Instead Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan conceded that Turkey would not object to the appointment of the former Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as secretary-general of NATO. Turkey had good reason to object to the selection, as columnist after columnist in this paper have explained. Given that NATO's missions are ever increasing in the Islam-professing world, it made little sense to choose as top man a politician whose track record on cultural sensitivity has been slightly less patronizing than a colonial tea planter. However, Mr. Erdoğan made it clear that he accepted Mr. Obama's assurances that the unruly Dane would behave.In understanding when to withhold his country's right of veto, Mr. Erdoğan may have lifted Turkey's diplomatic game and done more good to the cause of reducing mistrust between people of different faiths than a tough display of intransigence could have done. Turkey's immediate reward, arguably, has been the visit so early on in his presidency to its shores of Obama himself. This, unquestionably, is an anointment of Ankara's importance in the new scheme of things by the world's most respected political leader.
Mr. Obama made the headlines before he landed by very publicly endorsing Turkey's application to join the European Union. He is not the first president to have grasped the importance of getting Turkey securely anchored to the European bloc. Its accomplishment would undo the prejudices of a thousand Rasmussens. Bill Clinton grasped the need to twist European arms to launch Turkey into the customs union back in 1995. In 2004, George Bush came to the NATO summit, and speaking on the Bosporus against the symbolic background of the Bosporus Bridge, urged Brussels to go the extra mile and give Ankara a seat at the negotiating table. "Including Turkey in the EU would prove that Europe is not the exclusive club of a single religion; it would expose the 'clash of civilizations' as a passing myth of history," he said.
When Bush made these particular remarks, commentators were quick to spot the implied rebuke to the French delegation, already in bad odor with Washington for their opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Now as then the French were among those most opposed to Turkey's full membership. Jacques Chirac (also in Turkey for the only time of his 12-year presidency) responded immediately by saying that the US president had "ventured too far and into territory that is not his concern." Yet when the time came, Chirac did not oppose the opening of negotiations with Turkey, despite the objection of his minister of the interior, Nicolas Sarkozy. President Sarkozy was quick off the mark to repeat his objections to Turkish membership in response to the current American president's support.
Arguably, Turkey managed to begin the EU accession process despite, not because of, US support. But Obama is very far from being a lame duck in world affairs. It may well come as no surprise if progress in Turkey's much-stalled negotiations may well turn into an immediate test of that prestige. Of course, this is hardly a US decision alone. It depends on Europe being more tractable. It depends Turkey showing itself to be a constructive partner; and in that sense, the Turkish decision not to lie down in the road to block the appointment of the new NATO head may turn out to be the wise thing. However, Turkey's EU entry ultimately depends on Ankara's appetite to complete a process of reform.
Yet all the pieces of the puzzle are interconnected. The previous American administration was all for stressing the symbolic importance of Turkey in the region. At the same time, it coupled Turkey's push for full democratization with its own invasion of Iraq. It will be interesting to see if Obama leaves Turkey today for a surprise visit to that troubled country. It will be more interesting if he leaves Turkey with a new sense of urgency. Transforming Turkey's EU perspective into "change it can believe in" may well turn out to be the plumpest fruit of Obama's visit.
