Turkey, We Need You: Obama's Ankara Speech

Related Post: Video of President Obama's Town Hall Meeting in Turkey
Related Post: Video of President Obama's Speech in Ankara

So, after his high-profile participation in the G-20 and NATO summits, after the set-piece excitement of his speech to French and German, President Obama spoke in Turkey yesterday. And, while most of the US media missed the story, his address was just as significant as his statements on the global economy and intervention in Pakistan-Afghanistan.

TURKEY, THE US NEEDS YOU

Both the New York Times and Washington Post are still so caught up with the broad notion of Obama's "engagement" with the Islamic world that they missed the depth in Obama's approach to the Turkish Government and people. This was a talk which recognised that Ankara has a central place in both short-term and longer-term American initiatives and, doing so, set aside other general issues that could trouble the US-Turkish relationship.

From his opening sentences, Obama elevated Turkey's importance:

I have been to the G-20 Summit in London, the NATO Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl, and the European Union Summit in Prague. Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message. My answer is simple: Evet. Turkey is a critical ally.

Of course, Obama is going to offer very nice words to flatter his audience, but that inclusion of "critical" goes beyond the requirements of rhetoric.

Turkish readers can help interpret the symbolic significance of Obama's lengthy reference to Kemal Ataturk, but I was struck by his concluding phrase: "His greatest legacy is Turkey’s strong and secular democracy." The President has swept aside the chatter, which has been prevalent in the US and Europe, about the threat of "Islamism" in Turkey's political system. (And I suspect he had also swept more immediate doubts about the legitimacy of "democracy" in the rulling AKP's recent electoral success, which has been challenged by opposition parties.)

Why the extended references to "Turkey’s democracy [as] your own achievement [which] was not forced upon you by any outside power, nor did it come without struggle and sacrifice"? In part, it is to do with the Obama "engagement" with Islamic countries --- Turkey is going to be elevated as the model for others to emulate.

The initial plans of the Obama Administration were for the President to make his appeal to the Islamic world in Cairo, given Egypt's more immediate place in Middle Eastern issues and the "Arab" dimension. Those had to be set aside, however, because of the complications of the Gaza crisis and of some far-from-trivial questions about the recent Egyptian record of democracy. So step up, Ankara: "Because of the strength of our alliance and the endurance of our friendship, both America and Turkey are stronger, and the world is more secure."

This general exaltation, however, has immediate purposes, as Obama's next sentences made clear:

Our two democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of challenges. An economic crisis that recognizes no borders. Extremism that leads to the killing of innocent men, women and children. Strains on our energy supply and a changing climate. The proliferation of the world’s deadliest weapons, and the persistence of tragic conflict.

LET'S GET SPECIFIC: WELCOME TO EUROPE

Turkey is in the right place at the right time. In the midst of economic crisis, Washington sees the country as one with great potential for growth. That is a growth that could other US allies out of the recessionary doldrums.

And that in turn eliminates any doubts about the US position on Turkey in European Union, as Obama set out in several paragraphs:

Let me be clear: the United States strongly supports Turkey’s bid to become a member of the European Union. We speak not as members of the EU, but as close friends of Turkey and Europe.

No messing about here. Obama swept aside "human rights" objections to Turkey's EU membership, citing changes in its legal system and penal codes and its granting of minority rights to Kurds.

LET'S GET SPECIFIC: THE MIDDLE EAST

More good news for Turkey. It finds itself as a "lynchpin", just as in the 1950s, for American ambitions in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.

One key issue, of course, is that of Israeli relations with Arab States. Here Obama did hide the full US agenda. He referred at length to Turkey's role in an Israeli-Palestinian settlement but omitted a more immediate item: an Israeli agreement with Syria.

There was a political sensitivity at work here. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's anger with Tel Aviv over the Gaza War was because it interrupted, indeed threatened to demolish, Ankara's brokering of direct Israeli-Syrian talks. Obama, both for the sake of his hosts and sensitivities in Israel, thus did not say "Syria", but the signal was clear. Washington is hoping for a resumption of the discussions and would be pleased for Turkey to take the diplomatic credit.

Obama, however, was looking beyond Israel and the Arab world with his reference to Turkey's regional importance. For Washington, Ankara now has a part to play in keeping Iran "sensible". The President was a bit ham-fisted with his emphasis on the nuclear issue, rather than the political significance of Iranian policy in the region, but Turkish leaders undoubtedly picked up on the wider message. Ankara can be a major player, as Obama pursues "engagement", working with Syria to ease Tehran into an acceptable place in discussions on the Middle East.

PROBLEMS? WHAT PROBLEMS?

Obama didn't shy away from headline issues that could have jeopardised this vision of US-Turkish co-operation. He did refer to Armenia and Cyprus, looking in each case to "reckoning with the past" and "just and lasting settlements".

That finessing of sensitive issues led Obama to Iraq, where he made clear that Washington would recognise Turkey's position over the threat from the Kurdish separatists of the PKK:

Make no mistake, though: Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and to destroy their country. And that includes the PKK.

Ahh, the Obama magic. By re-framing Turkey's relationship with the Bushian legacy of Iraq in this way, the President could once again elevate Ankara's political importance in America's new fights:

We share the common goal of denying al Qaeda a safe-haven in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Yes, Turkey, Uncle Sam and President Barack need you.

Iran: No Giving Up the Nuclear Program. No Way.

Even as General David Petraeus and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen defy the Obama engagement strategy and try out the latest scare line --- Israel is most definitely going to take out an Iranian nuclear facility --- here's a little tip-off from Agence France Presse that Tehran will not be giving up its atomic-energy programme:

Former Iranian prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, who is running for the presidency in the June election, said he will push ahead with the country's controversial nuclear drive if elected.

"Having nuclear technology for peaceful purposes without being a threat to the world is our strategic objective," Mousavi said in a speech to his election campaign managers on Tuesday.

"I do not think any government will dare to take a step back in this regard, since people will question the decision. Given the long-term interest, we are obliged not to back down on this or other similar issues."

The statement is even more significant because Mousavi is considered the "reformist" candidate in the election.

Put bluntly, the nuclear-energy issue is one of sovereignty for anyone running for high office in Iran. That is a given, beyond the speculation and exaggeration of an Iranian move towards the Bomb, and any American strategy should begin from that recognition.

Obama 'Bowing Down' to Saudi King? But Conservapedia Fails To Deliver.

Latest Post: Video Alert - Obama Does Not Bow to Saudi King

Related Post: Obama Bows Down to Saudi King! The Controversy Continues

During Thursday’s meeting of the most developed economies in London, President Obama bowed before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. While some, on blogs and radio discussions, were making fun of the President by suggesting that he was about to clean the floor, others added that it was unacceptable for Americans who are proud of their revolutionary past to see their President bowing down in front of a dictator.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMOIK07xGiQ[/youtube]

Might President Obama have kissed King Abdullah’s hands? Why not? The only visual source, unfortunately, does not give a clear point of view. However, one thing we do know is that a younger Muslim always shows utmost respect to an older Muslim in public and is expected to kiss the latter’s hands. Hmm, we should think more about it…

And now, it is time for Conservapedia to take some action. As we have been keeping a curious eye on Conservapedia it was, to be honest with you, upsetting not to see this included as additional ‘proof’ of Obama’s ‘Muslim’ faith! Now, they have a new point to argue for…

LATEST UPDATE: Obama Bows Down to Saudi King! The Controversy Continues:

Ali did get the Internet, or at least the right-thinking portion of it, moving.

His challenge, “It is time for Conservapedia to take some action,” has been met. Our favourite on-line encyclopedia has updated its entry for Barack Hussein Obama, “Never before in the history of the U.S. has a president displayed such shocking deference to a foreign official.”

Scowcroft In Turkey: Did Someone Talk About 'Hate'?

Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush and the former Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush, gave an interview to the Aksam newspaper as the Chairman of the American Turkish Council in Turkey last week. This interview is important because General Scowcroft's confessions are shocking!

He stated that the PJAK, the Iranian wing of the PKK operating against Iranian armed forces, was supported and encouraged by the Bush Administration. The 84-year-old former adviser added that the US administration did not want to go after PKK forces during the Iraq War as the Northern part was more quiet than the Southern fronts where they were waging a war; whereas the situation changed with the Obama Administration.

Here is the full transcript of the related part of the interview conducted by the Turkish journalist Nagehan Alci:

N. A. – It is alleged that a winding-up decision will be taken for PKK in a Kurdish General Gathering in Erbil in April. Do you think that it is possible?

B. S. – I hope that it is. For me, the optimum situation is ceasefire. At the end of the day, at least, the Kurdish Provisional Government will be persuaded; an agreement will be signed; and border passings will be prevented. There are many ways to end this situation but the most important one is to put an end to the terrifying situation taking source from PKK now.

N. A. – Do you mean that PKK's ceasefire decision is in favour of the US?

B. S. – Yes, absolutely it is.

N. A. – Why? What changed?

B. S. – PKK and its PJAK branch were also operating against Iran. That is why we were giving support to and encouraging them. However, the situation has changed. We do not want to give harm to the people we want to get on well with. We want Iran beside us.

N. A. – Do you mean that there is no need to support PKK?

B. S. – Yes, there is a new approach towards Iran in our agenda. We were fighting on the Southern fronts during the Iraq war. The Kurdish region was relatively more quiet to the rest fronts. We did not want to waste our power by going after PKK. Indeed, it was not possible as well.

N. A. – What does this 'new approach towards Iran' include?

B. S. – We want to tell them that 'You are a big state in the region. You have many problems, with security being in the first place. We should talk on these through dialogue.' We have operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We want to solve the problems in the region so that everyone can feel safe.

So, it has been proven once more that the hawkish policies of the Bush Era were based on irrational, naïve and superficial evaluations and strategies. Using PKK which had already been designated a 'terrorist' organization by the United States of America against a country which has been accused of escalating the tensions through financing the terrorist groups against the US forces and innocent people of Iraq is far from the claim of pursuing a general 'democratization' plan based on the values of the Enlightenment: freedom, rationality and reason. This is not just a crime against the people of Iran and Iraq, but also against the American people who have been worrying over their children's future.

Another part of the story is apparent from the rest of his inconsistent statements. When his opinion is asked about Turkey's mediation efforts, General Scowcroft states: “Turkey's efforts are very meaningful and significant for us. The US does not know the region and its dynamics. This geography is Turkey's backyard. You have a history in the Middle East. We take heed of this.” If the US has no knowledge and experience in this region and pays attention to this, why did the Bush Administration ignore the wails coming from all around Turkey in the face of the increasing tensions between the Turkish armed forces and the terrorists/separatists and did not work with its ally in the region? If the main goal had been to democraticize and keep the region safe, then the Bush Administration would not have strengthened and encouraged an armed faction against two powerful states in the region.

I think these confessions are sufficient to give an answer to the basic discourse continuously pumped by the official institutions: “Why do they hate us?” Thank you General for your confessions... And thank you for being miles away from the decision-making process.

Petraeus v. Obama (Part 158): Israel and Iran

There was a bit of a media rumble this week over an interview that the new Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, gave Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. Netanyahu made it quite clear that he held open the option of an airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilties.

This is not dramatic news. Tel Aviv has been shaking an aerial fist at Tehran for years, but a unilateral Israeli operation, even if technically possible, risks an Iranian political and military response --- and reaction from other countries and groups --- throughout and beyond the Middle East.

So, at the least, Israel needs the US to cover its back. And the Bush Administration, despite all its pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian sympathies, refused such support in summer 2008.

This is where America's other President, General David Petraeus, enters the scene. Even as the Obama Administration has been pursuing engagement with Iran, Petraeus --- both directly and through acolytes --- has been loudly talking about Iranian support for insurgent operations against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Wednesday, the General went a step further. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “The Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it.”

This may not be an outright endorsement of a Tel Aviv strike, but it is comfortably close to acceptance of an operation. Petraeus didn't risk the usual (unsupported) pretext that Iran is close to a Bomb; instead, he stretched justification to “Iranian officials have consistently failed to provide the assurances and transparency necessary for international acceptance and verification”.

You could try out the explanation that the Obama Administration is playing "good cop, bad cop" with Tehran; on Tuesday, envoy Richard Holbrooke signals co-operation at The Hague conference on Afghanistan, 24 hours later Petraeus warns of consequences if Iran doesn't accept the extended hand.

That, however, is a fool's approach. The most casual observer could tell you that Iran does not react kindly to blatant pressure. And the consequences of Tehran walking away from talks in the face of Petraeus' threats, given the American position in Afghanistan, are far greater than they were in 2003 when the Bush Administration pulled a similar stunt.

No, the latest Petraeus intervention is as much a response to his President as it is to Tehran.

The General has a previous record on this issue. In 2007, he was serving under the then head of Central Command, William Fallon. The two men didn't see eye-to-eye: a year later, Fallon was gone with Petraeus on his way to succeeding him.

The standard narrative, for those who noted the battle, was that Petraeus had to get his Iraq "surge" past a resistant Fallon. That is certainly true, but more broadly, to deal with regional issues, Fallon advocated a strategy of engaging Iran rather than isolating it. That was also opposed by Petraeus.

Move forward two years. After the muddle in US policy, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clumsily trying to press Iran via the spectre of conflict with Arab states, Washington settles on the possibilities of a step-by-step engagement.

Who doesn't like that?

Israel. And President Obama's most prominent military commander.