Affiliated with the University of Nicosia |
|||||
|
|||||
US -TURKISH RELATIONS AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: THE IMPACT ON GREECE AND CYPRUS By Van Coufoudakis
|
|||||
|
|||||
Rector Emeritus, University of Nicosia Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Indiana University-Purdue University Senior Fellow, Cyprus Center for European and International Affairs |
|||||
|
|||||
When I discuss Turkish-American relations, I am reminded of the
stereotypes from the Truman Doctrine period about Turkey being a “proud
and independent country” in an important strategic location, and Greece
being a “loyal and traditional friend” who will support the US because
of political, historic and cultural reasons. I am afraid nothing much
has changed since then. The policy consequences of these stereotypes
have resulted in Turkey’s arrogant behavior, a state with an over
inflated ego, blaming everyone else but itself for many of its national
and international problems. The recent recall of the Turkish Ambassador
to the US over the approval by the House Foreign Affairs Committee of
the Armenian Genocide resolution is a classic example. To Turkey’s
credit, its leaders have displayed a consistent but also a foreign
policy that has adapted to the changing international environment, a
policy that has been assisted by effective lobbying in the US. Even
though in recent months Turkey’s disputes with Israel and its
pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian openings have harmed Turkey’s image in the
US, Turkey’s supporters have tried to downplay these developments
attributing them to the lack of support by the US and the EU.
Despite Turkey’s misconduct, we see a symbiotic relationship between
Ankara and Washington based on alleged common interests on issues such
as Islam, terrorism, energy and Afghanistan. Thus, our government had no
difficulty supporting Turkey in securing a position in the UN Security
Council despite its violation of the Council’s unanimous resolutions on
Cyprus.
Starting in the fall of 2008 and into the spring of 2009, and earlier
this February, we were flooded with think tank reports about the
“neglected” Turkish-American alliance. These carefully choreographed
reports blamed the US and the EU for Turkey’s alleged “turning away”
from the West, while calling on the US and the EU to be sensitive and
supportive of Turkey’s interests in order to revive the “failing
partnership” between Turkey and the West, and rationalizing Turkey’s
evolving relations with Iran, Syria, Russia and Israel. These reports
included, among others, that by the Center for American Progress headed
by John Podesta, a major study by Philip Gordon that was supported by
Turkish funds, and most recently by a similar study by the RAND
Corporation.
The
Podesta report called on President Obama to make Turkey the first stop
of his first European trip to highlight Turkey’s importance and position
in Europe and promote its EU aspirations, even though we have no voice
in the EU’s membership policies. Turkey was also used by the President
as a platform to promote his vision of relations with the Islamic world.
The
great irony is that there is nothing new in these reports. Those of us
who devoted their academic lives following these issues remember similar
reports and academic studies on Turkey during the 1970’s and 80’s.
These studies had very similar titles to the ones of 2008/09, as
they addressed issues like the impact of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus,
the Congressional arms embargo on Turkey and Turkey’s flirting with the
Soviet Union during the Cold War. Every time Turkey violated
international law or was in trouble over its foreign policy, our country
was blamed for being insensitive to Turkey’s strategic needs and
concerns in a volatile region.
This thinking was manifested in the President’s low key meeting with the
Ecumenical Patriarch in an Istanbul hotel rather than at the Ecumenical
Patriarchate; not a word about the threats against the Ecumenical
Patriarchate or Turkey’s misconduct in Cyprus; and only generic
statements about religious freedom and the elusive reopening of the
Halki School of Theology. In contrast, Turkey’s arrogance was shown in
the bullying of the US and NATO over the selection of the new
Secretary-General of the alliance. In turn, the open ended support for
Turkey’s EU aspirations did not settle well with key EU members at a
time when the President sought to rebuild US-EU relations in the
aftermath of the Bush administration.
The
American Hellenic Institute wrote to President Obama on March 26 2009 on
issues of concern to the Greek-American community as relating to the
rule of law, American and international law and US interests. However,
in the absence of a crisis, Greek-Turkish relations continue to be
handled at the bureaucratic level where old assumptions still frame
American policy. Greek-Turkish relations are not on the White House
radar screen. The
President’s first European trip included Turkey but excluded Greece. At
a time of economic weakness Greece is pressured to close various foreign
policy issues in the Balkans, the Aegean and in Cyprus.
The
Obama administration remains silent on the dangerous and destabilizing
violations of the Aegean airspace by the Turkish air force. These
violations continue to grow in numbers (from 1288 in 2008 to 1678 in
2009 including 51 over flights of Greek Aegean islands). The
administration continues the policy of its predecessors about
negotiating the Turkish claims of “grey zones” in the Aegean, regardless
of their legal validity. This encourages Turkey’s quest to revise the
Aegean status quo established by international law since the early
1920’s, by the threat of force if necessary as it happened with the 1996
Imia crisis. These policies undermine Greek sovereignty and territorial
integrity, let alone regional stability. Even more disturbing are recent
revelations of how Turkish policy in the Aegean may have been part of
the domestic power play currently going on in Turkey.
Thus the Turkish threat to
regional stability may even be more serious than most observers believe.
Despite the President’s commitment to human rights and to the rule of
law we did not hear a single comment about the destruction of historic
Greek communities in Asia Minor or in Cyprus, let alone the loss of the
rights and the properties of these communities. The administration
continues arming the Turkish armed forces with sophisticated US military
equipment, permanently upsetting the balance of power in the Aegean,
especially at a time of economic weakness in Greece. Washington has not
reacted to Turkish efforts to acquire the advanced Russian S-300
anti-aircraft system which will nullify the balance of power in the
Aegean and in Cyprus. Washington appears to have forgotten its harsh
reaction in 1998 when Cyprus attempted to acquire a similar but lower
grade S-300 system.
In
the case of Cyprus the Obama administration continues to view the
problem not as one of invasion, continuing occupation and continuing
violations of internationally protected human rights, but as an
inter-communal problem to be resolved in UN sponsored talks. Like the
issue of Greek-Turkish relations, the Cyprus issue remains a
bureaucratic problem, a problem that is not in the White House radar
screen. There has been total disregard of significant decisions by the
European Court of Justice and by the European Court of Human Rights,
while emphasis is given to the political solution of the Cyprus problem.
In these talks, the only noticeable change is in the tactics of the
Obama administration but not on the substance of the policy of its
predecessors. The administration has learned something from the failure
of the high handed tactics of the Bush administration during the Annan
negotiations (2002-2004) which included direct US participation in the
talks, intimidation tactics and propaganda activities, if not also
bribes, funded via the UN Development Program. For the time, the low key
US approach expresses support for the alleged “Cypriot solution” with
Secretary Clinton calling on the leadership of the two Cypriot
communities to speed up the talks and reach a successful conclusion.
More direct US participation has been promised only if the parties
request it. The administration is also counting on the mythology of the
ideological and personal friendship between the President of Cyprus and
Turkish Cypriot leader Talat, forgetting that years earlier we used to
hear about the friendship between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash and how
this friendship would bring the Cyprus talks to a successful conclusion.
The personal friendship aphorisms overlook the reality that Turkish
Cypriot policy is determined in Ankara and not in occupied Nicosia.
Even though the administration continues the non-recognition of the
so-called “TRNC” in occupied Cyprus, it has not discouraged the quiet
upgrading of the status of this illegal entity as shown by the meeting
between Secretary Clinton and Mr. Talat on April 15 2009 in Washington,
and other unofficial visits by members of Congress and other agencies to
occupied Cyprus via the illegal Tymbou airport. What are some
characteristic dimensions of current US policy on Cyprus?
·
Despite the overwhelming rejection of the Annan Plan in 2004 by the
Greek Cypriots, the administration maintains that this document provides
the basis for the current negotiations.
·
The
operation “Save Talat” promoting his “moderate” image compared to his
main opponent Mr. Eroglu, as if this matters in Ankara’s Cyprus policy
decisions.
·
The
continued support of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation which in reality
amounts to a confederation of two largely autonomous states on Cyprus.
The origins of that policy can be traced to Henry Kissinger (1975) and
to Clark Clifford (1977) culminating in the ideas of Richard Holbrooke
(1998) and David Hannay, the parents of the so-called “virgin birth” of
a new Cypriot Republic with a new denomination. Washington continues to
support the Turkish claims of guarantees over Cyprus, even though such a
guarantee is incompatible with conditions in today’s Europe.
·
Washington, since 1974, opposes any sanctions on Turkey for its
documented violations of international law in Cyprus. Washington
continues the policy that the remedy to Turkey’s documented violations
of human rights can only come through a political solution and not
through sanctions or judicial actions.
·
Washington continues its calls for the lifting of the so-called Turkish
Cypriot “isolation”, ignoring the fact that this “isolation” was largely
imposed through the acts of the Turkish occupation army.
·
Washington continues to count on Athens and Ankara, much like the
International Crisis Group has recommended, to bring the Greek and
Turkish Cypriot leadership to an agreement.
·
During his visit to Turkey, President
Obama was careful not to raise the subject of the Turkish invasion and
continuing occupation of Cyprus despite his statement on Cyprus of
October 8 2008 during his presidential campaign. Nor did the President
address, publicly at least, the issue of the Turkish settlers in
occupied Cyprus, the presence of Turkish occupation troops on the soil
of a European Union country, or Turkey’s documented violations of human
rights. Nor did the President address Turkey’s actual threats against
Cyprus in case Cyprus proceeded to explore for gas and oil in its own
continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. Nor did the President
comment on the destruction of the island’s cultural heritage following
the very significant April 2009 report by the Law Library of the US
Congress.
Instead, the US ambassador to Ankara James Jeffrey, a career Foreign
Service officer, on February 3 2010, not only defended Turkey’s policies
in the region but proceeded to state that Turkey’s role in Cyprus is
positive, that Turkey is a peaceful country that does not invade its
neighbors, that Turkey reflects European values and is physically closer
to Europe than Cyprus. Despite the disclaimers of the Department of
State over the comments of its Ambassador to Ankara, the harsh reality
of Turkey’s appeasement is a fact. That fact was reiterated in Philip
Gordon’s March 17 lecture at the Brookings Institution. The toleration
and encouragement of Turkey’s actions have contributed to Ankara’s
arrogance of power. The latest manifestation of this policy was during
the March visit to Ankara by the EU Enlargement Commissioner Stephan
Fule. When the Commissioner urged Turkey to normalize its relations with
the Republic of Cyprus the Turkish government’s blunt response was that
the Cyprus issue is not connected to Turkey’s EU accession.
Sometimes we wonder about the rhetoric and the reality of US policy and
the issue of the rule of law. Let me give you an example that will
answer your questions. Richard Sale, in his recent investigative book
Clinton’s Secret Wars-The Evolution of a Commander in Chief (St.
Martin’s 2009) outlines how US government agencies cooperated with the
Iranian secret services in arming and training the Bosnian Muslims in
the early 90’s. The arms acquired via Iran were transferred to Turkey
and from Turkey to occupied Cyprus where they were flown to Zagreb by
unmarked US air force cargo planes from airports in occupied Cyprus. I
do not have to tell you anymore about legality or the morality of our
Cyprus policy. The bottom line is that these cynical policies have
contributed to the consolidation of the partition of Cyprus rather than
its reunification under a viable and functional system that conforms to
the standards of 21st century Europe.
Let
me conclude by saying that the Obama administration by promoting Turkey
as a resolute ally in the Middle East and as a responsible partner in
transatlantic and European matters has failed to fulfill its rule of law
and transparency pledges promoted during the 2008 campaign. Americans of
Greek, Greek Cypriot and Armenian origin are aware of the President’s
failure to fulfill his electoral promises. By pampering Turkey for years
our government has contributed to Turkey’s arrogance. Turkey today
blames everyone else except her self for her problems, while
blackmailing our government and the EU that it will pursue other foreign
policy options in relation to Iran, Russia and other Middle Eastern
states if her demands are not met. Turkey thinks of itself as a
superpower, forgetting that it may only be a giant with clay feet. No
one calls for abandoning Turkey but, after more than six decades, we
need to look beyond Turkey’s threats and blackmail. Time has come to see
the reality of what the Turkish-US partnership really is.
|
|||||
|
|||||
Cyprus Center for European and
International Affairs Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved
|
|||||
Makedonitissis 46, 2417 Egkomi CYPRUS | P.O.Box 24005, 1700 CYPRUS t: +35722841600 | f: +35722357964 | cceia@unic.ac.cy | www.cceia.unic.ac.cy |