It would be naïve to think that every problem will be resolved by a single visit. It is also obvious that constructive messages should be supported by action. Nobody would argue that actors do not matter in foreign policy, given that our people hold quite different views toward George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. This applies to policies, as well. Bush founded the Guantanamo prison camp; Obama's first action was to shut it down. Bush spoke of an axis of evil; Obama promotes dialogue with the world. The most important message of this trip was the trip itself. With his visit, Obama stressed that he understands the significance of Turkey and its key role in terms of foreign policy goals.
I will leave the most important messages of his speeches to another column and discuss a critical point revealed by the visit. The overlap between the visit and the crisis over the nomination of Anders Fogh Rassmussen for the position of NATO secretary-general, combined with Obama's emphasis on Turkey's importance during this crisis, reminded me of a significant reality.
With the exception of the Bush era, Turkey's ties with the US have generally been better than its relations with Europe. Of course, it is not proper to regard Europe as a homogenous whole. However, Turkish people have an overall image of Europe in general terms. On a number of issues, including NATO membership, EU accession, energy and terrorism, the US understands Turkey well. But this is not the case with Europe. The dates when the US and the EU recognized the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) as a terrorist organization are sufficient to show their differing approaches toward Turkey. Even in the Nabucco pipeline project, which will serve European interests, the US is more eager than European countries. Washington appreciates Turkey's role in a number of regions, including the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Black Sea and the Middle East, whereas Europe prefers to punish Turkey through Greek Cyprus. The US holds that Turkey's Islamic identity is an asset, whereas Europe considers it a threat.
Undoubtedly, the 1,000 years of history between Turks and Europeans, during which a number of wars have been fought, are an influential factor in this difference. In addition, the lack of political vision in the European Union, defined as an economic giant and a political midget, should also be recalled. Europe's perception of Turks as expats, low-income workers and a general burden is also an important factor. Even though Americans are more religious, the closed nature of continental Europe should be considered as well. Which factor is more influential is open to discussion, but it is obvious that Europe has difficulty understanding Turkey.
Otherwise, Europe would not have exerted itself to exclude Turkey from European processes while leaders like Obama and Clinton were placing emphasis upon Turkey as a model country. Otherwise, they would not have put pressure on Turkey because of its opposition to the nomination of a controversial candidate who was held responsible for the cartoon crisis in Denmark as NATO's secretary-general. Otherwise, Olli Rehn would not have threatened Turkey with deterioration in Turkish-EU relations because of this objection. Otherwise, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy would not have declared that Rasmussen was the new head of NATO before the launch of the meeting.
The Rasmussen crisis and Obama's visit show that we are back to the former shape of the Turkey-EU-US triangle. It appears that relations between Turkey and the US will improve, whereas Turkey's ties with the EU will remain steady at best. However, over the last six or seven years, Turkey has aligned itself with Brussels rather than Washington on a number of issues, including Iraq, Palestine and terrorism. Now it appears that this was actually because of Bush's aggressive policies. It could be argued that bilateral relations between Turkey and the US will further improve as Turkey's constructive approach and Obama's policy line overlap more extensively and visibly.
If this had happened in the past, I would get upset, worrying that it would be a transition from the sphere of liberties and freedoms promoted by Europe to a sphere of security concerns represented by the US. But now Obama makes reference to reform, democracy and dialogue. In other words, there will be no problem for Turkey as long as it remains committed to the introduction of further reforms. What is sad is seeing that Europe, which represented wisdom and multilateralism during the Bush era, is now adopting Bush-like policies. No matter what the Europeans have to say, trying to nominate a controversial figure like Rasmussen, who failed to address the cartoon crisis, as the new NATO secretary-general is a Bush-style move. Maybe it will be better to leave Europe for a while so that it realizes its mistakes and reconsiders its flawed approaches with respect to a number of issues, including energy and regional policies. Maybe Turkey should remain distanced from Europe because such extensive arrogance hurts the arrogant itself.
