Effects of the End of the Cold War on Turkey’s International Position – Hüseyin Bağcı

Effects of the End of the Cold War

on Turkey’s International Position

 

Hüseyin Bağcı

 

The system established in Yalta has ended and Europe has entered into a search for a “new system.” The end of Cold War and the Gulf War bring about  debates of a new order. Turkey also has entered into new searches in this new order and as a result has experienced some deviations from its traditional policies.

 

Europe has experienced the longest period of peace after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 between 1945 and 1989.[i] The “New World Order” emerged after Second World War has been a bipolar world and, as powers produced by the war, United States (US) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) marked every development in the world. This New World Order, which has been perceived ideologically in essence, has ended with the political transformations evolved in Central and East Europe in 1989 and Europe became a continent fluctuating between new hopes and old fears.[ii] In other words, the system established in Yalta has ended and Europe entered into a search for a “new system.”

Actually, for the last thirty years Europe has experienced a stable state system. There is a system study in Europe after the collapse of this system. The essence of this system is the concept of “United States of Europe.”[iii] This concept, which targets for Europe to be a factor of political and economic balance in a multi-polar world, has continuously been set on the agenda and emphasized by European scholars. Europe begins to think about getting rid of the effects of two superpowers produced by the post-Second World War order and to isolate these two superpowers as a “whole Europe.”[iv] However, its realization is not as easy as it is thought. The recent debates demonstrate its difficulty. Especially, during and after the Gulf War, the difficulty that Europe has encountered in developing a common foreign policy added a new dimension to these debates and brings about the fact that it should not be expected from Europe to play a significant role in the near future.[v]

The effort for the isolation of the US and the USSR from Europe seems to be less likely for various reasons. The most significant reason is that Europe still needs the US as a power of balance against the USSR. The stable states system had to survive many storms, such as the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. However, this basic structure has not changed because of the comfort and trust provided by the nuclear umbrella of the United States. As the former Foreign Minister of the USSR, Eduard Shevardnadze said, “Europe, divided by blocs and military alliances, is a region having realized the strongest political integration of the world.”[vi]

This political integration was realized with the European Community. However, this process of integration has not been completed yet. Indeed the targets for the unification of Europe in political, military, economic and cultural terms were determined in the Governmental Program declared on 30 January 1991 as such:

  1. Until 31 December 1992, a European Common Internal Market, from which 340 millions of people could benefit, should be established.
  2. A Europe having no borders from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains should be created.
  3. Instead of a centralized Europe a pluralistic Europe should be created.
  4. A European Parliament whose competences have been enlarged should be established.
  5. European Common Foreign and Security Policy should be developed and this policy should include common defense of Europe.
  6. European Economic and Monetary Union should be established.
  7. Social security should be provided in Europe.
  8. A United States of Europe should be established.[vii]

As it can be seen the security problem of Europe preserves its significance. The leadership of the US in this respect has been accepted by Europe. The maintenance of NATO is the most important phenomenon for the maintenance of the US in Europe. In the eighteenth century America emerged as an independent state from Europe. On the eve of the twenty-first century, the question of the emergence of Europe as an independent political entity from the US is on the agenda. In other words, the child of Europe turned out to be the father of Europe and although sometimes the authority of the father has been challenged, the maintenance of its presence has been perceived as inevitable.[viii]

The US is necessary for the security of Europe as a power of balance against the Soviet Union. What is more, the US is also necessary for preserving a United Germany within the NATO alliance. Indeed, the collapse of bipolar system is not beneficial for Europeans, because the disintegration of the USSR will produce a world with many uncertainties. In this case, the USSR continues to be the nightmare of the European states. At one point, the political and military position of Europe has been experiencing a process of transformation. During the Cold War, Europe played a central role in the East-West contention. However, today, Europe has become a space used by the US soldiers for extra-territorial crises. This transformation brings Europe “from a crossroad of security to a garage of security.” The current reality is that Europe has to engage in a rivalry with the hierarchy of interests of the US in the Middle East and Asia in order not to lose its “central position.” While attempting to develop its own security identity, Europe has been trapped into a dilemma. If the realization of the idea of “More Europe” is necessary, then following less American policy in Europe is inevitable. This dilemma can be resolved with the re-determination of the “Europe policies” of the US and the USSR.[ix]

 

The Position of Europe in the New World Order and New Fears

We are in the beginning of a new era in the European history. As mentioned above briefly, this new period includes the differences between the official reorganization of the world and the realities of power and does not involve the similarities in any international system experienced in the past. This new period brings some contradictions and difficulties. “The New World Order” can be defined as Pax Americana and can be used to define the US’s desire to rule the world.[x]

The world order has multiple meanings. For example, there is an order of posts including a certain hierarchy. There is also an order (both material and moral) for self-discipline. An order emerged for completion of a process (like seasons) can be mentioned. There is an order in the chain of command. The money and the numbers had an order. In the simplest sense, order is the antonym of disorder.[xi]

The end of Cold War and the Gulf War brings about these debates of new order. Turkey has had to enter into new searches in this order and has experienced some deviations from its traditional policies.[xii]

This New World Order shows no similarity with any of the past world orders. In terms of distribution of capabilities, the most significant aspect of the New World Order is its multi-polarity. However, these poles include different aspects of power. It can be argued that in military terms the USSR, in financial and economic terms, Japan and the united Germany, in demographic terms China and India, and in military and economic terms, the US will form these poles. The “destiny” of this New World will be dependent on these poles’ capability of making enough cooperation to prevent and balance the contentions with each other. Besides, the relations of these poles will be shaped within the framework of domestic political developments, which are difficult to predict right now.[xiii]

Within this context, the mentioning about a “new world ethics” by the Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, is quite appropriate. Because, the “ism”s produced during the nineteenth century, their ethical values and patterns of behavior have been transformed considerably. In the last century, the intentions might have changed from situation to situation, from region to region, from year to year. The famous statesman, Otto von Bismark’s concept of “Realpolitik” demonstrates this understanding and variability.[xiv] Besides, the British statesman, Lord Palmerston defined his perspective in 1848, which influenced Bismarck and became a principle of international relations, as such: “We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”[xv]

The US President, George Bush understands from the New World Order the new rules of international behavior and the mutual recognition of security as everyone’s concern and responsibility. In his speech delivered to the US Congress on 5 March 1991, President Bush emphasized that the Gulf War is the first test of the emerging “New World Order” and the post-War order would be a new world order. President Bush, who argued that unlike the last century, the US would not refrain from playing the sacred role of preservation of freedom, justice and peace in the coming century, repeated in a way, John F. Kennedy’s view in the 1960s about “the necessity of making any sacrifices and carrying the responsibility for freedom.” President Bush said in the speech that he delivered on the day of declaration of his candidacy: “We saved Europe, we cured poliomyelitis, we conquered the moon, and we enlightened the entire world. Now, we are at the beginning of a new century and which country’s name will this century carry? I say that this century will be marked by the US.”[xvi]

When the European statesmen are dealing with the concept of United States of Europe they are making declarations about the New World Order full of ambiguities. For example, when the Foreign Minister of the UK, Douglas Hurd, says that “We and the US have no future plans,”[xvii] the eminent German statesman Willy Brandt mentions that the West will be accuse by the Islamic world of determination of the Gulf Region as a region where the Western world aims to realize their intentions to establish their sovereignty and the US seems to be perceived as the “police of the world”, and emphasizes that the European community should pursue an active policy as soon as possible.[xviii]

The US and the Soviet Union had new position and interest in the post-war new order. Especially, new debates began concerning what would be national interests of the Soviet Union.[xix] Although the objectives of the President of the Soviet Union Mihael Gorbachev broke up with those of the US and realization of them necessitated a competition with the US, in essence they were not against the interests of the US. This situation should be the characteristic of Soviet-American interests in the post-Cold War era. In other words, Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev and Brezhnev identified Soviet interest as the interest aiming at forfeiture of the Western, particularly the US interests. Whereas, since coming to power in March 1985, Gorbachev was seeking for ways for achieving compromise with the US. This can be defined as new Soviet “Palmerstonism”. Thereby the tensions of the Cold War decreases and the possibility of wider cooperation emerges.[xx]

The “New Thinking” in the Soviet foreign policy is a policy which supports obviously this cooperation. Because of this, in order to understand the meaning of “New Thinking”, it is better to make an abstract definition of the concept.

“New Thinking can be defined as set of measures which aim to prevent the Soviet Union to make the same mistakes once again in the economical, social, political and foreign and defence policy areas”.[xxi]

Today, it is impossible to isolate the crisis Soviet Union faced from ineffectiveness of Soviet policies in its international relations, its strategic mistakes and delay of the necessary domestic economic, social and political reforms. Gorbachev’s “New Thinking” does not indicate the abandonment of the Soviet Union’s status of being one of the super powers in the world, on the contrary it aims to redefine the Soviet Union’s status of super power. According to this, the role of the Soviet Union in the international area is as such: it displays a foreign policy which does not only rely on military force, but attaches less importance to the item of conflict and attaches high importance to cooperation and normalcy in foreign relations.[xxii]

The concept of New Thinking is not enough to wipe out traditional European “Russian phobia”. When we add the reunification of two Germanies, the fear of Europeans concentrated on these two countries. Europeans consider the Soviet Union or Russia as a potential threat to their security in the case of its break up, because of uncertainties in the Soviet Union. Reforms implemented within the framework of Glasnost and Perestroika, rise of Russian nationalism, the will of some republics to secede from the federation, power vacuum emerged following the abolishment of the Warsaw Pact, and the possibility of Soviet military operation towards this region constitutes factors which creates insecurity.

Concerning the United Germany, various opinions are put forward.[xxiii] Some put forward that pre-1914 and pre-1939 conditions come back. They claim that this results in fears because of superior Germany’s security fear due to its lack of nuclear weapons, Germany’s possible ambition to fill the power vacuum in  Central and Eastern Europe or to regain regions it lost after the Second World War. In addition to that, some fear that possible relations between new and powerful Germany and economically weak Soviet Union would result in the weakening of the military side of NATO and shifting of Germany’s foreign policy to the East. It is known that the main aim of the Soviet Union’s concept of “Common European House” is to create neutral Europe and to make US to withdraw from Europe in the future.[xxiv] Moreover, the survival of NATO is regarded as a buffer against German threat.

The logic of most European’s fear of the Soviet Union and Germany necessitates a cooperation among Central and Eastern European nations against German revanchism and re-emergence of Soviet aggression under Western (US) guarantee. In fact, there is a necessity to protect these countries from another Hitler-Stalin Pact. However, there is no suggestion for enlarging borders of NATO to the East. Because such an enlargement would be both not welcomed by the Soviet Union and prevented by France because of known reasons.

In addition to that, there are two important issues widely debated and feared of in Europe. First one is the fear of re-emergence of anarchic order in Eastern Europe. By the fear, we mean the re-emergence of the conditions of interwar period in this region and balkanization of the countries in the region. That is to say, unrest emerged in relations between states of the region which is created by nationalist movements, secessionist movements (Romania-Hungary, Yugoslavia-Czechoslovakia) prevents the emergence of democratic political systems and stabilization of economic structures in the region.[xxv]

As famous British specialist on Eastern Europe, Timothy Garton Ash argues “Transition from communist social value system to pluralist democratic system would not be easy”. The reason behind this is that most of basic elements of capitalist society lacked in these societies, which had been kept under pressure by totalitarian communist regime. Because of this, there is a danger of coming to power of authoritarian and anti-democratic regimes like the ones  observed once in Poland and Hungary. If democratic policies generally cannot meet the expectations of society and solve the discontent and the necessity of implementing tight economic policies emerges, this threat will further increase. However, nowadays it is obvious that Western Europe are taking intensive measures for political and economic integration with Central and Eastern European countries and trying not to repeat the past mistakes.[xxvi]

Secondly, there is a different fear. The fear of invasion by the foreigners, which is penetrating the whole European countries,  which is related with migration. Besides France and Germany, the situation of people migrating from Albania to Italy and measures taken to prevent such a migration constitutes first sign of a new social explosion. A new dimension of security emerges as a result of Islamic radicalists, terrorists, hungery Africans, the plight of less developed countries, people escaping from political conflicts and instability, the mass migration of Eastern Europeans to Western Europe in search for a job and social security.

Wealthy Europe is considered by most of West Europeans as a “Treasure Island” which is tried to be conquered and looted by pirates. Indeed, the demographic situation of Europe reinforces such a fear. Recently, in the expectation of mass migration from Eastern Europe, West Europe prefers to provide material assistance to these countries and try to postpone the membership of pro-Western countries such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia to the EC.

Besides the US and the Soviet Union, the United Germany is also one of the powers which will determine the developments in Europe.

Especially, after the reunification of Germany on 3 October 1990, Germany is a candidate to play a prominent role in a multi-polar world. Therefore, it is necessary to look at German foreign and security policies.

West Germany’s foreign and security policy will  originates from policies implemented by Federal Germany. However, these new policies will differentiate from previous ones. The reason for that is the change of East European geopolitical situation. As a result of this change, Poland became neighbour of Germany. Soviet Union enters into a close economical, political and technological cooperation with the United Germany. The United Germany’s responsibility in the process of modernization of Eastern Europe would increase due to its economic superiority and its position in the EC. In the same way, the problems caused by the economic integration of former Democratic Germany would bring various pressures on the United Germany.[xxvii]

The unchanging principle of  United Germany’s foreign policy is West European integration. This policy is based on the realization of interregional harmonization through various policies, amelioration of mechanisms of interregional coordination and orientation – this includes loyalty to World politics and economics – and protection against threat to external security provided by NATO’s joint position. These constitute a stable basis for the United Germany’s policy of Europe. This is valid for both political and economic integration process in Europe and cooperation going beyond borders of Europe.

There will be a need for rearrangement in German security policy. This arrangement is for finding solutions for the near future. However, necessary process for this kind of short-term solutions, such as the integration of the United Germany to NATO and special situation of old Democratic Germany’s land and withdrawal of Soviet troops, should not be perceived as a very simple event, because these are such events which will be happened within next 4 or 10 years. [xxviii]

Foreign policies which will be pursued are in essence the same as those of Federal Germany, the emergence of new problem areas will be expected. By saying that, we acknowledge that the United Germany has not yet developed new foreign and security policy definitions. In other words, new problem areas may lead to new conflicts and tensions in international arena for the United Germany. Problems which may gain priority are listed as:

  1. The persistence of dependence on the US security policy
  2. The status discrepancy created by the United Germany’s inability to use its military force despite its economic impact.
  3. The fear of the “4th Reich” resulted from the United Germany’s achievement of domination in foreign policy.

The dependence of West European countries on the US in the area of security differs from those of the United Germany. France and the UK have their own nuclear arsenal. Despite France and the UK’s such advantage, Federal Germany and Italy remained dependent on the US’ policies of deterrence and disarmament. Especially Federal Germany as a “front state” has experienced different dimensions of ideological confrontation between East and West for 45 years.

The United Germany seems not to discard this security policy dependence in the near future. The most important reason for this is the Soviet Union’s failure to pursue a policy of getting rid of its nuclear weapons. Under this condition, the only power in Europe which is able to counterbalance this nuclear power is the US, the only country leading NATO, and its nuclear potential. Under this condition, new post-Cold War disputes began to emerge, because it becomes necessary to maintain US’ such “deterrence service” for Western Europe in the post-Cold War era. This condition necessitates the pursuance of competitive policies by the US and Western Europe against the Soviet Union despite CSCE process.

 

The Balkans and the Role of Turkey

In Turkey’s relations with Europe, the Balkans is one of the focal points. As one of the regions in which impacts of the Cold War has been most felt, Balkan Peninsula is defined as Europe’s “powder barrel”, because it is filled with unrest. Balkan Peninsula, which harbors various minority problems, ethnic and religious disputes and adventurist policies of some countries, remains as a politically and economically unstable region.

Power loss of the Soviet Union and other communist regimes in the region lays the ground for the creation of a dangerous environment in which both independence struggles of countries in the region are reinforced and the parochial nationalism and authoritarian trends emerge and prevail.

To cooperate with Balkan countries and thereby securing the borders in the region has been one of the aims of Turkish foreign policy since the foundation of the Turkish Republic. Beginning from the 1920s Turkey tried to establish “Chain of Security” and participate in all of the conferences related to solution of regional problems. Under the leadership of Turkey, Balkan Entente was established in 1934 with the participation of the Greece, Romania and Yugoslavia. Bulgaria participated in this Entente just before the Second World War in 1938.

Within the framework of the new order and state system emerging after end of the Second World War, Turkey took initiatives to revive the Balkan Entente especially during the Adnan Menderes era (1950-1960). However, Turkey’s initiatives failed due to the polarization of the Cold War era and the involvement of Balkan counties into these polarization during the 1945-1954 period. In 1954, the Balkan Alliance was signed between Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia in Bled, but this alliance did not progress due to the failure to solve disputes among the participating countries. The Cold War was another factor that contributed to the failure of this alliance.[xxix]

After the end of the Cold War, Balkan countries gave up their ideological obsessions and entered into the democratization process and were closely interested in European integration, because Europe, with all its institutions, became attractive for the Balkan countries. Especially, it seems difficult to establish sustainable security framework without taking into account of the Balkan countries. For this reason, cooperation among Balkan countries should be analyzed within the framework of the new European order. This cooperation’s aim of providing security for Europe is obvious in these countries’ state leaders’ statements and steps towards this end. Just like in the previous eras, Turkey has the opportunity of playing a constructive role for the realization of the cooperation among Balkan countries. The major factors that create this opportunity can be stated as follows:

  1. Turkey’s Ottoman heritage in this region
  2. Multi-ethnic structure of the region
  3. The presence of transit roads that links Turkey to Europe
  4. Common economical and security problems shared by Turkey with other countries of the region.[xxx]

The Balkan Conference which was held with the proposal of Yugoslavia in 1988 was very important in the sense that it brought all Balkan countries together for the first time after the end of the Cold War. This conference emphasized inevitability of the political and economical cooperation despite problems among the Balkan countries. Beside Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Turkey, Albania also participated in this conference unexpectedly. In negotiations, the ethnic problems among Balkan countries were left outside meticulously and cooperation in the fields of agriculture, industry, commerce, energy, tourism, the protection of environment and health was discussed and important forward looking decisions were taken.[xxxi]

The leading role Turkey played by proposing the Black Sea Cooperation scheme can be seen as the implementation of the decisions taken at the Belgrade Conference. In recent times, increasing diplomatic visits prove firm political will of Balkan States for realizing this cooperation. Turkey’s political aim was to improve economic cooperation among Balkan countries and to provide stability to this part of Europe that was conventionally characterized by unstable political and economic structures.[xxxii] This region not only in physical terms but also in cultural terms constitutes the bridge and the transit road from Turkey to Central and Western Europe.[xxxiii]

In coming years, Turkey as a prominent country in terms of politics, economics and military has the opportunity to shape developments in the region with the use of both bilateral and multilateral cooperation methods. Thus, it can be considered that the statements of the Balkan delegations visiting Turkey that their aim is to make use of Turkey’s experience prove that this opportunity is feasible.

 

Conclusion

  • The nature of political change in Turkey and the world
  • The political party in power
  • The position of the international economic relations which will be shaped by the desire and interest of the Turkish economy
  • Kurdish separatism[xxxiv]

Despite from the fact that Turkey will play an effective role in European security in the future, it can be stated that Turkey may play an important role in the European integration. Furthermore, the integrated Europe will have to develop strategies for Turkey and take into account of Turkey more than ever. In other words, Europe cannot disregard Turkey within the framework of the new world order. The important issue is not Turkey’s attempt to explain this just like it has done until now, but Europe’s imperative to understand this. Former Secretary of Defence Ercan Vuralhan emphasized this as such:

“Always we should give this message to the West. Yes, important changes took place in East-West line. In line with these changes, arms reductions took place in the West. However, most of the countries in the West have a threat perception of one bloc. Turkey is under multi-dimensional threat. For this reason, the relegation of Turkey’s demands in the field of defence in parallel with reductions in the West means leaving Turkey by itself in the region where the West has vital interests. Turkey always declares that it was not a guardian of Western interest in this region. Turkey proved this. Turkey’s policy towards the Gulf War was the most concrete example of this. However, the West should not forget that Turkey is the representative of stability and democracy in this region. Turkey has been an effective country with a leadership position in the region. The West should bear in mind that a threat towards Turkey should be taken into account by the West.”[xxxv]

Thus, after the end of the Gulf War, Turkey’s increasing importance was started to be emphasized and the ideas suggesting that Turkey would become one of the countries that would provide stability in integrated Europe gained prominence. Europe is no more the only alternative for Turkey. There have been always problems in Turkey’s relations with Europe and smooth relationship cannot be expected. However, Turkey is an important alternative for Europe. Europe is aware of this fact and thus shapes its policies on the basis of this awareness.[xxxvi]

 

End Notes

(1)   1815 sonrası Avrupa’da çıkan “Yeni Düzen” ve
güçlerin konumu ile ilgili olarak bkz;Henry Kissinger,
Das Gleichgewich der Machte, Metternich, Castlereagh
und die Neuordnung Europas 1821-1822
Zürich,1986

(2)  İki kutuplu dünya ve değişimler için bkz; Paul Kennedy,
Büyük Güçlerin Yükseliş ve Çöküşleri, İş bankası Yayınları,
Ankara 1980 Aynı şekilde ideolojik çöküş için bkz; ZibignievBrzezinski, Büyük çöküş, İş Bankası Yayınları, Ankara 1990 ve Francis Fukuyama; The End of History;in  National Interest Summer 1990 ve Uwe Nechrlich; Europa zwischen alten Angsten und neunen Hoffnungen, in: Europa Archiv Nummer 16,25.5.1990,3.481-493

  • İstikrarlı devletler sistemi için bkz. Kari Dietrich Bracher, Europa in der Krise, Frankfurt Yeni kon-sept arayışlar için bkz. Dieter Senghaas, Europa 2000-Ein Friedensplan-Frankfurt am Main 1990 ve Stanley Hoffmann; Abschied von der Vergangenheit, Politik und Sicherheit im Künftigen Europa, Europa Archiv, Nummer 20 25.10.1990, S.595-607
  • Peter Glotz, Gesamteuropa, Skizze für einen schwierigen Weg, Europa Archiv, 1.1990 ve Hüseyin Bağcı, Avrupa Tarihinde Yeni bir Dönem, Dış Politika Bülteni, Mart-Nisan-Mayıs 1990, Ankara
  • William Pfaff; Don’t expect a Big European Role Anytime Soon, International Herald Tribune, January, 21, 1991.R6
  • Uwe Nehrlich a.g.e.S.481
  • Programın tamalanması için bkz. Europa Archiv, Num­mer 5,30 January 1991, S.126-140
  • NATO Genei sekreteri Manfred Wörner ile yapılan röportaj; “We Need Each Other Badly”, 77me,25.2,11991 ve Dominique Moisi;”The US’s Role is Central”, Time, 4.1991
  • Dominique Moisi, A.G.E. Avrupa Güvenlik kişiliği ile ilgili olarak bkz. Interview with Jacques Delors; Towards a working Model, Time, 22.4.1991. Ayrıca ABD’nin Avrupa politikası için Manfred Stinnes; Die Amerikannische Europe-politik und die Ost-West Beziehungen, in: Aus politik und Zeitgeschichte, 8 45\89, 3 November 1989. S.14-24

 

  • Bu tanımlardan bir kaçı için bkz. Flora Lewis; “A more orderly World, Not a New World Order”, IHT, 18 February 1991.P.6, Noam Chumsky, The weak shall inherit nothing, in : Guardian Weekly, April 7.1991, R8 ve Stanley Hoffman;A New World and Its Troubles, in; Foreign Affairs, Fall 1990, Richard Brookhiser; Two Centuries of New World Orders, Time May 6, 1991
  • Flora Lewis, A more Orderly World,
  • Geleneksel politikalardan sapma ile ilgili olarak bkz. Hüseyin Bağcı; Demokrat Parti Dönemi Türk Dış Politikası, Ankara 1990 ve Ali Karaosmanoğlu; Die Türkei, die europaische Sicherheit und Wandel der internationalen Beziehungen, in; Europa Archiv, Nummer 5, 10.3.1991. 143-153 ve Towards a New World Order? in; Briefing April 29.1991, Issue 835 S.6-8 Ankara
  • Stanley Hoffmann The new World and Its troubles ve Paul Kennedy, Büyük Güçlerin Yükseliş ve Çöküşleri
  • Otto von Bismark ve onun politikası için bkz. Lothar Gali, Bismarck, der weisse Revolutionar, Frankfurt 1983
  • Strobe Talbott, “No its not a New Cold War”, Time, March 4, 1991
  • James Walsh, Global Beat, Time, April 1, 1991

17)  James Walsh Global Beat, Time, April 1, 1991

  • Willy Brant, Eine neue Friedensordnung für den Nanen Osten, Europa Archiv, 3.1991, Nummer 5.
  • Suzanne Crow; The Gulf Conflict and debate over Soviet “National Interests”, in; Report on the USSR, 3, Number 6, February 1991

20) Strobe Talbott, No its not a New Cold War

21)  Ailen Lynch; Gorbachev Synthesis Elements of the
“New Thinking” East-West Security Studies, Occasional
Paper Series,
New York, 1989, P.29

  • David Holloway; Gorbachev’s New Thinking , in: Foreign Affairs America and the World (1988-89), 71 ve Time “Gorbachev Interview” June 1990, P.13-20 ve Hüseyin Bağcı; Sovyet Dış Politikasında Yeni Düşünce, Dış Politika Bülteni, Haziran-Temmuz-Ağustos, Dış Politika Enstitüsü yayınları, Ankara , 1990,S.34-39
  • Bu görüşler için bkz. Stanley Hoffmann, dip not 3, Uwe Nehrlich dipnot 2 ve Kari Kaiser; Deutschlands Vereinigung, Die internationalen aspekte, Bergisch Gladbach, Mai 1991
  • Ortak Avrupa Evi (Common European House) kon-septine üç değişik yaklaşım için bkz. Wladimir B. Lomej-ko; “Das Haus Europa” aus sowjetischer Sicht, Wichard Woyke; “Das Haus Europa” aus westeuropatischer Sicht ve Paul E.Zinner; “Das gemeinsame Haus Europa” aus amerikanischer Sicht. in: Prespektiven für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, Herausgegeben von Hans-D. Jacobsen, Heinrich Machoski, Dirk Sager, Bundes-zentrale für politische Bildung, Band 268, Bonn 1988
  • Bu görüşü oluştururken TIME dergisi tarafından or­ganize edilen ve Avrupa’nın siyasi ve ekonomik gelişmeleri konusunda uzman 5 bilim adamının Brüksel’de bir araya geldikleri ve Doğu Avrupa’da istikrarsızlıkların beklenmesi gerektiği ve Almanya’ların birleşmesinin kaçınılmaz olduğunu vurguladıkları “What the Future Holds” konulu konferans notları baz olarak alınmıştır. Geniş bilgi için bkz. Frederick Painton, What the future Holds, Time, 18 December 1988
  • Stanley Hoffmann, dipnot 3 ve Timoty Garton Ash; Mitteleuropa; in: Daedalus, Winter 1990
  • Frederick Swyle, Die erhöhte Verantwortung der Deutschen, in: Europa Archiv, Nummer 24, 25,12.1990, Günter Van Well, Zur Europa Politik eines vereinigten Deutschland, in: Europa Archiv, Nummer 9, 10.5.1990, Bernd von Staden, Das vereinigte Deutschland in Europa, Europa Archiv, Nummer 23, 10.12.1990.
  • Detaylı bir araştırma için bkz Kari Kaiser; Germany’s unification, in: Foreign Affairs Winter 1990-91, No: 1 P.197

 

  • Bu konuda bkz. Hüseyin Bağcı, Demokrat Parti Dönemi Dış Politikası.
  • Seyfi Taşhan; Some Factors Influencing Turkey’s Foreign and Security Policy. in: Beyond East-West Confrontation, searching for a New Security Structure in Europe, Edt. by Armand Clesse and Lothar Rühl P.351-356. Bonn 1991.

31)Ali L. Karaosmanoğlu , dipnot 12 ve Ali Arsın; Das neue Ost-west-Verhalthis, Ein Blink aus Ankara in: NATO Brief, Nr. 6\1990-November\December S.16-20.

32)Bkz. Seyfi Taşhan, Dipnot 30 ve Türkkaya Ataöv, Balkan Initiatives, Turkish Daily News, 13-14 April 1991, P.7.

33)Konferans hakkında geniş bilgi için bkz. The Military Balance 1987-1988 Londra, 1988.

34)   Duygu Sezer, Turkish Foreign Policy in the year
2000, in: Association Ankara 1989, R61,113

35)  “Savunmada Modernleşme “, Güneş, 25.12.1989.

36)     Edward Mortimer, “Problem awaiting a solution”
Financial Times, 8.5.1991, Chistopher Ogden “How
Does Turkey Fit?,Tıme, October 22,1990, Robert T.Zintl;
“Missing Dividend” Time, May 13,1991 ve Yunanistan
Başbakanı Miçotakis’in demeci “Türkiye İslamın Et­
kisinde Kalmamalı” Zaman, 27 Mayıs 1991. Türkiye Av-­
rupa ilişkilerini eleştirel açıdan değerlendiren üç görüş
için bkz. İsmail Cem “Bizi Kim Savunacak” Sabah 13
Mayıs 1991, Ahmet Cemal “Avrupa Düşüncesi ve
Türkiye” Cumhuriyet 26 Nisan 1991 ve Hüseyin Bağcı,
The Spread of Democracy has reached epidemic
proportions in Europe, Turkish Daily News, 3.4.1990.

 

(*) Translation of the article which appeared in the fpi publication in Turkish “Dış Politika Bülteni”,  July-August-September 1991  issue

 

[i] For the “New Order” in post-1815 Europe and the positioning of Great Powers see Henry Kissinger, Das Gleichgewich der Machte, Metternich, Castlereagh und die Neuordnung Europas 1821-1822, Zürich, 1986.

[ii] For the bipolar world and transformations see Paul Kennedy, Büyük Güçlerin Yükseliş ve Çöküşleri, İş Bankası Yayınları, Ankara, 1980. For the ideological collapse see Zbigniev Brzezinski, Büyük Çöküş, İş Bankası Yayınları, Ankara, 1990 and Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History”, National Interest, Summer 1990, and Uwe Nechrlich, “Europa zwichsen alten Angsten und neuen Hoffnungen,” Europa Archiv, No. 16, 25 May 1990, pp. 481-493.

[iii] For stable state system see Karl Dietrich Bracher, Europa in der Krise, Frankfurt, 1979. For the search of new concepts see Dieter Senghaas, Europa 2000 – Ein Friedendsplan, Frankfurt am Main, 1990, and Stanley Hoffman, “Abschied von der Vergangenheit, Politik und Sicherheit im Künftigen Europa,” Europa Archiv, No. 20, 25 October 1990, pp. 595-607.

[iv] Peter Glotz, “Gesamteuropa, Skizze für einen schwierigen Weg,” Europa Archiv, 25 January 1990, and Hüseyin Bağcı, “Avrupa Tarihinde Yeni Bir Dönem, Dış Politika Bülteni, March-April-May 1990, Ankara.

[v] William Pfaff, “Don’t Expect a Big European Role Anytime Soon,” International Herald Tribune, 21 January 1991, p. 6.

[vi] Uwe Nehlich, p. 481.

[vii] For the full text of the program, see Europa Archiv, No. 5, 30 January 1991, pp. 126-140.

[viii] The interview made by NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner, “We Need Each Other Badly,” Time, 25 February 1991, and Dominique Moisi, “The US’s Role is Central,” Time, 22 April 1991.

[ix] See, Dominique Moisi, a.g.e. Fort he European security personality see the interview with Jacques Delors, “Towards a Working Model,” Time, 22 April 1991. For the US’ Europe policy see Manfred Stinnes, “Die Amerikannische Europe-politik und die Ost-West Beziehungen,” in Aus politik und Zeitgeschichte, Vol. 8, No. 45/89, 3 November 1989, pp. 14-24.

[x] For some of these definitions see Flora Lewis, “A More Orderly World, Not A New World Order,” International Herald Tribune, 18 February 1991, p. 6; Noam Chomsky, “The Weak Shall Inherit Nothing,” Guardian Weekly, 7 April 1991, p. 8 and Stanley Hoffman, “A New World and Its Troubles,” Foreign Affairs Fall 1990, Richard Brookhiser, “Two Centuries of New World Orders,” Time, 6 May 1991.

[xi] Flora Lewis, “A More Orderly World, Not A New World Order.”

[xii] Fort he deviations from traditional policies, see Hüseyin Bağcı, Demokrat Parti Dönemi Türk Dış Politikası, Ankara, 1990 ve Ali Karaosmanoğlu, “Die Türkei, die europaische Sciherheit und Wandel der internationalen Beziehungen,” Europa Archiv, No. 5, 10 March 1991, pp. 143-153 and “Towards a New World Order?,” Briefing, 29 April 1991, No. 835, pp. 6-8.

[xiii] Stanley Hoffman, A New World and Its Troubles ve Paul Kennedy, Büyük Güçlerin Yükseliş ve Çöküşleri.

[xiv] For Otto von Bismark and his policies, see Lothar Gall, Bismarck, der weisse Revolutionar, Frankfurt, 1983.

[xv] Strobe Talbott, “Not It is Not A New Cold War,” Time, 4 March 1991.

[xvi] James Walsh, “Global Beat,” Time, 1 April 1991.

[xvii] James Walsh, “Global Beat,” Time, 1 April 1991.

[xviii] Willy Brandt, “Eine neue Friedensordnung für den Nahen Osten,”, Europe Archiv, 10 March 1991, No. 5

[xix] Suzanne Crow, “The Gulf Conflict and Debate over Soviet ‘National Interests’,” in Report on  the USSR, Vol. 3, No. 6, February 1991.

[xx] Strobe Talbott, “Not It is Not A New Cold War,” Time, 4 March 1991.

[xxi] Allen Lynch, “Gorbachev Synthesis Elements of the ‘New Thinking’,” East-West Security Studies, Occasional Paper Series, New York, 1989, p. 29.

[xxii] David Holloway, “Gorbachev’s New Thinking,” in Foreign Affairs America and the World (1988-1989), p. 71 and Time, Gorbachev Interview,” June 1990, pp. 13-20 and Hüseyin Bağcı, “Sovyet Dış Politikasında Yeni Düşünce,” Dış Politika Bülteni, Haziran Temmuz Ağustos 1991, pp. 34-39.

[xxiii] Fort his opinions see Stanley Hoffman, footnote 3, Uwe Nehrlich, footnote 2, and Karl Kaiser, Deutschlands Vereinigung, Die Internationalen Aspekte, Bergisch Gladbach, May 1991.

[xxiv] For three different approaches to the concept of Common European House see, Vladimir B. Lomejko, “Das Haus Europa” aus sowjetischer Sicht, Wichard Woyke, “Das Haus Europa” aus amerikanischer Sicht in Perspektiven für Sicherheir und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, Herausgegeben von Hans D. Jacobson, Heinrich Machoski, Dirk Sager, Bundeszentraie für politische Bildung, Band 268, Bonn, 1988.

[xxv] In constructing this opinion, the notes of the conference organized by Time Magazine and  entitled “What the Future Holds” in which 5 scholars, being experts on the issues of European political and economic developments emphasized that in Eastern Europe there would be insatibilities and the unification of Germany is inevitable. For a detailed information, see Frederick Painton, “What the Future Holds,” Time, 18 December 1988.

[xxvi] Stanley Hoffman, footnote 3, and Timothy Garton Ash, “Mitteleuropa,” Daedalus, Winter 1990.

[xxvii] Frederick S. Wyle, “Die erhmhte Verantwortung der Deutschen,” Europa Archiv, No. 24, 25 December 1990; Günter Van Well, “Zur Europa Politik eines vereinigten Deutschland,” Europa Archiv, No. 9, 10 May 1990; Bernd von Staden, “Das vereinigte Deutschland in Europa,” Europa Archiv, No. 23, 10 December 1990;

[xxviii] For a detailed survey, see Karl Kaiser, “Germany’s Unification,” in Foreign Affairs, Winter 1990-91, No. 1, p. 197.

[xxix] See Hüseyin Bağcı, Demokrat Parti Dönemi Dış Politikası

[xxx] See Seyfi Taşhan, “Some Factors Influencing Turkey’s Foreign and Security Policy, in Armand Classie and Lothar Rühl (eds.), Beyond East-West Confrontation: Searching for a New Security Structure in Europe, Bonn, 1991, pp. 351-356.

[xxxi] For a detailed review of this conference see, The Military Balance 1987-1988, London, 1988.

[xxxii] Ali L. Karaosmanoğlu, footnote 12 ve Ali Arsın, “Das Neue Ost-West Verhathis, Ein Blink aus Ankara,” in NATO Brief No. 6/1990, November/December, pp. 16-20.

[xxxiii] See Seyfi Taşhan, footnote 30, and Türkkaya Ataöv, “Balkan Initiatives,” Turkish Daily News, 13-14 April 1991, p. 7.

[xxxiv] Duygu Sezer, “Turkish Foreign Policy in the Year 2000,” Association Ankara, 1989, p. 61, 113.

[xxxv] “Savunmada Modernleşme,” Güneş, 25 December 1990.

[xxxvi] Edward Mortimer, “Problem Awaiting a Solution,” Financial Times 8 May 1991; Christopher Ogden, “How Does Turkey Fit,” Time, 22 October 1990; Robert T. Zinti, “Missing Dividend”, Time, 13 May 1991. For the speech of Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis, see “Türkiye İslamın Etkisinde Kalmamalı, Zaman, 27 May 1991. For three opinions critically evaluating Turkish-European Relations, see İsmail Cem, “Bizi Kim Savunacak,” Sabah, 13 May 1991; Ahmet Cemal, “Avrupa Düşüncesi ve Türkiye”, Cumhuriyet, 26 April 1991 and Hüseyin Bağcı, “The Spread of Democracy Has Reached Epidemic Proportions in Europe,” Turkish Daily News, 3 April 1990.

Visits: 231

35. Anniversary Issue – Cold War Years -Seyfi Taşhan

Cold War Years

TURKEY’S RELATIONS WITH THE U.S.A. AND POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS (*)

Seyfi Taşhan

Foreign policy formation in the United States is not always determined solely by military exigencies and Turkish-U.S. relations are affected generally from other overriding variable factors. There are four dates which signify turning points in the Turkish-U.S. relations. A review of what has happened on those dates would indicate the ups and downs of the Turkish-U.S. relations.

 

 I believe there are four dates which signify turning points in the Turkish-U.S. relations. A review of what has happened on those dates would indicate the ups and downs of the Turkish-U.S. rela­tions and how statesmen of both countries have addressed them­selves to the issues.

The first significant date is January 18, 1927 when the United States Senate, by six votes short, rejected the Treaty of Lausanne under the pressure of strong Armenian and church opposition which prevailed under an atmosphere of partisan political struggle. The Treaty, which ran almost parallel to the other Lausanne Treaty signed between Turkey and her former enemies, sought to regula­rize Turkey’s diplomatic relations with the United States, ended ca­pitulations and brought most favored nation treatment principles. At that time the Turkish reaction was expressed by Kemal Atatürk. As quoted by Ambassador Joseph Grew Atatürk said there was no foundamental reason why the United States and Turkey should not exist in complete harmony. He could not understand, however. «how it was possible in a country where culture and civilization form the keynote of the social fabric of the nation, that a fanatical minority could impose its will on an enlightened majority.»

This Congressional attitude, however, did not prevent the estab­lishment of diplomatic relations, nor did it assume a permanent character of hostility on the part of the U.S. Congress, although anti-Turkish propaganda has continued on and off to blacken the Turkish image in the United States.

In the subsequent years it was possible to maintain mutually satisfactory relations because the basic objective of the United Sta­tes was confined to the protection of its traditional missionary, phi­lanthropic, cultural and economic interests in Turkey. Since U.S. was politically disinterested until the Second World War in the Middle East, there was no conflict of interest. During the same period United States was a good trade partner for Turkey’s traditional agri­cultural products. In the 1923-1941 the balance of trade between the two countries every year favored Turkey. From 1920s to 1939, the political non-involvement of the United States was a factor of great weight in determining the American role in the Turkish eco­nomic development. One interesting constant picture has been the nature of Turkish exports to the United States. Tobacco accounted for 73 % of Turkish exports to the United States in 1938 and in 1976 it accounted for almost  90 % of Turkey’s exports to the same country.

The United States was in the second place as the purchaser of Turkish goods, and seventh as an exporter to Turkey. Capital goods constituted fifty per cent of American exports. Outside one or two still-born attempts, U.S. capital Investments in Turkey, were negligible. The reasons given for this, lies more in the Turkish atti­tude towards foreign capital. The new republic, which was still under the shadows of the Ottoman capitulations, “tended to judge con­siderations of a national character from a political, rather than from an economical standpoint.” I believe this observation still maintains its validity.

In the international political scene there was not any major problem or conflict between the United States interests and those of Turkey. It might be worthwhile to mention, though, the United States attitude concerning the Turkish Straits. This attitude was initially formulated by President Wilson in his program for Peace of January 8 ,1918. In Point Twelve dealing with the Ottoman Empire he said in part: “… and the Dardanelles should be permanently ope­ned as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.” In early 1930s when Turkey be­came rather concerned with the security of the Straits due to the rise of the power of the Axis and informed the signatories of the Lausanne Treaty of its intention to revise the status, it also infor­med the United States. The United States then thought that it had no treaty right, direct or indirect with respect to the Straits Conven­tion or any concern with  the military and political aspects of the

problem. U.S. maintained this position until the end of the Second World War.

The United States attitude towards the Middle East and Turkey began to change somewhat during the Second World War. By the beginning of the War, Turkey had a clear idea of the intentions and ambitions of Stalin concerning both the Turkish Straits and the revival of Tsarist ambitions to reach “warm waters”. Turkey was also threatened by Mussolini and the expansionist danger of Nazi Germany. In order not to be dragged into the war from which Turkey had no chance of coming out intact and independent, Turkish leaders were forced to play the delicate policy of balance. On December 3, 1941 President Roosevelt extended “lend-lease” assistance to Turkey. In 1944 he declared that the United States had vital interests in the Middle East, although the British Government was held responsible for Allied actions in the area. The “lend-lease” was not made subject of an agreement between the two countries but during the War Turkey continued to receive American defense material and services. An agreement was signed only on February 23,1945 which stipulated that the aid would terminate at the end of the War, which was soon to come, and Turkey would be left only to whatever military aid she could get from Great Britain.

During the War, against Turkish worries about Russia, the U.S. interest was focused on the war with the Axis and Japan and a somewhat wishful-thinking prevailed about the Soviet Union. It is for this reason that the U.S. had a benevolent attitude at Yalta and Postdam towards Soviet requests concerning the Turkish Straits. Furthermore, the United States did not favor the entry of Turkey into active war against Germany. In 1944, the United States Chief of Staff indicated their approval in principle but warned that the United States should not be committed to military, naval or air support of any campaign in the Balkans. This was due to U.S. concentration on the Western Front.

***

The second date which marks another milestone in Turkish-U.S. relations is March 12, 1947 when President Truman announced his famous Doctrine in a joint sitting of the U.S. Congress. The proclamation of this Doctrine not only marked a change In U.S.- Turkish relations but in the global policies of the U.S. as well. I need not outline here at length the details of the developments that led to this change, but refer briefly to several points which culminated in the reassessment of the U.S. policies.

It was as far back as in 1940. Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov had proposed Germany as the Soviet price for collaboration with the Axis, a new regime for the Turkish Straits, with bases and provision of joint defense and had declared that the center of gravity of Soviet policy and interest lay in the area south of Baku and Batum. The Soviet policy did not change after the War.

During the Potsdam Conference, Soviet Union wanted to have the question of Straits and Soviet territorial demands on Turkey to be taken up directly between Turkey and the Soviet Union. While President Truman disagreed with the first, he agreed that the latter could be resolved between the two countries.

The change in the U.S. credulence in peaceful intentions of the Soviet Union did not come abruptly. First, change came in 1945 when the United States came close to Turkish view regarding the Russian demands on the Turkish Straits and in 1946, U.S. began to be interested in the territorial integrity of Turkey. On April 6, 1946 on the occasion of the Army Day, President Truman expressed U.S. interest in the Middle East area where he stressed no country had interests which could not be reconciled with those of other nations through the United Nations. The same day U.S. battleship Missouri was paying a visit to İstanbul. As early as in January 1946 President Truman was convinced that the Soviets intended to attack Turkey. Unless they were “faced with an iron fist and strong language, another war was in making.”

Soviet pressures on Turkey, which were conducted in keeping with Lenin’s famous teaching: “In a bayonet attack when you hit mush continue; when you hit rock withdraw,” did not disappear but res­cinded in the face of the resolute attitude of the Turkish Government and people, and the reaction of the United States and Great Britain. The change of attitude of the United States did not originate from Soviet menace on Turkey alone. The Soviets had probably overplay­ed their hands in the entire area. Greece was immersed in a civil war, where the Communists seemed determined to take over, and in Iran they were attempting to set up pro-Soviet regional governments. It was the regional character of the Soviet challenge that actually led to American action to defend Greece, Turkey and Iran.

For a white there was a division of opinion in the United States concerning military support to Turkey. Britain had expressed its de­cision to abondon their military aid to Turkey. George Kennan, one of President Truman’s major foreign policy advisors was of the op­inion that emphasis should have been placed on “firmness of dip­lomatic stance, not on military preparations.” His fear was that U.S. military aid might provoke Soviet aggression. However, the United States did in the end decide to come to provide military aid to Tur­key. Kennan suspected that “what had really happened was that the Pentagon had exploited a favorable set of circumstances in or­der to infiltrate a military aid program for Turkey in what was sup­posed to be primarily a political and economic program for Greece.”

Nevertheless, in his message to the U.S. Congress on March 12, 1947 President Truman was announcing his Doctrine by declaring that the United States was prepared to assist both Greece and Tur­key in defending their independence. If Greece fell under the cont­rol of an armed minority its effect on Turkey would be immediate and serious and confusion and disorder might well spread throughout the Middle East. For this purpose he asked an allocation of four hundred million dollars of aid to be spent for supporting the shat­tered economy of Greece and provide military aid both to Turkey and Greece. Deterrence against Soviet armed aggression had become one of the general goals of the United States foreign policy. Mars­hall Plan, Korean War, formation of NATO, CENTO and SEATO in the following years might be considered as concrete steps towards this foreign policy goal on which there seemed to be a general public consensus in the United States. As far as Turkey was concerned, Truman Doctrine did not have the effect of an alliance which the Turks felt was necessary for two basic reasons: First, the deterrence quality of the Turkish-U.S. military cooperation would be enhanced, and secondly, the volatility of the U.S. public opinion on matters con­cerning Turkey might once again play a trick and Turkey might have been abondoned. Therefore, Turkey looked on to NATO as an ins­trument that would secure alliance with the United Satetes. Di­sappointment was great when Turkey was left outside NATO when it was formed. The United States undertook only to “accord friendly and careful consideration to the security problem of the Turkish Republic.” European partners of NATO were also against the exten­sion of the Pact to include Turkey. The objections that are being ad­vanced today in some European countries against the inclusion of Turkey in the European Community were put forward between 1949 and 1951 against Turkey’s admission to NATO. These objections ranged from strategy to religion. However, Turkish participation In the Korean War and the skillful diplomacy that was followed culminated in the membership of both Turkey and Greece within NATO. Turkey looked towards NATO membership as establishing a defini­tely Western identity long cherished by Atatürk, considered U.S. al­liance as the greatest and best support for Turkey’s economic and security problems and in fact gave predominance to Allied interests which were considered as Turkish interests as well.

The Americans were given almost a free hand, with bi-lateral executive agreements, in making whatever defense and security arrengements they deemed necessary, including permission to build military bases and allow U-2 flights and station nuclear warheads. The Turkish mlitary forces were standardized on American patterns and the entirety of it were placed at the disposal of NATO. During that period Turkey and the United States cooperated for the conc­lusion of the Baghdad Pact, which became after Iraqi revolution, CENTO. Turkey tried, with the Balkan Pact to provide some security to Marshall Tito. It is admitted that while Turkey provided full sup­port to and laid emphasis on its relations with the United States, it ignored the sentiments and feelings of its neighbours, especially Arabs, and its action to organise a regional defense system under the Baghdad Pact became counter-productive with the extension of Soviet influence to the Arab World by-passing Turkey.

In the economic field, as from 1950, Turkey adopted the principles of liberal economy in the hope that integration with Western economies and the assistance to be provided by Turkey’s allies would enable her to achieve rapid economic development and inc­rease the welfare of the Turkish people who had long suffered eco­nomic deprivation.

While Turkey had obtained the military support and cooperation from the United States both in the form of Treaty guarantees and in actual fact, there was a difference of understanding and concept regarding the sense of alliance between Turks and Americans. As Ambassador Parker T. Hart points out “arkadaş”, the Turkish word for friend and ally, literally means “the one who walks behind you” i.e. to protect your back. «For twenty five years the attachment of the Turkist people to the United States was that of the “arkadaş”, affectionate, grateful and ready for sacrifices. Yet, the United States looked on the alliance with Turkey not in this sense but in the sense of cooperation with a basically alien country for limited purposes. This conceptual difference as well as inability of the Turks to meas­ure politics in terms of economy, created a number of difficulties. The United States was not prepared to underwrite the financial cost of a rapid development of Turkish economy. It was ready to provide whatever economic assistance it had to in order to keep Turkey away from economic collapse. In 1950’s Turkey’s attempts to bring American private capital in substantial quantities failed, and Turkey was led from one foreign exchange bottleneck to another. For vari­ous factors, the United States, instead of providing more assistance on a regular basis, pressured Turkey to reduce the rate of its eco­nomic development and change its priorities from more consumption to more exports and tourism. This basic attitude still continues to be a source of friction in the present decade.

 

***

The third date which is from the Turkish viewpoint a milestone and signify a change in the character of the Turkish-U.S. relations is June 4, 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson wrote to Pri­me Minister İnönü “…Furthermore, a military intervention in Cyprus by Turkey could lead to a direct involvement by the Soviet Union. I hope you will understand that your NATO Allies have not had the chance to consider whether they have an obligation to protect Turkey against the Soviet Union if Turkey takes a step which results in Soviet inter­vention without the full consent and understanding of its NATO allies.”

Only seven years ago when Soviet Union was extensively arming Syria, Turkey had taken certain defensive military measures along her frontiers. These measures had infuriated the Russians and in an interview on October 9, 1957 Mr. Kruschev had said that if a war broke out, Turkish resistance would not last even for one day. U.S. State Department has issued a statement the next day in which the U.S. Government had pledged itself that “if aggression took place against Turkey, U.S. would fulfill its obligations within NATO and aid Turkey with all its power.” Much had changed in the U.S. attitude.

Until the end of 1963 Turkey’s leaders had not only maintained their fullfledged and almost blind support of Western Alliance but at the same time had rendered service to U.S. interests in the region even though some of these interests had clashed with Turkey’s regional interests. Johnson’s letter, obviously written in haste, reflected a shift in the U.S. priorities and in assessment of threat resulting from Khruschev’s policy of “peaceful co-existence”, brought certain perplexities to Turkish minds on the very nature of its ties with the West and even on its own identitiy card. Questions began to be asked loudly in the Turkish public opinion whether Turkey had been placing too much reliance on Western and U.S. alliance, There is no doubt that President Johnson’s letter had initiated a chain of course corrections in the conduct of Turkish foreign policy, as well as certain new currents in Turkish domestic policies.

There are arguments that Johnson’s letter might have been given more emphasis than it really deserves. For some people, it is quite clear that on the question of Cyprus, the United States was bent to­wards supporting the Greek case, and Presidnet Johnson had cho­sen to blackmail Turkey to accept a de facto situation. On the other hand, the supporters of his action would claim that a Turkish-Greek conflict would in effect destroy the validity of the Atlantic Alliance in the region. Both arguments have certain justification. There is no doubt that there is a basic difference in the United States attitude towards Greece and Turkey. The existence and influence of the Greek community in the United States and intermingled economic interests, not to mention historical attitudes towards Greece, establish a special bond of relationship between Americans and the Greeks. This added dimension had been neglected by the Turkish public opinion since many years. Turkey and Greece were included together in the Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan, NATO and even were made associate members of the European Economic Community and they were treated equally. As regards Cyprus, Turks had expected equal treatment, too. Until 1964 U.S. attitudes had been equitable. Turks were realizing that Western attachment to Greece was so dear that they might even put the position of Turkey into jeopardy.

Later on, I will take this subject once again within the frame­work of principles guiding the relations of Turkey and the United States.

The realization that both the United States and West European powers would not take concrete steps in resolving the Cyprus ques­tion in an equitable way, brought a shift in the conduct of Turkish foreign policy. By perceptible degrees Turkey abondoned its mono­lithic pro-U.S. and Western stance and entered into a phase of a multi-faceted policy. Turkey decided to respond favorably to Soviet overtures which had been continuing since Stalin’s death in 1953 for a rapprochment between the two countries. Turkey tried to improve its ties with the Third World countries, the Arab World and the Socia­list bloc. I would call the period after 1964 a phase of disengage­ment in Turkish-U.S. relations. While NATO adopted the flexible res­ponse strategy, the United States began its low profile policies. In the process of detente that actually began to encompass relations in Europe, the American debacle in Vietnam, the advent of EEC, China and Japan, the changes in weapons technology, the rise of Soviet naval power were factors that changed the international cli­mate and led to reassessment of international relations and strategic doctrines. In 1967 the renewed Cyprus crisis and the Vance mission partially satisfied Turkish objectives but these did not bring a solu­tion to the question which flared up once again in 1974. I distinctly remember talking to an American diplomat on the day President Nixon signed Moscow declarations which initiated detente process in 1972. He asked me, “Now, that U.S. and Soviet Union ended the Cold-War what will Turkey do?”

The last turning point I will mention is 1974. Not July and August 1974 when Turks landed and carried out two military operations in Cyprus, but December 18, 1974 when the United States Congress im­posed an arms embargo on Turkey effective from February 5, 1975. Once again clock had been turned back to 1927, The United States Congress under the influence of the Greek lobby had dealt a heavy blow on Turkish-U.S. relations. Atatürk’s incredulity in 1927 once again dominated Turkish minds. This time though, more effectively, because in 1927 there were no security relationships between Turkey and United States, and the two countries were not allies. In any event, the two situations had certain similarities. The Turkish reac­tion to the Congress’ action this time was more profound also for another reason. That is the pluralist nature of the Turkish society. This character had reduced the freedom of action of statesmen In Turkey in overcoming the harmful political implications of the em­bargo. Nevertheless, it was up to the statesmen of both countries to overcome the effects of the embargo motivated crisis in our re­lations. I would say they have succeeded by their sober and far-sighted actions and cooperation to eliminate substantially the crisis stage of our relationship, although it must be admitted that it will never be possible to return to the days of euphoria that prevailed during the fifties and early sixties.

By referring to four dates which marked substantial changes in the Turkish-U.S. relations I tried also to give a rough idea of the history of these relations during the past fifty years. To put it briefly, these relations turned from friendly relations between two distant countries, into a partnership and alliance which in turn became as George Harris termed it a “troubled alliance”. There is no dispute in both countries on the vital necessity of this alliance, but outside that, there seems to be many differences. It would be necessary therefore, to dwell  briefly on the nature of national aims and coin­cidence of interests, point out divergencies and try to explain inhe­rent and artificial influences that cause distortions in our relations.

In a Congressional document in mid-seventies the fundamental national security aims of the United States in the Mediterranean and the Middle East were explained on the basis of the following constants: General Goals: – Deter Soviet armed aggression against the United States, NATO, Europe and the Middle East-Project sufficient power to defend effectively if deterrence fails. Specific Goals: – Secure NATO’s south flank – Encourage stability in the Middle East – Support Israel – Maintain free world supply lines in the Mediterranean – Ensure continued access to Middle East oil.

From the United States point of view what is the roie of Turkey for the pursuit of U.S. national security objectives? Out of the de­bates complicated by lobby influences and public ignorance on de­tails what should be clear ideas are somewhat blurred from time to time. I would like to quote a few excerpts from a speech delivered by Vice President Mondale when he was a senator in 1974. Senator Mondale was speaking in the heat of the opium debate. Proposing a total economic and military embargo on Turkey, Senator Mondale invited the U.S. Administration to give reconsideration to the strategic situation : “Our relations with the Arab countries have markedly improved” he said. “We are no longer clinging to the Northern edge of the Eastern Mediterranean. We are homeporting naval vessels in Greece which enables us to offset the expansion in the Soviet Navy’s Mediterranean deployment. Our alliance in NATO has done nothing to curb the Soviet naval build up in the Mediterranean even though their life-line runs right through the Bosporus…. It is impor­tant to recognize that we cannot use our bases in Turkey except when Turkey is at war with the Soviet Union. Otherwise they are worthless. During the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973, the Turks permitted the Soviet Union to overfly Turkey to resupply the Arabs, but would not let us use our bases to refuel our reconnaissance aircraft. This example of favoritism to the Soviet Union provides a measure of how much our so called strategic position in Turkey Is worth. In the remote case of a conflict with the Soviet Union, our bases would be used to support the Turks. We apparently do not consider this threat imminent since a good portion of the U.S. air­craft in Turkey are based half of the time in Spain. We do not plan to mount strategic attacks on the Soviet Union from Turkey. In terms of overall strategic nuclear deterrence our bases there are obsolete. Their real utility is to deter local aggression against Turkey. The Turks are not doing us a favor by letting us have the bases. It is other way round. The alleged strategic value of Turkey should no longer control our decisions in this age of strategic missiles, intelligence satellites, detente with the Soviet Union and rapprochement with the Arabs. It is not worth the kind of bargain in which we give Turkey almost a quarter of a billion dollars in economic and military assis­tance.” On the question of opium, Senator Mondale and his collea­gues did not succeed but at the end of the same year they succee­ded to impose a military embargo on the occasion of Turkey’s in­tervention in Cyprus using more or less similar reasoning.

In the military terms, the value o! Turkey for the U.S. is evalua­ted in a different way by military circles. Prof. Albert Wohlstetter considers Turkey’s presence in NATO useful at least for the follo­wing reasons: Turkey’s participation in NATO sharply increases Soviet force requirements for Bulgarian or combined Bulgarian-So­viet attacks on Greece. Even if Turkish forces were less actively involved, they would tie down considerable strength in the Black Sea, Balkan and Caucasus fronts. This could be true so long as the Soviets could not be sure of Turkish neutrality. As regards NATO’s southern flank, he says, if flanks are neutralized by political or mili-tary action, an adversary can concentrate more massively against the center. The defense of the center cannot be separated from the flank. Referring to potential role of Turkey in the case of a U.S.-Soviet conflict in the Middle East, Professor Wohlstetter points out that if the Soviets can overfly Turkey at will, they can cut out in half the time needed to deploy forces by air to an objective near the Gulf. Roughly the same time is true for deployments to Lebanon and Israel. Regarding the military and intelligence bases in Turkey, Professor Wohlstetter says: “lt should be stressed that we should not regard it as a choice so to speak, between technology and Tur­key. Many advanced and continually improved technologies can be used to great advantage from facilities in Turkey.” Military circles also point out that Turkey’s presence in the Alliance, makes Russian supply lines to Middle East insecure.

From these two arguments which I tried to quote emerge some conclusions:

While there is some controversy regarding the continued value of Turkey to strategic interests of the United States, the primary cause of U.S. involvement is nevertheless a military one closely related to  U.S. security  objectives in the region, as well as those  of NATO.

The motives that lead the United States to support Turkey within the context of the global and regional U.S. objectives may thus be summarized as follows :

  • From the military point of view Turkey’s cooperation with the United States is essential for the defense of the South flank of NATO.
  • From the point of view of S. interests in the Middle East i.e. defense of Israel and access to oil routes, unlimited Soviet passage rights over Turkey must be prevented.
  • Since intelligence equipment and possibilities in Turkey are as yet needed for observing Soviet compiance with SALT ag­reements and for other military intelligence, Turkey represents another asset which the S. military establishment wishes to preserve.
  • Finally, Turkey’s place within the Alliance makes Soviet supply routes to client states in Africa and the Middle East

These are the principal U.S. military and security interests in Tur­key and others may be added by the experts. However, foreign policy formation in the United States is not always determined solely by military exigencies and Turkish-U.S. relations are affected generally from other overriding variable factors. These could be summarized as follows:

  1. a) Perception of Threat:

The euphoria of detente of late sixties and early seventies passed away with the post-Helsinki Russian attitudes and increasing Soviet mi­litary potential. But it is obvious that the Soviets are still upprepared to risk a major military confrontation with the West, even though they ore nearing supremacy in strategic and conventional weapons Short of direct and overt menace it is not possible to secure a con­sensus in the United States on political aspects of military require­ments especially under post-Vietnam conditions. In the case of Tur­key, political opinion differs widely; so much so that the anti-Turkish lobby even challenges the military value of Turkey for the Western alliance.

 

  1. b) Changes of Strategy :

In the global confrontation between the Soviet power and the West, new weapons, technological developments, political conside­rations, international climate have caused continuous changes in strategies of both the United States and the Soviet Union. As a consequence, Turkey’s role in the United States strategies also keep changing. I will not get into details of these changes because of the scope of this paper; but, let me suffice by mentioning the fact that the U.S. military thinking consider some Turkish military postures which were assets in the past no longer so, to the disappointment of Turks.

  1. c) Perception of Turkey and the Turks:

Again there is no common perception of Turkey and the Turks in the United States. For the people of the United States, Turks and their aspirations, character and culture are little known. Their image is continuously blackened by traditionally anti-Turkish forces which have ways of influencing U.S. public. In the absence of an effective Turkish lobby and propaganda in the United States and since the U.S. people do not consider Turkey as a «parent» country like the rest of Western Europe, the task of defending Turkey and Turkey’s image is generally left to the executive branch of the U.S. Govern­ment in the hope that they will be able to defend Turkey because U.S. needs Turkish alliance. However, as we have seen in the past U.S. executive branch may often be over-ridden under tense domes­tic political climate or when anti-Turkish lobbies may become effec­tive also in the executive branch.

  1. Another negative factor has been the absence of a thorough appreciation of Turkey’s non-military role and capabilities in the region. The fact that Turkey has maintained a democratic form of go­vernment, respecting human rights, with an active free enterprise system, devoted to its economic and social development and full of peaceful intentions for her neighbours have received little atten­tion in the United States, despite the fact that U.S. support of un­popular regimes in the world has led from one debacle to another.
  2. S. has shown a definitive interest in the economic deve­lopment of Turkey and has provided substantial assistance which I will refer later; but neither in the economic sense nor in the military sense policies recommended, the amount and quality of aid were adequate to meet actual requirements for rapid development. I am ready to admit that on this subject a great part of the blame falls on the Turks for not having followed rational economic policies.
  3. f) There has never been, in the U.S. public and for a certain period in the U.S. Administration, too, an appreciation of the cons­traints imposed on Turkish foreign and security policy by the history and geography of the region, and Turkey’s objectives which became time to time counter-productive in Turkey’s relations with her neigh­bours or caused resentment in the Turkish public opinion. Some of these constraints are still not appreciated by the S. public and when these are translated into political action, there is an uproar in the U.S.

Having referred to the advantages and the negative aspects of Turkish-U.S. relations from U.S. standpoints, I would tike to tackle these relations from a Turkish stand point. I must caution, however, that the assessment I will present may be considered controversial by other Turkish participants.

At the end of the World War II, Turkey was faced with the follo­wing situation : Soviets were threatening Turkey with their territo­rial and political claims; the country had come out of the war im­poverished, even hungry, although it had not actually fought; the Western type institutions which Atatürk had introduced into the country had begun to take roots; Turkey’s Western allies and the United States were the victors and they were destined to lead in reshaping the post-war world.The U.S. had committed itself under the Truman Doctrine  to support Turkey against the Soviet menace.

All these factors led the Turkish leaders to search for military and economic cooperation with the United States, which was very eager and with Western Europe, even though they were not so eager. Turkey was ready to make every sacrifice in order to achieve full admission into the Western camp and pay for this purpose wha­tever political price imposed on it, in the hope that thanks to assis­tance to be received such sacrifices would be more than compen­sated with rise of standard of living of the Turkish people and se­curity obtained. Turkey was also eager to turn its economy and political regime into Western patterns despite the reticense of the Turkish bureaucracy and historically rooted public opinion objec­tions. U.S. advisors were brought in and U.S. military and eco­nomic aid  was  made  available.  Turkish  Army  was  well  equipped and trained on American standards and it was integrated in the NATO military structure. Turkey was admitted to the Council of Europe and NATO as a strong partner. Turkey was looked on as a bastion of the West.

In the field of economy, however, Turkey was constrained by several priorities she felt politically necessary to follow : with the exception of a brief period in 1930’s and in 1950’s Turkish «etatism» was the dominant economic concept which worked against and li­mited the growth of the private sector. This conceptual difference between Turkey and the United States may be considered as the primary obstacle for further development of economic inter-depen­dence between Turkey and the United States. I do not intend to try to explain the causes of Turkish «etatlsm» which has remained so strong and even grown until now. But, its use or misuse has substantially reduced the participation of foreign capital in the development of Turkish economy. In any event, the Turks have al­ways maintained their suspicion and dislike for foreign capital.

Until mid-sixties there was a complacency in Turkey regarding Turkey’s alliance with the West and military and economic coope­ration with the United States. It was taken for granted that  Western aid would continue and the standard of living would keep rising in Turkey. This complacency and euphoria was so prevalent that Tur­key ignored Russian overtures, cast a benevolent eye to what little advantages Greeks were trying to secure in the Aegean and took a distant view of the Middle East crisis to the chagrin of the Arabs.

In 1963 Turkey had signed the Ankara Treaty which, if faithfully carried by everyone, would give Turkey the right to become a member of the European Economic Community in 1995.

U.S. economic aid to Turkey began to phase out as from 1965. The Johnson letter which I mentioned earlier cast serious doubt in the Turkish minds regarding the automatlcity of U.S. support and help in case of an aggression by the Soviet Union. The honeymoon period was over but our alliance had to go on basically for two reasons: The alliance still had an appreciable deterrance value; and Turkey was so much integrated with the West and relied so much on economic support of the West that a major shift of its fo­reign policy orientation was not feasible without traumatic domestic results nor such a change was desired by the Turkish public. The «multi-faceted» foreign policy pursued after 1965, by its nature, began to bring several new constraints into Turkish-US. relations in areas where objectives of Turkey and the U.S. did not coincide. Turkey began to respond to Soviet attempts to improve relations by signing a cultural agreement and by accepting Soviet credits in order to maintain its industrial development as a supplement to phasing-out Western credits. Turkey began to give political support to the Arab cause and prevented U.S. military bases In Turkey to be used for the support of Israel in an effort to improve its relations with the Arab world. While the developments during the decade that followed 1965 did not cause a major change of course in Turkey’s objectives, the trauma of the military embargo which was imposed in 1975 and the ensuing alienation from the West in terms of political perception, led to an «identity» crisis in Turkey which is still continuing. The political spectrum in Turkey is sharply di­vided in the assessment of Turkey’s place in the Western camp. While extremist parties are vehement on taking Turkey out of the West, the center parties, at least for public image purposes do not wish to appear as ardently pro-Western. Consequently, the follo­wing differences have become vocal in specific Turktsh-U.S. security and political objectives in the region.

Security – NATO’s Southern Flank : There seems to be an identity of view in both countries as to the validity of the purpose. However, there are various conceptual and practical differences between the two countries. Several of these differences can be summarized as follows :

  1. a) The defense of Turkey : In the Turkish view point forward defense in Turkey is the most efficient way of achieving the purpose of securing NATO’s southeast flank. This can be obtained by maintaining an all round modernized and highly capable Turkish armed forces which could act as a deterrent. The allies therefore are expected to provide the necessary weapons Turkey need and assist Turkey in developing its arms industry. Otherwise, Turkey’s contribution in this regards can be only in the measure its economy permits.

The Western support for Turkey in this regard has suffered a shock with the embargo and has been sparing ever since. This may have been caused by the U.S. political constraint to keep Turkish armed strength in par with if not inferior to those of Greece; to force Turks to a settlement with Greece on their dispute in Cyprus and the Aegean, and to their belief that an attack on Turkey is not the first item on the Soviet agenda.

  1. b) Ever since automatism of NATO’s support for Turkey has become problematical as a result of Johnson letter of 1964 and the military embargo which is an action not in conformity with alliance rules but hostile in character, Turkey looks on to NATO as a factor of balance to the evergrowing Soviet power. Only such a balance can preserve conditions needed for the development of detente. Consequently, this concept constrains Turkey in supporting actions (a) that may not be fully attributable directly to NATO interests, and (b) may be considered harmful and provocative for the Turkish policy of detente and cooperation with her neighbours.
  2. S. Policy in the Middle East: The declared U.S. policy objectives in the Middle East, i.e. support Israel, encourage stability and maintain access to Middle East oil are not entirely identical with those of Turkish objectives and unqualified Turkish support for these policies cause a number of problems for Turkey. Turkish policy in the Middle East since 1965 is based on political support to the Arab cause by insisting on the evacuation of all Israeli occupied Arab lands, recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians to set up their own state. Turkey does not want to become involved in problems among the Arab states, in their domestic issues. In order to ensure her oil supplies Turkey heavily relies on cooperation with Iraq and Libya. It is known that these two countries are the oppo­nents of US. policies in the Middle East. Today, the existence of Turkey’s diplomatic relations, even at a low-key level, with Israel is subject of criticism in the Arab world. As a result, if U.S. oil interests and support of Israel in the Middle East involve confrontation with the Arab states .such a development is bound to adversely affect Turkish-U.S. harmony.
  3. S. policy to supply free world supply lines in the Mediter­ranean is in confirmity with the Turkish interests also. However, there are several differences between Turks and Americans as to the role each must play. Turks feel that they must not rely solely on the 6th Fleet but they must also have a fairly strong open sea navy to carry out their missions while politically oriented U.S. stra­tegists tend to confine the Turkish Navy to coastal defense capa­bility. Furthermore, political thinking in U.S. differ on the role Cyprus has for keeping Turkish sealanes open. U.S. also seems indifferent to Turkish interests in the Aegean with specific reference for kee­ping Turkish supply lines open.

***

Before taking up the future perspectives of the U.S.-Turkish relations, I must briefly refer to Turkish-U.S. economic relations.

I believe economic relations between Turkey and the U.S. must be studied under three categories : “trade”, “economic aid” and “investments”.

Earlier in my paper I gave some figures concerning Turkey’s commercial relations with the United States during the period pre­ceding the Second World War. I now wish to refer to current trade pat­terns. The seventy percent of Turkey’s imports are formed by crude-oil and refined products (30 %), machinery (17 %) chemicals (16 %) and iron and steel products (9 %). On the other hand about 70 % of its exports are formed by cotton (17 %) hazel nuts (15 %), textiles (14 %), wheat and other cereals (11 %), tobacco (7 %), raisins (5 %). This traditional pattern of Turkey’s imports and exports finds ref­lection in Turkey’s trade with the United States. The United States received $191,410,000 dollars worth of Turkish products in 1976 which represents 9.8 % of Turkey’s total exports. This share drop­ped to 6.9% in 1977. 1978 estimate is 5 %. U.S. share in Turkey’s imports was 8.5 % in 1976, 8.7 % in 1977 and about 5.5 % In 1978. Turkey’s place in overall U.S. foreign trade is well under 1 %. The U.S. has the third place in Turkey’s imports and second place in exports.

There are significant difficulties in developing trade between U.S. and Turkey. Turkey is not in a position to provide industrial products in the quality and quantity required by the U.S. markets. Since U.S. is an agricultural producer, there are very few basic Turkish agricultural products in which U.S. is interested, chief among which is tobacco. The export of most of these products is also becoming object of competition with other suppliers. As regards U.S. industrial pro­ducts, the American prices are generally 20 to 30 % higher than European and Japanese competition. Therefore, the import of ca­pital equipment from the U.S. is more subject to provision of tied loans unless superior technology is involved. During the period when AID loans were available and Ex-Im Bank loans more readily available Turkish capital equipment imports from U.S. were higher.

In the period from 1946 to 1977 the United States provided Turkey with 2.7 billion dollars of economic assistance of which 1.2 billions were grants and 1.4 billion in credits. So far Turkey has repaid 648 million dollars of the credits. Furthermore, from counterpart funds U.S. enabled Turkey to utilize 1.5 billion Turkish liras for economic development until 1963, when grant aid was stopped. On the other hand, the United States provided Turkey with about 336 mil­lion dollars worth of Ex-Im Bank loans between 1946 and 1977.

In foreign capital investment in Turkey, the United States fo­reign capital invested in Turkey from 1954 to 1976 formed only 17.08 % of the total foreign capital amounting to only about 20 mil­lion dollars under the Encouragement of Foreign Investments Law. Therefore, the amount of U.S. capital in Turkey is rather insigni­ficant and falls far behind European investments in Turkey. In the smallness of U.S. investments in Turkey one may notice several points : first is that Turkey has never been an attractive place for foreign investments despite periodic attempts of Turkish govern­ments to improve the existing conditions and regulations. Secondly, Turklsh-U.S. relations have not been stable for a long period. Thir­dly, the vulnerability of Turkey in the international area have limited private U.S. capital  interest.

One last point, I would like to mention in this context, is the possibility of cooperation between Turkey and the U.S. for military production. There are several areas where existing Turkish facilities may provide excellent opportunity for replacing some Turkish mili­tary imports from the U.S. by local production with U.S. technolo­gical assistance. The economic implications of this cooperation will be  significant.

 

SOME CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PESPECTIVES

  • Currently the image of Turkey and the Turks is no so bright in the S. public opinion. This unfavorable image is created by a host of factors among which Greek lobby currently plays the biggest part and takes full advantage of the U.S. media.
  • Similarly, the image of the S. in the Turkish public opinion has also been damaged in the past decade and a half. The principal cause for this damage is the perception of U.S. support of Greece against Turkey. The leftist and pro-Isla­mic political forces in Turkey have been markedly critical of U.S. behaviour all over the world, and embargo and other U.S. acts have also influenced the attitude of center forces in Turkey towards the U.S.
  • S. interests in Turkey is basicaly security oriented and U.S. politicians, expect her in return for minimal economic and military aid to support changing U.S. policies and doctrines

uncoditionally, disregarding Turkey’s own constraints and policy    preferences. On the other hand, Turks expect the United States to provide full economic, military and political support for Turkey because of Turkey’s geopolitical position. In other words, there seems to be over-expectotions from Turkish-U.S. cooperation on both sides of the Atlantic.

  • It is obvious that in the formation of S. policies security considerations do not prove to be the primary factor once public opinion and the U.S. Congress becomes involved. In any event, security considerations and concepts are not static and subject to the degree of threat perceived. This perception, in turn, is basically a combination of military and political assessment. Under the influence of domestic political factors, potential threat is sometimes ignored or given low priority. This argument is valid both for Turkey and the U.S. In Turkey, security considerations still predominate, but they are now debated more than ever in Turkey’s history.
  • In view of the existence in the public opinions of both countries, of hostile influences which affect public policies when issues are presented to them, and since delicate se­curity relations must be maintained a heavy burden falls on the statesmen, and diplomats of both countries to keep the relations on their track. It is necessary to recall the spirit that guided the Turkish and S. statesmen in 1927 and to accept the role of quiet diplomacy.
  • While it is necessary to increase the Turkish public relations efforts in the S. it is also incumbent on U.S. administra­tion to assist Turkey which does not have an effective lobby in the U.S. For example, in 1930’s when Armenians in the United States wanted to prepare a film out of an anti-Tur­kish book, the U.S. Government could quietly pressure the film company to drop the idea. Today a “Midnight Express” is even awarded an Oscar.

Let me now turn to the future of our relations :

The most likely trend is the continuation of Turkey’s Western orientation  which may eventually guide the Turkish destiny and give their identity to Turkey of the coming decades.

The most likely trend is the continuation of Turkey’s Western orientation. This trend may succeed only if Turkey becomes part of the European Community. In such a case it will be possible to give a healthy character to U.S.-Turkish relations on a long term basis, and increase the dimensions of our relations with the West.

What would happen if Turkey ceases to become a member of Western camp?

Ambassador Parker Hart thinks that if and when the sipirit of NATO alliance is dead «Turkey gradually will turn leftward because only a regimented philosophy and discipline will be open to it. In the age of socialist polycentrism, it could decide to become a Yu­goslavia, seeking accomodation with the USSR and security by neutrality and strengthened Third World ties. It would be counting on the U.S. to recognize this that is far preferable to complete absorption into the Communist bloc.”

Dr. Scott Thompson of Tufts University, on the other hand, thinks that by the middle of 1980s Soviet Union might be able to take over Turkey by indirect means.

The third alternative discussed is that Turkey may be dragged into Islamic revivalism aligning itself with the Arab world.

I believe these observers are influenced by the tragedy of eco­nomic conditions and increasing political violence prevailing in Turkey. Although, both factors constitute bad omens for Turkey, the clock is not irreversibly advanced.

The greatest part of the Turkish people are determined to pre­serve their democratic and secular way of life and independence. If the United States and Western powers decide to show understan­ding for the assets that Turkey constitutes for Western interests and translate their understanding into political and material action by helping to ease Turkey’s economic and security problems, they will increase their own power in this region and at the same time will make it easier for Turkey to continue to share common values with them.

SOME REFERENCES:

Mehmet GÖNLÜBOL, et al. Olaylarla Türk Dış Politikası. Cilt  I   (1919 1973) Ankara Universitesi Siyasal  Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları  No. 407.

Feridun  Cemal   ERKlN. Türk – Sovyet   İlişkileri ve  Boğazlar  Meselesi, Ankara, 1968

M.W. THORNBURG, et  al. Turkey,  An  Economic  Appraisal, Greenwood Press, New York ,1968

Nuri  EREN. Turkey.  NATO and Europe :  A   Deteriorating  Relationship? The Atlantic Institute for International Affairs, Atlantic Papers No. 34

John M. COLLINS. Greece and Turkey: Some Military Implications Related to   NATO   and   Middle   East,   February   28,   1975   U.S.   Government

Printing Office

Foreign   Economic  Trends  and   Their  Implications  for   the   United  States, TURKEY, U.S.  Department of Commerce.  March  1979

Roger   R.   TRUSK.   U.S.   Response   to   Turkish   Nationalism   and   Reform. 1914 – 1939

Metin  TAMKOC, The  Warrior  Diplomats,  University  of Utah  Press, Salt Lake City, 1976

Morton KODRRACKE, ”The Greek Lobby”, The New Republic,  April 29, 1978

Geerge S. HARRIS, “Troubled Alliance” AEI and Institute on War and Peace,  Washington, D.C.

Harry  N.  HOWARD, “The Bicentennial in  American-Turkish  Relations”,  Middle East Journal, Summer  1976

NATO, TURKEY and UNITED STATES INTERESTS, American Foreign Policy Institute, Washington D.C. 1978

Jacob M, LANDAU, Johnson’s  1964 Letter to İnönü and Greek Lobbying of the While House, Jerusalem  Papers on  Peace Problems, 1979

Visits: 217