External relations should be kept off the campaign

turns to his friend and queries: A MAN

“Remember the saint who threw his daughter into the well!” Somewhat puzzled, the friend retorts: “I think you mean not a saint but a prophet, he did not throw his daughter into the well, he was going to sacrifice his son to God, but God sent him a lamb to sacrifice instead.” When someone says something and I do not know where to begin correcting, I remember this story. What prompted you remember the story this time? Let me explain. When President Erdogan learned that the American Ambassador had rendered a visit to Mr. Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the major opposition leader and its candidate for president, he fumed that the job of the ambassador was to talk with the chief executive and not to others who were not in government. Not able to contain his anger, he proceeded to add that the American Ambassador would no longer be granted an opportunity to speak with him. Presumably, his doors would be shut.

Mr. Erdogan made his remarks in front of an audience that enjoys manifestations of anger against external enemies that are engaged in the perennial business of undermining Turkiye’s prosperity and independence by interfering in the country’s domestic politics in the hope of shaping domestic developments to their liking. Unfortunately, although his remarks may have been intended for a specific xenophobic audience in the hope of mobilizing their support for the governing party in the forthcoming elections, it is reported nationally and internationally and produce outcomes that President Erdogan himself may not like.

Ambassadors are responsible for advising their governments on developments in the countries where they serve and, in this way, provide an input into their country’s policy making. The more accurate their report, the more informed and hopefully reasonable policy will be toward the host countries. To get reliable information and to make accurate judgments, it is natural for ambassadors to talk not only with the representatives of government but also with those of the opposition. It is even more important that they speak to various political leaders before an election and have a sense of whether a country’s foreign policy will change and in what direction if the opposition wins the elections.

Understandably, the ambassadors are expected not to interfere in the domestic politics of the countries in which they serve. This rule has not always been strictly observed in the past even among allies. During the years of the Cold War, for example, there were constant fears that the Italian Communist Party might win the elections, take Italy out of NATO and divulge the secrets of the Alliance to the Soviets. The response was a highly organized effort to ensure that the Communist would not become the victor in national elections. The ambassadors of NATO member countries probably worked together with other organizations and agencies to support Italian Christian Democrats, but as I tried to explain, this was a major organized effort rather than the doing of one ambassador. On the other hand, it does not appear that the American ambassador’s visit was part of a concerted effort to influence Turkiye’s elections.

It is important to remember that the liberties an ambassador enjoys in a host country are reciprocal. Again, during the Cold War, for example, the Soviet government had placed major restrictions on diplomats serving in Moscow to travel even to the environs of the capital. Special permission was needed if a diplomat wanted to travel any place. The goal of such restrictions was to make sure that the diplomats would be told only what the Soviets wanted them to hear. There were additional concerns that diplomats were simply spies in disguise and therefore their actions should be closely monitored. Not surprisingly, similar restrictions were placed on the Soviet diplomats abroad.

The reader may judge whether such restrictions were useful but let me turn to a worrying possibility: What if the Turkish government deprives the American ambassador of contacting high ranking officials, and the United States reciprocates? Turkiye, at the moment, has a number of contentious issues that involve various actors involved in American policy making. The Turkish ambassador, in addition to contacting the State Department, has to reach committee chairs in congress, possibly representatives of other government agencies to influence decision making. If he is deprived of the opportunity of communicating with these officials, Turkiye’s explanations, wishes and concerns would simply not be communicated to them.

In any case, it is rare that an ambassador sees the head of state in the host country. Since we do not know who in government in addition to the president the boycott of the American Ambassador shall cover, it is difficult to predict what kind of effect it is likely to produce. It is also known that the President changes his mind on these questions with reasonable frequency. All we can say at the moment is that it would have been better to resist the temptation to bring matters of external relations into the electoral campaign.