“Turkey’s Competing Visions”
A luncheon discussion with Prof. Ilter Turan of Istanbul Bilgi University and Dr. Ron Asmus of the German Marshall Fund
June 17, 2003
As a result of the crisis over Iraq, Turkish-American “strategic partnership” is shaken fundamentally. Washington no longer views Turkey as an “indispensable” ally. For its part, Ankara is trying to consolidate competing visions for Turkey’s future to remain a pivotal player in its region. At a luncheon at The Nixon Center, Professor Ilter Turan argued that Turkey will remain committed to its pro-Western vision. Dr. Ron Asmus claimed that given US priorities in Eurasia and the Middle East, Turkey could become an even more important strategic partner for the United Stated. Zeyno Baran, Director of International Security and Energy Programs, moderated the discussion.
Non-viability of Pan-Turkist and Pan-Islamist Visions
Professor Turan argued that there have always been political currents in the Turkish body politic advocating alternative directions to Turkey’s European vision. While these alternatives—pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism—have affected Turkey’s foreign policy, they have never changed its fundamental direction. In fact, he noted, “Turkey is not looking for a new policy direction but is going through a painful adjustment period as it deals with the challenges globalization.” He underscored that the difficulties are directly related to Turkey’s western oriented policy as they are “challenging the traditional republican understandings of national sovereignty and distribution of power.”
Assessing the impact of pan-Islamism, Turan said that modern Turkey has become a western oriented state that does not identify with Islam as a foreign policy guide. In fact, he claimed, Islam has been dysfunctional for the nation-state; “there is no such a thing as an Islamic model with its institutions, common understandings and traditions. What one more often finds in Islamic countries are divisions, rivalries, enmities and even wars.” Turan asserted that with various forces work at cross purposes, the Islamic countries do not constitute a center of power. Moreover, it is not clear that they would welcome a Turkish contribution.
On pan-Turkism, Turan noted that when the Turkic states of the Soviet Union became independent, it quickly became clear that they did not see themselves as constituting a community. They had rivalries, disagreements and widely different orientations. Though all were weak states, both economically and politically, none were interested in Turkish leadership—they simply wanted cooperation and support.
More recently some in Turkey have expressed the desire to form an alliance with Russia and Iran; however, Turan did not believe this to be a real option for Turkey—for historic reasons as well as current economic and political realities.
Turkey may become more important for the new US agenda…
Dr. Asmus argued that the Middle East is emerging as the major challenge for the transatlantic relationship, and that Turkey could be an important ally to both the US and Europe in addressing it. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the center of gravity in US priorities has changed, he stated, and now “our new challenge is democratization and transformation of the countries of this region,” which he believed meant a commitment of about two generations.
Asmus cautiously drew a parallel between West Germany’s role during the Cold War—as a model to East Germans and therefore a challenge to Communism—and Turkey’s significance to efforts to promote democracy in the Islamic world. He noted that some Turkish leaders have embraced this mission, such as Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, who stated that Turkey could be an “example” for the Muslim world.
Asmus also argued that Turkey could be important in rebuilding of Iraq, resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and in a new US strategy towards Iran and Syria.
…if both sides can develop new approaches
Turan expressed skepticism that Turkey could in fact play the role Asmus envisioned. He suggested that political power is fragmented and that consensus among different power centers would be very difficult to reach. As a result, he was not sure that Turkey could deliver. Nevertheless, he expressed optimism that Turkey and the US could cooperate in Central Asia and the Caucasus, both on the East-West energy corridor and in solidifying the independence of regional states. Turkey could help them develop their armies, police, and administrators. Similarly, he stated, Turkey could play a more active role in the Middle East process as a trusted partner of both parties. In Iraq, Turkey could help get the water running and the electricity restored in Iraqi towns, and could also contribute to peacekeeping, Turan added.
Asmus admitted that it would be difficult for Turkey to play the visionary role he outlined. He also said that Americans must “change the way we think about Turkey.” Instead of focusing on Turkey’s shortcomings, he contended, the US could view Turkey as a potential example for Iraq. “If we can bring Iraq to Turkey’s level, that would be a great success,” he argued. To achieve this goal the US and Turkey need to formulate a new framework and a new dialogue.
