Obama Hints at Turkey’s Future
Published in Radikal
(Turkey) on 10 July 2010
by Cengiz Candar (link to original)
(Turkey) on 10 July 2010
by Cengiz Candar (link to original)
Translated from
by Omer Aslan.
Edited by Alex Brewer.
A short while ago Prime Minister Erdogan had two meetings with President Obama during the G-20 Summit in Toronto. The most important details of the meetings were overlooked.
White House sources whispered two important overlooked details from the meetings:
1. No photos from Obama-Erdogan meetings were available to the media
2. The meetings were not put on the White House’s official web page which normally displays President Obama’s daily activities.
These two details were supposed to convey a diplomatic message: Washington does not approve of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan.
The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to whom President Obama had given a cold shoulder in March before the Erdogan-Obama meeting which Americans wished not be highlighted, paid another visit to the White House a few days ago. Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu took place in an atmosphere that reflected the warmth in American-Israeli relations.
Obama and Netanyahu had lunch after their meeting at the Oval Office; Netanyahu was hosted at the Blair House across from the White House, where only guests deemed very important by the American administration stay. These details too were diplomatic messages: the United States accords privileged importance to Israel and thereby demonstrates its friendliness.
When Turkish and Israeli prime ministers are placed on the pans of the scale of the White House, the Israeli Prime Minister (even if his name is Benjamin Netanyahu) outweighs the latter these days.
Although it could be argued that no American administration can afford to be in a collision course with Israel due to domestic political concerns (thanks to the Israeli lobby factor), as the American mid-term elections are approaching, the fact that Obama's pointer has shifted toward Netanyahu remains true. That said, is it possible to conclude from the above that Washington is done with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan?
Hold on there.
If it is necessary to take into consideration that every gesture from the White House expresses a diplomatic message, then we should also take Obama’s Oval Office interview in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera as a diplomatic message. Regarding the fashionable and cliché question of the last months of whether the West is losing Turkey or not, Obama says, “Turkey is a NATO ally and its economy is booming. The fact that it is both a democracy and a country with a Muslim majority makes it a critically important model for other Muslim countries in the region. For these reasons, we believe it is important to cultivate strong relations with Ankara” and reiterates once again that “it would be wise to accept Turkey into the Union.”
Obama’s take on this issue is very realistic: “I realize that this raises strong feelings in Europe, nor do I think that Europe’s slow pace or reluctance is the only or the principal factor behind some of the changes we have observed recently in Turkey’s orientation. In my view, what we are seeing is democratic confrontation inside Turkey. But it is inevitably destined to impact on the way Turkish people see Europe. If they do not feel part of the European family, then obviously they’re going to look elsewhere for alliances and affiliations.”
These words Obama uttered bear witness to the fact that Obama understands Turkish foreign policy which has been fervently discussed in Turkey (and in Washington) as it is ripped apart from its true reality, and “finds legitimate” the orientation in Turkish foreign policy.
The most interesting of all is Obama's words about Turkey’s attitude in the Iranian issue and its “No” vote at the UN Security Council, which many Americans deem the real reason behind the disappointment in Turkish-American relations.
Obama says the following on this issue: “Some of the things we have seen, such as the attempt to mediate an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue, have been unfortunate. I believe they were motivated by the fact that Turkey has a long border with Iran and does not want any conflicts in the area. Muscle-flexing may also have come into it, as it does with Brazil, which sees itself as an emerging power."
This indeed captures the crux of the issue. As you can remember, I expressed in this column a few times already that Turkey and Brazil are rising powers seeking their deserved places in the international hierarchy and the Tehran Agreement is one of the foremost outcomes of this search.
Obama understands Turkey’s rights and has no real objection to Turkey. We can find his positive stance in his words: “What we can do with Ankara is to continue to engage, and to point out the benefits of integration with the West while respecting, not acting out of fear of, Turkey’s specific nature as a great Muslim democracy. It is potentially very good for us if they embody a kind of Islam that respects universal rights and the secularity of the state, and can have a positive influence on the Muslim world.”
What Obama said to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera about Turkey is even more significant for the immediate future of Turkey, Prime Minister Erdogan and his government than the [Turkish] Constitutional Court's decision to pave the way for the coming referenda [in September]. It is not necessary to discuss why.
While Obama's latest rapprochement with Netanyahu is purely the result of conjecture, and thus is tactical, his understanding of the current picture that Turkey presents with its new foreign policy is strategic. Washington, which President Obama is in charge of, is no feeding ground for those who would like to maintain the tutelage regime, and their buttresses in Turkey's foreseeable future.
White House sources whispered two important overlooked details from the meetings:
1. No photos from Obama-Erdogan meetings were available to the media
2. The meetings were not put on the White House’s official web page which normally displays President Obama’s daily activities.
These two details were supposed to convey a diplomatic message: Washington does not approve of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan.
The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to whom President Obama had given a cold shoulder in March before the Erdogan-Obama meeting which Americans wished not be highlighted, paid another visit to the White House a few days ago. Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu took place in an atmosphere that reflected the warmth in American-Israeli relations.
Obama and Netanyahu had lunch after their meeting at the Oval Office; Netanyahu was hosted at the Blair House across from the White House, where only guests deemed very important by the American administration stay. These details too were diplomatic messages: the United States accords privileged importance to Israel and thereby demonstrates its friendliness.
When Turkish and Israeli prime ministers are placed on the pans of the scale of the White House, the Israeli Prime Minister (even if his name is Benjamin Netanyahu) outweighs the latter these days.
Although it could be argued that no American administration can afford to be in a collision course with Israel due to domestic political concerns (thanks to the Israeli lobby factor), as the American mid-term elections are approaching, the fact that Obama's pointer has shifted toward Netanyahu remains true. That said, is it possible to conclude from the above that Washington is done with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan?
Hold on there.
If it is necessary to take into consideration that every gesture from the White House expresses a diplomatic message, then we should also take Obama’s Oval Office interview in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera as a diplomatic message. Regarding the fashionable and cliché question of the last months of whether the West is losing Turkey or not, Obama says, “Turkey is a NATO ally and its economy is booming. The fact that it is both a democracy and a country with a Muslim majority makes it a critically important model for other Muslim countries in the region. For these reasons, we believe it is important to cultivate strong relations with Ankara” and reiterates once again that “it would be wise to accept Turkey into the Union.”
Obama’s take on this issue is very realistic: “I realize that this raises strong feelings in Europe, nor do I think that Europe’s slow pace or reluctance is the only or the principal factor behind some of the changes we have observed recently in Turkey’s orientation. In my view, what we are seeing is democratic confrontation inside Turkey. But it is inevitably destined to impact on the way Turkish people see Europe. If they do not feel part of the European family, then obviously they’re going to look elsewhere for alliances and affiliations.”
These words Obama uttered bear witness to the fact that Obama understands Turkish foreign policy which has been fervently discussed in Turkey (and in Washington) as it is ripped apart from its true reality, and “finds legitimate” the orientation in Turkish foreign policy.
The most interesting of all is Obama's words about Turkey’s attitude in the Iranian issue and its “No” vote at the UN Security Council, which many Americans deem the real reason behind the disappointment in Turkish-American relations.
Obama says the following on this issue: “Some of the things we have seen, such as the attempt to mediate an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue, have been unfortunate. I believe they were motivated by the fact that Turkey has a long border with Iran and does not want any conflicts in the area. Muscle-flexing may also have come into it, as it does with Brazil, which sees itself as an emerging power."
This indeed captures the crux of the issue. As you can remember, I expressed in this column a few times already that Turkey and Brazil are rising powers seeking their deserved places in the international hierarchy and the Tehran Agreement is one of the foremost outcomes of this search.
Obama understands Turkey’s rights and has no real objection to Turkey. We can find his positive stance in his words: “What we can do with Ankara is to continue to engage, and to point out the benefits of integration with the West while respecting, not acting out of fear of, Turkey’s specific nature as a great Muslim democracy. It is potentially very good for us if they embody a kind of Islam that respects universal rights and the secularity of the state, and can have a positive influence on the Muslim world.”
What Obama said to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera about Turkey is even more significant for the immediate future of Turkey, Prime Minister Erdogan and his government than the [Turkish] Constitutional Court's decision to pave the way for the coming referenda [in September]. It is not necessary to discuss why.
While Obama's latest rapprochement with Netanyahu is purely the result of conjecture, and thus is tactical, his understanding of the current picture that Turkey presents with its new foreign policy is strategic. Washington, which President Obama is in charge of, is no feeding ground for those who would like to maintain the tutelage regime, and their buttresses in Turkey's foreseeable future.