© 2004 by The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
The Washington Quarterly • 27:3 pp. 51–64.
THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY _ SUMMER 2004 51
Graham E. Fuller is a former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the
Central Intelligence Agency. His latest book is The Future of Political Islam (Palgrave
Macmillan, 2003).
In the West, the classic image of Turkey has long been misleading:
a secular country, a democracy, an unshakeable friend of the United States,
a nation whose strategic outlook conforms with U.S. interests in the region
… a model to all Muslims. During the past 50 years, most of these descriptions
have not corresponded to reality, presenting mainly a comforting but
unexamined myth.
If the Western version of Turkey’s past is a myth, however, the good news
is that today’s Turkey, based on the remarkable realities of its evolution during
recent years, is in fact now becoming a genuine model that finally offers
a degree of genuine appeal to the region. The new model is based on serious
utilization of democratic process; a willingness to act not just as a Western
power but as an Eastern power as well; a greater exercise of national sovereignty
supported by the people; a greater independence of action that no
longer clings insecurely to the United States or any other power in implementing
its foreign policies; considerable progress toward the solution of a
burning internal ethnic minority (the Kurdish) issue; and a demonstrated
capability to resolve the leading challenge to the Muslim world today: the
management and political integration of Islam. This newer model is much
better for Turkey, better for the region, and better for Europe and the world,
even if some in Washington still hope to preserve the mythical, old Turkish
model. The key areas of change in Turkey that will drive the country’s strategic
outlook and policies over the next decade are Islam, prickly Turkish
nationalism, its entry into the European Union, its role as a Middle Eastern
state and as a multiethnic state, and its ties with the United States.
Traditionally, Turkey’s so-called secularism is what the West has loved most
about the country, perceived as a sort of nod of recognition toward the superior
political-cultural model of the West. Yet, Turkey’s was never genuine
secularism. Unlike the U.S. model of secularism that rigidly separates
church from state and requires the state to stay out of religious affairs entirely,
Turkish secularism has promoted absolute domination and control of
religion by the state at nearly all levels. The old model established in the
1920s by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the remarkable reformer and founder of
the modern Turkish state, was based on the French version of secularism.
This French form emerged out of a French revolution that despised religion,
perceiving it as a relic of backwardness and superstition to be swept away by
a modern vision of scientific reason. The early Ataturkist reforms treated Islam
in this same way: serious members of the new ruling elite rigorously
avoided any public profession of religious belief.
Islam, although not banned, was marginalized by the state, and religiosity
remained a backward identifying feature of only the traditionally minded
masses in central Anatolia. The state decided what mosques would be built;
who would head them; and even scripted the sermons for a single, nationwide
uniform prayer on Fridays. The Turkish military in particular has been
the zealous and jealous guardian of this Ataturkist ideology and has led the
struggle in suppressing any form of organized religious strength or the involvement
of overtly religious people in politics. This state of affairs has
been rolled back considerably over the last few decades with growing democratization,
culminating in the spectacular precedent—for Turkey—of an
overtly religious party coming to power two years ago, even though it has
been prudent and careful in not advertising its religious roots.
Turkey’s famed pro-Western leanings have also moved in the direction of
greater realism and have become more deeply rooted. Turkey was indeed
pro-Western in the sense that the strategic requirements of meeting the Soviet
threat during the Cold War led Ankara to embrace NATO strongly and
search for Western security guarantees. Nevertheless, Turkey did not become
Western overnight. The Turkish Ottoman Empire has long been the
most Westernized of Muslim states due to its geographic proximity and close
interaction with many Western states—more so than any other Muslim domain
—for hundreds of years, both as a periodic enemy and occasional ally,
and has been intimately involved in the workings of European politics. During
the last hundred years of the Turkish-run Ottoman Empire, which finally
collapsed at the end of World War I, Turkey underwent significant liberalizing
or Westernizing reforms such as codifying the legal system, adopting par-
liamentary forms of government, attempting to reconcile Islamic and Western
law, and making Western-style education reforms. Thus, although the
Ataturkist reforms of the new Turkish republic after World War II undoubtedly
represented a revolutionary new chapter in Turkey’s Westernizing process,
they were not unheralded.
Ataturk’s crushing of religious power and prestige in the new Turkey of the
1920s, despite its important innovations, left some social and psychic scars
that have only slowly been healing over the
past 70–80 years. The vast majority of the
Turkish population had not been strongly exposed
to the West and hence did not share the
Ataturkist elite’s links with the West. They remained
religious and proud of their Ottoman
heritage even while becoming loyal citizens of
the new republic. It took several generations
for the inhabitants of the traditional Turkish
Anatolian heartland to benefit from education,
economic reform, privatization, and
broader economic progress in the country and to emerge as important new
players on Turkey’s social, economic, and political scenes. Over the years, this
new force, dubbed the “Anatolian tigers,” has increasingly supported political
parties that respect religious tradition and belittle neither Turkey’s Islamic
heritage nor the country’s expression of that heritage.
The culmination of this process—begrudging acceptance by the elite of
the increasing prominence of religiously oriented parties—was the spectacular
victory of the Justice and Progress Party (AKP) in the 2002 elections.
Now the broadly popular party that prudently describes itself as coming
from an “Islamic background” has become the ruling party in the country.
Yet, this development is the product of an evolving Turkish Islamist tradition
that has grown ever more moderate as it has moved closer to the realities
of politics and the requirements of pragmatism, especially under the
watchful eye of the militant secularism of the army and old elite structure.
Similarly, the largest popular movement in Turkey, the Nur movement (and
its largest and most prominent branch, the movement of Fethullah Gülen),
springs out of the same traditional Anatolian heartland and propounds an
apolitical, highly tolerant, and open regeneration of Islam focused on education,
democracy, tolerance, and the formation of civil society based on the
moral principles of Islam. Indeed, these two important movements represent
a new Anatolian elite, comfortable with its Islamic heritage while striving to
be modern, technologically oriented, and part of the European system as
long as that does not mean a total loss of Islamic identity.
The fact that secular Turkey is the first state in the history of the Muslim
world to freely elect to national power an Islamist party (or a party stemming
from Islamic roots, as the AKP wisely prefers to describe itself) is
therefore astonishing. The Turkish army, long the vigilant watchdog for any
sign of religion in government, has had to accede to the reality that the public
overwhelmingly elected this party and that the AKP has, by and large,
worked within the ideological confines of the established Turkish political
order. Yet, perhaps this event in Turkey should
not be so surprising in light of the fact that Islamist
parties have been on the ascendancy
across the entire Muslim world for the past
two decades or more.
The very fact that religion has been heavily
controlled, marginalized, and circumscribed
by the state for so long—an abnormal social
occurrence in a Muslim country—has led to
Islam’s gradual but persistent reemergence onto
Turkey’s social, economic, and political stages. It was only natural that a key
feature of the Turkish identity—its deep association with the protection and
spread of Islam for hundreds of years—could not remain forever suppressed,
even if Ataturk sought to excise Turkey’s Islamic past from public awareness
and expression. Despite the importance of so many of Ataturk’s Westernizing
reforms, his suppression of religion in the public sphere could not last,
and Turkey has been reverting back to a “normal” expression of religious
sentiment, even in politics. Ongoing democratization has been the key to
that process, just as democratization has strengthened political Islam in
nearly all other Muslim countries as well.
Thus, the first important way in which today’s Turkey has now truly become
a model for the Muslim world is that it is one of the few Muslim states
in which truly representative and democratic politics have emerged. After
several decades of fits and starts, Turkey’s democracy has now reached a
relatively mature stage. Turkey has arguably solved, to the extent that any
political problem can be considered permanently solved, the problem of political
Islam by a combination of just the right degree of pressures and freedoms
to allow a vibrant and healthy, Islamic-oriented political party to
emerge and even flourish. When the day inevitably comes that the electorate
feels this Islamist party has run out of steam, it will of course face defeat
at the polls and another party will replace it, all as part of a normal alteration
of political power that will make Islamic parties just like other parties.
If the election of an Islamist party as the ruling party is a first for Turkey,
it is also a first for Washington. The United States has always had serious
heartburn about Islamist politics, not without some justification, since the
Iranian revolution of 1979, the hostage crisis, the devastatingly successful
attacks of the Lebanese Shi‘a Islamist guerrillas against the U.S. and Israeli
presence in Lebanon in the 1980s, as well as the emergence of a number of
other radical Islamist, guerrilla, and terrorist groups around the world, capped
of course by the horrific Al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001. Nonetheless,
Washington has come to terms quite successfully with the AKP’s power,
demonstrating that at least one Islamist party, or party of Islamic origins, in
the world can be a viable partner for the United States in a drive toward regional
stability. The party’s prime minister has visited Washington, and the
two states have maintained close consultation on a variety of issues such as
Iraq, Cyprus, and bilateral military cooperation in certain spheres. Now that
the AKP has crossed this threshold, hopefully the United States will feel
that it can do business with Islamist parties in other countries in the future.
And why not? Whether the United States likes it or not, it simply cannot
avoid dealing with the single biggest political movement across the entire
Muslim world, Islamism, in all its diversity, differences, and ongoing evolution.
Everyone knows the Muslim world is rife with grievances, frustrations,
and anger. Today these grievances are expressed through a vehicle of Islamist
rhetoric and ideology. Yet, these same grievances were articulated many
decades ago through a different ideological vehicle—the radical Arab nationalism
led by Gamal Abdul Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s—expressing
much of the same strong anti-imperialist bent. When Nasserism failed to
produce results, Marxism-Leninism and later Islamism became its natural
successor. Thus, even if an ideological vehicle can be suppressed or destroyed,
the grievances that create them will not vanish but will simply seek
new vehicles. By accommodating rather than suppressing Islamist expression
of many popular grievances, Turkey has set important precedents for the
Muslim world.
Turkey’s Prickly Nationalism
Any American who has ever negotiated with the Turkish government is well
aware that Turks are tough and often exasperating negotiators. They tend to
be highly sensitive about their own national dignity as well as national interests
and wary of the motives of Western diplomats. These tendencies result
from the fact that Turkey has suffered from several centuries of Western imperialism
that systematically tore off huge chunks of the Ottoman Empire in
the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus. Even the new Turkish state
was nearly dismembered by zealous European powers including Greece after
World War I and rescued thanks only to the extraordinary war of resistance
led by Ataturk. These historical experiences have fostered a strong streak of
anti-imperialist nationalism in Turkey’s national composition, tempered
only because the country has been able to retain its strength and independence
after finally expelling hungry Western imperialist powers in 1921 (unlike
most Arab states that gained true independence only after World War
II.) A lasting, underlying suspicion of European and U.S. motives still remains
just beneath the surface and emerges
strongly from time to time. This suspicion is
shared by the whole spectrum of Turkish politics
—the army, Ataturkist nationalists, leftists,
and Islamists—and even in the most
Westernized circles.
The question of Ankara’s current ties with
Washington and the EU reflects two warring
instincts within the Turkish national psyche:
a desire to acquire the benefits of Western democracy,
power, economic success, and modernization facing off against periodic
suspicion of manipulation by the West. Strong nationalists will argue
that Turkey’s character and independence are compromised by the demands
placed on it by the West for multicultural reform and deeper integration
into the European economic order. One of the supreme ironies of history is
that Turkey’s most insistent and convincing quest for EU membership comes
at a time when an Islamist party heads the country. The politics behind this
development are complicated but important. Islamist, or Islamically oriented,
politicians in Turkey have long complained that Turkish military influence
over the political order has systematically suppressed Islamic expression
from finding representation within that order. Thus, when negotiations for
Turkey’s entry into the EU began, Islamists as well as liberals perceived the
demands for reform posed by the EU as conditions for Turkey’s entry as very
much in their own interests. Both the EU and moderate Islamists sought democratization,
including the opening of the political order and diminution
of the role of the military in politics. Indeed, many other Turks share these
goals, but Islamists have been the primary beneficiaries.
Today, the so-called pro-Western, adamantly secularist military remains
anxious about the reforms stipulated by the EU because they would further
legitimize moderate Islamists and even the Kurdish movement within the
country. The good news is that the Turkish military itself, a highly respected
and uncorrupted institution, has also evolved and broadened its democratic
horizons over the years in keeping with the advances made in the civilian
sphere. It has increasingly limited its previously interventionist role in politics,
permitting the country to evolve toward more genuine democracy. In this respect, Turkey’s political and even social future seems brighter today
than it has been in decades.
Despite internal bickering among Turkish politicians about the nature of
the extensive political and economic reforms demanded by the EU, the
country is moving in the right direction of accepting the need for reform to
meet EU requirements. The broader public senses that the gains to be attained
via EU membership outweigh compromises in sovereignty and maintenance
of the old order. Indeed, reformers above all else clamor for the EU
as the single most powerful way to attain political, economic, and legal reforms
that would be harder to justify and implement were it not for Turkey’s
desire to enter the Union.
Within the EU itself, many are nervous about Turkey’s possible future accession,
however, and about whether Turkey can truly meet the preconditions
for membership. Some Europeans even fear that Turkey’s Islamic
culture could be too alien for the EU to digest. Some legitimate European
fears also relate to the size of the Turkish population and profile of Turkey’s
economy, both of which could impact the EU severely. Yet, finally and astonishingly,
the AKP has also been behind the hard push for a settlement of
the nagging crisis over the partition of Cyprus along lines proposed by the
United Nations, offering hope of an imminent solution to a problem that
has seemed irreconcilable for three decades or more. Here, Turkey’s strategic
progress is dramatic and heartening.
Strategic Implications of Turkish Membership in the EU
Turkey’s quest for EU membership has provided the vital incentive to undertake
domestic political and economic reforms, and EU membership will
probably come, despite much of the pessimism in some quarters of Turkey as
well as misgivings within certain circles of the EU itself. If the logic of the
EU’s expansion allows for the inclusion of members such as Bulgaria and
Romania that are far less advanced politically or economically, then Turkey
will surely be included eventually as well. Exclusion for religious and cultural
reasons is simply intolerable for a Europe with multicultural pretensions
and global ambitions.
Yet, Turkey’s aspirations for EU membership are adding to tensions in the
U.S.-European relationship. The United States, predominantly interested in
having Turkey as a strategic partner in the Middle East, has consistently
badgered the EU to accelerate Turkey’s accession, but the EU has maintained
misgivings over how compatible Turkish membership is with Europe
given its Muslim character and the country’s large population, which could
flood Europe with even more migrant workers. The EU recognizes that U.S.
interests are primarily strategic, with marginal concern for Turkey’s economic
or political impact on the EU itself. The EU is additionally nervous
about importing the strategic problems created by Turkey’s borders with unstable
neighbors such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and its neighbors in the Caucasus.
Finally, the EU is also concerned about possible U.S. efforts to sabotage
the EU project to prevent it from becoming a rival to the hegemonic pretenses
of U.S. power. The EU perceives
U.S. insistence on adding so many new
states to the Union from the East, including
Turkey, as aimed at compounding EU
problems by further diluting any EU cultural
homogeneity. Long latent U.S.-EU
tensions emerged more clearly with the
rise of neoconservative ideology in the
United States and its explicit hegemonic
ambitions that crystallized in the tensions
over the war in Iraq—the biggest
strategic rupture across the Atlantic since the 1956 Suez crisis (when the
Eisenhower administration denounced British and French military efforts
to seize the Suez canal away from the Egyptian bid to nationalize it). Europe
perceived U.S. secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld’s derogatory
reference to “Old Europe”—the antiwar states of France, Germany, and
Belgium—and “New Europe”—those states of the former Soviet bloc that
would take their cue more readily from Washington than from Brussels—
as purely mischievous.
At this point, the neoconservative agenda in Washington quite pointedly
is perceived to seek to weaken the EU as strategically independent of the
United States, a vision held by at least the core states of France, Germany,
and Belgium. In this sense, Washington’s advocacy of Turkish membership
in the EU is, among other things, clearly perceived to be aimed at strengthening
the Atlanticist nature of the EU against the Euro-centric view of the
EU founders. Adding an additional twist, however, some neoconservatives
in Washington openly belittle the chances and even the desirability of Turkey
trying to join the EU, hoping to keep Turkey firmly in the U.S., as opposed
to the European, camp.
Although Turkey’s (or any other state’s) membership in the EU is hardly
incompatible with simultaneously close relations with the United States, the
sense of rivalry that has emerged between Brussels and Washington (with
Iraq being only the first major fissure) will require Turkey to make some difficult
choices. An emerging divide is already apparent between those Turkish
policy elites oriented toward the United States and those oriented toward Europe. Those oriented more toward Washington tend to stem more
from the old elites; the military with its Cold War ties to Washington; and
those who believe that the United States probably will be less demanding of
internal Turkish reforms, especially those that require accommodation to
the ethnic demands of the Kurdish minority. The more European-oriented
groups include those with a more socialist and/or anti-imperialist orientation;
a younger generation that has had greater exposure to Europe, especially
from the millions of Turkish families that have worked in or emigrated
to Germany; those who are attracted to the European project; and those less
fearful of the old Russian threat to Turkey.
Although Turkey’s geopolitical situation still encourages maintaining its
strategic ties with the United States, economic ties will grow stronger with
the EU. How starkly the EU-versus-U.S. debate becomes will in part depend
on how sharply U.S. and EU strategic interests diverge in the coming decades.
In my view, the world will likely witness increasing tactical and even
strategic divergence between the United States and Europe that to some extent
will be natural, regardless of who holds political power in Washington.
All parties should be alert to shifts in this area and work to limit any resultant
tensions.
Turkey and the Middle East
Strategically, Turkey has become part of the Middle East. Understanding
Turkey’s new strategic relationship with the region requires recognizing that
the essence of Ataturkism oriented Turkey firmly toward the West to transform
it into an advanced and Westernized state. For well more than half a
century under the rule of Ataturkists, Turkey behaved almost literally as if
the Middle East did not exist. That region represented an unhappy association
with Turkey’s past, in which Arab and Turk viewed each other with mutual
hostility—Arabs because of extended Turkish hegemony over the Arab
world as well as the country’s pro-Western policies and Turks because of
Arab betrayal of the Ottoman Empire in joining with Great Britain in World
War I. Ataturkist Turkey wanted little to do with the Arab world or with Islam.
For a long time, the highly professional Turkish Foreign Ministry virtually
took pride in not bothering to develop diplomats trained in Arabic.
Turkey’s geography also played a key role in fostering ill will between Turkey
and its Arab neighbors to the east and south. Russia threatened Turkish
territorial integrity for 500 years or more and was a key player in the dismantling
of the Ottoman Empire. Later, in its Soviet incarnation, Russia
once again seriously threatened Turkey’s independence and territorial integrity.
Many Arab states, on the other hand, were angry at the West for its co-lonial and imperial past in the Middle East as well as its creation of the state
of Israel on Arab land and looked to the Soviet Union as a natural counterweight
to Western power and hegemony. Territorially, the Arabs had little to
fear from Russian aggrandizement because the Soviet Union was not contiguous
to it. Turkey’s situation was different.
In the post-Soviet era, however, the Middle East has grown in strategic
importance to the world due to regional instability, and Turkey has felt compelled
to address its Arab neighbors with something
more than defensive coolness. In fact,
during the petrol-boom years of the 1970s, Turkey
first became economically active in places
such as Saudi Arabia and Libya, opening the
door to slightly greater involvement in Arab
affairs. After the 1979 Iranian revolution
shifted regional Islamic politics in a radical direction,
however, Turkey basically felt that it
faced nothing but threats from Iran, Iraq, and
Syria. Iran sought to export its Islamic revolution
while Syria clashed with Turkey over Euphrates water-sharing issues and
helped incite Turkey’s Kurds to rebel (as did Iraq on occasion, although
Baghdad and Ankara also cooperated to crush Iraq’s own Kurds at times).
These realities have driven Turkey increasingly closer to Israel during the past
20 years, with relations between the two countries reaching a high point in
the mid-1990s. Tel Aviv and Ankara found value in their ability strategically
to squeeze Iran, Iraq, and Syria to try to modify their hostile behaviors.
That situation is now changing throughout the region. During the past
several years, Syria has modified its strategic hostility toward Turkey and,
under Turkish pressure, expelled the leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party,
a separatist, violent revolutionary movement in Turkey, leading to his subsequent
capture. Syria is under greater pressure to reform and moderate its
support for regional radicalism. A hostile Saddam Hussein is now gone in
Iraq (although that country may now pose a new threat of internal instability
or even possible civil war in which Turkey fears that Iraqi Kurds could
encourage separatism among Turkey’s own Kurdish population). Iran too,
for the past decade, has been increasingly pragmatic and made halting steps
toward greater, although deeply flawed, democratic processes. All three of
these regimes thus now constitute far less of a danger to Turkey. Any possible
military threat from them could be overwhelmed by the Turkish military’s
superior strategic capabilities.
Ironically, the very success of the U.S. role in directly or indirectly reducing
the strategic threats posed by each of these three Middle Eastern states
changes the calculus of former Turkish dependence on the United States for
strategic protection in the area. Turkey is almost surely moving toward improved
relations with all three, deepening bilateral relations and developing
economic interests that far transcend its once exclusively defensive concerns.
Turkey’s ties with Israel, furthermore, are declining from their peak in
the mid-1990s. Turkey will still seek Israeli military technology unavailable
elsewhere and will court the powerful Israeli lobby’s influence in the U.S.
Congress to serve as a broker with the U.S. administration, but the old strategic
imperative no longer exists, and the Turkish-Israeli relationship is diminishing.
This is due to the greater Islamist sympathies of the AKP and the
Turkish public’s sympathies with the Palestinians against the harsh policies
of Israel’s Likud leadership. Turkey now has good reason to seek independent
relations with several Muslim neighbors whose political evolution will
be complex and difficult but who are no longer likely to be Turkey’s enemy.
In turn, these same states view Turkey more
charitably as it demonstrates a rediscovery of
its Islamic roots and an increasing sense of independence
from Washington. In particular,
Arabs sat up and took notice that a democratic
Turkey could say no to Washington on assisting
the U.S. invasion of Iraq, something despotic
Arab rulers dared not do.
In short, Turkey’s shift toward greater independence
from Washington, improving ties
with its Arab and Iranian neighbors, improved ties with Russia, and more
open acknowledgment of its Islamic past all serve to make Turkey more a
part of the Middle East than ever before. Now that Turkey’s profile is more
sympathetic to Muslim states, its own domestic accomplishments are viewed
with greater sympathy and respect and thus facilitate Turkey’s serving in
part as a regional model—unthinkable when Turkey was deeply involved in
NATO and at strategic loggerheads with an Arab world that looked to Moscow
for support.
The Kurdish Issue
Beyond ideological and Cold War concerns, Turkey’s relations with Iran,
Iraq, and Syria have also been strongly influenced by the Kurdish issue. Turkey
has a larger Kurdish population than any other state in the region and
has been long obsessed with fears of Kurdish separatism within Turkey. These
fears gained strength during the 1980s and 1990s when Turkey’s crude policies
toward the country’s own Kurds (e.g. the banning of Kurdish-language
press, broadcasts, and songs as well as the Kurdish language itself on public
occasions, and the denial of even the existence of a distinct Kurdish identity)
in fact led to the creation of an armed, violent separatist movement.
Turkey’s policies toward Iran, Syria, and especially Iraq have been shaped by
its Kurdish problem. Moreover, any state that has wished to destabilize or
weaken Turkey over the years—Great Britain, Russia, Armenia, Greece,
Iraq, Iran, Syria—has played the Kurdish card
against Turkey at one point or another.
In simple terms, an unhappy Diyarbakir, the
unofficial capital of Turkey’s Kurdish region,
represents a constant threat to Turkey’s stability
and renders the country permanently vulnerable
to external manipulation by enemies.
A content Diyarbakir, or a Kurdish population
happily integrated into Turkey and enjoying
the state’s many benefits, actually reverses the
dynamic. Turkish Kurdistan, in this scenario,
then represents a threat to the other three states with large and discontent
Kurdish minorities as Turkey then becomes the magnet for all Kurds—a center
of advancement, of a multicultural and democratic life linked with Europe.
The other states then fall under pressure to offer their Kurds what
Turkey can offer or intensify separatist sentiments among their own Kurdish
populations.
During the past five years or so, Turkey has begun to recognize the wisdom
of this approach and has taken considerable, although not yet fully sufficient,
steps toward meeting Kurdish desires for cultural security, cultural
autonomy, linguistic rights, and recognition of the Kurds as a separate
people. The problem seems to be evolving in the right direction, further encouraged
by the EU’s stipulations for reform in this area. The outlook for
defusing this conflict with the Kurds has never been more promising.
Yet, the paranoia over the Kurdish issue has not faded away. Turkey’s
number one concern in Iraq, for example, remains the status of the Iraqi
Kurds, a situation in which Turkey will have to accept the reality that it is
nearly powerless to change through external, especially military, intervention.
Neither the United States nor Iraq would support Turkish intervention,
and Turkey could have a long and ugly guerrilla war on its hands in the
Kurdish regions of Iraq, possibly spilling over into Turkey itself. Furthermore,
its opposition to political evolution and liberalization in Iraq that would improve
the lives of the Iraqi Kurds is simply internationally unjustifiable. Turkey
needs to gain full self-confidence about its own Kurds; recognize the
changing realities of a multicultural world, particularly in Europe; work to
improve the situation in Iraq for all Iraqis; and have full relations with all of
Iraq and not just with a portion of the country. If Turkey can bring itself
fully to implement its program of minority rights for Kurds within Turkey, it
will be one of the few Muslim countries that will have successfully resolved
an internal problem between differing Muslim ethnic groups.
The Role of the United States
Should Washington’s policies continue to be driven by a desire to keep Turkey
firmly in the U.S. camp and fully responsive to the United States’ own
policy goals in the region, its tensions with Turkey will rise. Turkey is growing
more independent-minded and less enamored of Washington and has
less need for a systemic type of security guarantee because today it lacks enemies
who can seriously threaten Ankara’s security as long as Turkey remains
domestically stable.
Washington must recognize that Turkey will play an increasingly strong
role in the Middle East but along lines designed to serve Turkish national interests.
It will likely be less responsive to Washington’s shifting and transient
needs at any given moment. The prospect of Turkey developing further in
the direction it is currently headed—politically, with its neighbors, in managing
a democratic form of political Islam—is more likely to contribute to a
stable region in the long term than a Turkey that conducts its foreign policy
as a U.S. proxy as it has largely done in the past. An independent-minded
Turkey will encounter periodic friction with the United States, but this need
not be damaging. Obviously, the more hegemonic and unilateral Washington’s
policies become, the greater the tensions and the greater the likelihood that
Turkey will find itself more sympathetic to an EU also striving for strategic
independence.
Of all the states in the broad region, from the southern Balkans to the
Middle East and the Caucasus, Turkey is making the greatest progress and
evolving more satisfactorily and soundly in its growing democracy, improving
relations with neighbors, economic development, and dealings with political
Islam. This new independent-minded Turkey, moving toward resolution
of its traditional Islamist and Kurdish issues and away from the old, hackneyed
vision of a secular pro-U.S. state, is on its way to becoming a genuine
model for the Muslim world and gaining acceptance among many Muslims
as such.
Turkey’s national interests are changing to strengthen Turkey’s regional
and EU ties and to lessen the centrality of the U.S. role. These trends are
not unique to Turkey at all but reflect the massive ongoing global strategic
shifts since the end of the Cold War. U.S. flirtation with global hegemony
has created its own natural counterweight in the greater independentmindedness
of once allied states. Turkish-U.S. relations will flourish, and
Turkey will be more likely to contribute to stability in the region as a whole
if the United States does not try to maintain the old model of the reliable
U.S. ally and instead allows Turkey to develop its own independent regional
relations.
