FRANCE CANNOT ?INSULT? TURKEY BUT THE US CAN

If the French (or Swiss) resolution was an ‘insult’ to Turkey, so should be the U.S. resolution (if passed). If Turkey boycotts French (or Swiss) weapons makers because of an ‘insult’ and clears US manufacturers despite the same ‘insult,’ it only adds to the ‘insult'.  Two weeks ago, I asked, “Can/will Turkey boycott U.S. weapons makers?” Well, General Yaşar Büyükanıt, chief of General Staff, has an answer. That question reflected a natural curiosity at a time when Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül ordered government agencies, including defense procurement, not to buy from France because, “Paris had insulted Turkey when it criminalized Armenian genocide denial last year.”

  In a similar reflex, the institution under Gen. Büyükanıt's command had “frozen all ties with France, including procurement.” Moreover, the collective France-bashing came only months after a Swiss aircraft manufacturer had been barred from competition for a military contract. In other words, there was enough material to justify the curiosity of whether “official Turkey” would do to the Americans what it did to the French and the Swiss – if, of course, congress passed the Armenian genocide bill this spring.

The difference between Libya and US:

  That was exactly what, aboard the airplane that took Gen. Büyükanıt to the United States last week, a reporter for Milliyet asked the Pasha. Both the question and the answer went largely unnoticed as they were buried deep down in Milliyet's story. This is Gen. Büyükanıt, quote-unquote, as reported in Milliyet: 

  “Diplomatic relations vary from one country to another. They are different with the United States… They are different with France… Are Turkey's relations with the United States the same as with Libya?” 

  In theory, Gen. Büyükanıt is right. Of course, Turkey's relations with the United States are different than those with Libya (or with France). But in practice, his words illustrate the bitter truth that “some countries cannot insult Turkey, but some can.”

  If the French (or Swiss) resolution was an “insult” to Turkey, then so should be the U.S. resolution (if passed). If Turkey boycotts French (or Swiss) weapons-makers because of that “insult” and clears U.S. manufacturers despite the same “insult” it would only add to the “insult.” True, real politik often takes unpleasant shapes: hypocrisy, discrimination, unfair behavior… All the same, “official Turkey” could have done better to avoid looking terribly inconsistent, unprincipled and, even worse, ridiculous. 

  The truth is Ankara should not have instrumented the “arms boycott” mechanism from the beginning. Not only because the mechanism looked silly since it was limited only to military procurement and practically excluded civilian procurement worth billions of dollars, but also because it has finally proved counter-productive.

Need for a consistent Ankara:

  Unfortunately, Turkey has now downgraded itself from a country that punishes weapons-makers of countries that “insult” it to a country that punishes weapons-makers of some countries that insult it, and turns its back and whistles when others do so.

  Ankara would certainly look more consistent and serious if it altogether scrapped the arms boycott mechanism it invented a decade ago. Otherwise the next time some bigwigs in Ankara, whether in uniform or civilian outfit, speak of an arms embargo in retaliation for a foreign Parliament's passing a genocide bill, the only damage to the target country could be the risk of some people dying of laughter.

  Boycotting foreign goods because of political rows should be left to private consumers. Any consumer should have the liberty to individually (or collectively) boycott goods from a particular country because of this or that reason. That's a private choice and a non-violent protest, whether justified or not.

  But when governments are involved boycott (or de facto embargo) becomes a risky business. It may punish innocent firms, positively discriminate against inferior bidders in government contracts and subsequently cause public damage. Worse, it may indulge the boycotting country's foreign policy calculus, especially on affairs that lead to a need to boycott.

  It would be in Turkey's best interests, both in public procurement and foreign policy terms, if Ankara altogether abandoned the boycott mechanism it cannot properly handle anyway.