Obama Bets on Turkey’s Role: "Wait and See"
During his visit to Turkey, and from the rostrum of the Turkish Parliament, the United States president skillfully and diplomatically praised the role played by Turkey in the Middle East, as well as the centrality and importance of this role in the future. President Obama talked extensively about the distinctiveness and uniqueness of Turkey, a country that is both secular and Muslim.
On the other hand, he confirmed his hope to strengthen and develop the historic partnership between the two countries, ruling out any kind of tension, like cultural clashes that may arise between a Christian nation and one with Muslim majority, or between a Western nation and one that encompasses, because of its geographic location, both Eastern and Western civilizations.
President Obama also commended the practice of democracy in Turkey, the people's adherence to the rule of law, and its many freedoms. He added that today's Turkey can be a good example, not only in the Middle East, but also for the whole world.
These noble, dignified descriptions were deeply welcomed by Turkey. At the same time, it seems that Turkey has accepted with them a package of outstanding issues and highly-complex tasks, delivered by President Obama to his Turkish partner for analysis and response.
These issues include, but are not limited to, the crises in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kurdistan. They include, chronologically, the Iranian nuclear issue; peace in the Middle East, still without solution, despite the efforts of Arab politicians; regional and international talks and dialogues; as well as wars waged in search for peace, followed by summits - and summits, followed by wars, without any significant results. Without a doubt, Obama's new administration wants to avoid sailing these rough seas and being dragged into the swamp that brought the policies of the Bush administration to standstill and confusion.
It was, therefore, necessary to approach the Turkish mediator and extradite these issues, in order to remove them from the path of a new American administration, aspiring to polish the image of the U.S.A. - which means that President Obama did not accidentally choose the Turkish Parliament to address the Muslim world, with its negative image of Uncle Sam. He did not prefer it to any other Islamic country out of the blue. He chose it within a specific strategy and specific objectives, perfectly in line with the aspirations of the new administration.
Apart from the demonstrations condemning the U.S. president's visit, in other regions in Turkey, this visit can be considered a success. The next stage will be implementation of this joint strategy. Turkey needs Washington’s support to put pressure on European countries, like France and Germany, which are still averse to Turkey's accession to the EU. For its part, the U.S. favorably considers the successes of Turkish mediation, first occurring during the final days of the previous administration.
Turkey has had significant presence in the Middle East over the past years, and has participated in many conferences concerning the Middle East. In addition, the Turkish head of state and prime minister have visited all Arab countries. There is, as well, the mediation by Turkey's prime minister and his assistant, Ali Babajan, between Syria and Israel, in the context of indirect negotiations between the two parties. The intervention by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in favor of the Palestinian side in Darfur, had positive impact among Arabs, in general.
Washington is anxious to persuade Turkey to intensify economic pressure on Tehran, especially because the latter is the second largest source of natural gas to Turkey after Russia. It also wants Turkey to activate peace efforts between Syria and Israel, in order to isolate Tehran and trim down its regional expansion aspirations. It should also be noted that Turkey has the second largest army in NATO, which will cause it to play an important role in Afghanistan, if asked to send more troops to Taliban and al-Qaeda land bases. However, if U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq six months from now, as President Obama has promised, due to proximity, logistic support provided by Ankara will be very important for the success of the withdrawal process.
There is a popular English adage that says, "Wait and see". Its application here does not stem from doubt or pessimism about the policy of the new U.S. administration or Turkey’s ability to fulfill its roles in the coming years. Instead, events developing and progressing in a permanently boiling Middle East have taught us the truth of another adage: "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions"; prior strategic programs do not necessarily take the course of implementation, planned and established in offices and within closed circuits. The last security escalation that suddenly and violently exploded in Iraq; the North Korean missile, launched in space and qualified to carry nuclear warheads; both coinciding with Obama's visits to the Middle East, may not be matters of chance and without background.
The question now is: To what extent can Turkey correspond to the policies of the U.S. without falling into pitfalls stemming from internal commitments, based on its identity as secular Muslim state and ally of Israel? It is likely that Iran would show reluctance to dialogue with Turkey, under the pretext that it is an ally of Israel. It is also likely the Taliban would refuse to coordinate with the forces of Turkey in Afghanistan, because they belong to non-Islamic, Western NATO.
Arguments that can be invented and implemented by "reluctant" organizations and states, to not coordinate efforts, are unpredictable and capable of thwarting all attempts made for openness and dialogue. In every case, Turkey’s role as mediator in the Middle East is dominated by reservations based on negative, collective memory about the Ottoman Empire.
Moreover, Turkey is not the first U.S. ally in the Middle East, still defending Israel's interests more than anything else. Turkey is the second U.S. ally and may be required in the next stage, albeit unspoken, to keep pace with the interests of the first ally when the bell rings for the next round. Is Turkey able to play a neutral, intermediary role in all these arenas without being driven to take into account the interests of the U.S. first, and Israel, second? Because it is only through not adopting double-standard criteria that Turkey can succeed in its role in the Middle East. Otherwise all good intentions, preparations, and expressions of mutual reverence between the Atlantic and Middle Eastern poles will fade away.
On the other hand, he confirmed his hope to strengthen and develop the historic partnership between the two countries, ruling out any kind of tension, like cultural clashes that may arise between a Christian nation and one with Muslim majority, or between a Western nation and one that encompasses, because of its geographic location, both Eastern and Western civilizations.
President Obama also commended the practice of democracy in Turkey, the people's adherence to the rule of law, and its many freedoms. He added that today's Turkey can be a good example, not only in the Middle East, but also for the whole world.
These noble, dignified descriptions were deeply welcomed by Turkey. At the same time, it seems that Turkey has accepted with them a package of outstanding issues and highly-complex tasks, delivered by President Obama to his Turkish partner for analysis and response.
These issues include, but are not limited to, the crises in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kurdistan. They include, chronologically, the Iranian nuclear issue; peace in the Middle East, still without solution, despite the efforts of Arab politicians; regional and international talks and dialogues; as well as wars waged in search for peace, followed by summits - and summits, followed by wars, without any significant results. Without a doubt, Obama's new administration wants to avoid sailing these rough seas and being dragged into the swamp that brought the policies of the Bush administration to standstill and confusion.
It was, therefore, necessary to approach the Turkish mediator and extradite these issues, in order to remove them from the path of a new American administration, aspiring to polish the image of the U.S.A. - which means that President Obama did not accidentally choose the Turkish Parliament to address the Muslim world, with its negative image of Uncle Sam. He did not prefer it to any other Islamic country out of the blue. He chose it within a specific strategy and specific objectives, perfectly in line with the aspirations of the new administration.
Apart from the demonstrations condemning the U.S. president's visit, in other regions in Turkey, this visit can be considered a success. The next stage will be implementation of this joint strategy. Turkey needs Washington’s support to put pressure on European countries, like France and Germany, which are still averse to Turkey's accession to the EU. For its part, the U.S. favorably considers the successes of Turkish mediation, first occurring during the final days of the previous administration.
Turkey has had significant presence in the Middle East over the past years, and has participated in many conferences concerning the Middle East. In addition, the Turkish head of state and prime minister have visited all Arab countries. There is, as well, the mediation by Turkey's prime minister and his assistant, Ali Babajan, between Syria and Israel, in the context of indirect negotiations between the two parties. The intervention by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in favor of the Palestinian side in Darfur, had positive impact among Arabs, in general.
Washington is anxious to persuade Turkey to intensify economic pressure on Tehran, especially because the latter is the second largest source of natural gas to Turkey after Russia. It also wants Turkey to activate peace efforts between Syria and Israel, in order to isolate Tehran and trim down its regional expansion aspirations. It should also be noted that Turkey has the second largest army in NATO, which will cause it to play an important role in Afghanistan, if asked to send more troops to Taliban and al-Qaeda land bases. However, if U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq six months from now, as President Obama has promised, due to proximity, logistic support provided by Ankara will be very important for the success of the withdrawal process.
There is a popular English adage that says, "Wait and see". Its application here does not stem from doubt or pessimism about the policy of the new U.S. administration or Turkey’s ability to fulfill its roles in the coming years. Instead, events developing and progressing in a permanently boiling Middle East have taught us the truth of another adage: "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions"; prior strategic programs do not necessarily take the course of implementation, planned and established in offices and within closed circuits. The last security escalation that suddenly and violently exploded in Iraq; the North Korean missile, launched in space and qualified to carry nuclear warheads; both coinciding with Obama's visits to the Middle East, may not be matters of chance and without background.
The question now is: To what extent can Turkey correspond to the policies of the U.S. without falling into pitfalls stemming from internal commitments, based on its identity as secular Muslim state and ally of Israel? It is likely that Iran would show reluctance to dialogue with Turkey, under the pretext that it is an ally of Israel. It is also likely the Taliban would refuse to coordinate with the forces of Turkey in Afghanistan, because they belong to non-Islamic, Western NATO.
Arguments that can be invented and implemented by "reluctant" organizations and states, to not coordinate efforts, are unpredictable and capable of thwarting all attempts made for openness and dialogue. In every case, Turkey’s role as mediator in the Middle East is dominated by reservations based on negative, collective memory about the Ottoman Empire.
Moreover, Turkey is not the first U.S. ally in the Middle East, still defending Israel's interests more than anything else. Turkey is the second U.S. ally and may be required in the next stage, albeit unspoken, to keep pace with the interests of the first ally when the bell rings for the next round. Is Turkey able to play a neutral, intermediary role in all these arenas without being driven to take into account the interests of the U.S. first, and Israel, second? Because it is only through not adopting double-standard criteria that Turkey can succeed in its role in the Middle East. Otherwise all good intentions, preparations, and expressions of mutual reverence between the Atlantic and Middle Eastern poles will fade away.