Interpreting President Obama's Visit

President Barack H. Obama in his first bilateral overseas trip spoke at the Turkish General Assembly in Ankara on 6 April 2009. Curiosity was high about the choice of Turkey and the content of his speech. President Obama began his speech by enumerating the reasons for his choice for Turkey.

His first reason was his belief in the strong future of Turkey within the new changing world order that is shaping up now. President Obama used the expression of "the key country" for Turkey while describing its growing importance.

Secondly, he did not consider Turkey just as a mere bridge or the cross point of divergent civilizations but, on the contrary, he considered it rather a center where many civilizations meet and merge.

His third message was to the Muslim world when he clearly and with a special emphasis said that, "The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam." This message was intended for the whole Muslim world. He preferred to give this message from Turkey, rather than from Indonesia or Egypt as some observers expected. President Obama emphasized the democratic and secular nature of the Turkish Republic and refrained from referring to its majority religion as "moderate or light Islam," a phrase often used by President Bush and his administration..

Obama's fourth message was about his strong belief about Turkey's place in Europe. He completed his thoughts by essentially saying that Turkey in Europe will only enrich the EU and its culture and structure, and not serve as a cause of unwanted change of Europe's character as feared by some anti-Turkey European politicians.

It was evident from all these points mentioned above that Turkey is expected to play an important role in the future development of Europe and in the new balance of power shaping up in the international arena.

Similarly, many of Obama's assessments were shared by a number of area experts and critics. It also left little room for doubt that Turkey is expected to play a major part in many of U.S. strategic goals both in the Middle East and Central Asia. Immediate U.S. priorities include the war in Afghanistan, the re-deployment of U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, as well as other American policies in various parts of the Middle East and the Caucasus.

President Obama's trip to Turkey during his first 75 days in office paved the way to raising a number of sensitive issues for Turkey. Obama included in his speech his concerns about the Turkish-Armenian tension in the East and the closed borders between these two countries.

Obama also spoke about the possible solutions for the Cyprus problem between the Turks and the Greeks. Additionally, he brought up the re-opening of the Greek religious school for the Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul, and rights of other minorities in Turkey.

Evaluation of Crucial Points

1- Regarding the safe passage of U.S. troops through Turkish territory while reducing troop numbers in Iraq, the number to be transferred will be nearly 100,000 or 120,000 American soldiers. These troops will either return to the U.S. or will be sent to Afghanistan. Having these soldiers travel trough the rough terrain of Northern Iraq and pass over the high Turkish mountains in order to reach the Turkish coast and the Turkish Mediterranean ports instead of going though U.S.-occupied southern Iraq to reach the U.S. navy waiting in the Gulf would make no sense from many points of view.
2- A passage over Jordan or Israel to their Mediterranean ports to reach the U.S. navy would be a much shorter and quicker route for the intended purposes of safely pulling out the troops rather than going through a much longer and tougher terrain.
3- The rough passage from the North is both longer and more dangerous. Even if all precautions were taken, one could not guarantee absolute safe passage of the troops from the North and Turkey. Any attack or ambush can be organized by numerous terrorist groups or secret services in the area for a number of reasons. It would be very difficult to prevent them or to predict them especially when the transfer line is so long and large in number.
4- If there were reported thefts of U.S. weapons and ammunitions from the passing troops, it would be nearly impossible to figure out whether it was a genuine theft or willful transfer of arms by some individuals to members of a terrorist group such as the PKK and their sympathizers. This may cause huge problems for Turkey for years to come. Turkey must not be willing to accept such a situation.
5- The Turkish parliament six years ago had voted down the resolution for American troops to move into Iraq from the North. There is little indication that most parliamentarians would consent to the use of Turkish territory while the PKK terrorists on both sides of the Turkish-Iraq border are active.
6- The use of the Trabzon port in the North at the Black Sea cost is also not looked upon favorably by the Turkish people and the military. That port would be a strategic passage into the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as Iran. Turkey would consider it strategically a very sensitive area.

Turkish people are observing the developments with a great deal of care and concern. Any rash decision by the government under pressure may place the country in a difficult predicament for years to come.

The Election of NATO's Secretary General

The candidate for the new general secretary of NATO was Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Danish prime minister. It was one of the issues on the agenda at the 2009 NATO submit meeting held in Prague.

Turkey, being a longstanding NATO member and the organization's second largest army, expressed serious reservations about Rasmussen's qualifications for the candidacy. In the same meeting, the return of France to NATO's military affairs would be discussed. Turkey was not favorable to the return of France to the military wing of NATO, which they left many years ago during the presidency of Charles De Gaulle. Turkey was vocal about both issues.

The misgivings about Rasmussen's candidacy centered around four basic points:
1- Rasmussen was a hard-liner towards foreigners working and living in Denmark during his premiership.
2- He is infamous for his anti-Muslim policies and attitude towards Muslims living and working in Denmark.
3- When the "caricature crisis" took place and despicable caricatures of the Muslim prophet caused a lot of justified protests and complaints, Rasmussen took a stand defending the so called right of the cartoonist's "freedom of expression" even though the cartoon deeply offended religious sensitivities of over a billion Muslims the world over. Notwithstanding repeated protests by Muslim heads of State and by the Organization of the Islamic Conference representing the Muslim world, Rasmussen stubbornly refused to express regrets about the cartoonist's discriminatory and hurtful use of his so called right of self expression.
On the contrary, he displayed an arrogant, condescending, and blatantly insensitive attitude towards Islam and Muslims. His selection as Secretary General of NATO is nothing less than waving a red flag in front of the proverbial bull.
4- There is a TV station by the name of Roj-TV broadcasting from Denmark. It is the voice of the Kurdish separatist group PKK which was and still is on the international terrorist list. As the Danish prime minister, he did not do anything to stop the activities of the PKK's mouthpiece TV despite repeated requests by the Turkish government.

Considering all these reasons, when the NATO meeting began in Prague, the Turkish government initially opposed Rasmussen's candidacy and threatened to use its veto power in the election process. The Turkish opposition caused a stir, angering German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Sarkozy of France and some of their cohorts such as Olli Rehn, the commissioner in charge of EU enlargement and a person who knows Turkey. He appeared on TV in Finland saying, "Turkey's attitude is unacceptable. When the EU negotiation time comes this incident will be kept in mind". As an officer in charge, Olli Rehn had no right to pass judgment as such. Rasmussen's selection for NATO's secretary general and Turkey's EU membership are two separate issues. No one has the right to mix one with the other. His mistake was so severe that his own party immediately apologized and called his statement "wrong and unfortunate."

Western European states insisted that there is an unwritten tradition of selecting a general secretary for NATO from among the small Northern European nations. This was just a tradition not a rule or regulation or a binding decision.
Germany and France argued that their decision should be carried out regardless of Turkish complaints or those of other members. Merkel and Sarkozy both chose to be curt and even rude in expressing their opposition to Turkey's position. They did not hesitate to use indirect threats and maybe even encourage the likes of Olli Rehn, who does not represent a NATO country officially, to vocalize some loud threats toward Turkey. (They were the tough police). England and Italy approached Turkey with calm and tried to convince the Turkish prime minister with ‘reason and logic'. (They were the good cops in the game).

Finally, President Obama intervened to try to find a solution and guarantee the promises made by all sides. Thus, a solution was achieved. Turkey was promised a high commanding post in NATO and a number of lesser but still considerably high positions.

Rasmussen promised, "To be more understanding towards the Muslims" and try to make them understand him better. (Whatever these sentences mean is still not clear either verbally or from the documents).

Rasmussen also promised to encourage the Danish government to look into the issue of Roj TV. Interestingly enough, just two days later he indicated that he cannot do anything directly and that this issue is in the domain of the Danish government. Since he is no longer in government, his argument goes, he has no legal mandate to tell them anything about running their business.

Obama's positive efforts and promises paid off. Turkey agreed to concede and pull back its opposition to the appointment of Rasmussen as the new secretary General of NATO.

There are interesting points here. For example, what were the limits and the guarantee of President Obama's promise? How far can he really control or influence the Europeans? Obama strongly supported Turkey's EU membership. His statements prompted an immediate negative reaction from both Sarkozy and Merkel, who did not hesitate to rebuff Obama by claiming that the U.S. president has no right to intervene in the EU's internal affairs.

Secondly, the tactic used by the Turkish government was wrong. They started the opposition based on a universal value such as "protection of the dignity and honor of all prophets". The clear implication of the Turkish opposition was that the Danish candidate was unworthy of the high position of NATO Secretary General because he supported anti-Islam activities in his country. The Turkish delegation asked for an apology from Rasmussen for his previous stance on the sensitive issue of Prophet Mohammed's caricature made by a Danish cartoonist. But the argument lost its direction and intensity under pressure from other anti-Muslim and anti-Turkey elements in the conference. The help of the Americans achieved a final agreement. As a quid pro quo for withdrawing the Turkish veto threat against Rasmussen, unwritten and vague promises were offered to Turkey. Important sub-positions in NATO were promised to Turkey. These promises seemed "good" for Turkey's domestic consumption. However, Turkey lost prestige among Muslims who assumed that Turkey would not accept puny favors in return for abandoning its higher moral ground at the NATO conference.

U.S. influence on Turkish foreign policy decisions throughout this process was strong. The EU authorities showed their true negative and vicious faces under pressure. Turkey must keep in mind what was seen and heard to be used for future deliberations. It cannot be said with much confidence that Turkey carried out proper crises management in this case. On the contrary, it deployed the wrong tactics both in opposing France's return to NATO's military wing and in opposing the appointment of Rasmussen to his new position as a secretary general.

Why European countries who have not been successful in Afghanistan were so set about choosing Rasmussen as secretary general knowing full well that today NATO forces are fighting against Muslims and a Muslim country and most likely will be doing the same in the coming years, is an important question.. Although they seem to have won the tug-of-war in the NATO Council, this does not necessarily make them right either in their decision or in their insistence on Rasmussen.

Equally important is the issue of sending combat troops to Afghanistan to help the U.S. win the war against Al-Qaida and the Taliban. So far, Turkey has refused to be engaged in field combat in Afghanistan. Turkish soldiers have received the respect and love of the Afghan people. Now, there is increasing pressure on Turkey to send more troops and become engaged in the fighting. This would be a grave mistake for Turkey and it would be a decision against the national interest of the country as well. The government should be very careful not to commit any further forces for Afghanistan without debating the issue in the Turkish parliament thoroughly.

The U.S. and its allies in the war in Afghanistan must remember the failed Soviet policy of using Muslim-Turkish troops from Central Asian republics who abandoned their military posts in large numbers, once they realized that they were being forced to fight against Muslims in Afghanistan. With a battalion of Turkish troops and a company of Albanians, these two units are the only Muslim soldiers performing guard duties in the Regional Command Center. What would be the reaction of a larger Turkish force in Afghanistan when they were asked to kill Muslim Afghans for whom they only possess high degree of love and respect? Would Turks and Albanians accept NATO's definition of an enemy as their own?

The Mystery Behind "Opening the Borders"

In his speech to the Turkish Grand National Assembly, President Obama emphasized that Turkey needs to do something constructive about the Turkish-Armenian conflict and help the situation by possibly opening the borders between the two countries.

This is a very complicated and multi-layered issue with roots that date back to hundreds of years of animosity and conflict as well as friendship and cooperation. Unfortunately, relations are marred by blood and killing during the last 90 years. There is a State of Armenia situated in the Caucasus and there is a large international Armenian Diaspora in Europe and in America. These groups have different attitudes and aims. Some groups are more difficult than others. There is a huge pile of lies and exaggerations mixed with pieces of truth about what actually happened during the years of the Ottoman war against the European aggression in the early part of the 20th century.
Turkey receives pressure from Europe to solve the Armenian issue if it wishes to continue its candidacy toward membership in the EU. Turkey receives pressure from the U.S. to do something about the Armenian issue if Turkey does not want America to recognize the so- called "Armenian genocide" resolution in the Congress. The Armenian lobby plays a prominent role in Europe as well as in the U.S.

Turkey knows for sure that there was no genocide towards the Armenians or any other minority during the long years of the Ottoman Empire. There is no such official decision or order present in the archives. There is no official or non-official order for the systematic killing or destruction of the Armenians and no racial persecution as well. However, there was a "forceful eviction and domestic migration of the minorities" into secure parts of the hinterland whenever they were found or caught guilty in collaborating with the enemy along the border areas or strategic locations.

Millions died from all sides: the ruler and the ruled during the severe cold of the winter, the disease and hunger of the war years and in the conflicts and clashes during the war itself. Yet, all these were not official and systematic eradication of one or the other group of people for the purpose of committing genocide.

Furthermore, Armenia, situated in the Caucasus, occupied and captured 21% of neighboring Azerbaijani land known as Ngorno Karabag and killed and maimed thousands of Azeris living there in order to clear the land from them. Those who survived managed to escape to Azerbaijan, living there in refugee camps with the hope of returning to their homes and farms now under occupation by armed Armenians. These events occurred in April 1992 and ever since then Armenia has refused to return the Azeri lands to their rightful owner and allow its people to return.

Armenia has also claims against the Eastern part of Turkey. During World War I and soon after, they tried to capture nine to ten Turkish provinces to make them their own with the help of the occupying Russian armies. Interestingly, Western powers are putting pressure on Turkey to take some reconciliatory steps toward solving the problem.

The Azerbaijanis are rightly concerned about the Turkish plans. There are preparations at the border and no one knows what will actually happen there. If Turkey opens the borders unilaterally, there would be no incentive left for the Armenians to return the Azeri lands that they have been occupying for the last sixteen years.

Given the fact that the pressure on the Turks to take certain steps has been turned up, it would be detrimental to Turkey's national interest in the long run to do something drastic. Turkey should be able to stand up to the pressure and definitely ask for certain conditions to be fulfilled in exchange for any policy decision before bending under any short term anxiety. Turks will have to live with a decision of this magnitude for a long time to come and this government should not do something like this without consulting a wide range of experts and without taking into consideration all possible options.