BY ALI H. ASLAN
TODAY'S ZAMAN- Three days after Turkey's Sept. 12 referendum passed a new constitutional reform package by 58 percent, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip H. Gordon spoke in Washington.
The occasion was the release of the Transatlantic Trends survey by the German Marshall Fund. The soft tone of Gordon's messages on Turkey left his audience surprised. He was the same senior official who previously used an Associated Press interview just before June's G-20 summit in Canada to voice extremely harsh criticism at the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government over its Iran policy. What might have caused his change in attitude?
The German Marshall Fund report was filled with critical data and analyses supporting claims that Turkish public opinion is drifting away from the US, European Union, and NATO. In fact, the report didn't even place Turkey in the same group as the original 11 EU member countries, unlike previous reports, but put it in a different category and provided a separate column for Turkey in most of its graphical analyses. (This must have pleased Europeans who favor 'privileged partnership' proposals). Gordon, however, was keen to not say anything that would support claims of a shift in axis in Turkey. Actually, he didn't say anything at all which would distress our government.
I have a feeling the '58 percent factor' had a critical role in Gordon's attitude. Realizing that the AK Party, which in a sense won a vote of confidence in the referendum as well, would stay in power for some time to come, the US administration quickly adjusted itself. As a result, those in the US who have been lobbying against Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government failed once again.
Due to campaigning by experts at think-tanks especially close to the Israeli lobby carried out in collaboration with their friends in Turkey, many in Washington had started to believe that the AK Party was on its way out. It was suggested that the referendum would be very close and would pave the way to a Republican People's Party (CHP)-Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) coalition government after next year's election, making it possible for the US to get rid of the AK Party. Such deceit has influenced some key figures in the US administration. Many of the Turkish and American experts who were invited to various brainstorming sessions, including those held in the presence of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, held this view. Fortunately, these individuals, who had the opportunity to pour out their hatred for the AK Party in private gatherings, were unable to much influence seasoned and wise Americans in their audiences. In fact, I heard that some of the emotional assessments, which were more insulting than analytical, backfired.
Despite objections from the US State Department, where the view that the Erdogan government should be challenged and brought down a peg seems prevalent, US President Barack Obama called Prime Minister Erdogan on the day of the referendum and congratulated him, a move that served as a critical turning point. Notorious foes of the AK Party in Washington had a fit when Obama congratulated Erdogan, thereby from the top setting the tone for how his administration would respond to Ankara in the future.
The 58 percent phenomenon effectively thwarted the predominant view argued in brainstorming sessions in institutions in Washington that the US should distance itself from the Erdogan government. Americans are set to reassess the situation. Even the pro-Israel lobby's efforts against the government might not resonate in the US Congress as much as they did before the referendum because, and in the final analysis, the school of thought that dominates foreign affairs in Washington is pragmatic and realistic. This line becomes more dominant in the higher echelons of the government, and its chief representative is Obama.
Obama's kind phone call on Sept. 12 to congratulate Prime Minister Erdogan despite the unpleasant memories of Turkish policies with Armenia and Iran shows that the chemistry between the two leaders is still intact. Turkey is very fortunate that the US is being led by such a sincere, peaceful, and world-class intellectual as Obama. What upsets me is that problems in Turkish-US relations remain even during the era of Obama, who visited Turkey on his first transatlantic trip as president and shows the value and importance he attaches to Turkey at every occasion.
I believe Obama still values the US relationship with Turkey and won't be fooled by deliberate or ignorant claims against it. On the other hand, it's also important that we assist Obama a bit more in making his foreign policy, which for the most part fits Turkey's goals, successful. That's because a reformist Obama is needed not just for the US but for Turkey and the world for some time to come.
We must see that the issue of containing Iran isn't just a function of the pro-Israel lobby but essential to Obama's political future as well. If Tehran acquires nuclear weapons and a chain reaction of nuclear armament starts in the Middle East under Obama's watch, who has declared nuclear disarmament one of his biggest foreign policy objectives, just imagine how much credibility he will lose in domestic and foreign policy. Don't forget that the Republicans, who have been constantly undermining Obama by shamelessly spreading rumors that he is a Muslim and a socialist, would exploit any failure in the Iranian policy. And if the Republicans take control of the US again, have no doubt that they will follow a more nationalist, exclusionist, and pro-war policy. They might even try to revive the system of guardianship regimes in Turkey with the support of the pro-Israel lobby.
In brief, the 58 percent outcome led Washington to realign itself. It strengthened the hand of Obama, who prefers the policy of engagement with the Erdogan government. In return, Ankara should help Obama out.