Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Nov 21 2009
US expert links Obama’s success to role of Turkey
The success of US President Barack Obama’s foreign policy hinges on
Turkey’s role, said Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the New
York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), during a seminar held
at the US Embassy residence in Ankara on Thursday.
Mead, one of the America’s leading foreign policy experts, who has
been described by The New York Times Book Review as `one of the
country’s liveliest thinkers about America’s role in the world," told
the select group in attendance that `Turkey has a role to play in
whether or not President Obama’s initiative [of reaching out to the
Muslim world] will be seen as a success.’
Stressing that Turkey has influence in the region, Mead said Turkey
has the ability to help President Obama appear as a successful leader
in the eyes of his critics, `We can hope that the Turkish initiative
in the region will complement and supplement what America is trying to
do and lead to the kind of stable and peaceful Middle Eastern order
that does not depend on a large American presence or high-profile
American leadership.’
Calling Obama’s foreign policy approach Jeffersonian — a term coined
after US President Thomas Jefferson, who advocated strict limits on
foreign policy engagement by removing conflict points in global issues
— Mead said, `I would say that in this case Turkish national
interests and the interests of Jeffersonians in the US are closely
aligned.’ `When Jeffersonians succeed, they make lasting changes. When
they fail, they are generally replaced by someone who tries to undo
what they have accomplished,’ he added.
Mead, who describes himself as a lifelong Democrat, praised Obama’s
approach to foreign policy, saying Obama can leave a lasting legacy
just like the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th century or the containment
policy adopted by the US during the Cold War. According to Mead,
Obama’s speeches in Ankara and Cairo, where he tried to reach out to
the Muslim world, were very important. `He tried hard to reposition
the US with Islam in order to remove conflict points and to find a
common ground,’ he underlined.
US needs Turkey more then ever
Mead went on saying that Turkey is one of a very small number of
countries in the world that are more important to the US today than 10
or 20 years ago. He acknowledged, however, that Turkey and its
neighborhood are a much more complicated place today than it was 20
years ago. `The US-Turkish cooperation is more important. We need each
other more today than 20 years ago,’ he emphasized.
The American scholar also noted that the US is absolutely committed to
the idea that PKK [the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party] is a
terrorist organization. `I am not aware of any shortcoming in
US-Turkish cooperation on that issue,’ he said. Mead praised the
Turkish engagement in northern Iraq and said, `From a US viewpoint,
the development of strong economic and political ties between Turkey
and authorities in northern Iraq is a very positive sign for everybody
concerned in order to bring stability in Iraq.’
On Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Mead argued that Iranian nuclear weapons
would make all existing problems in the region worse. `It will not
help solve any of the problems we have in the Middle East. It will
narrow the range of choices for any American president.’ He noted that
any nuclear test in Iran would have fallout in the US and may put the
entire Obama foreign policy approach into question.
Turkey’s foreign policy is commendable
Commenting on recent Turkish foreign policy engagement, the CFR
scholar said Turkey has played a very constructive and positive role.
`Turkey has continued to look for positive ways forward on the
Armenian question and the Cyprus question. Turkey has showed
commendable flexibility in dealing with the Kurdish situation in Iraq,
for example. Turkey’s approach to the EU strikes me as solid, mature,
and sound in every way.’ `Overall, Turkey remains very stable and very
important, a solid citizen in this part of the world,’ he added.
On Turkey’s relations with Israel, Mead said he hopes Turkey would be
able to retain Israel’s trust to continue as a mediator between Israel
and Syria. Calling the mediation role a `difficult vocation,’ he made
the point that Turkey’s long-term strategic interests calls for it to
maintain this kind of unique position in the region and in the world,
as a place where everyone can come and feel that they will be
understood. He criticized, however, the Israeli side for being
premature. `In my opinion, criticism from Israel against Turkey is
coming too fast,’ he said.
On secularism, the American scholar suggested that Turkey needs to
write its own chapter on relations between state and religion. Noting
that there are different models in the West regulating the affairs of
church and state, he provided examples from countries including
Argentina, where the president until 1994 by law had to be Roman
Catholic, as opposed to Great Britain, which prohibits royals from
converting to Catholicism.
He said that though Turkey modeled its secularism on the French
experience, which calls for a hostile attitude to all religions and
public manifestations of religion, unlike France there was no
hierarchal single religious entity in Turkey. `I would suggest looking
at Western historical experiences, as there are many different ways of
doing this,’ he said.
`Let historians sort out Armenian claims’
Mead also voiced strong opposition of any resolution recognizing
Armenian killings during World War I as `genocide’ in the US Congress.
`I would be painfully surprised if a bill on that subject passed both
houses and was signed by the president,’ he said, adding that he would
be opposed to such a resolution. He also expressed the opinion that
the French law recognizing the Armenian genocide should be repealed as
well.
He continued: `Some people describe me as a `working historian.’ I
believe in the separation of state and history. Legislative bodies
should not be issuing historical declarations. A legislative body
should not be saying this was genocide or was not genocide. Let
historians work on that, research it, argue with each other about it,
publish nasty articles repudiating other historians’ claims. Let the
general intelligence of the public over time reach their conclusion.
These kind of issues need to be separated from diplomatic relations,
which are complicated enough already.’
He criticized former US President George W. Bush’s notion of exporting
democracy and said, `The progress of democracy around the world
probably depends more on domestic political forces in other
countries.’ He stressed that the US has been more hostile to Iran than
to any other nation, yet there are few countries today that have as
vibrant a democratic movement as Iran. `Countries move in their own
way and respond to domestic issues,’ he said, adding to that, `I think
President Bush looks back at his support for democracy as something
that was not as successful as he would have hoped.’
21 November 2009, Saturday
ABDULLAH BOZKURT ANKARA