Bad News From Turkey

The Islamist Turkish government continues to consolidate its power over the military, which has long been a force for secularism in the country. Top military leaders resigned en mass to protest the ongoing purge being conducted by the government.

the country’s top military commanders resigned in protest over the detention of comrades facing coup conspiracy charges. ... [There are] about 250 officers now jailed on charges linked to various alleged anti-government plots dating back to 2003.

Christopher Hitchens has an article about this at Slate. He sees it as the end of an era. As he puts it, the "long, uneven symbiosis between state and nation and army and modernity has now run its course." Regardless of some of the issues regarding the Turkish military, for the most part it has been a friend to the U.S. since the outbreak of the Cold War. Its decline, and the rise of Islamist democracy has been nothing but bad news for the U.S.

That Didn't Take Long

Last Friday I wrote a post arguing that we were setting a bad precedent by launching a military intervention based on a UN resolution centered around the notion of protecting civilians.

Is there the slightest doubt that the next time Israel has to launch a major military action there will be calls for international action to protect civilians?

Our nominal ally and now Islamist-led Turkey didn't even wait until the next major Israeli operation. Here's the Deputy Prime-minister.

We wish that the United Nations had made similar resolutions, and countries had taken action, in the face of incidents in Gaza, Palestine and other regions,"

I didn't expect to be proven correct quite that fast.

Israeli Foreign Minister Makes Mistake of Stating the Obvious

One of the last things you want to do when conducting diplomacy is tell the unvarnished truth -- which is one of the reasons that the publication of U.S. State Department secrets was so damaging to U.S. foreign policy. The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, recently made the mistake of stating the obvious with regard to Turkey, and caused a rift with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is trying to patch up relations between Israel and Turkey in the aftermath of the Mavi Marmara incident. In time-honored diplomatic fashion, Netanyahu is attempting to forge a compromise whereby both sides save face.

Envoys of the two countries held rapprochement talks in Geneva this month. Israeli officials say they broached a deal that would entail them expressing “regret” for the ship violence and paying damages to those bereaved or hurt, in return for a Turkish commitment to indemnify navy personnel against lawsuits.

Basically Israel is offering a non-apology apology in return for the Turks backing off. But here's Lieberman.

“I think the matter of an apology borders on chutzpah or beyond,” Mr. Lieberman told Israeli diplomats in a speech attended international media. “If anything, we are waiting for an apology from the Turkish government, and not the other way around.” ... “If anyone should apologise, it should be the Turkish government to Israel over cooperation with terrorist elements, support for terrorism, support for the IHH, Hamas and (Lebanese) Hezbollah. There will be no (Israeli) apology,” Mr. Lieberman said.

Lieberman is correct. By rights, Turkey should apologize to Israel for assisting an attempt to break its blockade. I wrote basically the same thing when the incident occurred. But I'm not the foreign minister of Israel. Unless Israel wants to increase hostility between the two nations, some sort of compromise would be preferable. Expressing "regret" for violence is not really an apology, since you are regretting that violence occurred at all, not taking responsibility. Getting the Turks to accept such a gesture would actually be a diplomatic victory, cost nothing, and probably benefit Israel overall. Lieberman clearly lacks the diplomatic skill required for his office.

Laughable Propaganda From Turkey

The Turkish ambassador to the U.S., Namik Tan, wrote an editorial in the Washington Post actually demanding an apology from Israel. It takes quite a bit of nerve to stab  your former ally in the back, help sponsor a mission to break its naval blockade, openly support its enemies, misrepresent what happened and then demand an apology. But that's Turkey these days.

As we now know well, instead of the day ending with the delivery of humanitarian aid to ease the desperate lives of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, it began with the killing by Israel Defense Forces of nine peace activists and the wounding of about 30, all civilians.

Opening up with outright lies. The people killed were in no way "peace activists." And armed individuals attacking a boarding party gave up their civilian status by their own actions.

The Free Gaza flotilla was not an initiative by the Turkish government.

Oh please. It was organized by a Turkish terrorist support outfit, permitted and no doubt encouraged by the Turkish government, and included Turkish vessels. The only thing it lacked was a Turkish naval escort. It may not have been an official mission, but it clearly had the support of Turkey's government.

It was an international aid convoy made up of nationals of 32 countries taking food, toys, medical equipment and similar aid to the people of Gaza, who have been deprived of these basic commodities for years.

Nonsense. Gaza hasn't been deprived of those things for days, let alone years. The Israelis themselves deliver humanitarian supplies to their enemies.

Among the ships' 600 activists were Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, European lawmakers, journalists, business leaders and an 86-year-old Holocaust survivor -- hardly targets who could pose a threat to Israel's well-trained commandos.

Another lie, this time of omission. Let's not mention the armed individuals who ambushed the naval boarding party.

this was a humanitarian initiative.

No, actually it wasn't. Israel had already agreed to deliver the humanitarian supplies. What this was was an attempt to break the blockade, and to stage an incident to use against Israel.

Because the attack took place in international waters, 72 miles off Israel's coast, it was illegal.

No, it wasn't. It was legal in accordance with the rules of blockades. The ambassador knows this and is again blatantly lying.

this was the first such attack against civilian Turkish citizens by a foreign military force in our republic's 87-year history.

It wasn't an attack at all. The attack was against the Israeli boarding party. The ambassador goes on to whine about how great a friend Turkey was to Israel, and how horribly it has been treated, as if it hasn't been undertaking a campaign to delegitimize its former ally and support its enemies.

We cannot avert our eyes when the lives of our citizens -- innocents -- are lost during an illegal assault in defense of a blockade that is unfair, inhumane and unsustainable.

It was not illegal, not an assault, and the blockade is neither unfair, inhumane, nor unsustainable.

Israel can start by bringing an end to its blockade on Gaza; by ending its inappropriate and disproportionate police actions toward the Palestinian civilians of that land; and by allowing a prompt, independent, impartial, credible and transparent international investigation into the incident.

Israel should maintain the blockade, which is there for excellent reasons. The disproportionality argument is ludicrous. If there is need for an investigation, it should be directed at the Turkish role in fomenting this incident.

Israel owes an apology to the Turkish nation

Turkey owes the apology for supporting a hostile act against Israel and then lying about it.

The United States should encourage Israel to become a genuine partner for peace in the Middle East.

The U.S. should encourage Israel by standing behind its reasonable and necessary actions, and making it clear to the Turks that we aren't impressed by their transparent propaganda. 

What to Do About Turkey?

There has been much nonsense written regarding Turkey in the aftermath of the flotilla incident. Here's just one example from an Israeli no less.

Monday's botched commando raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla has proven disastrous for Israel. World public opinion has united in condemning the Jewish state and the U.N. Security Council has already demanded an inquiry. Closer to home, the strategic alliance that Israel had painstakingly forged with Turkey is in tatters.

The strategic alliance between Israel and Turkey has been dead for quite some time. The Islamist government of Turkey has for years now pursued a policy of using Gaza and the Palestinians as a weapon against Israel, and as a lever to advance its own power in the region at the expense of both Israel and the U.S.  This policy has included close relations with Iran to the extent of attempting to undermine even the mild sanctions advanced by the Obama administration. Yet from many pundits you still see a pretend view of Turkey, as if it were still the 1990s, with Turkey a solid ally of the U.S. and a friend to Israel.

It has been the shift in the Turkish government, from secular and western-oriented, to Islamist and focused on regional power that has produced not only the rift with Israel, but its transformation from strong U.S. ally to neutral bordering on hostile. There is little Israel could have done to change this dynamic, and any Israeli still pretending that Turkey is some sort of strategic partner rather than a dangerous threat is a deluded fool. The idea that Turkey actually cares about the Palestinian self-determination and humanitarian issues is utterly laughable. All you have to do is look at its savage repression of the Kurds. The Turks have joined Arabs in using the Palestinians as a weapon against Israel, going so far as to help organize the latest blockade-breaking effort in support of Hamas.

So what should the U.S. do? First and foremost we need to recognize reality. And reality is that Turkey is no longer an ally, a strategic partner, or a friend to the U.S. Friends don't ally themselves with rogue states who are open enemies of America (Iran), attempt to destroy the legitimacy of the key U.S. ally in the region, and support anti-American terrorist organizations. Far from being a friend, Turkey is now a problem and a threat to U.S. interests in the region. It's time we recognized that situation and planned accordingly.

One of the main reasons Turkey has felt confident in acting against U.S. interests is the Obama administration's projection of weakness abroad. None of our enemies, rivals and potentially hostile states fears Obama in the slightest. They know his instinctive desire to appease, naivete, inexperience, extreme reluctance to act unilaterally, self-delusion and wishful thinking cripple U.S. power. The overwhelming power of the U.S. is useless without the will to wield it in the service of U.S. interests. Turkey, like many other states, has every reason to feel confident that it can do whatever it wants as long as Obama is in charge of U.S. foreign policy. Weakness breeds aggression, and U.S. weakness risks a Middle East war, something that is definitely not in our interests. There have been reports and speculation that Turkey might actually send a naval escort with another Gaza flotilla. Attempting to break the Gaza blockade with naval force would be an act of war against Israel. A war between Turkey and Israel, which would probably draw in Arab states as well, would be a enormous disaster for U.S. interests. It seems unlikely, but given the current conditions it is conceivable.

One way to avoid conflicts and all-out war is to establish clarity in foreign policy. If the possible reaction of a great power is unclear, an aggressive state might be inclined to gamble. What would happen in the event that Turkish naval forces clashed with Israeli over the Gaza blockade? What is the position of the U.S.? In the aftermath of the latest incident the U.S. should be holding high-level talks with Turkey, and making our position absolutely clear, so that there will be no misunderstanding or miscalculation. Most of this should take place behind the scenes, but it should be forceful and direct. Turkey should be told that regardless of our disagreements with certain aspects of Israeli policy, U.S. power stands firmly behind Israel. We recognize that a Turkish military attempt to break the Gaza blockade is an act of war against Israel, and it will be treated accordingly. Depending on the Turkish response, this message could be reinforced by sending a powerful U.S. naval force to the Eastern Mediterranean. There are all sorts of other issues that should be raised at such a conference between the U.S. and Turkey, but I'll leave it at that for the moment since this post is getting pretty long. Wars often begin through miscalculation and delusions about the possible actions of states with interests in the matter. It's time to for Obama to use his "let me be clear" line for something meaningful.

Obama & the Armenian Genocide

Peter Baker, writing in the New York Times, notices that Obama managed to anger both Turks and Armenians in his commemoration of the anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Obama pandered to Armenian-Americans while trying to get elected, "vowed to use the term genocide to describe the Ottoman mass slaughter of Armenians nearly a century ago," but then failed to do so. Armenian-Americans believed his campaign lies and are now upset that he didn't deliver.

“Today we join with Armenians in the United States and around the world in voicing our sharp disappointment with the president’s failure to properly condemn and commemorate the Armenian genocide,” said Ken Hachikian, the committee’s chairman. He added that Mr. Obama’s failure to follow through on his campaign pledge was “allowing Turkey to tighten its gag rule on American genocide policy.”

But even what Armenians see as a weak and evasive announcement was too much for Turkey.

Although the president’s statement did not use the term “genocide” on Saturday, it was strong enough to provoke a sharp statement from the Turkish Foreign Ministry, which called the language a reflection of a one-sided political perception. “Third countries neither have a right nor authority to judge the history of Turkish-Armenian relations with political motives,” the statement said.

Another foreign policy triumph for Obama. Let's insert the U.S. into the middle of something that is none of its business, and mange to anger all sides. Great job. I've been very critical of Turkey lately, as its turn to Islamism makes it an unreliable ally and potential threat to U.S. interests. But the current Turkish government, and the governments since the founding of the republic do not deserve to be beaten over the head with the actions of the Ottoman Empire. It serves no purpose, and is not in the interests of the United States, which has no stake in this sort of fight over what happened almost a hundred years ago. Yes the Ottoman Turks carried out a genocidal campaign against Armenians. That's not in dispute among reputable historians. But there is no need for the U.S. to hold official commemorations about it, or for the president to address the issue.

Crazy Prisoner Release

Mehmet Ali Agca, who shot and wounded Pope John Paul II back in 1981, was released from a Turkish prison today. He also killed a man back in 1979 and is a still a raving lunatic. He had this to say upon his release,

"I proclaim the end of the world. All the world will be destroyed in this century. Every human being will die in this century." ... "I am not God and I am not the son of God. I am the Christ Eternal,"

A murderer, attempted assassin and complete nutcase -- just the kind of person who should be roaming free. I guess the Turks are trying to compete with the UK in the legal stupidity olympics.

Stupid Move by Israel

Israel's relations with Turkey, once an ally, have deteriorated substantially in recent years, primarily because of the growing Islamist sympathies of the Turkish government. This has led to public recriminations between the two countries, and the cancellation of joint military maneuvers. Israel is justified in being upset with Turkish behavior, but what it did Monday and today was just stupid.

On Monday Israel's deputy foreign minister summoned the Turkish ambassador, and complained about an anti-Semitic tv show running in Turkey. While doing so, he deliberately insulted the ambassador.

The ambassador was forced to sit on a low sofa without a handshake, while Mr. Ayalon explained to local TV stations that the humiliation was intentional.

He explained in Hebrew, so the ambassador wasn't aware of what he was saying. Naturally the Turks were outraged, demanded an apology, and threatened to recall their ambassador. Today the offending minister apologized. But here's what the prime minister of Israel had to say.

The statement from Mr. Netanyahu's office said the Israeli leader "supported the essence of (Ayalon's) protest but distanced himself from the inappropriate style." It expressed concern over the deterioration of relations between the two countries and said the Israeli government would work "to find ways to prevent the continuation of this trend."

In other words, Turkey deserved to be insulted but it was done in the wrong way. I'm sure the Turks will be thrilled with that explanation.

Israel is in a difficult position. It has Hizbollah armed to the teeth in Lebanon, the festering problem of Gaza, and the never-ending farce that is the so-called "peace process." The U.S. is governed by an administration that is less sympathetic to, and more critical of Israel, completely clueless regarding foreign policy, and committed to a policy of naivete and wishful thinking toward the Iranian nuclear program. Israel may at some point have to launch a unilateral strike on Iran, and relations with Turkey are already bad. Why go out of your way to slap the Turks in the face over a tv show, no matter how anti-Semitic it was? I'm not sure what the Israel government hoped to gain by this action. It seems like sheer stupidity.

Turkey: Friend of Iran

A little while ago, Caroline Glick published a controversial article called, "How Turkey Was Lost to the West." It can be summarized with the following excerpts:

Once the apotheosis of a pro-Western, dependable Muslim democracy, this week Turkey officially left the Western alliance and became a full member of the Iranian axis. ... Turkey is lost and we'd better make our peace with this devastating fact. But if we learn its lessons, we can craft policies that check the dangers that Turkey projects and prepare for the day when Turkey may decide that it wishes to return to the Western fold.

Although some dismissed her analysis as exaggerated, alarmist, or merely reflective of a hardline Israeli position, the Guardian has a story up today that lends weight to her conclusions. The Turkish Prime Minister states categorically of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "There is no doubt he is our friend," while at the same time criticizing European states such as France and Germany. As the Guardian puts it,

Friendly towards a religious theocratic Iran, covetous and increasingly resentful of a secular but maddeningly dismissive Europe: it seems the perfect summary of Turkey's east-west dichotomy.

Turkey, long a loyal and valued U.S. ally, severely damaged that status by its behavior at the outset of the Iraq War. By blocking U.S. deployment through its country at the last minute, it essentially rammed a knife into the back of America, disrupting U.S. invasion plans and causing numerous problems. By that act Turkey demonstrated that it can no longer be trusted as a U.S. ally. It is also in the process of destroying its well-established strategic cooperation with Israel, in favor of cozying up to its enemies. And as the U.S. works to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, what is the position of our "ally" Turkey?

"Iran does not accept it is building a weapon. They are working on nuclear power for the purposes of energy only."

That's Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, spouting Iranian propaganda. The Guardian notes, 

Erdogan's views will interest US foreign policy makers, who have long seen his AKP government as a model of a pro-western "moderate Islam" that could be adopted in other Muslim countries.

It's obviously past time for a reassessment.

Turks Hate Atheists More Than Jews

According to a new study which apparently asked Turks who they would or would not want as a neighbor, 75% said no to atheists. Tied with atheists are "people who drink alcohol." So basically if you are an atheist who drinks alcohol, you'd be a real pariah in Turkey. Jews were second in the most did not want as neighbors category, with 64% not wanting to live near them. 

Syrian-Turkish Military Cooperation

Turkey has been conducting joint military maneuvers with Syria over the last couple of days. On Monday the two nations signed

a technical military cooperation agreement...in the fields of defense industries and the exchange of technical and scientific information.

Turkish sources have differing takes on the importance of this move. A Turkish Brigadier General from the defense ministry said,

The deal we are signing will form the legal basis of defense cooperation between the defense ministries of the two countries

But an analyst in Turkey called the move "inconsequential" saying,

Turkey has similar deals with more than 60 countries. Besides, the exercise involved at most a total of 60 men from both sides. If it is held only at the platoon level as reported, then really it holds only a symbolic value

So at this point it is unclear exactly what this Syrian-Turkish cooperation portends for the future. The Israeli defense minister called it a "disturbing development." But whether it is a trivial disturbance or something more serious remains to be seen.

A Turk on Obama's Visit

After posting about Ralph Peters' harsh criticism of President Obama's Turkish trip, I thought I'd see what Turkish papers had to say about it. The English edition of Hurriyet Daily News has several editorials up about Obama's visit, all pretty favorable. One article in particular caught my attention: "An inventory of the Obama visit," by Sedat Ergin. He lists ten points that he considers important, and offers analysis on each.  A couple of them directly conflict with Peters' interpretation.

Ergin praises Obama for his statements about Attaturk, and argues that he successfully reinforced the linkage between his legacy and democratic rule. He also says that Obama clearly promoted secularism, as a "vital component of democracy." Where Peters says that Obama helped support an Islamist-oriented regime, Ergin states that Obama's meetings with opposition parties prevent the prime minister from claiming the visit as personal support for him or his party.

Basically Ergin sees the visit as a major boost for Turkish-U.S. relations, and something that will improve Turkish influence in the region. Interestingly, he thinks that the U.S. will expect Turkish troop commitments for Afghanistan as a sort of quid pro quo for the visit.

The rest of the article also has other interesting points and is worth reading.

Ralph Peters on Obama in Turkey

I don't always agree with Ralph Peters, but I think his latest piece has some useful observations and analyses, even though it is harsh and overstated in places, and tends to ramble. Essentially, Peters argues that the president pandered to an Islamist-oriented regime in Turkey out of general naivete, and a lack of understanding about the Turkish situation in particular.

in Turkey, he surrendered our national pride, undercut our interests and interfered in matters that aren't his business.

Conceding that Obama has good intentions, like Jimmy Carter, Peters writes

the road to embassy takeovers and strategic humiliation is paved with good intentions -- coupled with distressing naivete.

Exactly. That's my biggest fear about Obama in terms of foreign policy. Peter's argues that Obama's spineless diplomacy had the following result:

he gave his seal of approval to a pungently anti-American Islamist government bent on overturning Mustapha Kemal's legacy of the separation of mosque and state.

Peters blames Obama's missteps on bad advice from the State Department,

appeasement artists who understand neither Turkey, Islam nor the crises raging between the Bosporus and the Indus. State's answer is always "More love, more humility, more aid."

That sounds about right. When is the State Department ever in favor of taking a hard-line approach to any diplomatic situation? Appeasement is usually the first and favorite option.

I, for one, don't think our country has anything to apologize for, either to Turkey or to Europe

Me either. Obama's apologizing for the U.S. and bending over backward is getting old -- and he hasn't even been in office very long. But then Peters writes,

Obama omitted any mention of Turkey's wartime betrayals of our troops, its continuing oppression of its Kurd minority or the AKP's determination to turn a state with a secular constitution into a Wahhabi playground...When it came to the Armenian genocide, Obama bravely ducked: He never dared use the g-word.

Here's where I disagree with Peters. A state visit to Turkey isn't the time to publicly air grievances about how the Turks knifed us in the back during the run-up to the Iraq War. What good would that do? Issues of military cooperation should be discussed privately. Peter's argues that Turkey's quest to join the EU is none of our business and we should stay out of it. I agree. The Turks don't deserve our support. But given that position, how is Turkish oppression of minorities or their structure of government any of our business? And slamming Obama for not mentioning the Armenian genocide is ridiculous. What possible good would it do to bring up an old wound as part of the visit? Do the Ottoman Empire's actions back in 1915 really matter to U.S.-Turkish relations today? Attacking Obama for weakness is one thing, but being stupid and unnecessarily offensive wouldn't be any better.