A more coherent approach

Turkey’s relations with the United States and the European Union are under strain. In light of continuous US support for the Kurdish YPG, Washington and Ankara are split over the way forward in Syria. Due to President Erdogan’s hostile rhetoric and increasingly authoritarian governing style, policy makers in Europe have advocated a suspension or even end of Turkey’s accession process to the EU.

Still, Ankara and its Western partner need each other. Turkey depends on the EU as a market, and cannot adequately address the Syrian refugee crisis as well as conflict at its southern border without Western support. Washington and European policy makers rely on Turkey as a pivotal member of NATO to provide stability in the Eastern Mediterranean. Where is the relationship headed?

On March 26, the Brookings Institutions convened a panel of experts to discuss how the West should handle its important but challenging ally. Eric Edelman, former US ambassador to Turkey and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Kemal Kirişci, director of the Turkey Project at Brookings, Amanda Sloat, Robert Bosch Senior Fellow at Brookings, and Stephen F. Szabo, senior fellow at the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, offered their perspectives on the future of relations between Turkey and the West. Lisel Hintz, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies, moderated the discussion. A recording of the event is available online.

Domestic politics in Turkey drive the country’s relations with its Western partners. Eric Edelman highlights that Erdogan’s domestic agenda of establishing a presidential system has determined Ankara’s stance towards Washington and Brussels. The Turkish president utilizes sentiments against the West to rally support for his political project. In particular, Erdogan has stirred up anti-Americanism to mobilize voters and will likely draw again on nationalistic rhetoric ahead of the parliamentary and presidential elections scheduled for 2019.

Edelman proposes that the United States should adopt a more transactional approach towards Ankara. Washington has so far remained silent about Erdogan’s political game and expected that “if Turkey is treated like an ally, it will behave like an ally.” This perception has proven false. Thus, the United States must increase pressure on Ankara. For instance, Washington could close one of Turkey’s consulates. This would both send a clear message to Erdogan and provide the United States with leverage.

Sloat counters that pressure alone cannot work. She stresses that a purely transactional approach has limitations as it could undermine the West’s efforts to promote the rule of law and good governance. Likewise, abandoning Turkey by either forcing it to leave NATO or ending the EU accession process is not a good option, as it would diminish US and EU leverage over Ankara. Rather, they should pursue a policy of constructive engagement. Washington has to address relations with Turkey from a broader perspective, which goes beyond security-related issues. Moreover, policy makers in both the United States and Europe should acknowledge the utility of engaging with a broad section of Turkish society and increase their outreach to civil society.

Kemal Kirişci highlights that the EU already has considerable leverage over Turkey. The EU is by far the biggest market for Turkish goods, absorbing almost 50% of the country’s exports. Likewise, there are significant Turkish communities in the EU that affect politics in Turkey. Erdogan, who relies on a good performance of the Turkish economy to maintain domestic supremacy, recognizes this dependency relationship.

Szabo hence argues that Western states should follow the example of Germany. Berlin has consistently emphasized the importance of the rule of law when dealing with Ankara. At the same time, the economic powerhouse of Europe has pursued a transactional approach, using its role as a major market for Turkish goods to press Erdogan for concessions. Moreover, Berlin has adopted a long-term view towards Turkey. Instead of simply formulating a rather reactive and shortsighted Erdogan strategy, Germany follows a comprehensive Turkey strategy that looks beyond the president’s time in power.

The West’s biggest challenge in handling Turkey is internal division and confusion. Szabo stresses that growing anti-Turkish sentiments among Germany’s population compromise Berlin’s foresighted approach. Kirişci points out that the erosion of the rule of law and liberalism within the EU has helped Erdogan to push his authoritarian agenda. Likewise, discrepancies in US policies have damaged Washington’s credibility among Turkish policy makers. Edelmann adds that any approach towards Turkey will fail as long as the US government does not sing from the same song sheet. Turkish consternation about conflicting statements concerning Washington’s support for the Kurdish YPG in Syria exemplifies this shortcoming, Sloat says.

Turkey under President Erdogan is certainly a difficult partner. Inconsistent policies in the West have aggravated this challenge. The United States and EU are advised to pursue a more coherent approach towards Ankara. This will ameliorate current strains and potentially bring about positive change within Turkey. The West should not waste this opportunity.