, to make them invest more effort in solving the problem of
the PKK attacks.
Iraq is your fault, anyway, the Turks say. They were better off with
Saddam Hussein’s regime?or, at least, that’s what they now claim.
Turkey was willing to stay on the sidelines while the United States
was messing with the region, but they will not be the ones to pay the
price. Not for a country that almost passed a bill condemning their
actions nearly 100 years ago.
So, Turkey successfully used its leverage against Pelosi last month,
and now?angrier but also more confident in its power to curb American
will?it is embarking on another such journey. Presumably, it still
needs the United States to deter its powerful neighbors against
possible aggression. But if Turkey was threatened by Iran or pressured
by Russia, does anyone believe that America would let it fall? Turkey
knows that Washington can’t afford such a scenario, and Washington
knows that Turkey knows it. Through the Middle East and the world,
the power of the weaker party is working against countries allied
with the United States. It is the not-so-subtle threat of "do what
I want or I will fall"?or, in the case of Turkey, jump.
A slightly longer version of this article was first published in
Slate