Turkey’s democratic steps have a lot in common with US interests

“Turkey is engaged in developing its foreign and domestic policies for the coming decades. Since this foreign policy and the exercise of Turkish power are tied to a democratic political process, it will have a lot of contact points with US interests and policies in the region,” he said.

The Turkish government has been breaking taboos as a dialogue concerning the country's most burning issues, including the Kurdish problem, has started. In that respect, eight members of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) returned to Turkey from the Kandil Mountains, where the PKK has a camp, and 26 came back from Makhmur, a refugee camp in northern Iraq. And the government is expected to unveil more measures to expand democratic rights and freedoms for all citizens of the country.

Answering questions for Monday Talk while in İstanbul to participate in a round table meeting on Turkey's foreign policy in the Middle East organized by the Heinrich Böll Stiftung office in Turkey, Werz noted that CAP recommended to the US administration in its report titled “The Neglected Alliance. Restoring US-Turkish Relations to Meet 21st Century Challenges,” in late 2008 that President Barack Obama include Turkey in the itinerary of his first official visit to Europe.

Is it fair to say that US society reacted to the events of Sept. 11 in a way that has been problematic?

Yes, the United States reacted to the events of Sept. 11 in a way that temporarily undermined some of the most important constitutional traditions. On the other hand, it was interesting to see that the reaction in the United States was also one of unity; even the conservative Republican mayor of New York, Rudi Giuliani, immediately said that this attack should not be held against American Muslims. And George W. Bush was the first American president to visit a mosque. This proved that the substance of democratic pluralism in American society is very hard to destroy.

Michael Werz, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress His work focuses on climate migration and security as well as transatlantic foreign policy including Turkey. Previously, he was a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and served as the executive director of the New York office of the Hessen Universities Consortium. He taught sociology at the University of Hannover in Germany and has held appointments as a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., and as a John F. Kennedy Memorial Fellow at Harvard's Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies.

Has Barack Obama changed policies compared to the previous administrations?

He definitely has as he has changed the tone of the conversation. But he also has done a lot more than that. One example: The Center for American Progress published a report on Turkey in December 2008 recommending that President Obama on his first trip to Europe should visit Turkey as part of his Europe travel. And he did so. This is a clear sign that the current US administration sees Turkey as a transatlantic partner, independent of EU membership. Turkey is important in its own right, and the president decided to begin a conversation about common interests. This also means that Turkey has the chance to take over international responsibilities and become a more important stakeholder in international affairs.

Could you elaborate on those responsibilities?

Well, let me make very clear that Turkey is a democratic society and will decide on its own where its interests lie. But it is certain that the country will be growing in importance. For example, from Washington's perspective it is obvious that Turkey has become not a consumer, but provider of regional security and stability for Europe and for the Western alliance. Again, this has to do with the fact that Turkey is democratic and that it is geographically located in the center of many dynamics that will be important for both Europeans and Americans. I think one can say that there are great expectations that Turkey will continue its constructive role vis-à-vis rapprochement of Israel and Syria and that Turkey will play a role in helping to frame and discuss the greater Middle East stability initiatives.

Being in Turkey these days, it is impossible to miss that many things are happening at the same time; from a cautious conversation with the PKK to border opening discussions with Armenia to a very public debate about the Ergenekon trial. This indicates that Turkey is engaged in developing its foreign and domestic policies for the coming decades. Since this foreign policy and the exercise of Turkish power are tied to a democratic political process, it will have a lot of contact points with US interests and policies in the region.

Balancing democracy and change

Is it possible to talk about a set foreign policy in Turkey?

 It is fair to say that Turkish foreign policy makers currently try to meet several challenges simultaneously, and the Foreign Ministry seems to be well prepared for this difficult task. We all know Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu's book “Strategic Depth.” He is certainly someone approaching the practical questions with a theoretical mindset. As far as I can see, it is too early to say that Turkish foreign policy is set in stone; and this is good, because there are shifting alliances and problems in the immediate neighborhood. It will be interesting to observe how pragmatically Turkish foreign policy adapts to an ever-changing environment and, at the same time, how much it will stick to its democratic principles. These two pillars have to be continuously balanced.

Do you see signs of it?

The fact that the Turkish government was prepared to go to Zurich and sign a statement with the Armenians shows that it had to be pragmatic to accomplish what was needed -- and sometimes not talking is better than talking. Are there domestic challenges regarding Armenia? Of course there are. One would only hope that a broad political coalition, including the CHP [Republican People's Party], will in the end establish adequate and stable relations with Armenia.

This is in Turkey's best interest and will be a big step in becoming an even more important anchor of stability in the region. When it comes to the relationship with Syria; opening the border crossings will be an important development to enhance Turkey's standing -- I am not so sure about joint cabinet meetings -- but that again is a decision that will be made in Ankara and we are just observers. It would be naïve not to expect road-bumps and problems and I personally think it was not a good idea to disinvite Israel from the recent Anatolian Eagle Air Force exercise.

Obama will not limit himself to the use of soft power

Mr. Netanyahu recently said Turkey is not an honest broker.

I don't think this was a helpful comment. On the other hand, one would hope that Turkey sees that its interests are tied to Israel in more ways than one. There are not only common security and national interests. These are the two stable and vibrant democracies in the region and it is important to realize that there is a lot of overlap and to deepen cooperation in as many fields as possible.

And Iran. Do you think the United States will continue in its soft power approach in the face of Iran's nuclear ambitions and anti-Israel stance?

This depends on Iran. Iran has the choice to return to the international community as a responsible stakeholder. No one doubts that Iran has the right to the peaceful use of nuclear power. But it is clear that the combination of political rhetoric and development of nuclear material is reason for more than just concern. In my opinion, the US president has made the right decision to offer a conversation while at the same time not taking the military option off the table. Barack Obama has asked the European allies to support tougher sanctions and what ultimately happens will also depend upon them. One could only hope that the countries that are interested in regional stability will be part of a coalition that will convince Iran that it is in its own best interest to change course. The recent comments one could hear from Moscow when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was visiting a few days ago were a promising step in that direction.

Do you think the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama puts pressure on him to continue his soft power politics?

Using soft power does not mean that you will limit yourself to the use of these tools. It is one instrument in the toolbox of American foreign policy. Everybody knows that the president is very capable of making tough decisions. And he will do so, because he has been elected to protect America's interests. But he also sees that it was an illusion when after the end of the Cold War many argued that a unipolar world had arisen where the United States was the remaining superpower. In relative terms, this is true because it has the largest economy and the most capable military as well as considerable political influence. But what is also true is that with one superpower gone, the other superpower is not as powerful as one might think. The neoconservatives have argued that American sovereignty trumps everything else, Barack Obama, as he has stated in his September speech at the United Nations, believes in the importance of international institutions and alliances. The world has become so complex and so many conflicts have evolved that this clearly shows the limits of power of one nation. Barack Obama understands that building coalitions does not mean minimizing American influence; instead it enhances American weight in the sense that the US more often than not represents not only its own national interests, but also the interests of others. Being a democratic nation and supporting self-determination and the rule of law, American foreign policy often goes beyond the narrow scope of its national interests. That insight has triggered the change in evaluating the relationship between hard power and soft power.