Obama and Turkey

Obama's message to Turkey was clear: Turkey is a key US ally and his administration is ready to win back Turkey as a strategic partner on pressing issues, from Iraq and Iran to Afghanistan and energy security. By choosing to come to Turkey, Obama sent a message to Europe, too. To the chagrin of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, he reiterated the US's support for Turkey's full membership in the European Union. The visit itself was a reminder to those Europeans who oppose Turkey's membership. In his speech at Parliament, Obama described Turkey as a "central country," a phrase formulated by Ahmet Davutoğlu, the chief foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to refer to its strategic location between East and West, Europe and the Middle East. This, too, was a message to some European capitals.

Obama told the Muslim world that the US is not now and will never be at war with Islam. This single sentence underlies Obama's desire to make a clean break with the Bush years, which still shape the public image of the US in much of the Muslim world and elsewhere. By referring to his own personal history, Obama noted that he understands the cultural and religious sensitivities of Muslims from the US and from Muslim capitals. The same attitude was discernable in Obama's cooperation with Turkish President Abdullah Gül on the nomination of former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen for the position of NATO secretary-general in Strasbourg. Obama agreed with Turkey's concerns over Rasmussen's position on the Danish cartoon crisis and Roj TV, the Kurdistan Workers' Party's (PKK) TV station broadcasting out of Denmark. After hours of negotiations, Rasmussen was granted his new position with certain conditions and with Obama's promise to be the "guarantor."

On issues concerning Turkish-US relations, Obama walked, as expected, a middle path, which seems to have made everyone somewhat happy. Turkish-Armenian relations took up significant space both in his speech and in his bilateral meetings with Turkish officials. Obama appears to be keen on the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations. This, it seems, is important for two reasons: First, Turkish-Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are important for stability in the south Caucasus. As we saw last year, political tension in the region can easily turn into confrontation between Russia, on the one hand, and the US and Europe, on the other. The second reason is Obama's over-commitment to the Armenian genocide issue during his election campaign. Obama cannot easily back away from his position, which he said hasn't changed. Given his desire to improve US-Turkish relations, however, he cannot endorse a genocide resolution, either. So he has to offer something to the Armenians, and the best thing he can offer is a rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia, a process that will benefit all sides. This is a position shared by the Turkish side, as well. This explains why both Obama and his Turkish counterparts spent a good amount of time on the issue together with the Armenian foreign minister in İstanbul.

Obama did not deliver his much-expected major speech to the Muslim world, but gave a policy-oriented and somewhat half-baked message. Besides Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, Obama's biggest test remains the Palestinian issue. Only an evenhanded approach to Palestine will establish credibility for the new Obama administration, get us to peace and move us beyond another endless and increasingly useless peace "process." It looks like all the Palestinians can get these days is "process," not peace. Obama's support for a two-state solution is diametrically opposed to the position of the new Netanyahu government. Yet it remains to be seen how much Obama will push Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the terms of a just and sustainable two-state solution. As much as Israel's security concerns need attention, the Palestinian demand for freedom must also be met. Sacrificing freedom for security has led to tyranny and chaos everywhere in the world. This is a major challenge for Obama, too.

A word about Afghanistan. Obama's focus on Afghanistan as the new frontier in the war on terror is misplaced. The situation in Afghanistan cannot be won or improved with a military mission. If sending 150,000 US troops to Iraq was a mistake, sending them to Afghanistan would be a disaster. In Iraq, some Iraqis (i.e., Kurds and some Shiite groups) were in favor of a US invasion. In Afghanistan, even President Hamid Karzai does not want a major US military presence, because this would only strengthen the hand of al-Qaeda and the extreme elements within the Taliban. If Obama wants to stay out of the "graveyard of empires" and avoid creating his own Vietnam, he has to rethink his Afghanistan strategy.