Turkish American relations 2007 - better compared to 2003
General Brent Scowcroft, an important foreign policy expert in Washington, thinks that Turkish-American relations are improving. ‘We have to consult Turkey,’ he says, ‘, you have acquired a great knowledge of the Middle East’
Befitting the name of the “political movement” he adheres to, General Brent Scowcroft gives an answer to my question enquiring about the “state of Turkish American relations”. He says, “better than it was in 2003. It is recovering slowly”. But, he hastens to add, “Not like it was in the Cold War years, not as close and warm as it was then.”He explains this with a “realistic” rationale. “At the time, 90 percent of the relations were military. Turkish American relations were based on a security policy background and 90 percent of its backbone consisted of military relations.” Nowadays the characteristics are so different. According to General Scowcroft, one cannot conceive the “essential character” of the relations to be “military.” However, the expansion of relations over a larger base, renders Turkey in the American eyes as “valuable” as it was in the Cold War years.When I said, “But it has to be more valuable. Turkey was after all a flank country of NATO in the Cold War years. Whereas today, Turkey sits at the center of whatever is of pivotal importance to the USA.” He adds, “Yes, it was a flank country, but it was very very important,” as if he has no heart to admit that Turkey’s importance in the Cold War years could have been of a lesser scale.
The ‘realist’ general:After all, 82-year old Brent Scowcroft is a soldier; you still call him “General” when you address to him and he leads the so-called “realist” movement in the American foreign policy, together with Henry Kissinger whose deputy he was for some time. For General Scowcroft “realpolitik” is the most decisive criteria in foreign policy.His association with Henry Kissinger goes far back. When Kissinger was the Chief National Security Advisor to Nixon in 1968, Scowcroft was his deputy. Later he became his successor. Between 1974 and 1977, during the presidency of Henry Ford, General Scowcroft assumed the title of the US Chief National Security Advisor. When Carter was elected, Scowcroft left the post to Zbigniew Brzezinski. Colin Powell was the last Chief National Security Advisor of Reagan’s term. Scowcroft is one of the rare political personalities who held that title once between 1989-1993 together with Bush 41, maybe he is the sole person in the American history..(In the last few days my “Washingtonglish” has improved a little. Not to confuse the current president Bush with his father, the cardinal number depicting their term of office is added after their names. Father Bush is shortly called “Bush 41” since he was the 41st president of the USA and the current president is called “Bush 43.”)
The number two of Bush 41: Brent Scowcroft acquired fame in world politics as the actual “number two” of the USA during the term of Bush 41, that is during the mind-blowing transition period when the Cold War was ending and being won by the block lead by the USA. During the unprecedented era when Berlin wall collapsed, the two Germanys walked to unification, the Soviet Union fell to pieces, the national security of the USA was asked of Brent Scowcroft. When we talked is his office one or two blocks away –in Washington terms- from the White House where he worked for long years, there lay on the coffee-table in front of us, the book he co-authored with Bush 41, forming a décor together with its editions in several foreign languages: “A World Transformed”. Bearing two signatures one above the other: George Bush and Brent Scowcroft.
Air lieutenant-general and pilot, he got master’s and PhD degrees from Columbia University after graduating from the American Air Academy. Quite “civilian” in other words. Still very “influential” in American politics even at the age of 82, as a matter of course. This “influence” does not originate only from his long carrier packed with experience, i.e. his CV, but also from the fact that two most important personalities of the current American administration are Brent Scowcroft’s novices.The first is the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Scowcroft is Condi’s boss and her patron saint. It is General Scowcroft who offered her a job, later introduced her to President Bush and played a major role in her attaining the current position. Apart from Condoleezza Rice, the new Secretary of Defense Bob Gates is also known to be a “Scowcroft novice” or “Scowcroft’s man” in this American administration.
Against the neo-cons:Despite all these particulars, Scowcroft’s relation with Bush (i.e. Bush 43) has never been the same as it was with Father Bush under whom he assumed direct responsibility. It was Brent Scowcroft who fired the first salvo of criticism to Bush 43 and the “neo-cons” around him. His famous article entitled “Don’t Attack Saddam” dated 15 August 15, 2002, written six months prior to the Iraq War, in which he opposed the war on behalf of the “realist foreign policy school” is still vivid in memory.
The appointment of Condoleezza Rice as the Secretary of State, and the sacking of Rumsfeld from Pentagon and his replacement by Robert Gates was seen by many in the Republican camp as the “neo-con line” in the administration being overcome by “Brent Scowcroft’s realist line”. The administration is weakened to the extent that Brent Scowcroft does not take the “compliment” I make when I say, “All your disciples are in the administration. You are as if you are back in the administration.” His demeanor signals that he wants to maintain his distant or even critical approach to Bush administration. Indeed, when I ask him how he sees the “chance of success” of the “strategy” defined as “surge strategy” focused on security in Baghdad, which seems to be the final move that could save this administration’s Iraq policy, a little condescending look sweeps and leaves his face, and the words fall from his mouth, “First, this is a tactic, not a strategy. They define tactic as strategy. Even if it might be successful for a while this is not what can be a lasting solution for Iraq.”General Scowcroft does not stand surety for Bush’s Iraq policy.
He sees the need for close cooperation between Turkey and the USA in those areas. He reminds me of the very special relation that existed between Turgut Özal and Bush 41. “They used to talk on the phone every day. I’m not exaggerating, every single day and besides in a very sincere manner.” He is of the view that, today, a similar genre of relations is needed. “We have to consult Turkey. We have to include Turkey in all our decisions. You live in that region. Emanating from living there, you have acquired a great knowledge of the region expanding as far as Afghanistan. When I visited Ataturk Museum, I saw the gifts sent to him from Afghanistan, and then I realized Turkey’s magnitude,” he says.
What about the AKP?:Is General Scowcroft among the Americans who perceive the Ak Party government as “Islamist” and find it hard to establish relations with? Is he apprehensive about the “Islamic” movement? He answers my question sincerely: “I find Tayyip Erdoğan distant to me. That is, how should I say, for instance he’s not like Süleyman Demirel. It is not comfortable like the relation that could be established with Demirel. But this does not necessitate keeping a distance between yourself and Tayyip Erdoğan. On the contrary. One has to be in continuous and close contact with him.” An “assessment of Turkey” underlies this opinion of Scowcroft and the assessment is full of “worries”. He continuous saying, “There are three Turkeys:“1. Istanbul. Turkey of the business circles. Turkey represented by a city of the same wavelength as Paris or London; 2. Ankara, the administrative center. The place where political decisions are made. This is a different Turkey than Istanbul; 3. The third Turkey. Turkey that does not appear to have reached the 20th Century, let alone living in the 21st.It is not certain where such a country may be driven to. Therefore, we have to develop very close relations with Turkey. Turkey is too important and precious a country for us to be left alone…” He admits that Turkey has never been among the items on top of America’s agenda and adds in a critical tone, “You come to mind when we need you.” He does not conceal his uneasiness about the “extreme nationalism” in Turkey, “It is too bad,” he remarks, pulling a sour face. He emphasizes the obligation to continue to support Turkey’s bid for the EU strongly, which the USA considers as the “guaranty for keeping Turkey within the Western system. He, smilingly, underlines another interesting point: “But, while strongly supporting Turkey’s membership to the EU, we have to make you feel that the USA will never leave Turkey alone if Turkey’s course of accession is derailed, we have to give you this feeling…”