Hudson Experts Urge Prudence Amid Escalating U.S.-Turkey Tensions 

Tensions between the U.S. and Turkey are the highest in years. As Hudson experts detail, the rifts run far deeper than recent actions, including Turkey importing the Russian-made S-400 missile defense system.

Mike Doran and Peter Rough consider what led to the deterioration of relations and the critical role Germany is playing in keeping the relationship together, writing: 

More than any other partner of the United States, Germany has a key role to play in helping Trump to get the balance right. This is true for two reasons: of all the countries of Western Europe, Germany is the most familiar with, and exposed to, all things Turkish. If the Turkish-American alliance is a one-lane freeway of security issues handled by the Pentagon, the Turkish-German relationship is a multi-lane highway of crisscrossing issues affecting all segments of society.

Germany has not entertained illusions about Turkey as a beacon of democracy to the same extent as the United States, thanks to the breadth and depth of its ties to the country, which date back decades. Those ties have brought Turkey, in all of its complexity, closer to the German than to the American people. In Berlin, the future of Turkey is not merely debated in erudite journals but by the man in the street.

In his Global View column for the Wall Street Journal, Walter Russell Mead emphasizes the importance of U.S.-Turkey relations for the NATO alliance and how recent Turkish foreign policy actions threaten the future of the alliance, writing: 

The potential defection of a major ally like Turkey poses a significant challenge to NATO, not least because the alliance has no legal means to expel members that default on their obligations. While Mr. Erdogan’s purchase of the Russian system requires a serious response, and the delivery of F-35s must be put on hold, Washington should move cautiously.

Turkey and the West do best when they work together. The Ottoman alliance with the Central Powers ended with dismemberment of the empire in World War I. But the rift was also costly for Winston Churchill; the Allied defeat at Gallipoli damaged his reputation and haunted him for years. The Istanbul election demonstrates that opposition to Mr. Erdogan’s increasingly erratic leadership is deepening. A century after the Great War, Washington should remember that Turkey is bigger than one man and focus on the long term.

In an opinion editorial for the New York Post, Blaise Misztal argues that repairing U.S.-Turkey relations should be a top priority for U.S. strategists, writing:

This drift away from the West is the biggest challenge facing the US-Turkish relationship. Never since the end of the Cold War has Washington had greater need of a strong partnership with Turkey. Its strategic location, military strength, (still extant) republican political institutions and historical connections to contested regions make it an invaluable asset amid threats from China, Russia and Iran.

Erdogan might have thrown in his lot with these American competitors, but the orientation of Turkey is still undetermined. Countering his propaganda and rebuilding the trust of Turkish society should be at the heart of US strategy.

And Misztal discusses what’s next for US-Turkey relations after Erdogan accepted the Russian S-400 missile defense system in a radio interview on the John Batchelor Show.

Hudson Highlights

Commentary

U.S.-Pakistan Relations

Husain Haqqani on Afghanistan peace talks in Axios:

Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. now at the Hudson Institute, says the Afghan officials with whom he’s been speaking are deeply frustrated.

“How can a peace process take place when the United States will only talk to the enemy and not their ally,” he says, referring not only to the exclusion of Kabul, but also to Trump’s embrace of Pakistan as a partner for peace.

“Real peace in Afghanistan would mean that the institutions that have been built over the last 17 years are retained and the Taliban gets a share in the existing political system,” he says, “but the Taliban are ideologically not disposed to sharing power.”

Aparna Pande on Imran Khan’s visit to the White House in  Straits Times:  

The July 22 meeting between Mr Khan and President Donald Trump will not change either Pakistan's strategic calculus or America's grand strategy, Dr Aparna Pande, research fellow and director of the Hudson Institute's Initiative on the Future of India and South Asia, told The Straits Times.

"US interests and Pakistan's interests do not align at any level," Dr Pande said. "The US wants a stable Afghanistan and views the Haqqani Network and Afghan Taleban as not conducive to its interests; these groups are Pakistan's only allies in Afghanistan," she said.

"The US sees India as an ally and strategic partner and wants an India that plays a greater role in the global arena. Pakistan seeks to keep India tied down and wants parity," she added.

The New Conservatism 

Mike Doran on conservative foreign policy in the National Review:

What might actually pose a road block is the schizophrenia that characterized the conference’s treatment of some key issues. Policy disagreements suggest the health of debate within a broad intellectual movement. A lineup that put proponents of a restrained foreign policy such as Carlson and Michael Anton next to national-security adviser John Bolton and Hudson Institute fellow Michael Doran, both hawks, hinted at a sorting and schism that might play out at future conferences. On a panel about foreign policy, another Hudson fellow endorsed Trump’s decision to launch strikes against the Assad regime in response to its use of chemical weapons. (Carlson has previously questioned the intelligence assessments that placed blame on the Syrian government for chemical attacks.)

Chris DeMuth on the new nationalism in Reason:

The several hundred attendees of this week's National Conservatism conference have a different vision for American politics. The event brought together a variety of speakers to discuss and defend, in explicit terms, the need for a new nationalism.

As the Hudson Institute's Chris DeMuth put it, "our claim is that the government has abdicated basic responsibilities and broken trust with large numbers of our fellow citizens." It has done this by allowing a globalized economy to emerge and U.S. manufacturing supremacy to be lost; by not "securing our borders" or ensuring that immigrants are sufficiently assimilated into the culture; by either turning a blind eye to or actively encouraging the erosion of traditional Christian values.

DeMuth also considers the role of the nation-state in American society in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed:

The American nation-state is rich, powerful and less constrained than any other, yet it is much more constrained than we have led ourselves to believe. Thinking of ourselves as a nation-state is, as Peter Thiel has observed, a means of unromantic self-knowledge. National conservatism, by directing our attention to our nation as it is—warts, wonders and all—is a means of reminding ourselves of our dependence on one another in the here and now, and of facing up to the constraints that are the sources of productive freedom.

U.S.-China Relations

Seth Cropsey on U.S.-Philippine defense relations in Washington Examiner:

The Mutual Defense Treaty cited by Duterte was signed by the United States and the Philippines in 1951. The treaty provides for mutual defense in certain situations, with some important caveats. First, it states that a response must be proportional in accordance with the country's constitution, said Seth Cropsey, a former deputy undersecretary of the Navy and director of the Hudson Institute's Center for American Seapower.

"And also, there's a clause in there that says — I'm sure this leaves any possible enemies of their country huddling in terror in a corner — that an actual attack ... will be referred to the United Nations," Cropsey said. "So basically, the truth of this is that if hostilities break out against either of the signatories that both of them must abide by their constitutions and the matter will go to the UN for adjudication."

…

Following the treaty's guidelines, Cropsey said asking an entire fleet to sit outside the Chinese mainland is unlikely, though he added Duterte may have a point in trying to get China to stop.

…

Cropsey said there could be room for a smaller security arrangement, such as military exchanges and participation in military exercises. While the U.S. has avoided taking sides on territorial disputes, it has pursued stronger partnerships with other Asian countries in the South China Sea region.

Patrick Cronin on China's assertiveness in East Asia in Thanh Nien: 

Although it is a large country, China has no right to set its own rules, ignore international law, force its neighbors and force ASEAN to implement a code of conduct in the South China Sea (COC) according to type of invasion of the rights of big countries.

Vietnam should continue its diplomatic diplomacy and continue to strengthen its maritime capabilities. As for the international community, the US, Japan, Australia, India ... as well as many other great powers at sea need to continue to play an important supporting role to ensure Southeast Asia in general, and Vietnam. in particular, not forced by military and economic actions from Beijing. In that effort, the international community will always welcome actions such as the recent development of Vietnamese fishing vessels with 22 Filipino fishermen.

Upcoming Events

In Case You Missed It

Scholarship