Tweet
WHAT IS THE PLACE OF TURKEY ACCORDING TO OBAMA?
Today's Zaman
April 14 2009
Turkey
During his visit to Turkey, US President Barack Obama gave a number
of important messages that will have ongoing repercussions both
inside and outside. He touched on many issues ranging from the Greek
seminary to the Kurdish issue, from the Armenian issue to the Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK) and from bilateral relations to Turkey's European
Union bid.
Although he had promised during his election campaign to recognize
the Armenian genocide claims, Obama said during his visit that his
ideas had not changed about these claims, but he refrained from using
the word, and this was his most critical message during the visit. I
am sure Turkish diplomats are considerably relieved upon hearing
Obama implying that he would not take a negative step on April 24 in
order not to sabotage the ongoing thawing of the ice between Yerevan
and Ankara.
His statement about the PKK was no different from what was said during
the summit between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and former
US President George W. Bush on April 5, 2007. During that meeting,
Bush had largely satisfied Ankara's expectations.
His emphasis on Turkey's EU bid is the natural extension of the routine
US policy pursued by all US administrations including Bush's. Obama
reiterated his call in Prague when he said, "If Turkey can be a member
of NATO and send its troops to help protect and support its allies,
and its young men are put in harm's way, well, I don't know why you
should also not be able to sell apricots to Europe, or have more
freedom in terms of travel." When French President Nicolas Sarkozy
protested, saying that "this is the business of Europe," he made a
witty remark showing his intention to keep his promise by stating
that Europe discusses US business all the time and therefore the US
should be able to share its views on Europe.
Examining the speeches delivered by former US presidents during their
visits to Turkey, one realizes that all of them contain passages
praising Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Also, it is customary for Western
leaders to underline Turkey having a predominantly Muslim population
and at the same time being a secular and democratic country.
As noted by distinguished author Cengiz Candar, even Bush had made
similar remarks -- that the US was not at war with Islam. What gives
substance to these messages is the identity of the person who says
them, not their content. Bush had suffered a great loss of prestige,
and there was such a large a gap between his words and his practice
that his messages could not be taken seriously. On the other hand,
Obama was a person who opposed the war on Iraq when the majority of
the US public hailed Bush's misguided policies. He is an influential
person in his biography as well as his stance. More importantly, he
is a politician who seeks to be ethical even though this may prove
disadvantageous to the country he represents. "[I]f we want to tell
Iranians to reduce their nuclear weapons, it helps if we are also
saying, 'and we will reduce our own'," he said in a manner that you
do not hear from the average politician.
Of course, the symbols properly scattered during his two-day visit were
more instrumental than the message in stressing the importance of the
visit. It was a first for a US president to visit Turkey so soon after
assuming office. His visit was completely balanced with gestures to
everyone including the state, the ruling party, the opposition and the
minorities -- his homage to Ataturk at Anıtkabir; his visit to Prime
Minister Erdogan at his office; his emphasis on the call to prayer;
and his conversations with youth and religious leaders.
Don't misunderstand my intentions -- I am not trying to prove that
Obama's statements were insignificant -- I am just trying to understand
what was important and to what extent. In my opinion, Obama's most
striking observation about our country was hidden at the end of his
address to Parliament.
His ideas there represented an extraordinary approach that we have
never seen from the US or other Western leader. When I heard his words,
I was extremely excited. I don't know if they were his own ideas or
were written by another author, but I was frankly surprised to see this
mentality -- which even the Turkish intelligentsia cannot interpret --
find its way into the text. This approach had the potential to end the
long-standing debate on Turkey's identity that has been being held
at local and international levels. After referring to this debate,
Obama presented his opinion about it:
"I know there are those who like to debate Turkey's future. They
see your country at the crossroads of continents and touched by the
currents of history. They know that this has been a place where
civilizations meet and different peoples mingle. And they wonder
whether you will be pulled in one direction or another. Here is what
they don't understand: Turkey's greatness lies in your ability to be
at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide --
it is where they come together. In the beauty of your culture. In the
richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy. In your
hopes for tomorrow."
These words coming from the mouth of a US president confirmed that
Turkey is a central country. For this reason, to argue that by visiting
Turkey after his visit to Europe Obama gave the message that Turkey
belongs to the West is to present only part of the picture.
I have not talked to him, but I guess Obama's words should be greeted
with excitement by Ahmet Davutoglu, the mastermind behind Turkey's
recent foreign policy. Indeed, he would always stress: "Turkey should
be a central country instead of acting as a bridge. To do this, a
change of mentality is needed not only in diplomats and politicians,
but also in intellectuals."
Today's Zaman
April 14 2009
Turkey
During his visit to Turkey, US President Barack Obama gave a number
of important messages that will have ongoing repercussions both
inside and outside. He touched on many issues ranging from the Greek
seminary to the Kurdish issue, from the Armenian issue to the Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK) and from bilateral relations to Turkey's European
Union bid.
Although he had promised during his election campaign to recognize
the Armenian genocide claims, Obama said during his visit that his
ideas had not changed about these claims, but he refrained from using
the word, and this was his most critical message during the visit. I
am sure Turkish diplomats are considerably relieved upon hearing
Obama implying that he would not take a negative step on April 24 in
order not to sabotage the ongoing thawing of the ice between Yerevan
and Ankara.
His statement about the PKK was no different from what was said during
the summit between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and former
US President George W. Bush on April 5, 2007. During that meeting,
Bush had largely satisfied Ankara's expectations.
His emphasis on Turkey's EU bid is the natural extension of the routine
US policy pursued by all US administrations including Bush's. Obama
reiterated his call in Prague when he said, "If Turkey can be a member
of NATO and send its troops to help protect and support its allies,
and its young men are put in harm's way, well, I don't know why you
should also not be able to sell apricots to Europe, or have more
freedom in terms of travel." When French President Nicolas Sarkozy
protested, saying that "this is the business of Europe," he made a
witty remark showing his intention to keep his promise by stating
that Europe discusses US business all the time and therefore the US
should be able to share its views on Europe.
Examining the speeches delivered by former US presidents during their
visits to Turkey, one realizes that all of them contain passages
praising Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Also, it is customary for Western
leaders to underline Turkey having a predominantly Muslim population
and at the same time being a secular and democratic country.
As noted by distinguished author Cengiz Candar, even Bush had made
similar remarks -- that the US was not at war with Islam. What gives
substance to these messages is the identity of the person who says
them, not their content. Bush had suffered a great loss of prestige,
and there was such a large a gap between his words and his practice
that his messages could not be taken seriously. On the other hand,
Obama was a person who opposed the war on Iraq when the majority of
the US public hailed Bush's misguided policies. He is an influential
person in his biography as well as his stance. More importantly, he
is a politician who seeks to be ethical even though this may prove
disadvantageous to the country he represents. "[I]f we want to tell
Iranians to reduce their nuclear weapons, it helps if we are also
saying, 'and we will reduce our own'," he said in a manner that you
do not hear from the average politician.
Of course, the symbols properly scattered during his two-day visit were
more instrumental than the message in stressing the importance of the
visit. It was a first for a US president to visit Turkey so soon after
assuming office. His visit was completely balanced with gestures to
everyone including the state, the ruling party, the opposition and the
minorities -- his homage to Ataturk at Anıtkabir; his visit to Prime
Minister Erdogan at his office; his emphasis on the call to prayer;
and his conversations with youth and religious leaders.
Don't misunderstand my intentions -- I am not trying to prove that
Obama's statements were insignificant -- I am just trying to understand
what was important and to what extent. In my opinion, Obama's most
striking observation about our country was hidden at the end of his
address to Parliament.
His ideas there represented an extraordinary approach that we have
never seen from the US or other Western leader. When I heard his words,
I was extremely excited. I don't know if they were his own ideas or
were written by another author, but I was frankly surprised to see this
mentality -- which even the Turkish intelligentsia cannot interpret --
find its way into the text. This approach had the potential to end the
long-standing debate on Turkey's identity that has been being held
at local and international levels. After referring to this debate,
Obama presented his opinion about it:
"I know there are those who like to debate Turkey's future. They
see your country at the crossroads of continents and touched by the
currents of history. They know that this has been a place where
civilizations meet and different peoples mingle. And they wonder
whether you will be pulled in one direction or another. Here is what
they don't understand: Turkey's greatness lies in your ability to be
at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide --
it is where they come together. In the beauty of your culture. In the
richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy. In your
hopes for tomorrow."
These words coming from the mouth of a US president confirmed that
Turkey is a central country. For this reason, to argue that by visiting
Turkey after his visit to Europe Obama gave the message that Turkey
belongs to the West is to present only part of the picture.
I have not talked to him, but I guess Obama's words should be greeted
with excitement by Ahmet Davutoglu, the mastermind behind Turkey's
recent foreign policy. Indeed, he would always stress: "Turkey should
be a central country instead of acting as a bridge. To do this, a
change of mentality is needed not only in diplomats and politicians,
but also in intellectuals."