Although he had promised during his election campaign to recognize the Armenian genocide claims, Obama said during his visit that his ideas had not changed about these claims, but he refrained from using the word, and this was his most critical message during the visit. I am sure Turkish diplomats are considerably relieved upon hearing Obama implying that he would not take a negative step on April 24 in order not to sabotage the ongoing thawing of the ice between Yerevan and Ankara. His statement about the PKK was no different from what was said during the summit between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and former US President George W. Bush on April 5, 2007. During that meeting, Bush had largely satisfied Ankara's expectations.
His emphasis on Turkey's EU bid is the natural extension of the routine US policy pursued by all US administrations including Bush's. Obama reiterated his call in Prague when he said, "If Turkey can be a member of NATO and send its troops to help protect and support its allies, and its young men are put in harm's way, well, I don't know why you should also not be able to sell apricots to Europe, or have more freedom in terms of travel." When French President Nicolas Sarkozy protested, saying that "this is the business of Europe," he made a witty remark showing his intention to keep his promise by stating that Europe discusses US business all the time and therefore the US should be able to share its views on Europe.
Examining the speeches delivered by former US presidents during their visits to Turkey, one realizes that all of them contain passages praising Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Also, it is customary for Western leaders to underline Turkey having a predominantly Muslim population and at the same time being a secular and democratic country.
As noted by distinguished author Cengiz Çandar, even Bush had made similar remarks -- that the US was not at war with Islam. What gives substance to these messages is the identity of the person who says them, not their content. Bush had suffered a great loss of prestige, and there was such a large a gap between his words and his practice that his messages could not be taken seriously. On the other hand, Obama was a person who opposed the war on Iraq when the majority of the US public hailed Bush's misguided policies. He is an influential person in his biography as well as his stance. More importantly, he is a politician who seeks to be ethical even though this may prove disadvantageous to the country he represents. "[I]f we want to tell Iranians to reduce their nuclear weapons, it helps if we are also saying, ‘and we will reduce our own'," he said in a manner that you do not hear from the average politician.
Of course, the symbols properly scattered during his two-day visit were more instrumental than the message in stressing the importance of the visit. It was a first for a US president to visit Turkey so soon after assuming office. His visit was completely balanced with gestures to everyone including the state, the ruling party, the opposition and the minorities -- his homage to Atatürk at Anıtkabir; his visit to Prime Minister Erdoğan at his office; his emphasis on the call to prayer; and his conversations with youth and religious leaders.
Don't misunderstand my intentions -- I am not trying to prove that Obama's statements were insignificant -- I am just trying to understand what was important and to what extent. In my opinion, Obama's most striking observation about our country was hidden at the end of his address to Parliament.
His ideas there represented an extraordinary approach that we have never seen from the US or other Western leader. When I heard his words, I was extremely excited. I don't know if they were his own ideas or were written by another author, but I was frankly surprised to see this mentality -- which even the Turkish intelligentsia cannot interpret -- find its way into the text. This approach had the potential to end the long-standing debate on Turkey's identity that has been being held at local and international levels. After referring to this debate, Obama presented his opinion about it:
"I know there are those who like to debate Turkey's future. They see your country at the crossroads of continents and touched by the currents of history. They know that this has been a place where civilizations meet and different peoples mingle. And they wonder whether you will be pulled in one direction or another. Here is what they don't understand: Turkey's greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide -- it is where they come together. In the beauty of your culture. In the richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy. In your hopes for tomorrow."
These words coming from the mouth of a US president confirmed that Turkey is a central country. For this reason, to argue that by visiting Turkey after his visit to Europe Obama gave the message that Turkey belongs to the West is to present only part of the picture.
I have not talked to him, but I guess Obama's words should be greeted with excitement by Ahmet Davutoğlu, the mastermind behind Turkey's recent foreign policy. Indeed, he would always stress: "Turkey should be a central country instead of acting as a bridge. To do this, a change of mentality is needed not only in diplomats and politicians, but also in intellectuals."
