5 ms·

I'm not American (or Turkish) so this is somewhat removed. I think that Turkey's slide in to authoritarianism can be directly traced to the US' Kissinger-esque

I'm not American (or Turkish) so this is somewhat removed. I think that Turkey's slide in to authoritarianism can be directly traced to the US' Kissinger-esque approach to diplomacy, particularly in the Middle East. I'm not saying the alternative would have been better everywhere, or even in Turkey. But... still. There is simply no relationship between American friendship and liberalism, rule of law, protection of minorities or any other "moral" standard. The US will not downgrade it's relationship or do anything, in response to stealing an election, commiting a political purge, etc. Turkey has never been a fully liberal democracy, with basic freedoms held to a basic democratic standard. Ironically though, at the beginning of erdogan's premiership it was pretty close, closer than it had been certainly. As it gradually slipped into its current state, there were no consequences... not even a scholding. Oddly, Trump's wildman diplomatic tactics that constantly and hyperbolically upgrades and degrades the US' "friendship status" other states... the inconsistency allows for flexibility. I doubt much liberalism will result directly from Trump (it's just not something he seems to care for) but the re-write get of the rules... That will probably be permanent. It may allow the US out of its fairly constrained diplomatic policies, which (I now believe) are far too consistency and convention oriented. Tldr... If the US had started reacting sharply when Erdogan started jailing journalists, rivals and activists....Turkey might still be a free country.

whatok 8y ago
A huge portion of why Turkey is such a mess right now is the United States' Syria policy. Turkey, by mere proximity, shared an unbalanced burden in the Syria fallout and the United States did nothing to aid them. This allowed Erdogan to seize more power and encouraged him to grow closer to China and Russia.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  I don't think the Syrian civil war is the US' doing. They are involved, but not more than Turkey itself. In any case, the US did make (also in Iraq) an enormous concession to Turkey. Iraqi Kurdistan was not allowed to declare independence, despite clearly needing it and being an extremely loyal, reliable and effective US ally, something that cannot be said of any others in the ME lately. Syrian Kurdistan had to basically surrender to Assad to avoid a Turkish Attack. Again, the US totally had-faced a genuine, ideological ally... as a favor to Turkey. These have been Turkey's primary concerns in those wars, and they got what they wanted. My point is that they shouldn't have. The US is a powerful country. They were in a position to make these decisions ideologically, rather than transactionally. I think Turkey's NATO membership should have come into question, when Erdogan clearly stepped back from "free/democratic."
  - the_grue 8y ago
    > Syrian Kurdistan had to basically surrender to Assad to avoid a Turkish Attack. That's interesting, what's your source for that?
  - yalph 8y ago
    How could you say that US involvement in Syria was not more than Turkey’ when anything and everything in the region is dictated by the US? So breaking apart a country and not letting the ethnic groups not form independent countries is a great concession to you?
jitix 8y ago
I don't think Erdogan gives a f* if US pressurizes him to follow democratic procedures, considering how he dealt with the Washington DC protests. Plus Turkey is a key NATO ally against Russia, and they know it. This lets them gain leverage on the US government and get away with anything Erdogan pleases to do. edit: typo
- dalbasal 8y ago
  IDK... Erdogan is far more of a "pulpit bully" than he was. At the start of his reign he was negotiating for EU membership, and topics like that were firmly on the table. In fact he absorbed all sorts of slights and insults before finally giving up. Some of those were genuine slights, double standard requirements that were not being asked of christian majority countries. This incident though, it really reflects a certain diplomatic norm, a quid quo pro, transnational diplomacy. I know the "Pastor Affair" is largely just an excuse or trigger for this argument. But, he was arrested and trialed kangaroo style, as were thousands of people picked up during the last major purge. The US asked to have their (almost certainly falsely convicted) citizen back. Turkey treated this as a good opportunity for a quid quo pro transaction. You want this priest back. We want things too. How about you extradite some dissidents. We'll release you innocent priest. That transnational norm is... normal. IE, the US deals this way in the middle east. I realize diplomacy will always have very big realpolitik aspects to it. I realize that moralizing and such are no basis for diplomatic relations. But, if you stop even paying lip service to the idea of values, morals and such.... I think you lose out of that too.

whatok 8y ago

A huge portion of why Turkey is such a mess right now is the United States' Syria policy. Turkey, by mere proximity, shared an unbalanced burden in the Syria fallout and the United States did nothing to aid them. This allowed Erdogan to seize more power and encouraged him to grow closer to China and Russia.

dalbasal 8y ago
I don't think the Syrian civil war is the US' doing. They are involved, but not more than Turkey itself. In any case, the US did make (also in Iraq) an enormous concession to Turkey. Iraqi Kurdistan was not allowed to declare independence, despite clearly needing it and being an extremely loyal, reliable and effective US ally, something that cannot be said of any others in the ME lately. Syrian Kurdistan had to basically surrender to Assad to avoid a Turkish Attack. Again, the US totally had-faced a genuine, ideological ally... as a favor to Turkey. These have been Turkey's primary concerns in those wars, and they got what they wanted. My point is that they shouldn't have. The US is a powerful country. They were in a position to make these decisions ideologically, rather than transactionally. I think Turkey's NATO membership should have come into question, when Erdogan clearly stepped back from "free/democratic."
- the_grue 8y ago
  > Syrian Kurdistan had to basically surrender to Assad to avoid a Turkish Attack. That's interesting, what's your source for that?
- yalph 8y ago
  How could you say that US involvement in Syria was not more than Turkey’ when anything and everything in the region is dictated by the US? So breaking apart a country and not letting the ethnic groups not form independent countries is a great concession to you?

jitix 8y ago

I don't think Erdogan gives a f* if US pressurizes him to follow democratic procedures, considering how he dealt with the Washington DC protests. Plus Turkey is a key NATO ally against Russia, and they know it. This lets them gain leverage on the US government and get away with anything Erdogan pleases to do. edit: typo

dalbasal 8y ago
IDK... Erdogan is far more of a "pulpit bully" than he was. At the start of his reign he was negotiating for EU membership, and topics like that were firmly on the table. In fact he absorbed all sorts of slights and insults before finally giving up. Some of those were genuine slights, double standard requirements that were not being asked of christian majority countries. This incident though, it really reflects a certain diplomatic norm, a quid quo pro, transnational diplomacy. I know the "Pastor Affair" is largely just an excuse or trigger for this argument. But, he was arrested and trialed kangaroo style, as were thousands of people picked up during the last major purge. The US asked to have their (almost certainly falsely convicted) citizen back. Turkey treated this as a good opportunity for a quid quo pro transaction. You want this priest back. We want things too. How about you extradite some dissidents. We'll release you innocent priest. That transnational norm is... normal. IE, the US deals this way in the middle east. I realize diplomacy will always have very big realpolitik aspects to it. I realize that moralizing and such are no basis for diplomatic relations. But, if you stop even paying lip service to the idea of values, morals and such.... I think you lose out of that too.