Although Barack Obama’s special interest in the Islamic world in general and Turkey in particular in order to improve America’s terrible image in the region motivated me initially to write this column, behind the scenes, there are even more serious reasons.
As I mentioned in my previous article, we should start with realities rather than wishful thinking. There are two realities that we must recognize. The first is that, at least theoretically speaking, Turkey has been one of the most important strategic partners of the US during and after the Cold War era.
The second fact is that the highest level of antipathy in the world toward the US is in Turkey. Even in Iraq, which was invaded by the US, people do not have the same levels of antipathy toward the US as Turks hold. This situation not only contradicts what we know about the concept of “strategic partnership” but also poses an unsustainable political and social atmosphere. I am going to list the major factors in this deepening gap between theoretical argument and realities.
I must start with the argument that the cost of partnership with the US has been immeasurable when compared to its benefits. First of all, partnership with the US has not brought democracy to Turkey. Since the 1960s, when our strategic partnership started with the US, two direct and several indirect military coups took place. Although the US propagates the superiority of democracy over authoritarian regimes through the media, such as through Foreign Policy magazine, in reality, the attitude about the US government in peripheral countries is somewhat to the contrary. In fact, it is widely believed that military coups took their legitimacy from our American partners. Military aggressions not only hindered Turkey’s development but also deteriorated Turkey’s image to the extent that many began to view the country as a “banana republic.” The reason behind this conflicting attitude of the US is the fact that their worldwide policies have been unable to stimulate the public’s support.
Therefore the cost of democracy to America is higher both in terms of money and time. That is why democracy is seen as a luxury good for citizens of the Middle East, where America has supported severe authoritarian and fundamentalist regimes in the last half century.
However, the consciousness in Turkey calling for democracy and liberties is quite strong due to the Ottoman system, where multiple ethnic, religious and cultural elements were kept together in peace for long centuries. The patrimonial order of the Ottomans created a strong sense of ontological existence. It seems that America is quite opportunistic in terms of civil liberties in Turkey. That is to say, rather than behaving according to the “principles,” the American side is creating a portfolio among the “potential winners” in Turkey and playing all their cards strategically with those groups. Independent of the winner, in this parading, the real,
However, Turkey’s level of development, per capita gross domestic product (GDP), access to technology, diversified media channels, rising unfulfilled demands of its young generations, hatred towards the “gerontocracy” and, in short, Turkey’s degree of openness and integration with the world forces the US to make their final decision in favor of democracy rather than “playing with the cards.” So, the first lesson is that the American side should decisively and openly support democracy and civil liberties in Turkey and help us get rid of “Cold War garbage,” which infiltrated almost every segment of our state as well as social apparatus and which resulted in isolation and the image of “banana republic” throughout our society as well as underdevelopment.
The second cost is related to the economy. Almost every kind of American good and service, including finance, durables and high-tech products, are flowing into Turkey without any restriction. Turkey is one of the biggest customers of the American defense industry. Turkey is highly dependent on the US in this sector, and the cost burden on the society is immeasurable. Among the weapons Turkey buys from US suppliers are not only high-tech products but also others that are almost obsolete. Turkey is not, however, entirely free in the use of American-manufactured weaponry and moreover strictly dependent in terms of their maintenance.
America is quite away from Turkey. Turkey’s major export goods to America are quite well known: Only textiles, provided that Turkish textile producers can compete with Chinese, Indian, Southeast Asian, Middle Eastern, African and Latin American countries. However, import quotas imposed by the US on Turkish products prevent fair competition. In order to bypass this unfair restriction, Turkish producers are moving to Egypt, Romania and Pakistan — all countries America does not have import quotas for. However, as the business environment is not currently favorable, many of these Turkish businessmen’s attempts failed.
Moreover, Turkey is a tourism country. America does not rank among the top five countries whose citizens visit Turkey, as Turkey is not well known as a tourist destination there. Turkey is known as a country that supports America when there is a war, clash or conflict, whether in Korea, Afghanistan, Sudan or in the Middle East. If Turkey is reluctant, however, Turkey’s adherence to the strategic alliance is heavily criticized.
Over the last several decades Turkey has paid millions of dollars to American lobbying companies just to prevent Armenians’
To recall, unlike Turkey, with a population of 70 million and occupying a strategic position, historically showing her “obedience” to the US, Armenia is a very small, poor and mountainous country that was part of the Soviet paradigm during the Cold War era. However, Turkey is not fighting with this small, negligible country in the Kremlin, or in Russia’s Duma, but in the capital of our strategic partner — that is, Washington, D.C., even in the White House itself. If you ask, they will say that America is the country of competition not only in the market of goods and services, but also in politics. Turkey must compete with Armenians by lobbying effectively.
However, in the language of citizens on the street, this explanation and reasoning will not go beyond simple “cacophony.”
IBRAHIM OZTURK / Today’s Zaman
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
