The prime minister was very calm, reconciliatory and tolerant while answering questions. In fact, he mentioned that he was very concerned with the views of people from different party organizations and NGOs in regard to the presidency, one of the country’s hottest topics. He mentioned he would carry out surveys in April to gauge public opinion and then carry it out.
It was very keen of Erdogan to place extra emphasis on the statement “despite the people.”
While talking about this issue, the prime minister inserted a small, but important, parenthesis. This parenthesis probably will not make it to the headlines and perhaps even spot news.
The prime minister said there were three main subjects related to the New York trip that required close attention. During his interviews with prominent media organizations like the New York Times, CNN, and PBS, Erdogan was asked about three topics: the Middle East centered on Iraq, the European Union and Cyprus. In response, the prime minister said: “When I came before, I was always asked questions about religious issues. Now these topics are no longer on the American media’s agenda.” Erdogan drew the conclusion that the situation showed the American media understood Turkey better.
This is important because there is a noticeable difference between today’s agenda and the agenda when the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) was newly elected in 2002.
At that time questions focused on subjects such as Islam and democracy, radicalism, Al-Qaeda, and Afghanistan. Responses were always perceived to be insufficient so questions were repeated over and over again. This was the case not just for politicians but for reporters, intellectuals, and businessmen traveling abroad as well. Is it like this today? Of course not.
Although Turkey is still a country arousing curiosity and is carefully monitored, there is a significant shift in the attitude toward the country. For example, Turkey’s EU membership struggle has attracted just about everyone’s attention because the point we are at is not only a test for Turkey, but for the European Union also.
Another subject is the active role Turkey has taken on in the Middle East. Diplomatic contacts are being made rapidly in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and particularly Iraq. Turkey has taken initiative on many issues and continues to increase its weight in the region day by day.
This situation surprises Europeans and Americans. The stability seen in the Turkish economy is another important development. There is a clear connection between foreign capital coming to Turkey and stability in the economy. The bright side is that the foreign press no longer shows interest in topics based on ideological biases. Instead, they are trying to learn Turkey’s stance on issues like Cyprus, the European Union, the Middle East, and the Arab-Israeli problem. No one is ever curious about the opinion of a country that is or appears to be having a regime squabble. A country that inflicts harm on itself cannot produce a balanced and comprehensive policy. It cannot be expected that a questionable political power’s foreign policy will be effective. Turkey has surmounted many obstacles outside the country. Everyone is talking about a country that produces active policies, takes initiative, and presents dynamic proposals. It is this stance that suits Turkey’s historical subconscious heritage.
There is also an internal side to the matter. While questions are increasing in regard to sounder subjects in the foreign press, the domestic press is still attaching more importance to political polemics than to international policies. What is the logic behind turning the most insignificant topics into a political crisis or even a regime crisis? The erosion brought about by our virtual agendas both makes our people and institutions wary, and it shakes our prestige abroad for no reason. In this chaos only Turkey loses. For this reason, there is a great truth in the small parenthesis Erdogan opened. We must think, but we must think big and we must never be belittled.
