THE DAVOS INCIDENT FROM THE WASHINGTON VANTAGE POINT
by Ali H. Aslan
Today’s Zaman
Feb 2 2009
Turkey
The morning after the Davos incident. I am in Atlanta in order to
make a presentation at an international conference on "Alliance Among
Civilizations: Turkey at the Crossroads of Cultures." The opening
session of the conference, staged jointly by Kennesaw University and
the Istanbul Centre under the aegis of the United Nations, will be
held shortly.
One of the select invitees taking part is Reda Mansour, the Israeli
Consul General in Atlanta. A display of photographs of Turkey,
appropriate to the spirit of dialogue opened by Zaman, decorates
the entrance hall of the Social Sciences Building. In one of the
fantastic shots is portrayed the moment on 13 November 2007 in Turkey
when President [Abdullah] Gul got Israeli President Shimon Perez
Enhanced Coverage LinkingShimon Perez -Search using: Biographies Plus
News News, Most Recent 60 Days and Palestinian [National] Authority
Leader Mahmud Abbas to shake hands. I joke to the Consul that "this
photograph is now past history!" But he speaks optimistically about
the future of the Turkey-Israel relationship. He even says that he
believes that the indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel,
in which Turkey served as the intermediary, will in time resume.
The Israeli diplomat, like all his expert counterparts, tends to
the extent possible to avoid inciting tensions among friends, and
even if he should be boiling over with rage inside, not to display it
very much. In other words, he does what Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip]
Erdogan and President Peres Enhanced Coverage LinkingPresident Peres
-Search using: Biographies Plus News News, Most Recent 60 Days were
unable to do at the panel in Davos and later tried to make up for
with bilateral telephone conversations. Meanwhile, I am trying to
compensate for my absence from Washington by taking frequent recourse
to my cell-phone. At the other end there are individuals who are
either actively involved in the Turkish-American-Israeli relationship
in various capacities, or else have intellectual authority on this
issue. Diplomats, retired ambassadors, think-tank experts, members of
the American Jewish community, etc. Since we are speaking among friends
according to the principle of "background" [last word in English],
they do not feel the need to act all that diplomatically. And in
general, they are sketching out a pessimistic atmosphere.
The people in the US government do not much approve the behaviour
of either leader in the panel discussion. Indeed, the official
spokesmen characterized what happened as "unfortunate." But in the
eyes of the Americans, the greater misfortune pertains to Erdogan
and Turkey. They are of the view that Erdogan’s words and actions are
perceived in the West as anti-Semitism, and in particular that they
will damage Turkish foreign policy over the long term. One American
diplomatic source says "I have not encountered a single person who
reacted positively." Erdogan’s words in the first raw translations
coming out of Davos struck those in the US State Department as much
harsher. They became a bit more relaxed with the corrected translations
that they read afterwards. That the rally held for Erdogan at the
airport on his return from Davos was "quite organized" also drew the
attention of the Americans. In other words, they have suspicions that
this outburst could have been planned ahead of time. They consider
that in the behaviour he has displayed since the beginning of the
Gaza fighting, and including this latest Davos incident, Erdogan’s
political concerns regarding the approaching municipal elections have
been in the forefront.
American officials, who stress that they have considered Turkey’s
efforts to date at peace in the Middle East, and particularly between
Israel and Syria, to be beneficial, observe that its chances of
conducting initiatives of this sort have now diminished greatly,
since Israel has lost its confidence in Ankara. They say that the
latest developments do not comport with the quality of being "the
only country that has the trust of all the parties in the Middle East,
and is able to talk with them," on which Turkey justly prides itself.
Members of the US government, who have struggled alongside Ankara
against the genocide lobbying of the Armenian diaspora on account
of the damage that it [recognizing the genocide] would do to
Turkish-American relations, are worried that yet another important
ally, the American Jewish community, could be lost entirely after
Davos. What I hear from Jewish sources corroborates this. When I
asked an American Jew active on Turkish issues within the Israeli
lobby if organizations such as AIPAC [American Israeli Public Affairs
Committee] would support [Turkey], he answered "they won’t go anywhere
near it." Naturally, these things could be emotional approaches at
this stage. I am certain that Israel and its friends in America,
when things come to that point, will make a cooler assessment of
the situation. They may not be able to risk offending Turkey. As
for the fact that Turkey has risked offending them, they are greatly
angered at it. Indeed, Robert Wexler, the Jewish-origin Chairman of the
Turkey Friendship Group within the American House of Representatives,
has reportedly written Prime Minister Erdogan an emotional letter of
several pages expressing, as a friend, his deep disappointment.
While the Davos incident has assisted hostile circles in Washington
like the Armenian lobby, it has also weakened the hand of those
who defend Turkey and the AKP [Justice and Development Party]
government, or of those who at least are not against it. A retired
American Ambassador reminds reproachfully that "a Prime Minister has
to know how to control his emotions." An American think-tank expert
whose views I consider reasonable says that "emotional leadership"
should be put aside and a different "style" employed. He notes that
the Turkish government’s credibility has weakened in Western capitals
like Washington and Brussels. The view that Western leaders will find
Erdogan "unpredictable" and will hesitate to sit down at the same
table with him is being voiced frequently. There are those who see
Ankara’s foreign-policy line in the recent period as being more similar
to that of the "non-aligned" than to that of a Western and NATO ally.
In short, some American intellectuals who complain of Israel’s
disdainful stance towards the international community and
international law may find Turkey’s outburst appropriate. But the
active foreign-policy players in Washington, who look at incidents
from the angle of Realpolitik, are of the view that Turkey has damaged
itself. They advise, while working to win victory on the eastern front,
not suffering losses on the western front. Because, as was discussed
during two days at the conference in Atlanta, Turkey’s greatest
strategic advantage is its potential to mediate and form alliances
between the Islamic and the Western civilizations. A difficult week
awaits AKP Parliamentary Deputies Suat Kiniklioglu and Cuneyt Yuksel,
who after taking part in the conference set out for Washington…