Nilufer Goksel...Turkey and the United States Post War Relationship

8/7/2019 Nilufer Goksel...Turkey and the United States Post War Relationship

1/20

Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.7/8, 115-134

115

The Post-Cold War US-Turkey

Partnership

Nilfer KARACASULU GKSELAsst.Prof., Department of International Relations, Dokuz

Eylul University

Abstract

This article explores the post-Cold War relations betweenthe United States and Turkey. After defining the TurkishUnitedStates partnership, this article argues that bilateral partnershipcontinues in the post-Cold War era, although there are some

problematic issues among them. This hypothesis is explained byanalysis of unsolved problems that have lasted since the Cold War,and diverging as well as converging interests in the relationship inthe post-Cold War era. While the Turkish government is havingsome conflicts in the post-Cold War with the United Statesadministration, especially with the Iraq war, it continues to have apartnership.

Keywords: Turkish foreign policy, Turkey- US relations, Iraqcrisis, US foreign relations, strategic cooperation

1.Introduction

In the summer of 2004, there were discussions on mediaover the future of the Turkish-US relations. A lot was written ondifferent national as well as on some foreign newspapers. The

discussions on press media in the aftermath of the Iraq war havegiven the impression that Turkey-US relations deteriorated. Even


2/20


116

today we do observe a discussion in Turkey that there might befuture conflicts between the two countries due to diverginginterests. However, looking over the academic literature in after the

end of the Cold War, there were more hopeful approaches towardsthe US- Turkish partnership.

Since the end of the Cold War, much has been said on thepost-Cold War relationship between the two countries before and(Kirii, 1998, 2000, 2001; Abramowitz, 2000; Hale, 2000; Harris,2000) soon after the Iraq war (Park, 2003; Pope, 2003; Fuller2004). In the aftermath of the Iraq war, there is still a need toreanalyze the relations between the two countries as negative

sentiments continue. This article does not aim at giving a balanced picture of the motives behind the two actorsinvolved, but will almost exclusively concentrate on theinterests and perceptions of the Turkish side.

The paper is organized into three sections. First of all themeaning of bilateral partnership is defined. In section two thisessay discusses, in a basic outline, bilateral trade/commerce anddefense/military relations in the post-Cold War era. The thirdsection of this article examines unsolved problems that have lastedsince the Cold War, diverging/converging interests in the post-Cold War era between Turkey and the United States. This articleargues that cooperation among the two countries will continue.

1.US-Turkey PartnershipDuring the Cold War, Turkey and the United States had a

close cooperation. It seems that military partnership was the mostimportant part of this cooperation. The two countries were closeallies against the common threat of the former Soviet Union. At theend of the Cold War, in place of US-Soviet rivalry and thedividing lines that differentiated the Western world from the Soviet bloc, they faced new conditions. Thus more than being allies, anew concept called enhanced partnership was introduced in 1991to the Turkish-US relations, which has widened the content of

partnership behind security. Furthermore, following the visits offormer Prime Minister Mesut Ylmaz and former Minister of


3/20


117

Foreign Affairs Ismail Cem to Washington in 1997, Turkey and theUnited States decided to formulate their mutual cooperation undera "five part agenda". The main topics of this agenda were energy,

economy and trade, regional cooperation, Cyprus, and defense andsecurity cooperation. In 1999, the visit by former Turkish PresidentSleyman Demirel and the visit by former Turkish Prime MinisterBlent Ecevit to the United States, as well as the visit by formerUS President Bill Clinton to Turkey symbolized enhancement ofrelationship, which has been termed as "strategic partnership" as ofSeptember 1999. Strategic partnership is a term the United Stateshas used for very close allies, like Israel and Turkey.1

Thus, towards the end of the 1990s, the US - Turkishcooperation that was based on mainly military/security issuesduring the Cold War was changing in parallel to the changes in theinternational relations system. There are cases that display thischange. Regarding the Caspian energy project, cooperation hasstarted in energy transportation. A project about the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline has been signed. Furthermore, both have supportedestablishing market economy and democratic and secular regimes

in Central Asia, expansion of NATO and stability in Balkans. Inthe meantime, cooperation continued in security issues as theyhave cooperated in Kosovo under the Kosovo Force (KFOR)-a NATO-led international force responsible for establishing andmaintaining security in Kosovo; in Northern Iraq under theOperation Northern Watch, in Afghanistan under the InternationalSecurity Assistance Force (ISAF). Thus, by the time the Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish

initials "AKP") came to power in November 2002, attitudes andperceptions on both sides of the relationship was changing beforeGeorge Bush administration decided to go to war with Iraq.

Clearly, relationship is no more based on one dimensionthat is security commitments. Partnership for Turkey meansthat the cooperation is multi-dimensional and multi-faceted,

1

For further discussion, see Turkey- US relations under the TurkishMinistry of Foreign Affairs World Wide Web:http://www.mfa.gov.tr


4/20


118

involving a wide range of overlapping interests in Europe, theCaucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East. Turkish foreignministry considers that The introduction of strategic

partnership concept in the fields of economy, trade andcommerce as well as reinforcement of close cooperation inthe areas of security and defense play a significant role inexpanding bilateral relations in a mutually desirable and

beneficial way.2

2.Main dimensions of the Turkish-U.S PartnershipAlthough Turkey is not a significant player in the world

trade, the country follows general trends in international economicssuch as liberalization and regional trade agreements. Witheconomic liberalization since the 1980s there is an increasing roleof international economics in foreign relations of Turkey. In the post-Cold war era, the United States has always been one of themajor trading partners of Turkey after the European Union, rankingsecond in our exports and seventh in our imports in 2003. On the

other hand, Turkey constitutes 0,2% of imports and 0,4% ofexports of the United States. In the last five years Turkeys exportsto the United States has increased from 2 billion USD to 3,2 billionUSD. This volume has only a limited share in the US generalimports (0.2 percent); thus, Turkey does not really have important part in the US imports. Similarly, the US exports to Turkey islimited, about 3 billion dollars, with share in the US generalexports as 0.4 percent. Since the mid 1990s the volume of trade

between Turkey and the United States is observed between 6 and6.5 billion USD.3In short, trade between the two countries is very limited.

The idea of increasing economic ties with the United States hasbeen on the agenda since the Gulf War, especially about the energytransportation. Just as was the case of the global trade, Turkey is

2 Ibid,.3

For further discussion, see Turkey- US relations under Undersecretariatof the Prime Ministry of Foreign Trade World Wide Web:http://www.foreigntrade.gov.tr


5/20


119

not a significant actor in foreign direct investments worldwide.Turkey receives very limited foreign direct investment, and theUnited States is the second after France as an investor in Turkey.

In contrast, Turkey as a member of NATO is moreinfluential in security affairs. Indeed, there are two indicators thatshow how important is military build-up in Turkey. First of all,Turkey allocates around 4 % of its national income (GSMH) todefense expenditures, while this amount is about 2.5 % in otherNATO countries. Secondly, the number of personnel in the TurkishMilitary Forces is about 750-800 thousand, which is the secondbiggest amount after the United States in NATO.

The United States has always been the majormilitary/security partner of Turkey. During the Cold War Turkeyreceived extensive military aid from the United States. In fact,Turkey imported 79 % of its arms and its spare parts, and theprincipal arms supplier to Turkey was the United States. The totaldollar value of direct commercial arm sales and foreign militarysales to Turkey from 1950 to1998 is about 11,6 billion dollars.4

Today, the United States has the main control in arms sale in

international arena with more than 50 % share.

5

However, due tochanges in the US foreign policy, after the end of the Cold Warwith subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union and the absenceof a Soviet threat, the US military aid to Turkey decreased in the1990s (Harris, 2000; Parris, 2003). During the Cold War theMilitary Assistance Program (MAP) used to be the primarychannel for grants of US military equipment to foreign countries.

4 See Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction Sales andMilitary Assistance Facts, Defense Security Assistance Agency as

of September 1997. At World Wide Web: http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/reports

5 Based on SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research PeaceInstitute) data, international arms sale has decreased in the 1990s.This could be due to decrease in the arms sale from the formerSoviet Union and new republics established. At the same time we

have observed that arms sale share of the United Statesinternationally increased. For further discussion see sagiller(2003).


6/20


120

In the 1950s the US weapons were given to different countrieswith the MAP. The MAP was decreased starting in the 1960s andwas phased out in the late 1980s. The Foreign Military Financing

(FMF) program became the primary channel for grants of USmilitary equipment to foreign countries. Today, the FMF is a keyassistance tool of US national security policy to provide grants forthe acquisition of US defense equipment, services, and training.Other major countries than Turkey that are receiving financethrough the FMF are Israel and Egypt.

US security assistance to Turkey, i.e., loans from 1984 to2004 is in total 3,8 billion dollars. The United States has provided

3,952,532 thousands dollar in total in 2003 to different countries.Turkeys share is less than 1%.6The International Military Education and Training Program

(IMET) is another key component of US security assistance that provides training on a grant basis to students from allied andfriendly nations to the United States. This program has also beennarrowed in the 1990s. The IMET Assistance received by Turkeyfrom 1950 to 2004 is about 170 million dollars in total.7

In addition, due to US global policy of reducing its militarycommitments worldwide, US military presence in Turkey isreduced. Out of twelve military air bases only 4 were continuing tooperate in 1994. The only remaining crucial US- NATO airbase isat Incirlik, located in Adana, in the southeast of Turkey. Thisairbase has been critical during the Gulf War to conduct operationsover Iraq. Also, in the operation against Afghanistan, Turkey hasgiven the United States rights to use this airbase.

In summary, the brief review of the US-Turkey bilateraltrade and military relations has shown us that the United

6Congressional Presentation for Foreign Operations, U.S. Department ofState, FY 1986-2000. At World Wide Web: http://www.fas.org/asmp/library andhttp://www.state.gov.documents

7Congressional Presentation for Foreign Operations, U.S. Department ofState, FY2000 and Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military

Construction Sales and Military Assistance Facts, Defense SecurityAssistance Agency as of September 1997. At World wide web:http://www.fas.org/asmp/library


7/20


121

States is a major partner militarily as well as andeconomically for Turkey and, Turkey has been majorrecipient of military aid from the United States after Egypt

and Israel, which has steadily decreased in the post-Cold Warera.

3.Contemporary Concerns about the Turkish-U.S. partnershipAnalyzing the last fourteen years in the US-Turkish

relations, first of all, two main unsolved problems that have lastedsince the Cold war between the two countries should be

emphasized.(Kirii, 1998, 2000, 2001; Hale, 2000; Harris, 2000).First problem that stems from the Cold War period is about theGreek-Turkish relationship. The Greek-Turkish differences havetwo parts Cyprus, and the Aegean dispute such issues as controlof airspace, territorial sea limits, continental shelf andremilitarization of Greek islands in Aegean. The United Statesseeks to avoid involvement in the Aegean dispute. Yet, the UnitedStates is directly involved in Cyprus dispute.

To clarify the relationship about Cyprus today, let us brieflysummarize the background of the Cyprus conflict. In 1959, withagreement of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom aconstitution was introduced giving Cyprus shared powers with aGreek Cypriot president and a Turkish vice-president. In 1960Cyprus became independent. The plan never worked well. The political structure of Cyprus caused serious crisis in 1964 and in1974. In 1963, the President of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarious had

proposed constitutional amendments, that is the elimination of the provisions involving communal separation, that led to violence between two sides. Greek extremists who wanted enosis-unionwith Greece-launched a series of attacks on Turkish Cypriots,killing some and taking others hostage. (Cooper & Berdal, 1993:118) Turkey threatened to invade. The US President Johnson sent aletter to the Turkish government that detoriated the US-Turkishrelations. This letter stated that the United States would not permit

use of US-supplied equipment in any Turkish intervention; andsecondly, it stated that there would be no NATO guarantee to


8/20


122

Turkey if Turkey intervenes Cyprus without NATO approval andin case of Soviet intervention. Meanwhile, the US-Turkishrelations were already tense in the aftermath of the Cuban missile

crisis with removal of US Jupiter MRBMs from Turkey. By theBritish and the United Nations intervention a cease-fire and theUnited Nations Peace Keeping Force in Cyprus was established.Another crisis is observed in 1967, but resolved. Unfortunately, theUN forces were not able to prevent fighting in 1974. In 1974, theGreek-Cypriot National Guard, led by Greek officers, over threwthe government of Cyprus with a view of establishing enosis.(Cooper & Berdal, 1993: 119) The Turkish government called for

their withdrawal. But with no positive response, Turkey invadedCyprus.After 1974, Cyprus has been partitioned into a Greek Cypriot

administration in the south and a Turkish Cypriot administration inthe north. The United States held that Turkey used illegally the USaid material and responded by imposing an arms embargo from1974 to be remained in effect until 1978. Since 1974, inter-communal negotiations under the United Nations and the United

States mediation have continued, but still today Cyprus remainsdivided between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots without apermanent settlement. The buffer zone continues to be policed bythe UN Peace Keeping Force in Cyprus. In 1983, the leader ofTurkish Cypriots, Rauf Denkdash, proclaimed the independentTurkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), which is onlyrecognized by Turkey. The United States also do not accept anindependent state in Northern Cyprus.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, the tension between theGreek and Turkish communities in Cyprus has increased due tomainly the application of the Greek Cypriot Republic to join theEuropean Union. Meanwhile, despite dialogue with the EuropeanUnion continues since 19638, Turkey did not receive full

8 In July 1959,Turkey made its first application to join. The ensuingnegotiations resulted in the signature of the Agreement Creating

An Association Between The Republic of Turkey and theEuropean Economic Community (the "Ankara Agreement") on 12September 1963.


9/20


123

admission. In 2000, the European Union Commission prepared adocument named as Turkish Accession Partnership, which gavea road map for accession. While the European Union still have not

started full negotiations with Turkey, the entrance of the GreekCypriot Republic (in May 2004) as the only recognizedgovernment in the island before the Turkish government, receiveda high attention in Turkey. In 2002, the UN Secretary General KofiAnnan introduced a plan. After having negotiations, citing thefailure of Cyprus's Greek and Turkish leaders to agree on a plan forthe island country's reunification, the UN Secretary General KofiAnnan decided to put a proposal for unifying the country to a

popular vote on April 24. The 220-page UN plan called for theestablishment of largely autonomous ethnic Greek and Turkishstates united by a weak federal government. The plan envisaged afederation of two states - one Greek and the other Turkish - with aloose central government, on the Swiss model. It provided theCypriot people on both sides of the political divide their firstopportunity in decades to decide directly whether to unite or go italone. There was a chance to join the European Union as a unified

country when it was going to add ten new members to theorganization on May 1, 2004. The Turkish government hassignaled its support for Annan's plan. Separate referenda were heldon the plan in northern and southern Cyprus. Greek Cypriots haveturned down the plan, while Turkish Cypriots approved the Annan plan. Decades of efforts by the United States, the Europeangovernments and the United Nations to unify Cyprus have againfailed. The EU membership in effect applied only in the Greek part

when Cyprus joined on May 1, 2004.

9

Besides Cyprus, the US-Turkish relations is also influencedby well-organized Greek minority in the United States. The UnitedStates has been criticizing Turkey on human rights accusations inthe recent decade. There were substantial cuts in US foreignassistance to Turkey during the mid-1990s and the transfer of

9 For details on the history of Cyprus see World wide web: http://

www.kibris.gen.tr/english/chronology/index.html; for latest newssee World Wide Web http://www.cna.org.cy; for Annan plan forCyprus see World Wide Web: http://www.cyprus-un-plan.org.


10/20


124

remaining aid was conditioned on Turkey improving its humanrights performance.10 Ethnic lobbies in the United Statesespecially effect foreign policy decision makers concerning human

rights.11

The second problem between the United States and Turkey

stems from Armenian question. This problem has two sections.One comes from what occurred during the World War I betweenTurks and the Turkish-Armenian minority. Armenia claims thatOttoman committed genocide in 1915 against Armenians living inthe Eastern part of Turkey. It must be remembered that nogenocide, took place, at this or any other time during the war as

Armenia tries to propagate in the international arena. Thus, theTurkish state has consistently denied Armenian assertions ofgenocide perpetrated by the Ottomans against their people duringthe First World War. It claims the Armenians who were killed diedin fighting with Ottoman troops. On the other hand, Greek andArmenian lobbies in the United States have long been pushing forCongress to recognize injustice against the Armenians, chargingthat the Turks indiscriminately slaughtered them in the waning

days of the Ottoman Empire. Armenian Diaspora has initiated aglobal campaign to have Western parliaments recognize the eventas genocide. (Baran, 2002) 12

Second part is due to Turkey-Armenia relations. Armenia isone of the new republics, which declared its independence in 1990.Bilateral relations started between Turkey and Armenia withTurkey's recognition of independence of Armenia on December 16,1991 and Turkey's extending humanitarian aid to this country.

Bilateral relations could not further improve for long years, asArmenia did not give up so-called genocide allegations and carried

10 For further discussion, see Main issues: Cyprus under the TurkishMinistry of Foreign Affairs World Wide Web:http://www.mfa.gov.tr

11 This might be discussed in another paper as the Turkish governmenthas done a lot of new reforms on the issue of human rights.

12

For further discussion, seeArmenian allegations under the TurkishMinistry of Foreign Affairs world wide web: http://www.mfa.gov.tr.


11/20


125

on its occupying policy. Armenia used the expression of ''WestArmenia'' for Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey in itsindependence declaration and showed Mountain Agri as the state

emblem in its constitution. Armenia did not recognize 1921 KarsAgreement and Gyumri (Gumru) Agreement, which determine theborder between the two countries and it included efforts to makeso-called genocide allegations to be recognized in internationalfield in its foreign policy priorities. These are the most importantproblems, which prevent establishing sound relations between thetwo countries. In addition, Turkey stood by Azerbaijan in the warover Nagorna-Karabakh. Azerbaijan lost the war and Armenia took

over Nagorna-Karabakh in 1994. Although conflict is currentlystalemate, desire for solution does exist. Armenia continued to prevent establishing diplomatic relations between Yerevan andAnkara by keeping nearly 20 percent of Azerbaijan territory underoccupation and not complying with no: 822, 853, 874 and 884resolutions of the United Nations. Thus, today, relationship isdetermined with Armenias invasion of Karabagh and its territorialclaims on some parts of Turkey. Armenian lobby in the United

States also has negative affects on the Turkish-US relations(Libaridian, 2000; zel, 2003; Selvi, 2003).13Yet, the dialogue process has started with Armenia. The

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul came together three timeswith Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanyan at internationalmeetings in 2003. But Turkey's efforts to establish goodneighborhood relations with Armenia haven't yielded any result sofar.

Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, the three states in theCaucasus, supported the United States immediately after theSeptember 11, 2001 attacks. Actually in the recent years, oil,democracy and political stability have driven the US policytowards the Caucasus. Since the end of the Cold War as Turkeyand Russia no longer share a border, Turkey developed relationswith Azerbaijan and Georgia. In contrast, relations with Armenianever improved as indicated for the reasons above. The United

13 For further discussion see World Wide Web:http://www.turkishpress.com/specials/2003/yir/armenia.asp


12/20


126

States is close to both Turkey and Armenia to secure stability in theCaucasus region.

Meanwhile, during the 1990s the replacement of one

government after another is observed in Turkey. Thus, the USpolicy towards Turkey from 1991 until 2003 had to deal with ninedifferent governments. Of those, particularly, the Islamic WelfareParty, Necmettin Erbakan (the leader of the Welfare Party), whenhe led a coalition government during 1996-1997 posed someproblems.14 Erbakan was the first Islamist prime minister since theestablishment of the Republic. The spread of political Islamdisturbed the US officials, thus, they paid high attention to Welfare

Party leader-Erbakan led government. In Turkey, the traditionalmilitary and foreign policy elite were also deeply disturbed. Theythought that coalition government during 1996-1997 has reorientedTurkey towards Islamic countries. In 1996 September, the WelfareParty led Turkish coalition government (Prime Minister NecmettinErbakan) refused to allow the US warplanes to enter Iraq from NATO bases in Turkey. However, Robbins (1997) argues that

14 Specific issues might be discussed in another paper. The Turkishgovernments from 1991 until 2003 are as follows:The Motherland Party led coalition, Prime Minister Mesut Ylmaz:06.1991 - 11.1991The True Path Party led coalition, Prime minister SleymanDemirel: 11.1991 06.1993The True Path Party led coalition, Prime minister Tansu iller:06.1993 03.1996

The Motherland Party led coalilition, Prime Minister MesutYlmaz: 03.1996 06.1996The Welfare Party led coalition, Prime Minister NecmettinErbakan: 06.1996 06.1997The Motherland Party led coalition, Prime Minister Mesut Ylmaz:06.1997 01.1999The Democratic Left Party led coalition, Prime minister BlentEcevit: 01.1999-11.2002The Justice and Development Party, Prime minister Abdullah Gl:

11.2002 03.2003The Justice and Development Party, current Prime Minister RecepTayyip Erdoan: 03.2003 -


13/20


127

though Erbakan increased Turkeys relations with the Islamicworld, his foreign policy has been characterized by continuityrather than change (Robbins, 1997).

Although there are unsolved problems as indicated above,there are many converging interests between the United States andTurkey in the post-Cold War era (Kirii, 1998, 2000, 2001;Harris, 2000; Hale, 2000). First of all, both countries supported theadmission of new Eastern European members to NATO and NATO Partnership for Peace Programme. Secondly, the UnitedStates actively supports the Turkish membership in the EuropeanUnion. The Bush administration has strongly backed the Turkish

governments push for the European Union membership. However,in December 2003, the European Union refused to set a date fortalks on Turkeys application for membership. Recently, the Justiceand Development Party led-Turkish government has a deep desireto advance the Turkish candidacy to the European Union, forwhich American pressure may well prove crucial.

Thirdly, the United States and Turkey cooperate on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or

missiles (WMD). As a fourth factor, they cooperate on energytransportation in the Central Asia. They are in agreement on theopening of new oil pipeline routes from the Caspian basin to theWest, avoiding both Russian and Iranian territory: (Bak-Ceyhan)pipeline.

The fifth factor is that both are searching for stability inBalkans. Turkey has actively supported actions of the UnitedNations and the United States in Bosnia and Kosovo. Also, Turkey

supported the UN and NATO peacekeeping and humanitarianassistance operations in Somalia. Turkey, as a NATO member, hasbeen participating in peace support operations in Kosovo, Bosnia,Somalia and Macedonia. Turkey helped the reconstruction ofAfghanistan by participating actively in the ISAF and commandingthis multinational force.(Ziyal, 2004)

The sixth factor is that they cooperate on establishing marketeconomy and democratic and secular regimes in Central Asia.Based on its cultural and linguistic bonds with the new republics inC.


14/20


128

Finally, Turkey has long been fighting against terrorism. TheUnited States has supported the Turkish fight against the PKKterrorism and helped in arrest of the PKK leader, Abdullah Ocalan.

Recently, the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress(KADEK), which is a continuation of the PKK is operating in the Northern Iraq. Thus, the PKK regrouped under a new name(KADEK) in southeastern Turkey and continues its terroristactivities.

4.The Iraq War and Its AftermathConsidering Gulf crisis 1990-91, where Iraq have invaded

Kuwait, Turkey have closed the oil pipeline from Kerkk toYumurtalk, which carried about half of Iraq oil exports; permitedcoalition aircraft to use Incirlik airbase in 1991; Turkish forceswere placed on the border to oppose an Iraqi ground attack whichdivided Iraq forces that could be otherwise used in the southtowards coalition forces. However, in the beginning of the newconflicts in the region, the Turkish government declared that theyare against interference in the internal affairs or territorial integrity

of Iraq.In March 2003, the US administration decided to attack Iraq

claiming that all of the measures such as diplomacy, UN SecurityCouncil resolutions, UN weapons inspectors, and even strikesagainst military targets in Iraq failed to compel Saddam Hussein'scompliance with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire(Cheney, 2003). Months prior to the war, Washington embarked onexhausting negotiations with Turkey to gain access to the Turkish

territory for the deployment of 62,000 US troops and equipmentthat included the 4th Infantry Division. The US government was planning to open a second front in the southeast of Turkey.However, one day before the United States attacked Iraq, on March1, 2003, the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) hasrefused the US air and ground forces to use the bases in southeastTurkey. The Turkish bases are modern facilities built and outfittedto fulfill Turkey's obligations as a member of NATO, which makes

them far superior to the airstrips in Central Asia- that the UnitedStates upgraded over several months to handle planes flying in the


15/20


129

Afghanistan campaign. The US military has maintained a presenceat Incirlik since the 1950s, and because the base is only an hour'sflight from Iraq, it is an ideal location to support the rotations.15

However, Turkey has refused to be involved in the war and topermit combat air operations to originate from its territory.The USadministration has been surprised with the decision of the TGNAand decided to withdraw its forces as tension escalated betweenWashington and Ankara.

After March 1 tension, the Turkish troop issue hasassumed priority in the bilateral relationship. On Oct 2003,the TGNA approved a resolution authorizing the government

to send the Turkish troops to Iraq. But on November 2003,while the offer to send troops was still possible, Turkeyannounced that it would not deply them unless it received aclear invitation from the IGC. Thus, the idea of Turkeystroop deployment was closed. Ever since the war endedTurkey has coordinated its activities in the region with theUnited States presence in the area.

5.ConclusionAccording to Stephen M. Walt the basis for the formation of

alliances is a balance of threat. What happens to alliances wheninterests diverge?

The Turkey-US partnership had its origins in the Cold Warand was developed especially by their coopeartion against theSoviet Union. For fifty years after the end of World War II, the

United States and Turkey were close allies based on mutualinterests. As we have observed above, since the 1950s Turkey has been a major recepient of American defense equipment. Thoughthe US military aid to Turkey ended in 1998, the Turkish militarycontinues to get training. Due to fundamental geostrategic changesafter the end of the Cold War, for to continue the alliance both

15

The US forces had based some 50 warplanes at Incirlik after the 1991Gulf War to patrol a no-fly zone over northern Iraq. (Jan 12. 2004,http://www. foxnews.com)


16/20


130

sides has changed their expectations from this cooperation. Thus,in the last years the bilateral agenda -named as "strategic partnership" in 1999, has changed. Commercial US trade and

investment in Turkey became an important part of cooperation besides security commitments. In the meantime, sometimes theUS domestic ethnic politics and lobbies (the American Armenianlobby, the American Greek lobby) negatively, other times positively (the American Jewish lobby) effected and complicatedthe US-Turkey relations.

But the problematic issues such as Cyprus, Turkeysrelations with Greece and Armenia remain on the agenda. The

TGNAs rejection of allowing the US troops to use the Turkishbases during the recent war created a diplomatic tension betweenthe two countries. Furthermore, there are hesitations in Turkeyabout the Bush administrations attitude towards Syria and Iran.But despite their interests diverge on a number of issues asindicated above, there are many converging interests between thetwo countries that will help lessen the tensions. Most importantly,both countries are aware of the dangers of international terrorism.

Both countries acted together such as in the Gulf War (1991) andintervention in Afghanistan (2003). Furthermore, Turkeys securitycontributions have broadened from Balkans to Afghanistan.Moreover, US-Turkey relations can develop in the northernTurkey, such as the Balkans and Black Sea basin to the Caucasusand Central Asia. There are many opportunities for cooperation inthis region.

From Turkey's perspective, the Turkish government expects

the US assistance in a number of areas: US support againstKADEK/PKK [Kurdistan Workers' Party] terrorism; the promiseof enlarged exports to US markets; the removal of obstacles tomilitary transfers to Turkey; and US support for Turkey's otherforeign policy issues, such as in Cyprus and EU membership.

In the future:i. They can cooperate to deal with Russia, Iran and Syria.ii. They can continue to fight together on the war on terror,

especially sharing valuable intelligence against terror groups.Also, they can cooperate on other new threats such as drugtrafficking and money laundering.


17/20


131

iii. In addition, the Turkish assistance in Iraq, whether it is peacekeepers or reconstruction aid, would be beneficial tothe United States in achieving security and stability there.

iv. Furthermore, the Turkish economy, combined with its accessto the EU, Central Asian oil, and the Middle East wouldmake Turkey increasingly attractive to the US administrationand companies.

References

ABRAMOWITZ, M. (2000) Turkeys Transformation andAmerican Policy. New York: Century Foundation Press.

ALTUNISIK, M. (2000) Turkish Policy toward Israel. In AlanMakovsky and Sabri Sayari (Eds.), Turkey's New World:Changing Dynamics in Turkish Foreign Policy (pp.59-73).Washington D.C: The Washington Institute for Near EastPolicy.

AYDIN, M. (1996) Turkey and Central Asia: Challenges ofChange. Central Asian Survey, 15(2), 157-177.

BARAN, Z. (2002) The Caucasus: Ten Years after Independence.The WashingtonQuarterly, 25(1), 221-234.

BERMAN, I. (2002) Israel, India, and Turkey: Triple Entente? TheMiddle East Quarterly, 9(4).

BURKE, A. W. (2000) Pipeline Politics: U.S. Corporations LeadForeign Economic Policy. Journal of South Asian andMiddle Eastern Studies, 24(1), 1-15.

BURNS, W. J. (2003) Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs,

Statement Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:U.S.-Syrian Relations, Washington, DC. Retrevied April 6,2004 from the World Wide Web: http:// www.state.gov

CHENEY, D. (2003) The Continuing war on Terror. Speech givenat American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Washington.Retrevied October 15, 2003 from the World Wide Webhttp://www.whitehouse.gov

Cooper & Berdal (1993) Outside Intervention in Ethnic Conflicts.

Survival, 35(1), 118-142.


18/20


132

Fuller, E. G. (2004). Turkeys Strategic Model: Myhts andRealities. The WashingtonQuarterly, 27(3): 51-64.

HALE, W. (2000) Turkish Foreign Policy 1774-2000. London:

Frank Cass.HARRIS, G. S. (2000) U.S.-Turkish Relations. In Alan Makovsky

and Sabri Sayar (Eds.), Turkeys New World: ChangingDynamics in Turkish Foreign Policy (pp.189-203).Washington D.C: The Washington Institute for Near EastPolicy.

SAGILLER, A. (translated) Michael Brzoska, (Jan-Feb 2003).Souk Sava Sonrasnda Silah thalat [The importation of

arms after the Cold War]. ktisat Dergisi, 433, 56-66.KEMP, G. (1997) Energy Superbowl: Strategic Politics and thePersian Gulf and the Caspian Basin. Washington D.C: NixonCenter for Peace and Freedom.

KR, K. (1998) Turkey and the U.S: Ambivalent Allies.Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)Journal, 2(4), 18-27.

KR, K. (2000) US-Turkish Relations: From uncertainty to

closer ties. Insight Turkey, 2(4), 37-63.KR, K. (2001) US-Turkish Relations: New Uncertainties in aRenewed Partnership. In Kemal Kirii and Barry Rubin(Eds.), Turkey in World Politics (pp.129-149). Boulder,London: Lynne Reinner.

KUNHOLM, B. (2000). The Geopolitics of the Caspian Basin.The Middle East Journal, 54 (4), 546-577.

LIBARIDIAN, G. J. (2000) The future of Turkish-Armenian

Relations. Insight Turkey, 2(4), 125-145.N, Z. (2001) Turkey and the Post Soviet States: Potential andLimits of Regional Power Influence. Middle East Review ofInternational Affairs (MERIA) Journal, 5(2).

ZCAN, G. (2003) Ankarann Kutsal Topraklara Yolculuu:Trkiye Israil Yaknlamas [The Trip of Ankara to PreciousLands: Rapprochement between Turkey and Israel]. IktisatDergisi, 433-434.

ZEL, S. (2003) Osmanl Devleti Dneminde Trk-Ermenilikileri ve Ermeni Sorununa likin Baz Deerlendirmeler[Turkish-Armenian Relations During the Ottoman state and


19/20


133

Some evaluations about Armeian Problem]. StratejikAratrmalar Dergisi, 2, 49-57.

POPE, N. (2003) Eyes on Turkey, Middle East International,

691: 14-15.PARRIS, M. (2003). Starting Over: U.S. Turkish Relations in the

Post-Iraq War Era. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 2(1).ROBINS, P. (1993). Between Sentiment and Self-Interest:

Turkey's Policy Toward Azerbaijan and the Central AsianStates. Middle East Journal. 47(4), 593-610.

ROBINS, P. (1997). Turkish Foreign Policy under Erbakan.Survival, 39(2), 82-100.

SELVI, H. (2003) Trkiye Ermenistan likilerinin Hali HazrDurumu ve Gelecei [The present situation of the Turkish-Armenian Relations and the Future]. Stratejik AratrmalarDergisi, 2,111-139.

SEVER, A. (2001) Turkey and Syrian- Israeli Peace Talks in the1990s. Middle East Review of International Affairs(MERIA) Journal, 5(3).

SMOLANSKY, O. M. (1994) Turkish and Iranian Policies in

Central Asia. In Hafeez Malik (Ed.), Central Asia: ItsStrategic Importance and Future Prospects (pp.283-310).New York: St. Martin's Press.

WINROW, G. (2000a) Turkish Policy toward Central Asia and theTranscaucasus. In Alan Makovsky and Sabri Sayari (Eds.),Turkey's New World: Changing Dynamics in TurkishForeign Policy (pp.116-130). Washington D.C: TheWashington Institute for Near East Policy.

WINROW, G. (2000b). Turkey and Caspian Energy: TheImportance of Geopolitics. Insight Turkey, 22, 63-76.ZIYAL, U. (2004). Reconceptualization of Soft Security and

Turkeys Civilian Contributions to International Security.Turkish Policy Quarterly, 3(2), 31-40.

Turkey-US relations under the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairsretrevied March 02, 2004 from the World Wide Web:http://www.mfa.gov.tr

Turkey-US relations under Undersecretariat of the Prime Ministryof Foreign Trade retrevied March 02, 2004 from the WorldWide Web http://www.foreigntrade.gov.tr


20/20


134

Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction Sales andMilitary Assistance Facts, Defense Security AssistanceAgency as of September 1997 retrevied January 18, 2004

from the World Wide Web:http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/reports

Congressional Presentation for Foreign Operations, U.S.Department of State, FY 1986-2000 retrevied January 18,2004 from the World Wide Web:http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/reports andhttp://www.state.gov.documents

The history of Cyprus retrevied March 20, 2004 from the World

Wide Web:http://www.kibris.gen.tr/english/chronology/index.htmlLatest news on Cyprus retrevied March 20, 2004 from the World

Wide Web: http://www.cna.org.cyAnnan plan for Cyprus retrevied March 20, 2004 from the World

Wide Web: http://www.cyprus-un-plan.orgTurkish-Armenian relations retrevied February 12, 2004 from the

World Wide Web:

http://www.turkishpress.com/specials/2003/yir/armenia.aspFriendly Pragmatism: Turkish-Israeli Defense Ties retrevied November 5, 2003 from the World Wide Web:http://www.fpa.org

Nilufer Goksel...Turkey and the United States Post War Relationship

Documents

Transcript of Nilufer Goksel...Turkey and the United States Post War Relationship