Turkish, Syrian and Iraqi ministers at water- sharing meeting (AP)
"I think the Turkish government has not only played and will continue to play the role of interlocutor in terms of Iran, but they also play a particularly important role with a degree of credibility that few other nations have in terms of delivering the message that Iran must cease its nuclear weapons development program."You recently returned from Turkey. What were your major takeaways from the visit?
I had the opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister Erdogan, President Gul, the new speaker of the House and the Parliament Mehmet Ali Sahin, Foreign Minister Davutoglu and other Turkish officials. The major takeaway from the trip is that American-Turkish bilateral relations are, in my view, very strong. Our cooperation with respect to all of the strategic issues affecting the region is at an all-time high. We are cooperating with Turkey in a very sensitive way in terms of combating the PKK terrorist threat. We are working closely with Turkey to engage and normalize relations with Armenia and resolve its historic differences with Armenia. We are working closely with Turkey and Azerbaijan and Armenia to create a just, comprehensive peace which would, if it works, and I am hopeful but also cautious, can bring a new era of peace and tranquility and prosperity to the region. And our cooperation with Turkey goes further than that. Turkey is on the brink of becoming a transit country for new energy sources that will diversify Europe’s sources of energy as well as bring a degree of energy security and stability to the region, which would be very much in America’s strategic interests. We are working with Turkey, as we are with several other countries, in terms of revitalizing a process of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians and Israelis and the broader Arab world. And there are several other issues, particularly relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, in terms of thwarting Iran’s nuclear program, where the level of cooperation between the United States and Turkey is quite impressive.
A lot of this cooperation and this level of confidence is a result of the very successful trip that President Obama took to Turkey early on in his administration, as well as Secretary Clinton’s equally successful trip and interactions with the Turkish administration. So I am both confident and hopeful that, in terms of a very strategic partnership, a model partnership as President Obama referred to it, is on the right track and on a very positive trajectory.
Turkey has suggested in the past that it was willing to be an interlocutor between the United States and Iran. During your trip, did you discuss Turkey’s perception of Iran’s post-election situation and what role Turkey might play?
That’s an excellent question and, in fact, concerns with respect to the Iranian election as well as the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons were a central part of my discussions with the Turkish leaders. In fact, President Gul was quite dramatic in terms of the message that he delivered to Iranian leaders when he visited Tehran recently. He outlined for them both the opportunity that they have with the policy of engagement that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have ushered in, and also the consequences to Iran for failing to utilize this opportunity to end Iran’s isolation in the world. Most importantly, to stop its illegal enrichment of uranium for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons and to stop its financial and other kinds of support for terrorist networks in the region such as Hezbollah and Hamas, who in fact wish to reject the process of peace that all of the nations in the region seem to be supportive of.
I think the Turkish government has not only played and will continue to play the role of interlocutor in terms of Iran, but they also play a particularly important role with a degree of credibility that few other nations have in terms of delivering the message that Iran must cease its nuclear weapons development program.
Turkey has always had good relations with all the different parties in the Arab-Israeli peace process and was very active in mediating indirect Israeli-Syrian negotiations. But during the winter, Prime Minister Erdogan upset many Israelis and others with his behavior at the World Economic Forum. How do you think that has impacted Turkey’s ability to work on and to assist in the Middle East peace process? Beyond that, what was the officials’ perspective on what they wanted to accomplish going forward?
Certainly the rhetoric that was employed by Prime Minister Erdogan and others in Turkey at the time of the Gaza operation was, in my view, highly inflammatory. It would have been more prudent to share whatever criticism the Turkish officials felt was necessary to share in a more even or sober fashion. And undoubtedly, and correctly so, the Israelis as well as several American officials, including myself, objected vehemently to the degree of criticism, and it was, in my view, misplaced criticism. But most importantly, the fundamentals of the Israeli-Turkish relationship, the military to military cooperation, the economic interactions, the people-to-people contacts, energy and other strategic interactions between Israel and Turkey, continue unabated. Clearly, it would be naive to suggest that this kind of tension does not have consequences but the good news is that officials on both sides of the relationship, in Ankara and in Jerusalem, have taken pains to make certain that the strong strategic relationship between Israel and Turkey remains intact. And that is the case. So, while certainly I would hope that we would learn lessons from this kind of tension, to avoid it in the future, the important takeaway from this experience is that the bilateral relationship between Israel and Turkey remains strong. But there certainly needs to be an emphasis on rebuilding confidence on both sides of this relationship, not just within the governments and the militaries, but most especially with respect to the publics.
Did you get a sense of where the Turkish government sees itself in terms of any new Israeli-Syrian negotiations or what messages they are getting?
Certainly the Turkish government played an extraordinarily and positive role during the discussions between former Prime Minister Olmert and President Assad. And Turkey has a significant degree of credibility and experience to offer in terms of any future discussions. I think we recognize that in Washington. It is a question for the Israelis and Prime Minister Netanyahu to determine what course will best serve Israel’s needs in terms of the framework of any discussions with Syria, should they occur. While I think the discussion is important and it is relevant, in terms of Turkey’s role, I also think it is somewhat premature because, of course, Israel and Syria are not yet at the stage where discussions seem to be imminent. So to a large degree, these are questions that will be answered in the future.
Turkey also recently held trilateral meetings with Iraq and Syria to discuss Iraq’s claim that Syria is sheltering insurgents. Can you discuss Turkey’s ability to serve in this role between Iraq and Syria and also talk more broadly about Iraqi-Turkish relations?
This is an arena where Turkey can play an especially helpful role to the United States, as well as a keeper of the peace in the region. Turkey has made great strides in terms of warming and improving its relations with Iraq, Syria and its other neighbors, not without controversy at times. We in the United States should, in my view, see these warming relations as a strategic opportunity not just for Turkey, but for us as well. And Turkey, in fact, played a very positive role in terms of trying to convince President Assad to act as a more responsible world leader. And also to play a less destructive role in Iraq, both in terms of the Iraqi government, but also more parochially in terms of American interests in Iraq, for the safety of our men and women who still operate in Iraq, and in the long term to make certain that our removal of our troops from Iraq will be as safe as possible. Syria can play a very positive role, if it chooses. And Turkey is essential in creating the type of dynamic that would benefit the American withdrawal a great deal. That is what Turkey is attempting to do.
Simultaneously, Turkey is playing a central role in economic growth in Iraq – especially in Northern Iraq with Iraqi Kurds. The level of trade and cooperation between Turkish and Iraqi companies and businesses is at an all-time high. The Turkish government has encouraged its private sector to engage in a robust fashion in Iraq, which is essential for the rehabilitation of the Iraqi economy. Turkey is playing a very positive role in that regard, all of which is very much in line with our interests in Iraq, particularly in the long term.
You have spent a lot of time talking to Turkish leaders—what do you think it is that impels them toward so much diplomatic engagement with their neighbors and in the region?
That is a very good question and I am not an expert, by any means, on Turkish or Ottoman history, but certainly the Turkish government is mindful of the historic role that Turkey and the previous Ottoman Empire played in the region. They obviously now occupy an extremely important position as a regional power to determine the fate of their region. In the past, Turkey had very chaotic and difficult relations with several of its neighbors, particularly Syria—we should not forget Turkey massed enormous numbers of troops on the Syrian border in 1999 before it was able to capture Mr. Ocalan and began to arrest the threat from the PKK. So what Turkey has done is change the dynamic in the region and it desires to have strong and good relations with all of its neighbors, even while it may fundamentally disagree with some of the practices and policies of its neighbors. Sometimes that is a controversial policy to pursue. I must admit, even I at times question the direction of that type of engagement in terms of the particulars. However we very much should respect both the effort and the integrity of the policy, because ultimately it advances Turkey’s interests, and in almost all of the cases, it advances America’s strategic interests in the region as well. I would much prefer having a strong and robust Turkey lead their region, than a strong and robust Iran or a strong, robust and unrepentant Syria lead the region.
By and large, the influence and the persuasive ability of Turkey in the region is enhanced when it pursues policies of engagement and warm relations with its neighbors and I think we should view that kind of development in a very positive light for our own interests.
During your recent trip, Turkey and Armenia announced that they are beginning negotiations toward normalizing relations. What are the outstanding issues and what role can outside countries play? Where do you think it is going?
Everyone is cautious, as we should be, but the important developments are that the Turkish and Armenian governments have agreed upon a set of general principals in which to restore relations between Turkey and Armenia, open up the borders, and deal with very traumatic, tragic and emotional historical conflicts. There is still a great deal of work to be done. These are politically sensitive issues and governments in both countries will have to work through public reactions to these new developments. But they are extremely positive from every vantage point. Connected to Turkey’s engagement with Armenia and Armenia’s engagement with Turkey, are what hopefully will be positive developments between Armenia and Azerbaijan and resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. And most recently, while again we must be cautious, there appear to be positive developments in the Minsk Process. The United States plays a fundamental and essential role in helping to bridge the gaps between these two countries.
One of the interesting discussions that I had with leading officials in Turkey was about the role Russia chooses to play in terms of the engagement between Turkey and Armenia. Of course, we all understand that Russia influences Armenia’s behavior a great deal and one of the outstanding questions is whether Russia will help play a positive role or less positive role in terms of facilitating Turkey and Armenia’s engagement, and hopefully the resolution of their conflict. And it remains to be seen what role Russia will play, but the Turkish officials are guardedly optimistic in terms of the feedback they have received thus far from Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev.
Before the last elections in Turkey there was a sense that maybe AKP was less committed to internal reform and democratic reform. What is your sense of where reform is headed and how much it ties into European Union accession or not?
I am going to shy away from taking positions on the domestic politics of Turkey by offering an editorial opinion, but I would say that subsequent to the election, the Turkish government has made some profound reform efforts in terms of the Kurdish population, in terms of democratization, and I think this is a very hopeful set of principals that the Turkish government seems to be pursuing. These policies are highly controversial in Turkey and the opposition parties have been quite vocal in criticizing the Turkish government for putting forth policies that, I believe, most observers in the United States and throughout Europe would applaud. So, I think, without taking sides in domestic politics in Turkey, we can rightfully compliment and applaud those efforts that spread democracy, that add stability to Turkey’s system, that expand political and civil rights for minority groups in Turkey. I, for one, have for a long time respectfully suggested to several Turkish officials that expanding the rights of minorities in Turkey is not only the right thing to do for Turkey and would add tremendously to Turkey’s stability and growth as a democratic nation, but in terms of sensitivities in the United States, particularly in relations to issues that remain to be resolved including the opening of the Greek Orthodox Halki Seminary, if we could see some positive development on those issues it would be very helpful for those of us who regard American-Turkish relations with such importance—in addition to being the right thing to do.
I am quite hopeful about the newest developments in Turkey in terms of the democratization program, which fits in nicely with the demands of the European Union. I think it will strengthen Turkey’s negotiating hand in its effort to join the European Union. And I want to compliment President Obama, as did Turkish officials, for his both eloquent and passionate advocacy for Turkey’s entry into the European Union. That was very well received in Ankara and throughout Turkey and, I hope, will be well received in many of the capitals throughout Europe, particularly in France and in Germany, where there has obviously been great reluctance to consider Turkey and its entry into the European Union as a full member. I think the prospects are positive in this regard.
