“Name Problem” in Turkish-American Relations …

Similar Posts

It was not so difficult to give a name to Turkish-American relations until 2011, even up to 2013, in the history of a bumpy alliance. As a matter of fact, the “strategic partnership” that is pronounced in accordance with the “spirit” of the bilateral relations and the definition formed in this context is a basic indicator of it.

But this naming was more appropriate to the US unilateral approach in which it had given to Turkey at this point rather than an equal partnership between the two actors. As a matter of fact, Ankara was described as the most powerful strategic partner, reised Turkey to the skies while it was accepting whatever Washington says.

Therefore, Turkey “good, good boy” as long as it has not experienced a serious shortage of playing the role of the US in terms of this nomenclature. It contined until Ankara saw the the name of “strategic partnership” is empty and that it meaned a more “semi-dependent relationship”, and in this context, until it asked a common definition from Washington that fits bilateral relations …

With this demand, Turkey understood more clearly what the term “strategic partnership” actually meant. Because it had had a run of bad luck. Moreover, it saw that what was called “strategic partnership” was actually a “shackle”.

It is not new for Turkey in fact. The first confrontation with this cold truth in question goes back to the beginning of the late 1950s, the early 1960s. During the Democratic Party, the deceased Adnan Menderes and his colleagues payed a very heavy price for trying to reestablish the “Soviet Equilibrium” on Turkish foreign policy after they discovered what the friendship with US actually meant.

Moscow meeting in 1960 which can also be called the “First axial dislocation” initiative, was hampered by the US with a military coup on May 27 and ended on the gallows.

Washington sees that the will of the state in Turkey has not changed much during the “Crisis of Johnson letter”, which erupted due to the Cyprus problem, in a time when the axis was put on the right track for the US. As Ismet Inönü’s message to America: “The world is reestablished, Turkey takes its place there.”

Therefore, not many, but just 12 years later, if we start it from the 1947 Truman doctrine in Turkish-American relations, Turkey sees the true face of the US and what the strategic partnership relationship established meant in this context, and tries to get rid of it in the first opportunity.

Short-Life Name: “Model Partnership” …

In fact, with the end of the cold War, this issue comes up once again. Turgut Özal tryes to give a new framework-definition to the Turkish-American relations, moving from Menderes and other experiences. But also died эт unexplained circumstances.

9/11 points to a new opportunity period for Turkey эn this context. The loudly voiced rhetoric “Turkey-Russia-Iran” trio, which started to form in Turkey and its background is being tried to liquidate in the first stage. But the 1 March Message once again shows to the US that this hasn’t be removed. Afterwards is clear; a covered struggle in the field …

The US openly admits it, and the crisis is being asked to be solved with the Erdogan-Bush summit held in Washington on November 5, 2007. Further, the parties want to start a new “strategic partnership” process, but they can’t fully name it.

The new name, however, comes into a question with the new president…The “Model partnership” period starts at the summit held on 7 December 2009 in Turkish-American relations with Barack Hussein Obama, who came to power after Bush. The lifespan of this is much shorter than the previous strategic partnerships. This partnership period ends with the “Gezi Park events” in 2013 and the military coup in Egypt. Since then, bilateral relations have not been given a name. This time, Ankara is more careful and not hasty at the point of putting the name of relations.

The “bizarre” S-400 request from the US…

The situation now exists stems from the fact that Ankara has expressed its determination and demand to its counterparts in Washington in a more powerful way in accordance with the realities of the new world. Because it’s not just the changing world; The process of changing in the US and Turkey has led to the emergence of this demand in a higher way…

In fact, bilateral relations are “friendly”-“hostile” in the process of being called axes. Mutual concerns, threat perceptions, and the problem of trust remain decisive here. Turkey is now once again being accused of axial dislocation by the US in a time when a new world has been established, and further, it is perceived as a threat due to its strategic cooperation with Russia.

The “bizarre” demand from Ankara for the S-400s not to be used against the NATO-Western countries, especially the USA, is quite remarkable in this context.

To remind the US; The S-400s are not an attack weapon, but a defense weapon. If Turkey needs the S-400, it will point to the main source of threat to Turkey. Turkey is not likely to respond to a possible US-NATO attack with slingshot…

The US is aware of what Turkey is doing! If Turkey has said “yes” to the strategic partnership process with the US on the perception of the Soviet/Stalin-borne threat, today it can do a similar one with Russia and others against the US. There’s no more natural reflex than that!

The United States is disturbed by this refleksten and possible consequences. Therefore, they try to pressure Turkey to the fullest. But don’t confuse Turkey with others!