We may foresee that US policies towards the Middle East will be diversified in the new era through strategic partner countries that include Turkey and Israel. The priorities of the US, which has been making an effort to rectify the bilateral relations between these two countries in the Middle East, include the normalization of relations between Turkey and Israel. For this reason, Washington is seeking to make progress by a reliance on different methods.

The Obama administration, which has expressed an interest in Turkey, has developed a series of programs to train future leaders and equip them with real political considerations. The Young Turkey Young America program, which has recently been initiated and repeated with the participation of diverse figures every year by the US Department of State, is one of the activities that the US pays utmost attention to. During the program, which is coordinated by the Atlantic Council and İstanbul Policy Center in the US and Turkey, respectively, we, the participants, have discussed and analyzed the domestic and international affairs of the US, its approach toward the world, including the Middle East and its relations with Turkey. I would say this policy and leadership program enable us to better understand Turkish-American relations and help us analyze its policies regarding other countries and regions.

I should admit that think tanks and civil society organizations in the US are pretty active; they know other countries as if they were their own. Of course, it would be naive to compare them with those in Turkey, but I observe that we do not have a sufficient number of experts on the regions we claim we have responsibilities for. We need more experts in recent history who have analyzed the process of democratization in Turkey from different angles, analysts who extensively discuss the transformation in the region after Soviet rule and the Baath reign and strategists who evaluate how Turkey should use the energy potential in the Black Sea and Iraq. Turkey has a long road to travel because these are sensitive issues that closely concern Turkey.

However, the US should also emulate the Turkish vision in some respects. For instance, these include awareness of the sensitivities of the nations in the region where it has been dominant for centuries, understanding the different ethnic and religious groups and a conviction that even small political steps may change regional affairs radically. However, to do this, Turkey needs to better articulate itself and its goals. We could evaluate the vision of both sides by focusing on current issues. However, the greatest reason that the Turkish part of the discussion is short of something is the misinformation on the regional strategies and Turkey’s inability to express its goals and considerations on such cases of misinformation.

We could offer examples by looking at the American side because the views and approaches held by experts, military analysts and academics I have talked to during the program constitute the overall US vision.

Relations with Israel: The US has been focusing on normalization of relations between Turkey and Israel and the establishment of strong strategic relations. This issue represents a matter that makes the entire region unstable for the US. The course of the problems in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and even Cyprus are analyzed from this perspective. The insistence on the Israeli side not to offer an official apology or lift the embargo and blockade in Palestine is another source of the crisis because the US is unable to persuade Israel on this matter. The counter-argument suggests that Turkey extends support to Hamas and makes the issue of Palestinian terrorists a national cause. No progress has been made so far because the Jewish lobby in the US also agrees with this. They hold that Turkey must take some constructive steps because Israel is the only country that would understand Turkey in the international arena in reference to such thorny issues as the Armenian issue, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) problem and the Cyprus issue. Of course, this would be possible only in the case of mutual understanding.

Syrian issue: US experts hold that Turkey has made sacrifices on the Syrian issue because no other country would have accepted thousands of Syrian refugees. However, Turkey needs American support in the face of potential partition, the activities of Syrian intelligence in the Southeast and the PKK’s growing influence in the region. The Libyan model cannot be applied in this case; in addition, military interference would have serious repercussions. For this reason, it is stressed that Turkey should not act unilaterally. However, unfortunately, no reference is made to the problems that Turkey encounters due to the exacerbating situation and growing instability in its southern neighbor. It is obvious that the US will rely on long-term plans to deal with this issue, whereas Turkey is expected to make further sacrifices.

Armenian issue: The Armenian issue is stuck between two symbolic dates: 1915 and 2015. It is noted that historians need to discuss the matter by focusing on what really happened in 1915. However, nobody refers to who would open the archives and who works against Turkey in the US. In addition, nobody recalls the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) attacks. In respect to 2015, it is recalled that Turkey needs to remain cautious and take some constructive steps. However, there is no reference to the current setting where the US-led Minsk Group is no longer influential in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, which Turkey presents as a precondition for normalization between Turkey and Armenia. It seems that in reference to the Armenian lobby, the US does not prevent any lobbying activities that are detrimental to Turkish interests because it does not appear proper to do something to prevent their activities as they rely on their democratic rights to influence Congress. The opposition that the Greek and Armenian lobbies have staged against Turkish entrepreneurs’ initiatives to invest in the predominantly Native American regions in the US has been extensively discussed this year. The declaration these lobbies made against these initiatives suggests that Turkey should be prevented from making investments in these areas because it is a country that committed genocide against the Armenians, occupied Cyprus and extended support to Hamas.

Kurdistan discourse: There is no doubt that there are many experts who are familiar with Iraqi politics in the US. In addition, the number of analysts focusing on Iraq, Syria and Iran has been increasing. These analysts acquire experience and expertise through field research and on-site investigations. For this reason, they are able to make solid analyses. However, there is something that is neglected. The reference to a region called Kurdistan raises doubts and concerns in some circles, including Turkey. Experts noting that this name is only related to geography fail to appreciate the sensitivities of Turkey and other countries in the region. It is also a reality that the evolution of northern Iraq into Kurdistan is based on geopolitical developments as well. The addition of another element into the list of sovereign nations in the Middle East may be acceptable. However, analysis of the borders and the areas of domination based on the approaches held in World War I may lead to serious problems. We are witnessing the same today.

Cyprus issue: The Cyprus issue is not just a matter between Turkey and Cyprus; both Israel and Armenia now rely on this as a counter argument. Above all, reference to the 1974 military operation as occupation is due to the lack of adequate and proper information on the subject. In addition to the problems on the island and the UN resolutions and decisions referring to the need for an intervention, there is no reference to who has actually promoted the unification of the island so far. Israel implies that it would ignore the issue and even extend support for Turkey in the international arena in the case of normalization of bilateral ties. On the other hand, Armenia suggests that Turkey should resolve its Cyprus issue before dealing with the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The US has made mistakes in this matter, but more importantly, Turkey has been unable to articulate its position so far. Turkey has not been able to explain its sensitivities in respect to the Cyprus issue.

These issues are major problems that are closely related to Turkey’s regional and global policies as well as its position in the international arena. Turkey needs to become more active and train experts in order to make progress on these thorny issues. I hope that young Turkish people will appreciate how Turkey is seen in the US and how other countries treat and view its policies via such programs as Young Turkey Young America because the real matter is to express ourselves properly to the world and better understand global affairs. The world cannot be well appreciated and recognized if we stand still and immovable.

Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU