 | ||||
Menu
January 7, 2008
Sponsors
The most admired Independent Kurdish Newspaper from the heart of Kurdistan.
For Kurdish Women’s Issues
1. rightness n a: accordance with conscience or morality b: appropriate conduct; doing the right thing c: conformity to fact or truth 2. truth n a: the state of being the case b: the body of real things, events, and facts
An Independent Online Kurdish-English Newspaper
A Kudish Online Blogger
| ||||
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Relationship with Turkey
Kurdishaspect.com - By Goran Sadjadi
Introduction
The United States policy of containment during the Cold War era created a variety of strategic alliances and established unconditional support for foreign states that were perceived as cooperative in helping deter the Soviet expansion of communism. Among those alliances is one of the strongest between the United States and Turkey, which is often overlooked as an intervening force in contemporary U.S. foreign policy. The alliance between the two countries strengthened during the beginning of the Cold War and has been maintained since despite more recent rare conflicts of interests in the Middle East, such as the war in Iraq in 2003. The United States has long-embraced nation-states with unconditional support so long as they are anti-communist, and has supported such states like Turkey, with the military means to remain strong. Although the strategic importance of Turkey during the Cold War and its geographic location with respect to Europe and the Middle East seems only favorable to the U.S., the outcome of such an alliance has proven that the benefits may not outweigh the devastating realities facing not only the people of the region, but U.S. interests as well. While minorities in Turkey have been faced with some of the harshest forms of oppression under U.S. supervision, Turkey has also created problems for U.S. efforts in Iraq and further undermines U.S. policymakers’ statements of spreading democracy. The colliding of such interests may continue for decades to come lest a serious reexamination of U.S. foreign policy should be established and alliances that work counter to U.S. goals are vanished.
The Cold War and the establishment of the U.S.-Turkish relationship
In the beginning of the Cold War, the United States adopted a strategy to prevent the Soviet Union from expanding its communist influence to other countries throughout the world. This strategy of containment, also known as the Truman Doctrine, declared an American policy of support for countries regardless of their form of government or rule so long as they were anti-communist.(1) One of the very first applications of the Truman Doctrine created the beginning of an American alliance with Turkey and Greece by requesting $400 million to assist both countries militarily in 1947. A couple of years later, the United States helped to establish the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with several other nations in Europe, and shortly after, membership in NATO was extended to Turkey as well.(2) One of the initial reasons for the U.S. embracing Turkey as claimed by advocates of the alliance was the perceived communist threat that was already claimed to be threatening the Turkish State. Whether or not these alleged threats were instigated by the Soviet Union remains questionable. However, these reasons among others were enough to persuade policymakers for an alliance.
There are several other reasons for the interest of both major powers during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union, in Turkey when examining the situation from a geopolitical perspective. Turkey was located on the border of the Soviet Union and was considered one of the most strategic locations for the United States to serve as a site for intelligence. Furthermore, the U.S. policy of supporting both Greece and Turkey was implemented in order to ensure that neither state would create any threat for the other and thus undermine the strength of their alliance with the United States. The United States was able to send over 1200 military advisors to Turkey and later installed 15 Jupiter missiles in Turkey aimed at western Russian cities.(3) This event is often compared with the Soviets’ placing of missiles in Cuba. The alliance between the U.S. and Turkey also provided the Turkish State with over $5.8 billion in official military aid during the height of the Cold War era.(4) The relationship between the U.S. and Turkey today operates in a similar fashion with billions of dollars in U.S. military aid sent to Turkey in hopes of maintaining a relationship with a country that now is believed to serve as a crossroads between the West and the Islamic world. The actual benefits of Turkey to the United States through the alliance’s history must be examined further in order to draw an accurate conclusion. Firstly, however, it is important to examine the U.S. relationship with Turkey as one in a realist context and the contradicting evidence at hand that undermines U.S. intentions in foreign policy as proclaimed by several former U.S. presidents, as well as the current president, to rid the world of evil.
Various writers and political analysts have incorrectly drawn conclusions that President Harry Truman implemented a foreign policy based upon Wilsonian liberalist principles. These conclusions are based on conflicting statements when examining Truman’s foreign policy in regards to Turkey. Among the most common points of the Wilsonian principles are the promotion of democratic governance within all nation-states and disarmament to reduce the risks of war.(5) U.S. foreign policy in regards to the relationship with Turkey first established by the Truman Administration, contradicts both points. Instead, President Truman appeared to have pursued a policy of realism that aimed at strengthening the United States’ position in the Cold War. Truman built alliances with states regardless of their system of government or rule and, as was the case with subsequent U.S. presidents, created a relationship of unconditional support for countries that sided with U.S. interests; whether those interests meant countering Soviet communism or whether they mean countering radical Islamic terrorism. This policy of realist thought established by Truman could not be more transparent than when it was applied to the Turkish State.
The Nature of the Turkish State and U.S.-Complicities
Turkey is a country with a history of brutal and oppressive policies that continue until today largely because of the unconditional support provided by alliances such as the United States and NATO. The country is essentially a militarized state with repressive tendencies towards those who question or oppose the state’s governmental policies including the oppressed ethnic minorities, and in particular, the Kurds. The Turkish State was founded in 1923 and has since implemented policies counter to the notion of a free democracy. Turkey demonstrated its non-democratic and military characteristics when the Turkish military overthrew the elected government four times in the last four decades alone.(6) The most disturbing issues at hand are with regards to Turkey’s long history of human rights abuses and oppressive policies. The Turkish constitution was designed within a framework of ultra-nationalist ideology that has long rejected the idea of true democracy and pluralism. As a result, the predominantly Kurdish southeast of the country has been subject to neglectful policies that have left the region underdeveloped economically; the largest Kurdish city in Turkey has an unemployment rate of about 60 to 70 percent.(7) In addition, the Kurds in Turkey have been faced with decades of social, political and cultural discrimination. The Turkish government denies Kurds their cultural identity, and only until recently were the Kurds allowed public use of their own language.(8) Despite some reform, the Kurdish language and culture is still forbidden today in educational institutions and in the political arena. In several previous cases, ethnic-Kurdish politicians in Turkey were imprisoned for up to a decade for simply using the Kurdish language in their public speeches.(9)
The list of human rights abuses that have taken place and continue to do so in Turkey is very lengthy. The country is known for decades of continued disappearances, murders, arrests and tortures of its citizens. As part of the Turkish military’s campaign against Kurdish rebels who took up arms demanding increased rights for Kurds in the country, the military burned over 4000 villages that it claimed were supporting the rebels. The result of the destruction was the forced displacement over 3 million people without government compensation highly increasing the poverty rates and creating more animosity towards the government.(10) Many believe that the campaign was part of an extensive assimilation policy to eliminate the culture and way of life of the people in the southeastern region. The Turkish government justifies actions of the state against its citizens by claiming that they are threats perceived to the sovereignty of the country and to its secular character. The Turkish government has denounced Kurdish rebel fighters also known as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) as terrorists and the party’s socialist tendencies have helped Turkey gain western support for their campaigns against the rebels. In many cases, the U.S. and NATO have even provided assistance both militarily and logistically to Turkey to continue its policies. Unfortunately, these policies have consisted of oppressive methods of assimilation and deadly operations that have largely targeted Kurdish civilians, rather than the rebels the Turkish government is claiming to target.
The complicity of the United States and NATO in the oppressive policies of the Turkish State may come as a surprise to many. The moral support or even the billions of dollars worth of weapons during the Cold War era are not the only things that were provided to Turkey. The U.S. military through the hundreds of their advisors actively trained the same Turkish military, Special Forces and intelligence services that carried out the vast array of human rights abuses that continue to this day. In more recent times, the U.S. continues to extend their support through Joint Combined Exchange Training led by U.S. Special Forces. The human rights abuses including the “numerous violations of the laws of war, including village destruction, indiscriminate fire, and ‘disappearances’" carried out by the Turkish Special Forces - trained by the U.S. forces - have been carefully documented by various groups such as the Human Rights Watch (HRW).(11) The serious war crimes, which could be questionably labeled as acts of genocide, committed by these U.S.-backed Turkish forces have been condemned by the HRW and reports recommend that such forces should not be deployed in Kurdish civilian regions. Despite these various reports, Turkey is able to maintain support from the U.S. and NATO by persistently referring to a conspiracy of communist threats that may overthrow their government.
U.S. and Turkey: Beneficial Alliance or Burden?
As all the various facts provide evidence for the all but Wilsonian strategy that has been implemented since President Truman with regards to Turkey, the realist strategy must be dissected and it’s supposed benefits in creating and sustaining a U.S.-Turkish alliance, despite all the moral implications, must be examined. As earlier discussed, Turkey’s geographical location has played a significant role in its perceived importance to the U.S. during the Cold War, and today in the War on Terror. However, despite the very small instances such as the installment of Jupiter missiles that was only removed after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Turkey has not served as the ideal U.S. ally it was and is perceived to be. In various instances, Turkey has actually worked counter to U.S. interests and operations in the Middle East. For example, in 1973, Turkey refused to allow the U.S. military to provide supplies to Israel while allowing the Soviets to supply Arab groups. Between 1977 and 1983, the Turkish State permitted the Soviets to use their airspace to provide support for pro-communist groups in Ethiopia, and also allowed Soviet ships the right of passage in Turkish-controlled waters in the Mediterranean despite NATO objections.(12) Between 1991 and 2000, the Turkish military requested and was illegally granted the right to bomb targets in northern Iraq that the U.S. and the United Kingdom were supposed to be protecting from Saddam’s bombs under the no-fly zone.(13) Finally, in 2003, Turkey refused to grant the United States permission to use U.S. bases in Turkey in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq; a refusal that delayed U.S. troop deployments and prevented the U.S. military from being able to secure the Iraqi-Syrian border.(14) Considering all these instances ruling out realist strategy, in addition to those facts that rule out key points of Wilsonian principles, one may wonder what the exact benefits of the relationship are.
Strong Business ties and a control on U.S. Foreign Policy
U.S.-Turkish relationship today is largely based on a business relationship of billions of dollars worth of weapons shipments to the Turkish military. The benefits of such a business make the U.S. support for Turkey unsurprising, but also, neither is it surprising that there is the lack of any desire by the U.S. or other NATO allies to help or pressure Turkey to find a solution outside of military to its internal problems. Whether or not Turkey was truly ever faced with a communist threat is irrelevant when acknowledging the benefits to the U.S. arms industry of the maintenance of armed conflicts inside Turkey that should be justifiably - by U.S. policymakers’ accounts - fought. In the last half-century, Turkey has risen to house the second largest NATO army with the help of it’s acquisition of U.S. arms. While much of the military weaponry provided to Turkey were giveaways, the U.S. arms industry makes huge profits regardless, just as long as the U.S. alliance with Turkey is maintained. It has been noted that over 77% of arms transfers to Turkey have been subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. Since the early 1980s, $8 billion worth of the weaponry transferred to Turkey has been financed by grants and subsidized loans of the $10.5 billion total.(15) The money regardless of its source means direct profits for the arms giants designing and manufacturing the weaponry. Indeed, while the majority of American citizens may not be directly benefiting from this expensive relationship, the arms giants such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin that reserve various lobbyists to ensure the relationship is maintained do benefit.
Regardless of the principles and U.S. foreign objectives, or the moral implications involved, the arms giants whose primary goal is to increase profit would rather see that the business relationship maintained and are ensuring that elected officials see eye-to-eye regarding this preference. Lobbyist efforts that seem to be shaping U.S. foreign policy in regards to Turkey have been very successful in diverting public attention from Turkey’s various human rights issues. The largest manufacturers of arms are golden horn members of the most powerful Turkish lobby group, the American Turkish Council (ATC), and include Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Bechtel International, Boeing, and BAE Systems. Each of these corporations has made substantial profits off the perceived communist threat in Turkey, and would probably much rather see a conflict continue than for it to come to a solution, which would only end their sales. In fact, this assumption was displayed last year in 2006 when rebels offered a ceasefire that was praised by members of the European Union and provided opportunity to end the decades-long armed conflict. The response by a U.S. diplomat, General Joseph Ralston, in charge of U.S.-Turkish relations regarding Turkish internal conflicts was that a ceasefire would not be accepted and elimination of the group is necessary. At the same time, Lockheed Martin was closing a multi-billion dollar arms deal with the Turkish military, which the general would directly profit from as he sat on the Lockheed Martin Board of Directors.(16)
Conclusion
A relationship that strays away from various United States principles can have devastating future consequences. Many U.S. presidents, and most recently President Bush, have reiterated a policy of spreading democracy and even the founding principles of NATO are to “safeguard […] common values of democracy, individual liberty, the rule of law and peaceful resolution.”(17) Any credibility is further undermined by the unconditional support for Turkey by the U.S. and NATO allies as it falls outside their very principles. Furthermore, Turkey’s lack of cooperation has worked counter to U.S. interests and continues to do so. Today, U.S. arms giants are continuing to arm a Turkey that may very well be harming U.S. interests in the Middle East once again. Turkey is considering an invasion of the only peaceful and pro-American region in all of Iraq in the northern Kurdish part of the country, which may have devastating effects for American efforts in Iraq. Other conflicts between Turkish and American interests may not be so obvious. In May of 2007, rebels in Turkey derailed a Turkish train carrying weapons from Iran to Syria that were supposed to be received by the Hezbollah in Lebanon.(18) To the naked eye, this news appears as to be another repeat of Turkish assistance to terrorist groups in the region as was the case in 1973. Despite these disturbing facts, the lack of coverage in the American media along with NATO’s absent investigation of the incident bring about questions in what is controlling U.S. foreign policy; vital interests for stability in foreign nations, or corporate profits that rise with instability. From the Cold War up to the War on Terror, U.S. interests have become blurred by odd alliances and unless such alliances are eliminated, instability can be further instigated and the formal efforts of American troops to create stability in foreign nations may forever go wasted.
-------------------------------------------------------
Goran Sadjadi is a freelance writer, and student of Political Science and International Relations, living in the United States. He visited Turkey and Iraq in August 2005 and is actively engaged in political analysis of the Kurdistan region and the Middle East. Read more of his writings at http://zaneti.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
1. Saikal, Aman. “US Globalism and Regional Domination.” Islam and the West: Conflict or Cooperation. Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 48-49.
2. Hanhimaki, Jussi M. “The Marshall Plan and NATO.” Cold War, The. Oxford University Press, 2003. 105-107.
3. Costigliola, Frank. “Kennedy, the European Allies, and the Failure to Consult.” Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 110, No. 1 (1995). 105-123
4. Herman, Edward S. The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection. Sheridan Square Publications, 1986. 60-62.
5. Kegley, Charles W. Jr. From War to Peace: Fateful Decisions in International Politics. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 138.
6. Wilkinson, Tracy. “Turkey Curtails Military's Political Power.” LA Times. July 2003. Accessed: 18 Nov 2008. .
7. Satiroglu, Handan. “Turkey and Europe: An Invitation To Dance?” World Politics Review. Oct 2006. Accessed: 1 Dec 2008. .
8. Lewis, G.L. Turkey. Frederick A. Praeger, 1955.
9. Zana, Mehdi. Prison No. 5: Eleven Years in Turkish Jails. Blue Crane Books, 1997.
10. “New National IDP Survey estimates…” Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. Dec 2006. Accessed: 01 Dec 2008. < http://www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/%28httpEnvelopes%29/
6C2FF84BC58D8530802570B8005AAFAA?OpenDocument>.
11. “Turkey and War in Iraq: Avoiding Past Patterns of Violation.” Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, March 2003. Human Rights Watch. Accessed: 01 Dec 2008. .
12. Rossides, Gene. “Turkey—Friend or Foe.” American Hellenic Institute. April 2006. Accessed: 02 Dec 2007. .
13. Pilger, John. “The "secret" war which has seen a 300 per cent increase in bombing raids on Iraq.” ITV. 20 Dec 2002. .
14. Rossides, Gene. “Turkey—Friend or Foe.” American Hellenic Institute. April 2006. Accessed: 02 Dec 2007. .
15. Gabelnick, Tamar. “Arming Repression: U.S. Arms Sales to Turkey During the Clinton Administration.” World Policy Institute and the Federation of American Scientists. Oct 1999.
16. McKiernan, Kevin. “An undiplomatic conflict of interest.” Boston Globe. Nov 2006. Accessed: 02 Dec 2007. .
17. “An Introduction to the Alliance.” NATO Handbook, The. NATO, 2006. 15.
18. “762 Kanas” Hurriyet. May 2007. Accessed: 02 Dec 2007. .
___________________
| ||||
RECOMMENDED SITES
