A (non-)model partnership

That term seemed to me more like a target or desire than a description of the current situation. In recent years, my conviction has been confirmed further. Indeed, there is currently not a model for relations between the US and Turkey that is suitable for partnership in the real sense of the word or a partnership that could be described as model.

Let me give you two examples: recently, US Secretary of State John Kerry lauded Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime, perceived by Turkey as a top threat, for agreeing to hand over their chemical weapons. Now, Ankara is preparing to strike a big missile deal with a company from China, the global adversary of the US. How can this be called a partnership, let alone a model partnership?

Speaking to the press, Turkish and US officials note that certain differences may be found between friendly or allied countries. But I am sure they complain about this situation in their private assessments. Indeed, disagreement characterizes not just the details and tactics but also vital, strategic issues. This is worrisome.

Strategic and tactical disparities

Currently, not only the tactics but also the strategic priorities of the US and Turkey do not properly overlap as regards the common hottest foreign policy issues, including Syria, Iraq and Egypt. Strategically speaking, Ankara pursues bolder, more interventionist and progressive policies while Washington's policy is more passive and more pro-status quo. On a tactical level, there are serious differences ranging from actions to discourse. For instance, Washington is extremely uneasy about the tactics Turkey adopts in aiding the Syrian opposition. Finally, a comprehensive news story by the Wall Street Journal that relied on US and Israeli authorities claimed that Turkey's National Intelligence Organization (MİT) is orchestrating a campaign to aid the radical and terrorist dissident groups in Syria. It even argued that Obama had warned Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan about this matter during his May visit to the White House. The Turkish side, on the other hand, has been telling US authorities that the chaos and terror in Syria will become further exacerbated if they do not take it seriously, but it has failed to convince them.

The situation looks equally unpromising in terms of keeping promises made mutually. Prime Minister Erdoğan still fulfilled two of Obama's important requests: the normalization of relations with Israel and the re-opening of the Halki Seminary on the island of Heybeliada near İstanbul. Although Obama personally stepped in to make Israel's tough Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offer an apology to Turkey, Turkey is still moving at a snail's pace in normalization, and this disturbs the White House. Thus, the underlying reason behind the White House's unusually harsh response to Erdoğan's blaming of Israel for the coup d'état in Egypt lies in its feeling of having been deceived by Ankara regarding Israel. Likewise, when the Turkish government failed to include the re-opening of the seminary in its recently announced package of reforms, instead voicing the old Turkey's criterion of “reciprocity” with Greece, this created big disappointment in Washington.

On the other hand, Ankara is testing US loyalty to bilateral relations and its commitments particularly in Syria and Iraq. Although Turkey had warned the Bush administration that the war in Iraq would shift the strategic balance in the country and in the region in favor of Iran, the US didn't pay heed to Turkey's concerns. The Obama administration continues to throw support behind Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is orbiting around Tehran, despite Ankara's strategic concerns and interests. The approach the US adopts regarding the Syrian crisis plays into the hands of Iran rather than Turkey. The US administration, while secretly inciting the US press to publish new stories suggesting that Ankara is helping radical Sunni groups, is pursuing a policy of rapprochement with Tehran, which fosters all sorts of bloody conspiracies in Syria. Moreover, this tolerance is afforded to a theocratic regime that is detested considerably by the US. One is even urged to ask, “If Iran becomes secular, will Turkey fall from grace?”

Missile move attracts Washington's attention

Turkey preferred to work with a Chinese company that submitted the lowest bid in a recent missile system procurement tender in preference of US and European companies. This implies that Turkey does not want the West to see itself as a bird in the hand and can even dare to anger the US in favor of its national interests. I don't know if this was the intention, but with this move, Ankara managed to attract Washington's attention, putting the light on its geostrategic importance. Now, the Obama administration is working like a beaver to find out whether the decision is final or intended to send a message to the US. The worries that haunt the medium levels of the administration have not yet made it to the upper echelons. For instance, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, responding to a question about this matter, did not use critical language. Yet it should be noted that Hagel has special sympathy regarding Turkey and is one of the more sober members of the administration. So, his words may not be loyally exhibiting the true feelings of the White House or the Department of State. On the other hand, Ankara should calculate carefully whether China is capable of making a qualified, reliable contribution to Turkey's defense.

The fact that the US and Turkey -- as two NATO members -- can surprise each other even in defense-related strategic decisions is more proof that it is too early to describe Turkish-US relations as a model partnership. The spirit of partnership was further breached when the US kicked off negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with Europe, leaving Turkey aside. Bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations, started upon the Turkish government's pressure, amount to nothing but an effort to calm Turkey down. The democratic gaps in Turkey and the diminishing idealism of the US are making it hard to uphold a value-based partnership. High-sounding terms like “model partnership” should not keep us from seeing the true situation.