Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations
Jim Zanotti
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
February 2, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41368
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Summary
Congress has an active role to play in shaping and overseeing U.S. relations with Turkey, and
several Turkish domestic and foreign policy issues have significant relevance for U.S. interests.
This report provides background information on Turkey and discusses possible policy options for
Members of Congress and the Obama Administration. U.S. relations with Turkey—a longtime
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally—have evolved over time as global challenges to
U.S. interests have changed. Turkey’s economic dynamism and geopolitical importance—it
straddles Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia and now has the world’s 16th-largest
economy—have increased its influence regionally and globally. Although Turkey still depends on
the United States and other NATO allies for political and strategic support, growing economic
diversification and military self-reliance allows Turkey to exercise greater leverage with the West.
These trends have helped fuel continuing Turkish political transformation led in the past decade
by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which
has Islamist roots. Future domestic political developments may determine how Turkey reconciles
respect for democratic views that favor Turkish nationalism and traditional Sunni Muslim values
with protection of individual freedoms, minority rights, rule of law, and the principle of secular
governance. Debate on issues such as the status of Turkey’s ethnic Kurdish population, the civil-
military balance, the role of religion in public life, and heightened concern over press freedom
could coalesce in 2012 around a proposal for a new constitution.
Congressional interest in Turkey is high with respect to the following issues:
• Addressing ongoing change in the Middle East by coordinating policies and
using Turkey’s regional example to influence political outcomes in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere; counter Iranian influence; and preserve stability;
• The decline in Israel-Turkey relations and how that might affect U.S.-Turkey
defense cooperation, including arms sales to counter the Kurdistan Workers’
Party (PKK), a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization; and
• A potential congressional resolution or presidential statement on the possible
genocide of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey’s predecessor state)
during World War I.
Many U.S. policymakers also are interested in the rights of minority Christian communities
within Turkey; the currently stalemated prospects of Turkish accession to the European Union
(EU); promoting increased trade with Turkey; and Turkey’s role in the Cyprus dispute, especially
given tensions in late 2011 over offshore gas drilling in the Eastern Mediterranean. Congress
annually appropriates less than $10 million in military and security assistance for Turkey. The EU
currently provides over $1 billion to Turkey annually in pre-accession financial and technical
assistance.
In 2011, U.S.-Turkey cooperation on issues affecting the Middle East became closer, partly
because Turkey agreed to host a U.S. radar as part of a NATO missile defense system.
Nevertheless, developments during the Obama Administration—including Erdogan’s
downgrading of relations with Israel—have led to questions about the extent to which U.S. and
Turkish strategic priorities and values converge on both a short- and long-term basis. Issues on
which congressional action could affect future cooperation one way or another include the
possible sale of drone aircraft to Turkey to counter the PKK and a potential Armenian genocide
resolution.
Congressional Research Service

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Contents
Introduction and Issues for Congress............................................................................................... 1
Background and Domestic Political Issues...................................................................................... 6
Historical Overview................................................................................................................... 6
Changes to the Kemalist Order.................................................................................................. 6
In the Past Decade............................................................................................................... 6
In Historical and Societal Context....................................................................................... 7
Fethullah Gulen Movement................................................................................................. 8
Economy and Trade................................................................................................................... 9
Major Minority Groups ........................................................................................................... 10
Kurds ................................................................................................................................. 10
Alevis ................................................................................................................................ 11
A New Constitution? ............................................................................................................... 12
Minority Religious Rights ....................................................................................................... 13
Foreign Policy on Matters of U.S. Interest .................................................................................... 14
The “Turkish Model” and Regional Stance............................................................................. 14
Israel ........................................................................................................................................ 16
Syria......................................................................................................................................... 18
Iran and NATO Missile Defense ............................................................................................. 20
Iraq and the PKK ..................................................................................................................... 21
Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean.................................................................................... 22
Armenia ................................................................................................................................... 23
Afghanistan.............................................................................................................................. 24
Regional Energy Issues ........................................................................................................... 24
Turkey as a Transit Corridor and Potential Source............................................................ 24
Nuclear Energy.................................................................................................................. 26
Turkey and the European Union.............................................................................................. 27
Other International Relationships............................................................................................ 28
U.S.-Turkey Relations ................................................................................................................... 28
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 28
Bilateral and NATO Defense Cooperation .............................................................................. 30
Possible U.S. Policy Options ......................................................................................................... 32
Influencing Regional Change and Promoting Stability ........................................................... 33
Arms Sales and Military/Security Assistance.......................................................................... 34
Possible Armenian Genocide................................................................................................... 35
Bilateral Trade Promotion ....................................................................................................... 35
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Figures
Figure 1. Turkey and Its Neighbors ................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Major Pipelines Traversing Turkey and Possible Nuclear Power Plants........................ 25
Figure 3. Map of U.S. and NATO Military Presence and Transport Routes in Turkey ................. 31

Congressional Research Service

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Tables
Table 1. Turkey in Brief................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2. Parties in Turkey’s Parliament ......................................................................................... 12
Table 3. PKK Designations by U.S. Government.......................................................................... 22
Table 4. U.S. Foreign Assistance to Turkey................................................................................... 32
Table 5. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Turkey .............................................................................. 36

Appendixes
Appendix A. Profiles of Key Figures in Turkey ............................................................................ 38
Appendix B. List of Selected Turkish-Related Organizations in the United States....................... 41
Appendix C. Congressional Committee Reports of Armenian Genocide-Related Proposed
Resolutions ................................................................................................................................. 42

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 42
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 42

Congressional Research Service

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Introduction and Issues for Congress
Turkey has been an important ally for the United States since the Cold War era. As global
challenges to U.S. interests have changed over time, U.S. relations with Turkey have evolved.
During that time, Turkey has experienced fundamental internal change—particularly the
economic empowerment of a middle class from its Anatolian heartland that emphasizes
traditional Sunni Muslim values. This change has helped fuel continuing political transformation
led in the past decade by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President Abdullah Gul, and
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (all of whom are profiled in Appendix A) from the Islamic-
leaning Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish acronym, AKP, or Adalet ve
Kalkinma Partisi
). For decades, the Turkish republic relied upon its military, judiciary, and other
bastions of its “secular elite” to protect it from political and ideological extremes—sacrificing at
least some of its democratic vitality in the process. Through a series of elections, popular
referenda, court decisions and other political developments within the existing constitutional
order, Turkey has changed into a more civilian-led system that increasingly reflects the new
middle class’s dedication to market economics and conservative values.
Turkey’s internal transformation has at least partly driven increased engagement and influence
within its own region and the Muslim world, where its leaders have aspired to a foreign policy of
“zero problems.” At the same time, its leaders have tried to maintain Turkey’s traditional alliances
and economic partnerships with Western nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) and the European Union (EU), routinely asserting that Turkey’s location at the
crossroads of Europe and Asia and its increasing soft power provides it and its allies with
“strategic depth.” Thus, the geopolitical importance of Turkey for the United States in a post-
September 11, 2011, world is now intertwined with its importance as a regional partner and
symbol—politically, culturally, economically, and religiously.
Congressional interest in Turkey is high with respect to the following issues and questions:
Addressing Regional Change in the Greater Middle East: Will Turkey’s policies
and actions be reconcilable with U.S. interests in countries such as Syria, Iraq,
Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Afghanistan with regard to political and financial
support for populations, opposition movements, and transitional governments;
existing and potential future sanctions against autocratic regimes; internationally
mandated humanitarian and/or military action that includes or may include the
use of Turkish bases or territory; and limiting Iranian influence?
Israel and U.S.-Turkey Defense Cooperation: Will increasing tensions in Turkey-
Israel relations hamper U.S. efforts at regional security coordination? Should
these tensions affect congressional views generally on Turkey’s status as a U.S.
ally and/or specifically on sales of weapons—particularly those such as drone
aircraft that involve highly sensitive technology—that Turkey seeks to combat
the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK, or Partiya Karkaren Kurdistan), a U.S.-
designated Foreign Terrorist Organization?
Armenian Genocide Resolution: What are the arguments for and against a
potential U.S. congressional resolution or presidential statement characterizing
World War I-era deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians through actions
of Ottoman Empire (Turkey’s predecessor state) authorities as genocide,
Congressional Research Service
1

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

including considerations of how such a resolution would affect U.S.-Turkey
relations and defense cooperation?
Rights of Non-Muslim Minority Religions: What is Congress’s proper role in
promoting the rights of established Christian and Jewish communities and
religious leaderships and their associated foundations within Turkey to choose
leaders, train clergy, own property, and otherwise function independent of the
Turkish government?
As of the beginning of 2012, there were 131 Members of Congress in the Congressional Caucus
on Turkey and Turkish Americans.1 Congress appropriates relatively small amounts of military
and security assistance for Turkey compared with past sums—approximately $8 million in
FY2011, with less than $6 million requested by the Obama Administration for FY2012. The
Administration does not currently request, nor does Congress appropriate, Economic Support
Fund assistance for Turkey—perhaps partly owing to the over $1 billion in pre-accession
financial and technical assistance Turkey receives from the European Union (EU).
Many U.S. policymakers also are interested in the currently stalemated prospects of Turkish
accession to the EU; promoting increased trade with Turkey; and Turkey’s role in the Cyprus
dispute, especially given tensions in late 2011 over offshore gas drilling in the Eastern
Mediterranean. Domestic Turkish political developments, possibly including a new constitution in
2012, seem likely to affect the country’s civil-military balance, its debate on religion in public
life, the status of its Kurdish and other minorities, and heightened concerns about press and civil
society freedoms, which are in turn likely to determine who shapes Turkey’s foreign policy and
how they conduct it. Turkey’s continued regional influence could depend on its maintaining the
robust economic growth from its past decade that has led to its having the world’s 16th-largest
economy.


1 Figure provided by officials of the Turkish Embassy to the United States, December 2011.
Congressional Research Service
2

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Gauging how U.S. and Turkish interests coincide has become increasingly complicated and
dynamic. In 2011, U.S.-Turkish closeness on issues affecting the Middle East increased because
• Turkish leaders perceive a need for U.S. help to encourage regional democratic
transition while countering actors
with the potential to undermine
internal Turkish and regional
Table 1. Turkey in Brief
stability—including the Iranian
and Syrian regimes and terrorists
Population:
78,785,548 (July 2011 est.)
from its own ethnic Kurdish
Area:
783,562 sq km (302,535 sq.
population; and
mi., slightly larger than Texas)
• The United States may be more
Most Populous Cities:
Istanbul 11.2 mil., Ankara 4.1
dependent on its alliance with
mil., Izmir 3.2 mil., Bursa 2.0
mil., Adana 1.6 mil. (2007 est.)
Turkey because the end of its
military mission in Iraq and other
Ethnic Groups:
Turks 70%-75%; Kurds 18%;
possible future reductions in its
Other minorities 7%-12%
(2008 est.)
Middle East footprint probably
give Turkey greater influence
Religion:
Muslim 99.8% (Sunni 75%-
88%, Alevi 12%-25%), Others
over developments in Iraq and
(mainly Christian and Jewish)
other parts of the region whose
0.2%
stability is of critical U.S.
Literacy:
87% (male 95%, female 80%)
interest.
(2004 est.)2
These factors have led to frequent high-
% of Population 14 or
26.6% (2011 est.)3
level U.S.-Turkey consultation on
Younger:
developments in Syria, Libya, and the
GDP Per Capita:
$10,624 (2011 est.)
broader region. In addition, U.S. officials
Real GDP Growth:
7.5% (2011 est.)
reportedly interpreted Turkey’s
agreement in September 2011 to host a
Inflation:
6.2% (2011 est.)
U.S. early warning radar as part of a
Unemployment:
8.8% (2011 est.)
NATO missile defense system for Europe
External Debt as % of
as a critical sign of Turkey’s interest in
43% (2011 est.)
GDP:
continued strategic cooperation with
Current Account
Washington.4 During the previous year,
(Trade) Deficit as % of
9.8% (2011 est.)
some U.S. and European policymakers
GDP:
and analysts had voiced concern about
Sources: Turkish Ministry of Economy, OECD Economic
Turkey’s reliability as a bilateral and
Outlook, Economist Intelligence Unit, Central Intelligence
NATO ally owing to its active opposition
Agency World Factbook, Turkish Statistics Institute
to United Nations sanctions against Iran

2 Literacy rates in Turkey are higher than those of other large Muslim-majority countries. For example, the Central
Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook says that Egypt has a 71.4% total literacy rate, with only 59.4% of its women
able to read and write, while Iran has a literacy rate of 77%, with 70.4% of women able to read and write.
3 The youth population is considerably higher in Turkey than in countries in the EU, which Turkey aspires to join.
4 The probability that information collected from the radar would be coordinated as necessary with another U.S. missile
defense radar deployed in Israel has led to public statements of concern from Turkish officials and media, while some
Members of Congress have insisted that sharing information for Israel’s potential defense should be a condition of the
radar’s placement in Turkey. The text of a September 19, 2011, letter to President Barack Obama from six Senators on
this subject is available at http://kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=299.

Congressional Research Service
3

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

for its nuclear program and its deteriorating relationship with and criticism of Israel—particularly
in the wake of the May 2010 Gaza flotilla incident that resulted in the death of eight Turks and an
American of Turkish origin.
Short-term fluctuations in the U.S.-Turkey relationship could become the norm as greater fluidity
in domestic, regional, and global developments leads both actors to more frequently reassess their
circumstances and positions vis-à-vis each other and significant third party actors. The two
countries’ acceptance of this situation might lead to shared longer-term views regarding mutual
interests that facilitate broad strategic cooperation, or to more limited expectations regarding the
conditions and timing under which they might make common cause.

Congressional Research Service
4




Figure 1. Turkey and Its Neighbors

Source: CRS Graphics.

CRS-5

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Background and Domestic Political Issues
Since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, a number of developments have transformed
Turkey and its relationship with the United States. Per capita income has more than tripled (from
approximately $3,000 to over $10,000) in the past decade. Economic dynamism and Turkey’s
geopolitical importance—straddling Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia—have increased
its influence regionally and globally. Although Turkey still depends on the United States and other
NATO allies for political and strategic support, growing economic diversification and military
ties with non-NATO countries have contributed to greater Turkish leverage with the West. A
number of internal and external developments have contributed to political changes, most notably
the rise of the AKP and the dwindling capacity of the military and other bulwarks of Turkey’s
traditional secular elite to counter the initiatives of elected government representatives. Over the
past decade, Prime Minister Erdogan has consolidated the AKP’s hold on power.
Historical Overview
Starting with the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, state
officials self-consciously sought to define Turkey as a secular state patterning itself after the West
politically, legally, socially, economically, and militarily. The military was the ultimate protector
of a Kemalist order that included state control of religion; discontinuing the use of Arabic script
in favor of the Latin alphabet; discouraging Islamic modes of dress; and actively promoting
literacy, education, and employment among men and women of all classes and backgrounds.
Changes to the Kemalist Order
In the Past Decade
That the old order is changing is clearly manifested by the political mandate enjoyed for the past
decade by the AKP, which has Islamist roots. These changes have gained greater attention and
momentum through failed attempts (or purported attempts) by elements within the military, the
judiciary, the opposition Republican People’s Party (known by its Turkish acronym, CHP, or
Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi), and others within the Turkish secular elite to thwart the AKP on key
issues. Major AKP victories in the face of domestic pressure included:
• the 2007 election within parliament of the AKP’s Abdullah Gul (a former prime
minister and foreign minister) as Turkey’s president;
• alleged unsuccessful plots to undermine or overthrow the government;
• the unsuccessful 2008 Constitutional Court case attempting to ban and dissolve
the AKP; and
• the September 2010 passage of amendments to the 1982 military-backed
constitution in a nationwide referendum, increasing military and judicial
accountability to civilian and democratic institutions.5

5 “Balance of power,” Economist, October 21, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
6

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Additionally, in July 2011, on the eve of the annual Turkish Supreme Military Council meetings
to discuss promotions and retirements, the chief of the Turkish General Staff (TGS), Isik Kosaner,
resigned simultaneously with the generals who commanded the Turkish land, naval, and air
forces. According to most reports and Kosaner’s account, the resignations were connected with
the generals’ concern about the government’s detention or passing over of several high-ranking
officers. Civilian leaders opposed rewarding officers allegedly involved in plots purportedly
hatched within the military in the early 2000s (called “Ergenekon” and “Sledgehammer”) to
overthrow or undermine the AKP government. Many analysts have portrayed Kosaner’s
resignation and his subsequent replacement by Necdet Ozel, previously the commander of the
Turkish Gendarmerie, as an indication that domestic power has shifted decisively to civilian
government leaders, who are now able to appoint more deferential and constrained military
leaders.6 In January 2012, Turkish authorities took the unprecedented step of arresting former
TGS Chief Ilker Basbug in connection with the Ergenekon case. One Turkish analyst was quoted
as saying in reaction, “The fact that prosecutors are now touching senior generals is a turning
point in the democratization process of Turkey.”7
In Historical and Societal Context
The changes to the old order did not materialize suddenly with the AKP’s rise to power. They
reflect long-standing dynamics in Turkish politics and society that continue to evolve within
Turkey’s existing constitutional framework. Popular desires to allow greater public space for
traditional Islamic-oriented lifestyles and societal participation manifested themselves politically
as early as the 1950s during the rule of Turkey’s first democratically elected leader, Adnan
Menderes. Menderes was eventually overthrown by a military-led coup in 1960 (and
subsequently hanged), and the military continued to discourage the overt influence of religion in
politics, intervening again in 1971 and 1980 to replace governments that it deemed had lost
control of the country or had steered it away from secularism or toward ideological extremes.
The military allowed Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs (later Prime Minister and
President) Turgut Ozal to begin liberalizing the traditionally statist Turkish economy following its
restoration of internal order in 1980. This helped set in motion a chain of events leading to the
economic and political empowerment of millions of Turks hailing from traditional communities
removed from Turkey’s more secular urban centers. Subsequent social and political developments
reflected accommodation of this rising middle class—many of whom migrated to bigger cities—
and their values. For example, imam hatip religious schools, initially established for young males
seeking clerical careers, became widely attended by youth from religiously conservative
families.8 In 1997, Turkey’s first-ever Islamist-led coalition government was compelled to resign
by the military, but junior members of the coalition-leading Refah (Welfare) Party went on to
form the AKP,9 which they characterize as a center-right reformist party without an Islamist
agenda.

6 Gareth Jenkins, “Ergenekon, Sledgehammer, and the Politics of Turkish Justice: Conspiracies and Coincidences,”
MERIA Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, June 2011; Soli Ozel, “Military Resignations: Crisis or New Beginning?”, German
Marshall Fund of the United States, August 3, 2011.
7 “Former Turkish armed forces chief ordered held for trial,” Reuters, January 6, 2011.
8 According to Reuters, an estimated one third of the AKP’s parliamentary members in 2010, including Prime Minister
Erdogan, attended imam hatip schools. Simon Akam, “A ‘model’ Islamic education from Turkey?”, Reuters, February
23, 2010.
9 AKP members generally use the acronym “AK Party” or “AK,” partly because the Turkish word ak means “clean”
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Popular discontent with coalition rule stemming from a 1999-2001 economic and financial crisis
and perceptions of government corruption and ineffectiveness opened the way for the AKP to
achieve single-party rule with its first election victory in 2002. Since the AKP came to power, the
military has reportedly become less scrutinizing of its rising officers’ religious backgrounds and
views, taxes and regulations on the consumption of alcohol have increased, and the wearing of
headscarves by women in universities and other public places has gained legal and social
acceptance.
Domestic and international observers have raised concerns about the AKP government’s respect
for civil liberties.10 Although infringement upon press freedom is of routine concern in Turkey,
recent measures taken by authorities have been criticized inside and outside of Turkey as
unusually severe and ideologically driven.11 These measures include multiple arrests of
journalists and multi-billion-dollar tax fraud penalties against the country’s largest pro-secularist
media firm (the Dogan Group).12
Concerns about press freedom exist against the backdrop of ongoing criminal investigations into
the Ergenekon and Sledgehammer cases discussed above. Many in the media claim that even if
some of the anti-government plots were real, authorities with pro-AKP leanings or sympathies for
the Fethullah Gulen movement (discussed below) have used the allegations to silence or weaken
political and ideological opponents.13 Concerns about AKP overreach reflect anxieties among
some Turks that, with the weakening of the military and other guardians of the Kemalist order, it
is unclear to what extent effective checks and balances exist on Erdogan’s charismatic and
Islamic-friendly single-party rule.
Fethullah Gulen Movement
The Fethullah Gulen movement (or community) became a nationwide grassroots movement in the
1980s as part of the emergence of the new conservative Turkish middle class. Its societal rise has
roughly paralleled the AKP’s political rise, and Gulen-inspired businesses, media enterprises, and
civil society organizations now exercise considerable influence in Turkey.14 The movement is
comprised of adherents of Turkish imam Fethullah Gulen, who is now a permanent U.S.

(...continued)
and “unblemished,” thus presenting an image of incorruptibility.
10 For examples, see the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2010.
11 During her July 2011 visit to Turkey, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to these measures by saying, “I do
not think it is necessary or in Turkey’s interests to be cracking down. It seems to me inconsistent with all the other
advances Turkey has made.” “Clinton says Turkey must address concerns on backsliding on rights,” Associated Press,
July 16, 2011.
12 Some of the penalties against the Dogan Group have been reversed on appeal to Turkish courts, while others remain
under appeal.
13 One widely discussed case involves the April 2011 arrest of Ahmet Sik and Nedem Sener, two prominent
investigative journalists who were charged with involvement in the Ergenekon plots. Sik was reportedly close to
finishing a book whose title translates as The Imam’s Army. The book is reportedly about the Gulen movement’s
alleged infiltration of the Turkish police over the past 25 years. Several observers believe that the detentions of Sik and
Sener were motivated by a desire to silence them rather than legitimate evidence of their criminal involvement. Jurgen
Gottschlich, “Arrested Journalist’s Book Claims Turkish Police Infiltrated by Islamic Movement,” Spiegel Online,
April 6, 2011.
14 For example, Gulenists run Zaman, the most widely circulated newspaper in Turkey, and its English-language sister
publication Today’s Zaman.
Congressional Research Service
8

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

resident,15 and who insists that he is neutral as to political parties and leaders in Turkey.16 Gulen
preaches a distinctly Turkish brand of Islam that condemns terrorism17 and can function in
concert with secular democratic mechanisms and modern economic and technological modes of
living. Gulenist-affiliated organizations also maintain a presence in the United States18 and other
regions worldwide.
The parallel rise of the AKP and the Gulen movement has unsettled many pro-secularist Turks
who detect greater ideological bias within Turkish state and civil society institutions and who are
concerned about the potential for imposition of Islamic norms and suppression of dissent. Other
observers see the AKP’s and Gulenists’ emergence as an authentic and even necessary
development in Turkey’s democratic evolution because of their views’ representativeness of large
segments of the population. This, in these observers’ view, provides a counterbalance to Turkish
secularist ideology that in the past had been rigidly enforced and inculcated.
Economy and Trade
The AKP’s political successes have been aided considerably by robust Turkish economic growth
that was set back only briefly as a result of the 2008-2009 global economic crisis. Growth rates,
fueled by diversified Turkish conglomerates such as Sabanci and Koc as well as “Anatolian
tigers” (small- to medium-sized, export-oriented businesses concentrated in central and southern
Turkey), have been comparable in the past decade to those of China, India, and other major
developing economies. According to the Turkish Ministry of Economy, Turkey’s construction
industry, with extensive projects domestically as well as in Russia, Central Asia, the Balkans, the
Middle East, and Africa, was listed by Engineering News Record in 2010 as second only to
China’s in the number of projects undertaken worldwide.19 Its dependence on foreign investment
and exports could bring on future challenges from a potential economic slowdown in the
European Union—Turkey’s main trading partner.

15 Gulen lives in seclusion at a retreat center with some of his adherents in Saylorsburg, PA, in the Pocono Mountains.
He came to the United States in 1999 for medical treatment for a cardiovascular condition, and elected to stay after an
ultimately unsuccessful case was brought against him in Turkey charging that he sought to undermine Turkey’s secular
government.
16 Gulen asserted in August 2010 that “we are still at an equal distance from every party. We never told anybody to
enroll in a specific [party], attend its rallies or act as its supporters.” “Gulen Endorses Reform Package, Appealing for
‘Yes’ on Sept. 12,” Today’s Zaman, August 1, 2010. He has backed AKP-proposed constitutional amendments, but
distinguished his support for the substance of the initiatives from support for the party or individual leaders that had
proposed them. “Gulen Says His Call for Yes Vote Not Linked to Political Motives,” Today’s Zaman, August 25, 2010.
17 Days after the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on September 11, 2011, Gulen took out advertisements in the New York
Times
and Washington Post condemning the attacks as incompatible with the teachings of Islam.
18 Gulenists are involved with Turkish and Turkish-American trade associations and foundations active in the United
States—both regionally and in the Washington, DC, area. Such organizations reportedly include the Turkic American
Alliance umbrella of organizations and the business confederation TUSKON. Ilhan Tanir, “The Gulen movement plays
big in Washington,” Hurriyet Daily News, May 14, 2010; Helen Rose Ebaugh, The Gulen Movement: A Sociological
Analysis of a Civic Movement Rooted in Moderate Islam
, New York: Springer, 2010, p. 49. Gulenist organizations also
have reportedly founded and operate more than 120 public charter schools in over 25 U.S. states. These schools have
generated publicity both for their high academic quality and for questions and possible federal investigations regarding
their hiring and business practices. Stephanie Saul, “Charter Schools Tied to Turkey Grow in Texas,” New York Times,
June 6, 2011; Martha Woodall and Claudio Gatti, “U.S. charter-school network with Turkish link draws federal
attention,” Philadelphia Inquirer, March 20, 2011.
19 Turkish Economic Ministry correspondence with CRS, December 2011.
Congressional Research Service
9

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

An Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) forecast from 2009
projected that Turkey’s economy would grow at the highest rate of any OECD member from 2011
to 2017, with projected average annual real GDP growth of 6.7%.20 However, a potential Europe-
related slowdown could slow 2012 growth to between 2% and 4%. Recent monetary policy
decisions by Turkey’s central bank to lower interest rates have limited foreign capital inflows and
contributed to current consumer-spending-driven growth. They also have contributed to a
depreciation in Turkey’s currency (the lira) that might help Turkey with its import-export balance,
but also possibly fuel inflation,21 which Turkey seeks to control through relatively conservative
fiscal policies and banking practices. Major Turkish exports include textiles, foodstuffs, iron and
steel, and machinery; while major imports include chemicals, fuels, and semi-finished goods.
Structural economic goals for Turkey include incentivizing greater research and development to
encourage Turkish technological innovation and global competitiveness, harmonizing the
educational system with future workforce needs, and increasing and diversifying energy supplies
to meet ever-growing consumption demands.
The European Union is Turkey’s main trading partner by far, while the United States is Turkey’s
fourth-largest trading partner (behind the EU, Russia, and China—see “Bilateral Trade
Promotion” below). Though Turkish pursuit of new markets since 1991 has reduced trade with
both the EU (from nearly 50% to just over 40%) and the United States (from over 9% to under
5%) as a percentage of Turkey’s total trade, overall trade volume with both continues to increase.
Over the same period, trade with Russia as a percentage of Turkey’s total trade has more than
doubled—from 5% to over 11%—largely due to energy imports. China’s share of Turkish trade is
also increasing, with volume reportedly rising from $1 billion per year to $24 billion per year in
the past decade.22 Iran (as discussed below) is—like Russia—a major source of Turkish energy.
Turkey’s importance as a regional energy transport corridor (see “Turkey as a Transit Corridor
and Potential Source” below) elevates Turkey’s increasing relevance for world energy markets
while also providing Turkey with opportunities to satisfy its own growing domestic energy
needs.23 Additionally, Turkey has actively pursued economic opportunities with many Arab
Middle Eastern countries in recent years through free trade and no-visa agreements. As political
upheaval in the region continues, it could contribute to future challenges to Turkish economic
growth and foreign investment.
Major Minority Groups
Kurds
Ethnic Kurds constitute 15%-20% of Turkey’s population, and are concentrated in urban areas
and the relatively impoverished southeastern region of the country. Kurdish reluctance to
recognize Turkish state authority—a dynamic that also exists between Kurds and national
governments in Iraq, Iran, and Syria—and harsh Turkish measures to quell claims of Kurdish
identity have fed tensions that have periodically worsened since the foundation of the republic in

20 OECD Economic Outlook No. 86, November 2009.
21 “TEXT-Fitch revises Turkey’s outlook to stable,” Reuters, November 23, 2011.
22 Gokhan Bacik, “Envisioning the Asia-Pacific Century: Turkey between the United States and China,” On Turkey,
German Marshall Fund of the United States, December 8, 2011.
23 Transatlantic Academy, Getting to Zero: Turkey, Its Neighbors, and the West, June 2010, citing Turkish government
statistics.
Congressional Research Service
10

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

1923. Since 1984, the Turkish military has waged an off-and-on struggle to put down a separatist
insurgency and urban terrorism campaign by the PKK (whose founder, Abdullah Ocalan, is
profiled in Appendix A).24 This struggle was most intense during the 1990s, but resumed after a
lull in 2003 after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The PKK uses safe havens in northern Iraq to
coordinate and launch attacks, and according to the U.S. government partially finances its
activities through criminal activities, including its operation of a Europe-wide drug trafficking
network.25 The initially secessionist demands of the PKK have since evolved to a less ambitious
goal of greater cultural and political autonomy. The Turkish military’s approach to neutralizing
the PKK has been routinely criticized by Western governments and human rights organizations
for being overly hard on ethnic Kurds—thousands have been imprisoned for PKK involvement or
sympathies and hundreds of thousands have been displaced.
Turkey’s AKP government—which has a sizeable constituency in rural Kurdish areas because of
its appeal to traditional values—has acknowledged that the integration of Kurds into Turkish
society will require political, cultural, and economic development approaches in addition to the
more traditional security-based approach. By appealing to common Islamic identity, Erdogan and
other government ministers have moved away from the state’s traditional unwillingness to
acknowledge the multiethnic nature of Turkey’s citizenry. Thus far, however, government
statements or efforts aimed at giving greater rights to Kurds and greater normalized status to
Kurdish nationalist leaders and former militants have been politically undermined by upswings in
PKK attacks and public manifestations of Kurdish nationalist pride. The government has adopted
some measures allowing greater use of Kurdish languages in education, election campaigns, and
the media. Kurdish nationalist leaders demand that any future changes to Turkey’s constitution
not suppress Kurdish ethnic and linguistic identity. They also seek to modify the electoral law to
allow for greater Kurdish nationalist participation in Turkish politics by lowering the percentage-
vote threshold (currently 10%) for political parties in parliament.26
Alevis
Most Muslims in Turkey are Sunni, but 10 million to 20 million are Alevis (of whom about 20%
are ethnic Kurds). The Alevi sect of Islam is an offshoot of Shiism27 that contains strands from
pre-Islamic Anatolian traditions. Alevism has been traditionally influenced by Sufi mysticism that
emphasizes believers’ individual spiritual paths, but it defies precise description owing to its lack
of centralized leadership and reliance on oral traditions historically kept secret from outsiders.
Alevis have long been among the strongest supporters of Turkey’s secular state, which they
perceive as their protector from the Sunni majority.

24 In Footnote 2 of a September 2011 report, the International Crisis Group stated that Turkish government figures
estimate that 11,700 Turks have been killed since fighting began in the early 1980s. This figure includes Turkish
security personnel of various types and Turkish civilians (including Turkish Kurds who are judged not to have been
PKK combatants). The same report states that Turkish estimates of PKK dead during the same time period run from
30,000 to 40,000. International Crisis Group, Turkey: Ending the PKK Insurgency, Europe Report No. 213, September
20, 2011.
25 U.S. Treasury Department Press Release, “Five PKK Leaders Designated Narcotics Traffickers,” April 20, 2011.
26 In the 2011 election, 61 members of the Kurdish nationalist Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) ran as independents
for individual geographic constituencies because of a calculation that the party would not reach the 10% threshold.
These independents won 36 of the constituencies and 6% of the national vote.
27 For information comparing and contrasting Sunnism and Shiism, see CRS Report RS21745, Islam: Sunnis and
Shiites
, by Christopher M. Blanchard; and CRS Report WVB00001, Sunni and Shi'a Islam: Video Brief, by Christopher
M. Blanchard.
Congressional Research Service
11

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

A New Constitution?
The AKP has proposed that a new constitution replace the one imposed by the military in 1982.
Most observers expect that a new constitution would more firmly place the state’s governing
mechanisms—including the executive, military, judiciary, Supreme Electoral Council, Council of
Higher Education, and Supreme Board of Radio and Television—under democratic civilian
control. Other possible changes include greater emphasis on individual rights and greater
delegation of authority to provincial and local officials. It is unclear whether furthering civilian
control in an era of AKP dominance is compatible with the goal of strengthening Turkish civil
liberties and decentralizing state power. Future debate over a new constitution and its
implementation might include discussion of the potential merits and drawbacks of single-party
rule and robust executive power. Do Turks prefer a system that is more subject to the personal
direction of popular leaders, or one that might sacrifice some expediency of action in favor of
greater consensus across party and ideological lines? This debate could be shaped by Turkey’s
economic outlook and its citizens’ concerns about potential national security threats.
Although the AKP’s June 2011 electoral victory provided it with a significant mandate and nearly
50% of the vote, its inability to garner a 60% supermajority in Turkey’s unicameral parliament
(the Turkish Grand National Assembly) has led most analysts to conclude that the AKP will need
to find opposition support for its constitutional proposals. The need for consensus has dimmed the
prospect that Erdogan could use the constitutional reform process to vest greater power in the
presidency—an office that he may seek near the end of his current term as prime minister.
A Constitutional Reconciliation Commission including all four parties represented in
parliament—the AKP, the secular-leaning CHP, the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), and the
Kurdish nationalist Peace and Democracy Party (BDP)—was formed in late 2011, led by
Parliamentary Speaker Cemil Cicek, who has stated his goal of having a new constitution
approved by popular referendum by the end of 2012. Analysts debate whether Erdogan will seek
to redefine himself as a more consensus-oriented politician in the debate over constitutional
reform, or whether he will try to establish his preferences by applying greater political pressure
on his opponents if significant disagreements arise.
Table 2. Parties in Turkey’s Parliament
(Based on national elections held in June 2011)
June 2011
Members of
Party
Pct Vote
Parliament General
Orientation
Justice and Development Party (AKP)
49.8%
326
Economic liberalism, social
Leader: Recep Tayyip Erdogan
conservatism
Republican People’s Party (CHP)
26.0% 135
Social
democracy,
pro-secular
Leader: Kemal Kilicdaroglu
Nationalist Action Party (MHP)
13.0% 53
Nationalism
Leader: Devlet Bahceli
Peace and Democracy Party (BDP)
6.6%a
36
Ethnic Kurdish interests, social
Leader: Selahattin Demirtas
democracy
Source: Supreme Electoral Board of Turkey, Parties and Elections in Europe Website
a. This is the percentage vote figure for the 61 BDP members who ran in the election as independents for
individual geographic constituencies, as described in footnote 26.
Congressional Research Service
12

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

BDP support for constitutional proposals that address the questions of Kurdish civil, linguistic,
and cultural rights and local autonomy could become particularly important in light of increases
in PKK violence and Turkish reprisals following the June election, as discussed above. The first
clause of Article 3 of the 1982 constitution reads, “The Turkish state, with its territory and nation,
is an indivisible entity. Its language is Turkish.” Because the constitution states that its first three
articles are unamendable, even proposing a change could face judicial obstacles. Some observers
believe that recent arrests of prominent BDP members and other Kurdish nationalist political
activists, as well as a December 2011 Turkish air strike that mistakenly killed 35 civilians,28
might be souring the atmosphere for constitutional compromise.
The AKP government maintains that a new constitution will advance democratization and help
the country meet criteria for EU membership. In one European observer’s analysis of
constitutional changes, however, “European integration and democratization [in Turkey] are
increasingly hostage to the struggle for power among the elites”: the “not-so-new” AKP ruling
elite and the “remnants of the so-called Kemalist establishment.”29
Minority Religious Rights
While U.S. constitutional law prohibits the excessive entanglement of the government with
religion, republican Turkey has maintained secularism or “laicism” by controlling or closely
overseeing religious activities in the country—partly in order to counter the openly Islamic nature
of previous centuries of Ottoman rule. Sunni Muslims, although not monolithic in their views on
freedom of worship, have better recourse than other religious adherents to the democratic process
for accommodation of their views because of their majority status. Minority Muslim sects (most
prominently, the Alevis) and non-Muslim religions largely depend on legal appeals, political
advocacy, and outside support from Western countries to protect their rights in Turkey.
U.S. and congressional concerns focus on the rights of established Christian and Jewish
communities and religious leaderships and their associated foundations and organizations within
Turkey to choose leaders, train clergy, own property, and otherwise function independently of the
Turkish government.30 Grievances are routinely expressed by Members of Congress through
proposed congressional resolutions and through letters to the President and to Turkish leaders on
behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the spiritual center of Orthodox
Christianity based in Istanbul.31 On December 13, 2011, for example, the House passed H.Res.
306—“Urging the Republic of Turkey to safeguard its Christian heritage and to return confiscated
church properties”—by voice vote.32

28 Ayla Albayrak, “Turkey’s Erdogan Promises Probe of Airstrike,” wsj.com, December 30, 2011.
29 Emiliano Alessandri, “Democratization and Europeanization in Turkey After the September 12 Referendum,” Insight
Turkey
, vol. 12, no. 4, fall 2010.
30 The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has included Turkey on its watch list since 2009. The
commission’s website carries its 2011 annual report (covering April 2010-March 2011). See also the State
Department’s International Religious Freedom Report for July-December 2010, September 13, 2011.
31 The Patriarchate traces its roots to the Apostle Andrew. The most commonly articulated congressional grievances on
behalf of the Patriarchate—whose ecumenicity is not acknowledged by the Turkish government, but also not objected
to when acknowledged by others—are the non-operation of the Halki Theological School on Heybeliada Island near
Istanbul, the requirement that the Patriarch be a Turkish citizen, and the failure of the Turkish government to return
previously confiscated properties.
32 H.Res. 306 was sponsored by Representative Edward Royce. Other proposed resolutions from the 112th Congress
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

At various times in the Turkish Republic’s history, the state has confiscated the properties of
religious groups as part of its efforts to control religious life in the country. In late August 2011,
Prime Minister Erdogan announced that Turkey would return properties confiscated since the
adoption of a 1935 law governing religious foundations, to the extent the properties are still held
publicly.33 Many of these properties were confiscated following a Turkish High Court of Appeals
ruling in 1974 that had invalidated non-Muslim religious foundations’ ability to acquire real
property.34 Properties to be returned potentially include schools, orphanages, cemeteries,
commercial properties, and hospitals affiliated with various Christian churches and Turkey’s
Jewish community. According to one report, “The government’s willingness to explore restitution
does not yet cover the hundreds, if not thousands, of property seizures from individuals, or the
takeovers that occurred before 1936. An even more contentious point is confiscation that occurred
prior to the formation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923.”35 According to a U.S. diplomat based
in Turkey, a Greek school in Istanbul was returned to a religious community association in
November 2011, with more property returns expected in the near future pursuant to each
organization’s application for return of applicable properties and the determination of the
government’s General Directorate of Foundations.36 Prior to Erdogan’s August decree, which
amended an earlier 2008 law, the European Court of Human Rights made multiple rulings
requiring Turkey to pay compensation to various religious-affiliated organizations after earlier
attempts by the government to remedy the situation did not satisfy the organizations.
Foreign Policy on Matters of U.S. Interest
The “Turkish Model” and Regional Stance
As unrest and political change have occurred across much of the Arab Middle East since late
2010, Turkey might perceive that the United States has greater need of Turkish support in the
region. Turkey exercises considerable regional influence given its military, economic, and
political power—aided by its status as an established Muslim-majority democracy and its
membership in NATO.
Political activists in several countries facing leadership transitions or potential transitions—
including Tunisia and Egypt—have cited Turkey as a potential model for their own political
systems. This has raised questions among leaders and analysts about which aspects of Turkey’s
system these activists seek to emulate—whether it is its outwardly secular mechanisms, its
historical military guardianship, its economic vitality, its political system in which civilian leaders
with Islamist leanings have exerted increasing power, or some combination of these.

(...continued)
include H.Res. 180 (“Urging Turkey to respect the rights and religious freedoms of the Ecumenical Patriarchate”), and
S.Res. 196 (“A resolution calling upon the Government of Turkey to facilitate the reopening of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate’s Theological School of Halki without condition or further delay”).
33 According to reports, the foundations would receive compensation for property since transferred to third parties. See
Sebnum Arsu, “Turkish Government to Return Seized Property to Religious Minorities,” New York Times, August 29,
2011.
34 The ability for these foundations to acquire real property has since been restored. The 1974 court ruling came at a
time of high Turkish-Greek tensions with the outbreak of conflict in Cyprus.
35 Dorian Jones, “Turkey: Making Room for Religious Minorities,” EurasiaNet.org, October 3, 2011.
36 CRS correspondence with U.S. diplomat based in Turkey, November 2011.
Congressional Research Service
14

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Arab interpretations of the “Turkish model” tend to emphasize the recent democratic and
economic empowerment of Turkey’s middle class and the connection between this and Turkey’s
emergence as a regional power with a foreign policy independent of the West. Some Western
views favor some notion of military guardianship of the state from disorder and ideological
extremes (a model that many Westerners have historically equated with republican Turkey).37
While some in both the Arab world and the West suspect that Turkey’s government favors the rise
of pro-democracy Islamist movements that emulate the AKP, Prime Minister Erdogan was
criticized by North African Islamists during his September 2011 trip to Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya
for voicing his support for secular democratic mechanisms. Many analysts and Turkish officials
have stated that Turkey might more aptly be characterized as an inspiration than as a model
because the historical experiences and characteristics of its people, society, and economic system
are distinct from those in Arab countries.38
Within the context of ongoing regional change, Turkey has sought to balance its support for
country-specific democratic reforms with its interests in overall stability. Turkish interests appear
to be threefold: (1) It is the leading Muslim-majority democracy in the region with an interest in
promoting its political values, (2) it has a significant economic stake in the region, and (3) it is
concerned about the regional balance of power and possible spillover effects for its own security.
Turkish leaders are particularly concerned about developments at or near its borders with Syria
and Iraq, especially given Turkey’s own on-and-off struggles with Kurdish separatist militants
who maintain safe havens in northern Iraq and who could be further strengthened by their fellow
ethnic Kurds in Syria, Iraq, and Iran if those states’ governments are weakened.
In 2011-2012, Turkey has shown greater openness to supporting U.S. and NATO goals in the
region than it did prior to the widespread political change. One could argue that in the wake of the
Iraq war, Turkey believed that U.S. intervention in the region had played a large part in creating
or exacerbating political instabilities and sectarian tensions that fueled regional security threats,
including the terrorist threat Turkey faces from the PKK. Some analysts postulated that Turkey’s
opposition to U.N. sanctions against Iran and greater closeness with Iran, Syria, and Hamas were
based on a belief in the superiority of a regional security order with more local and less U.S. and
Western involvement.
The changes of 2011 appear to have altered Turkey’s stance on this question. One of Turkey’s
concerns is that region-wide unrest, especially in neighboring Syria, could endanger the political
stability of the entire area and possibly jeopardize Turkey’s political and economic influence in
the region. Turkish leaders also may have concluded that U.S. involvement—while perhaps not
without risks—is desirable on balance in order to counter Iranian and possibly Syrian capacities
and designs for capitalizing on regional uncertainty. This could at least partly account for
Turkey’s agreement in September 2011 to host the missile defense radar discussed above, which
is generally thought to be focused on defending against potential Iranian missile threats to
Europe. After Turkish leaders were unable to use their supposedly close relations with the Asad
regime in Syria and the Qadhafi regime in Libya to persuade either regime to address demands of

37 For a critique of viewpoints that favor a Turkey-like military-led transition in Egypt, see Steven Cook, “The Turkish
Model for Egypt? Beware of False Analogies,” blogs.cfr.org, February 4, 2011.
38 Nathalie Tocci, Omer Taspinar, Henri Barkey, Eduard Soler i Lecha, and Hassan Nafaa, Turkey and the Arab Spring:
Implications for Turkish Foreign Policy from a Transatlantic Perspective
, German Marshall Fund of the United States,
2011; Sinan Ulgen, From Inspiration to Aspiration: Turkey in the New Middle East, Carnegie Europe, December 2011.
Congressional Research Service
15

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

protesting citizens and opposition groups, they accepted and to some extent adopted the U.S. and
European approach of supporting opposition groups and sanctions against those regimes.
This change in approach by Prime Minister Erdogan seems consistent with his desire to project a
regionally populist stance that is not viewed by Arab populations as siding with autocrats or
entrenched commercial interests. Turkey may seek even greater U.S. help to maintain regional
stability if unfolding events significantly disrupt its security or threaten Turkish trade or attraction
of outside investment.
However, as one Turkish analyst has written, interpreting Turkey’s changes in regional policy as
signaling a fundamental shift toward greater closeness to the West may be overstating matters in
the same way that Turkey’s supposed shift away from the West may have been overstated in
earlier years:
Turkey’s behavior is driven by the same objective as ever. Partnership with the West, at this
current juncture, is a valuable instrument as long as it enhances Ankara’s ability to meet the
new challenges and expands the room to maneuver, not because of its inherent value. The
quest for strategic autonomy still instructs Turkish leaders’ thinking on international affairs,
and is unlikely to disappear.39
Several observers noted in late 2011 that Turkey’s aspirations for a zero-problem foreign policy at
its borders may be at an end given reversals in its relations with Syria and Iran. In this regard, two
analysts from the International Crisis Group asserted that
Turkey may be left with a foreign policy with no conceptual framework to unite its many
contradictions: an unsustainable mix of alliance with the U.S. and confrontation with Israel;
a social-economic model built on convergence with Europe but in which the EU negotiation
process has stalled; idealistic enthusiasm for Muslim democrats but continued links to other
authoritarian leaders; public displays of Muslim piety alongside support for secular
constitutions; and bitter arguments with all those keen to capitalize on the above to cast
doubt on Turkey’s role in the Middle East.40
Israel
In the 1990s and early 2000s, Turkey and Israel enjoyed close military ties that fostered and
reinforced cooperation in other areas, including a free trade agreement signed in 2000. In recent
years, however, Turkey-Israel relations have worsened. This downturn can be attributed to a
number of factors, including the May 2010 Gaza flotilla incident (mentioned above) and Turkish-
Israeli differences over Israel’s invasion of Hamas-controlled Gaza in December 2008. It also
parallels the military’s declining role in Turkish society, and the greater empowerment of Prime
Minister Erdogan and other AKP and national leaders who seem increasingly to believe that
criticizing many of Israel’s policies is both merited and domestically popular.
Turkey’s deteriorated relationship with Israel, which Erdogan may be emphasizing to some extent
as part of his strategy to gather populist regional support, presents problems for the United States

39 Saban Kardas, “Quest for Strategic Autonomy Continues, or How to Make Sense of Turkey’s ‘New Wave,’” On
Turkey
Analysis, German Marshall Fund of United States, November 28, 2011.
40 Hugh Pope and Peter Harling, “Are there ‘zero problems’ for Turkey?”, Daily Star (Lebanon), November 29, 2011.
See also Steven Cook, “Turkey: From Zero Problems to Cok Problems,” blogs.cfr.org, November 14, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
16

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

because of the U.S. desire to coordinate its regional policies with two of its closest allies.
Although a lack of rapprochement may not render U.S. security coordination efforts impossible, it
could have eventual repercussions for regional order and undermine the alignment of U.S. and
Turkish interests elsewhere in the region. This could especially be the case if Turkey-Israel
disagreements on Palestinian issues result in future high-profile incidents or if Turkey seeks to
actively exclude Israel from regional security arrangements with Egypt or other countries.
In September 2011, diplomatic efforts aimed at getting Israel to apologize to Turkey for the
killing of eight Turks and an American of Turkish origin during the May 2010 Gaza flotilla
incident reportedly stalled due to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s concerns about
the potential Israeli public reaction.41 When the report of the U.N. Secretary-General’s panel of
inquiry on the incident—also known as the “Palmer Report”42—was leaked by the New York
Times
and other outlets, Turkey announced that it was downgrading its diplomatic relations with
Israel to the second secretary level—effectively expelling Israel’s ambassador to Turkey.43 It also
suspended all Turkey-Israel military agreements. The countries’ bilateral free trade agreement
remains in effect.
Turkey continues to insist on both an apology and compensation from Israel for families of the
Turkish fatalities in return for the possibility of normalization. It also seeks a lifting of the Israeli
naval blockade on the Gaza Strip. Erdogan spoke of the possibility of having Turkish naval
vessels accompany future aid flotillas to Gaza, but subsequently said that no plans for such
voyages were imminent. Erdogan also speculated that international sanctions against Israel could
be a source of leverage in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.44 Though Erdogan supports a
negotiated two-state solution to the conflict, he backs Palestinian pursuit of United Nations
membership and Fatah-Hamas rapprochement as well. In January 2012, Erdogan introduced
Hamas’s prime minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, as the “elected prime minister of Palestine” at a
session of Turkey’s parliament. Since Haniyeh’s visit, the Turkish government has flatly denied
rumors that Turkey might provide Hamas with funding or host Hamas’s external leadership given
Hamas’s search for an alternative to its current Damascus headquarters and its troubled prospects
for continued assistance from Iran.
It is debatable whether an active U.S. brokering role would improve or worsen prospects for
Turkey-Israel rapprochement and for future U.S. relations with both countries. In a December
2011 speech, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said:

41 The deaths took place under disputed circumstances.
42 The report is available at http://go.ynet.co.il/pic/news/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf. The panel was chaired by
former New Zealand Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and included former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and
one participant each from Turkey and Israel. The report expressly provided that its findings were not intended to decide
legal questions. Upon the report’s leak, Turkish officials disputed the report’s finding that Israel’s naval blockade of the
Gaza Strip was legal, notwithstanding the report’s criticism of Israel’s handling of the incident itself.
43 Turkey similarly downgraded diplomatic relations with Israel in 1980 following Israel’s enactment of a law on the
status of Jerusalem that was deemed a violation of international law by U.N. Security Council Resolution 478.
Resolution 478 passed on August 20, 1980 by a vote of 14-0, with the United States as the lone abstention. Turkey
reinstated Israel’s ambassador in 1992 following the 1991 Madrid Conference that signaled the beginning of the Middle
East peace process. Linda Gradstein, “No end in sight for downward spiral in Turkish-Israeli ties,” JTA, September 6,
2011.
44 Time magazine staff interview with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, globalspin.blogs.time.com,
September 26, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
17

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Like all of you, I’ve been deeply troubled by the direction of the Turkish-Israeli relationship.
Turkey is a key NATO ally and has proven to be a real partner in our effort to support
democratic change and stand against authoritarian regimes that use violence against their
own people. It is in Israel’s interest, Turkey’s interest, and U.S. interest, for Israel to
reconcile with Turkey. And both Turkey and Israel need to do more to put their relationship
back on the right track.45
Many analysts have postulated that growing tension between Turkey and Israel could lead to
increased congressional opposition to U.S. strategic cooperation with Turkey and perhaps to
greater willingness to consider passing a so-called Armenian genocide resolution (see “Possible
Armenian Genocide” below).46 Following the May 2010 flotilla incident, the Senate passed
S.Res. 548 by voice vote on June 24, 2010. The resolution condemned the attack by the
“extremists aboard the Mavi Marmara,” invoked Israel’s right to self-defense, and encouraged
“the Government of Turkey to recognize the importance of continued strong relations with Israel
and the necessity of closely scrutinizing organizations with potential ties to terrorist groups” (a
reference to the Turkish Islamist non-governmental organization IHH Humanitarian Relief
Foundation, the main organizer of the flotilla).47 In early 2011, a New York Times Magazine article
quoted a Turkish diplomat responsible for U.S. relations as saying, “We’re getting a lot of flak
from the Hill. We used to get hit by the Greek lobby and the Armenian lobby, but we were
protected by the Jewish lobby. Now the Jewish lobby is coming after us as well.”48
Syria49
Before civil unrest broke out in Syria in March 2011, Turkey had cultivated close relations with
the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Asad by such means as holding joint military exercises,
negotiating free trade and no-visa travel agreements, and mediating Syria’s indirect talks with
Israel in 2008. When unrest began in Syria, Erdogan and other Turkish leaders urged Asad to
respond by implementing significant political reforms. Asad’s failure to undertake serious reforms
and his reliance on violent suppression of demonstrations and targeting of oppositionists led
Erdogan to criticize Asad and his tactics with increasing intensity. Erdogan called on Asad to step
down in November 2011, following attacks against Turkish diplomatic installations in Syria by
pro-Asad demonstrators and against buses carrying Turkish pilgrims returning from Mecca by
regime military forces at a security checkpoint. Foreign Minister Davutoglu subsequently
announced multiple military, financial, and diplomatic sanctions against Asad’s regime.50 Turkish

45 Transcript of remarks by Secretary Panetta at Saban Forum, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, December 2,
2011, available at http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4937.
46 “Turkey-Israel fallout threatens wider damage, say analysts,” Agence France Presse, September 2, 2011.
47 In the House, Representative Dina Titus sponsored H.Res. 1532, which was not passed but garnered 23 co-sponsors.
H.Res. 1532 would have called upon the Secretary of State to investigate the “role of any foreign governments,
including the Republic of Turkey, which may have aided and abetted the organizers of the recent Gaza Flotilla mission
to breach Israeli coastal security and assault the naval defense forces of the State of Israel.”
48 James Traub, “Turkey’s Rules,” New York Times Magazine, January 20, 2011.
49 For more information, see CRS Report RL33487, Unrest in Syria and U.S. Sanctions Against the Asad Regime, by
Jeremy M. Sharp and Christopher M. Blanchard.
50 The initial sanctions announced included: (1) suspending the Turkey-Syria High Level Strategic Cooperation
Council; (2) travel ban and asset freeze on leading regime officials and businessmen believed to be responsible for or
supportive of violent repression of protests; (3) embargo on sales of weapons and military equipment; (4) preventing
the transit of weapons/military equipment to Syria from third countries through Turkey; (5) halting dealings with
Syria’s central bank; (6) freezing financial assets of Syrian government in Turkey; (7) halting lending relationships
with Syrian government; (8) prohibiting new transactions with Syrian Trade Bank; and (9) suspending the Eximbank
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

leaders reportedly consult frequently on Syria with President Obama and his top national security
aides.
Events in Syria have prompted Turkish officials to state that they consider the ongoing unrest a
matter of internal Turkish concern, not simply a matter of international affairs. In June 2011,
security forces loyal to the Asad regime increasingly targeted alleged outposts of rebel sentiment
and activity in northwest Syria near the Turkish border. As a result, over 20,000 refugees fled
over the border into temporary camps maintained by Turkey. Over half of these returned to Syria,
but additional refugee flows in late 2011 and early 2012 brought the number to approximately
9,200.51 Turkey also now serves as a base for exiled leaders in both the Syrian National Council
(SNC) and the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The SNC aims to offer a clear political alternative to
Asad for the international community, while the FSA is comprised of defectors from Syria’s
security forces who may be seeking to lead an armed insurrection against the Asad regime.
Turkish officials maintain that they do not support violent means of opposition.
Turkey’s increasing embrace of the Syrian opposition while Asad remains in power entails risks
for Turkey. It also could further antagonize Iran—with possible implications for regional
developments in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. Some reports state that Turkish officials might
consider using military means to establish and maintain a buffer zone in northern Syria under an
international mandate supported by the Arab League and United Nations Security Council. A
buffer zone—similar to the one Turkey established in northern Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War—
could provide a place of refuge for endangered Syrian citizens without involving Turkish
territory. However, it also could be a staging area for defectors and oppositionists—possibly with
future Turkish and other external assistance—to mount an armed campaign against the Asad
regime, similar to the role eastern Libya played for the NATO-backed opposition forces that
toppled the Qadhafi regime in 2011. When asked at a December 14, 2011, hearing of the House
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia to describe Turkey’s support
for the Syrian opposition, Frederic Hof, Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs at the State
Department, said:
Turkey has provided shelter to the Free Syrian Army. What the Turks tell us, and we have no
reason to disbelieve them, is that they are not arming these folks and sending them across
into Syria. That is—that is their position. We have no reason to disbelieve it.
I am sure that—that Turkey is examining many, many, many different options and
contingencies right now, based on a variety of scenarios that—that could come up. I am not
aware of any near-term plans, you know, to establish safe zones or whatever on Syrian
territory.
Some analysts have expressed concern that the AKP government’s potential influence with the
SNC and FSA could exacerbate sectarian animus between Syria’s majority Sunnis and ruling
minority Alawites. They also worry it could skew the relative influence of various groups within
the Syrian opposition in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and to the detriment of Syrian Kurds.
Reports indicate that Asad might possibly be seeking to placate Syrian Kurds’ opposition to his

(...continued)
credit agreement, which had been intended for financing infrastructure projects in Syria. After Syria retaliated in
December 2011 with its own sanctions, including suspending the Turkey-Syria free trade agreement and imposing a
tariff (about 30%) and duties on Turkish imports, Turkey responded with a similar tariff on Syrian imports.
51 Ipek Yezdani, “More Syrian refugees come to Hatay camps,” Hurriyet Daily News, January 7, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
19

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

regime while simultaneously encouraging PKK terrorist activity in Turkey by granting Kurds
greater autonomy in Syria’s northeast.52
Iran and NATO Missile Defense
In September 2011, Turkey agreed to host a U.S. forward-deployed early warning radar at the
Kurecik base near the eastern Turkish city of Malatya as part of a NATO-approved missile
defense system that most analysts believe is intended to counter potential ballistic missile threats
to Europe from Iran.53 A senior U.S. Administration official called this agreement “probably the
biggest strategic decision between the United States and Turkey in the past 15 or 20 years.”54
Some Iranian officials, after initially expressing displeasure with Turkey’s decision, have stated
that Iran would target the radar in Turkey in the event of a U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iran. CNN
reported in January 2012 that a Turkish foreign ministry official announced that the radar has
been activated.55
The decision to host the missile defense radar was made within the context of a region with
shifting dynamics. Differing Iranian and Turkish interests in the region have led to increased
competition for influence over developments in Iraq and Syria, and for the admiration of Arab
populations on issues such as championing the Palestinian cause. Turkey’s renewed closeness
with the United States has further fueled Turkey-Iran tensions at a time when the Obama
Administration is continuing its efforts to isolate Iran because of its nuclear program and its
support for various actors seen as destabilizing forces in the region.
Yet, Turkish officials continue to stress the importance of good relations with Iran and meet
regularly with Iranian counterparts, in the interests of maintaining stability and trade, and also to
keep open the possibility of mediating the international impasse on Iran’s nuclear program.
Following some reports that Iran might be assisting the PKK, Iran and Turkey publicly committed
in October 2011 to cooperating against the PKK and the Iranian Kurdish separatist organization
Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) that also maintains safe havens in northern Iraq. Turkey
has stated that it will comply with the U.N. sanctions against Iran that it voted against in 2010 (as
opposed to U.S. and EU sanctions, which are not binding on it). Turkish officials still plan to
boost trade with Iran from approximately $15 billion to $30 billion a year by 2015. Iran accounts
for at least 30% of Turkey’s oil imports. To safeguard its energy trade with Iran, reports indicate
that Turkey, along with other countries such as Japan and South Korea, may be seeking an
exemption from the Obama Administration from U.S. sanctions enacted at the end of 2011 under
the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 112-81).56 These sanctions, which target

52 See, e.g., Samia Nakhoul, “Analysis: Turkey and allies want Syria’s Assad out, just not yet,” Reuters, December 16,
2011; Phil Sands, “Assad: friend or foe of the Kurds?”, The National (United Arab Emirates), January 4, 2012.
53 The proposed elements of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense proposed by the Obama
Administration and a deployment timeline are described in a September 17, 2009, White House press release available
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FACT-SHEET-US-Missile-Defense-Policy-A-Phased-Adaptive-
Approach-for-Missile-Defense-in-Europe/. See also CRS Report R41549, Missile Defense and NATO’s Lisbon
Summit, by Steven A. Hildreth and Carl Ek.
54 Thom Shanker, “U.S. Hails Deal with Turkey on Missile Shield,” New York Times, September 15, 2011.
55 “Part of NATO missile defense system goes live in Turkey,” CNN, January 16, 2012.
56 Per section 1245 of P.L. 112-81, these sanctions do not apply to a financial institution if the President determines and
reports to Congress that the institution’s primary country of jurisdiction has significantly reduced oil imports from Iran,
or if the President waives the sanctions for national security reasons.
Congressional Research Service
20

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

financial institutions that deal with Iran’s central bank and are seen as aimed at Iran’s oil export
business, might otherwise apply to oil import transactions involving the major Turkish refinery
Tupras and Turkish public lenders.57
Iraq and the PKK
Turkey cooperated with the United States in the 1991 Gulf War and following the U.S.-led 2003
Iraq invasion, but the Turkish parliamentary decision in 2003 not to allow U.S. forces to use its
territory to open a northern front significantly affected U.S.-Turkey relations. The decision
showed the United States that in its strategic relationship with Turkey, it could no longer rely
solely on past legacies of cooperation and its close ties with the Turkish military.58 Starting in late
2007, U.S. willingness to provide greater counterterrorism support to Turkey in its struggle
against the PKK helped move U.S.-Turkey priorities in Iraq toward greater alignment.
For Turkey, strong governance and stability in Iraq is important particularly due to Turkish
interests in denying the PKK use of Iraqi territory for its safe havens; discouraging the cross-
border spread of Kurdish separatist sentiment; countering Iranian influence; and accessing Iraq’s
potentially lucrative export markets and ample energy resources (which could eventually lessen
Turkey’s dependence on Iranian and Russian energy imports). U.S. officials have repeatedly
expressed appreciation for Turkey’s constructive role in post-conflict Iraq, with which it has
growing trade and where it has improved relations with the Kurdish Regional Government.
Turkey’s role in Iraq appears to be becoming more significant in light of the U.S. military
mission’s transition in Iraq to a civilian security assistance mission at the end of 2011. Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al Maliki, a Shiite, has accused Turkey of undue interference in Iraqi internal
affairs, owing to its perceived closeness to Sunni Arab and Kurdish leaders in the country and
warnings by Prime Minister Erdogan that Turkey would not “remain silent” in the event of
renewed sectarian conflict.59 On the eve of a January 2012 visit to Tehran, Foreign Minister
Davutoglu publicly voiced concerns about the danger of a “regional Cold War” fueled by Sunni-
Shiite tensions. Turkey is scheduled to host delegations of Iraqi Sunni and Shiite religious leaders
in Istanbul in late February 2012 to promote greater dialogue.

57 Taylan Bilgic, “Iran sanctions bode ill for Turkey’s economy,” Hurriyet Daily News, January 6, 2012.
58 For further information, see CRS Report R41761, Turkey-U.S. Defense Cooperation: Prospects and Challenges, by
Jim Zanotti.
59 Jonathon Burch, “Turkey warns Iraqi PM over sectarian conflict,” Reuters, January 24, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
21

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Clashes between Turkish forces and the PKK
intensified following Turkish national elections
Table 3. PKK Designations by U.S.
in June 2011. The PKK’s renewed resort to
Government
violence might be motivated by a number of
factors, including the example of insurgencies
Designation
Year
in Arab countries throughout the region, a
Foreign Terrorist
1997
desire to take advantage of the fluidity of the
Organization
regional turmoil, and a hope to gain greater
support for Kurdish rights in the domestic
Specially Designated
2001
Global Terrorist
political and constitutional debate among
Turkish lawmakers and citizens. The PKK and
Significant Foreign
2008
individuals and groups believed to be affiliated
Narcotics Trafficker

with it have carried out multiple attacks on both
military and civilian targets. As a result, Turkey has increased air and artillery attacks on PKK
safe havens in Iraq, aided by intelligence-sharing from the United States, and has reportedly
involved ground forces across the border as well. Given its military drawdown from Iraq, the
United States is now reportedly basing the unarmed Predator drone aircraft that it uses to gather
intelligence on the PKK at Turkey’s Incirlik air base.60 Other reports indicate that Prime Minister
Erdogan has reiterated Turkey’s desire to purchase drones (including some with armed capability)
from the United States for its own use. Such purchases would likely require congressional
notification (see “Arms Sales and Military/Security Assistance” below).61
Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean62
Since Cyprus became independent of the United Kingdom in 1960, Turkey has viewed itself and
has acted as the protector of the island’s ethnic Turkish minority out of concerns over its
treatment by the ethnic Greek majority.63 Responding to Greek and Cypriot political
developments that raised concerns about a possible Greek annexation of Cyprus, Turkey’s
military intervened in 197464 and established control over the northern third of the island,
prompting an almost total ethnic and de facto political division along geographical lines. That
division persists today and is the subject of continuing international efforts aimed at
reunification.65 The ethnic Greek-ruled Republic of Cyprus is internationally recognized as

60 “US deployed Predators to Incirlik: Davutoglu,” Hurriyet Daily News, November 13, 2011. According to Secretary
of Defense Panetta, the Iraqi government has given the United States permission to keep flying Predator drones on
surveillance missions over northern Iraq. Craig Whitlock, “U.S. drones allowed in Iraqi skies,”
washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington, December 16, 2011.
61 “Procurement, Turkey,” Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment - Eastern Mediterranean, December 16, 2010; “US-
Turkey agree on delivery schedule for Predators,” Today’s Zaman, September 25, 2011.
62 For more information on this subject, see CRS Report R41136, Cyprus: Reunification Proving Elusive, by Vincent
Morelli.
63 Turkey views its protective role as justified given its status as one of the three guaranteeing powers of the 1960
Treaty of Guarantee that was signed at the time Cyprus gained its independence. The United Kingdom and Greece are
the other two guarantors.
64 Turkish intervention in Cyprus with U.S.-supplied arms prompted Congress to impose an embargo on military
assistance and arms sales to Turkey from 1975 to 1978. This Cold War-era disruption in U.S.-Turkey relations is often
cited by analysts as a major factor in Turkey’s continuing efforts to avoid overdependence on the United States or any
other country for military equipment or expertise.
65 Turkey retains between 30,000 and 40,000 troops on the island (supplemented by approximately 5,000 Turkish
Cypriot soldiers and 26,000 reserves). “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment -
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

having jurisdiction over the entire island, while the de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
in the northern third has only Turkish recognition.
The Republic of Cyprus’s accession to the EU in 2004, and Turkey’s refusal to normalize political
and commercial relations with it is seen as a major obstacle to Turkey’s EU membership
aspirations. It also hinders effective EU-NATO defense cooperation. EU accession also may have
reduced incentives for Cyprus’s Greek population to make concessions toward a reunification
deal. The Greek Cypriots rejected by referendum a United Nations plan (called the Annan plan
after then Secretary-General Kofi Annan) in 2004 that the Turkish Cypriot population accepted.
Turkey and Turkish Cypriot leaders claim that the Turkish Cypriot regime’s lack of international
recognition unfairly denies its people basic economic and political rights, particularly through
barriers to trade with and travel to countries other than Turkey.
Turkey has assertively opposed efforts by the Republic of Cyprus and other Eastern
Mediterranean countries—most notably Israel—to agree upon a division of offshore energy
drilling rights before Cyprus’s political future is resolved. In response to drilling initiated in
September 2011 by the Republic of Cyprus in the Aphrodite gas field off Cyprus’s southern coast,
Turkey sent its own seismic research ships with a naval escort to waters off the Cypriot shore in
agreement with the Turkish Cypriot regime.66 Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots oppose Greek
Cypriot drilling without a solution to the larger question of the island’s unification. Turkish
Energy Minister Taner Yildiz announced plans in November 2011 for the state-run Turkish
Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) to begin land drilling for oil and natural gas in northern Cyprus.
Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot regime have indicated that their openness to continued unification
talks will end in July 2012 if the Republic of Cyprus assumes the rotating EU presidency as it is
currently slated to do. The United States has voiced concern about tensions in the Eastern
Mediterranean, particularly because the Greek Cypriot drilling is being conducted by Texas
company Noble Energy. According to one source, Prime Minister Erdogan told President Obama
in September 2011 that Turkish ships would not interfere with Greek Cypriot drilling.67
Armenia68
In late 2009, Turkey and Armenia, aided by Swiss mediation, agreed to joint protocols that would
have normalized relations and opened borders between the two countries. They also would have
called for a dialogue and impartial examination of the historical record with respect to “existing
problems,” widely believed to refer to the issue of World War I-era deaths of hundreds of

(...continued)
Eastern Mediterranean, October 30, 2009. This is countered by a Greek Cypriot force of approximately 12,000
(including roughly 1,300 Greek officers and soldiers seconded to Cyprus) with reported access to 50,000 reserves.
“Cyprus,” Jane’s World Armies, November 3, 2011. The United Nations maintains a peacekeeping mission
(UNFICYP) of approximately 900 personnel within a buffer zone headquartered in Cyprus’s divided capital of Nicosia.
Since the mission’s inception in 1964, UNFICYP has suffered 179 fatalities. The United Kingdom maintains
approximately 3,000 personnel at two sovereign military bases on the southern portion of the island at Akrotiri and
Dhekelia.
66 “Gas drilling heightens east Mediterranean tension,” UPI, September 16, 2011.
67 CRS conversation with Turkish think tank analyst in Istanbul, September 30, 2011.
68 For more information, see CRS Report RL33453, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and
Implications for U.S. Interests
, by Jim Nichol.
Congressional Research Service
23

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

thousands of Armenians through the actions of Ottoman Empire authorities. Turkish leaders were
unwilling to push for parliamentary ratification of the protocols, however, due to Azerbaijani
objections to Turkey-Armenia normalization prior to desired progress on the issue of Nagorno-
Karabakh.69 Azerbaijan influences Turkish policy on this issue because of its close cultural and
economic ties with Turkey, particularly as Azerbaijan is a key energy supplier. Another possible
cause for Turkish reluctance was a 2010 Armenian constitutional court ruling that indicated
inflexibility on the genocide issue. Subsequently, Turkey and Armenia have made little or no
progress toward ratifying the protocols or otherwise normalizing their relations, though the
protocols remain under consideration in Turkey’s parliament.70 In December 2011, Turkish media
reported that Foreign Minister Davutoglu had consulted with Swiss officials to determine
prospects for reviving talks aimed at normalization in the event of Armenia-Azerbaijan progress
on Nagorno-Karabakh.71 The tenor of relations between Turkey and Armenia could be an
important factor in a potential congressional debate over a future genocide resolution.
Afghanistan
Turkey has twice commanded the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan
and has had troops participating in ISAF since shortly after its inception in December 2001.
Turkey’s approximately 2,000 troops concentrate on training Afghan military and security forces
and providing security in Kabul, where Turkey commands ISAF’s Regional Command-Capital, as
well as in Wardak (just west of Kabul) and Jawzjan (in northern Afghanistan) provinces.72 In
addition, some Afghan police are trained in Turkey.
As with several other NATO and non-NATO contributors to ISAF, Turkey’s troops are not
involved in combat. Turkey’s history of good relations with both Afghanistan and Pakistan and its
status as the Muslim-majority country with the greatest level of involvement in ISAF are thought
by some analysts to help legitimize ISAF’s presence. These relations could become more
important to preparing Afghanistan for stable, self-sufficient rule, with the United States and other
ISAF countries scheduled to wind down their military presence in Afghanistan in future years.
Regional Energy Issues
Turkey as a Transit Corridor and Potential Source73
Turkey’s role as a regional energy transport corridor is growing, particularly with respect to
natural gas. With supply sources that include Russia, Iran, other littoral Caspian Sea states, and—
potentially—Iraq, the importance of Turkey’s security for world energy markets has increased.

69 Nagorno-Karabakh is a predominantly ethnic-Armenian-populated enclave within Azerbaijan’s international borders.
Disputes over its status led to armed conflict in 1991 in parallel with the Soviet Union’s dissolution and the
independence of both Armenia and Azerbaijan. The conflict ended with a 1994 ceasefire, but Armenian troops still
occupy portions of the territory. The Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (co-
chaired by the United States, Russia, and France, and including both Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as Turkey and a
number of other European countries) has been trying to negotiate a permanent settlement since then.
70 In the meantime, Turkey and Azerbaijan signed a 10-year security and mutual assistance agreement in August 2010.
71 Serkan Demirtas, “Turkey examines ways to revive Armenia dialogue,” Hurriyet Daily News, December 7, 2011.
72 Information dated January 2011 provided to CRS by Turkish Embassy in Washington, DC.
73 This subsection was co-authored with Michael Ratner, Specialist in Energy Policy.
Congressional Research Service
24


Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Turkey’s location has made it a key country in the U.S. and European effort to establish a
southern corridor for natural gas transit from diverse sources.74
In October 2011, Azerbaijan and Turkey reached final terms for the transit of Azerbaijan’s Shah
Deniz Phase 2 natural gas through the southern corridor. The terms specified that 565 billion-700
billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas would transit Turkey, of which 210 bcf would be available
for Turkey’s domestic use.
Recent announcements of significant natural gas resources in the Eastern Mediterranean have
prompted Turkey to get involved. State-run TPAO has agreed to assist the de facto Turkish
Cypriot regime with oil and gas exploration in northern Cyprus, and is pursuing deals with
international companies for exploration in and off the coast of Turkey. It is unclear whether these
efforts will produce substantial energy finds. It is also unclear whether they will lead to greater
political conflict with other countries newly active in Eastern Mediterranean energy
exploration—particularly Israel and the Republic of Cyprus, both of which have already made
sizeable natural gas discoveries.
Figure 2. Major Pipelines Traversing Turkey and Possible Nuclear Power Plants
(as of September 2011)

Source: Turkish Economic Ministry, adapted by CRS.

74 The U.S. energy strategy in Europe is designed to work together with European nations and the European Union to
seek ways to diversify Europe’s energy supplies. The focus of U.S. efforts has been on establishing a southern corridor
route for Central Asian and Middle Eastern natural gas supplies to be shipped to Europe. Turkey factors into the
proposed pipeline projects to transport natural gas from the Caspian and the Middle East to Europe in an effort to
diversify European natural gas sources. See, e.g., Transatlantic Academy, Getting to Zero: Turkey, Its Neighbors, and
the West
, June 2010.
Congressional Research Service
25

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Notes: All locations are approximate
Nuclear Energy
Turkey has had plans for establishing nuclear power generation since 1970 but still does not have
any active plants. After carrying out feasibility studies for potential sites, initial efforts to attract
tenders from international companies foundered in the 1980s and 1990s due to multiple factors.
These included a lack of adequate financing and environmental concerns exacerbated by the 1986
Chernobyl disaster.
Given rapidly increasing rates of consumption amid robust Turkish economic growth,
environmental and other political objections to nuclear power may no longer outweigh its appeal
as a potentially plentiful, locally produced energy source. In addition, the fractious Turkish ruling
coalitions of earlier decades have given way to AKP government leaders seemingly confident in
their electoral mandate. They portray Turkey’s pursuit of nuclear energy as a matter of national
self-reliance and prestige.75
In June 2008, the United States and Turkey signed a 15-year “123 Agreement” for peaceful
nuclear cooperation in line with international nuclear non-proliferation norms.76 The nature of
future U.S.-Turkey cooperation under this agreement is likely to depend in part on whether, when,
and how Turkey constructs and operates nuclear power plants in partnership with international
companies. In May 2010, Turkey signed an agreement with Rosatom—Russia’s state-run nuclear
company—to have it form a subsidiary to build, own, and operate Turkey’s first nuclear power
plant for an estimated $20 billion, to be located in Akkuyu near the Mediterranean port of Mersin.
Despite the proposed plant’s location near an earthquake fault line, Turkey and Rosatom
reportedly plan to stay with a timetable that has construction beginning in 2012-2013 and
operations beginning in 2019, even after the global concerns raised by the Fukushima Daiichi
meltdown following the March 2011 earthquake/tsunami in Japan. Given that construction at
Akkuyu has been postponed multiple times since the location was approved by Turkey in 1976,
skepticism over the viability of the proposed plant might persist up to and even after operations
begin. In addition to financial or technical obstacles, political controversy could revive over
geological or environmental concerns, and proponents of diversification could increasingly
oppose construction of a plant that might further Turkey’s energy dependence on Russia. Turkey
is reportedly considering a contract with a Japanese company to build a second nuclear power
plant in the northern town of Sinop on the Black Sea coast.77
The full range of motivations underlying Turkey’s potential use of nuclear energy is unclear,
though many analysts express confidence that Turkish decision-making on the issue is
significantly influenced by regional security considerations. One has written:
At this point, little evidence exists to suggest that Turkey’s nuclear energy goals are tied to
future plans for weaponization. Nevertheless, it is clear that Turkey’s nuclear program, no

75 Suzanne Gusten, “Forging Ahead on Nuclear Energy in Turkey,” New York Times, March 23, 2011.
76 Turkey is also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has a safeguards agreement and
additional protocol in place with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It is an observer to—not a full
participant in—the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC, formerly known as the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership) founded by the United States, Russia, China, France, and Japan in 2007. IFNEC promotes
the peaceful use of nuclear energy by helping establish reprocessing centers for nuclear fuel.
77 See World Nuclear Association website, “Nuclear Power in Turkey,” updated December 2011.
Congressional Research Service
26

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

matter how explicitly “peaceful,” is ultimately strategic in nature. Either by relieving Ankara
of its dependence on foreign energy supplies or providing a hedge against potential long-
term security threats, Turkey’s nuclear program has been designed with its neighbors clearly
in mind.78
Turkey and the European Union79
The Turkish government uses its demographic profile to support a bid for EU membership,
arguing that it would bring a young, dynamic population to the aging ranks of Europe and boost
EU influence in the Muslim world. Turkey first sought to associate itself with the then European
Economic Community (EEC) in 1959, and Turkey and the EEC entered into an agreement of
association in 1963. EU accession talks, which began in 2005, have been stalled owing to the
opposition of key EU states—most notably France and Germany—to Turkey’s full membership.
Opponents generally articulate empirical rationales for their positions, but many analysts believe
that resistance to Turkish EU accession is rooted in fear that Turkey’s large Muslim population
would fundamentally change the cultural character of the EU and dilute the power of the EU’s
founding Western European states to drive the policy agenda.
Since 1995, Turkey has had a full customs union with the EU. It also is a member of the Council
of Europe, along with several other non-EU states (including Russia), and is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Council’s European Court of Human Rights. Waning domestic expectations of
and support for full accession to the EU, along with fundamental concerns over the economic and
political soundness of the EU given the ongoing eurozone crisis, have contributed to an
environment in which Turkish leaders, including Prime Minister Erdogan, now proclaim that the
EU may need Turkey more than Turkey needs the EU.80 As mentioned above, Turkey’s
unwillingness to normalize diplomatic and trade relations with EU member Cyprus presents a
major obstacle to its accession prospects.81 Other EU concerns over Turkey’s qualifications for
membership center on the treatment of Kurds and religious minorities, media freedoms, women’s
rights, and the proper and transparent functioning of Turkey’s democratic and legal systems.82
Nevertheless, the EU provides over $1 billion in annual pre-accession financial and technical

78 Adam P. Williams, “Amid Growing Hopes for the Future, Turkish Nuclear Energy Ambitions Suffer Setback,”
WMD Insights, December 2008/January 2009. Turkey is one of the regional countries analysts routinely mention could
decide to pursue its own nuclear weapons program in the event that one or more countries in the region, such as Iran,
achieves or declares a nuclear weapons capability. Israel is generally believed by most analysts to have had a nuclear
arsenal since the late 1960s, but it maintains a policy of “nuclear opacity” wherein its nuclear weapons status remains
officially undeclared. For discussion of Turkey and nuclear weapons, see CRS Report R41761, Turkey-U.S. Defense
Cooperation: Prospects and Challenges
, by Jim Zanotti.
79 For more information on this subject, see CRS Report RS22517, European Union Enlargement: A Status Report on
Turkey’s Accession Negotiations
, by Vincent Morelli.
80 Dan Bilefsky, “For Turkey, Lure of Tie to Europe Is Fading,” New York Times, December 4, 2011. According to the
Transatlantic Trends surveys of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the percentage of Turks who think
that Turkish EU membership would be a good thing was 73% in 2004 and 48% in 2011.
81 Turkey’s unwillingness to open its ports to Greek Cypriot trade according to the Additional Protocol that it signed at
the outset of the accession process in 2005 has prompted the EU Council to block eight out of the 35 chapters of the
acquis communautaire that Turkey would be required to meet to the Council’s satisfaction in order to gain EU
membership. Thus far, one of the chapters has been fully negotiated, and 13 others have been opened.
82 European Commission Staff Working Paper, Turkey 2011 Progress Report, October 12, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
27

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

assistance to Turkey aimed at harmonizing its economy, society, bureaucracy, and political system
with those of EU members.83
Other International Relationships
As Turkey continues to exercise increased political and economic influence, it seeks to establish
and strengthen relationships with non-Western global powers. It is expanding trade and defense
industrial ties with China, Russia, and other countries in Asia and Africa. Turkey also has held
joint military exercises with China on Turkish soil.
Turkey additionally seeks to expand the scope of its regional influence, with its officials
sometimes comparing its historical links and influence with certain countries—especially former
territories of the Ottoman Empire—to the relationship of Britain with its commonwealth.
Through hands-on political involvement, as well as increased private trade and investment and
public humanitarian and development projects, Turkey has enhanced its influence and image as a
leading Muslim-majority democracy with Muslim-populated countries not only in the Middle
East, but also in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Central Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa.84
U.S.-Turkey Relations
Overview
The United States and Turkey have enjoyed a decades-long alliance dating from the onset of the
Cold War. At the outset of the Obama Administration, U.S. officials made clear their intent to
emphasize the importance of a multifaceted strategic relationship with Turkey. Subsequent
bilateral and NATO-related developments during the Obama Administration have led to questions
about the extent to which U.S. and Turkish strategic priorities and values converge on both a
short- and long-term basis.
In April 2009, President Obama, speaking of a “model partnership,” visited Turkey during his
first presidential trip abroad and addressed the Parliament in Ankara, saying that “Turkey is a
critical ally…. And Turkey and the United States must stand together—and work together—to
overcome the challenges of our time.” One month later, Ahmet Davutoglu, a foreign policy
academic-turned-advisor to Prime Minister Erdogan, became Turkey’s foreign minister, giving
Davutoglu greater visibility with regard to the more independent and assertive Turkish foreign
policy course he had helped to establish when the AKP came to power in 2002. His course
envisions Turkey being “in the centre of its own sphere of influence” through “strategic depth”
based largely on regional soft power through geopolitical, cultural, historical, and economic
influence, and having “zero problems” with the countries in its vicinity.85

83 See http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/candidate-countries/turkey/financial-assistance/index_en.htm for further
information.
84 See, e.g., Hajrudin Somun, “Turkish Foreign Policy in the Balkans and ‘Neo-Ottomanism’: A Personal Account,”
Insight Turkey, vol. 13, no. 3, summer 2011; Yigal Schleifer, “Turkey’s Neo-Ottoman Problem,” World Politics
Review
, February 16, 2010; Greg Bruno, “Turkey’s Near Abroad,” Council on Foreign Relations Analysis Brief,
September 19, 2008.
85 See Gareth Jenkins, “On the edge – The AKP shifts Turkey’s political compass,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, August
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
28

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Subsequent Turkish and U.S. actions and statements on Armenia, Iran, and Israeli-Palestinian
issues revealed tensions between the Obama Administration and AKP government visions for
overcoming regional challenges. A vote in March 2010 by the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs to report H.Res. 252 on the question of a possible Armenian genocide for consideration by
the full House led Turkey to temporarily recall its ambassador.
Then, in May and June 2010, two developments raised significant concerns regarding U.S.-
Turkey relations:
1. Turkey’s Iranian nuclear diplomacy with Brazil—the Tehran Declaration on
possible nuclear fuel swaps, followed by the Turkey-Brazil “no” vote on U.N.
Security Council enhanced sanctions on Iran in Resolution 1929.
2. The Mavi Marmara Gaza flotilla incident and its aftermath
Some Members of Congress and Administration officials, viewing Turkey’s rhetoric and actions
as (1) undermining a top U.S. priority in the Iranian nuclear issue and (2) being at odds with the
U.S. characterization of Israel as an ally and Iran as a threat, openly questioned Turkey’s
orientation on global security issues. Philip Gordon, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for
European and Eurasian Affairs, said in June 2010,
We think Turkey remains committed to NATO, Europe and the United States, but that needs
to be demonstrated. There are people asking questions about it in a way that is new, and that
in itself is a bad thing that makes it harder for the United States to support some of the things
that Turkey would like to see us support.86
Officials’ and analysts’ questions about Turkey’s foreign policy direction intensified following
reports that the 2010 version of the Turkish National Security Policy Document (also known as
the “Red Book”) downgraded or did not explicitly list possible threats from Iran, Syria, Greece,
and Armenia that were listed in previous versions. At the same time, the Red Book reportedly
defined Israel’s actions in the region as a threat—claiming that they induce conditions of
instability.87 As discussed above, however, in 2011 concerns about the compatibility of U.S. and
Turkish strategic priorities and values were partly allayed by shared U.S.-Turkey interests in
promoting democratic transition in the Middle East and in preventing actors such as Iran from
exacerbating regional sectarian tensions and security dilemmas.
Many U.S. observers have criticized Erdogan and Davutoglu for perceived double standards and
selective implementation of Turkey’s stated zero-problem foreign policy. Erdogan has adamantly
denounced Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, and has suggested that
international sanctions against Israel could help end the stalemate in the Arab-Israeli peace
process. Yet, he has met with Hamas leaders in Turkey and has dubbed its members “resistance
fighters” instead of terrorists; he was one of the first world leaders to congratulate Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his disputed reelection in June 2009; and he has said in
defending Sudanese President Omar al Bashir regarding allegations from Darfur and elsewhere
that it is “not possible for those who belong to the Muslim faith to carry out genocide.” Even as

(...continued)
2, 2010.
86 “US official: Turkey must demonstrate commitment to West,” Today’s Zaman, June 28, 2010.
87 Ercan Yavuz, “Israeli-caused instability makes its way to Turkey’s security document,” Today’s Zaman, October 29,
2010.
Congressional Research Service
29

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

events in 2011 have led Turkey to coordinate more closely with its U.S. and other NATO allies,
Erdogan has questioned their positions and/or motivations.88 Though Erdogan supports a two-
state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he routinely criticizes the U.S.-led approach to the
peace process in the international media.
One U.S. analyst has asserted that Erdogan’s rhetoric and actions are largely calculated to appeal
to and influence Turkish domestic public opinion.89 A late 2010 poll indicated that despite the
longtime U.S.-Turkey alliance, and despite several potential threats along Turkey’s borders, a
plurality of Turks see the United States as Turkey’s biggest external threat.90 This sentiment exists
within a context of Turks’ generally low favorability ratings for foreign countries, partly based on
historical concerns about encirclement by outside powers—particularly the West and Russia.
However, an early 2011 poll indicated improvements in Turkish perceptions of U.S. influence in
the world.91
Bilateral and NATO Defense Cooperation92
The U.S.-Turkey alliance has long centered on the countries’ defense relationship, both bilaterally
and within NATO. With several challenges to U.S. national security emanating from the greater
Middle East, Turkey is arguably a more significant ally for the United States at present than
during the Cold War. Turkey’s location near several global hotspots makes the continuing
availability of its territory for the stationing and transport of arms, cargo, and personnel valuable
for the United States and NATO. Announcements during 2011 that Turkey would host the early
warning missile defense radar and that NATO would transform its air command center in Izmir
into a ground forces command center while closing land bases in Germany and Spain have
reinforced Turkey’s strategic importance for the alliance.
Although the Turkish military remains the most trusted institution in the country and retains
greater power in the political process than most (if not all) of its NATO counterparts, its decline in
influence in the last decade has led many observers to conclude that the military’s traditional role
as the primary interlocutor for the United States and other NATO allies is in jeopardy, if not
already obsolete. Adjusting to changes in the Turkish civil-military power structure presents a
challenge for U.S. officials in adjusting future modes of bilateral interaction. It might lead to an

88 For example, during a September 2011 trip to Libya, Erdogan criticized what he perceived to be Britain’s and
France’s overly commercial interests in the country—despite Turkey’s own well-documented commercial interests in
Libya and participation in and support for the 2011 NATO operation there.
89 Carol Migdalovitz, “AKP’s Domestically Driven Foreign Policy,” Turkish Policy Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 4, spring
2011.
90 Sevil Kucukkosum, “Turks see U.S. as biggest external threat, poll results show,” Hurriyet Daily News & Economic
Review
, January 5, 2011. A December 2010 poll, taken by the MetroPOLL Strategic and Social Research Center, which
is affiliated with Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), stated that 43% of respondents viewed the
United States as Turkey’s primary external threat, with Israel in second place with 24%. Iran was a distant third with
3%. Reports posit that the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is a major shaper of the Turkish people’s threat perception,
along with U.S. closeness to Israel and congressional action on Armenia. Ibid.
91 British Broadcasting Corporation World Service Poll, “Views of US Continue to Improve in 2011 BBC Country
Rating Poll,” March 7, 2011. The BBC poll, which was conducted from December 2010 to February 2011, claimed that
35% of Turks believe that U.S. influence in the world is positive (up from 13% in 2010), and that 49% believe that U.S.
influence is negative (down from 68% in 2010).
92 For detailed information on this subject, see CRS Report R41761, Turkey-U.S. Defense Cooperation: Prospects and
Challenges
, by Jim Zanotti.
Congressional Research Service
30



















Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

approach that is more multidimensional than the well-established pattern some observers see in
which the State Department and other U.S. officials rely on the “Pentagon to wield its
influence.”93
Figure 3. Map of U.S. and NATO Military Presence and Transport Routes in Turkey

Source: Department of Defense, NATO; adapted by CRS
Notes: All locations are approximate. Incirlik air base is a Turkish base, part of which is used for limited
purposes by the U.S. military. Additional information on the U.S./NATO military presence in Turkey is available
in CRS Report R41761, Turkey-U.S. Defense Cooperation: Prospects and Challenges, by Jim Zanotti.
Since 1948, the United States has provided Turkey with approximately $13.8 billion in overall
military assistance. Current annual military and security assistance, however, is limited to
approximately $6 million annually in International Military Education and Training (IMET);
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE); and Nonproliferation,

93 Henri J. Barkey, “Turkey’s New Global Role,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 17, 2010.
The challenge for U.S. officials to manage cooperation with Turkey could be magnified by the way the U.S.
government is structured to work with Turkey. Former U.S. ambassador to Turkey Mark Parris has said, “For reasons
of self-definition and Cold War logic, Turkey is considered a European nation. It is therefore assigned, for purposes of
policy development and implementation, to the subdivisions responsible for Europe: the European Bureau (EUR) at the
State Department; the European Command (EUCOM) at the Pentagon; the Directorate for Europe at the [National
Security Council (NSC)], etc. Since the end of the Cold War, however, and progressively since the 1990-91 Gulf War
and 9/11, the most serious issues in U.S.-Turkish relations – and virtually all of the controversial ones – have arisen in
areas outside “Europe.” The majority, in fact, stem from developments in areas which in Washington are the
responsibility of offices dealing with the Middle East: the Bureau for Near East Affairs (NEA) at State; Central
Command (CENTCOM) at the Pentagon; the Near East and South Asia Directorate at NSC.” Omer Taspinar, “The
Rise of Turkish Gaullism: Getting Turkish-American Relations Right,” Insight Turkey, vol. 13, no. 1, winter 2011,
quoting an unpublished 2008 paper by Mark Parris.
Congressional Research Service
31

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR) funds. This assistance facilitates U.S.-
Turkey counterterrorism cooperation against Al Qaeda and other worldwide terrorist networks.
Table 4. U.S. Foreign Assistance to Turkey
($ in millions)
Account FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
International Military Education and Training
5.0 4.0 4.0
(IMET)
International Narcotics Control and Law
--
0.5
0.5
Enforcement (INCLE)
Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and
3.0 1.4 1.1
Related Programs (NADR)
Total 8.0
5.9
5.6
Source: U.S. Department of State.
Note: All amounts are approximate.
Possible U.S. Policy Options
Although U.S. and Turkish interests and policies intersect in many respects, Turkey’s growing
regional influence and military, economic, and political self-reliance have decreased its
dependence on the United States. The appeal of U.S. and Western power, prestige, values, and
military technology might currently outstrip that of potential competitors, but Turkish actions
might be affected by possible perceptions of decreasing U.S. global and regional preeminence.
Given the impact Turkey has and potentially could have on a number of major U.S. priorities, a
prescriptive approach that defines the U.S. relationship with Turkey in terms of one or two
specific issues may have negative repercussions for cooperation on matters of significant U.S.
interest.
Members of Congress might consider maintaining or initiating active congressional inquiry into
and coordinating with Obama Administration positions on Turkey. U.S. policymakers might
consider cultivating other NATO and Middle Eastern allies whose cooperation will increase the
attractiveness for Turkey of cooperation with the United States. One U.S. analyst wrote in
December 2011:
Despite record levels of communication and travel between top leaders in Ankara and
Washington, the societal and institutional connections are still in need of revitalization and
strengthening…. [C]oordination and policy on Turkey continues to affect vital interests
throughout Washington, which ideally must go beyond the administration to the Hill and
society at large even if there is short-term turbulence.94
Although short-term prospects may not be favorable for Turkish accession to the European
Union, U.S. support for eventual Turkish EU membership, supplemented by U.S. consultations
with Turkey and EU actors on the use of pre-accession aid and other means of increasing Turkey-

94 Joshua W. Walker, “U.S.-Turkish Relations: Modesty and Revitalization,” On Turkey, German Marshall Fund of the
United States, December 15, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
32

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

EU harmonization, could help further anchor Turkey’s domestic and foreign policies within the
West. However, if U.S. policymakers believe that an open-ended EU accession process in the face
of current obstacles to Turkish membership is counterproductive, they might discuss alternative
or parallel courses of action in hopes of maximizing the benefits of the U.S.-Turkey alliance on
the issues discussed below.
Influencing Regional Change and Promoting Stability
Turkey is likely to play a key role in affecting the outcomes of ongoing political change and
unrest in the broader Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan as both countries transition
from U.S.-led military occupation to greater self-rule. In partnering with Turkey to influence
regional change and promote stability, the following options are available for Members of
Congress and Obama Administration officials to adopt or continue:
• Determine whether and how to discourage further deterioration in Turkey’s
relations with Israel. For example, should the United States mediate Turkey-
Israel security understandings and encourage either a discreet or a more public
Turkey-Israel rapprochement? Policymakers could condition various modes of
U.S. cooperation with Turkey on its relations with Israel, but this could lead
Turkey to decrease its overall cooperation with the United States and increasingly
look to other countries to address its demands.
• Determine the proper nature and extent of bilateral and NATO military and
intelligence cooperation, including joint use of Turkish bases and territory, as
well as information sharing to assist in countering the PKK and in facilitating
interdiction of illegal arms shipments from other countries or non-state actors.
• Determine whether and how to encourage Turkish political and financial support
for individuals and groups opposing autocratic regimes, and whether and how
such backing should be linked to support for democratically accountable and
economically viable transitions in countries experiencing unrest or leadership
changes.
• Determine whether and how to coordinate with Turkey to impose and enforce
unilateral, multilateral, or international sanctions (diplomatic, military, and/or
economic) that have the potential to effectively weaken or change the behavior of
regimes or other actors violating human rights or otherwise contravening
international laws and norms. Examples include the Asad regime in Syria for
violently suppressing popular protest and the Iranian regime for its nuclear
program and support of regional terrorist groups.
• Determine whether and how to support Turkish efforts to coordinate regional
security with other local actors, especially other U.S. allies.
Action on any of these options will take place in a complex regional and strategic environment
whose trajectory has probably become more unpredictable in the past year, perhaps increasing the
difficulty of calculating risks and determining probable outcomes.
Congressional Research Service
33

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Arms Sales and Military/Security Assistance
Turkey continues to seek advanced U.S. military equipment (i.e., fighter aircraft, drone aircraft,
helicopters, and missile defense systems), and its defense industry participates in joint ventures
with the United States (e.g., on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter). However, Turkey’s growing
defense industry and its increased willingness to engage in arms import-export transactions or
joint military exercises with non-NATO countries, such as China, Russia, Pakistan, and South
Korea, indicate Turkey’s interest in diversifying its defense relationships and decreasing its
dependence on the United States. U.S. military and security assistance programs for Turkey are
designed to cultivate closeness in relationships and practices between Turkish military officers
and security officials and their U.S. counterparts.
Turkey is particularly interested in acquiring armed drones from the United States to use against
the PKK. It has reportedly sought to purchase four MQ-1 Predator drones and six MQ-9 Reaper
drones (more advanced versions of the Predator) since 2008.95 In September 2011, according to
Turkish media outlet Today’s Zaman, Prime Minister Erdogan claimed that Turkey had reached
agreement in principle with the Obama Administration to either lease or purchase U.S. drones,
and Turkish Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz subsequently announced that delivery was expected
in June 2012,96 though this has not been publicly confirmed or denied by U.S. officials. In
October 2011, the Administration notified Congress of a possible $111 million Foreign Military
Sale to Turkey of three AH-1W SuperCobra attack helicopters from the U.S. Marine Corps
inventory. Though Representative Shelley Berkley introduced a joint resolution on November 3,
2011 (H.J.Res. 83)—co-sponsored by 12 Members—proposing disapproval of the sale, the 15-
day notification period elapsed without congressional action to delay or block the potential sale,
allowing it to go forward.
Lack of effective opposition from Congress on the helicopter sale could signal a general
willingness to support Turkish priorities in countering terrorism and stabilizing Iraq given the
U.S. military drawdown and in light of Turkey’s seeming willingness to oppose Iran on issues
such as the NATO missile defense radar and the future of Syria. Nevertheless, reports have
indicated that some Members of Congress have balked at the drone sale.97 In October 2011,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Alexander Vershbow reportedly
said in a speech to the American-Turkish Council, “This topic is influenced by the problems in
Turkish-Israeli relations. This is not a secret. But just to repeat it, we do support the sale.”98
Concerns about sensitive technology transfer might also exist that are less applicable to the
helicopter sale, partly because Turkey already possesses some SuperCobras. With the region’s
stability in question, one could additionally question whether drones initially intended to fight the
PKK in Turkey and possibly Iraq could be used in the future for other purposes. By redeploying
the four U.S. Predator drones from Iraq to Turkey in late 2011,99 the Obama Administration might
have bought time for further consultations with Congress on a potential drone sale.

95 “Procurement, Turkey,” Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment - Eastern Mediterranean, December 16, 2010. Previous
potential sales of Reapers to NATO allies such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy were notified to Congress
in 2008 and 2009 with the understanding that the drones would be used to support coalition operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
96 “US-Turkey agree on delivery schedule for Predators,” Today’s Zaman, September 25, 2011.
97 “U.S. Vows to Support Turkey over Kurdish Rebels,” Agence France Presse, December 18, 2011.
98 Craig Whitlock, “Pentagon agrees to sell three attack helicopters to Turkey,” Washington Post, November 1, 2011.
99 “US deployed Predators to Incirlik: Davutoglu,” Hurriyet Daily News, November 13, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
34

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Possible Armenian Genocide
Congress’s involvement on Turkey-Armenia issues has the potential to strongly influence U.S.-
Turkey relations. In March 2010 during the 111th Congress, the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs voted to report H.Res. 252 for consideration by the full House (by a vote of 23-22).
H.Res. 252 characterized actions of the Ottoman Empire against Armenians from 1915 to 1917 as
genocide. Similar resolutions had been reported multiple times by congressional committees since
1984 (see Appendix C for a full list), and President Ronald Reagan referred to a “genocide of the
Armenians” during a Holocaust Remembrance Day speech in 1981.
H.Res. 252 did not pass, but in response to the March 2010 committee action, Turkey recalled its
ambassador from the United States for one month, and at least one prominent AKP lawmaker
reportedly warned that “the relationship would be downgraded on every level” in the event of
House passage of the resolution. This warning was commonly interpreted as including a threat to
curtail at least partially or temporarily U.S. access to Turkish bases and territory for transporting
non-lethal cargo to missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.100 Representative Robert Dold introduced
H.Res. 304—virtually identical to H.Res. 252—in June 2011 during the 112th Congress. The
proposed resolution has garnered over 85 co-sponsors and has been referred to the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
At least 20 countries other than Armenia have recognized the Ottoman-era deaths as genocide in
some way, including 11 of the 27 EU member states.101 France is one of these countries, and in
January 2012, the French Senate passed legislation that, if signed by President Nicolas Sarkozy,
would criminalize denial of an Armenian genocide. Following passage of the legislation in the
parliament’s lower house in December 2011, Prime Minister Erdogan recalled Turkey’s
ambassador from France and halted all Turkey-France diplomatic consultations and military
dealings. In the immediate aftermath of the Senate vote, Turkish leaders promised “permanent
sanctions” against France if the bill becomes law, which also may increase tensions related to
Turkey’s EU accession process.102 In late January, 142 French parliamentarians lodged an appeal
with the country’s constitutional council in hopes of invalidating the bill—the council has a
month to make its decision.103
Bilateral Trade Promotion
Although successive U.S. Administrations have cited the importance of increased trade with
Turkey, and the Obama Administration has reemphasized this in articulating its vision for a
multifaceted bilateral strategic relationship with Turkey, it is unclear how effective government
efforts to promote U.S.-Turkey trade can be. A Department of Commerce official told CRS that
total U.S.-Turkey trade volume is growing (estimating $20 billion for 2011, an approximate 45%
increase from 2010), and said that Turkish exports to the United States are growing faster than

100 Robert Tait and Ewen McCaskill, “Turkey threatens ‘serious consequences’ after US vote on Armenian genocide,”
Guardian (UK), March 5, 2010.
101 The EU states recognizing a genocide are France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Lithuania,
Poland, Slovakia, Greece, and Cyprus. The European Parliament has also recognized the deaths as genocide.
102 Scott Sayare and Sebnem Arsu, “Turkey Lashes Out Over Bill About French Genocide,” New York Times,
December 23, 2011. Switzerland and Slovenia have previously criminalized denial of an Armenian genocide.
103 Scott Sayare, “French Court to Review Genocide Bill,” New York Times, January 31, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
35

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

exports to the rest of the world.104 As mentioned above, the United States is Turkey’s fourth-
largest trading partner, and according to the Department of Commerce, Turkey ranks 26th among
countries to which the United States exports merchandise and 47th among countries from which it
imports goods.
Table 5. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Turkey
($ in Millions)


2007 2008 2009 2010

Exports 6,500
9,960
7,090
10,550
Imports
4,600 4,640 3,660 4,200
Total
Volume 11,100 14,600 10,750 14,750
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Bureau of Census
Both U.S. and Turkish officials repeatedly state their desire to enhance bilateral trade and
investment ties. The two countries signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement in 1999.
Annual meetings for the U.S.-Turkey Framework for Strategic Economic and Commercial
Cooperation began in 2010 at the cabinet ministerial level. The goal of the Framework is to
intensify bilateral economic relations in a wide range of areas. One current project is the Near-
Zero Zone, a public-private partnership initiative which seeks to incentivize U.S. investment in
efforts to increase the capacity and efficiency of Turkish energy companies located in Izmir. The
U.S. government has designated Turkey as a priority market and the interagency Trade Policy
Coordination Commission has developed an Export Enhancement Strategy for Turkey.105
Additionally, in the 112th Congress, H.R. 2362 (the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment
Demonstration Project Act of 2011) was ordered to be reported by the House Natural Resources
Committee in November 2011. If enacted, this bill would ease the process by which Turkish
companies could do business on American Indian reservations.
U.S. and Turkish advocates for expanded bilateral, non-defense trade seek greater private sector
contacts and information campaigns facilitated by government officials—including Members of
Congress—through business delegations and contact groups in fields such as energy, property
development, high tech engineering and construction, medical supplies, systems management,
and marketing.106 Turkish officials have occasionally proposed a U.S.-Turkey preferential trade
agreement107 or U.S. legislation establishing qualified industrial zones (QIZs) in Turkey without
success. Some policymakers and observers claim that even if past economic conditions may have
limited U.S. trade with Turkey, recent growth in Turkish consumer demand, quality of products
and services, and global competitiveness and brand recognition have increased Turkey’s value as
an import source, target market, and place of investment for U.S. companies.108 The Turkish

104 CRS correspondence with Department of Commerce official, December 2011.
105 For more detailed information on bilateral efforts to promote trade, see U.S. Department of Commerce Fact Sheet:
U.S.-Turkey Framework for Strategic Economic and Commercial Cooperation, October 14, 2010.
106 CRS conversation with representative of Turkish business association, December 2011.
107 Given Turkey’s customs union with the EU, a full free trade agreement between the United States and Turkey would
not be possible without a U.S.-EU free trade agreement.
108 In December 2011, the New York Times profiled Turkey as an attractive destination for foreign capital given its
growing consumer market and relative political and financial stability. Mark Scott, “In Turkey, Western Companies
Find Stability and Growth,” New York Times, December 23, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
36

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Ministry of Economy has identified six U.S. states as the focus of its efforts to increase bilateral
trade: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and Georgia.109
Conclusion
Turkey’s importance to the United States appears to be growing both because of its increasing
economic and political influence and because the United States is relying increasingly on Turkey
to support U.S. interests in the Middle East as Washington seeks a more economical military and
aid strategy. The feasibility of U.S. reliance on Turkey is likely to be tested in relation to
developments in Syria, Iraq, and Iran, where U.S.-Turkey interests appear to be more aligned than
they were a year ago. Closeness between U.S. and Turkish interests remains subject to fluctuation
as events develop, particularly with regard to Turkey’s troubled relations with Israel and concerns
over strategic preeminence and energy exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean. Congressional
action on the possible sale of drone aircraft to Turkey to counter the PKK or on a potential
Armenian genocide resolution could significantly affect U.S.-Turkey relations, particularly if
Members of Congress link their stances on these issues to the state of Turkey-Israel relations.
The positions Members of Congress take on specific issues concerning Turkey—including
defense cooperation, trade promotion, and Turkish domestic developments—also will indicate
U.S. priorities at a critical time for global and regional stability and for the Turkish republic’s
political and constitutional evolution. This could influence Turkish leaders’ future foreign policy
rhetoric, decisions, and alignments, which in turn will likely have implications for regional
security and for Turkey’s EU accession prospects. Congressional positions could also influence
Turkey’s commitment to civilian-led, democratic government that enshrines individual, media,
and minority rights; rule of law; and due process.

109 Information provided to CRS by Turkish Ministry of Economy, September 2011.
Congressional Research Service
37

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Appendix A. Profiles of Key Figures in Turkey
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
Prime Minister Erdogan (pronounced AIR-DOE-WAN) was born in Istanbul in 1954 and spent
much of his childhood in his family’s ancestral hometown of Rize on the Black Sea coast. He and
his family returned to Istanbul for his teenage years, and he attended a religious imam hatip
school. In the 1970s, Erdogan studied business at what is today Marmara University, played
soccer semi-professionally, and became politically active with the National Salvation Party, led
by the pioneering Turkish Islamist figure (and eventual prime minister) Necmettin Erbakan. After
the military banned all political parties in the wake of its 1980 coup, Erdogan became a business
consultant and executive. When political life in Turkey resumed, Erdogan became a prominent
local leader and organizer for Erbakan’s new Welfare Party.
Erdogan was elected mayor of Istanbul in 1994 at the beginning of a wave of Islamist political
victories in Turkey in the mid-1990s. He was removed from office, imprisoned for six months,
and banned from parliamentary politics for religious incitement after he recited a poem in the
southeastern city of Siirt in December 1997 that included the passage (translated from Turkish):
“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful
our soldiers.”
After Erbakan’s government resigned under military pressure in 1997 and the Welfare Party was
disbanded, Erdogan became the founding chairman of the AKP in 2001. The AKP won a decisive
electoral victory in 2002, securing the single-party rule that it has maintained since. After the
election, a legal change allowed Erdogan to stand for parliament in a 2003 special election in
Siirt, and after he won, Erdogan replaced Abdullah Gul as prime minister.
Erdogan and his personal popularity and charisma have been at the center of much of the
domestic and foreign policy change that has occurred in Turkey in the past decade. In January
2009 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, following the Gaza Strip conflict
between Israel and Hamas, he left the panel discussion in which he was participating after
perceiving a slight by the moderator (Washington Post columnist David Ignatius) and pointedly
criticizing his fellow panelist Shimon Peres, president of Israel. His criticism of Israel and its
actions has boosted his popularity at home and throughout the Muslim Middle East, where polls
show that he may be the region’s most popular world leader.
Erdogan is married and has two sons and two daughters. His wife Emine and daughters wear the
headscarf. He is not fluent in English.
President Abdullah Gul
President Gul was born in 1950 in Kayseri in central Turkey. He studied economics in Turkey and
England, and received his Ph.D. from Istanbul University, becoming a university professor and an
economist at the Islamic Development Bank in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Gul was first elected to
parliament from Kayseri in 1991 as a member of the Islamist Welfare Party, then, after it was
disbanded, stayed on as a reform-minded member of the Islamist Virtue Party. Gul served on
parliamentary assemblies of NATO and the Council of Europe. When the AKP was formed in
2001, he became deputy chairman and—briefly—its first prime minister after the successful
Congressional Research Service
38

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

election of 2002. When Erdogan took over the prime ministry in 2003, Gul became Turkey’s
foreign minister and helped accelerate Turkey’s EU accession process.
In 2007, the AKP nominated Gul for the presidency amid substantial secularist opposition, partly
owing to statements from his early political career that indicated distaste for the secular nature of
Turkey’s republic. Parliament nevertheless elected Gul president. Many observers believe him to
be a moderating influence on the Erdogan government.
Gul is married with two sons and a daughter. His wife Hayrunissa and daughter wear the
headscarf. He speaks fluent English.
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu
Foreign Minister Davutoglu was born in 1959 in Konya in central Turkey. He attended a German
international school in Istanbul and received a Ph.D. in Political Science and International
Relations from Bosphorus University. He became a university professor, spending time in
Malaysia in the early 1990s before establishing himself as a scholar known for applying academic
theory to practical matters of Turkish foreign policy and national security strategy. His book
Strategic Depth, which was published in 2001 and has been translated into other languages but
not English, is thought by some to represent a blueprint of sorts for the policies Davutoglu has
since helped implement.
Following the AKP’s victory in 2002, Davutoglu was appointed chief foreign policy advisor to
the prime minister. Upon his appointment as foreign minister in 2009, he quickly gained renown
for articulating and applying his concepts of zero problems and strategic depth. He advocates for
a preeminent role for Turkey in its surrounding region, but disputes the characterization of his
policies by some observers as “neo-Ottomanism.” He won an AKP parliamentary seat for the first
time in June 2011.
Davutoglu is married with four children. His wife Sare is a medical doctor. He speaks fluent
English, as well as German and Arabic.
Opposition Leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu
Kilicdaroglu, the leader of the main opposition CHP, was born in 1948 in Tunceli province in
eastern Turkey. After receiving an economics degree from what is now Gazi University in
Ankara, Kilicdaroglu had a civil service career—first with the Finance Ministry, then as the
director-general of the Social Security Organization. After retiring from the civil service,
Kilicdaroglu became politically active with the CHP and was elected to parliament from Istanbul
in 2002. He gained national prominence for his efforts to root out corruption among AKP officials
and the AKP-affiliated mayor of Ankara. When CHP leader Deniz Baykal was forced to resign
over a videotape sex scandal in May 2010, Kilicdaroglu was elected to replace him. In the first
national election with him as party leader in June 2011, the CHP gained 23 seats in parliament,
although not as many as some observers expected.
Kilicdaroglu is married with a son and two daughters. He is an Alevi and speaks fluent French.
Congressional Research Service
39

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

PKK Leader Abdullah Ocalan
Abdullah Ocalan was born in or around 1949 in southeastern Turkey (near Sanliurfa). After
attending vocational high school in Ankara, Ocalan served in civil service posts in Diyarbakir and
Istanbul until enrolling at Ankara University in 1971. As his interest developed in socialism and
Kurdish nationalism, Ocalan was jailed for seven months in 1972 for an illegal student
demonstration. His time in prison with other activists helped inspire his political ambitions, and
he became increasingly politically active upon his release. Ocalan founded the Marxist-Leninist-
influenced PKK in 1978 and launched a separatist militant campaign against Turkish security
forces—while also attacking the traditional Kurdish chieftain class—in 1984. He used Syrian
territory as a safe haven. Syria forced Ocalan to leave in 1998 after Turkey threatened war for
harboring him. After traveling to several different countries, Ocalan was captured in February
1999 in Kenya—possibly with U.S. help—and turned over to Turkish authorities. The PKK
declared a cease-fire shortly thereafter. Ocalan was sentenced to death, in a trial later ruled unfair
by the European Court of Human Rights, but when Turkey abolished the death penalty in 2002,
the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. He resides in a maximum-security prison on
the island of Imrali in the Sea of Marmara, and was in solitary confinement until 2009.
Although acting PKK leader Murat Karayilan and other commanders have exercised direct
control over PKK operations during Ocalan’s imprisonment, some observers believe that Ocalan
still ultimately controls the PKK through proxy communications. Although PKK violence
resumed in 2003 and has since continued off-and-on, Ocalan has indicated that the organization is
seeking a negotiated resolution that does not require forming a Kurdish state, and has reportedly
engaged in talks with Turkish intelligence to that end.
Congressional Research Service
40

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Appendix B. List of Selected Turkish-Related
Organizations in the United States

American Friends of Turkey (http://afot.us/)
American Research Institute in Turkey (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ARIT/)
American Turkish Society (http://www.americanturkishsociety.org/)
American-Turkish Council (http://www.the-atc.org/)
Assembly of Turkish American Associations (http://www.ataa.org/)—component organizations
from 17 states and District of Columbia
Ataturk Society of America (http://www.ataturksociety.org/)
Federation of Turkish American Associations
Institute of Turkish Studies (http://turkishstudies.org/)
SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (http://setadc.org)
Turkic American Alliance (http://www.turkicamericanalliance.org/)
• West America Turkic Council (West region)—includes Pacifica Institute
• Turkish American Federation of Midwest (Midwest region)
• Turquoise Council of Americans and Eurasians (South region)—includes
Institute of Interfaith Dialog
• Turkic American Federation of Southeast (Southeast region)—includes Istanbul
Center
• Council of Turkic American Associations (Northeast region)
• Mid Atlantic Federation of Turkic American Associations (Mid-Atlantic
region)—includes Rumi Forum
Turkish Coalition of America (http://www.tc-america.org/)
Turkish Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists (TUSKON)
(http://www.tuskonus.org/tuskon.php)
Turkish Cultural Foundation (http://www.turkishculturalfoundation.org/)
Turkey Policy Center (http://www.turkishpolicycenter.com/)
Congressional Research Service
41

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

Appendix C. Congressional Committee Reports of
Armenian Genocide-Related Proposed Resolutions

Date Reported or of
Vote for Report
Proposed Resolution(s)
Committee
April 5, 1984
S.J.Res. 87
Senate Judiciary
September 28, 1984
S.Res. 241
Senate Foreign Relations
July 9, 1985
H.J.Res. 192
House Post Office and Civil Service
July 23, 1987
H.J.Res. 132
House Post Office and Civil Service
August 3, 1987
H.Res. 238
House Rules
October 18, 1989
S.J.Res. 212
Senate Judiciary
October 11, 2000
H.Res. 596 and H.Res. 625
House Rules
October 10, 2007
H.Res. 106
House Foreign Affairs
March 4, 2010
H.Res. 252
House Foreign Affairs


Author Contact Information

Jim Zanotti

Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
jzanotti@crs.loc.gov, 7-1441

Acknowledgments
Some of this report includes or is derived from material initially written by Carol Migdalovitz, retired CRS
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs.

Congressional Research Service
42