Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to burn bridges between his country and the United States. To back track a bit, in March, Israel was pushed by President Obama to apologize for the 2010 take over of a Turkish convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza which resulted in the death of nine Turks. Regardless of this apology, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan disclosed to Iran the identities of ten Iranians that were working for Israel. This compromise of Israeli intelligence is described in a Washington Post article as "an effort to slap the Israelis." To make matters worse, Mr. Erdogan continues to bash the Israelis, further diminishing hope of a reconciliation between the two states. Although President Obama's attempt to adjudicate this relationship resulted in an apology for the Gaza flotilla incident, his efforts appear to mean nothing to Prime Minister Erdogan. By outing these Israeli spies, Mr. Erdogan has proved his lack of credibility with respect to reconciliation.
As if Turkish relations with Israel weren't enough to anger the United States, the Economist reports that Erdogan made an announcement in September that Turkey is "planning to co-produce a missile-defense system with a Chinese company that is under American sanctions for its dealings with Syria, North Korea, and Iran." This equipment, according to the Chinese, is intended to protect Turkey from Syrian or Iranian missiles however is "not compatible with those of other NATO members." According to BBC News, in a trip Erdogan took to China, he claimed that the crossfire from Syria which has injured and killed Turks is "a clear violation" of Turkey's borders and that he would respond appropriately. Now it's being speculated that Erdogan is accepting this deal in an attempt to "force the Europeans and the Americans to offer better terms" in an attempt to protect his citizens. This situation would work well towards the argument that US sanctions are ineffective. It's too easy for sanctioned countries to find alternative markets and too difficult for countries imposing sanctions to isolate another country's economy. Sanctions on the Chinese in this situation are not preventing them from finding an alternative market in the Turks who are seeking to protect their borders in a way that's effective and affordable. In fact, if these "better terms" are eventually offered, this particular US sanction will appear to have backfired. By trying to deter the Chinese from producing this missile-defense system, the US has pushed them towards another market seeking a cheaper deal than what the US has to offer. Mr. Erdogan, however may not have had to go through the trouble of negotiations with the Chinese if he had proceeded with reconciling his country's relationship with Israel in order to please the United States. Rather by compromising the identities of the Iranians, he is further proving his unwillingness to cooperate with Israel. As a result, the United States is left with little incentive to help the Turks with their defense technology. This, in turn, is what forces the Turks to negotiate with the Chinese to obtain protection from Syrian missiles. However, because of the sanctions imposed on the Chinese, the Turks may have discovered a new incentive for the United States to offer an alternative.
This is a very interesting issue that has arisen in recent weeks. The Economist article you reference makes a very clear point as to why Turkey has chosen to make the strategic choices it has. I would also quickly point out that Chinese military technology is not particularly good and have a fairly high rate of technical failure. However, I would argue that, given the diplomatic road Erdogan has taken, and the subsequent American backlash, Turkey has no choice but to bolster their border defence in the absence of NATO assistance.
ReplyDeleteYes, I definitely agree. They don't have very many options and with the amount of Syrian refugees still coming in, tensions are just going to keep rising. You're right I should have made it clearer that the Chinese technology isn't the best and in the article, it's referenced that it is inefficient against the kind of missiles they're hoping to defend themselves against.
DeleteI don't think that the sanctions of the Chinese missile defense system company is the best example of why sanctions are ineffective. The Chinese company is going to try to find other markets to sell to at a lower price than US companies regardless if there are sanctions in place or not. The sanctions simply mean that our country won't do business with them and this will hurt their overall profit margin if they relied on US trade. The way the Chinese company can get a corner on the market is by selling their product at a lower price than competitors. This has nothing to do with sanctions or relations bad relationships with other countries.
ReplyDeleteIn the debate, our classmates made the argument that sanctions were ineffective because they do not prevent countries from exploring other markets and it is too difficult to isolate a sanctioned country's economy. What are sanctions for if not to try and prevent a country from doing something we don't like? If that is the true goal of sanctions, then in this case they are not effective because the Chinese are finding alternative markets. It was a perfectly solid example. Just because you don't agree with an argument, does't mean it's wrong. I think you just have a different opinion on what sanctions are used for.
DeleteWhy should Turkey not be angry with Israel? You act like Israel should basically have a pass on the killing of aid workers. Thats their main issue with Turkey, it feels like you are making light of this, but had those nine people been from a Western European country helping out Turkey with their aid mission I wonder if it would have taken 3 years for an apology. This makes Israel's apology worthless, is there really a point. Plus, spies know that they run the risk of being burned, it is a calculated risk in their line of work. The close ties between Israel, and the US means that Turkey could see that the US is complacent towards this affair, so looking to China for military technology should have been expected. Is Turkey really the bad guy in this situation?
ReplyDeleteI was simply explaining why President Obama was displeased with Turkey, not that I believe an apology should make everything better. I didn't even take a position on this topic, I paraphrased 3 articles and explained how they are related to topics in class. I have no strong opinion on this matter and all the research I did was new information to me. I'm sorry if you felt I was making a personal attack against Turkey because I most certainly was not.
DeleteDid anyone find it ironic that this Chinese military supply and production company is under US sanctions for making and selling weapons to Iran and Syria? Syria the actual reason Turkey apparently needs new weapons for protection. Or that in the Economist article it mentions that the package the Chinese company can supply likely won't be effective against Syrian rockets. That they may be effective for only drones and planes, things that the US has. I think it's a bluff by the Turkish government attempting to get a better deal from the US or other countries.
ReplyDeleteI also think it could be a political gesture to the US and other western countries that Turkey doesn't need them. Turkey has been repeatedly refused access to the EU. While the US has been striving to improve relations with other countries in the Middle East, while possibly taking past cooperation for granted. The only thing I could see keeping Turkey in the current deal with China is the promise of shared technology. That is if you can trust the Chinese, because who really wants to give up military technology, even if it isn't the best?
It is interesting that Obama asked Israel to apologize, probably due Turkey geographical and political closeness to Syria. I agree with the post, that Turkey is unsatisfied with the way Western powers, specifically US is dealing with Syria/Turkey issue. The unclear and indecisive position of Western powers on the Syrian civil war, is hurting Turkey, who is heavily endangered because of the raging war and Syrian refugees. Indecisiveness and inaction is hurting everybody, and the international community needs to make a move.
ReplyDeleteIn a region where everyone doesnt want US support and get angry when they dont step-in to oversee Syria it's very tricky to assess who should apologize to whom and if it really means anything. With Turkey bordering 3 continents it serves an important strategic position to aid whoever they see fit and improving relations with them would surely be a bonus for the US.
ReplyDelete