Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations
In Brief
Jim Zanotti
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
August 4, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44000
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Turkey After the July 2016 Failed Coup ......................................................................................... 1
Coup Attempt and Aftermath .................................................................................................... 1
Implications for U.S./NATO Cooperation ................................................................................. 6
Post-Plot Tensions and Gulen’s Status ................................................................................ 6
Specific Issues for U.S. Policy ............................................................................................ 7
Strategic and Political Assessment .................................................................................... 10
Kurds in Turkey ............................................................................................................................. 13
Syria .............................................................................................................................................. 15
U.S.-Turkey Dealings .............................................................................................................. 15
Refugee Issue and European Union Deal ................................................................................ 15
Figures
Figure 1. Past Turkish Domestic Military Interventions ................................................................. 4
Figure 2. Recent Terrorist Attacks in Turkey................................................................................... 8
Figure 3. Map of U.S. and NATO Military Presence in Turkey ..................................................... 11
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 17
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 17
Congressional Research Service
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
Introduction
Several Turkish foreign and domestic policy issues are significant for U.S. interests, and Congress
plays an active role in shaping and overseeing U.S. relations with Turkey.
This report provides information and analysis on key issues in the aftermath of the failed July 15-
16, 2016, coup attempt, including:
the response of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Turkish government—
including significant personnel and institutional changes, and calls for the United
States to extradite Fethullah Gulen (see below)—amid Turkey’s continuing
domestic and regional challenges;
implications for Turkey’s cooperation with the United States and NATO;
the status of Turkey’s Kurds, including tensions and violence between the
Turkish government and the Kurdish militant group PKK (Kurdistan Workers’
Party or Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan); and
U.S.-Turkey dealings and other aspects regarding Syria that involve the Islamic
State organization (IS, also known as ISIS, ISIL, or the Arabic acronym Da’esh),
Kurdish groups, Turkey’s hosting of around three million refugees and migrants,
and its 2016 arrangement with the European Union.
For additional information and analysis, see CRS Report R41368, Turkey: Background and U.S.
Relations, by Jim Zanotti.
Turkey After the July 2016 Failed Coup
Coup Attempt and Aftermath
On July 15-16, 2016, elements within the Turkish military operating outside the chain of
command mobilized air and ground forces in a failed attempt to seize political power from
President Erdogan and Prime Minister Binali Yildirim.1 A majority of voters had elected Erdogan
to a five-year term as president in August 2014, and the ruling Justice and Development Party
(Turkish acronym AKP, which Erdogan co-founded) won its fourth parliamentary majority since
2002 in a November 2015 election.
Government officials used various traditional and social media platforms2 and alerts from mosque
loudspeakers3 to rally Turkey’s citizens in opposition to the plot. Resistance by security forces
loyal to the government and civilians in key areas of Istanbul and Ankara succeeded in foiling the
1 Metin Gurcan, “Why Turkey’s coup didn’t stand a chance,” Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse, July 17, 2016.
2 Uri Friedman, “Erdogan’s Final Agenda,” The Atlantic, July 19, 2016; Nathan Gardels, “A Former Top Turkish
Advisor Explains Why Erdogan Is The Coup’s Biggest Winner,” Huffington Post, July 19, 2016.
3 Pinar Tremblay, “How Erdogan used the power of the mosques against the coup attempt,” Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse,
July 25, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
1
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
coup,4 with around 270 killed on both sides.5 The leaders of Turkey’s opposition parties and key
military commanders helped counter the coup attempt by promptly denouncing it.6
Turkish officials have publicly blamed the plot on military officers with alleged links to Fethullah
Gulen—formerly a state-employed imam in Turkey and now a permanent U.S. resident. Gulen
strenuously denies involvement in the plot, but has acknowledged that he “could not rule out”
involvement by some of his followers.7 He has claimed that the coup attempt appeared staged,
though in a July 31 CNN interview, he said that he would consider any allegation that Erdogan
himself staged the plot to be “a slander.”8 For more on Gulen, see CRS In Focus IF10444,
Fethullah Gulen, Turkey, and the United States: A Reference, by Jim Zanotti.
The coup attempt occurred against a backdrop of various challenges to Turkey’s physical,
political, and economic security. Challenges include domestic controversy over Erdogan’s
increasing consolidation of power and constraints on freedom of expression, as well as terrorist
threats and other security problems connected with the Islamic State, the PKK, and Syria. In
recent years, many observers had concluded that the long era of military sway over Turkish
civilian politics had ended.9 Reportedly, this was largely due to efforts by the government and
adherents or sympathizers of Gulen during Erdogan’s first decade as prime minister (he served in
that office from 2003 to 2014) to diminish the military’s traditionally secularist political power.10
The Erdogan Era
Since Erdogan became prime minister in 2003, he and the ruling AKP have led a process of change in Turkey’s
parliamentary democracy that has steadily increased the power of Erdogan and other civilian leaders working with
him. They have been supported by a substantial political base that largely aligns with decades-long Turkish voter
preferences and backs Erdogan’s economically populist and religiously-informed, socially conservative agenda.11
Erdogan has worked to reduce the political power of the military and other institutions that had constituted Turkey’s
secular elite since the republic’s founding by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1923, and has clashed with other possible rival
power centers, including the Gulen movement. Domestic polarization has intensified since 2013: nationwide anti-
government protests that began in Istanbul’s Gezi Park took place that year, and corruption allegations later surfaced
against a number of Erdogan’s col eagues in and out of government.12
After Erdogan became president in August 2014 via Turkey’s first-ever popular presidential election, he claimed a
mandate for increasing his power and pursuing a “presidential system” of governance.13 In recent years under Erdogan
and the AKP, Turkey has seen:
4 Gardels, op. cit.
5 Ray Sanchez, “Fethullah Gulen on ‘GPS’: Failed Turkey coup looked ‘like a Hollywood movie,’” CNN, July 31,
2016.
6 Kareem Shaheen, “Military coup was well planned and very nearly succeeded, say Turkish officials,” Guardian, July
18, 2016.
7 Stephanie Saul, “An Exiled Cleric Denies Playing a Leading Role in Coup Attempt,” New York Times, July 16, 2016.
8 Sanchez, op. cit.
9 Steven A. Cook, “Turkey has had lots of coups. Here’s why this one failed.” washingtonpost.com, July 16, 2016;
Patrick Kingsley, “‘We thought coups were in the past’: how Turkey was caught unaware,” Guardian, July 16, 2016.
10 Raziye Akkoc, “Erdogan and Gulen: uneasy allies turned bitter foes,” Agence France Presse, July 17, 2016.
11 Soner Cagaptay, “Farewell, President Demirel,” Hurriyet Daily News, June 27, 2015.
12 Freedom House, Democracy in Crisis: Corruption, Media, and Power in Turkey, February 3, 2014.
13 Under Turkey’s present constitution, the presidency is officially nonpartisan and is less directly involved in most
governing tasks than the prime minister. Since becoming president, Erdogan has remained active politically, has
claimed greater prerogatives of power under the constitution, and has proposed constitutional change that would
consolidate his power more formally by vesting greater authority in the office of the president in a way that may be
subject to fewer checks and balances than such systems in the United States and other president-led democracies.
Calling a popular referendum to amend the constitution would require a parliamentary supermajority beyond the AKP’s
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
major personnel and structural changes to the justice sector and the widespread dropping of charges or
convictions against Erdogan col eagues14 and military leaders amid government accusations that the Gulen
movement had used its own agenda to drive police and prosecutorial actions and was intent on establishing a
“parallel structure” to control Turkey.15
official or related private efforts to influence media expression through intimidation, personnel changes,
prosecution, and even direct takeover of key enterprises;16
various measures to prevent future protests, including robust police action, restrictions on social media, and
official and pro-government media allegations that dissent in Turkey largely comes about through the interaction
of small minorities and foreign interests;17
the May 2016 replacement of former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s AKP government by Prime Minister
Binali Yildirim and others characterized as more deferential to Erdogan;18 and
U.S. and European statements of concern regarding Turkish measures targeting civil liberties and the potential
for developments that may undermine the rule of law and political and economic stability.19
Analyses of Erdogan sometimes characterize him as one or more of the fol owing: a reflection of the Turkish
everyman, a cagey and pragmatic populist, a protector of the vulnerable, a budding authoritarian, an indispensable
figure, or an Islamic ideologue.20 Analyses that assert similarities between Erdogan and leaders in countries such as
Russia, Iran, and China in personality, psychology, or leadership style offer possible analogies regarding the countries’
respective pathways.21 However, such analyses often do not note factors that might distinguish Turkey from these
other countries. For example, unlike Russia or Iran, Turkey’s economy cannot rely on significant rents from natural
resources if foreign sources of revenue or investment dry up. Unlike Russia and China, Turkey does not have nuclear
weapons under its command and control. Additionally, unlike all three others, Turkey’s economic, political, and
national security institutions and traditions have been closely connected with those of the West for decades. Turkey’s
future trajectory is likely to be informed by factors including leadership, geopolitics, history, and economics.
However, increased internal and external stresses in the past few years may have made Turkey
more dependent on military force in confronting threats and maintaining stability, leading some to
speculate on the potential for renewed military intervention in politics.22 The plotters’ precise
(...continued)
current representation.
14 Tim Arango, “Some Charges Are Dropped in Scandal in Turkey,” New York Times, October 17, 2014.
15 Piotr Zalewski, “Erdogan turns on Gulenists’ ‘parallel state’ in battle for power,” Financial Times, May 6, 2014.
16 State Department, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, Turkey, updated June 14, 2016; “Turkey’s
Zaman: Editorial tone changes after takeover,” Al Jazeera, March 7, 2016.
17 Lisel Hintz, “Adding Insult to Injury: Vilification as Counter-Mobilization in Turkey’s Gezi Protests,” Project on
Middle East Political Science, June 6, 2016.
18 Reuben Silverman, “Some of the President’s Men: Yildirim, Davutoglu, and the ‘Palace Coup’ Before the Coup,”
reubensilverman.wordpress.com, August 1, 2016.
19 State Department, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, op. cit.; European Commission, Turkey
2015 Report, November 10, 2015, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2015/20151110_report_turkey.pdf.
20 See e.g., Mustafa Akyol, “Turkey’s Authoritarian Drift,” New York Times, November 10, 2015; Nora Fisher Onar,
“The populism/realism gap: Managing uncertainty in Turkey’s politics and foreign policy,” Brookings Institution,
February 4, 2016; Mustafa Akyol, “Does Erdogan want his own Islamic state?” Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse, April 29,
2016; Burak Kadercan, “Erdogan’s Last Off-Ramp: Authoritarianism, Democracy, and the Future of Turkey,” War on
the Rocks, July 28, 2016.
21 See e.g., Oral Calislar, “A tale of two Rambos: Putin, Erdogan take on West,” Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse, December 2,
2014; Douglas Bloomfield, “Washington Watch: Is Erdogan the new Ahmadinejad?” Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2013;
“Sending the Wrong Signal to Turkey,” New York Times, April 19, 2016.
22 See, e.g. Lars Haugom, “A Political Comeback for the Turkish Military?” Turkey Analyst, March 11, 2016; Michael
Rubin, “Could there be a coup in Turkey?” American Enterprise Institute, March 21, 2016; Gonul Tol, “Turkey’s Next
Military Coup,” Foreign Affairs, May 30, 2016; Cengiz Candar, “How will Turkey’s military use its restored
standing?” Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse, April 24, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
3
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
motivations are unclear, but could possibly have included differences with military and political
leadership over Turkey’s general trajectory or specific policies.23 Many observers theorize that the
coup attempt probably sought to thwart a reportedly imminent purge of some involved in the
plot.24
Figure 1. Past Turkish Domestic Military Interventions
Source: Washington Post
Amid post-plot turmoil and an atmosphere of distrust, Turkey’s government has detained or
dismissed tens of thousands of personnel within its military, judiciary, civil service, and
educational system, and taken over or closed various businesses, schools, and media outlets.25
The government largely justifies its actions by claiming that those affected are associated with the
Gulen movement, even though the measures may be broader in whom they directly impact.26
Erdogan described the failed coup as a “gift from God” that would allow the military to be
“cleansed.”27
The United States, various European leaders, and the U.N. Secretary-General have cautioned
Turkey to follow the rule of law.28 Amnesty International alleges that some detainees have been
subjected to beatings, torture, and other human rights violations.29 Western countries’ emphasis
23 See, e.g., Borzou Daragahi, “Document Reveals What Really Drove Turkey’s Failed Coup Plotters,” BuzzFeed, July
28, 2016.
24 Joe Parkinson and Adam Entous, “Turkey's Spies Failed to See Coup Coming,” Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2016;
Metin Gurcan, “Why Turkey’s coup didn’t stand a chance,” Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse, July 17, 2016.
25 Tulay Karadeniz, et al., “Turkey dismisses military, shuts media outlets as crackdown deepens,” Reuters, July 28,
2016.
26 Parkinson and Entous, op. cit.
27 David Dolan and Gulsen Solaker, “Turkey rounds up plot suspects after thwarting coup against Erdogan,” Reuters,
July 16, 2016.
28 See, e.g., Duncan Robinson and Mehul Srivastava, “US and EU leaders warn Turkey’s Erdogan over post-coup
crackdown,” Financial Times, July 18, 2016; “UN head ‘deeply concerned’ by ongoing arrests in Turkey,” Hurriyet
Daily News, July 28, 2016.
29 Merrit Kennedy, “Amnesty International: After Turkey’s Failed Coup, Some Detainees Are Tortured, Raped,” NPR,
July 25, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
4
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
on concerns about the government response has reportedly bothered many Turks (including some
who normally oppose Erdogan) who largely show support for the government’s post-coup
actions, and who may have expected the West to show more solidarity with the Turkish people
after they faced down the coup.30 One observer has indicated that this dynamic may feed “some
virulent anti-Americanism—always latent in Turkey but now increasingly on the surface.”31
Observers debate how lasting and influential the purges will be,36 and how the failed coup and
echoes of past Turkish military interventions might influence future military and government
actions.37 In late July, Turkey’s Supreme
Military Council (YAS) decided that the
State of Emergency and Death Penalty
country’s top military commanders, who
Debate
maintained their loyalty to the
On July 21, the Turkish Parliament voted to approve a three-
government and were taken hostage
month state of emergency, which can be extended. This allows
the government to rule by decree. Turkish also partially
during the failed coup, would retain their
suspended the European Convention on Human Rights, citing
positions.38 Shortly thereafter, the
examples from France, Belgium, and Ukraine as precedents.32
government announced a dramatic
Turkey is also engaged in a nationwide debate on reinstating
restructuring of Turkey’s chain of
capital punishment. Pointing to anti-coup protests that have
command, giving the government
voiced support for bringing back the death penalty, President
apparently decisive control over the
Erdogan has stated that if the parliament passes such a measure,
he wil sign it.33 Capital punishment was abolished in Turkey in
YAS. Erdogan also revealed plans to
2004 as an EU membership prerequisite. Some EU officials have
place the military under the Defense
recently reiterated that no country can join the EU while
Ministry’s control and to reorganize
maintaining the death penalty,34 making any reinstatement likely
institutions involved with military
to render Turkey’s long-stalled prospects for accession an even
training and education.39
more remote possibility.35
With nearly half of the generals and admirals who were serving on July 15 now detained40 and/or
dismissed from service,41 there are doubts in some quarters about the efficacy of the Turkish
military in combating the numerous threats to Turkish security, including those from the Islamic
30 Tim Arango and Ceylan Yeginsu, “Turks Agree on One Thing: U.S. Was Behind Failed Revolt,” New York Times,
August 3, 2016; Kadercan, op. cit.; Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, “Coup Attempt Unifies Turkey — But Could Distance the
West,” German Marshall Fund of the United States, August 2, 2016.
31 William Armstrong, “Turkey and the West Are Heading for a Breakup,” War on the Rocks, August 1, 2016.
32 “Turkish Lawmakers Give Leader Erdogan Sweeping New Powers,” Associated Press, July 21, 2016.
33 “President Erdogan: Ready to reinstate the death penalty,” Al Jazeera, July 19, 2016.
34 Selen Girit, “Will Turkey's failed coup mean a return to the death penalty?” BBC News, July 19, 2016.
35 Kursat Akyol, “Will Turkey reinstate the death penalty?” Al-Monitor Turkish Pulse, July 29, 2016.
36 Ben Hubbard, et al., “Failed Turkish Coup Accelerated a Purge Years in the Making,” New York Times, July 22,
2016.
37 See, e.g., Tim Arango, “With Army in Disarray, a Pillar of Turkey Lies Broken,” New York Times, July 29, 2016.
For references to past military interventions that occurred outside the chain of command (Turkey’s first coup in 1960
and two failed coups in 1962 and 1963), see Nick Danforth, “Lessons for U.S.-Turkish Relations from a Coup Gone
By,” War on the Rocks, July 26, 2016; Aaron Stein, “The Fracturing of Turkey’s Military,” Atlantic Council, July 20,
2016.
38 Emre Peker, “Turkey Firms Grip on Its Military,” Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2016.
39 Yesim Dikmen and David Dolan, “Turkey culls nearly 1,400 from army, overhauls top military council,” Reuters,
July 31, 2016.
40 Arango, “With Army in Disarray, a Pillar of Turkey Lies Broken,” op. cit.
41 Peker, op. cit.
Congressional Research Service
5
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
State and the PKK.42 Beyond the personnel challenges, many observers assert that the internal
divisions revealed by the coup attempt will be detrimental to both cohesion and morale.43
Implications for U.S./NATO Cooperation
The July 2016 failed coup and Turkey’s trajectory in its aftermath could significantly impact
U.S.-Turkey relations given Turkey’s regional importance and membership in NATO.47 Among
NATO allies, only the U.S. military has more active duty personnel than Turkey’s.48
Post-Plot Tensions and Gulen’s
Incirlik Air Base
Status
Incirlik (pronounced in-jeer-leek) air base has long been
the symbolic and logistical center of the U.S. military
In the wake of the failed coup, some tensions
presence in Turkey. Over the past 15 years, the base has
have arisen between the United States and
been critical in supplying U.S. military missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It currently hosts U.S.-led coalition aircraft
Turkey. Secretary of State John Kerry warned
carrying out anti-IS strikes in Syria and Iraq, and around
on July 16 that a wide-ranging purge “would
1,500 U.S. personnel. Dependents of U.S. military and
be a great challenge to [Erdogan’s]
government personnel were ordered to leave Incirlik and
relationship to Europe, to NATO and to all of
other U.S. installations in Turkey in March 2016.44
us.”49 As mentioned above, an apparent
During and shortly after the July coup attempt, power to
disconnect between many Turks and Western
the base was shut off and the airspace over it was closed
to some U.S. aircraft after pro-coup forces were
observers regarding Turkey’s post-coup
revealed to have been using the airfield and assets based
response may be one factor complicating U.S.-
there. U.S. personnel and assets at Incirlik continued to
Turkey relations.50 Some Turkish officials and
function on backup generators.45 U.S. anti-IS sorties have
media have accused the U.S. of prior
since resumed. The arrest of the base’s Turkish
knowledge of or involvement in the coup
commander for alleged involvement in the coup plot has
raised suspicions among some in Turkey about whether
attempt. President Obama dismissed such
the U.S. knew about the coup in advance.46
accusations on July 22 as “unequivocally
false” and threatening to U.S.-Turkey ties.51 The claims may partly stem from popular Turkish
sensitivities about historical U.S. closeness to Turkey’s military. General Joseph Votel, head of
U.S. Central Command, and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, both have raised
42 Metin Gurcan, “Critical meeting will determine fate of Turkish forces post-coup,” Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse, July 25,
2016; Humeyra Pamuk and Gareth Jones, “INSIGHT- Turkish military a fractured force after attempted coup,”
Reuters, July 26, 2016.
43 Soner Cagaptay, “Turkey’s Troubling Turn,” Foreign Affairs, July 19, 2016; James Stavridis, “Turkey and NATO:
What Comes Next Is Messy,” Foreign Policy, July 18, 2016.
44 Andrew Tilghman, “U.S. military dependents ordered to leave Turkey,” Military Times, March 29, 2016.
45 Michael S. Schmidt and Tim Arango, “In a Bid to Maintain Ties, Turkey Changes Its Tone,” New York Times,
August 2, 2016; Selin Nasi, “Turbulence in Turkish-US ties: The Incirlik crisis,” Hurriyet Daily News, July 21, 2016.
46 Oriana Pawlyk and Jeff Shogol, “Incirlik has power again, but Turkey mission faces uncertain future,” Military
Times, July 22, 2016.
47 Tim Arango and Ceylan Yeginsu, “Erdogan Triumphs After Coup Attempt, but Turkey’s Fate Is Unclear,” New York
Times, July 18, 2016.
48 “Turkey: Executive Summary,” IHS Jane's Sentinel Security Assessment - Eastern Mediterranean, July 25, 2016.
49 Gardiner Harris, “John Kerry Rejects Suggestions of U.S. Involvement in Turkey Coup,” New York Times, July 17,
2016.
50 See, e.g., Unluhisarcikli, op. cit.
51 White House, Remarks by President Obama and President Pena Nieto of Mexico in Joint Press Conference, July 22,
2016.
Congressional Research Service
6
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
concerns about how post-plot military personnel changes might affect U.S.-Turkey cooperation,
prompting criticism from Erdogan that has further fed speculation in Turkey about alleged U.S.
connections with the plot.52
Further complicating U.S.-Turkey relations, in the plot’s aftermath the Turkish government has
intensified its calls (which date back to 2014)53 for the United States to extradite Gulen.54
According to polls, calls for Gulen’s extradition have widespread public support in Turkey.55 In a
July 19 phone call with Erdogan, President Obama said that the United States is “willing to
provide appropriate assistance to Turkish authorities investigating the attempted coup” while
urging that Turkish authorities conduct their investigation “in ways that reinforce public
confidence in democratic institutions and the rule of law.”56 In a late July interview, Erdogan
alleged that a “mastermind” was behind Fethullah Gulen’s coming to the United States.57 For
more information on U.S.-Turkey dynamics regarding the extradition issue, see CRS In Focus
IF10444, Fethullah Gulen, Turkey, and the United States: A Reference, by Jim Zanotti. For more
information on the U.S. extradition process in general, see CRS Report RS22702, An Abridged
Sketch of Extradition To and From the United States, by Charles Doyle.
Some Turkish officials have sought to portray U.S. extradition of Gulen as critical for positive
U.S.-Turkey relations,58 though the potential consequences if he is not extradited remain unclear.
In early August 2016, during a visit to Turkey by General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, top Turkish officials reassured Dunford that the United States would continue to
enjoy access to Incirlik and other bases in Turkey.59
Specific Issues for U.S. Policy
Specific issues of concern with implications for U.S. policy going forward include:
Turkey’s NATO Role. U.S./NATO basing and operations in Turkey, joint exercises and
expeditionary missions, and NATO assistance (including air defense batteries and
AWACS aircraft60) to address Turkey’s external threats.
Arms Sales and Bilateral Military Cooperation. U.S. arms sales or potential sales to
Turkey include F-35 next-generation fighter aircraft.61 The United States provides annual
security-related aid to Turkey of approximately $3-5 million.62
52 Dion Nissenbaum and Paul Sonne, “Turkish President Rebukes U.S. General,” Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2016.
Earlier, Clapper had said in an interview that the intelligence he had seen had not turned up evidence of Gulen’s
involvement in the coup plot. David Ignatius, “A reality check on the Middle East from America’s spy chief,”
Washington Post, July 21, 2016. However, in an early August interview on Turkish television, U.S. Ambassador to
Turkey John Bass referred to the “apparent involvement of a large number” of Gulen’s supporters in the plot. Tim
Arango and Ceylan Yeginsu, “Turks Agree on One Thing: U.S. Was Behind Failed Revolt,” op. cit.
53 Gulsen Solaker, “Turkey’s Erdogan calls on U.S. to extradite rival Gulen,” Reuters, April 29, 2014.
54 Jessica Durando, “Turkey demands extradition of cleric Fethullah Gulen from U.S.,” USA Today, July 19, 2016.
55 “Most Turks believe a secretive Muslim sect was behind the failed coup,” Economist, July 28, 2016.
56 White House, Readout of the President’s Call with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, July 19, 2016.
57 Dikmen and Dolan, op. cit.
58 Schmidt and Arango, op. cit.
59 Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Erin Cunningham, “Pentagon’s top general seeks to cool anti-American sentiment in
Turkey,” Washington Post, August 1, 2016.
60 NATO Fact Sheet, “Augmentation of Turkey’s Air Defence,” June 2016; NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers Europe, “NATO AWACS Increases Assurance Measures to Turkey,” March 15, 2016; John-Thor Dahlberg,
“NATO chief: AWACS will aid anti-Islamic State operations,” Associated Press, July 4, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
7
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
Syria and Iraq Issues and Anti-IS Coalition. Including U.S.-Turkey dynamics
involving the Islamic State, Kurds within and outside Turkey, other state and
non-state actors, and contested territory in northern Syria.
Domestic Stability, Human Rights, and Kurdish Issues. Including the government’s
approach to rule of law, civil liberties, terrorist threats, Kurds and other minorities, and
nearly three million refugees and migrants from Syria and elsewhere.
Border Concerns. Turkey’s ability and willingness, in concert with other international
actors, to control cross-border flows of refugees, migrants, and possible foreign fighters
and terrorists.
Figure 2. Recent Terrorist Attacks in Turkey
Source: Deutsche Welle, July 2016
Notes: All figures are approximate.
(...continued)
61 Jeffrey Rathke and Lisa Sawyer Samp, “Security in the Eastern Mediterranean after the Coup Attempt: Turkey’s
Reckoning and Washington’s Worries,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 21, 2016; “Despite
Tensions With US, Lockheed Prepares to Hand Over F-35s to Turkey,” Sputnik News, July 20, 2016. Turkey is one of
12 partner countries (including the United States) in the multinational consortium responsible for the F-35’s
manufacture. See https://www.f35.com/global. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress in 2006 of
a possible direct commercial sale of up to 100 F-35s to Turkey, with delivery on any sale projected to take place over
the next decade. To date, Turkey has ordered six F-35s. “Turkey – Procurement,” IHS Jane's Sentinel Security
Assessment - Eastern Mediterranean, December 8, 2015. For more information on recent, ongoing, and prospective
U.S. arms transfers to Turkey, see CRS Report R41368, Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti.
62 State Department FY2017 Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Appendix 3, pp. 114-116.
Congressional Research Service
8
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
Recently Improved Turkish Relations with Israel and Russia
Turkey’s relations with key neighbors could have significant implications for U.S.-Turkey relations as well. In the
weeks prior to the coup, Turkey had undertaken efforts to reconcile or improve its troubled ties with both Israel and
Russia, and had stated an interest in improving its relations with other nearby countries. The efforts may partly have
reflected Turkish leaders’ desires to (1) bolster Erdogan’s position domestically and internationally in light of various
national security threats, economic concerns (including a major decline in foreign tourism), and recent criticism of his
rule;63 (2) address Turkey’s growing demand for external sources of energy;64 and (3) improve Turkey’s prospects of
influencing regional political-military outcomes, particularly in Syria and Iraq.65
In late June 2016, Turkey and Israel announced the ful restoration of diplomatic relations. Reportedly, Vice President
Joe Biden facilitated the rapprochement in part due to potential mutual benefits anticipated by both sides from the
construction of a natural gas pipeline from offshore Israeli fields to Turkey.66 According to media reports, the
rapprochement includes Israeli compensation to the families of those kil ed in the 2010 Gaza flotil a incident67 in
exchange for an end to legal claims, as well as opportunities for Turkey to assist with humanitarian and infrastructure
projects for Palestinian residents in the Gaza Strip. It is unclear to what extent Turkey might—as part of the
rapprochement—contemplate limiting its ties with Hamas or the activities of some Hamas figures reportedly based in
Turkey.68
Also in June, Turkey made strides toward repairing relations with Russia that had been strained since November 2015
when a Turkish F-16 downed a Russian Su-24 aircraft near the Turkey-Syria border under disputed circumstances.
Erdogan wrote a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin expressing regret for the November incident. In response,
Russia lifted various economic sanctions it had imposed after the incident,69 and state-owned Gazprom subsequently
announced that work that had reportedly been put on hold regarding a planned natural gas pipeline between the two
countries (known as Turkish Stream) would resume.70 Concerns about possible Russian retaliation prevented Turkey
from carrying out air sorties over Syria after the incident,71 and reported Russian support or enabling of Syrian
Kurdish forces may have also been partially motivated by bilateral tensions.72
Some analysts posit that in light of Western criticism of the post-coup crackdown on domestic opposition, Erdogan
may opt to seek closer relations with Russia, possibly at the expense of Turkey’s relations with the U.S. and Europe.73
However, Turkey has a long history of tension with Russia.74
63 Yaroslav Trofimov, “Turkey Changes Tack on Foreign Policy to Win Back Friends,” Wall Street Journal, July 7,
2016.
64 Soner Cagaptay and James Jeffrey, “Turkey’s Regional Charm Offensive: Motives and Prospects,” Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, June 27, 2016.
65 Laura Pitel, “Flurry of diplomatic activity marks Turkey foreign policy shift,” Financial Times, June 28, 2016.
66 Many analysts assert that a Turkey-Israel pipeline would probably traverse Cypriot waters, thus necessitating an
improvement in Turkish-Cypriot relations, if not a resolution to the decades-long dispute between Greek and Turkish
Cypriots. For information on ongoing diplomacy regarding Cyprus, see CRS Report R41136, Cyprus: Reunification
Proving Elusive, by Vincent L. Morelli. Discussion of a pipeline may also attract the attention of Russia, currently
Turkey’s largest natural gas supplier.
67 For more information on the incident, see CRS Report R41368, Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim
Zanotti.
68 Rory Jones, et al., “Turkey, Israel Trumpet Benefits of Deal to Normalize Relations,” Wall Street Journal, June 27,
2016.
69 “Russia closes ‘crisis chapter’ with Turkey,” Al Jazeera, June 29, 2016.
70 Dmitry Solovyov, “Russia, Turkey reach ‘political decision’ on TurkStream, nuclear power plant: agencies,”
Reuters, July 26, 2016.
71 Deniz Zeyrek, “Turkey suspends Syria flights after crisis with Russia,” Hurriyet Daily News, November 27, 2015.
72 Trofimov, op. cit.; Fabrice Balanche, “The Struggle for Azaz Corridor Could Spur a Turkish Intervention,”
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, PolicyWatch 2532, December 11, 2015.
73 Soner Cagaptay, “If tensions increase with the west, Erdogan might find a friend in Putin,” Guardian, July 23, 2016.
74 Soner Cagaptay, “When Russia Howls, Turkey Moves,” War on the Rocks, December 2, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
9
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
Strategic and Political Assessment
U.S. civilian and military installations and personnel in Turkey were unharmed during the July
2016 attempted putsch. However, concerns surrounding plot-related events that transpired at
Incirlik air base (see textbox above) have fueled discussion among analysts about the advisability
of continued U.S./NATO use of Turkish bases,75 including the reported storage of aircraft-
deliverable nuclear weapons at Incirlik (for more information, see CRS Insight IN10542, U.S.
Nuclear Weapons in Turkey, by Amy F. Woolf).76
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. Turkey also controls access to and from the Black Sea through its straits pursuant to the
Montreux Convention of 1936. Turkey’s embrace of the United States and NATO during the Cold
War came largely as a reaction to post-World War II actions by the Soviet Union seemingly aimed
at moving Turkey and its strategic control of maritime access points into a Soviet sphere of
influence.
75 Rathke and Samp, op. cit.
76 Aaron Stein, “Nuclear Weapons in Turkey Are Destabilizing, but Not for the Reason You Think,” War on the Rocks,
July 22, 2016; Tobin Harshaw, “Why the U.S. should move nukes out of Turkey,” Bloomberg, July 25, 2016; Jeffrey
Lewis, “America’s Nukes Aren’t Safe in Turkey Anymore,” Foreign Policy, July 18, 2016; Eric Schlosser, “The H-
Bombs in Turkey,” New Yorker, July 17, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
10
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
Figure 3. Map of U.S. and NATO Military Presence in Turkey
Sources: Department of Defense, NATO, and various media outlets; adapted by CRS.
Notes: All locations are approximate. All bases are under Turkish sovereignty, with portions of them used for
limited purposes by the U.S. military and NATO. The U.S. and German Patriot missile batteries are scheduled to
be withdrawn by October 2015 and January 2016, respectively.
On a number of occasions throughout the history of the U.S.-Turkey alliance, events or
developments have led to the withdrawal of U.S. military assets from Turkey or restrictions on
U.S. use of its territory and/or airspace.77 Calculations regarding the costs and benefits to the
United States of a U.S./NATO presence in Turkey, and how changes or potential changes in
U.S./NATO posture might influence Turkish calculations and policies, revolve to a significant
extent around the following two questions:
To what extent does the United States rely on the use of Turkish territory or
airspace to secure and protect U.S. interests?
77 For more information, see CRS Report R41368, Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti.
Congressional Research Service
11
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
To what extent does Turkey rely on U.S./NATO support, both in principle and in
functional terms, for its security and its ability to exercise influence in the
surrounding region?
The cost to the United States of finding a temporary or permanent replacement for Incirlik air
base would likely depend on a number of variables, including the functionality and location of
alternatives, the location of future U.S. military engagements, and the political and economic
difficulty involved in moving or expanding U.S. military operations elsewhere.
Any reevaluation of the U.S./NATO presence in and relationship with Turkey would take a
number of political considerations into account alongside strategic and operational ones. Certain
differences between Turkey and its NATO allies, including some related to Syria in recent years,
may persist irrespective of who leads these countries given their varying (1) geographical
positions, (2) threat perceptions, and (3) roles in regional and global political and security
architectures. Turkey’s historically and geopolitically driven efforts to avoid domination by
outside powers—sometimes called the “Sèvres syndrome”78—resonate in its ongoing attempts to
achieve greater military, economic, and political self-sufficiency and to influence its surrounding
environment.
The potential for the United States to use its political relationship with Turkey to boost U.S.
influence in the greater Middle East remains inconclusive. Regardless of some difficulties with
the United States and other NATO countries, Turkey remains a key regional power that shares
linkages and characteristics with the West,79 which may distinguish Turkey from other Muslim-
majority regional powers such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Therefore, cooperation with
Turkey, along with other actors, is likely to remain relevant for the advancement of U.S. interests
in the volatile area.80
However, recent foreign and domestic policy developments may have constrained Turkey’s role
as a shaper of regional outcomes, a model for neighboring countries, and a facilitator of U.S.
interests.81 Additionally, as Turkey’s energy consumption grows along with its economy, its
dependence on Russia82 and Iran83 for significant portions of its energy may contribute to
constraints on some aspects of its security cooperation with the United States and NATO. Turkey
engages with a wide range of non-NATO actors as part of its efforts to cultivate military and
defense industrial links and to exercise greater regional and global influence politically and
economically.84 Still, for the time being, Turkey lacks comparable alternatives to its security and
78 See, e.g., Nick Danforth, “Forget Sykes-Picot. It’s the Treaty of Sèvres That Explains the Modern Middle East,”
foreignpolicy.com, August 10, 2015.
79 “Foreign policy: Alone in the world,” Economist, February 6, 2016.
80 See, e.g., M. Hakan Yavuz and Mujeeb R. Khan, “Turkey Treads a Positive Path,” New York Times, February 12,
2015.
81 Michael Crowley, “Did Obama get Erdogan wrong?” Politico, July 16, 2016. Soli Ozel of Kadir Has University in
Istanbul, quoted in Liz Sly, “Turkey’s increasingly desperate predicament poses real dangers,” Washington Post,
February 20, 2016.
82 Russia supplies about 20% of Turkey’s energy consumption. “Russia v Turkey: Over the borderline,” Economist,
November 28, 2015.
83 Turkey has become less dependent on Iranian oil in recent years, but—according to 2015 government figures—still
receives about 22% of the oil it imports from Iran (with more than 45% now coming from Iraq) and 15.3% of the
natural gas it imports from Iran (with more than 58% coming from Russia). See http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkeys-energy-
strategy.en.mfa.
84 For example, in a now-discontinued effort to seek a foreign partner for a multibillion-dollar air and missile defense
system, Turkish officials in 2013 indicated a preliminary preference for a Chinese state-controlled company’s offer
until reported problems with negotiations, criticism from NATO allies, and competing offers from European and U.S.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
economic ties with the West, with which it shares a more than 60-year legacy of institutionalized
cooperation.
Kurds in Turkey
It is still not clear how the failed coup will affect Erdogan’s stance toward Turkey’s Kurds, which
has changed in recent years. Until the spring of 2015, Erdogan appeared to prefer negotiating a
political compromise with PKK leaders over the prospect of armed conflict.85 However, against
the backdrop of PKK affiliated Kurdish groups’ continued success in Syria, and a June 2015
election in Turkey in which the pro-Kurdish party (People’s Democratic Party, Turkish acronym
HDP) made substantial gains, Erdogan adopted a more nationalistic rhetorical stance criticizing
the PKK and HDP.
Around the same time, the PKK was reportedly preparing for a possible renewal of conflict in
southeastern Turkey.86 The balance of leverage between the government and the PKK was at least
partly affected after late 2014 by growing U.S. support for PKK-affiliated Kurds in Syria who are
fighting against the Islamic State (specifically the Democratic Union Party—Kurdish acronym
PYD—and its militia the People’s Protection Units—Kurdish acronym YPG).87 Although the
United States has considered the PKK to be a terrorist group since 1997, it does not apply this
characterization to the PYD/YPG.88
A complicated set of circumstances involving IS-linked terrorist attacks against pro-Kurdish
demonstrators, PKK allegations of Turkish government acquiescence to or complicity with the
attacks, and a deadly ambush of Turkish security personnel led to a resumption of violence
between government forces and the PKK in the summer of 2015. The return to violence helped
Erdogan in the short term, with some Kurds presumably moving back to the AKP from the HDP
in November 2015 elections because of the PKK’s return to conflict.89
The resurgent Turkey-PKK violence led Turkish authorities to take emergency measures to
overcome PKK-affiliated redoubts in key southeastern urban areas.90 Since December 2015, at
least 350,000 have been displaced and the region’s infrastructure has suffered significant damage,
(...continued)
companies apparently led the Turks to move away from this preference. Lale Sariibrahimoglu, “Turkey begins T-
Loramids talks with Eurosam,” IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, September 8, 2014.
85 For more information on the various Kurdish groups in Syria and their relationships with Turkey-based groups and
the Turkish state, see CRS Report R44513, Kurds in Iraq and Syria: U.S. Partners Against the Islamic State,
coordinated by Jim Zanotti.
86 Ugur Ergan, “Attacks reveal PKK prepared for war during peace talks: Analyst,” Hurriyet Daily News, August 21,
2015; Aliza Marcus, “Turkey’s Kurdish Guerrillas Are Ready for War,” Foreign Policy, August 31, 2015.
87 Semih Idiz, “US support of Syrian Kurds ruffles Turkey’s feathers,” Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse, August 4, 2015.
88 In a September 21, 2015, daily press briefing, the State Department spokesperson said that the United States does not
consider the YPG to be a terrorist organization, and in a February 23, 2016, press briefing, the Defense Department
spokesperson said that “we will continue to disagree with Turkey [with] regard [to] … our support for those particular
[Kurdish] groups that are taking the fight to ISIL, understanding their concerns about terrorist activities.” In an April,
28, 2016 Senate hearing, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter appeared to answer ‘yes’ to a question on whether the YPG
has ties to the PKK, but he later reiterated that the YPG is not a designated terrorist organization.
89 Piotr Zalewski, “Turkey’s pro-Kurdish party reels as AKP storms back into power,” Financial Times, November 2,
2015.
90 Orhan Coskun, “Turkish warplanes strike northern Iraq after Ankara bombing blamed on Kurdish militants,”
Reuters, March 14, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
13
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
according to the Turkish Ministry of Health.91 The violence has fueled international concerns
about possible human rights abuses.92 Figures are difficult to verify, but Erdogan claimed in
March 2016 that 5,000 PKK militants and 355 state security forces had been killed in the
offensive93 and the U.S. State Department reported “dozens” of civilian deaths as of December
2015.94 U.S. officials, while supportive of Turkey’s prerogative to defend itself from attacks, have
advised Turkey to show restraint and proportionality in its actions against the PKK.95
The military effort against the PKK in the southeast has been led by Turkey’s Second Army,
whose commander has been detained in connection with the coup plot.96 Some analysts assert that
post-coup changes involving commanders and personnel could affect force readiness.97 The
Turkish military launched air strikes against PKK targets in northern Iraq in the days following
the coup, possibly at least partly to project a sense of continuity and stability.98
In late 2015, some Turkish observers alleged that remarks by HDP leaders supported armed
Kurdish resistance. Erdogan called for action revoking parliamentary members’ immunity from
expulsion and prosecution.99 In May 2016, legislators (largely from the AKP and the Nationalist
Action Party—Turkish acronym MHP) approved this change by amending the constitution.100
Before the failed coup, many analysts anticipated action against parliamentary members from the
HDP and perhaps some from the main opposition CHP (Turkish acronym for Republican People’s
Party), at least partly as a way to advance Erdogan’s quest for a favorable parliamentary
supermajority to establish a presidential system. They speculated about how a virtual
disenfranchisement of Kurdish nationalist voters might affect prospects for heightened or
extended Turkey-PKK violence.101
In the aftermath of the failed coup, next steps regarding the PKK and HDP and prospects for
resuming Turkey-PKK negotiations are uncertain. Despite the HDP’s quick condemnation of the
plot, along with all other parties in parliament, Erdogan continues to exclude HDP leaders from
cross-party meetings and events.102 Some HDP figures have voiced concern that CHP and MHP
solidarity with the AKP might isolate them or leave them prone to a future government
crackdown.103
91 Zia Weise, “Turkey’s ‘like Syria,’” Politico Europe, March 21, 2016.
92 Suzan Fraser, “Turkey’s military has ended a three-month operation against Kurdish militants in the largest city in
the country’s mostly Kurdish southeast,” Associated Press, March 9, 2016.
93 Seyhmus Cakan, “More than 5,000 Kurdish militants killed since July: Turkey’s Erdogan,” Reuters, March 28, 2016.
94 State Department, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, op. cit
95 See, e.g., “Obama calls Erdogan to discuss Ankara attack, Syria,” Anadolu Agency, February 19, 2016.
96 Kadri Gursel, “Turkey’s failed coup reveals ‘army within an army,’” Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse, July 22, 2016.
97 See, e.g., Aaron Stein, “Inside a failed coup and Turkey’s fragmented military,” War on the Rocks, July 20, 2016.
98 “Turkey air strikes kill PKK fighters in northern Iraq,” Al Jazeera, July 20, 2016.
99 “Turkey’s Erdogan: Demirtas Kurdish autonomy plea is ‘treason,’” BBC News, December 29, 2015.
100 “Turkey passes bill to strip politicians of immunity,” Al Jazeera, May 20, 2016.
101 Kadri Gursel, “Ouster of Kurdish MPs threatens to fuel separatism in Turkey,” Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse, May 23,
2016.
102 See, e.g., “No invitation to Turkish leaders’ summit angers HDP,” Hurriyet Daily News, July 25, 2016.
103 Diego Cupolo, “The state of emergency for Turkey’s opposition,” dw.com, July 25, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
14
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
Syria
U.S.-Turkey Dealings
A number of developments, such as international jihadist terror incidents and refugee flows,
particularly in the past year, have driven U.S. expectations regarding Turkish cooperation with
respect to Syria. Though some observers alleged that Turkey had been slow in 2013 and 2014 to
curtail activities involving its territory that were seen as bolstering the Islamic State and other
Sunni extremist groups,104 Turkey has partnered with the U.S.-led anti-IS coalition, including
through hosting coalition aircraft that (since summer 2015) strike targets in Syria and Iraq. In
engaging in these efforts, Turkish officials have sought greater intelligence sharing from foreign
fighters’ countries of origin, with some success.105
Even as periodic IS-linked terrorist attacks and cross-border rocket attacks have killed dozens in
Turkey in recent months, various factors contribute to Turkish leaders’ continuing concerns about
Kurdish groups106 and the Syrian government and its allies. Turkish priorities are likely to depend
on perceived threats and the options Turkish leaders discern for minimizing them.107 As with
Turkey’s efforts against the PKK, Turkey’s capacity to influence events in Syria appears to be
affected by the July 2016 failed coup and military shakeup.108 These, in turn, may be impacting
the calculations of the Syrian government and other key actors.109
Refugee Issue and European Union Deal
Since 2011, approximately three million refugees or migrants from Syria and other countries have
come to Turkey, posing significant humanitarian, socioeconomic, and security challenges. Turkey
has spent approximately $9 billion on refugee assistance110 and its camps have reportedly
provided a relatively high standard of care.111 Turkey does not grant formal refugee status to non-
Europeans,112 but has adjusted its laws and practices in recent years to provide greater protection
and assistance to asylum-seekers, regardless of their country of origin. With the imminent return
of most refugees unlikely due to continuing conflict in Syria, Turkey is focusing more on how to
manage their longer-term presence in Turkish society—including with reference to their basic
104 See, e.g., Alison Smale, “Turkey’s Role as Migrant Gateway Is Source of New Urgency for E.U.,” New York Times,
November 18, 2015; Lale Sariibrahimoglu, “On the borderline–Turkey’s ambiguous approach to Islamic State,” IHS
Jane’s Intelligence Review, October 16, 2014.
105 Greg Miller and Souad Mekhennet, “Undercover teams, increased surveillance and hardened borders: Turkey cracks
down on foreign fighters,” Washington Post, March 6, 2016.
106 For more information, see CRS Report R44513, Kurds in Iraq and Syria: U.S. Partners Against the Islamic State,
coordinated by Jim Zanotti.
107 See, e.g., Liz Sly and Karen DeYoung, “Ignoring Turkey, U.S. backs Kurds in drive against ISIS in Syria,”
Washington Post, June 1, 2016; Soner Cagaptay, “Turkey’s Istanbul attack vengeance will be like ‘rain from hell,’”
CNN, June 29, 2016; Nick Ashdown, “Turkey’s Tourism Plummets amid Bombings and Crisis with Russia,”
Jerusalem Post, June 14, 2016.
108 See, e.g., Yaroslav Trofimov, “Fallout from Turkey Coup Leaves Syria Rebels in the Lurch,” Wall Street Journal,
August 4, 2016.
109 Ibid.
110 “Turkey has spent $9 bn on refugees: Erdogan,” Agence France Presse, February 1, 2016.
111 Mac McClelland, “How to Build a Perfect Refugee Camp,” New York Times Magazine, February 13, 2014.
112 See http://www.geneva-academy.ch/RULAC/international_treaties.php?id_state=226.
Congressional Research Service
15
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
needs, employment,113 education, and impact on local communities—and on preventing additional
mass influxes. After the July 2016 failed coup in Turkey, some observers question Turkey’s
ability to manage the situation.114
In response to hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants leaving Turkey for the Greek
islands in 2015 and the first three months of 2016, Turkey and the European Union (EU) reached
an arrangement in March 2016 providing for the return from Greece to Turkey of “irregular
migrants or asylum seekers whose applications have been declared inadmissible.”115 In exchange,
the EU agreed to resettle one Syrian refugee for every Syrian readmitted to Turkey, and
additionally promised to (1) speed up the disbursement of a previously allocated €3 billion in aid
to Turkey and provide up to €3 billion more to assist with refugee care in Turkey through 2018,
(2) grant visa-free travel to Turkish citizens if Turkey meets certain requirements, and (3) “re-
energize” Turkey’s EU accession process.116
The deterrent effect of the arrangement appears to have contributed to a dramatic reduction in the
number of people crossing from Turkey to the Greek islands, leading some observers to
characterize it to date as a pragmatic success.117 Ongoing Turkey-EU disputes and questions
about the deal’s compatibility with international legal and human rights standards, however, call
its long-term viability into question. Turkish officials want the EU to pay assistance funds directly
to the government, rather than to third-party organizations,118 and Turkey appears resistant to
meeting the EU’s precondition that it narrow the scope of a key anti-terrorism law in order for the
visa waiver to go into effect.119 The EU announced in June that the visa waiver determination
would be delayed to October, though doubts have arisen about that timeline and the durability of
the overall deal in light of EU criticism of post-coup developments in Turkey.120
Additionally, a number of international organizations and other observers claim that the Turkey-
EU deal does not or may not meet international norms and laws.121 Some reports from 2016 claim
that Turkish officials have expelled some Syrian refugees and that security forces have shot or
beaten others at the border to prevent them from entering.122 Some displaced persons unable to
113 For information on a recently introduced work permit option for Syrian refugees registered in Turkey, see Daryl
Grisgaber and Ann Hollingsworth, Planting the Seeds of Success? Turkey’s New Refugee Work Permits, Refugees
International, April 14, 2016.
114 See, e.g., Jessica Brandt, “Turkey’s failed coup could have disastrous consequences for Europe’s migrant crisis,”
Brookings Institution, July 29, 2016.
115 European Commission Fact Sheet, “Implementing the EU-Turkey Statement – Questions and Answers,” June 15,
2016, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1664_en.htm.
116 Ibid.
117 See, e.g., James Traub, “If the Refugee Deal Crumbles, There Will Be Hell to Pay,” Foreign Policy, June 7, 2016.
Around the time of the March 2016 deal, the closure of various migration routes from Greece to other European
countries via the Western Balkans probably also contributed to the drop in maritime crossings from Turkey.
118 Laura Pitel and Alex Barker, “Turkey demands EU hands over €3bn for refugees,” Financial Times, May 11, 2016.
119 Semih Idiz, “Turkish-EU ties in throes of a slow death,” Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse, June 21, 2016.
120 Brandt, op. cit.; Ruth Bender and Margaret Coker, “Turkey Clashes with EU Allies,” Wall Street Journal, August 2,
2016; Hortese Goulard, “Gunther Oettinger: No visa waiver for Turkey this year,” Politico EU, July 19, 2016; Rem
Korteweg, “Can the EU-Turkey Migration Deal Survive Erdogan’s Purges?” Centre for European Reform, August 2,
2016.
121 See, e.g., Amnesty International, No Safe Refuge: Asylum-Seekers and Refugees Denied Effective Protection in
Turkey, June 2016; Medicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), “EU States’ dangerous approach to migration
places asylum in jeopardy worldwide,” June 17, 2016.
122 Amnesty International, “Turkey: Illegal mass returns of Syrian refugees expose fatal flaws in EU-Turkey deal,”
April 1, 2016; Human Rights Watch, “Turkey: Border Guards Kill and Injure Asylum Seekers,” May 10, 2016; Ceylan
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief
reach Turkey are in makeshift camps on the Syrian side of the border.123 Largely owing to
concerns regarding Turkey’s “safe country” status, Greek asylum adjudicators are returning fewer
claimants to Turkey than was generally expected at the time of the deal,124 while disputes within
and between EU countries additionally cloud the prospects of large-scale refugee resettlement
from Turkey.
Author Contact Information
Jim Zanotti
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
jzanotti@crs.loc.gov, 7-1441
Acknowledgments
Clayton B. Thomas, Presidential Management Fellow in Middle Eastern Affairs (cbthomas@crs.loc.gov, 7-
2433), co-authored this report.
(...continued)
Yeginsu, “11 Syrian Refugees Reported Killed by Turkish Border Guards,” New York Times, June 20, 2016.
123 Human Rights Watch, “Turkey: Open Border to Displaced Syrians Shelled by Government,” April 20, 2016.
124 Nektaria Stamouli, “EU's Migration Plan Hits Snag in Greece,” Wall Street Journal, May 20, 2016. In May, a
European Commission spokesperson said, “No asylum seeker will be sent back to Turkey under the EU-Turkey
agreement if, in their individual case, Turkey cannot be considered a safe third country or safe first country of asylum.”
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
17