Last Word on Turkey

Image via Wikipedia

In the not so distant past, Turkey was impoverished, inward-looking nation, mistrustful – if not actively hostile – to its neighbors who were seen as either enemies of the state at worst or backstabbing traitors at best.  Not.Any.Longer.

Turkey’s foreign policy has changed as rapidly as its internal politics – transforming from a closed, totalitarian system to a reasonably open and relatively liberal political environment while viewing its neighbors and Europe as opportunities and allies.  It is closer to European norms of democracy than the Kemalist military and bureaucratic omnipresence.

Turkey does not view the EU as indispensable and the status quo in the relationship will not spell the end of civilization as far as Ankara is concerned.  Turkey intends to continue policies of economic and diplomatic outreach with its neighbors as part of its expanding influence and commercial interests. Although not particularly concerned about the stalled EU accession process because the EU is still the largest trading partner, the atmospherics could be poisoned by the continuing deadlock resulting in an antagonistic attitude.

With the recent elections resulting in extending the 9 year rule of the AKP, concerns have been amplified regarding the direction of Turkey to the extent that France has even become more opposed to any accession talk.  These are misplaced concerns although the Putinization of the political structure remains a fear as the AKP and the PM in particular react adversely to any sort of criticism.  However, of the several scenarios for Turkish development, I think that the fear of a shift toward authoritarian rule – Islamist, or militant secularist/ Kemalist – is unlikely. I believe that Turkey will continue its path toward pluralism and liberal democracy.

We have seen that modern Turkey was founded through a top-down approach.  It was secular and authoritarian.  Between 1945 and the early 1980s a form of managed democracy took the place of the authoritarian regimes.  But, this managed democracy was run by the military.  It may have been multi-party but it was tightly controlled by the army and hand selected bureaucrats with an occasional coup thrown in. Then the evil empire vanished and with it the Cold War.  The most recent transition had begun to form a liberal, pluralistic society from the bottom-up which is still evolving, sometimes painfully.  The business class that grew from this transition came from the center of Turkey - conservative and Muslim; but, it believed in liberal economics and true democratic rule, not the elitism of the Istanbul business interests.

The economic change and the demographics of its source led to the founding of the AKP led by Erdoğan and his friends in 2001. The new party supported EU accession, and a European market styled democracy. It has been in power for a decade, many a huge number of mistakes and certainly has its flaws.  Critics have been unwelcome – and critics abound. But, it’s hard to argue with success - economic stability, an average of 6-7 percent annual growth rate, and a tripling of per capita income from little above $3,000 in 2002 to about $10,000 in 2010. Broad freedoms, economic success and a vibrant democracy are popular.  Try and change it and the AKP will fall.

In foreign policy, Turkey has reversed its previous attitudes toward its neighbors. Rather than viewing them with mistrust, they have been drawn closer.  Unlike the short sighted Europeans, no visas are required for travel between Georgia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Russia and Syria.  The cost of visas for others is minimal and visas are, unlike those for a closed EU, easy to obtain.  This is called soft-power.

Much of the reforms and democratic trends over the past decade have been helped by the EU’s support.  Then political and economic changes in Europe modified the dynamics.  Despite the confirmation of Turkish EU eligibility by Brussels five times, the latest coming in 2002, the French simply decided to ignore EU rules and promises and actively opposed Turkey. No one in Europe pointed out to France that its opposition was improper.  The ossified EU system is making a mistake of huge proportions.

Turkey is discovering new methods of using its soft power, both cultural and economic, to expand its influence despite the snubs of the EU. They no longer perceive Russia or even Greece and Armenia as enemies. Its view of its neighbors reinforces Turkish self-confidence as a growing regional hegemon that does not need the approval of Europe or the US.  Turkish foreign policy continues to develop dynamically and proactively.  It looks ahead, not to the past but still remembers its history and civilization. Its neighbors should take notice because Turks do and it governs how they perceive the region and their role in it.  Geo-politically it occupies a unique position and has the economic, cultural and military depth to make itself a force.

This is why the EU’s antagonistic attitude is so astoundingly stupid.  Turkish foreign policy mantra of peace in the neighborhood is exactly that of the EU stated policy. It is already an extension of the policy established by Brussels and supports that policy.  Rather than show any sort of appreciation, Europe seems to think that this is some sort of competition. Another mistake and typical of European arrogance.  What is it that Europe doesn’t get?  Turkey is not Serbia or, frankly, Slovakia or Romania – just other applicant states. It is a strategic player and key to stability in the Middle East.

Europe, and to some extent the US, appear to think that Turkish involvement economically and socially with  Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, not to mention its strong desire to prevent a conflagration in the Middle East, are somehow signals of a change in direction away from the West.  This is not a zero sum game and this line of reasoning in Europe and the US borders on the absurd, playing only to the uninformed and for the benefit of the talking heads. 

Turkey has made some foreign policy mistakes but appears to be a quick learner. If Ankara is guilty of anything, it is one of tone.  The PM in this regard does not do himself any favours.  Ridiculous tirades against Israel, statements that genocide is prohibited by the Koran and therefore the government of Sudan could not have committed the crime, and walking out of meetings may play well in the Turkish media, but are intemperate and need to be avoided.

Turkey is a well on its way to becoming a regional, indispensible power – one that the EU and the US need to engage more effectively.  Turkey is charting a foreign policy path that protects and extends its interests.  The Cold War and the old blocs are gone.

Domestic Politics Does Affect Foreign Policy

Over at Dan Drezner’s site there was an interesting discussion concerning what, if any, impact domestic politics, in the context of a US government shutdown over the budget, has on foreign policy. It is not as narrow as the post suggests. The budget issue in the US is only one political piece of the puzzle – a big one, but in general it forms only one component over the struggle for political dominance in the US. The question posed is thus what effect do domestic political decisions have on foreign policy in any country. In the context of the budget issues in the US, the professor takes the position that it has no effect.


I can’t agree. In the US, this battle is only one skirmish in the larger war being waged by Republicans on behalf of their contributors and right wing core supporters. It has implications for the wider war and domestic politics almost always impacts foreign policy because it affects the players even if the policy does not extend beyond the borders.

Take a look at France. France has often intervened in its former African colonies – in Chad against Qadaffi’s invasion, in Gabon (twice) and the Central African Republic (an incredible 5 times, the last in 2006). They have been in Cote d”Ivoire since 2003 – so the current cooperation with the UN peacekeeping forces to remove Gbagbo from power after his defeat in the election is simply a continuation of their involvement. However, the aggressive stance recently taken by Nicolas Sarkozy in Africa in Libya and Cote d’Ivoire may also be seen as a result of his low standing in the polls. It can’t hurt since the rise of the French right poses a serious threat to his incumbency. Sarkozy, despite being correct about Libya, is clearly attempting to boost France’s (aka, his image) to increase his standings for the elections next year.

Chancellor Merkel’s policies toward Russia are clearly influenced by domestic affairs. Like keeping the lights on and supporting domestic manufacturing. The German economy is heavily dependent on Russia and Russian energy. A faltering economy costs her politically.

Does anyone need a reminder about China’s internal monetary policies and their international impact?

In the US, domestic politics has a clear impact on foreign policy – and sometimes results in positions that are against US interests. One need look no further than Israel where any sign of slipping support draws the instant wrath of the evangelicals. The power of evangelicals over Republicans is clearly effective and has helped isolate the US while, in the case of the Middle East, actually act against its interests Fortunately they do not have overwhelming power, but should they ever succeed in taking over the domestic political reins completely, then US foreign policy will become a threat to peace.

One need only look at the positions that someone like Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), arguably the dumbest person in the Senate courtesy of the people of Oklahoma. He was on the floor of the Senate backing Laurent Gbagbo, who refused to step down after losing an internationally certified election in November in Cote d’Ivoire. Inhofe condemned the intervention of French and UN forces to install the internationally recognized elected president Alassane Ouattara. Want to know why? Domestic politics.

Can you say “C Street” the halfway house for fallen politico Christians, especially evangelical types who have been caught attending brothels, gaming houses etc? Right wing Christians support Gbagbo because he is Christian. Ouattara is Moslem. For evangelicals Muslim = bad, Christian = Good. That is, except if the Muslim is a dictator who supports and/or supplies oil to the US. The “C Street” gang and their nationwide followers support Gbagbo who has been on the US Christian right gravy train for a long time. Both he and his wife are evangelical Christians. They have attended the annual National Prayer Breakfast run by the Christian group called the Family. Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting supports him. Domestic politics can drive foreign policy.

Dig deeper and you find that the Christian right supported Charles Taylor and Michelle Bachmann was against the ouster of Mubarak. Christian evangelicals applauded the death penalty for gays in Uganda. The Christian right has never met a brutal Christian they didn’t like.

So I disagree. Domestic politics can have, and has had, a serious and sometimes adverse effect on foreign policy in the US at least. The budget debates in the US are only a small part of the struggle for control which, depending on the winner, will ultimately impact foreign policy. So, for all you progressives out there in the US who sat on your collective assess and pouted like 6 year olds in the last election, this is what will come to pass if you do it again. Inhofe, Michelle “I promise only one term, maybe” Bachmann, Huckabee and all their compatriots will be in control of domestic and foreign policy. Domestically, science will disappear and affect US international competiveness as children are taught the planet is around 5,000 years old and dinosaurs lived with humans; social programs for the poor and elderly will vanish; foreign policy will revert to military intervention first, middle and last and the income gap will only become worse.

Break's Over

Time to start posting.  And, just to get it out of the way, a comment on the recent Marist Poll indicating a whopping 26% of the US public does not know from whom America won its independence.  In case you think this is just about internal US social and educational problems, think again.

Because the fact that one quarter of the adult population is either unsure or, more alarmingly, named other countries (including China!) may have something to do with the election of some of the most stupendously ignorant people on the planet. 

Representative Michelle Bachmann (R Minn), believes, among other things, that the G20 is a harbinger of world government because economic cooperation and coordination leads to political cooperation and coordination. And that is bad because the US should not surrender its sovereignty to others - a logical leap into the abyss of stupidity.

Governor Jan Brewer (R Ariz) claims that the flood of immigrants from Mexico indulge in beheading (among other things) of Americans. Which is why she needed the racial profiling and fascistic law so that police would be required to say "your papers - let me see your papers" because if they did not, any red-neck could sue the police department for failure to be Nazi-like enough.

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) - claims that Hezbollah is partnering with Mexican drug cartels in the U.S. borderlands and may be planning "Israel-like car bombings of Mexican/USA border personnel or National Guard units."  The last time she poked her head out from whatever rock she lives under, she was exposing Muslim intern spies on Capital Hill and terrorists running convenience stores.

Republican National Chairman Steele claims that Afghanistan is Obama's war of choice and the US should not be there, apparently forgetting all the years from 2001 when Obama was not in power and Steele's friends were.

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) says that the US Constitution, Article 14, is a threat to security because it allows terrorist organizations to send pregnant women to the US, where any child born is automatically an American citizen. Consequently, I suppose, when they grow up they can embark on a terror campaign withing the US.

This list can go on and on.  The trouble is that these people glorify their ignorance in order to appeal to the least intelligent groups in the US and when elected, due to either a bitter, left-behind knuckle-dragging racist majority or the lethargy of those at the opposite end of the spectrum, can and do affect the foreign policy of the US with usually less than beneficial results.  These are the representatives of the 26%. The rest of the world should take note that if they come back into power, life will become much, much worse - for everyone.

Russian Foreign Policy, Economics and Local Elections

United Russia’s electoral loss to the Communist Party in Bratsk, Siberia for mayor has garnered slight media attention, even in the Russian press, but it is a reflection on the impact of the extent of the financial crises within Russia. United Russia also lost the mayor’s race in Irkutsk, a major city, last March – also to the Communist Party.


Although the latest defeat was likely caused by the ineptitude of local United Russia political leadership – they managed to field two candidates who split the vote for which heads will role – it is a concern for the Kremlin as it tries to recover from the international financial collapse which severely impacted Russia’s economy.

Local political concerns for the ruling party will likely not translate into a threat to United Russia’s control of the Duma, but it cannot absorb too many of these local election losses without eventual damage to its internal network. There is a connection with the economic turmoil resulting in these losses and Russian foreign policy.

The principal concern of the Kremlin now is attracting international investors. Should the control exercised by United Russia weaken internally, particularly in the industrial centers, those same investors will begin to either look elsewhere, or demand a better deal on their investments. The strength and stability of the political structure might become questionable if further internal problems begin to deteriorate.
Russia’s economic problems have resulted in the weak start on the custom’s union among Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The union, which came into existence on January 1 and was to begin official operations on July 1, is one part of Russia’s attempt to restore economic confidence within the investment community, both internally and internationally. It is not off to a positive start. The union’s commencement has been put off for a year.
It does not help that Ukraine – a member of the WTO while Russia’s membership has been languishing for 17 years – has declined to become part of the custom’s union. Despite the largely pro-Russian leanings of the President Yanukovych, Ukraine’s economic interests are grounded in more cooperation with Western Europe and Yanukovych has shown little inclination to increase the trade relationship with Russia beyond its current bi-lateral format.
Further complicating matters is Belarus, which has recently poked its finger in the Kremlin’s eye by sheltering the fugitive former president of the Kyrgyz Republic, refused to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and which will be hosting Prime Minister Berlusconi in Minsk as part of the growing warming of relations with western Europe.
As a result of adverse economic and political events during the past year, Russian foreign policy may be undergoing a change from its recent bellicose nature toward the west. Although largely successful in reasserting Russian control in the near abroad ranging from the annexation of Georgian territory to the recent revolution in the Kyrgyz Republic, the success has come at a diplomatic and economic cost. Eastern Europe and the Baltics were particularly alarmed about the invasion of Georgia which had followed the economic arm-twisting of gas supply cut-offs. The Georgia adventure did not help Russia’s relationship with Western Europe, the United States or Turkey. Using gas supplies as a weapon is probably viewed in hindsight by Moscow as a mistake.
Now Russia desperately needs investment. Russia’s political pendulum has historically swung periodically between an eastern and western world view for sometimes very vague motives, if not outright caprice. There are signs that it is repositioning toward the middle on its current swing to the west for very practical political and economic reasons.

European Dis-Union

Image by Henrique Oscar Loeffler via Flickr

What is happening with the European Union? For some time, it has been abundantly clear that the core countries of the EU, Germany and France, were intent on controlling the organization both politically and economically. Germany, the economic power in Europe, has clearly tried, more or less successfully, in bending the union to its needs and desires. France is a distant second on the team but still retains a certain amount of leverage over the direction of EU policy. The Greek financial crises revealed the key fissure affecting both concept and practice – self-interest. Germany became the indispensable player. In doing so, Brussels has been sidelined for major issues. Perhaps permanently.

The EU, founded in part to undermine the foundations of nationalism that had inflicted two major wars in the 20th century, is now closing the circle. As a unified economic union it has worked rather well – until now. The protection of NATO, led by the United States, provided the necessary cover to allow economic reforms resulting in unprecedented prosperity and wealth within the union which did not need to fund military expenditures. Once the Soviet Union crashed and burned, the EU could rapidly expand to bring former satellites of the Kremlin inside the club. Again, the existential threat to Europe having vanished overnight, allowed it to concentrate on rapid economic growth, presumably as a bloc, without concerning itself with military expenditures. Expansion was rapid, but then hints of political issues, based on national interests, began to rise to the surface.

The first clear sign of cracks in the unified system were political. The proposed constitution, a mammoth, 400 page tome, was seen by Eastern Europe – particularly Poland, as changing the rules of the game mid-stream. Ireland was the first to vote it down. Although eventually enacted, this document was not a constitution. It was another treaty. In other words, the constitution was a contractual relationship among individual nations. Contracts can be broken, but more importantly was the underlying glossed-over issue of nationalism that the European Union was established to abolish.

Then came Iraq. The key players in the EU, Germany and France, are also key members of NATO. They split, sharply, with the Bush administration over Iraq and the imperial attitude of that administration which flaunted a “with us or against us” childishness in foreign policy that made opposition to the war very, very easy. In no small part, Eastern Europe, and particularly Poland, supported US foreign policy because they needed a balance to the Franco-German alliance within the EU which was threatening to develop a robust relationship with the Russian Federation. European Union cohesion began to unravel at a faster pace.

Nationalism has now risen from the dead. France and Germany, both vying for a leadership position in Europe, appear to have subordinated the goal of the union to purely national interests. Germany under Merkel has increased its dependence on Russian energy supplies to an extent that makes it difficult to criticize, much less resist the more aggressive tendencies of Moscow. This is of particular concern to Poland and the Baltic States – EU members - given their prior experience of deal-making between Russia and Germany.
France has not mirrored the nationalism of Germany, but it also is clearly acting in its own interests when it announced the sale of one or more Mistral class ships to Russia – the first such sale of reasonably advanced military hardware by a NATO member to the Russian Federation. The sale – which has yet to be finalized – did not go down well in the Baltics, or in Georgia.

The Russo-German love affair has alarmed the Eastern European member states enough to send their governments into the bomb shelters of national interest as opposed to those of the EU. If the precedence of national over European goals is good enough for Germany and France, it is just as appropriate for Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania.

Greece tripped the nationalism wire completely. Andrea Merkel fomented an anti-Greek atmosphere in Germany for purely political, national reasons that made any sort of unified assistance by the other member states much more difficult. Germany, she clearly implied, would call the shots on any rescue plan. The Greeks were lazy, as compared to good, hardworking Germans, and could not be trusted. Her fulminations resulted in an electorate that not only does not care about Greece, but dislikes it. Now, when forced to lead the bailout, Merkel must backtrack – which resulted in the loss of an important bi-election and damaging her party’s ability to run the country alone. Hoisted on her own petard. And she is not alone in Europe.

Leaving aside the fact that the financial collapse of Greece was entirely self-inflicted, Merkel casually ignored the detail that German representatives occupy some lofty posts in the financial regulatory councils of Brussels who somehow missed the evidence of the approaching melt-down. Germany was going to run the show now for the good of Germany. The attitude was noted in Warsaw, Madrid, Rome and Ankara. The latter, though not a member largely because of the prejudices of the French, Germans and, as always the Austrians, has been given a taste of how it will be treated if the opposition to Turkish membership is ever overcome.

What has happened with the financial crises in the euro-zone is that Germany has essentially changed the deal - one member’s problems are not those of the EU. The union was established as an economic zone, and not a United States of Europe. Gradually, the idea of being a citizen of Europe took over. Without a deep crises, this political concept worked well despite the fact that it was never intended to politically integrate each member nation. With the financial crises in general and the Greek collapse and bailout in particular, the unity of the EU has been shattered despite the rescue plan. The entire episode firmly establishes the lack of a unified foreign policy within the EU. This inability to formulate a consensus approach in foreign affairs is not new. It has merely been below the event horizon for most of the last 50 years. Not any more. The interests of Germany, France, Poland and the southern tier of states are not congruent and in many cases are in direct opposition to each other.

From a foreign policy standpoint, the charade of a unified European approach as a balance to the US, however admirable, has vaporized. The election in the UK resulted in a coalition government, however long it lasts, that is led by a strong Euroskeptic crowd which the LibDems will not be able to overcome. Brussels will find it hard to maintain the appearance of unity, much less a unified foreign policy approach, in a firmly nationalistic Europe.

The Politics of Aid and Poverty Reduction

Over here Teddy Brett, Associate Director of the London School of Economics' Development Management Program, makes some very valid points about development aid that are frequently swept under the rug or simply ignored as inconvenient truths by project designers in the various aid agencies. In short, he correctly points out that politics in recipient countries often kills off poverty reduction efforts when the implementation of the effort touches political sensitivities of the corrupt elite.

The problem is endemic and donor agencies are incapable of addressing the issue, choosing rather to ignore corrupt government officials and elites, rather than simply cutting off the funds and allocating those to less corrupt governments. It is a choice of evils.


Furthermore, for some countries, finding substitute donors is somewhat easier, particularly if there is a geo-political or resource reason for investing the money. The Kyrgyz Republic, for example, has already been promised $300 million in aid from Russia which correctly sees the recent revolution, where evidence is mounting that it orchestrated, as an opportunity to establish a stronger foothold in the region - nothing wrong with that from their strategic interest point of view.

Then there is Sudan and other African countries with resources that China wishes to secure. Non-democratic or corrupt regimes are ignored merely because China sees no upside in political interference or moralizing. And in any event, that is a pot and kettle situation.

There are only two reasons for the enormous amount of aid rained on Armenia by the United States. The first is an incredibly powerful lobby in Congress (these aid funds are largely earmarked).  The second is purely geo-political: to counter Russian influence in Armenia.  In regard to the latter, purely political reason, the US has been singularly unsuccessful.

Let's be realistic. Aid is an arm of foreign policy and when that aid involves economic and structural reforms it will run smack into local politics and power centers which will either support or obstruct it depending on self-interest. That should not be a shock to anyone.

Poverty reduction is like apple pie and no one is going to say that they are not interested. How that poverty reduction is implemented is the difference. But in the end, it is all political and foreign aid assistance needs to be better formulated to address this fundamental.

China Syndrome

Image via Wikipedia

Japan has ended its refueling mission in the Indian Ocean which was part of its support for the Afghan war. On the other side of the coin, this will be interesting from a foreign policy perspective if it comes to pass.

The Chinese navy is slowly extending its permanent blue water reach into new zones. Although ostensibly a mission merely to support the continuing war in Afghanistan (and therefore in support of the US military), this step really goes far beyond the naval mission against piracy that China has heretofore engaged. It creates a permanent presence. How this will play out with India, its regional rival, and Pakistan, its regional ally, if it actually happens?

On the other hand, will the US really, really agree to having its warships refueled by the Chinese? Somehow, it seems to me that this might be a sea lane too far.

Consultants to the World - Condi and Hadley - Oh My

I just noticed this from last week.

Who on earth would hire the same people who brought on the foreign policy disasters of the Bush adminstration? Their potential and actual client list would be useful and tell us more about the relative intellegence of the clients than what we already know to be true about the judgement of these two foreign affairs experts.

Chancellor Merkel's Moment

OK. I withdraw 40% - well maybe 45% - of my criticism of German foreign policy following the Chancellor's speech in front of a joint session of Congress. Although Chancellor from the larger political party, I do wonder what effect her coalition partner's foreign policy views had on the rather forceful remarks regarding Iran. Nevertheless, the follow-up actions vis a vis Russia are what will count.