Turkey will hold its parliamentary election in July, four months earlier than scheduled, thereby narrowly avoiding a constitutional crisis over the choice of the country's next president. Nonetheless, Turkey's bout with political instability has damaged its foreign policy and international standing.
At the center of the storm are Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, head of the moderately Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP), and Yasar Buyukanit, chief of the general staff of the Turkish military, which regards itself as the guardian of the secular republican tradition established by the country's first president, Kemal Ataturk.
When Erdogan contemplated moving from the prime minister's job to the presidency earlier this spring, the military and secular political parties indicated profound dissatisfaction.
Buyukanit said last month that the country's new president must be secular "not just in words, but in essence."
Having met and conversed with Erdogan on more than one occasion, I found him a moderate and reasonable man. Moreover, the AKP has broad support among Turkish voters and an admirable record of economic growth, human rights legislation and improvement in the treatment of Turkey's Kurdish minority.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, a close associate of Erdogan in the AKP, pressed Turkey's application to join the EU. So when Erdogan decided to nominate Gul as the AKP candidate for the presidency, I was surprised by the strength of the secularist opposition.
The secular establishment argues that the AKP's moderation thus far reflects the checks and balances implied by secularist control of the presidency. They argue that if the AKP comes to control the presidency, it may no longer pursue moderate policies. Secularists point with concern to other AKP, such as Speaker of the Parliament Bulent Arinc, who are noted for their pronounced religious and social conservatism.
When the Turkish parliament attempted to elect the president on April 27, Gul did not receive enough votes to win on the first ballot.
The main opposition party argued that the vote was invalid, and the General Staff issued a statement that it was "watching this situation with concern."
Massive public demonstrations were held in Istanbul to support Turkey's Kemalist secular tradition. The issue went to the nation's highest court, which annulled the parliamentary vote, effectively blocking Gul's candidacy, resulting in Erdogan's decision to call an early election.
These events were closely watched in Washington and Brussels. The US had been pressing the EU to advance Turkey's application for admission, but Turkish membership was already controversial in several EU countries. This reflects concerns about Turkey's Muslim culture and its large population, as well as concern that any further enlargement will overly dilute the European project.
Now opponents of Turkey's EU accession bid have seized upon recent events to argue that the country does not meet the democratic standards necessary for full membership. They point out that Turkey's military has ousted four elected governments since 1960, and continues to play an inappropriately large role in politics. While the high court decision and the appeal to the electorate means that Turkish democracy has dodged a bullet for now, the progress of Turkey's EU accession negotiations has been further slowed.
This is unfortunate for both Turkey and Europe. With a slowdown in accession negotiations, Turkish politicians will have less incentive to continue the reforms necessary for membership. Turkey suffers from nationalist sensitivity, and extremist groups have orchestrated several unfortunate incidents, including attacks on minorities and harassment of cultural figures like Nobel Prize-winning novelist Orhan Pamuk.
If Turkey pulls away from Europe, the EU's claim that it successfully wields "soft power" in world politics will be powerfully undermined.
In the larger picture, Turkey is not only an important member of NATO, with influence both in the Balkans and the Middle East, but it also plays a vital role in the wider world. One of the crucial questions of 21st century politics will be how the world copes with the rise of political Islam. For radical Islamists (and some Westerners), the rise of Islam sets the scene for a "clash of civilizations," which they welcome as a polarizing device that will allow them to recruit from the much larger Muslim mainstream.
But Turkey has the potential to show the shallowness of such a scenario by demonstrating the compatibility of liberal democracy and Islam.
Unfortunately, this appears to have been lost on the neo-conservatives in the administration of US President George W. Bush, for whom it was the invasion of Iraq and its liberation from Iraqi president Saddam Hussein that was supposed to provide a beacon for a wave of democratization that would transform the Middle East.
What they produced instead was an "electocracy" that, in the absence of liberal institutions, replaced the tyranny of the Sunni minority with a tyranny of the Shiite majority and a religious sectarian civil war.
Indeed, the invasion of Iraq also hurt Turkey, both economically and by strengthening the base for the Kurdish terrorist PKK organization operating from northern Iraq. The result has been a dramatic increase in anti-US sentiment in Turkish politics. If the neo-conservatives had instead focused their attentions on strengthening the soft power of Turkey, they could have done far more to advance the cause of democracy in the Middle East.
Joseph Nye is distinguished service professor at Harvard University in Massachusetts.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath