Los Angeles Times
April 11, 2005 Monday
Home Edition

Commentary;
Don’t Write Off the Turks;
Ankara isn’t anti-American; it’s independent.

Graham E. Fuller

Who lost Turkey? That’s the theme of a rash of articles in the U.S.
press over the last two months. Apparently, there’s a growing
consensus in Washington that our old ally has been gradually becoming
more anti-American.

In 2003, Turkey denied Washington the use of Turkish bases only
months before the war on Iraq began. Just recently, Vice President
Dick Cheney blamed Turkey’s noncooperation for many of the problems
today with Iraqi insurgents.

A number of critics have pointed to the rise of anti-American public
sentiment in Turkey over the last two years: The Marshall Fund found
that 82% of the Turkish public was hostile to the U.S., one of the
highest figures anywhere, especially for a NATO ally. A recent
bestselling Turkish fictional thriller, “Metal Storm,” portrays a
U.S. war against Turkey. The Islam-oriented government in Ankara has
harshly criticized close U.S. ally Israel for its occupation policies
in the West Bank. And Turkey does not concur with Washington’s
efforts to pressure Iran and Syria.

Although these events indeed represent a new Turkish reality, it
would be erroneous — indeed dangerous — to assume that Turkey’s
widespread opposition to many of the Bush administration’s policies
are symptomatic of a broader strategic hostility. And it would be
exceptionally shortsighted for U.S. policymakers to argue that the
democratically elected moderate Islamist government in Turkey is not
sufficiently pro-American or that it should be pressured to change
its leadership.

In reality, U.S. interests — in the broader scheme of things — have
been exceptionally well-served by this Turkish government, which has
brought broad democratic reforms to the country as part of its
explicit commitment to gain European Union membership. Turkey has
taken positive steps toward relieving Kurdish dissatisfaction and has
moved to improve relations with all of its neighbors, including
longtime opponent Armenia. The economy is moving forward, and
inflation is way down.

The Turkish public, including those with no special desire for
Islamist policies, find the performance of this government to be
generally on the right track; politics have been more stable than any
other time in the last decade. Most interesting, several of Turkey’s
Arab neighbors are paying attention to its experience in producing a
competent Islam-oriented government — one that can be proudly
independent yet democratic, reformist and a candidate for EU
membership. Nothing could be a more positive model for the rest of
the region.

It is true that since the end of the Cold War, Turkey’s reliance on
U.S. leadership in foreign policy has declined sharply — as it has
in most of the rest of the world, including Western Europe. Ankara is
no longer automatically acquiescent to following the U.S. lead,
especially when it believes that U.S. policies run counter to Turkish
national interests. U.S. policy in Iraq, Iran and Syria is seen by
Turkey as adventuristic and needlessly destabilizing to Turkish
interests.

Right now, opposition to U.S. policies is the nearest thing to a
national consensus in Turkey. Major elements across the political
spectrum — Turkey’s strong secularists, nationalists, Kemalists and
leftists — are even more harshly critical of Washington than the
government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Efforts by
Washington to intimidate a popular, representative Turkish government
or to bring it in line with U.S. government policies will almost
surely backfire. In the new world order, unilateralism has its
limits. Turkey is not lost to us; we just need to take a more
realistic view of the limits of our own power, be sensitive to the
risks of ignoring other states’ nationalist feelings and interests,
and adopt a longer-term, more enlightened view of our own interests.
Turkey is doing fine.

Graham E. Fuller is a former chairman of the National Intelligence
Council at the CIA. His latest book is “The Future of Political
Islam” (Palgrave 2003).