At an October 4, 2006, press conference, U.S. ambassador Ross Wilson said that despite Turkish president Ahmet Necdet Sezer and General Yaşar Büyükanıt’s warnings about the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey, “There is nothing that worries me with regards to Turkey’s continuation as a strong, secure, stable, and secular democracy.”  Wilson continued to describe Turkish domestic policy as a “cacophony.”

Resident Scholar Michael Rubin

Such interference in Turkish domestic politics is a grave diplomatic error.  True, Turkish politics can be boisterous.  So too are American politics.  Such is the nature of democracy.  But, it should not be the job of the American ambassador to comment publicly about issues that are internal to Turkish politics.  Whether Turkish municipalities ban alcohol, whether Imam Hatip [Islamic] school degrees equate to those of secular high schools, and decisions about the head scarf are for Turkish institutions and courts to resolve, not trends which the U.S. ambassador should defend.

Many analysts in both Ankara and Washington blame the Iraq War for the downturn in U.S.-Turkish relationship, but the latest crisis shows the problem is deeper.  Too often, especially in the years immediately before the Iraq war, U.S. ambassadors have appeared to interfere and endorse political parties and candidates.  They should not.  The U.S. embassy has no business siding with the AKP, or for that matter the CHP, ANAP, MHP, or any other party in any domestic political debate.  To do so disrespects both Turkish independence and democracy. 

For the same reason, U.S. Congressmen and Senators would never tolerate such blatant interference by a Turkish ambassador in Washington.  Fortunately, no Turkish ambassador has been so unprofessional as to try.

It may be tempting to believe that U.S. ambassadors interfere for malicious or conspiratorial reasons.  Seldom is this the case.  More often, the problem is a combination of naïveté and arrogance.  Many diplomats believe if they say nice things about the ruling party, they can reduce tension.  Perhaps this was Wilson’s intention.

Seldom do U.S. policymakers understand the complexities of image.  While many Turkish analysts look at Prime Minister Erdoğan’s lengthy Oval Office visit as a sign of endorsement, most U.S. officials are oblivious: They granted the meeting as a matter of protocol as they would any NATO leader.  Few realize that Turkey is entering an election cycle.

Arrogance among some U.S. diplomats is a greater problem.  Diplomats are seldom short of opinions, but too often believe their personal attitudes matter.  But it is not for the U.S. ambassador to be the judge of the Turkish secularism debate.  Other factors can also contribute.  Some past ambassadors have used ties developed to dominant parties to enter into consultancies or business after retirement.

This is not to say that U.S. ambassadors should be silent.  They should not.  The U.S. and Turkey historically have had a strong partnership and have many mutual interests, be they military, economic, or regarding the joint fight against terrorism.  Indeed, if U.S. diplomats commented on internal Turkish politics less and spent more time working to combat effectively rather than just symbolically terrorist groups like the PKK, bilateral relations would much improve.

The fault does not lay only with the U.S. Embassy.  Serious bilateral issues are sometimes contentious.  Sometimes in the past, Turkish commentators and even some politicians have condemned ambassadors for their honesty and, in a few unfortunate instances, their religion as well.

Sometimes learning from mistakes makes diplomats stronger.  But when the mistakes show such a failure to understand both the role of American diplomacy and the necessary independence of Turkish politics, there can be no recovery.  Wilson should resign.  After this latest transgression, he cannot recover the respect necessary to function.  The U.S.-Turkish relationship deserves more.

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at AEI.