COLUMN ONE: TURKEY AND TRUMP’S UNPREDICTABILITY

Erdogan is expected to pay a state visit to Washington in the coming weeks.

BY CAROLINE B. GLICK, JPOST

Rassemblement de soutien au président Erdogan, le 7 août 2016

According to Michael Anton, one of President Donald Trump’s top foreign policy aides, the chief characteristic of Trump’s foreign policy is unpredictability.

On the surface, unpredictability is a great advantage.

Keeping US enemies guessing, at least to some degree, about how the US will respond to hostile acts expands Washington’s maneuver room.

But one of the consequences of Trump’s desire not to be locked into one pattern of behavior is that it is unclear how he thinks about the world, and the many threats facing the US and its allies. As a result, it is difficult to know whether he can be trusted to take the actions necessary to protect American interests and to stand by America’s allies.

Take for instance the administration’s actions this week in relation to the nuclear deal with Iran. On the one hand, on Tuesday the State Department notified Congress that Iran is in compliance with its obligations under the nuclear deal.

On the other hand, on Wednesday Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stood before the cameras and read Iran the riot act. Tillerson set out in detail all of the ways that Iran threatens the US and its allies and many of the reasons that the nuclear deal is a disaster.

He announced that the Trump administration was revisiting US policy on Iran and pledged that Trump will not leave the Iranian threat to his successors.

It is almost impossible to square this circle.

So what is the administration’s policy? Can it be trusted to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons when it certifies that Iran is complying with an agreement it is manifestly breaching, by among other things, blocking inspections of its key nuclear sites and storing uranium in quantities that exceed those permitted under the deal? Then there is Turkey.

After 15 years in power, on Sunday Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan destroyed Turkey’s democracy once and for all. On April 16, 51.4% of Turkish voters voted to accord Erdogan all but absolute power.

Given that this means that Turkey is now effectively indistinguishable from Erdogan, the central question that people should answer before determining whether they are pleased or displeased by the results of Sunday’s referendum is who is Erdogan and what does he want.

Erdogan would say that he is a Muslim. He has made very clear, repeatedly, that he sees no distinction between moderate Islam and radical Islam. Islam is Islam, he says.

Maybe he is right. But in the West, distinctions are made. So it is important to set out what Erdogan means by Islam.

As George Friedman wrote at Real Clear World earlier this week, for Erdogan, Islam is an all-encompassing worldview. Its precepts dictate human behavior on every level. And it rejects secularism. In Erdogan’s Islam, the secularist belief that there is a distinction between the private and public spheres and that religion is a private matter is inconceivable.

Erdogan’s view is the reason that for nearly a century, Islam – as Erdogan views it – was banned from public life in Turkey.

As Friedman explained, when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk founded modern Turkey after World War I on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire and its caliphate, he recognized that he couldn’t change the way that his people viewed the world.

Rather than reform Islam, Atatürk repressed it. The secular democratic regime he created rested on the coercive power of the military, not on the consent of the governed.

Erdogan’s rise to power, in contrast was predicated on popular support for his anti-secular, Islamic worldview.

To secure that support, Erdogan periodically signaled his intentions.

For instance, as mayor of Istanbul, in 1997 Erdogan recited a poem at a political rally that included the lines, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers.”

For doing so, Erdogan was arrested, tried and convicted of inciting religious hatred. He was imprisoned for four months. His party was outlawed and he was banned from politics for life.

For Westerners, the regime’s treatment of the mayor of a major city was inconceivable. All he did was read a poem, after all.

But for the Turkish secularists, the move against Erdogan made perfect sense. The lines he recited were an encapsulation of a plan to undermine the secular regime and replace it with a totalitarian Islamic one.

Due in part to the West’s response to his arrest and conviction, Erdogan has used the US and Europe as allies in his bid to win and consolidate power.

Erdogan’s AK Party first won power in the 2002 parliamentary elections. At the time, the administration of then-president George W. Bush was guided by the neoconservative worldview. Neoconservatives asserted that the yearning for individual freedom is a universal yearning. If given the opportunity to determine their path in life, people worldwide who live under authoritarian regimes, would opt for liberal democracy.

The Bush administration’s belief that liberal democracy is the default aspiration of humanity informed Bush’s demand that Egypt allow Muslim Brotherhood candidates to participate in the 2005 parliamentary elections, and that Israel permit Hamas to participate in the 2006 Palestinian elections.

The view also informed the administration’s decision not to interfere in the Iraqi elections in 2005.

The Bush administration devoutly retained its faith in the universal attraction of liberal democracy even after the Muslim Brotherhood scored extraordinary victories in Egypt, after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, and after the Iraqi government, whose leaders were supported by Iran, began colluding with Tehran.

Bush and his advisers insisted that Hamas would become domesticated once it was forced to contend with constituents demanding that their potholes be filled.

Bush’s notion was that Islamic extremism, jihad and terrorism were reactions to subjugation and repression. If authoritarian regimes would stand back, then the Islamists would eschew violence.

The AKP’s first action after winning in 2002 was to bar US forces from invading Iraq from Turkish territory.

Despite this, the Bush administration embraced Erdogan. For Bush, the AKP government was proof that he was right to view liberal values as universal.

Erdogan and his colleagues proved there is no contradiction between Islam and democracy.

Erdogan used the Bush administration’s support to undermine the secular state. He insisted that all he was doing was promoting pluralism when he undid the military’s control of his government, and brought Islamists into the military, judiciary and governing bureaucracy.

When Turkish military leaders tried to explain to the Americans the dangers to Turkish secular democracy that each of Erdogan’s pro-Islamic reforms constituted, they found that no one would listen. True, Erdogan overdid it. But the Islamists had to be given their day in the sun after all the years they were repressed by the secularists.

Under Barack Obama, the situation changed, slightly. Like Bush, Obama supported Erdogan and the notion that his consolidation of power – and his popularity – was proof that there was no contradiction between Islam and democracy. But whereas Bush believed that Islamic radicalism and jihad were a reaction to domestic repression that would be resolved by democratization, Obama believed that Islamic jihad and radicalism are reactions to Western imperialism.

For Obama, the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and Erdogan were more legitimate than their secular opponents, specifically because they opposed the West. As he saw it, their opposition was justified because the West, through colonialism and Cold War geopolitics, repressed them.

In his view, the way to end Islamic jihad and terrorism was to convince the Islamists that the US and the West supported them. Obama believed that Western empowerment of Erdogan, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and others would quell their anger and appease their ambitions.

This then brings us to Trump, and his policy toward Turkey. During the campaign, then-candidate Trump congratulated Erdogan after he successfully defeated the military coup before it had the chance to get off the ground. That attempted coup was a last ditch effort to prevent Erdogan from consolidating the dictatorial powers he consolidated on Sunday.

On Monday, Trump again stood with Erdogan.

Trump phoned Erdogan and congratulated him on his victory. Erdogan is expected to pay a state visit to Washington in the coming weeks.

If we understood better how Trump feels about the totalitarian Islam that Erdogan adheres to, we would know better what to make of Trump’s repeated statements of support for the Turkish leader.

Does Trump realize that the more powerful Erdogan has become, the less concerned he has become about how the West perceives him? Does Trump recognize that in recent years Turkey has turned its back on Europe and become a major state sponsor of terrorism? Turkey is Hamas’s most outspoken supporter. Until recently, Turkey served as Islamic State’s mobilization center for foreign recruits and its logistical base. ISIS oil exports went through Turkey. ISIS forces received medical treatment in Turkey. And Turkey became Iran’s conduit to the global economy while it was subjected to UN sanctions for its nuclear program.

Does Trump realize that Turkey opposes the US’s support for the Kurds – the most effective fighting force in the war against ISIS? Does Trump realize that to secure his victory in the referendum, Erdogan has repressed his opponents? Today more than 100,000 regime opponents, including journalists, businessmen, judges, generals and teachers, are imprisoned in Erdogan’s Turkey.

Does Trump know that among those languishing in jail are some of the strongest proponents of the Turkish- US alliance? Was Trump made aware of the fact that Erdogan’s media supporters have called for him to develop nuclear weapons and stop Turkey’s anti-ISIS operations in Syria?

It is possible that Trump knows all of these things and that he recognizes that in the long run and perhaps in the short run as well, US interests are likely irreconcilable with the direction Erdogan is moving Turkey.

Perhaps his congratulatory phone call was simply his only option.

Turkey is still officially a US ally and a member of NATO. Air bases that are key to US operations in Syria are located in Turkey. And Erdogan is the dictator.

Trump may be biding his time until he has the opportunity to weaken Erdogan. Or he may believe that Erdogan is an ally worth having.

Just so, he may have certified Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal to buy time, or he may have certified compliance because he doesn’t feel like stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The question of how Trump views these issues is one that needs to be answered. So long as his basic positions are unknown, it is hard to give him the benefit of the doubt that an unpredictable foreign policy requires.

April 21, 2017 | Comments Off on COLUMN ONE: TURKEY AND TRUMP’S UNPREDICTABILITY | 81 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

16 Comments / 0 Comments

  1. xx

    The heading of this article reminded me that Nixon always said, that his unpredictability was what caused other world leaders to walk carefully around him. He did it deliberately. He preferred them to be worried rather than friendly, and he was right.

    He was following the dictum of Lord Palmerston who said that Britain had no friends nor enemies but only interests.

  2. Well, he’s the only game in town, considering all the alternatives waiting in the wings. I would rather be left in the dark than have our enemies know what’s going on. He’s done pretty well, so far. All these many minutes he’s been office. I trust him.

  3. Caroline’s main concern, is not knowing what Donald Trump is thinking. From my very limited perspective in the Pacific Northwest, where we are completely shut off from real news and have to depend on gleanings from the Internet, I would suggest that Caroline:

    1. forget about Trump, and

    2. focus, instead, on Jared Kushner. Jared is Trump’s “running boy”, in charge of everything from overhauling the US Government, to creating and Arab-Israeli peace deal to making Mexico pay for the wall, and much, much more.

    Trump essentially tells Jared to go handle the problem, Jared does some lookups on Wikipedia and in the Yellow Pages, cobbles together a solution and brings it back to dad. Then Papa Trump OKs it; because he hasn’t the slightest idea about what’s going on.

    Why does our President entrust so much in his 36-year-old son-in-law? Because he doesn’t trust anyone else; and rightly so — nearly all of them would sell their boss up the river in exchange for 15 minutes of fame and a little bit of fortune.

    As I said, we don’t get any real news up here. My best sources are watching which way flocks of geese are flying; and whether any F-15s are flying with them.

  4. @ honeybee: Good find, and Sam Houston would have been the jackpot bu Sorry,you misread.

    There were some Jews in Texas during the fight for independence from Spain and Mexico, one of the most prominent being Adolphus Sterne. This East Texas merchant became a principal source of financial backing for the Texas Revolution. Born in the Rhineland in 1801, he arrived in Texas in time to fight in the ill-fated 1826-27 Fredonia Rebellion at Nacogdoches. He was sentenced to be shot but was released on the promise never to bear arms against the government again. He kept to the vow in the 1836 struggle for independence but supplied funds, coordinated with his old friend Sam Houston, who he had known in Tennessee before coming to Texas.”

    http://texasalmanac.com/topics/culture/jewish/jewish-texans

    “On the political scene, many Jewish-Texans have served as mayors of their cities, including Isaac Kempner in Galveston and Annette Strauss in Dallas. Galveston’s Babe Schwartz was a longtime fixture in the Texas Senate. And, on the national scene, attorney Robert Strauss served presidential administrations from Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton. Another lawyer of note was San Antonio native Hermine Dalkowitz Tobolowsky, an advocate of women’s rights who has been called “Mother of the Equal Rights Act in Texas.”

    and it was the “Runaway Scrape”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Scrape

    Not the “Great Escape”
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057115/

    though that’s one of my favorites too. Love Steve McQueen. Also related since they are escaping from a German prisoner of war camp.

    I’m afraid you associated things in the articles that were un-connected. But, the ones you found were no slouches either. Worth the wait. Good one.

    Something for everybody here. Sam Houston’s family lived in Ireland for a while, (Edgar G.) and he became an Indian like you, Honeybee!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Houston

  5. @ honeybee: Wow, the following article is the best account of the Texan Revolution I have ever read even though it does so to explain background and aftermath of this one event. It also makes utter hash of the Leftist/Latino nonsense about Americans stealing the land from Mexico.

    What monsters the Mexicans were.
    ¨We are all Texans!¨

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Scrape

    Though frankly, considering what a mess they have made of things, if I were Mexican, I would be begging us to annex the rest of Mexico. And for Canada, in turn, to annex US.

    When I attended the NY Paralegal Institute in the ´80s — from which I emerged with a diploma in the 301 hour advanced legal assistant training course in 12 areas of law and a Notary Public license– the teacher in one course, himself a practicing lawyer — quipped, by way of explaining the meaning of the word, ¨oxymoron¨ –¨ a good example of an oxymoron would be ¨Mexican Economy!¨¨
    Ah, nostalgia for the days of wine and political incorrectness.

  6. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    You will have to blame Springtime and my ever draining sinuses for my mistakes. Beautiful year for Bluebonnets and Indian Paintbrush. And the ” b ” on my computer is sticking. To add to my misery the Pundit is no longer notifying me when someone responds to my post. But I bare all with fortitude.

  7. Some countries have cultures that are incompatible with democracy, and it is unrealistic to expect that they can become democracies even if, on rare occasions, they hold reasonably free and fair elections. But whoever wins such an election usually establishes a dictatorship and surpasses opposition. Either that, or he is overthrown by force (e.g., Morsi in Egypt). Other countries require generations to evolve into democracies (e.g. Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries of Latin America).A foreign invader or meddler cannot create a democracy in such a country unless it a) achieves absolute military and political control b) the natives have been so crushingly defeated that they do not feel inclined to resist the advice of the foreign occupier c) they have no religious objections to democracy and no powerful clergy that is hostile to it, and d) they have at least some previous experience with democracy that they initiated themselves. These conditions occurred in Germany, Italy and Japan after world war II, but nowhere else.

Comments are closed.