Beware of crisis builders

The Turkish press has not generally played a constructive role in US-Turkish relations during the Bush administration's tenure. It looks like things might not change too much with the upcoming Obama administration. The expectations from Obama are already high, partly thanks to his successful campaign message of hope and change. Journalists raise the bar even higher.

For some of us, anything short of a meeting between Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who went to Washington for a G-20 meeting, would have been a failure. In fact, Obama was not even in town and has not had any such meeting with a world leader yet. The fact that he hadn't returned Gül's call until Monday was also a big problem in the eyes of many. To strike a blow against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and make them look bad is more important for some than thinking about higher national, regional and global interests. Who cares if the new US administration and Turkey make a good start after a long shaky period?

Crisis is the lifeblood of journalism (or, should I say irresponsible journalism?). Sometimes even if there is no crisis, we invent one. OK, that's in the nature of journalism, whether one likes it or not. However, seeing a similar attitude among analysts, who are supposed to act more constructively, is surprising. Just as there are those who want the US administration(s) to look unfriendly toward the Turks, others try to paint the administration(s) in Ankara as hostile toward America and the West. I call both types crisis builders. Whether or not they are aware of it, that's what they are actually doing.

According to some people in Washington who attempt to advise Obama on Turkish matters publicly -- most probably because no other channel will ever be available to them -- the AK Party administration is the mother of all anti-Americanism in the country. To them, the AK Party drives the country away from the West, not its ultranationalist adversaries. Hopefully, nobody will give credence to such nonsense in an Obama administration unless Washington is occupied by neoconservatives again. Otherwise, Obama can never get Turkey right.

Obama should never listen to those who supposedly advocate a Western-style regime in Turkey but who eventually help the cause of the opponents of democracy. You know those Washingtonians very well. They have worked hand-in-hand with coup-mongers, who happen to be extremely anti-American and anti-Western. For these circles, the fact that the former underdogs -- the once underrepresented conservative masses -- have more say in Turkey is a threat that must be crushed no matter what. The ends justify the means for them.

The process of democratization has in fact caused Turkey's religious conservatives to adopt a more Western and secular stance. One should not see discontent with some controversial US policies as a departure from adopting useful Western values. Many objective surveys have shown that. However, if you have a problem with observant Muslims no matter what, objective research is not what you look for. Distort the facts and instigate an artificial gap between the democratically elected observant leaders of Turkey and the Obama administration. Very constructive!

Fortunately, sensible analysis can also be found. Here is one example from a German Marshall Fund (GMF) expert, Soli Ozel: "One of the major tests of the Obama administration in its relations with Turkey may very well be whether it will treat a Turkish democ­racy as a fundamental good or an expendable one." The title of a paper from another expert, Amberin Zaman, who also writes for the GMF is another example: "Turkey and the United States under Barack Obama: Yes They Can."