Turkey-US relations: overcoming the major hurdle to turn a new page

Turkish Foreign Minsiter Hakan Fidan had a meeting with his US counterpart Antony Blinken in Washington on March 8.

“There is an opportunity to continue our path by opening a new page with a positive agenda,” he said in a press conference following the meeting and other discussions and contacts.

Türkiye-US relations were a “historic” relationship with a “history” of many crises in the past, and there was a “memory and reflex” between the two countries in “managing those crises”.

Indeed, the joint statement released after the meeting indicates a broad framework for opening a new page, including Sweden’s NATO membership facilitated on the NATO platform and the F-16 sales agreement in opposition to the F-35 sales to Greece. It was foreseeable that the discussions would not only remain in the political and military dimensions but also carry the perspective of economic relations in overcoming the crisis. However, predicting that the joint statement could delve into the details of ‘Small Modular Reactors,’ which can be called portable nuclear power plants, was not easy.

Despite the cooperation and promising picture in the joint statement, signs of the not-so-easy path for the relations that have undergone heavy trials for a decade can also be detected.

The obstacle in front of the new page

Fidan actually expresses the biggest obstacle to opening a new page in Türkiye-US relations in the press conference:

‘The support provided by the U.S. to the YPG/PKK is not only in terms of weapons. In addition to weapons, the transferred capacity, provided training, and institutionalisation pose a threat to Türkiye.

‘The Republic of Türkiye is fighting and will continue to fight against all threats and terrorist sources that pose a threat within or outside its borders within the framework of legitimate national and international law.

‘We said that the temporary process you initiated has now turned into a permanence and that it is the biggest obstacle to the progress of the strategic relationship between the two countries. This needs to end as soon as possible; a solution must be found; otherwise, the two countries face a greater risk of confrontation over terrorist organisations.’

Isn’t it clear enough? Fidan says that he also told Blinken that the support given by the U.S. to the PKK’s Syrian branch for the fight against ISIS is the ‘biggest obstacle’ to the development of relations and it needs to end ‘as soon as possible.’

What kind of joint struggle?

This time, the U.S. seems not to have bypassed the issue – at least on paper. The joint statement says, “The United States and Türkiye relaunched the Türkiye-U.S. Counterterrorism Consultations during the Strategic Mechanism to expand cooperation against terrorism and addressing related networks engaged in organized crime and drug trafficking, as threats to their respective national security.”

Let’s also remind that Turkish National Intelligence (MIT) Chief İbrahim Kalın, who was in Washington in the same days as Fidan-Blinken meeting, had met with CIA Director William Burns and other security officials before the Fidan-Blinken meeting.

The priority given by Türkiye to the fight against terrorism is also reflected in the joint statement, which can be considered as a guide for the “new page.” Let’s analyze this sentence:

‘They (two ministers) discussed strengthening the U.S.-Türkiye relationship on a wide range of issues, including regional priorities, counterterrorism, defense cooperation, economic growth, trade, energy security and climate change, and people-to-people ties.”

Regional priorities are clear: Gaza Crisis, Israel-Palestine, Ukraine-Russia, Azerbaijan-Armenia, and (actually directly related to the PKK issue) Syria.

In bilateral relations, ‘counter-terrorism’ is prioritised over defense cooperation, increasing the volume of trade, and fighting climate change.

What is meant by the fight against terrorism

So, do both sides understand the same thing from the fight against terrorism?

General Raymond Thomas, the Commander of U.S. Special Forces, had already revealed in 2017 that the U.S. had asked the PYD/YPG, knowing that it is the Syrian branch of the PKK, which US considers as terrorist organisation, to re-organize under a different name in 2015. Thomas humorously explained this by saying, ‘They even called themselves democratic,’ referring to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

As a matter of fact, it was no coincidence that he was mentioning ‘last ten years’ when chain of problems occurred in Türkiye-US relations .

The ‘ten years’ emphasis is not in vain

When we go back ten years to 2014 during Barack Obama’s presidency, we find the Kobane Crisis, and at that time, the Vice President was the current President Joe Biden.

Türkiye conditioned that the fight against PKK should come first before fight against ISIS. The US said “first ISIS” and that set the stage for a chain of crises that worked (undoubdetly more than the U.S) to Türkiye’s disadvantage.

Neither Washington nor Ankara could say ‘both at the same time’ at that point.

Can the U.S. cut its support to PKK’s Syrian branch? Security sources claim that the U.S. primarily supports the SDF forces not against ISIS or Türkiye but when needed, for Israel’s frontline defense against Iran. I believe there is a meaning in Fidan adding ‘a solution must be found’ after saying ‘it must end as soon as possible.’

Can Türkiye’s recent relations with Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq be a ‘solution’ address?

Opening a new page is not easy; first, the current climate of distrust needs to be overcome.