The Complex Dance of Global Leaders: Why is Trump Helping Erdogan?

The relationship between global leaders often transcends mere politics, entwined with complex webs of alliances, history, and strategic interests. One such prominent intersection is the relationship between U.S. President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This relationship has garnered significant attention, particularly in light of recent diplomatic maneuvers and geopolitical events.

Threading the Needle: A Historical Context

Before delving into the current dynamics, it is essential to understand the historical context and the backdrop against which the relationship between Trump and Erdogan is situated. The past tense is particularly relevant when discussing U.S. sanctions against Turkish officials over the detention of American Pastor Andrew Brunson. This incident highlighted the tension between the two nations, with the sanctions sparking severe economic repercussions, including a significant dip in the TRY/USD exchange rate.

The Turkish Central Bank was compelled to deplete a substantial portion of its foreign reserves to stabilize the currency. This move underscored the economic gravity of the situation and the far-reaching consequences of such diplomatic actions.

Personal and Political Relationships

A noteworthy factor in the relationship between Trump and Erdogan is the tag of "favoured autocracies". Critics often point to Trump's apparent fondness for leaders who exhibit authoritarian tendencies, suggesting this could be a hallmark of his personal preferences rather than a strategic move. Some analysts argue that Trump may be envious of the ease with which these leaders can implement policies, undeterred by the limitations faced in a democracy.

Shifting U.S. Foreign Policy

Contrary to the notion of enabling Erdogan, the repositioning of U.S. foreign policy under Trump has seen a notable shift away from heavy military intervention. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. presidents have often sought to assert American influence through military means. However, one of Trump's key foreign policy initiatives has been to reduce U.S. military interventions globally.

Trump is often praised for his bold move to reduce U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and North Africa. This reduction is a significant departure from the approach of his predecessors, who engaged in prolonged military interventions, such as in Libya and Syria, under the Obama administration. The scale of these interventions can be gauged by the fact that Obama's administration carried out ten times more covert drone strikes than the Bush administration.

Striking a Balance

The landscape of international relations necessitates a delicate balance between support for regional actors and adherence to democratic values. The decision to reduce U.S. military interventions does not equate to lack of support for autocracies. Instead, it reflects a strategic shift towards diplomacy and non-interventionist policies.

By abstaining from active military intervention, the U.S. has created an opportunity for countries like Turkey to play a more prominent role in regional affairs. This is seen as an advantage by Erdogan, who has taken full advantage of the vacuum left by reduced U.S. involvement. Consequently, the perceived accommodation of authoritarian leaders by the U.S. does not necessarily equate to active enabling.

Choices and Consequences

The question of whether a non-interventionist U.S. policy or a more assertive approach is the better course is a matter of perspective. Those advocating for a non-interventionist U.S. argue that reduced military intervention allows for more nuanced diplomatic solutions and fosters local stability, even if it means enabling some autocratic leaders. Others believe that a continuation of military interventions is necessary to promote democracy and prevent the spread of authoritarian regimes.

Ultimately, the choice between these two paths depends on the priorities and values one places on global stability, democracy, and human rights.

Conclusion: The relationship between Trump and Erdogan is a reflection of the broader geopolitical landscape. While some view the U.S. support for Erdogan as enabling, a closer examination reveals that it is a strategic decision rather than a pronouncement of endorsement. The U.S. has chosen a course of reduced military intervention, leaving space for regional actors like Turkey to navigate their own path. This decision has its pros and cons and reflects a complex balancing act in the world of international relations.

Further Reading

To explore this topic further, consider reading articles on:

The impact of U.S. sanctions on Turkey The current state of U.S.-Turkey relations The strategic implications of U.S. non-interventionist foreign policy