A Turkey of a column

(sorry, couldn't resist the pun)

I'm a bit of a Turkophile, and I certainly think it would be a good thing for Turkey to be able to join the European Union. In addition to creating a bridge between Western Europe and the Muslim world, and helping Turkey's economy, the very process of making itself eligible for EU membership has been beneficial to Turkey's democracy and economy, although that process is far from complete.

George Will today uses the issue of Turkey's membership in the EU to, by some bizarre sleight-of-hand, lambaste Kerry as a Mondale-style liberal. Will writes:

Looking ahead, as voters do, what is the big difference between Kerry and Bush?

It is Kerry's vague promise to do something that he says Bush cannot do -- mend America's breach with "the world" and especially with Europe. ...

On his recent European trip Bush again aggravated many Europeans by urging the European Union to act favorably on Turkey's desire to join.

Few American voters have thought about this subject, but America has an interest in further integrating into the West -- Turkey has long been an important NATO member -- a mostly Muslim nation that is, so far, secular and democratic....

But if, as president, Kerry would abandon support for Turkey to avoid friction with Europe, he should say why. And if he would risk that friction on Turkey's behalf, he must acknowledge, to Bush's benefit, that international harmony is not the highest aim of foreign policy.

As far as I can tell, Will has simply invented a position for Kerry here. Let's try to follow the logic: since Kerry has promised not to needlessly aggravate our allies, and the most recent instance of Bush aggravating our allies was over Turkey, therefore for Kerry to keep his promise requires abandoning support for Turkey. If he breaks his promise he has to admit that Bush's foreign policy approach was the right one.

I can't find any indication that Kerry has stated a position on Turkish admission to the EU. Nor should he be expected to. In addition to the fact that a candidate for president does not have to take positions on decisions that are entirely outside of the president's purview -- such as decisions by other countries -- all candidates deal cautiously with issues related to Turkey during a campaign. It's a classic case study in the role of foreign policy in politics: There are relatively few Turkish Americans, and thus little constituency for a pro-Turkish position, yet there are a great many Armenian- and Greek-Americans, also politically active, who are very hostile to any support for Turkey. On the other hand every President merely looks at the globe in the Oval Office to understand that Turkey is one of the indispensable allies. The phrase "Armenian genocide" never again leaves their lips.

But lets assume that both Bush and Kerry perceive it to be in the national interest of the U.S., as well as a good thing for the world, for Turkey to join the economically and politically liberal European Union. Which one is more likely to achieve that goal?

Is it Bush, whose administration first pissed-off the Turks in the run-up to the Iraq war by treating a quiet deal between generals as a proxy for approval by the civilian government and legislature -- which might have been true of Turkey even ten years ago, but not in the new, EU-aspiring and slightly less militarized country -- and then, to mend fences with the Turks, agreed to help them get into the EU, but did so with a public splash that generated a backlash?

Or is it Kerry? Here's what I think Kerry would have done, not based on special insight about Kerry, but because this is what every reasonable U.S. administration, from Nixon to Clinton, would have done:

First, not alienate Turkey in the first place.

Second, do all possible to enable Turkey to achieve the conditions required for EU membership. This requires sustained economic aid and a huge investment in the civilian infrastructure of the state, and probably other forms of assistance I can't imagine, but all of it non-military.

Third, treat the relative calm in the Kurdish world as a great blessing, one that encourages Turkey to continue demilitarizing in the east. Do nothing that would reignite Kurdish claims and thus Kurdish movements that Turkey believes are threatening. Above all, don't start a civil war in Iraq.

Fourth, maintain our influence with Europe. It's pretty hard to talk someone into doing something if they don't like you.

Fifth, recognize that sometimes even "tough-minded" diplomacy needs to be quiet. If the U.S. had credibility with Europe, then sending the message through channels that the U.S. places a high priority on Turkish admission to the E.U. would probably have weighed heavily in the debate. Doing it publicly and at a time of overwhelming anti-American sentiment forces European leaders to take Chirac's position, which was that the U.S. had no more business advising the EU on what to do than France would have in telling us what our policy toward Mexico should be. Further, the public stance risks igniting anti-immigrant politics in Germany and several other countries, combining it with anti-Americanism in a dangerous brew.

If you do all this, it is far likelier that the next decade will see an EU accession celebration in Ankara. If you think this is no big deal, ask a Hungarian.

Since Will drew some grandiose conclusion about Kerry from his hypothetical about Turkey, I'm unafraid to do the same. I think the contrast in the election is not between tough talk and cooperation, or big stick and wimp. Rather, it's over whether you face these challenges with the full arsenal available, or limit yourself needlessly to a few weapons. It seems that in the Bush White House, when the national security advisor comes in with some new problem, the responses are: "We could threaten them." We could invade." "We could threaten to invade." And, "We could talk tough' Usually the fourth prevails. In the Kerry administration -- or any other conceivable presidential administration -- the response would be, "What are the factors that we can influence that will make this turn out the way we want it to?" North Korea is the prime example of failing to ask this question, but there are plenty of others, such as Turkey. It is astonishing that people like Will manage to convert this blundering narrowness of vision into some sort of ideological virtue.

Comments

[Serafim]

Great post -- however, a correction is due: greeks are generally very supportive of Turkey's membership to the EU

[praktike]

I, too, thought this column was a pathetic exercise, even for Will. He can barely muster a solied effort anymore, given his disdain for the Bush administration. If anything, Will ought to be overjoyed at the Kerry team's professed embrace of realism. But perhaps Will is just an old-fashioned Taft isolationist after all. If that's true, this column is just a sorry attempted hack job on a mythical position.

As for your point about the Bush administration, I think it's clear that whenever Powell isn't involved, oafish diplomacy results. Bush was clearly trying to shore up our relationship with the Turks, but it didn't seem like his remark was well thought-out. These kinds of expressions of support tend to be negotiated and carefully worded -- see, for example, Kissinger's public support for MFN status for Russia in exchange for a cooperative attitude during the Yom Kippur War.

[Otto]

The only reason why the EU member states are considering EU membership for Turkey at all is US pressure. You may wish that they supported this for other reasons, but this is not so. This holds true in the past too, the original mention of possible EU membership for Turkey way back when also being made under US pressure, widely seen as a disastrous move in retrospect. If the US were to say that they did not mind whether the EU admitted Turkey or not, the EU would turn them down within 24 hours (and offer some sort of enhanced cooperation non-membership permanent alternative). After all, it's not going to be a panacea for the West-Islam relationship, and it will be wildly unpopular with the average citizen. Think NAFTA with constitutional rights for Mexicans to immigrate to the US (even if delayed in implementation for a couple of years).

That doesn't mean that going about it the Bush way is better than the Kerry way. But the US screws need to stay on the EU if Turkey is to be admitted.