Out of this principle of non-intervention, which was formulated by the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, diplomats were to refrain from engaging in interventionist activities in foreign countries. This did not, of course, prevent them from gathering information, analyzing developments and influencing events of a domestic nature. But these were the kind of activities that are not publicized. It was a “public lie” for a diplomat not to have any interest in domestic affairs of the host country.The old motto “non-interference in domestic affairs” is no longer practical. The line of demarcation between the domestic and the international has blurred in this age of globalization. What goes on inside a country may have direct consequences on another country. Boundaries do not bind; ideas, crimes, individuals, goods, etc., travel across national borders. The fate of one country is increasingly tied to the fate of others.
In such an interdependent and intertwined world national governments have to be more and more interested in the developments taking place in distant places and among different nations.
In this context I have found the similar position of the Turkish and American governments towards US Ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey rather out of fashion. Ambassador Jeffrey gave an interview to Nur Batur of the Sabah daily last week in which he expressed his opinion on a series of issues regarding Turkish-American relations, Turkish foreign policy, regional politics and Turkish domestic developments. After the interview the Turkish and American governments denounced the ambassador’s statements about Turkish politics as a breach of diplomatic tradition of non-interference in domestic affairs.
For me the interview was enlightening in the sense that we heard what a senior American diplomat and old-time observer of Turkey thinks about politics, political actors and prospects in this country.
Ambassador Jeffrey gave straight answers to some questions but remained ambiguous, and thus diplomatic, on others. It is valuable to hear from the US ambassador that the multidimensional foreign policy of Turkey is an asset for the West and that they continue to support Turkey’s EU bid. A Turkey diversifying its diplomatic engagements while remaining committed to the transatlantic alliance is undoubtedly in the interests of both countries.
Ambassador Jeffrey is more ambiguous on the question about domestic political developments. He, for instance, refrained from making any comment on the Ergenekon case. He may, of course, have a point. But whatever is that point also marks the difference between the US and the EU. It was the EU that clearly referred to the Ergenekon case as a historic opportunity to consolidate democracy and human rights in Turkey and openly criticized Gen. İlker Başbuğ for trying to influence the outcome of the Ergenekon trial.
One expects more from US officials in terms of backing democratic regimes in Turkey.
In this context Nur Batur’s question about the possibility of a military coup in Turkey is exemplary. Ambassador Jeffrey praises Gen. Başbuğ, saying he is loyal to democracy, while he refrains from making a straight point about possible implications an undemocratic regime in Turkey would have on Turkey-American relations. In response to this question the ambassador pointed to the “differences of world views” among the government and the military. What does it imply? Such a position is called “deliberate ambiguity.” One would expect an American ambassador to be more direct and open, as his government has always been accused of supporting military governments in Turkey during the Cold War years.
We all have a stake in a stable and democratic Turkey. I wrote a few times in this column that maintaining and deepening democracy in Turkey is imperative for regional stability and peace. An undemocratic Turkey has the potential to disturb and destabilize the whole region with global security implications. Thus, the countries, including the US, that value regional stability and peace cannot afford to lose democratic Turkey.
