Turkish Business Club

Posts 1-3 of 3

Rabia Rahimbayeva Group moderator Ambassador
The company name is only visible to registered members.

TURKIYE AND OBAMA'S DEEPER GAME
Obama's Strategy and the Summits
April 6, 2009

' By George Friedman

***

BERLIN, WASHINGTON AND THE G-20

Let’s begin with the G-20 meeting, which focused on the global financial crisis. As we said last year, there were many European positions, but the United States was reacting to Germany’s. Not only is Germany the largest economy in Europe, it is the largest exporter in the world. Any agreement that did not include Germany would be useless, whereas an agreement excluding the rest of Europe but including Germany would still be useful.

Two fundamental issues divided the United States and Germany. The first was whether Germany would match or come close to the U.S. stimulus package. The United States wanted Germany to stimulate its own domestic demand. Obama feared that if the United States put a stimulus plan into place, Germany would use increased demand in the U.S. market to expand its exports. The United States would wind up with massive deficits while the Germans took advantage of U.S. spending, thus letting Berlin enjoy the best of both worlds. Washington felt it had to stimulate its economy, and that this would inevitably benefit the rest of the world. But Washington wanted burden sharing. Berlin, quite rationally, did not. Even before the meetings, the United States dropped the demand — Germany was not going to cooperate.

The second issue was the financing of the bailout of the Central European banking system, heavily controlled by eurozone banks and part of the EU financial system. The Germans did not want an EU effort to bail out the banks. They wanted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out a substantial part of the EU financial system instead. The reason was simple: The IMF receives loans from the United States, as well as China and Japan, meaning the Europeans would be joined by others in underwriting the bailout. The United States has signaled it would be willing to contribute $100 billion to the IMF, of which a substantial portion would go to Central Europe. (Of the current loans given by the IMF, roughly 80 percent have gone to the struggling economies in Central Europe.) The United States therefore essentially has agreed to the German position.

Later at the NATO meeting, the Europeans — including Germany — declined to send substantial forces to Afghanistan. Instead, they designated a token force of 5,000, most of whom are scheduled to be in Afghanistan only until the August elections there, and few of whom actually would be engaged in combat operations. This is far below what Obama had been hoping for when he began his presidency.

Agreement was reached on collaboration in detecting international tax fraud and on further collaboration in managing the international crisis, however. But what that means remains extremely vague — as it was meant to be, since there was no consensus on what was to be done. In fact, the actual guidelines will still have to be hashed out at the G-20 finance ministers’ meeting in Scotland in November. Intriguingly, after insisting on the creation of a global regulatory regime — and with the vague U.S. assent — the European Union failed to agree on European regulations. In a meeting in Prague on April 4, the United Kingdom rejected the regulatory regime being proposed by Germany and France, saying it would leave the British banking system at a disadvantage.

Overall, the G-20 and the NATO meetings did not produce significant breakthroughs. Rather than pushing hard on issues or trading concessions — such as accepting Germany’s unwillingness to increase its stimulus package in return for more troops in Afghanistan — the United States failed to press or bargain. It preferred to appear as part of a consensus rather than appear isolated. The United States systematically avoided any appearance of disagreement.

The reason there was no bargaining was fairly simple: The Germans were not prepared to bargain. They came to the meetings with prepared positions, and the United States had no levers with which to move them. The only option was to withhold funding for the IMF, and that would have been a political disaster (not to mention economically rather unwise). The United States would have been seen as unwilling to participate in multilateral solutions rather than Germany being seen as trying to foist its economic problems on others. Obama has positioned himself as a multilateralist and can’t afford the political consequences of deviating from this perception. Contributing to the IMF, in these days of trillion-dollar bailouts, was the lower-cost alternative. Thus, the Germans have the U.S. boxed in.

The political aspect of this should not be underestimated. George W. Bush had extremely bad relations with the Europeans (in large part because he was prepared to confront them). This was Obama’s first major international foray, and he could not let it end in acrimony or wind up being seen as unable to move the Europeans after running a campaign based on his ability to manage the Western coalition. It was important that he come home having reached consensus with the Europeans. Backing off on key economic and military demands gave him that “consensus.”

TURKEY AND OBAMA'S DEEPER GAME

But it was not simply a matter of domestic politics. It is becoming clear that Obama is playing a deeper game. A couple of weeks before the meetings, when it had become obvious that the Europeans were not going to bend on the issues that concerned the United States, Obama scheduled a trip to Turkey. During the EU meetings in Prague, Obama vigorously supported the Turkish application for EU membership, which several members are blocking on grounds of concerns over human rights and the role of the military in Turkey. But the real reason is that full membership would open European borders to Turkish migration, and the Europeans do not want free Turkish migration. The United States directly confronted the Europeans on this matter.

During the NATO meeting, a key item on the agenda was the selection of a new alliance secretary-general. The favorite was former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Turkey opposed his candidacy because of his defense on grounds of free speech of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish magazine. NATO operates on consensus, so any one member can block just about anything. The Turks backed off the veto, but won two key positions in NATO, including that of deputy secretary-general.

So while the Germans won their way at the meetings, it was the Turks who came back with the most. Not only did they boost their standing in NATO, they got Obama to come to a vigorous defense of the Turkish application for membership in the European Union, which of course the United States does not belong to. Obama then flew to Turkey for meetings and to attend a key international meeting that will allow him to further position the United States in relation to Islam.

THE RUSSIAN DIMENSION

Let’s diverge to another dimension of these talks, which still concerns Turkey, but also concerns the Russians. While atmospherics after the last week’s meetings might have improved, there was certainly no fundamental shift in U.S.-Russian relations. The Russians have rejected the idea of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program in return for the United States abandoning its planned ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States simultaneously downplayed the importance of a Russian route to Afghanistan. Washington said there were sufficient supplies in Afghanistan and enough security on the Pakistani route such that the Russians weren’t essential for supplying Western operations in Afghanistan. At the same time, the United States reached an agreement with Ukraine for the transshipment of supplies — a mostly symbolic gesture, but one guaranteed to infuriate the Russians at both the United States and Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO communique did not abandon the idea of Ukraine and Georgia being admitted to NATO, although the German position on unspecified delays to such membership was there as well. When Obama looks at the chessboard, the key emerging challenge remains Russia.

The Germans are not going to be joining the United States in blocking Russia. Between dependence on Russia for energy supplies and little appetite for confronting a Russia that Berlin sees as no real immediate threat to Germany, the Germans are not going to address the Russian question. At the same time, the United States does not want to push the Germans toward Russia, particularly in confrontations ultimately of secondary importance and on which Germany has no give anyway. Obama is aware that the German left is viscerally anti-American, while Merkel is only pragmatically anti-American — a small distinction, but significant enough for Washington not to press Berlin.

At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and Armenia looks to be on the horizon. Armenians had long held Turkey responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The U.S. Congress for several years has threatened to pass a resolution condemning Turkish genocide against Armenians. The Turks are extraordinarily sensitive to this charge, and passage would have meant a break with the United States. Last week, they publicly began to discuss an agreement with the Armenians, including diplomatic recognition, which essentially disarms the danger from any U.S. resolution on genocide. Although an actual agreement hasn’t been signed just yet, anticipation is building on all sides.

The Turkish opening to Armenia has potentially significant implications for the balance of power in the Caucasus. The August 2008 Russo-Georgian war created an unstable situation in an area of vital importance to Russia. Russian troops remain deployed, and NATO has called for their withdrawal from the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are Russian troops in Armenia, meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded. In addition, there is talk of an alternative natural gas pipeline network from Azerbaijan to Europe.

Turkey is the key to all of this. If Ankara collaborates with Russia, Georgia’s position is precarious and Azerbaijan’s route to Europe is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and also manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under U.S. auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against Europe.

From the American point of view, Europe is a lost cause since internally it cannot find a common position and its heavyweights are bound by their relationship with Russia. It cannot agree on economic policy, nor do its economic interests coincide with those of the United States, at least insofar as Germany is concerned. As far as Russia is concerned, Germany and Europe are locked in by their dependence on Russian natural gas. The U.S.-European relationship thus is torn apart not by personalities, but by fundamental economic and military realities. No amount of talking will solve that problem.

The key to sustaining the U.S.-German alliance is reducing Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey — which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans — is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to Germany’s energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked into Russian-controlled energy for a generation.

Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia’s junior partner.

This is why Obama’s most important speech in Europe was his last one, following Turkey’s emergence as a major player in NATO’s political structure. In that speech, he sided with the Turks against Europe, and extracted some minor concessions from the Europeans on the process for considering Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Why Turkey wants to be an EU member is not always obvious to us, but they do want membership. Obama is trying to show the Turks that he can deliver for them. He reiterated — if not laid it on even more heavily — all of this in his speech in Ankara. Obama laid out the U.S. position as one that recognized the tough geopolitical position Turkey is in and the leader that Turkey is becoming, and also recognized the commonalities between Washington and Ankara. This was exactly what Turkey wanted to hear.

The Caucasus is far from the only area to discuss. Talks will be held about blocking Iran in Iraq, U.S. relations with Syria and Syrian talks with Israel, and Central Asia, where both countries have interests. But the most important message to the Europeans will be that Europe is where you go for photo opportunities, but Turkey is where you go to do the business of geopolitics. It is unlikely that the Germans and French will get it. Their sense of what is happening in the world is utterly Eurocentric. But the Central Europeans, on the frontier with Russia and feeling quite put out by the German position on their banks, certainly do get it.

Obama gave the Europeans a pass for political reasons, and because arguing with the Europeans simply won’t yield benefits. But the key to the trip is what he gets out of Turkey — and whether in his speech to the civilizations, he can draw some of the venom out of the Islamic world by showing alignment with the largest economy among Muslim states, Turkey.

Source: Stratfor

Kind Regards,
Rabia Rahimbayeva.
- 07 Apr 2009, 3:49 pm
Rabia Rahimbayeva wrote: > Obama's Strategy and the Summits > April 6, 2009 > > ' By George Friedman > > *** > > BERLIN, WASHINGTON AND THE G-20 > > Let’s begin with the G-20 meeting, which focused on the global > financial crisis. As we said last year, there were many European > positions, but the United States was reacting to Germany’s. Not only > is Germany the largest economy in Europe, it is the largest exporter > in the world. Any agreement that did not include Germany would be > useless, whereas an agreement excluding the rest of Europe but > including Germany would still be useful. > > Two fundamental issues divided the United States and Germany. The > first was whether Germany would match or come close to the U.S. > stimulus package. The United States wanted Germany to stimulate its > own domestic demand. Obama feared that if the United States put a > stimulus plan into place, Germany would use increased demand in the > U.S. market to expand its exports. The United States would wind up > with massive deficits while the Germans took advantage of U.S. > spending, thus letting Berlin enjoy the best of both worlds. > Washington felt it had to stimulate its economy, and that this would > inevitably benefit the rest of the world. But Washington wanted > burden sharing. Berlin, quite rationally, did not. Even before the > meetings, the United States dropped the demand — Germany was not > going to cooperate. > > The second issue was the financing of the bailout of the Central > European banking system, heavily controlled by eurozone banks and > part of the EU financial system. The Germans did not want an EU > effort to bail out the banks. They wanted the International Monetary > Fund (IMF) to bail out a substantial part of the EU financial system > instead. The reason was simple: The IMF receives loans from the > United States, as well as China and Japan, meaning the Europeans > would be joined by others in underwriting the bailout. The United > States has signaled it would be willing to contribute $100 billion to > the IMF, of which a substantial portion would go to Central Europe. > (Of the current loans given by the IMF, roughly 80 percent have gone > to the struggling economies in Central Europe.) The United States > therefore essentially has agreed to the German position. > > Later at the NATO meeting, the Europeans — including Germany — > declined to send substantial forces to Afghanistan. Instead, they > designated a token force of 5,000, most of whom are scheduled to be > in Afghanistan only until the August elections there, and few of whom > actually would be engaged in combat operations. This is far below > what Obama had been hoping for when he began his presidency. > > Agreement was reached on collaboration in detecting international tax > fraud and on further collaboration in managing the international > crisis, however. But what that means remains extremely vague — as it > was meant to be, since there was no consensus on what was to be done. > In fact, the actual guidelines will still have to be hashed out at > the G-20 finance ministers’ meeting in Scotland in November. > Intriguingly, after insisting on the creation of a global regulatory > regime — and with the vague U.S. assent — the European Union failed > to agree on European regulations. In a meeting in Prague on April 4, > the United Kingdom rejected the regulatory regime being proposed by > Germany and France, saying it would leave the British banking system > at a disadvantage. > > Overall, the G-20 and the NATO meetings did not produce significant > breakthroughs. Rather than pushing hard on issues or trading > concessions — such as accepting Germany’s unwillingness to increase > its stimulus package in return for more troops in Afghanistan — the > United States failed to press or bargain. It preferred to appear as > part of a consensus rather than appear isolated. The United States > systematically avoided any appearance of disagreement. > > The reason there was no bargaining was fairly simple: The Germans > were not prepared to bargain. They came to the meetings with prepared > positions, and the United States had no levers with which to move > them. The only option was to withhold funding for the IMF, and that > would have been a political disaster (not to mention economically > rather unwise). The United States would have been seen as unwilling > to participate in multilateral solutions rather than Germany being > seen as trying to foist its economic problems on others. Obama has > positioned himself as a multilateralist and can’t afford the > political consequences of deviating from this perception. > Contributing to the IMF, in these days of trillion-dollar bailouts, > was the lower-cost alternative. Thus, the Germans have the U.S. boxed > in. > > The political aspect of this should not be underestimated. George W. > Bush had extremely bad relations with the Europeans (in large part > because he was prepared to confront them). This was Obama’s first > major international foray, and he could not let it end in acrimony or > wind up being seen as unable to move the Europeans after running a > campaign based on his ability to manage the Western coalition. It was > important that he come home having reached consensus with the > Europeans. Backing off on key economic and military demands gave him > that “consensus.” > > TURKEY AND OBAMA'S DEEPER GAME > > But it was not simply a matter of domestic politics. It is becoming > clear that Obama is playing a deeper game. A couple of weeks before > the meetings, when it had become obvious that the Europeans were not > going to bend on the issues that concerned the United States, Obama > scheduled a trip to Turkey. During the EU meetings in Prague, Obama > vigorously supported the Turkish application for EU membership, which > several members are blocking on grounds of concerns over human rights > and the role of the military in Turkey. But the real reason is that > full membership would open European borders to Turkish migration, and > the Europeans do not want free Turkish migration. The United States > directly confronted the Europeans on this matter. > > During the NATO meeting, a key item on the agenda was the selection > of a new alliance secretary-general. The favorite was former Danish > Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Turkey opposed his candidacy > because of his defense on grounds of free speech of cartoons > depicting the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish magazine. NATO > operates on consensus, so any one member can block just about > anything. The Turks backed off the veto, but won two key positions in > NATO, including that of deputy secretary-general. > > So while the Germans won their way at the meetings, it was the Turks > who came back with the most. Not only did they boost their standing > in NATO, they got Obama to come to a vigorous defense of the Turkish > application for membership in the European Union, which of course the > United States does not belong to. Obama then flew to Turkey for > meetings and to attend a key international meeting that will allow > him to further position the United States in relation to Islam. > > THE RUSSIAN DIMENSION > > Let’s diverge to another dimension of these talks, which still > concerns Turkey, but also concerns the Russians. While atmospherics > after the last week’s meetings might have improved, there was > certainly no fundamental shift in U.S.-Russian relations. The > Russians have rejected the idea of pressuring Iran over its nuclear > program in return for the United States abandoning its planned > ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. > The United States simultaneously downplayed the importance of a > Russian route to Afghanistan. Washington said there were sufficient > supplies in Afghanistan and enough security on the Pakistani route > such that the Russians weren’t essential for supplying Western > operations in Afghanistan. At the same time, the United States > reached an agreement with Ukraine for the transshipment of supplies — > a mostly symbolic gesture, but one guaranteed to infuriate the > Russians at both the United States and Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO > communique did not abandon the idea of Ukraine and Georgia being > admitted to NATO, although the German position on unspecified delays > to such membership was there as well. When Obama looks at the > chessboard, the key emerging challenge remains Russia. > > The Germans are not going to be joining the United States in blocking > Russia. Between dependence on Russia for energy supplies and little > appetite for confronting a Russia that Berlin sees as no real > immediate threat to Germany, the Germans are not going to address the > Russian question. At the same time, the United States does not want > to push the Germans toward Russia, particularly in confrontations > ultimately of secondary importance and on which Germany has no give > anyway. Obama is aware that the German left is viscerally > anti-American, while Merkel is only pragmatically anti-American — a > small distinction, but significant enough for Washington not to press > Berlin. > > At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and > Armenia looks to be on the horizon. Armenians had long held Turkey > responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World > War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The U.S. Congress for several > years has threatened to pass a resolution condemning Turkish genocide > against Armenians. The Turks are extraordinarily sensitive to this > charge, and passage would have meant a break with the United States. > Last week, they publicly began to discuss an agreement with the > Armenians, including diplomatic recognition, which essentially > disarms the danger from any U.S. resolution on genocide. Although an > actual agreement hasn’t been signed just yet, anticipation is > building on all sides. > > The Turkish opening to Armenia has potentially significant > implications for the balance of power in the Caucasus. The August > 2008 Russo-Georgian war created an unstable situation in an area of > vital importance to Russia. Russian troops remain deployed, and NATO > has called for their withdrawal from the breakaway Georgian regions > of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are Russian troops in Armenia, > meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded. In addition, there is talk of > an alternative natural gas pipeline network from Azerbaijan to > Europe. > > Turkey is the key to all of this. If Ankara collaborates with Russia, > Georgia’s position is precarious and Azerbaijan’s route to Europe is > blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and also manages to > reach a stable treaty with Armenia under U.S. auspices, the Russian > position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for > natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against > Europe. > > From the American point of view, Europe is a lost cause since > internally it cannot find a common position and its heavyweights are > bound by their relationship with Russia. It cannot agree on economic > policy, nor do its economic interests coincide with those of the > United States, at least insofar as Germany is concerned. As far as > Russia is concerned, Germany and Europe are locked in by their > dependence on Russian natural gas. The U.S.-European relationship > thus is torn apart not by personalities, but by fundamental economic > and military realities. No amount of talking will solve that problem. > > The key to sustaining the U.S.-German alliance is reducing Germany’s > dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive > rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is > one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to > Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey > — which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, > the Middle East and the Balkans — is prepared to ally with the United > States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to > Germany’s energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey > decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with > Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked > into Russian-controlled energy for a generation. > > Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, > Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that > is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to > Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to > convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in > the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia’s junior partner. > > This is why Obama’s most important speech in Europe was his last one, > following Turkey’s emergence as a major player in NATO’s political > structure. In that speech, he sided with the Turks against Europe, > and extracted some minor concessions from the Europeans on the > process for considering Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Why > Turkey wants to be an EU member is not always obvious to us, but they > do want membership. Obama is trying to show the Turks that he can > deliver for them. He reiterated — if not laid it on even more heavily > — all of this in his speech in Ankara. Obama laid out the U.S. > position as one that recognized the tough geopolitical position > Turkey is in and the leader that Turkey is becoming, and also > recognized the commonalities between Washington and Ankara. This was > exactly what Turkey wanted to hear. > > The Caucasus is far from the only area to discuss. Talks will be held > about blocking Iran in Iraq, U.S. relations with Syria and Syrian > talks with Israel, and Central Asia, where both countries have > interests. But the most important message to the Europeans will be > that Europe is where you go for photo opportunities, but Turkey is > where you go to do the business of geopolitics. It is unlikely that > the Germans and French will get it. Their sense of what is happening > in the world is utterly Eurocentric. But the Central Europeans, on > the frontier with Russia and feeling quite put out by the German > position on their banks, certainly do get it. > > Obama gave the Europeans a pass for political reasons, and because > arguing with the Europeans simply won’t yield benefits. But the key > to the trip is what he gets out of Turkey — and whether in his speech > to the civilizations, he can draw some of the venom out of the > Islamic world by showing alignment with the largest economy among > Muslim states, Turkey. > > Source: Stratfor > > > Kind Regards, > Rabia Rahimbayeva.
Dr. Nilgün Birgören Premium Member Group moderator
The company name is only visible to registered members.

President Obama’s speech to Turkish parliament
Text of President Barack Obama’s remarks to the Turkish Parliament on Monday, as provided by the White House.

___

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mister speaker, madam deputy speaker, distinguished members, I am honored to speak in this chamber, and I am committed to renewing the alliance between our nations and the friendship between our people.

This is my first trip overseas as president of the United States. I’ve been to the G-20 summit in London, and the NATO summit in Strasbourg, 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 to the world. And my answer is simple: Evet - yes.

Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together - and work together - to overcome the challenges of our time.

This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. And I was deeply impressed by this beautiful memorial to a man who did so much to shape the course of history. But it is also clear that the greatest monument to Ataturk’s life is not something that can be cast in stone and marble.
His greatest legacy is Turkey’s strong, vibrant, secular democracy, and that is the work that this assembly carries on today.

This future was not easily assured, it was not guaranteed. At the end of World War I, Turkey could have succumbed to the foreign powers that were trying to claim its territory, or sought to restore an ancient empire. But Turkey chose a different future. You freed yourself from foreign control, and you founded a republic that commands the respect of the United States and the wider world.

And there is a simple truth to this story: Turkey’s democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power, nor did it come without struggle and sacrifice. Turkey draws strength from both the successes of the past, and from the efforts of each generation of Turks that makes new progress for your people.

Now, my country’s democracy has its own story. The general who led America in revolution and governed as our first president was, as many of you know, George Washington. And like you, we built a grand monument to honor our founding father - a towering obelisk that stands in the heart of the capital city that bears Washington’s name. I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day.

It took decades to build. There were frequent delays. Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from all across the world who offered their own tributes to Washington and the country he helped to found.

And one of those tributes came from Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque that helped to build the Washington Monument. Inscribed in the plaque was a poem that began with a few simple words: “So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.” Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures.

It is a friendship that flourished in the years after World War II, when President Truman committed our nation to the defense of Turkey’s freedom and sovereignty, and Turkey committed itself into the NATO Alliance. Turkish troops have served by our side from Korea to Kosovo to Kabul. Together, we withstood the great test of the Cold War. Trade between our nations has steadily advanced. So has cooperation in science and research.

The ties among our people have deepened, as well, and more and more Americans of Turkish origin live and work and succeed within our borders. And as a basketball fan, I’ve even noticed that Hedo Turkoglu and Mehmet Okur have got some pretty good basketball games.

The United States and Turkey have not always agreed on every issue, and that’s to be expected - no two nations do. But we have stood together through many challenges over the last 60 years. And 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.

Now, 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 and 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.

These are the great tests of our young century. And the choices that we make in the coming years will determine whether the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace.

This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together. That is the message that I’ve carried with me throughout this trip to Europe. That is the message that I delivered when I had the privilege of meeting with your president and with your prime minister. That will be the approach of the United States of America going forward.

Already, America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis. Now, this past week, we came together to ensure that the world’s largest economies take strong and coordinated action to stimulate growth and restore the flow of credit; to reject the pressures of protectionism, and to extend a hand to developing countries and the people hit hardest by this downturn; and to dramatically reform our regulatory system so that the world never faces a crisis like this again.

As we go forward, the United States and Turkey can pursue many opportunities to serve prosperity for our people. The president and I this morning talked about expanding the ties of commerce and trade.
There’s enormous opportunity when it comes to energy to create jobs.
And we can increase new sources to not only free ourselves from dependence of other energies - other countries’ energy sources, but also to combat climate change. We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas.

This economic cooperation only reinforces the common security that Europe and the United States share with Turkey as a NATO ally, and the common values that we share as democracies. So in meeting the challenges of the 21st century, we must seek the strength of a Europe that is truly united, peaceful and free.

So 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 both Turkey and Europe. Turkey has been a resolute ally and a responsible partner in trans-Atlantic and European institutions. Turkey is bound to Europe by more than the bridges over the Bosporus. Centuries of shared history, culture, and commerce bring you together. Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith - it is not diminished by it. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe’s foundation once more.

Now, of course, Turkey has its own responsibilities. And you’ve made important progress towards membership. But I also know that Turkey has pursued difficult political reforms not simply because it’s good for EU membership, but because it’s right for Turkey.

In the last several years, you’ve abolished state security courts, you’ve expanded the right to counsel. You’ve reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly. You’ve lifted bans on teaching and broadcasting Kurdish, and the world noted with respect the important signal sent through a new state Kurdish television station.

These achievements have created new laws that must be implemented, and a momentum that should be sustained. For democracies cannot be static - they must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens.

I say this as the president of a country that not very long ago made it hard for somebody who looks like me to vote, much less be president of the United States. But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries. Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That’s why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That’s why we prohibited - without exception or equivocation - the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there’s strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there’s been a good deal of commentary about my views, it’s really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.

We’ve already seen historic and courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These contacts hold out the promise of a new day. An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations. So I want you to know that the United States strongly supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. It is a cause worth working towards.

It speaks to Turkey’s leadership that you are poised to be the only country in the region to have normal and peaceful relations with all the South Caucasus nations. And to advance that peace, you can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long.

Advancing peace also includes the disputes that persist in the Eastern Mediterranean. And here there’s a cause for hope. The two Cypriot leaders have an opportunity through their commitment to negotiations under the United Nations Good Offices Mission. The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation.

These efforts speak to one part of the critical region that surrounds Turkey. And when we consider the challenges before us, on issue after issue, we share common goals.

In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis and people of goodwill around the world. That is a goal that the parties agreed to in the road map and at Annapolis. That is a goal that I will actively pursue as president of the United States.

We know the road ahead will be difficult. Both Israelis and Palestinians must take steps that are necessary to build confidence and trust. Both Israelis and Palestinians, both must live up to the commitments they have made. Both must overcome long-standing passions and the politics of the moment to make progress towards a secure and lasting peace.

The United States and Turkey can help the Palestinians and Israelis make this journey. Like the United States, Turkey has been a friend and partner in Israel’s quest for security. And like the United States, you seek a future of opportunity and statehood for the Palestinians. So now, working together, we must not give into pessimism and mistrust. We must pursue every opportunity for progress, as you’ve done by supporting negotiations between Syria and Israel. We must extend a hand to those Palestinians who are in need, while helping them strengthen their own institutions. We must reject the use of terror, and recognize that Israel’s security concerns are legitimate.

The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions. Now, as I made clear in Prague yesterday, no one is served by the spread of nuclear weapons, least of all Turkey. You live in a difficult region and a nuclear arm race would not serve the security of this nation well. This part of the world has known enough violence. It has known enough hatred. It does not need a race for an ever-more powerful tool of destruction.

Now, I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States seeks engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We want Iran to play its rightful role in the community of nations. Iran is a great civilization. We want them to engage in the economic and political integration that brings prosperity and security. But Iran’s leaders must choose whether they will try to build a weapon or build a better future for their people.

So both Turkey and the United States support a secure and united Iraq that does not serve as a safe haven for terrorists. I know there were differences about whether to go to war. There were differences within my own country, as well. But now we must come together as we end this war responsibly, because the future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader region. As I’ve already announced, and many of you are aware, the United States will remove our combat brigades by the end of next August, while working with the Iraqi government as they take responsibility for security. And we will work with Iraq, Turkey, and all Iraq’s neighbors, to forge a new dialogue that reconciles differences and advances our common security.

Make no mistake, though: Iraq, Turkey and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al-Qaida terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK. There is no excuse for terror against any nation.

As president, and as a NATO ally, I pledge that you will have our support against the terrorist activities of the PKK or anyone else.
These efforts will be strengthened by the continued work to build ties of cooperation between Turkey, the Iraqi government, and Iraq’s Kurdish leaders, and by your continued efforts to promote education and opportunity and democracy for the Kurdish population here inside Turkey.

Finally, we share the common goal of denying al-Qaida a safe haven in Pakistan or Afghanistan. The world has come too far to let this region backslide, and to let al-Qaida terrorists plot further attacks. That’s why we are committed to a more focused effort to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida. That is why we are increasing our efforts to train Afghans to sustain their own security, and to reconcile former adversaries. That’s why we are increasing our support for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that we stand on the side not only of security, but also of opportunity and the promise of a better life.

Turkey has been a true partner. Your troops were among the first in the International Security Assistance Force. You have sacrificed much in this endeavor. Now we must achieve our goals together. I appreciate that you’ve offered to help us train and support Afghan security forces and expand opportunity across the region. Together, we can rise to meet this challenge like we have so many before.

I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.

In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical not just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people.

I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world - including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them.

Above all, above all we will demonstrate through actions our commitment to a better future. I want to help more children get the education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship to all people.

There’s an old Turkish proverb: “You cannot put out fire with flames.”
America knows this. Turkey knows this. There’s some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together.

I know there are those who like to debate Turkey’s future. They see your country at the crossroads of continents, and touched by the currents of history. They know that this has been a place where civilizations meet, and different peoples come together. They wonder whether you will be pulled in one direction or another.

But I believe here is what they don’t understand: Turkey’s greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide - this is where they come together.

In the beauty of your culture. In the richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy. In your hopes for tomorrow.

I am honored to stand here with you - to look forward to the future that we must reach for together - and to reaffirm America’s commitment to our strong and enduring friendship. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you.
- 07 Apr 2009, 9:29 pm
Dr. Nilgün Birgören wrote: > Text of President Barack Obama’s remarks to the Turkish Parliament on > Monday, as provided by the White House. > > ___ > > PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mister speaker, madam deputy speaker, distinguished > members, I am honored to speak in this chamber, and I am committed to > renewing the alliance between our nations and the friendship between > our people. > > This is my first trip overseas as president of the United States. > I’ve been to the G-20 summit in London, and the NATO summit in > Strasbourg, 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 to the world. And my answer is simple: Evet - yes. > > Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And > Turkey and the United States must stand together - and work together > - to overcome the challenges of our time. > > This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your > extraordinary founder of your republic. And I was deeply impressed by > this beautiful memorial to a man who did so much to shape the course > of history. But it is also clear that the greatest monument to > Ataturk’s life is not something that can be cast in stone and marble. > His greatest legacy is Turkey’s strong, vibrant, secular democracy, > and that is the work that this assembly carries on today. > > This future was not easily assured, it was not guaranteed. At the end > of World War I, Turkey could have succumbed to the foreign powers > that were trying to claim its territory, or sought to restore an > ancient empire. But Turkey chose a different future. You freed > yourself from foreign control, and you founded a republic that > commands the respect of the United States and the wider world. > > And there is a simple truth to this story: Turkey’s democracy is your > own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power, nor > did it come without struggle and sacrifice. Turkey draws strength > from both the successes of the past, and from the efforts of each > generation of Turks that makes new progress for your people. > > Now, my country’s democracy has its own story. The general who led > America in revolution and governed as our first president was, as > many of you know, George Washington. And like you, we built a grand > monument to honor our founding father - a towering obelisk that > stands in the heart of the capital city that bears Washington’s name. > I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House > every day. > > It took decades to build. There were frequent delays. Over time, more > and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring > structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our > aid were friends from all across the world who offered their own > tributes to Washington and the country he helped to found. > > And one of those tributes came from Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan > Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque that helped to build the Washington > Monument. Inscribed in the plaque was a poem that began with a few > simple words: “So as to strengthen the friendship between the two > countries.” Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved > into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our > friendship is strong, and our alliance endures. > > It is a friendship that flourished in the years after World War II, > when President Truman committed our nation to the defense of Turkey’s > freedom and sovereignty, and Turkey committed itself into the NATO > Alliance. Turkish troops have served by our side from Korea to Kosovo > to Kabul. Together, we withstood the great test of the Cold War. > Trade between our nations has steadily advanced. So has cooperation > in science and research. > > The ties among our people have deepened, as well, and more and more > Americans of Turkish origin live and work and succeed within our > borders. And as a basketball fan, I’ve even noticed that Hedo > Turkoglu and Mehmet Okur have got some pretty good basketball games. > > The United States and Turkey have not always agreed on every issue, > and that’s to be expected - no two nations do. But we have stood > together through many challenges over the last 60 years. And 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. > > Now, 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 and 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. > > These are the great tests of our young century. And the choices that > we make in the coming years will determine whether the future will be > shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife > or by a just, secure and lasting peace. > > This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges > alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why > we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we > must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. > We are stronger when we act together. That is the message that I’ve > carried with me throughout this trip to Europe. That is the message > that I delivered when I had the privilege of meeting with your > president and with your prime minister. That will be the approach of > the United States of America going forward. > > Already, America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an > unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis. Now, this > past week, we came together to ensure that the world’s largest > economies take strong and coordinated action to stimulate growth and > restore the flow of credit; to reject the pressures of protectionism, > and to extend a hand to developing countries and the people hit > hardest by this downturn; and to dramatically reform our regulatory > system so that the world never faces a crisis like this again. > > As we go forward, the United States and Turkey can pursue many > opportunities to serve prosperity for our people. The president and I > this morning talked about expanding the ties of commerce and trade. > There’s enormous opportunity when it comes to energy to create jobs. > And we can increase new sources to not only free ourselves from > dependence of other energies - other countries’ energy sources, but > also to combat climate change. We should build on our Clean > Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy > investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the > United States will continue to support your central role as an > East-West corridor for oil and natural gas. > > This economic cooperation only reinforces the common security that > Europe and the United States share with Turkey as a NATO ally, and > the common values that we share as democracies. So in meeting the > challenges of the 21st century, we must seek the strength of a Europe > that is truly united, peaceful and free. > > So 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 both > Turkey and Europe. Turkey has been a resolute ally and a responsible > partner in trans-Atlantic and European institutions. Turkey is bound > to Europe by more than the bridges over the Bosporus. Centuries of > shared history, culture, and commerce bring you together. Europe > gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith - it is not > diminished by it. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen > Europe’s foundation once more. > > Now, of course, Turkey has its own responsibilities. And you’ve made > important progress towards membership. But I also know that Turkey > has pursued difficult political reforms not simply because it’s good > for EU membership, but because it’s right for Turkey. > > In the last several years, you’ve abolished state security courts, > you’ve expanded the right to counsel. You’ve reformed the penal code > and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and > assembly. You’ve lifted bans on teaching and broadcasting Kurdish, > and the world noted with respect the important signal sent through a > new state Kurdish television station. > > These achievements have created new laws that must be implemented, > and a momentum that should be sustained. For democracies cannot be > static - they must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression > lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the > state, which is why steps like reopening Halki Seminary will send > such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring > commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security > that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let > societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all > citizens. > > I say this as the president of a country that not very long ago made > it hard for somebody who looks like me to vote, much less be > president of the United States. But it is precisely that capacity to > change that enriches our countries. Every challenge that we face is > more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This > work is never over. That’s why, in the United States, we recently > ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That’s why we prohibited > - without exception or equivocation - the use of torture. All of us > have to change. And sometimes change is hard. > > Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the > future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still > working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing > the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham > Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after > Washington led our revolution. Our country still struggles with the > legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native > Americans. > > Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, > but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work > through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a > better future. I know there’s strong views in this chamber about the > terrible events of 1915. And while there’s been a good deal of > commentary about my views, it’s really about how the Turkish and > Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the > Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past > in a way that is honest, open and constructive. > > We’ve already seen historic and courageous steps taken by Turkish and > Armenian leaders. These contacts hold out the promise of a new day. > An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a > peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your > nations. So I want you to know that the United States strongly > supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and > Armenia. It is a cause worth working towards. > > It speaks to Turkey’s leadership that you are poised to be the only > country in the region to have normal and peaceful relations with all > the South Caucasus nations. And to advance that peace, you can play a > constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh > conflict, which has continued for far too long. > > Advancing peace also includes the disputes that persist in the > Eastern Mediterranean. And here there’s a cause for hope. The two > Cypriot leaders have an opportunity through their commitment to > negotiations under the United Nations Good Offices Mission. The > United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties > as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies > Cyprus into a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation. > > These efforts speak to one part of the critical region that surrounds > Turkey. And when we consider the challenges before us, on issue after > issue, we share common goals. > > In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between > Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: The United States strongly > supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by > side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, > Israelis and people of goodwill around the world. That is a goal that > the parties agreed to in the road map and at Annapolis. That is a > goal that I will actively pursue as president of the United States. > > We know the road ahead will be difficult. Both Israelis and > Palestinians must take steps that are necessary to build confidence > and trust. Both Israelis and Palestinians, both must live up to the > commitments they have made. Both must overcome long-standing passions > and the politics of the moment to make progress towards a secure and > lasting peace. > > The United States and Turkey can help the Palestinians and Israelis > make this journey. Like the United States, Turkey has been a friend > and partner in Israel’s quest for security. And like the United > States, you seek a future of opportunity and statehood for the > Palestinians. So now, working together, we must not give into > pessimism and mistrust. We must pursue every opportunity for > progress, as you’ve done by supporting negotiations between Syria and > Israel. We must extend a hand to those Palestinians who are in need, > while helping them strengthen their own institutions. We must reject > the use of terror, and recognize that Israel’s security concerns are > legitimate. > > The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any > nuclear weapons ambitions. Now, as I made clear in Prague yesterday, > no one is served by the spread of nuclear weapons, least of all > Turkey. You live in a difficult region and a nuclear arm race would > not serve the security of this nation well. This part of the world > has known enough violence. It has known enough hatred. It does not > need a race for an ever-more powerful tool of destruction. > > Now, I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic > Republic of Iran that the United States seeks engagement based on > mutual interest and mutual respect. We want Iran to play its rightful > role in the community of nations. Iran is a great civilization. We > want them to engage in the economic and political integration that > brings prosperity and security. But Iran’s leaders must choose > whether they will try to build a weapon or build a better future for > their people. > > So both Turkey and the United States support a secure and united Iraq > that does not serve as a safe haven for terrorists. I know there were > differences about whether to go to war. There were differences within > my own country, as well. But now we must come together as we end this > war responsibly, because the future of Iraq is inseparable from the > future of the broader region. As I’ve already announced, and many of > you are aware, the United States will remove our combat brigades by > the end of next August, while working with the Iraqi government as > they take responsibility for security. And we will work with Iraq, > Turkey, and all Iraq’s neighbors, to forge a new dialogue that > reconciles differences and advances our common security. > > Make no mistake, though: Iraq, Turkey and the United States face a > common threat from terrorism. That includes the al-Qaida terrorists > who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That > includes the PKK. There is no excuse for terror against any nation. > > As president, and as a NATO ally, I pledge that you will have our > support against the terrorist activities of the PKK or anyone else. > These efforts will be strengthened by the continued work to build > ties of cooperation between Turkey, the Iraqi government, and Iraq’s > Kurdish leaders, and by your continued efforts to promote education > and opportunity and democracy for the Kurdish population here inside > Turkey. > > Finally, we share the common goal of denying al-Qaida a safe haven in > Pakistan or Afghanistan. The world has come too far to let this > region backslide, and to let al-Qaida terrorists plot further > attacks. That’s why we are committed to a more focused effort to > disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida. That is why we are increasing > our efforts to train Afghans to sustain their own security, and to > reconcile former adversaries. That’s why we are increasing our > support for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that we stand > on the side not only of security, but also of opportunity and the > promise of a better life. > > Turkey has been a true partner. Your troops were among the first in > the International Security Assistance Force. You have sacrificed much > in this endeavor. Now we must achieve our goals together. I > appreciate that you’ve offered to help us train and support Afghan > security forces and expand opportunity across the region. Together, > we can rise to meet this challenge like we have so many before. > > I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that > the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, > and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim > faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The > United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam. > > In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical not just > in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths > reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people. > > I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim > community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon > opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual > interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge > misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be > respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep > appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the > centuries to shape the world - including in my own country. The > United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other > Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a > Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them. > > Above all, above all we will demonstrate through actions our > commitment to a better future. I want to help more children get the > education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care > in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade > and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the > months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these > goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with > people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes and our > common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said > of America that we extended the hand of friendship to all people. > > There’s an old Turkish proverb: “You cannot put out fire with flames.” > America knows this. Turkey knows this. There’s some who must be met > by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our > problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must > belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future > we must work for, and we must work for it together. > > I know there are those who like to debate Turkey’s future. They see > your country at the crossroads of continents, and touched by the > currents of history. They know that this has been a place where > civilizations meet, and different peoples come together. They wonder > whether you will be pulled in one direction or another. > > But I believe here is what they don’t understand: Turkey’s greatness > lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where > East and West divide - this is where they come together. > > In the beauty of your culture. In the richness of your history. In > the strength of your democracy. In your hopes for tomorrow. > > I am honored to stand here with you - to look forward to the future > that we must reach for together - and to reaffirm America’s > commitment to our strong and enduring friendship. Thank you very > much. Thank you. > Thank you.
Dr. Nilgün Birgören Premium Member Group moderator
The company name is only visible to registered members.

DER TAGESSPİEGEL: BÜYÜK SAHNEDE TÜRKİYE
Tirajı günde 149 bin 431 olan liberal eğilimli Der Tagesspiegel gazetesinin 7 Nisan 2009 tarihli sayfasında, Thomas Seibert imzasıyla ve yukardaki başlık altında yayımlanan yorumun çevirisi şöyledir:

—Obama’nın Türkiye Ziyareti, Ülkenin Artan Önemini Vurguluyor—

ABD Başkanı Barack Obama, Türkiye’nin AB’ye alınmasını talep ediyor ve Ankara ile İstanbul’a gerçekleştirdiği iki günlük ziyaretiyle Boğaz’daki müttefikin stratejik önemini vurguluyor. Bu arada, Anders Fogh Rasmussen’in yeni genel sekreter olarak atanmasına direnen, daha sonra da onayını siyasi tavizler karşısında satın aldıran Türkiye, NATO müttefikini zor durumda bırakıyor. Türk başkentinde Pakistan ile Afganistan Devlet Başkanları güvenlik konularını görüşmek üzere biraya geliyorlar.

Batı’daki birçok devletin işine gelmese de, bu gelişmeler yeni realiteleri yansıtıyor. Türkiye uluslararası sahnedeki siyasi rolünü giderek güçlendiriyor. Bu yüzden, Obama’nın ziyaretinin sadece Türkiye’ye yönelik olmadığı söylenebilir. Amerikan Başkanı böylece, İslam dünyası ile iyi ilişkilere önem verdiğini yansıtıyor. Erdoğan’ın dindar-muhafazakar hükümeti yönetiminde Müslüman, ancak laik bir yapıya sahip olan Türkiye, İslam dünyasında lider rolünü üstlenmiş bulunuyor.

Türk-Amerikan ilişkileri kesinlikle sorunsuz değil. Ancak, anlaşıldığı kadarıyla Obama hükümeti, bu görüş ayrılıklarının, Türkiye’yi ABD ve Batı’ya bağlama hedefinden saptırmasına izin vermemekte kararlı, ki bu da kimseyi şaşırtmıyor: Türkiye geçtiğimiz yıllarda Orta Doğu’da arabulucuk yaptı ve bu şekilde zorlu, ancak önemli olan İran ve Suriye gibi komşularıyla ilişkilerini düzeltti. Bugün Türkiye, Batılı devletlerin temas kurması zor olan ülke ve gruplarla görüşebiliyor.

Geçtiğimiz yıllarda güçlü bir şekilde büyüyen ekonomisiyle Türkiye, dünyanın en büyük 20 endüstri devleti arasındaki yerini aldı. Ayrıca halihazırda BM Güvenlik Konseyi üyesi. Öte yandan ülke, Batı’nın enerji tedariki için bir enerji kavşağı olma yolunda. Erdoğan, Türkiye’nin dış politikasını “Başka ülkeler ne der?” düşüncesiyle yönlendirdiği dönemlerin artık geride kaldığını vurguluyor. Bu, dış dünya tarafından her zaman hoş karşılanmıyor. Erdoğan’ın zaman zaman telkin ettiği gibi, Türklerin bölgede artan etkisi Ankara’nın otomatikman AB üyeliği hakkına sahip olacağı anlamına da gelmiyor.

Ancak Türkiye’nin, uluslararası alanda siyasi bakımdan beş yıl öncesinde olduğundan çok daha güçlü olduğu bir gerçektir. Bu gerçek gerçi ABD tarafından farkedildi, ancak AB tarafından şimdiye değin farkedilmedi. Halbuki bu gelişme AB için önemlidir. Zira, Türkiye’nin başka bölgeler üzerindeki etki ve ilgisi, Ankara’nın dışpolitikası üzerinde Avrupa’nın rolünün giderek azalmasına yol açmaktadır. Bu yüzden de Avrupalıların AB katılım müzakerelerine işaretle Türkiye üzerinde etkili olma olanakları giderek azalmaktadır. Bu durum, Kıbrıs sorunu için olduğu kadar Türkiye’nin NATO’daki davranışı konusunda da geçerlidir.

AB’nin nüfuz kaybı orta vadede, Türklerin AB’ye katılım sürecinin her iki taraftan yarı gönüllü sürdürülecek bir formaliteye dönüşmesiyle sonuçlanabilir. Böyle sonuçlanması halinde Avrupalılar, Türkiye’yi gerçekten AB’ye almak isteyip istemedikleri şeklindeki nahoş sorudan kurtulacaktır. Ancak AB, uluslararası sahnede Türkiye’yi görmezden gelebileceği umuduna kapılmamalıdır.
- 09 Apr 2009, 11:41 pm
Dr. Nilgün Birgören wrote: > Tirajı günde 149 bin 431 olan liberal eğilimli Der Tagesspiegel > gazetesinin 7 Nisan 2009 tarihli sayfasında, Thomas Seibert imzasıyla > ve yukardaki başlık altında yayımlanan yorumun çevirisi şöyledir: > > —Obama’nın Türkiye Ziyareti, Ülkenin Artan Önemini Vurguluyor— > > ABD Başkanı Barack Obama, Türkiye’nin AB’ye alınmasını talep ediyor > ve Ankara ile İstanbul’a gerçekleştirdiği iki günlük ziyaretiyle > Boğaz’daki müttefikin stratejik önemini vurguluyor. Bu arada, Anders > Fogh Rasmussen’in yeni genel sekreter olarak atanmasına direnen, daha > sonra da onayını siyasi tavizler karşısında satın aldıran Türkiye, > NATO müttefikini zor durumda bırakıyor. Türk başkentinde Pakistan ile > Afganistan Devlet Başkanları güvenlik konularını görüşmek üzere > biraya geliyorlar. > > Batı’daki birçok devletin işine gelmese de, bu gelişmeler yeni > realiteleri yansıtıyor. Türkiye uluslararası sahnedeki siyasi rolünü > giderek güçlendiriyor. Bu yüzden, Obama’nın ziyaretinin sadece > Türkiye’ye yönelik olmadığı söylenebilir. Amerikan Başkanı böylece, > İslam dünyası ile iyi ilişkilere önem verdiğini yansıtıyor. > Erdoğan’ın dindar-muhafazakar hükümeti yönetiminde Müslüman, ancak > laik bir yapıya sahip olan Türkiye, İslam dünyasında lider rolünü > üstlenmiş bulunuyor. > > Türk-Amerikan ilişkileri kesinlikle sorunsuz değil. Ancak, > anlaşıldığı kadarıyla Obama hükümeti, bu görüş ayrılıklarının, > Türkiye’yi ABD ve Batı’ya bağlama hedefinden saptırmasına izin > vermemekte kararlı, ki bu da kimseyi şaşırtmıyor: Türkiye geçtiğimiz > yıllarda Orta Doğu’da arabulucuk yaptı ve bu şekilde zorlu, ancak > önemli olan İran ve Suriye gibi komşularıyla ilişkilerini düzeltti. > Bugün Türkiye, Batılı devletlerin temas kurması zor olan ülke ve > gruplarla görüşebiliyor. > > Geçtiğimiz yıllarda güçlü bir şekilde büyüyen ekonomisiyle Türkiye, > dünyanın en büyük 20 endüstri devleti arasındaki yerini aldı. Ayrıca > halihazırda BM Güvenlik Konseyi üyesi. Öte yandan ülke, Batı’nın > enerji tedariki için bir enerji kavşağı olma yolunda. Erdoğan, > Türkiye’nin dış politikasını “Başka ülkeler ne der?” düşüncesiyle > yönlendirdiği dönemlerin artık geride kaldığını vurguluyor. Bu, dış > dünya tarafından her zaman hoş karşılanmıyor. Erdoğan’ın zaman zaman > telkin ettiği gibi, Türklerin bölgede artan etkisi Ankara’nın > otomatikman AB üyeliği hakkına sahip olacağı anlamına da gelmiyor. > > Ancak Türkiye’nin, uluslararası alanda siyasi bakımdan beş yıl > öncesinde olduğundan çok daha güçlü olduğu bir gerçektir. Bu gerçek > gerçi ABD tarafından farkedildi, ancak AB tarafından şimdiye değin > farkedilmedi. Halbuki bu gelişme AB için önemlidir. Zira, Türkiye’nin > başka bölgeler üzerindeki etki ve ilgisi, Ankara’nın dışpolitikası > üzerinde Avrupa’nın rolünün giderek azalmasına yol açmaktadır. Bu > yüzden de Avrupalıların AB katılım müzakerelerine işaretle Türkiye > üzerinde etkili olma olanakları giderek azalmaktadır. Bu durum, > Kıbrıs sorunu için olduğu kadar Türkiye’nin NATO’daki davranışı > konusunda da geçerlidir. > > AB’nin nüfuz kaybı orta vadede, Türklerin AB’ye katılım sürecinin her > iki taraftan yarı gönüllü sürdürülecek bir formaliteye dönüşmesiyle > sonuçlanabilir. Böyle sonuçlanması halinde Avrupalılar, Türkiye’yi > gerçekten AB’ye almak isteyip istemedikleri şeklindeki nahoş sorudan > kurtulacaktır. Ancak AB, uluslararası sahnede Türkiye’yi görmezden > gelebileceği umuduna kapılmamalıdır.

Turkish Business Club

TURKIYE AND OBAMA'S DEEPER GAME

President Obama’s speech to Turkish parliament

DER TAGESSPİEGEL: BÜYÜK SAHNEDE TÜRKİYE