Stephen Kinzer offers a reset for future politics in his forthcoming book

A new power triangle?

In his forthcoming book, Kinzer offers a rethinking of the policies of Iran and Turkey as well as the United States. “What I'm going to suggest in my new book is that it's time for a reset of American relations with that part of the world,” says Kinzer in an interview with Sunday's Zaman. “The United States has dealt with the Middle East and surrounding regions for many decades in the context of the Cold War. Since the Cold War has ended, we haven't really thought [about] how we should change our approach to that region and how that region's changes should affect our policy.” The suggestions that Kinzer offers are quite challenging taking into consideration the traditional policies of the United States. “In recent decades, our relations with that part of the world have been based largely on what we believe is good for Israel and what we believe is good for Saudi Arabia. In Washington the principle idea was ‘what Saudi Arabia wants Saudi Arabia gets, what Israel wants Israel gets.' That may make sense during the Cold War, partly because Israel and Saudi Arabia were very close collaborators. But now it's time to rethink our relationships. I do believe that the US can still maintain strong ties to both Saudi Arabia and Israel, but we should think more broadly what's really good for those countries and not necessarily follow what their leaders tell us.”

For Kinzer, Turkey and Iran can have remarkable places in future international politics. “My book will also suggest that in the 21st century Turkey and Iran would be very good partnerships to the United States,” indicates Kinzer. “I think these two countries will be good partners for two reasons: First all of all, America has strategic interests in common with them. The long-term strategic goals of Iran and the long-term strategic goals of Turkey are close to the long-term strategic goals of the United States. Another reason why these two countries make good partners for us is that their societies have values that are compatible with American values. They are countries that spent a hundred years [striving for] democracy and understand what democracy, freedom and civil society are about. So Turkey and Iran and the United States over the 21st century will make a new power triangle.”

Kinzer seems hopeful for the future of Iran as he gives some clues for how to negotiate with it. “The mere fact that there was such an uprising after the elections shows the strength of Iranian civil society,” says Kinzer. “We wouldn't see an uprising like this after election fraud in Egypt, for example. So, although there are pressures against protests, those protests were terrific. And that is very encouraging for the future. And the only way that Iran is going to be persuaded to give up or to modify its nuclear program or to submit it to full transparency is in the context of a broad re-agreement with outside powers. Isolating Iran and pushing Iran into a corner is not going to work. Attacking or bombing Iran will only buy a little time but not solve all the problems. The crisis is so urgent that the United States should make an all-out effort to try direct, bilateral, comprehensive and unconditional negotiations with Iran.”

“The West wants Iran to make a major security concession,” criticizes Kinzer. “But countries only make security concessions when they feel safe. It should be the role of the outside world to try to make Iran feel safe enough. As long as Iran believes that its security will be increased by having a nuclear program, it's going to pursue its program. Simply demanding that Iran give up its nuclear program outside the context of a broader agreement is never going to work. Why should Iran give up the most valuable card in its negotiating before the negotiations even begin?”

A need for change

However, Kinzer notes that in order for these three countries to become partners, they all have to achieve fundamental changes in their policies. “America has to change a little bit because we're not really used to having equal partnerships,” says Kinzer. “We need a guide for the other part of the world. I think Turkey would be a guide for us, but we're not used to being guided.”

For Kinzer, Turkey is on the way to change but has not yet completed its path in this respect, while Iran needs the largest scale of transformation. “Turkey has [made] great progress toward democracy but hasn't completed its march to democracy yet,” says Kinzer. “But the country that has to change the most is Iran. Iran with its current leadership and current policies can't be a real partner of the United States. But the Iranian regime can change and reflect the desires of the Iranian citizens. And I think Iran has the potential to re-integrate into the world and break out of its isolation and become a very positive force in the world. Iran has to reset its policies, but it can't do it on its own. The United States has to make an effort to draw Iran into a new regional security architecture. One way that we may be able to reach out to Iran is through Turkey.”

In this respect, Kinzer opposes the criticism of the relationship that Turkey is trying to establish with Iran. “I don't agree with those criticisms about Turkey's relationships with Iran,” he says. “I like the Turkish policy of reaching out to various governments and various actions. Turkey can be a bridge to regimes and actions the United States can't reach. Turkey can talk to people the United States can't talk to. Turkey is no longer waiting for Washington to set its foreign policy. I can understand why there are some irritations in Washington that Turkey is acting more independently now. Nevertheless, in the long run Turkey's new role is good for America.”

Turkey as a model

“There's a real connection between Turkey's ambition in its foreign policy and its domestic policy,” says Kinzer in respect to what Turkey should do both for its own sake and for the good of the rest of the world. “Turkey can play a great role in the world, particularly in the Islamic world as a model of how democracy and Islamic tradition and capitalism can all coexist,” indicates Kinzer. “In order to be a good model, though, Turkey has to complete its own democratic transition. For example, Turkey is now going around the world preaching the idea ‘You should not settle your disputes with violence and war, you should settle your disputes with negotiating. And you should talk to your enemies.' But how far can Turkey go with this policy when the Kurdish war is still going on? Turkey's great ability as a compromiser and a peacemaker depends in part on resolving its own domestic problems. Turkey is trying to urge all countries to recognize the rights of all citizens within their countries. Turkey's ability to do that depends in large part on its own success on recognizing the right of every citizen of the Turkish Republic. I think this government is realizing that. They are positive in their own right because they're creating a more stable and open Turkish society.”

“We've seen a process where the rock has been picked up, and a lot of things which have been hidden for a long time are coming into public view,” said Kinzer in his interpretation of the process of change in Turkey that has expanded with the Ergenekon case and the democratic initiative. “What was being [done] was a light being shined on some dark corners. This is very positive for Turkey in the long run; it has helped the army rethink its own role. Turkey cannot progress until it faces the reality of its past, just like an individual,” Kinzer says and adds: “The Ergenekon case has some negative aspects; it has been used to persecute people for political reasons. Nevertheless, the basis of trying to understand the nature of the deep state is very positive.”

Who’s changing?

Kinzer highlights the role of two institutions in Turkey: the military and the media. For Kinzer, both are changing but still cause some problems. “The role of the military is changing, and that's one of the most positive aspects in modern Turkish life,” he says. “And it's partly because civilian society has become stronger, but it's also because the military has evolved. The military used to have the idea that civilians were not capable of governing the country and that the military had to make all the crucial decisions. I think what most Turks would like to see is for the military to assume that the militaries in other democratic countries play a security role but don't make political decisions.”

However, the function of the press still poses some problems for Turkey, according to Kinzer. “The press in Turkey is one of Turkey's biggest problems,” he says. “In many cases the press functions as an arm to the big industrial conglomerates. It doesn't report news; it's a kind of echo chamber for political propaganda. The Turkish press is too eager and too ready to embrace the agenda that the government has set. The press is not supposed to be an arm of the government, it's supposed to be independent. Turkish society has been governed by certain taboos for a long time. There are certain things that you're supposed to do and things that you're not supposed to do. The press should not be subject to them, but in Turkey it has been.”