Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
So what did this guy say that made sense, you're wondering? I paraphrase loosely, but among other things, he said this. "Here's the thing about sanctions. We had a lot of experience of those with Iraq. Remember, this is our border. It's easy enough for you to announce, 'We're imposing sanctions,' but we're the ones who actually have to make sure this stuff doesn't get through! And when there were sanctions on Iraq, this is what happened all the time: The Germans would send something down, and then our customs agents would inspect it and figure out that actually, this is a dual-use item, and it can't go through--and you know, that takes a lot of time, there's a long list, you have to compare it. And we'd say, 'Well, we can't let this go through.' Then the Iraqis would be screaming because they already paid for it, and the Germans would say, 'Well, the customer needs to pay for shipping it back'--and they don't care, they got their money already. And we'd be stuck with this stuff, in the middle, and it's our customs agents who are wasting their time, it's us who actually does the work of enforcing this.
'So you'd think that if you're going to ask us to vote for sanctions on Iran, you'd do us the courtesy of consulting us! But I can promise you, because I was a firsthand witness, that while you were busy putting the full-court diplomatic press on Russia, on China, on France, you barely spoke to us. The whole thing took us by surprise. We're the front-line state, for God's sake, and you didn't think you needed to discuss this with us!
"We had a lot of high hopes for Obama when he came into power, but he's really let us down--the Bush Administration at least spoke to us."
Is this credible? I think it might well be true. Why do I think that? Because it seems perfectly compatible with everything else I see about foreign policy under Obama: It's low-priority generally, there's no attention to detail, it reflects almost no experience of the region, it suggests little deep understanding of the key actors, and it's incompetent generally. I don't know and can't know, but I would not be at all surprised if this were true.
Does this mean Turkey was right to vote no on the sanctions? Of course not. Putting diplomatic pique ahead of their real national security interests is insane, and no matter what they're telling themselves, Iran is a huge strategic threat to Turkey. All the honey-talking Turkish diplomacy in the world won't change that. The very last thing Turkey needs right now is for the West to be looking at them and thinking, "Well, if they love Iran so much, they can deal with that problem on their own."
But I do suspect that the Obama Administration's clumsy and inattentive diplomacy is helping those in Turkey who are looking for an excuse to wander away from the West, or from reality, generally. That story just sounds all too plausible.
Again, if you're wondering whether experience counts in the White House, it does. If this is the way it happened, it happened because it's amateur-hour in Washington.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Question--your interview with Dennis Prager (which was recently featured on the American Conservative University podcast) got me thinking about this. From there, I got the impression that, due to the nature of the Turkish press, most Turks are unaware of what's happening outside their own borders.
Ever thought of doing something about that? I don't know how well your written Turkish is, but you put together your thoughts very well on paper (or its cyber-equivalent) from what I've read thus far.
As relates to your article--being an amateur isn't necessarily a bad thing (when performing Beethoven's 9th, Bernstein would try to hire "amateur" choirs above professionals because they sang with an Inbrunst that pros can lack).
Chairman Ø & Co.'s problem involves separating political theory from real-world application.
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Filmmaker Okan Altiparmak and I have done Turkish-language reporting together for just this reason.
I don't agree with you about this being a mistake rooted in ideology. There are plenty of those, but this one in particular--if this story is right--is an experience and competence issue. No doubt but there was a desire to have a unanimous vote in the UN; that was clearly the aim of the policy and the failure to obtain it was a huge embarrassment for Obama. The mistake was failing to put Turkey at the top of the list for diplomatic suasion. That would only happen if you weren't paying much attention and hadn't really dealt much with Turkey--and were also too inexperienced to predict Iran's obvious next move.
You know who this kind of story makes me miss? The Elder George Bush. Not a mistake he'd have made.
Oct '10
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Excellent! Liberalization (in the classical sense) of information is important to the liberalization (again, in the classic sense) of society. Please, keep us posted about your progress there.
I don't think ideology is solely to blame for Obamateurisms of this nature, but it does play a significant part. I was thinking especially of its insularity when I typed that out. Not discounting your observations about inexperience at all.
Agreed about Bush 41. He certainly had a better sense of international politics.
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Claire -- if your analysis is correct, and it might well be -- this does not speak well of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Paul, there's no way to know for sure what happened--the Turkish and US stories are at odds. Both sides have an obvious reason to distort the account. But of course there's one clear winner in this: Iran. As we're continually reminded by observers with an enthusiasm for regional cliches, they invented the game of chess, and when you look at the events leading up to that vote, you just marvel at it--it's so obvious that they were three steps ahead of everyone else in the game.
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
MInd you, Hillary is supposed to be the experienced one. There's a lot more to this story--I just mentioned a few words of it--but it looks quite a bit as if different messages were coming from State, the White House and the Pentagon; no one was coordinating properly; and everyone was failing to anticipate that Turkey was going to be the weak link--even though in retrospect, the writing was all over the wall. I very much doubt that no one was talking to Turkey at all, but I strongly suspect they weren't talking clearly enough. One look at that letter from Obama--the one the Brazilians leaked--and you can see that there was a communication problem, to say the least: It's barely grammatical.
Aug '10
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Or maybe somebody simply looked at a map and said, "Y'know, Turkey really isn't on the front line." It has just one road link to Iraq. The highway goes through Cizre, which, the one night I was there, was pretty quiet; not much truck traffic, or any traffic. I see just two overland links to Iran, one of which is the clunky old railroad through Van. Quaint, yes; throbbingly vital, no.
Not that I really believe anyone in the Obama administration ever checked these places out. Or even thought to. That is the greater sin of the Obama administration: nobody even imagines this stuff. But someone can.
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
John, if all you needed to do to keep that border policed was to put up one roadblock, you'd have a good point. But if that's all you needed to do, the Turks would be a lot more relaxed about those PKK bases in northern Iraq.
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Whom do we have as ambassador in Ankara, and is he competent?
Aug '10
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Turkey's exports to Iraq seem to be food, manufactures, and construction wherewithal: bulky stuff that a roadblock really could stop. As for the rest of the border, I know from having once kayaked into Mexico that just because you can slip over a border, that doesn't mean you've arrived anywhere useful. Undoubtedly the PKK'ers have their footpaths and boltholes, but I've long thought the ascription of every small-scale atrocity to this outfit was too facile. Do they sign their work?
Well, you and I can debate this, but neither of us works for the State Department. And that's the point. Who does? Our ambassador in Ankara may be sharp, but is anyone paying attention to him? Or would even think to? I am sorry, but "was married to the governor of Arkansas" + "refuses to go away" << "keen foreign-policy instincts."
Oct '10
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
A political appointee who couldn't keep her own law firm straightened out. Ouch.
Jul '10
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Instapundit keeps describing today's college grads as "credentialed, not educated". The White House people live in a land where no one gets their hands dirty ever.
So much of what happens in the world boils down to practical stuff like the state of the road, the distance one travels, the numbers of people at the border who know what they are doing, the hassle of returning faulty items, all that everyday STUFF. No wonder Turkey doesn't want to get involved anymore.
Thanks for this entry, Claire. Now I understand the 'sanctions' idea and why it doesn't work.
Jul '10
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
When was the last time we had an even marginally-competent Secretary of State?
I'm going with George Schultz.
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Oh, that is a most excellent question, Paul, and if you read between the lines on this, you'll see why.
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
John H.
Do they sign their work?
Yeah, they pretty much do, actually. They like to kill doctors, teachers, and conscripts, and they have pretty characteristic ways killing them--there's really not much doubt who's responsible when these things happen, especially since they usually take credit very proudly. The Iranians have in the past made a little trouble for the Turks by supporting them, which is one reason the Turks have decided they'd better be really, really nice to the Iranians.
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Sanctions kind of work in certain cases. Mark Dubowitz of FDD put it to me this way:
Aug '10
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
John H.
Do they sign their work?
Yeah, they pretty much do, actually.
All I know is what I read (and none too nimbly) in Turkish newspapers, or their websites. A landmine here, an abduction/murder there, over and over; the stories say PKK, but journalism being what it is, no source is given. I suppose the PKK faxes in something self-aggrandizing from somewhere in Europe. But do they give intimate details of the attacks, information that only they would know? Or are they just chiming in opportunistically, to make us all think they're on the job?
You read Colombian websites and you see Bogota treating its, uh, unconstitutional competitors as peers. You don't get that impression at all reading Turkish websites - or traveling in Turkey. I think anti-American "terrorism" is an act of war and should be combatted with armies, but I can't help but think anti-Turkish "terrorism" (I put the word in quotes because I myself am not terrorized, just angry) really is a whole lot of highly local, highly personal score-settling, best attacked by patient police and a careful judiciary.
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
John H.
I think anti-American "terrorism" is an act of war and should be combatted with armies, but I can't help but think anti-Turkish "terrorism" (I put the word in quotes because I myself am not terrorized, just angry) really is a whole lot of highly local, highly personal score-settling, best attacked by patient police and a careful judiciary. · Oct 24 at 3:55pm
No ... the PKK is highly organized, highly political (it has distinct, loathsome political aims--the establishment of an ethnically-pure, Maoist state), and it is also an organized crime-syndicate. Personal grudge-settling crimes of the kind you describe happen here too, but most of the time when you read about the PKK, you're reading about one of the most disgusting and dangerous organized terror groups in the world. And the Western media tend, if anything, to whitewash their MO. They're leftists, after all--so they become "freedom fighters" or, in the case of the attack I describe in that article, just ... not so bad, really.
Oct '10
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
I can see how the Left would spin this into another band of "freedom fighters."
Do they receive any support from China, North Korea, or Venezuela?
Oct '10
Re: Convincing Turkish Foreign Policy Statement of the Day
Nothing found on my end yet about PKK support from some outside sources I would suspect would assist a Marxist revolutionary organization. Weapons that the PKK use have come largely from NATO countries--including some from the US we had intended for Iraq's own security forces.
Some AK's were manufactured in China. But the AK is a pretty widely used firearm. Could have come from any seller.
I did, interestingly enough, come across articles accusing Turkey of using poison gas against the PKK this past August. Seems to me to serve a twofold purpose--demonize Turkey (thereby making it harder for them to gain entry in the EU) and support a group of "Freedom Fighters" wanting to establish a Kurdish state (albeit a Marxist one).