S e t a 1 y ı l l ı ğ ı

594

a r a l ı k   1 1

decade was a “crisis period” for bilateral rela-

tionship after the dominance of the Cold War

alliance paradigm that had somewhat survived 

after the fall of the Soviet Union. In this period

of crisis, both parties were trying to redefine 

the relationship while each in itself was recali-

brating their foreign and security priorities and 

evaluating their strategic environment.

Jumpstarting decades-old partnership

With major changes facing the Middle East, the

two countries finally found a common ground 

to jumpstart their decades-old partnership. 

Throughout 2011 and especially during signifi-

cant periods of the Arab Spring, the two coun-

tries followed parallel policies in the manage-

ment of events in Egypt and Libya and showed

similar strong reactions against the Syrian 

government.  In  the  meantime,  Turkey  agreed

to  host  radar  systems  for  the  NATO  missile

shields, and the US showed strong support for

Turkey in its war against the Kurdistan Work-

ers’  Party  (PKK),  both  verbally  through  con-

demnation of PKK terror and militarily by sell-

ing Turkey three SuperCobra attack helicopters

and  four  Predator  unmanned  aerial  vehicles

(UAV). The increasing rapport between Prime

Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and President

Barack Obama, and their constant communica-

tion to evaluate regional developments, helped 

to revive their mutual trust.

In recent days, in both capitals the debate on

Turkish-American relations is taking place on 

the premise of an emerging partnership. Some 

pundits who used the “shift of axis” framework

in describing the relationship became ardent 

optimists of the future of bilateral relations. 

Even analogies started to be drawn with the al-

liance between the US and Turkey during the

Cold War.

However, one needs to be cautious about this 

new partnership. The emerging paradigm of 

cooperation and partnership is different than 

previous Turkish-US engagements. First of all,

there is neither a systemic source of partner-

ship, such as a bipolar world, nor is there a solid 

common threat or threat perception which can 

bring these two countries together in a secu-

rity-oriented  partnership.  Moreover,  the  US

does not have the same clout in international 

relations that it had enjoyed in the formative 

years of the Cold War, and Turkey is no longer

a country paralyzed by constant military inter-

vention into the political realm, chronic infla-

tion and a totalitarian enemy spreading across 

its borders. In particular, the disputes between

the two countries have demonstrated that Tur-

key aims to follow a more multidimensional 

policy with involvement in different regions 

and a more multilayered strategy in its rela-

tions with individual countries. Thus this new 

partnership needs to be less hierarchical, more 

horizontal and considerate of mutual interests 

and concerns.

In order to revive or revitalize this new partner-

ship and consolidate it in a way that will cause 

it to not fluctuate in the coming years, the re-

lationship needs to broaden and deepen at the 

same time. The partnership should not be con-

strained by current levels of cooperation and 

engagement but spread to other issue areas in 

the Middle East, as well as to other geographi-

cal regions. For example, the bilateral coopera-

tion will be critical in the period following the 

pullout  of  US  troops  from  Afghanistan  and

Iraq. Turkey and the United States share similar

concerns about the future of Afghanistan, and 

many of Turkey’s diplomatic initiatives in the 

region  have  similar  goals  with  US  objectives,

which include improving relations between Af-

ghanistan and Pakistan, stability and coopera-

tion in the region and economic integration.

They also have rightful concerns about the fu-

ture  of  Iraq.  Turkey  is  particularly  concerned

about the security of northern Iraq, cross-bor-

der infiltration of PKK forces into Turkey in the

absence of US forces and the overall stability of

Iraq. The US is vigilant about a possible increase

in Iranian influence in the region which would

be at the expense of the US as well as Turkey.

When  combined  with  the  US  apprehension

over the Iranian nuclear dilemma and last year’s

rift between the two countries over the Tehran 

Declaration and the related UN Security Coun-

cil vote, the issue becomes even more sensitive 

on both sides. Although the parties partially 

resolved this impasse when Turkey allowed 

NATO radar systems to be hosted on Turkish

territory, and came to a consensus on the issue 

of Syria, despite a considerable amount of up-

roar on the Iranian side, the issue is still “too

nuclear to underestimate.”

---

595

a r a p   b a h a r ı   v e   a b d

New venues of cooperation

The new era, and especially the shift in US for-

eign policy towards Asia-Pacific, may also pave

the way for new venues of cooperation between 

the two countries in different regions, such as 

in  Africa  and  Central  Asia,  which  had  been

left unattended for the last decade and where 

other countries have become important power 

players. In recent years, both countries have re-

calibrated their foreign policies towards these 

regions and initiated a new set of policies. In

Central Asia, both are balancing relations with

other regional powers, cooperating to facili-

tate energy transfer from the region and trying 

to coordinate the stability and security of the 

region in the aftermath of the US withdrawal

from Afghanistan. In addition to Central Asia,

another region of possible future cooperation 

is Africa, where in the last decade each country 

followed independent humanitarian and devel-

opment initiatives. Turkey’s Africa opening fol-

lowing the “Africa Year” in Turkish diplomacy 

and the increasing proactivity of the US in the

region, especially during the Bush 

administration, may pave the way 

for new grounds for cooperation on 

that continent.

Finally, the economic interactions 

between these two countries, which 

have been considered as the weakest 

link in relations, need to be strength-

ened in the coming years to consoli-

date the relations. An increase in 

the volume of trade and economic 

interdependence that does not harm 

foreign policy independence can 

create more grounds for partnership 

and stability, and a more business-

oriented base in relations may be 

vital to support the smooth function-

ing of the relationship. In this sense,

the  establishment  of  the  US-Turkey

Framework for Strategic Economic 

and  Commercial  Cooperation,  and

regular  meetings  of  the  Turkey  and  United

States Economic Partnership Commission are

important steps to raise the level of economic 

relations to political dialogue.

The revival of the Turkish-American partner-

ship last year has been a result of mutual respect 

and understanding, and if both actors want to 

pursue the relationship in the coming decades, 

these delicate principles need to be observed by 

both parties, and attempts need to be made to 

diversify the extent of cooperation. To reinforce

binary dialogue and a horizontal relationship, 

while precluding the possible clash of ideas 

from  transforming  into  crisis  and  expanding

into  other  realms,  is  a  key  requirement.  Ul-

timately, Turkey and the US should now pre-

pare for the possible opportunities, problems 

and troubles in this new international system 

and take strategic revisions into consideration 

by understanding new dynamics of domestic 

policy, elements of power and regional realities.

Sunday’s Zaman, 25.12.2011

---