Daniel Widome

« Global upstarts | Main | Clean start »

June 25, 2010

Allied voices

The United States has always depended on regional allies around the world to support its foreign policy agenda. But this is especially true today. Experiences with near-unilateralism in Iraq and elsewhere have shown that the United States cannot simply impose its agenda on its allies, and as a result, President Obama has made multilateralism a centerpiece of his foreign policy. But as the need for multilateralism increases, the voices of U.S. allies are becoming louder. For Turkey and Japan—two historically vital U.S. partners—their voices increasingly seem to clash with U.S. interests. But this impression is mistaken and is clouded by short-term thinking. In dealing with these two important allies, Obama would be well advised to take a longer-term view.

Turkey, in particular, has exerted its influence in highly visible ways in recent months. In May, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil announced a deal to reprocess Iranian nuclear fuel (for more, see The Water's Edge, May 2010). This deal was harshly criticized by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who claimed that the Iranians had taken advantage of Turkey and Brazil and that the deal would undermine efforts to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions. The UN Security Council ultimately approved new, tougher sanctions on Iran, over the dissenting votes of Turkey and Brazil.

A few weeks later, Israeli security forces killed nine Turkish civilians while attempting to stop an aid convoy from breaching Israeli's blockade of the Gaza Strip. The convoy originated in Turkey and was sponsored by a Turkish NGO. The global reaction to the Israeli action was understandably harsh, but it paled in comparison to the Turkish reaction. “Israel stands to lose its closest ally in the Middle East if it does not change its mentality,” Erdogan warned. Turkey and Israel do have a history of close relations, but under Erdogan's premiership, the relationship had cooled considerably. Erdogan has been particularly harsh in his criticism of Israeli behavior in Gaza, and the deaths of Turkish citizens only intensified Turkish attitudes. Although the Turkish government did not officially sanction the aid convoy, Erdogan certainly was sympathetic to its mission

Historically, Turkey's importance has been defined by its geography. During the Cold War, the United States perceived Turkey as on the fringes of more important regions—it was far from the flashpoints of Central Europe, too far north of Israel and the oil in the Middle East, and not quite amid the client state chess match in Africa. After the Soviet Union fell, the notion of Turkey as a “bridge”—between Europe and Asia, between Islam and democracy, between the West and the East—became more popular. But in the past 10 years, attitudes within Turkey have changed. Erdogan came to power in 2002 with a clear mandate and a strong parliamentary majority, riding the popularity of his mildly-Islamist AK Party. Progress toward joining the European Union—long a dream of Turkish secularists hoping to anchor Turkey firmly in the West—stalled, due primarily not to a lack of reform in Turkey but to intransigence and opposition in Europe. All the while, Turkey has experienced robust economic growth and increasing demand for its exports in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

All of these factors have led to a remarkable increase in Turkey's influence in its region. If earlier observers (both Turkish and foreign) had thought of Turkey as a bridge between two worlds, or as a conduit through which others' ideas and influence could pass, Turkey now sees itself as a hub from which its own influence now radiates. Fueled by a sense of historical nationalism that is shared by Islamists and secularists alike, Turkey is now pursuing what it calls a “zero problems with neighbors” foreign policy. The Iranian nuclear deal is an example of the open, conciliatory approach that this policy entails. Turkey's close relationship with Israel—unique in the Muslim world—also could be seen within the context of this policy. Israel's military action in Gaza in January 2009, however, precipitated a strong negative reaction from Turkey. Erdogan's visible opposition to Israel has made him something of a leader in the Arab street—which, of course, only improves the prospects of Turkish exports to the region. But recent events have shown that seeking greater influence is not always compatible with a “zero problems” foreign policy, especially in a region as volatile as the Middle East. Regardless of Erdogan's diplomatic skills, maintaining close relations with both Iran and Israel at the same time is unlikely to result in “zero problems.”

On the other side of the world, Japan also has found its interests increasingly coming into conflict with those of the United States. This tension recently manifested itself with the resignation of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. Last year, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)—which had ruled Japan nearly uninterrupted for 55 years—was defeated in parliamentary elections by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), under the leadership of Hatoyama. This represented a monumental change in a political system that had grown ossified, stale, and increasingly beholden to an unaccountable and entrenched bureaucracy. Hatoyama primarily ran on a campaign that pledged to up-root this governing system and introduce a “politician-led” government; after years of economic and political stagnation, this was a popular platform, and the DPJ won handily.

But Hatoyama also ran on a subtle redefinition of Japan's alliance with the United States. While pledging that the U.S. alliance was of vital importance to Japan, Hatoyama stressed that the relationship should exist more on a more equal basis, implying that Japan would not blindly accede to U.S. wishes. This language proved especially popular in Okinawa, which is home to a disproportionate number of U.S. military bases. These bases have long been a source of tension, due to their persistent noise and commotion as well as to several episodes of off-duty U.S. soldiers assaulting Okinawan civilians. In 2006, the Bush administration negotiated a deal with the LDP government at the time to move a significant portion of the U.S. troops on Okinawa to Guam and to relocate one of the major bases on Okinawa to a more sparsely populated location on the island. The deal was intended to address civilian concerns on Okinawa, but because it did not entirely remove the U.S. bases, it was an incomplete solution at best. As part of his platform of redefining the U.S. alliance, Hatoyama pledged to renegotiate the deal to remove U.S. bases from Okinawa entirely.

In many ways, the U.S. response to Hatoyama's stance was predictable. It had negotiated a difficult deal in good faith with Hatoyama's predecessor, and the Defense Department had already begun to make long-term planning decisions based on that deal. Nevertheless, upon taking office, Hatoyama continued to insist to his domestic constituency that the deal would be renegotiated, while appearing to send different signals altogether to the United States. U.S. policymakers, from Obama downward, grew colder and more rigid toward Hatoyama's mixed messages, until the prime minister relented in May and agreed to implement the deal as negotiated in 2006. This unpopular decision broke one of Hatoyama's most prominent campaign pledges, and it led to his resignation earlier this month—giving Japan its fifth new leader in just four years.

The nature of the U.S. alliance with Japan is similar in some respects to its alliance with Turkey. As with Turkey, Japan's unique geography suited U.S. interests during the Cold War. It served almost as seal on Soviet ambitions in the Pacific, and it was strategically located to contain North Korea and support U.S. troops in South Korea. In recent decades, it has served U.S. interests as a useful check on the growing influence of China. Economically, the U.S. and Japan are very tightly linked. Through their alliance, the U.S. has effectively underwritten Japan's defense, allowing Japan to become the world's second-largest economy and a major exporter to the United States. In recent years, however, unease with a relationship has grown, on both sides. Many U.S. officials feel that Japan should carry a greater burden in international affairs and that Washington no longer needs to subsidize Japan's defense. In Japan, some conservative elements view the U.S.-written constitution that forbids offensive military forces as insulting and outdated. Witnessing the growth of China firsthand, some Japanese wonder if the country would be better served by re-orienting its foreign policy accordingly, away from the United States.

In the case of both Turkey and Japan, the interests of the United States are increasingly (and more vocally) coming into conflict with those of its ally. In part, this is due to the relative decline of U.S. influence and to the rise of other global and regional powers. But it is also due to a decades-long tradition of short-term thinking about how the U.S. manages its international alliances. If these are alliances worth maintaining, they must be premised on a set of shared principles and long-term objectives that benefit both partners. Once these principles are established, the U.S. should avoid the temptation of geopolitical myopia. If Turkey shows its independence from the U.S. on issues like Iran's nuclear program or Israel's behavior in Gaza, its credibility among its Muslim neighbors increases. If Japan can redefine its alliance with the U.S. on its own terms, stability may return to its tumultuous politics, allowing it to address serious economic and demographic challenges. The U.S. benefits under both scenarios, as its long-term interests neatly coincide with those of its ally.

Turkey and Japan may have short-term goals that seem to be at odds with U.S. objectives, and in the fast-moving world of diplomacy, this apparent gap may appear significant and worrisome. But each country exists within its own political, economic, and social universe, over which the United States cannot—and should not—hope to exert complete control. As long as the U.S. trusts the fundamental long-term objectives of its allies, it should be more understanding of their short-term policy fluctuations and simply take their louder and discordant voices in stride.

Foreign Policy Association, 25 June 2010

Posted by Daniel Widome at 06:54 PM to Asia,

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.watsonblogs.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1778

Comments

Posted by: credit score at December 15, 2010 07:06 AM