This thesis has tried to make an attempt to examine the controversial political extradition of Fethullah Gülen and its impact on the bilateral security relationship between Turkey and the United States through the lenses of Cooperation Theory. It is important to point out that any analysis or assessment of an ongoing political extradition is only a tentative one because as the situation unfolds, new circumstances can change the course of the implications, especially in the case subject of study.
A year has passed since the request was made to the United States, but Gulen continues in his self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania. Despite providing evidence of crimes that are not clear yet to the public, no extradition hearing has taken place. Turkey just accuses him as the mastermind of the failed coup of 2016, but US authorities will not relate the extradition request to it. The same perception remained. Gulen is confident that he will not be rendered to the hands of an authoritarian government, as it will tarnish America’s reputation. Continuing on, Erdogan disregards the legal process and believes that political-will is going to determine the outcome.
On the latest update on the issue, Erdogan suggested a swap between Gulen and US evangelical pastor Andrew Brunson. “We have given you all the documents necessary [for the extradition of Gülen]. But they say, ‘give us the pastor.’ You have another pastor in your hands. Give us that pastor and we will do what we can in the judiciary to give you this one,” Erdoğan said on Sept.
28.219A swap, the same Iranians wanted to do with the hostages, is very unlikely. Gulen understands US’s reputation better than Erdogan. For maintaining a reputation of a law-abiding
219 “Give us Gülen if you want arrested pastor Andrew Brunson to be freed: Erdoğan tells US,” Hurriyet Daily News, September 28, 2017.
97
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
country that protects human rights and promote freedom of expression, the United States must commit to its principles. Axelrod says, “One purpose of having a reputation is to enable you to achieve deterrence by means of credible threat.”220 If the Trump administration decides to enter into such a negotiation, other countries that are in the same situation as Turkey will also imprison US citizens as political scapegoats.
From an analytical perspective, Gülen’s extradition is very complicated. All the aspects analyzed, the legality of extradition, the domestic political pressures of Turkey, and the security relations, have something different to explain about this case and the possible repercussions of the final decision to whether extradite or not extradite Fethullah Gülen.
This thesis shows that the political offense exception does not further foreign relations, and that it is very difficult for countries to remain neutral to the domestic issues of states seeking the extradition of political offenders. It also shows that political criminals can get away with their crimes as the political offense exception provides them with impunity. Therefore, as a component of international cooperation, extradition has been unable to provide a platform for the peaceful resolution of conflicts as shown in this case where the denial of other possible extradition requests to the affected state from the same country who denied the previous extradition request will come as a form of punishment.
Regarding the security relations between Turkey and the United States and the domestic political pressures of Turkey, the results are contradictory in regards to the actual negative implications the denial of Gülen’s extradition can have. In the strict sense of their security relations, this problem can be the tip of the iceberg for Turkey to stop its alliance with the United
220 Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, 153.
98
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
States. This is because the alliance is at a very sensitive and fragile moment and can be affected by a minor issue such as this. This thesis starts with the assumption that common security concerns will bring countries, in which the main reason for collaboration has been security, together in the presence of other minor issues. However, security threats to Turkey and the United States regarding IS and Syria, the Kurdish problem, Iran or Russia, are doing everything but making them cooperate to find a solution that is satisfactory for both. If the security relationship between the United States and Turkey was strong and free of controversies, the extradition of Fethullah Gülen could not be used to manipulate the process or pose a threat to its continuity.
Moreover, the domestic political situation of Turkey explains that for the AKP government, more specifically for Erdoğan, the extradition of Gülen and the problems with his movement have helped him pass a referendum that will allow him to stay in power. Looking at the issue from this perspective, the denial of the extradition will not pose a threat to the relationship because the government’s primary objective is to gain full control of the political life of Turkey. The AKP faces country-wise opposition and dissatisfaction as the referendum only passed with 51.4 percent of the votes, while still, the majority of the Turks demand the government to take actions. Giving up the request for Gülen or losing its grip on the movement is not an option for them now. Although the political offense exception is causing problems among them, they can both be benefited from it. For Turkey, the political offense exception will be the justification for failing to extradite Gülen. On the other hand, for the United States, the political offense exception gives Washington a legal excuse to be neutral to the domestic political issues of Turkey, remain within the obligations of the treaty, and maneuver the situation in its favor.
99
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The extradition request is still ongoing and it might take years before a decision is made.
Perhaps, if there is a change of government in Turkey at the time of the final decision, the possible repercussions of a denial of the extradition request could be irrelevant as this is a fight between Erdoğan and the AKP with Fethullah Gülen and his movement. This extradition is best explained by domestic politics, but it also shows the implications in security matters and the complexity of cooperation in extradition when it involves political figures. Turkey’s bad reputation acquired this time just provides Erdoğan and his government with short-term benefits they can only reap now, but a new government will easily retract this situation by distancing themselves from them or change their attitude towards this request.
Finally, will cooperation between Turkey and the United States in security matters continue if Gülen’s extradition is denied? Focusing on the areas of security convergence, regardless the final decision of Gülen’s extradition, Turkey expects future interactions with the United States in Syria to fight the Islamic State, and vice-versa. They can still achieve major changes together and work towards the stabilization of the region. It is expected that they will continue cooperating until the Islamic State is finally defeated and later in the stabilization of Syria. On the other hand, Turkey is still dependable on the US for military sales. As a result, it is expected that even if Gülen’s extradition is denied, cooperation will continue.
For this scenario to take place, a basic recommendation for the United States is essential at this point. With a new administration in Washington, a new strategy is necessary. Washington should advocate for a peace deal first between Turkey and the PKK, the same that was stopped in 2015. Once they have struck a deal with Turkish Kurds, negotiations with Syrian Kurds could take place. For Washington, it is almost impossible not to consult with the Turks and a key 100
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
NATO ally in incursions in its own neighborhood. Turkey is already engaged in the fight and the United States uses Turkish bases to launch much of its operations in Syria. As explained above, cooperation between Ankara and Washington can yield better results and enhance the bilateral relations.
Regarding Gülen’s extradition, if the evidence provided by Turkey indicates that Gülen is guilty of one or more crimes for which the request has been made, the United States should prosecute Gülen for these crimes (Aut Dedere Aut Judicare). This action will have two purposes:
1) improve relations with Turkey; and 2) meet the expectations that crime wherever committed should never go unpunished. However, in the meantime, Washington should be careful not raise the expections of Turkey too high of his possible extradition, but the Trump administration will have to analyze the situation if they want cooperation with Ankara to flow.
High-profile political extraditions such as this one make it very difficult for anyone to assess correctly the scenario in which is taking place. However, in this one both the security relations and the domestic pressures are the two factors that best explains the possible implications. Normally, the bilateral relations between countries with important security ties, the interests for maintaining the alliance should outweigh the interests for obtaining a fugitive criminal.
At this moment, the interdependence in security matters between the United States and Turkey is in a very thin line, but the two countries still rely on each other to meet some of their security demands and strategies. In contrast with other similar cases, as the extradition of the Shah, the lack of interdependence and expectations of future interactions, responsible and experienced government, and intensive social and political domestic pressure, allowed a political 101
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
extradition case to become the trigger for the break of diplomatic relations. The request for the extradition of the Shah was more beneficial for the regime Khomeini was trying to establish (short-term benefits), reason why they ignored any possible future interactions with the United States. The absence of a treaty prevented since the beginning the extradition of the Shah, but it was not the reason for the break of diplomatic relations. Turkey, in contrast, is not ignoring the United States. In that sense, the expectation of future interactions precludes the idea of breaking diplomatic relations while creating the incentives for cooperation. Khomeini’s miscalculations turned against Iran who was isolated in both security and economic matters with the war in Iraq and the economic sanctions that followed. As a result, we can notice that the pursuit of self-interests in an irrational way, in fact, lead to poor outcomes.
102
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Bibliography
Books
Akdogan, Yalcin. 2006. “The Meaning of Conservative Democratic Political Identity.” In The Emergence of a New Turkey: Democracy and the AK Party, edited by M. Hakan Yavuz, 49-65. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
Aksin, Sina. 2007. Turkey from Empire to Revolutionary Republic: The emergence of the Turkish Nation from 1789 to present. New York: New York University Press.
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Ayan Musil, Pelin. 2011. Authoritarian Party Structures and Democratic Political Setting in Turkey. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barnett, Michael N. 1996. “Identity and Alliances in the Middle East.” In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by Peter J. Katzenstein. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bassiouni, M. Cherif, and Wise, Edward Martin.1995. Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law. Dordrecht and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
Bilge Criss, Nur. 2007. “Turkish Perceptions of the United States.” In what they think of US: International Perceptions of the United States since 9/11, edited by David Farber. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Bilge Criss, Nur. 2011. “The American Cold War Military Presence in Turkey.” In American Turkish Encounters: Politics and Culture, 1830-1989, edited by Selcuk Esenbel, Nur Bilge Criss, Tony Greenwood, Louis Mazzari, 281-299. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Biron, Henry Chartres, and Chalmers, Kenneth E. 1981. The Law and Practice of Extradition. Littleton, CO: F.B. Rothman.
Candar, Gengiz. 2000. “Some Turkish Perspectives on the United States and American Policy toward Turkey.” In Turkey’s Transformation and American Policy, edited by Morton Abramowitz. New York: Century Foundation Book.
Cevik, B. Sene, and Seib, Philip, eds. 2015. Turkey’s Public Diplomacy. New York:
Palgrave McMillan.
Finkel, Andrew. 2012. Turkey: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fuller, Graham E. 2014. Turkey and the Arab Spring – Leadership in the Middle East.
Istanbul: Bozorg Press.
Grotius, Hugo. 2001. On the Law of War and Peace. Edited by A.C. Campbell. Kitchener:
Batoche Books.
Hahn, Peter L. 2005. Crisis and Crossfire: The United States and the Middle East since 1945. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.
Hale, William. 1997. “Turkey,” in The Cold War and the Middle East, edited by Yezid Sayigh and Avi Shlaim. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Hall, William Edward, and Higgins, Pearce. 1924. A Treatise on International Law, 8th edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harrington, James C. 2011. Wrestling with Free Speech, Religious Freedom, and Democracy in Turkey: The political trials and times of Fethullah Gülen. Lanham, Maryland:
United Press of America.
Hendrick, Joshua D. 2013. Gülen: The Ambiguous Politics of Market Islam in Turkey and the World. New York: New York University Press.
Hibbard, Scott W., and Little, David. 1997. Islamic Activism and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Washington D.C.: United Stated Institute of Peace.
Ismael, Tareq, and Aydin, Mustafa, eds. 2003. Turkey’s Foreign Policy in the 21st Century:
A Changing Role in World Politics. Burlington: ASHGATE.
Jenkins, Gareth. 2006. “Symbols and Shadow Play: Military-JDP Relations, 2002-2004.”
In The Emergence of a New Turkey: Democracy and the AK Party, edited by M. Hakan Yavuz, 185-206.Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
Keohane, Robert. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Khalilzad, Zalmay, Lesser, Ian O., and Larrabee, Stephen. 2000. The Future of Turkish-Western Relations- Toward a Strategic Plan. Santa Monica: Center of Middle East Public Policy.
Koyuncu, Berrin. 2007. “Globalization, Modernization, and Democratization in Turkey:
The Fethullah Gülen Movement.” In Remaking Turkey: Globalization, Alternative Modernities, and Democracy, edited by E. Fuat Keyman, 153-168. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Kuru, Ahmet T. 2006. “Reinterpretation of Secularism in Turkey: The Case of the Justice and Development Party.” In The Emergence of a New Turkey: Democracy and the AK Party, edited by M. Hakan Yavuz, 136-159.Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
104
Larrabee, F. Stephen. 2008. Turkey as a U.S. Security Partner. Santa Monica and Arlington:
RAND Corporation -Project Air Force.
Nachmani, Amikam. 2003. Turkey: facing a new millennium- Coping with intertwined conflicts. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Nicholls, Clive, Montgomery, Clare, and Knowles, Julian. 2007. The Law of Extradition and Mutual Assistance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oktem, Ketem, Kadioglu, Ayse, and Karli, Mehmet, eds. 2012. Another Empire? A Decade of Turkey’s Foreign Policy under the Justice and Development Party. Istanbul: Bilgi University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor, and Walker, James, eds. 2003. Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research. New York: Russell Foundation. Volume IV.
Ozcan, Mesut. 2008. Harmonizing Foreign Policy: Turkey, the EU and the Middle East.
Padstow: Ashgate.
Pieper, Mortiz. 2015. “Turkey’s Iran Policy: A case of Dual Strategic Hedging.” In Politics and Foreign Policy in Turkey- Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Kilic Bugra Kanat, Ahmet Selim Tekelioglu, and Kadir Ustun, 107-130. Ankara: Young Scholars on Turkey- SETA.
Sadik, Giray. 2009. American Image in Turkey: U.S. Foreign Policy Dimensions. Lahnham:
Lexington Books.
Sambei, Arvinder, and Jones, John R. W.D 2005. Extradition Law Handbook. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Shearer, Ivan Anthony. 1971. Extradition in International Law. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Solomon Richard H., and Quinney, Nigel. 2010. American Negotiating Behavior: Wheeler-dealers, Legal Eagles, Bullies, and Preachers. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace.
Standbrook, Ivor, and Standbrook, Clive. 2000. Extradition Law and Practice, 2nd edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Szaz, Michael. 1978. “NATO, Turkey and U.S. Strategy;” Haley, Normal R. “The Role of Turkey as a NATO Partner;” Lemnitzer, Lyman L. “The Defense of NATO’s Southeastern Flank and the Turkish Arm Embargo;” in NATO, Turkey and the United States Interests. Washington D.C.: American Foreign Policy Institute- Studies on NATO Defense Policies.
Tocci, Nathalie, and Walker, Joshua W. 2012. “From Confrontation to Engagement:
Turkey and the Middle East.” In Turkey & Its Neighbors: Foreign Relations in Transition, edited by Ronald H. Linden et. al., 35-60. Boulder Lynne Rienner Publishers.
105
Tugal, Cihan. 2016. The Fall of the Turkish Model: How Arab Uprising Brought Down Islamic Liberalism. London: VERSO.
Yavuz, M. Hakan. 2003. “The Gülen Movement: The Turkish Puritans.” in Turkish Islam and the Secular State: The Gülen Movement, edited by M. Hakan Yavuz and John L. Esposito.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Articles/ Reports/ Theses
1981. The Iran Hostage Crisis a Chronology of Daily Developments, Committee on Foreign Affairs U.S. House of Representatives, (March).
2009. “Rebuilding a Partnership: Turkish-American Relations for a New Era- A Turkish Perspective”, Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association (TÜSİAD), No-T/2009-04/490 (April): 11-90.
Albright, Madeleine K., and Hadley, Stephen J. 2012. “U.S.-Turkey Relations: A New Partnership”, Council on Foreign Policy- Independent Task Force, Report No. 69.
Alessandri, Emiliano. 2011. “Turkey and the United States,” In Turkey’s Global Strategy, ed. Nicholas Kitchen, London School of Economics- IDEAS (May): 45-49.
Altunisik, Meliha Benli. 2011. “Turkish Foreign Policy in the 21st Century,” CIDOB International Yearbook- Barcelona Center for International Affairs, 195-199.
Arbell, Dan. 2014. “The U.S.-Turkey-Israel Triangle,” Center for Middle East Policy at Bookings, no. 34, (October):1-48.
Aslan, Ali. 2012. “Performing Turkey: Continuity and Change in Turkish Statecraft, 1990-2012,” University of Delaware, (summer).
Aydintaşbaş, Asli, and Kirişci, Kemal. 2017. “The United States and Turkey- Friends, Enemies, or Only Interests.” Center on the United States and Europe (CUSE) at Brookings, No.
12, (April): 1-21.
Bassiouni, M. Cherif. 1969. “Ideologically Motivated Offenses and the Political Offense Exception in Extradition - A Proposed Juridical Standard for an Unruly Problem.” DePaul Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, 217-259.
Boyd, Lyn. 2000. “A King’s Exile: The Shah of Iran and Moral Considerations in U.S.
Foreign Policy,” Institute for the Study of Diplomacy of Georgetown University.
Brody, Reed. “Chad: The Victims of Hissène Habré Still Awaiting Justice”, Human Rights Watch, (July 12).
Cantrell, Charles L. 1977. “The Political Offense Exemption in International Extradition: A Comparison of the United States, Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland,” Marquette Law Review, Vol. 60, No.3, 777-818.
Cafarella, Jennifer, Sercombe, Elizabeth and Charles Vallee. 2016. “Partial Assessment of Turkey’s Post-Coup Attempt Military Purge,” Institute for the Study of War, (July30).
Cebeci, Rabia Anne.1988. “International Extradition Law and the Political Offense Exception: The Traditional Incidence Test as a Workable Reality,” Loyola International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 3.
Cohen, Ariel. 2013. “Obama’s Best Friend? The Alarming Evolution of Us-Turkish Relations.” The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, No. 100 (May).
Garcia-Mora, Manuel. 1962. “The Nature of Political Offenses: A Knotty Problem of Extradition Law,” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 7, 1226-1257.
Harrington, James C. 2015. “Turkey Democracy in Peril- A Human Rights Report,” (May).
Isa, Afacan. 2001. "Turkish-American Relations in the Post-Cold War Era, 1990-2005,"
FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Jeffrey, James F., and Cagaptay, Soner. 2017. “U.S. Policy on Turkey,” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, No. 27, (January): 1-8.
Karagöz, Murat. 2004 – 2005. "US Arms Embargo against Turkey - after 30 Years: An Institutional Approach towards US Policy Making", Center for Strategic Research (SAM), (winter):107-130.
Oye, Kenneth. 1985. “Cooperation Under Anarchy,” World Politics, Vol. 38 (October) Lauterpacht, E. 1962. “The Contemporary Practice of the United Kingdom in the field of
Oye, Kenneth. 1985. “Cooperation Under Anarchy,” World Politics, Vol. 38 (October) Lauterpacht, E. 1962. “The Contemporary Practice of the United Kingdom in the field of