Turkey is more popular now than it has been since the Ottoman Empire. But can it please all of its new friends at the same time?

BY JAMES TRAUB | OCTOBER 15, 2010

Still, Turkish officials recognize that they've jeopardized their emerging brand identity and have some serious repair work to do. "We've got to find something flashy," Yenel told me. Maybe Turkey could persuade Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, the kidnapped Israeli soldier? (Good luck with that.) Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has backed off on his apparent obsession with Gaza and Israel's perfidy, and a U.N. investigative panel may deliver a definitive judgment on the flotilla incident in early 2011 (compelling an Israeli apology, Turkey hopes).

It's a caricature to say that Turkey has chosen the Middle East, or Islam, over the West. Turkey's aspiration for full membership in the club of the West, including the European Union, is still a driving force. But Turkey aspires to many things, and some may contradict each other. The country wants to be a regional power in a region deeply suspicious of the West, of Israel, and of the United States; a Sunni power acting as a broker for Sunnis in Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere; a charter member of the new nexus of emerging powers around the world; and a dependable ally of the West. When Turkey is forced to choose among these roles, the neighborhood tends to win out, and that's when you get votes against sanctions on Iran. At this week's NATO summit in Brussels, for instance, Davutoglu has expressed skepticism about missile defense, because any such system would be aimed at countries like Iran and Syria, which Turkey declines to characterize as threats.

Turkish officials insist that they embrace the "universal values" that drive public discourse, if not necessarily policy, in the West. But they seem to give their Muslim brothers a pass on human rights. Erdogan notoriously exonerated Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir by saying "A Muslim can never commit genocide." Erdogan also publicly congratulated Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his victory in the 2009 election, widely condemned elsewhere as grossly rigged. Turkish diplomats say that they use tough language in private -- but autocratic regimes shrug off private recriminations.

Unlike China or even India, Turkey does not resort to the language of "sovereignty" when defending abusive regimes -- it takes the "Western" view of international law. Rather, its dilemma has to do with its neighborhood: You can't be a regional leader in the Middle East if you take human rights too seriously. But the problem might also have to do with the unresolved state of Turkey's own democracy. Eight years after Erdogan gained power, secular Turks continue to doubt his commitment, and that of the ruling AKP, to human rights, tolerance, and the rule of law. Although many of the people I spoke to saw the country's recent constitutional referendum -- which among other things reduced the power of the army over the judiciary -- as a further consolidation of Turkish democracy, plenty of others viewed it as a dangerous ploy by the AKP to increase its control over the state. Secular Turks fear that the country is becoming steadily more conservative -- certainly in the Anatolian heartland, if not yet in the big cities.

From the time of Kemal Ataturk, Turkey has been committed to its "European vocation." But Ataturk was a modernizer, not a liberal; one of his slogans was "For the people, despite the people." And if Kemalist secularism was not a formula for European-style liberal individualism, it's scarcely clear that the AKP's market-oriented moderate Islamic restoration is, either. Turkey's democracy is not yet "consolidated," as political scientists put it.

Turkey is a success story that the West has every reason to welcome. The image of moderation and tolerant cosmopolitanism that it offers to Middle Eastern audiences contributes not only to Turkish soft power but to global peace and security, at least in the long run. That's already a pretty solid record. But Turkey is not content with being the brightest star in its benighted neighborhood; it wants to play on the world stage. And that ambition may force Turkey to find a new balance among its competing identities.

MOHAMMED ABED/AFP/Getty Images

 

James Traub is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of, most recently, The Freedom Agenda. "Terms of Engagement," his column for ForeignPolicy.com, runs weekly.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

AR

7:17 PM ET

October 15, 2010

Another propaganda piece from

Another propaganda piece from the pro turkish side. Some things the author fails to mention:

Turkey does not respect international law, rather it is one of the best examples of a nation that flaunts it. 1) illegal occupation of Cyprus 2) illegal blockade of Armenia 3) denying of the Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian Genocides during WW1 4) mistreatment of national minorities i.e. Kurds, etc.

The only reason turkey receives any support is because since the mid 1800s, it has been the stooge of London, and now Washington; acting as a buffer against the Russians and Persians. Now that Turkey is again somewhat back on its feet, the Anglo-American establishment will see what Turks are capable of, sadly they will not be the ones who's blood is shed.

 

SIDROCK23

7:14 AM ET

October 16, 2010

more cry babying

seems like AR is continuing israel's whinning while ignoring the facts. one of the best moves by turkey was to resolve some its long running internal and external conflicts. 1.) on the point of cyprus, the turks have been actively pursuing talks with officials from cyprus on mending the past conflict, with the president of Cyprus even going as far saying that turkey should be allowed in the EU and it would be an important player in the EU. 2) they have also been working for a while now on a gran baragin with armenia and various treaties and agreements have already been signed in route to a long term resolution. 3) turkey's so called "denial" is no different the israel's denial of a humanitarian crisis in gaa, its slow extermination of the palestinian people or the U.S denial of its crimes against humanity in vietnam, iraq and afghanistan. 4.) turkey's most recent national referendum actually included laws that would give its minorites (yes that includes the Kurds) more rights and more freedoms.
so unlike the "white boys" of the world, at least turkey is a mature enough nation to start working on resolving its conflicts and issues as compared to some of the mass murderes from UK, US, and israel who are walking around talking about how much they love "peace & democracy". its obvious that some in the "white world" just can't stand seeing a muslim nation standing on the same level as them and staring them in the face.

 

ALSEF

10:22 AM ET

October 16, 2010

Nice Sid

I think it's quite odd that people are complaining about the "Armenian Genocide" from WW1 yet are absolutely silent when discussing Stalin's own "genocide" of the Armenians.

My guess: AR is reaching for a justification for his anti-Muslim stance.

 

AMERICAN DREAMER

10:32 AM ET

October 16, 2010

James Traub is a Revisionist.

" As for Iran, it's clear that Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and his team really did believe that the West would welcome the deal they struck, by which Iran would agree to transfer 1,200 kilograms of uranium out of the country to be enriched for civilian purposes. The fact that they were wrong probably says as much about U.S. President Barack Obama's ambivalence about engaging Iran as it does about Turkish tone-deafness or disingenuousness. "
.
Umm, Actually, the deal that Brazil-Turkey proposed was virtually identical to the deal Obama team proposed to Iran only a few months earlier.
.
James Traub, would you please get your facts straight; The failure of the Turkey-Brazil failed deal was based on US reversing itself, not Turkey's "tone-deafness".

 

J THOMAS

8:38 PM ET

October 17, 2010

"The failure of the

"The failure of the Turkey-Brazil failed deal was based on US reversing itself, not Turkey's "tone-deafness"."

Unfortunately those are not incompatible.

The USA might have made that proposal because one US faction wanted to and others did not know to shut it down. But we could not actually accept it.

Or it may from the beginning have been a propaganda attempt, that depended on Iran to reject it so we could blame them.

In either case, if the Turks were less tone-deaf they would have known that we could not or would not accept the agreement if Iran did accept it, and would have known not to push for it.

 

DAVE23

2:38 PM ET

October 16, 2010

Coincidence?

I was going through this interesting and insightful article when I thought that some arguments used in this piece sounded very familiar.
This is not an attempt to delegitimize any of the arguments used by Mr. Taub, but I find it interesting that a number of them have appeared in a piece by Toby Vogel in the September/October issue of the English language edition of the German magazine “Internationale Politik” (published by the German Council on Foreign Relations) that I had read this morning.

The article “Realpolitik Turkish-style” (http://www.ip-global.org/archiv/volumes/volume-11-2010/eastern-approaches/realpolitik-turkish-style.html ) is longer, more in-depth and also mentions Turkey’s growing role in the Balkans and both article use the same Thomas Friedman quote, among others.

Both articles are worth reading but I can highly recommend Mr. Vogel’s piece.

 

ROZBAT

9:10 AM ET

October 19, 2010

our economy fastest groving

i agree that article because im Turkish too. Turkey is one of the fastest groving economy of Middle - East region.