Zero problems with the US?

As part of his official program, Minister Davutoğlu is meeting the top three national security figures of the Obama administration: Secretary of State John Kerry, White House National Security Chief Adviser Susan Rice and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. He will also have talks in Congress. The very profile of the appointments indicates that the US does not have the luxury of keeping Turkey, a country of strategic importance to the US, at arm’s length.

For Henri Barkey of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, Davutoğlu’s Washington visit is a “charm offensive.” Ankara is aware of the relative cooling down of its relations with the US administration, and in particular with the White House. US President Barack Obama is rarely calling Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Ankara was largely bypassed during the decision making processes related to the Syrian crisis, the rapprochement with Iran and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement process with Europe. Barkey believes the more the Turkish delegation “lends an ear” to the US side, the more beneficial it would prove to be. Indeed, the accumulated poisonous gases should be removed and Washington should be relieved.

Fevzi Bilgin, from the Washington-based Rethink Institute, says: “Turkey fails to explain the rationale behind its decisions to the ideas market in Washington. Therefore, these decisions are largely misunderstood. Sometimes, they are lost in disinformation.” Drawing attention to the importance of continuously providing the US capital with information, Bilgin considers Davutoğlu’s move a proper one in this context. He indicates that Turkey should better promote its position and eliminate the increasing concerns, particularly in Congress, by launching high-profile “offensives” with civil, cultural or political delegations every two months at most.

Davutoğlu’s moves

Actually, Davutoğlu has made certain key moves partly designed to degas Washington before he pays his visit. In this context, the Turkish government’s steps for positive engagement with Baghdad and Cairo, and its more realistic and cautious attitude regarding the Syrian crisis, can be considered as part of these moves. Therefore, there is less need for the US delegation to tell the Turkish delegation “to have good relations with Baghdad” or “not to put all your eggs in one basket in Egypt” or “not to lend support to radical groups in Syria.” Ankara also relieved Washington by lending support to the Obama administration’s Iran initiative and improving its bilateral ties with Tehran, despite the big noise Israel and Saudi Arabia are making.

Of course, it is impossible to eliminate all doubts and concerns about Turkey’s Middle East policy and domestic developments in one fell swoop. For instance, like many others in Washington, former US Ambassador to Turkey Morton Abramowitz finds the Turkish government’s foreign policy “largely sectarian.” Abramowitz says, 'I think, perhaps wrongly, from the beginning of Turkey's pronounced involvement in the Middle East Prime Minister Erdogan wanted to carve out a major Turkish role  which reduced Western influence and heavily relied on religious aspirations.' To eliminate this perception that is becoming widespread, Ankara should increase its engagement with secular groups in the region -- especially in Syria and Egypt. Such a fine tuning of its foreign policy will reinforce Turkey’s soft power as well.

Prioritizing the Chinese bid in the missile tender has not rekindled an “axis shift” debate in Washington with the same dose as Turkey saying “no” to the sanctions against Iran during a 2010 United Nations Security Council (UNSC) vote. This is because Turkey’s occasional axial bounces do not come as surprising, as they did in the past. But this does not mean that Washington is not seriously concerned about them, particularly when there is the likelihood of US arms dealers being deprived of their sweet profits and there is a potential problem of operational incompatibility with NATO. It is no coincidence that in his article published on Friday at the Foreign Policy (FP) journal, Davutoğlu stresses that NATO is the “cornerstone” of Turkey’s security policy. Before his visit to the US capital, he is trying to break the ice.

Incompatibilities with common democratic norms

In his FP article, Davutoğlu constructively argues that the partnership between the US and Turkey is based on “fundamental rights and democratic norms.” He notes that Turkey encourages its neighbors to adopt, and its Westerners partners to uphold, these values. Thankfully, we have more to say, compared to the past, about the question, “What about the Kurds?” That the visit comes after the historic event in Diyarbakır where the Turkish government reinforced its will to settle the Kurdish issue is an advantage. On the other hand, the acts or plans that are incompatible with democratic norms, such the harsh response to the Gezi Park protests, the state supervision of student houses and the closure of prep schools, are weakening Ankara’s hand. The US side would be too polite and cautious not to voice it outloud, but Washington increasingly feels that Prime Minister Erdoğan is growing “more authoritarian.”

What are the things Washington wouldn’t like to hear from Davutoğlu? Steven Cook, an expert from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), lists them as follows: “A lecture about Ottoman Empire, rhetoric about zero problems, pressing US on intervention on Syria and complaining about Israel.” Rather, Americans want to focus on “creative problem solving” methods. They are waiting for “realistic proposals.”

Flexibility in foreign policy is not weakness, but a merit. For instance, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) made an unconventional move regarding the 2004 Annan plan referendum about the Cyprus issue, thereby promoting Turkey’s interests and image. In recent months, we see signs of similar flexibility regarding Ankara’s Middle East policy. Apparently, it is becoming clearer to Turkish foreign policy actors that they cannot make much progress by conflicting with the US in the region. Davutoğlu’s new mission may be “zero problems with the US.” Go for it.