Tweet
'AXIS' DEBATE FROM WASHINGTON
Milliyet
Nov 9 2009
Turkey
Despite claims that "Turkey is shifting towards the East," the Obama
is pleased with the partnership with the AKP: "Our interests on the
fundamental issues are the same. We have our demands."
Our main topic today is the shift in axis in Turkish foreign policy.
Let us list them one after another: The visit of [Sudanese President]
Umar al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide, the drawing closer to
Iran, and the rising tension with Israel... In response to these,
a note on Al-Bashir from the European Union, the message this week
from US Assistant Secretary of State Phil Gordon of "do not deal
with Iran," and, thereafter, a lengthy commentary in the Wall Street
Journal entitled "NATO Without Turkey?"
If you look at the headlines, Turkey is moving away from the West, and,
even more important, the West is taking a stance against Turkey... The
standard comment in the newspapers is to the effect that "Washington
and Europe are giving up on the AKP [Justice and Development Party]."
But in fact, the situation is just the reverse. Let me state what
I have observed as someone who has engaged in journalism for years
in America: The West, and particularly Washington, continue, despite
everything, to look positively on the AKP government. And, even more
importantly, on working together with it...
I have been on the telephone for the past few days. I have been trying
to take the pulse of European and American diplomats, and to gauge
the atmosphere in Washington.
The conclusion I have drawn is as follows: Washington, despite
everything, sees Turkey and the AKP government as a "strong ally" and
a "useful partner" on regional issues like Iran. Yes, everyone with
whom I spoke accepts that Turkish foreign policy is orienting itself
towards the East, and that Islamic points of reference are shaping
the government's relations with the Muslim world. Perhaps Turkey is
now being perceived as "less European, and more Middle Eastern."
But Americans are pragmatic. They see that the AKP is strong and
without alternatives, and that Ankara has been getting stronger in
its region. Their real worries are the fire in the Middle East, and
Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. They summarize their view of Turkey and
the AKP by saying that "our interests on fundamental issues coincide,
and Ankara is being very helpful to us on basic problems."
Just Look at the Map: One figure from the Obama administration points
out that no matter what the makeup, the label, or the tendency of the
government might be, Washington needs Ankara, by saying: "Just take
the map in front of you. Look at where we are having problems. All are
issues in which Turkey is directly engaged." Included among the Obama
administration's priorities are stability in Iraq and the withdrawal
of American troops, combating terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
peace in the Middle East, and Iran's nuclear programme. And all of
these are topics on which Turkey is directly engaged and, in general,
on which Turkey looks in a way similar to the United States.
Message Going to Iran: What I have observed backstage is that, apart
from on Israel, Ankara, in its foreign policy orientations that have
drawn the greatest reaction in Western public opinion, is engaged in
a certain coordination with the Obama administration. Particularly in
policies regarding Iran and Syria. The Americans are not complaining
about conveying messages to these countries, with which it cannot
talk directly, via Turkey. Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, for
instance, on his latest trip to Iran, directly conveyed Washington's
messages to [President Mahmud] Ahmadinezhad and Ayatollah Khamanei. In
the same way, the discussions with Syria, Pakistan, and Hamas [Islamic
Resistance Movement] are not secret from the United States; they are
indirectly coordinated.
Problems in Deepfreeze Taken Up: Meanwhile, the steps that the AKP
government has been taking in order to end Turkey's "frozen" problems
with its neighbours are finding great support in Washington. If you ask
"what are these disputes that have remained unresolved for years?",
they are, in order, Cyprus, Armenia, and the Kurdish issue...
The government's taking steps for solutions in these three fundamental
problems is considered important in Washington. One official with whom
I spoke on the telephone said: "It is true that things that arouse
concern regarding freedom of expression in Turkey, the situation of
the press, and the law, are not lacking. Do not misunderstand: I am
not disregarding these things. But the opening of the border with
Armenia and the resolution of the Kurdish issue affect us directly.
They relate directly to our national security."
Eyebrows Still Being Raised: This does not mean that Ankara's rhetoric
is not creating any worries in Washington. The standoff with Israel,
and the Prime Minister's defence of Iran's nuclear programme, are
creating a certain degree of unease in the US capital. This unease is
more pronounced among the Jewish lobby and hawkish (Neo-Con) circles
that do not like Obama. But the people I have spoken with are saying
that this "New Turkey" confronting them is an ally, stronger but more
difficult than before. Its support is not a "sure thing." But within
the American administration, the view prevails that "words are one
thing, actions another." The view is widespread in Washington that,
at the end of the day, Ankara will side with the West, and will be
reliable in a moment of crisis.
Praise for Davutoglu: Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is being
perceived in Washington as an important factor. Even those who do not
share his views say that Davutoglu has raised Turkey's profile and
broadened its sphere of influence. In describing Davutoglu and his
diplomatic team, the expression "extremely adept" is used. In my view,
the most important success of the Foreign Minister has been his having
convinced the US administration that this new Turkish foreign policy
does not in the long term conflict with American interests, and that an
active Turkey in the Middle East is good for the United States as well.
Why Was Al-Bashir Unable to Come?
When it became clear yesterday evening that Sudanese President Umar
al-Bashir had cancelled his Istanbul trip, Ankara let out a secret
sigh of relief.
The sensitive diplomacy that had continued for 72 hours produced
results, and the plane of the Sudanese leader, which was to come
from Sharm al-Shaykh in Egypt during the evening hours yesterday,
changed course and returned to Khartoum.
The invitation to Al-Bashir had in fact not come directly from
either the Office of the President or the Foreign Ministry. All that
Turkey did was to host the COMCEC [Standing Committee for Economic
and Commercial Cooperation] summit. But the Sudanese leader, wanting
to defy at every opportunity the International Criminal Court [ICC],
which has issued an arrest order for him, did not hesitate to exploit
this chance, and insisted on attending the summit.
No matter how much Ankara ascribes importance to relations and trade
with Sudan, this was a scene that Turkey could not tolerate. Just
think of the souvenir photograph that would come out of the summit.
With "axis" debates and tension with Israel taking place, to Prime
Minister Erdogan's right Al-Bashir, and to his left, Ahmadinezhad!
After all, we are speaking here of a country that is a member of both
the UN Security Council and NATO, and a candidate for the EU...
Additionally, there were warnings from the European Union and from
the United States. Human rights organizations were issuing statements
calling for the trip to be cancelled.
Sleeves were rolled up. It was conveyed to Sudan through special
channels how much difficulty the visit would create for Turkey in
terms of the EU. But Al-Bashir remained insistent on coming to Turkey.
Intermediaries and businessmen became involved. The government ascribed
importance to Sudan, and Sudan and Turkey did not want a diplomatic
crisis between them. For this reason, the direct message "do not come"
was not conveyed. This would have been diplomatic discourtesy. But
certain difficulties were made known to the Sudanese leader.
Sudan still remained determined. Preparations were made for the plane
to land at 1830 hours. It had entered into the official protocol and
the VIP programme that Al-Bashir was going to come. The Provincial
Governor and the protocol directors were going to go to the airport,
and Sudanese officials and businessmen were at the airport at 1700
hours. The security team was put on alert.
But it became clear at about 1730 that he was not going to arrive. The
message of certain businessmen that "if you come, we cannot guarantee
that a prosecutor in Turkey will not issue a warrant for your arrest"
was influential in Al-Bashir's changing his mind and heading back to
Khartoum. Actually, since Turkey has not signed the founding agreement
on the ICC, it was not obliged to implement the court's ruling. Still,
there was a "grey area" that could make it possible for a prosecutor
to go into action on the basis of UN resolutions, based on the claims
of "genocide" and a determination of "crimes against humanity."
Turkish officials, receiving contradictory messages from Khartoum,
were unable to be certain regarding Al-Bashir's decision until late
yesterday afternoon. But at the last minute, the Sudanese leader
decided not to come. And Ankara breathed a sigh of relief.
Milliyet
Nov 9 2009
Turkey
Despite claims that "Turkey is shifting towards the East," the Obama
is pleased with the partnership with the AKP: "Our interests on the
fundamental issues are the same. We have our demands."
Our main topic today is the shift in axis in Turkish foreign policy.
Let us list them one after another: The visit of [Sudanese President]
Umar al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide, the drawing closer to
Iran, and the rising tension with Israel... In response to these,
a note on Al-Bashir from the European Union, the message this week
from US Assistant Secretary of State Phil Gordon of "do not deal
with Iran," and, thereafter, a lengthy commentary in the Wall Street
Journal entitled "NATO Without Turkey?"
If you look at the headlines, Turkey is moving away from the West, and,
even more important, the West is taking a stance against Turkey... The
standard comment in the newspapers is to the effect that "Washington
and Europe are giving up on the AKP [Justice and Development Party]."
But in fact, the situation is just the reverse. Let me state what
I have observed as someone who has engaged in journalism for years
in America: The West, and particularly Washington, continue, despite
everything, to look positively on the AKP government. And, even more
importantly, on working together with it...
I have been on the telephone for the past few days. I have been trying
to take the pulse of European and American diplomats, and to gauge
the atmosphere in Washington.
The conclusion I have drawn is as follows: Washington, despite
everything, sees Turkey and the AKP government as a "strong ally" and
a "useful partner" on regional issues like Iran. Yes, everyone with
whom I spoke accepts that Turkish foreign policy is orienting itself
towards the East, and that Islamic points of reference are shaping
the government's relations with the Muslim world. Perhaps Turkey is
now being perceived as "less European, and more Middle Eastern."
But Americans are pragmatic. They see that the AKP is strong and
without alternatives, and that Ankara has been getting stronger in
its region. Their real worries are the fire in the Middle East, and
Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. They summarize their view of Turkey and
the AKP by saying that "our interests on fundamental issues coincide,
and Ankara is being very helpful to us on basic problems."
Just Look at the Map: One figure from the Obama administration points
out that no matter what the makeup, the label, or the tendency of the
government might be, Washington needs Ankara, by saying: "Just take
the map in front of you. Look at where we are having problems. All are
issues in which Turkey is directly engaged." Included among the Obama
administration's priorities are stability in Iraq and the withdrawal
of American troops, combating terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
peace in the Middle East, and Iran's nuclear programme. And all of
these are topics on which Turkey is directly engaged and, in general,
on which Turkey looks in a way similar to the United States.
Message Going to Iran: What I have observed backstage is that, apart
from on Israel, Ankara, in its foreign policy orientations that have
drawn the greatest reaction in Western public opinion, is engaged in
a certain coordination with the Obama administration. Particularly in
policies regarding Iran and Syria. The Americans are not complaining
about conveying messages to these countries, with which it cannot
talk directly, via Turkey. Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, for
instance, on his latest trip to Iran, directly conveyed Washington's
messages to [President Mahmud] Ahmadinezhad and Ayatollah Khamanei. In
the same way, the discussions with Syria, Pakistan, and Hamas [Islamic
Resistance Movement] are not secret from the United States; they are
indirectly coordinated.
Problems in Deepfreeze Taken Up: Meanwhile, the steps that the AKP
government has been taking in order to end Turkey's "frozen" problems
with its neighbours are finding great support in Washington. If you ask
"what are these disputes that have remained unresolved for years?",
they are, in order, Cyprus, Armenia, and the Kurdish issue...
The government's taking steps for solutions in these three fundamental
problems is considered important in Washington. One official with whom
I spoke on the telephone said: "It is true that things that arouse
concern regarding freedom of expression in Turkey, the situation of
the press, and the law, are not lacking. Do not misunderstand: I am
not disregarding these things. But the opening of the border with
Armenia and the resolution of the Kurdish issue affect us directly.
They relate directly to our national security."
Eyebrows Still Being Raised: This does not mean that Ankara's rhetoric
is not creating any worries in Washington. The standoff with Israel,
and the Prime Minister's defence of Iran's nuclear programme, are
creating a certain degree of unease in the US capital. This unease is
more pronounced among the Jewish lobby and hawkish (Neo-Con) circles
that do not like Obama. But the people I have spoken with are saying
that this "New Turkey" confronting them is an ally, stronger but more
difficult than before. Its support is not a "sure thing." But within
the American administration, the view prevails that "words are one
thing, actions another." The view is widespread in Washington that,
at the end of the day, Ankara will side with the West, and will be
reliable in a moment of crisis.
Praise for Davutoglu: Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is being
perceived in Washington as an important factor. Even those who do not
share his views say that Davutoglu has raised Turkey's profile and
broadened its sphere of influence. In describing Davutoglu and his
diplomatic team, the expression "extremely adept" is used. In my view,
the most important success of the Foreign Minister has been his having
convinced the US administration that this new Turkish foreign policy
does not in the long term conflict with American interests, and that an
active Turkey in the Middle East is good for the United States as well.
Why Was Al-Bashir Unable to Come?
When it became clear yesterday evening that Sudanese President Umar
al-Bashir had cancelled his Istanbul trip, Ankara let out a secret
sigh of relief.
The sensitive diplomacy that had continued for 72 hours produced
results, and the plane of the Sudanese leader, which was to come
from Sharm al-Shaykh in Egypt during the evening hours yesterday,
changed course and returned to Khartoum.
The invitation to Al-Bashir had in fact not come directly from
either the Office of the President or the Foreign Ministry. All that
Turkey did was to host the COMCEC [Standing Committee for Economic
and Commercial Cooperation] summit. But the Sudanese leader, wanting
to defy at every opportunity the International Criminal Court [ICC],
which has issued an arrest order for him, did not hesitate to exploit
this chance, and insisted on attending the summit.
No matter how much Ankara ascribes importance to relations and trade
with Sudan, this was a scene that Turkey could not tolerate. Just
think of the souvenir photograph that would come out of the summit.
With "axis" debates and tension with Israel taking place, to Prime
Minister Erdogan's right Al-Bashir, and to his left, Ahmadinezhad!
After all, we are speaking here of a country that is a member of both
the UN Security Council and NATO, and a candidate for the EU...
Additionally, there were warnings from the European Union and from
the United States. Human rights organizations were issuing statements
calling for the trip to be cancelled.
Sleeves were rolled up. It was conveyed to Sudan through special
channels how much difficulty the visit would create for Turkey in
terms of the EU. But Al-Bashir remained insistent on coming to Turkey.
Intermediaries and businessmen became involved. The government ascribed
importance to Sudan, and Sudan and Turkey did not want a diplomatic
crisis between them. For this reason, the direct message "do not come"
was not conveyed. This would have been diplomatic discourtesy. But
certain difficulties were made known to the Sudanese leader.
Sudan still remained determined. Preparations were made for the plane
to land at 1830 hours. It had entered into the official protocol and
the VIP programme that Al-Bashir was going to come. The Provincial
Governor and the protocol directors were going to go to the airport,
and Sudanese officials and businessmen were at the airport at 1700
hours. The security team was put on alert.
But it became clear at about 1730 that he was not going to arrive. The
message of certain businessmen that "if you come, we cannot guarantee
that a prosecutor in Turkey will not issue a warrant for your arrest"
was influential in Al-Bashir's changing his mind and heading back to
Khartoum. Actually, since Turkey has not signed the founding agreement
on the ICC, it was not obliged to implement the court's ruling. Still,
there was a "grey area" that could make it possible for a prosecutor
to go into action on the basis of UN resolutions, based on the claims
of "genocide" and a determination of "crimes against humanity."
Turkish officials, receiving contradictory messages from Khartoum,
were unable to be certain regarding Al-Bashir's decision until late
yesterday afternoon. But at the last minute, the Sudanese leader
decided not to come. And Ankara breathed a sigh of relief.