Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Nov 11 2012
Professor Yılmaz: Ankara likely to press US for assertive policy regarding Syria
11 November 2012 / YONCA POYRAZ DOÄ?AN, Ä°STANBUL
Now that US President Barack Obama has been re-elected, Turkey is
hoping that the US will help in leading a bolder approach to end
Syria's deadlocked conflict, according to an analyst who has been
observing US and Turkish policies on Syria.
`Turkey seeks from the United States a more assertive policy regarding
Syria in order to stop the human tragedy and the bloodshed, and
possibly a safe haven to enable the return of the refugees,' says
Professor Å?uhnaz Yılmaz Ã-zbaÄ?cı for Monday Talk, evaluating the most
immediate question for Turkey after the Nov. 6 US election results.
NATO ally Turkey is not in favor of going into Syria -- where an
estimated 36,000 people have been killed in a long-running uprising
against the rule of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- on its own, and it
has been pushing for international intervention, most likely in the
form of creating a safe zone, which would likely entail foreign
security forces on the ground.
According to UN officials, more than 11,000 Syrians have fled the
violence since Thursday. About 120,000 refugees are now believed to be
in Turkey. Last week, Turkey's state-run Anadolu news agency said at
least 26 military officers, including two generals and 11 colonels,
had fled across the border.
On the issue of Syria and the US elections, Yılmaz answered our questions.
Would you call Obama's election a definite victory, as it's been a
close call between the two presidential candidates in the United
States?
It's a victory. It was a very close call, but Obama was able to win
quite a lot of swing states in the end. This victory is based on a
number of factors. Democrats had a very prudent grass roots strategy;
Obama's team had one-on-one contact with the voters, and at the same
time he used social media very effectively. The election results are
also an important step for the American democracy -- his re-election
as the first president with an African-American background and with a
Muslim father who has roots in Kenya and a Christian mother. This is
in fact for many people the realization of the American dream. And
that's what he emphasized in his very good victory speech as well.
The second term of Obama has been received quite positively by the
Turkish government. Would you share your comments on the reasons for
this?
The Turkish government has been watching the process very closely
because the election of the US president has great repercussions for
all countries in the world, and particularly for Turkey, which
neighbors Syria, Iran and Iraq. With Obama, Turkish-American relations
took a positive turn after a very low point in the George W. Bush era
and during and after the war in Iraq. There were significant parallels
between the approaches of the Obama and [Recep Tayyip] ErdoÄ?an
administrations, although you can't agree on all things. Also, at the
personal level, ErdoÄ?an and Obama have been working closely and
efficiently on issues related to the region. If Mitt Romney had been
elected, it was obvious that he would pursue a much closer line to
Israel, and would have been more likely to be supportive of more
aggressive policies in the region, which would not have been favored
by the Turkish government. Opposed to that, Ankara has been working
with Obama and his team for four years now and they already have a
good working relationship.
`US, Turkey have similar foreign policy issues in Middle East'
As part of his European trip, Obama had visited Turkey -- his first
visit to a majority Muslim country -- in April 2009, which was much to
the liking of the Turkish people and government. There is a question
whether or not he will visit Turkey again. What is the importance of
such a visit?
Why the visit was so important in 2009 after a problematic period in
relations is twofold. It was the last leg of his European visit; very
wisely structured. It carried the message that Turkey is part of
Europe, and at the same time it was the first Muslim country Obama
visited. It had this double significance which also reflected the
special position of Turkey. Given the complicated situation in the
Middle East, another visit would be very suitable; but when and how it
will be structured is quite uncertain now. Initially, Obama will be
busy with forming his team and dealing with particularly urgent
economic issues. If he pays a visit to the region again, Turkey will
have a high priority on his list. When one examines the top foreign
policy issues in the agenda of the US president and secretary of state
and the Turkish prime minister and our foreign minister, the issues
are very similar. On the US agenda, there is of course a heavy
emphasis with regards to the Pacific, which is not present in the
Turkish case. In the Middle Eastern context, the issues are very
similar, although there might be divergences as to how to deal with
them.
Some observers say that the Obama administration is likely not to
focus on the Middle East in its second term. Do you agree with that
view?
I partially agree with that. The US does not have the luxury of
totally zooming out of the region because a lot of the issues in the
region are critical to US interests. On the other hand, as has been
emphasized several times by Obama himself, he intends to focus more on
the Pacific. The reason is China, the enormous, rising economic power.
Unlike Romney, Obama will avoid a direct confrontation, but follow an
encirclement strategy by having very good relations with neighboring
countries, and will try to limit Chinese influence both economically
and militarily.
`US likely to tighten sanctions on Iran'
This is a significant period with regard to China since the Chinese
Communist Party is holding its congress to elect a new central
committee.
Although it's been overshadowed by the US elections, the Chinese
Communist Party has been electing its new leaders, who are going to
determine the next decade of China. This is going to be extremely
important for the United States and the rest of the world, as China is
becoming very active in the field of economy and energy politics.
There will be much more emphasis on the Pacific, yet this does not
mean that the US can disengage from the Middle East. However, there
will be much more reluctance to be militarily engaged in conflicts in
this region -- that is also a difference between the approaches of
Obama and Romney.
There are some observers in Turkey saying that they don't care about
what Obama does in the Pacific, but the most important issues for
Turkey are the issues of Syria and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
and how the US will help Turkey in dealing with them. What is your
view in that regard?
We need to think about international politics on multiple levels. Yes,
as for Turkey, of course, what is going to happen in its immediate
neighborhood with regards to Syria and the PKK, as well as Iran, is
more important. But while focusing on one region, one should always
keep the big picture in mind for a genuine understanding of
international dynamics.
Let's start with Iran. What do you expect from the United States?
Washington is first going to try diplomatic means; they will try to
use them as much as they can. So the US will tighten sanctions, there
will be more pressure on the banks and maybe it will push harder to
reach a deal with Iran to try to stop its nuclear ambitions. They will
try to avoid the military action that Israel has been pushing for,
especially in the last year. Obama knows that a military option is not
a wise option; plus, Obama and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin]
Netanyahu do not have very good relations. Maybe that's why Netanyahu,
who openly put a lot of support behind Mitt Romney, was the first
world leader to call Obama and congratulate him after his victory.
Relations with Israel have always been critical for the US and will
continue to be so, but there are important differences in Netanyahu
and Obama's approaches.
`US concerned about extreme factions in Syria'
Do you think it is clear what Ankara expects from Washington in
regards to Syria?
I don't think it is very clear to an outside observer. This is a
negotiation process; you can't actually reveal exactly what you want
to the public until you get concrete results. But overall, Turkey
seeks from the United States a more assertive policy regarding Syria
in order to stop the human tragedy and the bloodshed, and possibly a
safe haven to enable the return of the refugees -- because that's a
huge problem for Turkey. Ankara would seek much more engagement from
Washington regarding the issue of Syria, because everything was almost
on hold in the US in that regard before the election. But now the
election is over, and the Obama administration has a mandate for the
next four years, Ankara expects from the American side more concrete
steps rather than statements. The refugee issue is also a big problem
for Lebanon and Jordan. Syria is a big destabilizing factor for both
of these countries, which are a powder keg in the region. These issues
have probably been discussed, and consultations and negotiations are
ongoing between Washington and Ankara, but have not been publicly
revealed at this stage. We will be probably seeing some concrete
steps, but we don't know yet if these steps will meet Turkey's
expectations.
Just prior to the US elections, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
strongly questioned the ability of the Syrian National Council [SNC]
to represent the whole of the Syrian people. Then came the SNC's
meeting in Doha. Do you think this represents something new?
There is a rethinking of the Syrian issue on the American side. It
does not seem that they have found a solution yet in terms of how to
deal with it; they were mainly focusing on the elections. There should
be much more comprehensive thinking on the American side now. There
are also rising concerns that extreme factions are gaining much more
influence within the opposition, and the US does not want that. Since
the Iraqi situation has proven to be very problematic, they don't want
the repetition of a similar scenario. They desire a smooth transition,
and the US does not want to be militarily engaged. So the US needs to
support the opposition, but it is not clear whom to support. It is a
complicated picture, as Russia has been very actively involved as
well. Since the Cold War years, Syria has been Russia's stronghold in
the Middle East and an opening to the Mediterranean. If there is going
to be a solution in Syria, it will come after a kind of a grand
bargain with Russia on how to make this transition possible in Syria,
and who is going to replace Assad. Any scenario in regards to Syria
ultimately has to take the Turkish position into account as well.
`Turkey needs to come to terms with its Kurdish issue'
Regarding Ankara's and Washington's concerns about extreme factions in
Syria, what are the divergences?
Turkey is concerned, but does not feel as threatened by this. In the
US, there is a more pronounced concern. It's not a major diversion but
a matter of different perceptions.
What does Turkey expect from the US in regards to dealing with the PKK?
If the US wants to have good relations with Turkey, it has to
cooperate with Turkey on the issue of the PKK. There has been some
cooperation, but Turkey expects more when it comes to Turkey's fight
with terror.
And of course Turkey has its Kurdish issue, and how it relates to the
situation in Syria. There are very interesting dynamics in regards to
Turkey's Kurdish issue.
On the one hand, Turkey has close relations with the Kurds of Iraq; on
the other hand, the challenge for Turkey is the strengthening of the
Kurds in the northern part of Syria since the unraveling of the Syrian
crisis. Turkey will have to deal with this challenge in the near
future. While Ankara is dealing with the Kurdish issue abroad, Turkey
needs to move on with its democratization process and come to terms
with its Kurdish issue. It's been proven that just a military fight
with the PKK is not enough; there is a much more rooted problem which
needs a complex solution. This is going to be Turkey's major challenge
in the short and medium term. And, of course, what's been happening in
Syria has been further destabilizing for Turkey's Kurdish issue as
well.
Turkey again stopped an airplane headed to Syria from Armenia through
Turkey. This is probably the third incident of stopping a plane and
searching it. Do you think this practice is likely to continue?
It's a right that Turkey has; it is legal according to international
law, but I am not sure what it accomplishes. Of course, if you
intercept an extremely dangerous cargo then it would make sense, but I
am not sure about the practical results. It might have a symbolic
significance, trying to send a message that Turkey is concerned and
uncomfortable about arms deliveries to the Syrian government. And it
is very likely that the US aids Turkey with intelligence in that
regard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Obama's Rumi-like message draws attention in Turkey'
This is the first time the US election has been so closely watched in
Turkey by the public. There was even an election hub established in
Ä°stanbul in a grand old train station. There was live coverage and
instant commentary on every development. Why do you think this was the
case?
There has been a special relationship established with Washington
during the [Barack] Obama administration, despite some low points
regarding Turkish perceptions of the US and the persistence of
relatively low public opinion surveys. This relationship made people
curious about what's going on in the US elections in the era of fast
global communication. The youth has been particularly interested in
this process. The election which brought Obama to power was also
watched with curiosity, since people were tired of the [George W.]
Bush era.
A lot of friends asked me if I had watched the after-election speeches
of the candidates, and were positively astonished at how much respect
they had for each other. One tweet I read said that [Mitt] Romney had
lost despite getting 50 percent of the vote, and if that were the case
in Turkey, there would be a civil war!
Even Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] ErdoÄ?an said that this kind of
respectful attitude was good. One of my graduate students, Ä°lker
Tuncay, did an extensive study on the use of social media by political
parties and the responses they got. The responses to very negative and
insulting messages in social media were also negative, whereas uniting
and positive messages received a much more positive response. This
shows that the public endorses a positive attitude in that regard.
Obama talked about his wife, his family, his campaign workers, etc.,
and he made a uniting call to all different groups in American society
in a manner that reminded me of [Mevlana Jelaluddin] Rumi. One Turkish
newspaper referred to it being like Mevlana's messages, as Obama said
it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look
like, it doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or
Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, you can make
it here in America. I'm sure Obama read Martin Luther King and
Gandhi, and Gandhi was an avid reader of Mevlana as he often quoted
from him. In Turkey, we need that kind of social reconciliation as
well. We have great human capital potential, but because of internal
differences and infighting, we are unable to fully use it. If we have
reconciliation inside Turkey and invest in our human capital, there is
no reason why Turkey should not emerge as a decisive regional and even
a global power.
PROFILE
Å?uhnaz Yılmaz Ã-zbaÄ?cı
An associate professor at the Department of International Relations at
Koç University, she has authored a soon-to-be-released book on
Turkish-American Relations titled `Turkish-American Relations
(1800-1952): Between the Stars, Stripes and Crescent,' part of the
Routledge Press International Studies Series. She completed her
undergraduate degree at Bilkent University (1993) and received her
M.A. (1995) and Ph.D. (2000) from Princeton University, specializing
in International Affairs and the Middle East. She subsequently
conducted her post-doctoral studies at Harvard University. Her areas
of interest and expertise include foreign policy analysis, Turkish
foreign policy, Turkish-American Relations, Middle Eastern and
Eurasian politics and energy and water politics. She has received
numerous national and international research awards. She currently
serves as acting director of the Graduate School of Social Sciences
and Humanities at Koç University.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-297823-professor-yilmaz-ankara-likely-to-press-us-for-assertive-policy-regarding-syria.html
Nov 11 2012
Professor Yılmaz: Ankara likely to press US for assertive policy regarding Syria
11 November 2012 / YONCA POYRAZ DOÄ?AN, Ä°STANBUL
Now that US President Barack Obama has been re-elected, Turkey is
hoping that the US will help in leading a bolder approach to end
Syria's deadlocked conflict, according to an analyst who has been
observing US and Turkish policies on Syria.
`Turkey seeks from the United States a more assertive policy regarding
Syria in order to stop the human tragedy and the bloodshed, and
possibly a safe haven to enable the return of the refugees,' says
Professor Å?uhnaz Yılmaz Ã-zbaÄ?cı for Monday Talk, evaluating the most
immediate question for Turkey after the Nov. 6 US election results.
NATO ally Turkey is not in favor of going into Syria -- where an
estimated 36,000 people have been killed in a long-running uprising
against the rule of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- on its own, and it
has been pushing for international intervention, most likely in the
form of creating a safe zone, which would likely entail foreign
security forces on the ground.
According to UN officials, more than 11,000 Syrians have fled the
violence since Thursday. About 120,000 refugees are now believed to be
in Turkey. Last week, Turkey's state-run Anadolu news agency said at
least 26 military officers, including two generals and 11 colonels,
had fled across the border.
On the issue of Syria and the US elections, Yılmaz answered our questions.
Would you call Obama's election a definite victory, as it's been a
close call between the two presidential candidates in the United
States?
It's a victory. It was a very close call, but Obama was able to win
quite a lot of swing states in the end. This victory is based on a
number of factors. Democrats had a very prudent grass roots strategy;
Obama's team had one-on-one contact with the voters, and at the same
time he used social media very effectively. The election results are
also an important step for the American democracy -- his re-election
as the first president with an African-American background and with a
Muslim father who has roots in Kenya and a Christian mother. This is
in fact for many people the realization of the American dream. And
that's what he emphasized in his very good victory speech as well.
The second term of Obama has been received quite positively by the
Turkish government. Would you share your comments on the reasons for
this?
The Turkish government has been watching the process very closely
because the election of the US president has great repercussions for
all countries in the world, and particularly for Turkey, which
neighbors Syria, Iran and Iraq. With Obama, Turkish-American relations
took a positive turn after a very low point in the George W. Bush era
and during and after the war in Iraq. There were significant parallels
between the approaches of the Obama and [Recep Tayyip] ErdoÄ?an
administrations, although you can't agree on all things. Also, at the
personal level, ErdoÄ?an and Obama have been working closely and
efficiently on issues related to the region. If Mitt Romney had been
elected, it was obvious that he would pursue a much closer line to
Israel, and would have been more likely to be supportive of more
aggressive policies in the region, which would not have been favored
by the Turkish government. Opposed to that, Ankara has been working
with Obama and his team for four years now and they already have a
good working relationship.
`US, Turkey have similar foreign policy issues in Middle East'
As part of his European trip, Obama had visited Turkey -- his first
visit to a majority Muslim country -- in April 2009, which was much to
the liking of the Turkish people and government. There is a question
whether or not he will visit Turkey again. What is the importance of
such a visit?
Why the visit was so important in 2009 after a problematic period in
relations is twofold. It was the last leg of his European visit; very
wisely structured. It carried the message that Turkey is part of
Europe, and at the same time it was the first Muslim country Obama
visited. It had this double significance which also reflected the
special position of Turkey. Given the complicated situation in the
Middle East, another visit would be very suitable; but when and how it
will be structured is quite uncertain now. Initially, Obama will be
busy with forming his team and dealing with particularly urgent
economic issues. If he pays a visit to the region again, Turkey will
have a high priority on his list. When one examines the top foreign
policy issues in the agenda of the US president and secretary of state
and the Turkish prime minister and our foreign minister, the issues
are very similar. On the US agenda, there is of course a heavy
emphasis with regards to the Pacific, which is not present in the
Turkish case. In the Middle Eastern context, the issues are very
similar, although there might be divergences as to how to deal with
them.
Some observers say that the Obama administration is likely not to
focus on the Middle East in its second term. Do you agree with that
view?
I partially agree with that. The US does not have the luxury of
totally zooming out of the region because a lot of the issues in the
region are critical to US interests. On the other hand, as has been
emphasized several times by Obama himself, he intends to focus more on
the Pacific. The reason is China, the enormous, rising economic power.
Unlike Romney, Obama will avoid a direct confrontation, but follow an
encirclement strategy by having very good relations with neighboring
countries, and will try to limit Chinese influence both economically
and militarily.
`US likely to tighten sanctions on Iran'
This is a significant period with regard to China since the Chinese
Communist Party is holding its congress to elect a new central
committee.
Although it's been overshadowed by the US elections, the Chinese
Communist Party has been electing its new leaders, who are going to
determine the next decade of China. This is going to be extremely
important for the United States and the rest of the world, as China is
becoming very active in the field of economy and energy politics.
There will be much more emphasis on the Pacific, yet this does not
mean that the US can disengage from the Middle East. However, there
will be much more reluctance to be militarily engaged in conflicts in
this region -- that is also a difference between the approaches of
Obama and Romney.
There are some observers in Turkey saying that they don't care about
what Obama does in the Pacific, but the most important issues for
Turkey are the issues of Syria and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
and how the US will help Turkey in dealing with them. What is your
view in that regard?
We need to think about international politics on multiple levels. Yes,
as for Turkey, of course, what is going to happen in its immediate
neighborhood with regards to Syria and the PKK, as well as Iran, is
more important. But while focusing on one region, one should always
keep the big picture in mind for a genuine understanding of
international dynamics.
Let's start with Iran. What do you expect from the United States?
Washington is first going to try diplomatic means; they will try to
use them as much as they can. So the US will tighten sanctions, there
will be more pressure on the banks and maybe it will push harder to
reach a deal with Iran to try to stop its nuclear ambitions. They will
try to avoid the military action that Israel has been pushing for,
especially in the last year. Obama knows that a military option is not
a wise option; plus, Obama and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin]
Netanyahu do not have very good relations. Maybe that's why Netanyahu,
who openly put a lot of support behind Mitt Romney, was the first
world leader to call Obama and congratulate him after his victory.
Relations with Israel have always been critical for the US and will
continue to be so, but there are important differences in Netanyahu
and Obama's approaches.
`US concerned about extreme factions in Syria'
Do you think it is clear what Ankara expects from Washington in
regards to Syria?
I don't think it is very clear to an outside observer. This is a
negotiation process; you can't actually reveal exactly what you want
to the public until you get concrete results. But overall, Turkey
seeks from the United States a more assertive policy regarding Syria
in order to stop the human tragedy and the bloodshed, and possibly a
safe haven to enable the return of the refugees -- because that's a
huge problem for Turkey. Ankara would seek much more engagement from
Washington regarding the issue of Syria, because everything was almost
on hold in the US in that regard before the election. But now the
election is over, and the Obama administration has a mandate for the
next four years, Ankara expects from the American side more concrete
steps rather than statements. The refugee issue is also a big problem
for Lebanon and Jordan. Syria is a big destabilizing factor for both
of these countries, which are a powder keg in the region. These issues
have probably been discussed, and consultations and negotiations are
ongoing between Washington and Ankara, but have not been publicly
revealed at this stage. We will be probably seeing some concrete
steps, but we don't know yet if these steps will meet Turkey's
expectations.
Just prior to the US elections, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
strongly questioned the ability of the Syrian National Council [SNC]
to represent the whole of the Syrian people. Then came the SNC's
meeting in Doha. Do you think this represents something new?
There is a rethinking of the Syrian issue on the American side. It
does not seem that they have found a solution yet in terms of how to
deal with it; they were mainly focusing on the elections. There should
be much more comprehensive thinking on the American side now. There
are also rising concerns that extreme factions are gaining much more
influence within the opposition, and the US does not want that. Since
the Iraqi situation has proven to be very problematic, they don't want
the repetition of a similar scenario. They desire a smooth transition,
and the US does not want to be militarily engaged. So the US needs to
support the opposition, but it is not clear whom to support. It is a
complicated picture, as Russia has been very actively involved as
well. Since the Cold War years, Syria has been Russia's stronghold in
the Middle East and an opening to the Mediterranean. If there is going
to be a solution in Syria, it will come after a kind of a grand
bargain with Russia on how to make this transition possible in Syria,
and who is going to replace Assad. Any scenario in regards to Syria
ultimately has to take the Turkish position into account as well.
`Turkey needs to come to terms with its Kurdish issue'
Regarding Ankara's and Washington's concerns about extreme factions in
Syria, what are the divergences?
Turkey is concerned, but does not feel as threatened by this. In the
US, there is a more pronounced concern. It's not a major diversion but
a matter of different perceptions.
What does Turkey expect from the US in regards to dealing with the PKK?
If the US wants to have good relations with Turkey, it has to
cooperate with Turkey on the issue of the PKK. There has been some
cooperation, but Turkey expects more when it comes to Turkey's fight
with terror.
And of course Turkey has its Kurdish issue, and how it relates to the
situation in Syria. There are very interesting dynamics in regards to
Turkey's Kurdish issue.
On the one hand, Turkey has close relations with the Kurds of Iraq; on
the other hand, the challenge for Turkey is the strengthening of the
Kurds in the northern part of Syria since the unraveling of the Syrian
crisis. Turkey will have to deal with this challenge in the near
future. While Ankara is dealing with the Kurdish issue abroad, Turkey
needs to move on with its democratization process and come to terms
with its Kurdish issue. It's been proven that just a military fight
with the PKK is not enough; there is a much more rooted problem which
needs a complex solution. This is going to be Turkey's major challenge
in the short and medium term. And, of course, what's been happening in
Syria has been further destabilizing for Turkey's Kurdish issue as
well.
Turkey again stopped an airplane headed to Syria from Armenia through
Turkey. This is probably the third incident of stopping a plane and
searching it. Do you think this practice is likely to continue?
It's a right that Turkey has; it is legal according to international
law, but I am not sure what it accomplishes. Of course, if you
intercept an extremely dangerous cargo then it would make sense, but I
am not sure about the practical results. It might have a symbolic
significance, trying to send a message that Turkey is concerned and
uncomfortable about arms deliveries to the Syrian government. And it
is very likely that the US aids Turkey with intelligence in that
regard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Obama's Rumi-like message draws attention in Turkey'
This is the first time the US election has been so closely watched in
Turkey by the public. There was even an election hub established in
Ä°stanbul in a grand old train station. There was live coverage and
instant commentary on every development. Why do you think this was the
case?
There has been a special relationship established with Washington
during the [Barack] Obama administration, despite some low points
regarding Turkish perceptions of the US and the persistence of
relatively low public opinion surveys. This relationship made people
curious about what's going on in the US elections in the era of fast
global communication. The youth has been particularly interested in
this process. The election which brought Obama to power was also
watched with curiosity, since people were tired of the [George W.]
Bush era.
A lot of friends asked me if I had watched the after-election speeches
of the candidates, and were positively astonished at how much respect
they had for each other. One tweet I read said that [Mitt] Romney had
lost despite getting 50 percent of the vote, and if that were the case
in Turkey, there would be a civil war!
Even Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] ErdoÄ?an said that this kind of
respectful attitude was good. One of my graduate students, Ä°lker
Tuncay, did an extensive study on the use of social media by political
parties and the responses they got. The responses to very negative and
insulting messages in social media were also negative, whereas uniting
and positive messages received a much more positive response. This
shows that the public endorses a positive attitude in that regard.
Obama talked about his wife, his family, his campaign workers, etc.,
and he made a uniting call to all different groups in American society
in a manner that reminded me of [Mevlana Jelaluddin] Rumi. One Turkish
newspaper referred to it being like Mevlana's messages, as Obama said
it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look
like, it doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or
Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, you can make
it here in America. I'm sure Obama read Martin Luther King and
Gandhi, and Gandhi was an avid reader of Mevlana as he often quoted
from him. In Turkey, we need that kind of social reconciliation as
well. We have great human capital potential, but because of internal
differences and infighting, we are unable to fully use it. If we have
reconciliation inside Turkey and invest in our human capital, there is
no reason why Turkey should not emerge as a decisive regional and even
a global power.
PROFILE
Å?uhnaz Yılmaz Ã-zbaÄ?cı
An associate professor at the Department of International Relations at
Koç University, she has authored a soon-to-be-released book on
Turkish-American Relations titled `Turkish-American Relations
(1800-1952): Between the Stars, Stripes and Crescent,' part of the
Routledge Press International Studies Series. She completed her
undergraduate degree at Bilkent University (1993) and received her
M.A. (1995) and Ph.D. (2000) from Princeton University, specializing
in International Affairs and the Middle East. She subsequently
conducted her post-doctoral studies at Harvard University. Her areas
of interest and expertise include foreign policy analysis, Turkish
foreign policy, Turkish-American Relations, Middle Eastern and
Eurasian politics and energy and water politics. She has received
numerous national and international research awards. She currently
serves as acting director of the Graduate School of Social Sciences
and Humanities at Koç University.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-297823-professor-yilmaz-ankara-likely-to-press-us-for-assertive-policy-regarding-syria.html