Turkish Forum

Category: Cyprus/TRNC

  • Military Relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey

    Military Relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey

    After the collapse of USSR, necessaries of new states were that economic, politic, military and educational relations with each other and other international platforms and countries. On that way all former Soviet countries created Commonwealth of Independence States union. With creation of CIS, these countries which were unificated on old Soviet map will create new relations on the new world system. Also for regulating new systems, geopolitical situation was very important. Firstly a state can create strong relations where it was near another state.

    If we describe relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan, we will see influence of border factor. Strong relations of Turkey with Azerbaijan are result of near abroad condition.
    Cooperations of Turkey and Azerbaijan had been decreased sometimes. But it ended in new powerful authorities.

    Pro Russian politics of Ayaz Muttalibov influenced Turkish relations as only embassy found. In short time of Muttalibov administrative Turkey was working to make new perspective for other Turkish countries.

    Ebulfez Elchibey who came to power after Muttalibov followed new way Pro Turkish politics as opposite to Muttalibov. So many agreements had been created in economy, military, education, energy, politics and new activities started. First military cooperations between Azerbaijan and Turkey borned in that time.

    In 1992 military education agreement signed between Azerbaijani and Turkish government. In this period Azerbaijan was working to create international pressure circumstances on Armenia about Nagorno Karabakh conflict. So military agreements with Turkey, created new tensions in this region. We can say a diminish symbol with Russia as military.

    Military conventions were less than next years in new political actions to make strong authority and balanced actions period. Haydar Aliyev’s balance political way made a cooperation as pragmatist mind of Azerbaijan. We will see importance of Turkish military agreements. Because if Azerbaijan want to be important actor on this region, it should regulate new relations for the USA and NATO via Turkey.

    In 1996 between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of Turkey on base of cooperation of staff members of supporting service of Armed Forces protocol signed.

    In 1997 between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of Turkey on regulation of civil and military flying in 10 km of astride Azerbaijan-Turkey border protocol signed.

    In that time agreements of Azerbaijan with Iran and Russia were targeting only friendship situation and solve problems on bounds And agreements with the USA were not totally military cooperations. It is important to not forget that Russian embargo on Azerbaijan because of Chechen problem increased Turkish inclination on military subjects. Strong relations with Turkey of Azerbaijan will create new diplomatical positions from Cyprus to Yerevan.

    Military positions as international importance of Azerbaijan borned with agreement between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of Turkey on activities of platoon of Azerbaijan is going to the Kosovo in the staff of Turkey battalion.
    Azerbaijan will keep its soldiers untill period of independence of Kosovo. With this step Azerbaijan became an important and strategical country on extend to East policy of NATO. Azerbaijan won a good position on Caucasus region with taking some other militaryal duties via Turkey in different countries.

    In 2000 between the Ministry of defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and Head of Naval Forces of Republic of Turkey about giving the attack launch of AB-34 P-134 to the Azerbaijan protocol signed and :

    – Protocol between the Ministry of defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and Ministry of national security of Republic of Turkey on cooperation in the topographical area,
    – Protocol between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Turkey on forming and training of profession school of forces kind of Baku,
    – Protocol between the Ministry of defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey on carrying out of the material and technical purchasing,
    – Agreement between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of Turkey on military industry cooperation signed.

    In 2001 between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey on development of Nakhchivan 5th army protocol;

    In 2002 Ministry of defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey on cooperation in the area of war history, military archive and museum work and military publication protocol and in 2003 between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of on training, material and technical assistance of State Border Service of Azerbaijan by Armed Forces of Turkey and Protocol between Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on cooperation in the safety of the West-East energy corridor protocol signed.

    Since 1999 Azerbaijan took steps quickly. As opposite to Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia and Greece signed an agreement as “Send Armenian soldiers to Kosovo via Greek army”. Armenian parliament agreed this on 13 December 2003. According to this agreement 30 Armenian soldiers had gone to Kosovo with ratification of Ministry of Defence of Armenia. It had been explained as to support European-Atlantic integration on South Caucasus. Against to modernization of Azerbaijan by Turkish Military Forces, Greece take a decision to support to Armenian army. Also military cooperations created influences on political problems. In that time mix circumstances about these events will share a balance of situations on energy and trade agreements.

    After the September 11 terrorist acts, Azerbaijan supported the decision of counter attack to terrorism of the USA. So it sent some peacekeepers to Afghanistan and opened air space for American forces. These actions share Turkish support and modernisation to Azerbaijani army. Azerbaijan use this experiment to be main actor in the region.

    In 2004 and 2005 between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of Turkey on long-term economical and military cooperation and between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey on application of the financial aid protocol signed.

    And in 2006 between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey on application of material and technical provision protocol shared new improvements of new actor.

    Since 2006 new approaches regulated cooperations with other states :
    – Supports of Azerbaijan to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,
    – Turkey purchases rockets from the USA,
    – New relations of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey as result of alternative energy way against to Russia.

    Same year new circumstances created balance regulations for Azerbaijan with agreement of natural gas project with Greece. It was political and militaryal goal of Azerbaijan because Yerevan loosed its good militaryal and political relations with Greece. So it must choose a new way as balance politics.

    There is a balance activities with military cooperations of Azerbaijani relations from the independence time. Pro Turkish military activities regulated international perspective on problems of Azerbaijan. Example, mainly Azerbaijan use Cyprus card about Greek support to Armenia. And also it used totally the USA and NATO supports and created new politics as alternative to Russia. We can say thay experiments of Elchibey’s totally Pro Turkish politics and Aliyev’s balance politics which agree all region as a whole will regulate positions of Caucasus region.

    Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU / Baku Qafqaz University

  • Duchess and Daughters: Their Shambolic Secret Mission

    Duchess and Daughters: Their Shambolic Secret Mission

    FTA UK Press Release
    London, 10th November 2008    The Federation of Turkish Associations UK would like to voice their extreme frustration and disappointment at the actions and comments of the Duchess of York, presenter Chris Rogers and inferences made by Barrister John Cooper in the broadcasting of the distorted portrayal of Turkey in the programme “Duchess and Daughters: Their Secret Mission” aired by ITV on the 6th October 2008.

    The rules and broadcasting codes laid out by Ofcom have been infringed according to section 1: “protecting the under eighteens”, section 2: “harm and offence”, section 3: “crime”, section 5: “due impartiality and due accuracy”, section 7: “fairness” and section 8: “privacy” and we are reporting these infringements to Ofcom and expect a full and detailed explanation of why this programme has been allowed to be aired. 

    Duchess and Daughters: Their Shambolic Secret Mission 

    The Federation of Turkish Associations UK would like to voice their extreme frustration and disappointment at the actions and comments of the Duchess of York, presenter Chris Rogers and inferences made by Barrister John Cooper in the broadcasting of the distorted portrayal of Turkey in the programme “Duchess and Daughters: Their Secret Mission” aired by ITV on the 6th October 2008. 

    As an NGO based in the UK, we have to clarify that our criticism regarding this programme is not because it is highlighting an institution which certainly needs improvement or to defend the methods used to treat mentally or disabled children under state protection in those institutions, but the presentation made and the wording used in the program to accuse and insult the Turkish nation as a whole. 

    We would of course like to see things improve in the social services in Turkey and as we are informed many improvements have been made over recent years. It is a pity that this programme has been made in such a way as to misguide the British public as to the conditions and attitudes towards disabled children in Turkey and has created negativity in the relations between the two countries and more seriously created grave concerns amongst the Turkish community in this country as to the aims and sincerity of ITV. 

    It is clear that the programme from the beginning had a separate agenda, perhaps to glorify the work of the Duchess of York or as a locomotive to encourage opposition to Turkey’s aspirations about the EU. It seems that the producers of the programme had in mind more of a two-pronged PR stunt aimed firstly at demonising Turkey and secondly at improving the flailing popularity of the Duchess of York at someone else’s expense. Perhaps in her own mind, she imagines she can fill the void left by Princess Diana who was a true campaigner for humanitarian causes. Unfortunately, our members do not believe that she sincerly cares about the issue and suggest she participate in a programme uncovering some of the child abuse cases that are frequently uncovered in Britain or to visit the war zones in Afganistan and Iraq to see the gross humanitarian crisis, particularly in the lives of innocent children.  

    Secret cameras used to film as if there were some cloak and dagger activities going on seem to be gimmicks used to imply that the Duchess was in some form of danger in Turkey. Another reference to police stopping the camera crew likened Ankara to some third world war zone, sensationalising the programme. Some of our members have been stopped and searched several times in the centre of London and they don’t need a camera to prove this since ‘stop and search’ is used as a regular practice by Metropolitan Police.  

    In any case the institutions visited by the Duchess were not orphanages for abandoned children as portrayed, but institutions for the mentally disabled. These institutions so ‘secretly’ filmed by the Duchess are open for inspection on a regular basis to NGO’s from anywhere in the world and not ‘hidden away’ as implied by the documentary. After the filming, no respect was shown to the rights of those filmed to protect their identity and no permission was obtained to show the film from the families of those involved. This is a gross violation of their rights. 

    Certain actions and generalisations used in the programme have been found very offensive by our members and have led to distress and disillusionment across a wide section of our community. Comments made such as “Many of these children are abandoned by their parents because in Turkey there is a shame associated with having a disabled child” is an unfair and untrue generalisation suggesting that Turkish people do not care about their handicapped. 

    Turkey has a population estimated at 70 million, of which 3% are registered as either physically or mentally disabled putting the total amount of handicapped people at approximately 2.1 million. The number of mentally disabled children in these 53 homes and institutions total only 3673 given by the State Ministry of Women and Family Affairs. This in itself shows, contrary to the accusations in the programme, that the vast majority of handicapped children are looked after in the home. The new initiatives set up by the government are facilitating even more of those in homes to be looked after back in their family unit. Unlike Britain, in Turkey most of the families look after their handicapped children at home and without any financial assistance from the government. Those children shown in the documentary are there because they come from extremely poverty stricken families or broken homes. 

    Again, claims by Barrister John Cooper “any country that treats its children like this is not ready to accede to a family of nations that aspire to dignity and humanity” is an insult to the whole nation and has given our members the feeling that the whole programme has been engineered to smear Turks and Turkey in an attempt to sabotage their accession. We would be very pleased if all EU member countries treat their children as he claims but we all know his statement is far from truth. 

    Comments like “Europe’s forgotten children”, “no hope for kids”, “born with a life sentence”, “grave concerns on Turkey’s human rights record” and many others are all exaggerated and unfair to the children or staff of the institutions shown in the programme.  

    Many things were also wrongly implied, for example, the impression was given that Britain is only giving support to Turkey because they need their cooperation in the war on terror. This is an outrageous claim, since Turkey has been on the forefront of fighting terrorism for many years and has suffered attacks at the hands of Al Qaida on several occasions.  

    It is very regrettable that such a programme has been aired, ignoring the damage it will make to the innocent people who live and work in those institutions. It is essential when doing any programme that a complete and balanced view be provided for the viewer and this is the responsibility not only of those involved in the filming but more so by the producers and broadcasters whom in this instance, have shown a blatant disregard for professional ethics.  

    We believe the rules and broadcasting codes laid out by Ofcom have been infringed by ITV1 according to section 1: “protecting the under eighteens”, section 2: “harm and offence”, section 3: “crime”, section 5: “due impartiality and due accuracy”, section 7: “fairness” and section 8: “privacy”. Therefore, we are reporting these infringements to Ofcom and expect a full and detailed explanation of why this programme has been allowed to be aired. 

    We believe that the “Every Child Matters” policy of the Government is vital and should be made universal. Whatever a child’s background or circumstances, they should be given the support they need to stay safe and healthy, enjoy, achieve, make a positive contribution and reach economic wellbeing. Therefore, we all have to work towards making the lives of all children better wherever in the world they may live, certainly not using them as a tool for personal or political aspirations just because they are a member of another nation. The positive approach would be offering sincere help by providing training courses in working with the disabled and psychiatrically disturbed and supporting those NGO’s who are making a difference to their inadequate system of caring for the disabled. 

    We as viewers have every right to expect fair, impartial, accurate and balanced programs from ITV and are therefore demanding that another program be aired to repair the damage done and help those affected. We also expect an apology from the Duchess of York for not acting responsibly and taking part in a program based on politics to smear Turkey by exploiting mentally disabled Turkish children and her daughters should realise that it is us, the British taxpayer that provides them with their luxurious lifestyles not Turkish or Romanian. If the Duchess and her daughters want to get involved in good causes there are many deserving groups in this country who may welcome their involvement and their financial contribution. Charity begins at home.

    Notes to editors

    About FTA UK

    The Federation of Turkish Associations UK (FTA UK) was formed in 2002 consisting of sixteen independent and diverse Turkish associations to bring together the voice of their members on common issues. The FTA UK represents a large proportion of the Turkish community which is estimated at nearly 500,000 ethnic Turks who live mainly in London and its surrounding areas and includes Turkish Cypriots.

    The Federation’s main aims and objectives are; to bring together the Turks living in Britain in solidarity and strengthen their relationship; to help the community to integrate better within the British system whilst maintaining their own culture and identity; to find solutions to their common problems and protect their common interests; to promote and enhance the British – Turkish friendship and to share the Turkish culture and history.

    The Federation carries out its duties completely independently without being influenced by any political party, ethnic influence, religion or any form of discrimination and in the interest of the British-Turkish Community. It is a non profit – non governmental organisation and acts as an umbrella organisation and communication vehicle for the whole community. 

    Contact FTA UK :

    E-mail: [email protected]
    Post: FTA UK, 41 Camberwell Church Street, London SE5 8TR
    Telephone : + 44 (0)77 7000 003

  • Turkish speaking news agencies gather in Cyprus

    Turkish speaking news agencies gather in Cyprus

    Heads of Turkish speaking news agencies gathered on Friday in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus at a consultative meeting in a bid to strengthen cooperation between news agencies of Turkic countries.
    Friday, 14 November 2008 13:51
    Addressing the meeting of the Association of Turkish Speaking News Agencies (TKA), Hilmi Bengi, director general of the Anadolu Agency, said the association would continue to work with “a new momentum after its latest enlargement.”

    Anadolu Agency from Turkey, Turkish News Agency-Cyprus from Northern Cyprus, AzerTac from Azerbaijan, Kyrgyz News Agency, and the Crimean News Agency participated at the consultative meeting and they issued a final declaration, vowing to increase cooperation.

    AA

    Source: www.worldbulletin.net, 14 November 2008
  • 1.INTERNATIONAL CYPRUS SYMPOSIUM

    1.INTERNATIONAL CYPRUS SYMPOSIUM

    Please find below the information about the 1. international Cyprus Symposium, which is going to be held between 21-23 November.

  • Obama Presidency: Perils and Prospects for Turkey

    Obama Presidency: Perils and Prospects for Turkey

    By Ferruh Demirmen 

    Senator Barack Obama’s election as the next President of the U.S. has caused trepidation in many Turkish circles. How would his administration’s foreign policy toward Turkey be? Would Turkey’s relations with the U.S. improve or worsen?  Indeed, there are perils on the horizon, but better times cannot be ruled out. The imponderables suggest that a “wait and see” stance is prudent. 

    Harsh Reality 

    On the potential downside, the Armenian question weighs heavily in U.S.-Turkey relations. Turks are understandably concerned that the Obama administration would recognize the so-called Armenian genocide. As most U.S. politicians who have been at the receiving end of generous campaign contributions from the Armenian lobby, Obama, as U.S. senator, supported Armenian genocide claims. He made this clear during Senate confirmation hearings of U.S. Ambassador-Designate to Armenia Richard Hoagland two years ago, and again early this year when he called for passage of Armenian genocide resolutions H.Res.106 & S.Res.106 in the Congress. He was influenced and counseled on this subject by none other than Samantha Power, an ardent proponent of Armenian “genocide.”

    Samantha Power holds the dubious distinction of being a non-Armenian and a virulent Turk-hater at the same time. The loose-mouthed lady of supposed scholarly reputation disgraced herself last March when she called Senator Hillary Clinton a “monster.” She had to resign as adviser to Senator Obama. Not surprisingly, Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) strongly endorsed (probably in violation of its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status) Senator Obama’s candidacy.

    The Armenian issue became more ominous for Turkey when Obama chose Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. As a U.S. senator and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden gave support to all Armenian genocide claims since they first came to the U.S. Senate floor in 1990. Biden urged President Bush to use the word “genocide” in his proclamations, and was an enthusiastic sponsor of the Senate Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.Res.106) in 2006. In early 2008, Senator Biden renewed his call for Congressional recognition of the resolution, and in July of this year he reiterated his commitment to have Armenian “genocide” officially recognized by both the American and Turkish governments.

    Also looming on the horizon is a Democrat-controlled Congress, with Nancy Pelosi as the House Speaker and John Kerry (unless appointed as the Secretary of State) at the helm of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The combination of Obama administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress augers a vexatious turn of events for Turkey as far as the Armenian issue. Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora will find that the confluence of events in their favor had never been better.

    Of course, there will also be geostrategic issues to consider, and the Obama administration may have second thoughts about recognizing a trumped-up allegation that would further sour an already-fragile relationship between the U.S. and Turkey – caused mainly by Iraq war. According to a June 2008 poll, only 12 percent of Turkish people have a favorable view of the U.S. – a historic low. With Turkey’s proximity to Russia, the Middle East and Central Asia, and its strategic location as an energy corridor, it would seem myopic from U.S. national security point of view to further alienate Turkey.

    In fact, just before the elections the Obama-Biden camp issued a foreign policy statement in which reference was made to strategic value of Turkey for U.S. interests. This suggests that Obama and Biden, as President and vice-President, might moderate their positions on Armenian “genocide.”

    A most likely scenario is that the Obama administration would spurn the Armenian lobby’s efforts to recognize Armenian “genocide” while remaining passive to Congressional initiatives to pass such a resolution. This would give the administration a diplomatic “cover” – a poor one at that – to disassociate itself from the genocide controversy.

    Disservice to History

    Such turn of events would still be regrettable. Surprisingly, Turks are generally content if official declarations from foreign sources relating to 1915 events do not use the word “genocide.” Hence the sigh of relief when, on April 24 every year, the U.S. presidents issue a declaration commemorating the 1915 events without referring to “genocide.” Such declarations do disservice to history, however, and are nearly as condemnatory of Turks as the use of the word “genocide.” Turks should demand fairness and disclosure of full facts.

    President Bush’s declarations, for example, have referred to “mass killings of as many as 1.5 million Armenians,” grossly exaggerating the number of Armenian victims. His declarations ignore the cause of the tragic events (Armenian rebellion) and the massacre of a half a million Moslems at the hands of armed Armenian gangs. Senator John McCain, while refraining from using the word “genocide,’ has taken a similar position on the Armenian issue. Such declarations imply that the sufferings and death of Moslems at the hand of Armenian gangs were somehow inconsequential.

    Before issuing commemorative declarations on the 1915 events, it would behoove President-elect Obama – and the members of the Congress for that matter – to listen to such eminent scholars as Bernard Lewis, Turkkaya Ataov, Justin McCarthy and Eric Feigl – to name a few – and hear the other side of a controversial issue. A one-sided condemnation of historical events, no matter how-oft-recited by propaganda, and no matter how-well-wrapped in campaign contributions, does not serve history. Nor does it serve the cause of human rights. History cannot be re-created by legislative or executive fiat.

    Equally important, it is long overdue for the Turkish government, and Turks in general, to be more proactive and aggressive in disseminating historical truth on the Armenian issue. If foreign politicians such as Obama and Biden, among others, have been misinformed on the subject, the Turkish government and Turks bear a good deal of responsibility. By default, the matter has been left pretty much to Armenia and the Armenian lobby to exploit. The dire consequences have been much too evident. Historians on the Armenian side do not even wish to debate with their Turkish counterparts.

    Iraq War and Cyprus

    The occupation of Iraq, spearheaded by neocon philosophy, has generated enormous tension between the U.S. and Turkey. The war has not only created violence and turmoil in a neighboring country, it also destroyed much of the bilateral trade (oil included) between Iraq and Turkey and seriously threatened the territorial integrity of Iraq. In this connection, Turks do not recall kindly the proposal made by Senator Biden in 2006 that Iraq be partitioned into three autonomous regions under a loose federation. His proposal was met with much disappointment in Turkey.

    Turks also view with much suspicion President Bush’s cozy relation with Iraq’s Kurdish leaders, with Masoud Barzani, a tribal leader, being a frequent guest at the White House and treated like a head of state. Ironically, the relatively “peaceful” Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq is where the PKK terrorists have recently gained strength. Within the past few years PKK attacks against the Turkish territory have become more frequent and more daring. These events have raised doubts in Turkey about the sincerity of President Bush to fight terrorism when terrorists do their dirty deed under the banner of PKK.

    Many in Turkish circles wonder whether the Bush administration is harboring clandestine intentions involving an independent Kurdistan at the expense of the territorial integrity of Turkey. Some have gone so far as suggesting that eventually the U.S. may have to make a choice between the Kurds and Turks.

    Such suspicions, if unchecked, could tear apart the long-held partnership between the U.S. and Turkey. Turkey’s membership in NATO could also be put on ice.

    There are signs that the Obama administration would reverse this ominous trend. First, unlike Bush, who favors an open-ended withdrawal, Obama favors a quick (but orderly) withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Second, the pre-election foreign policy statement from the Obama-Biden camp, noting that the Bush administration’s intervention in Iraq had helped revive the PKK threat against Turkey, identified close relationship with Turkey as being in U.S. national interest. It was also noted that the Obama administration would lead a diplomatic effort to bring together Turkish and Iraqi Kurdish leaders to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that deals with the PKK threat, guaranteeing Turkey’s territorial integrity. These are very hopeful signs.

    On Cyprus, Turks are somewhat apprehensive about the Obama administration’s stance. The concern arises from Biden’s close ties to the Greek and Greek-Cypriot lobbies, his support ,

    as U.S. senator, of the 1974 U.S. weapons embargo against Turkey, and Obama referring to Turkish troop presence on the island as “occupation.” The pre-election policy statement from the Obama-Biden camp, however, also calls for a negotiated settlement on Cyprus based on the principle of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, giving hope for an unbiased approach.

    In a broader context, Obama’s multilateralism and emphasis on diplomacy, as opposed to Bush’s unilateralism and saber rattling, would help regional stability and bolster U.S.-Turkey relations.

    In summary, the Obama administration holds both perils and hopes for Turkey, and for U.S.-Turkey relationship. The imponderables abound, and a prudent stance is “wait and see.” But both countries should look forward to a closer partnership in a renewed spirit without the mistakes of the last eight years.

    [email protected]

  • OBAMA PRESIDENCY: A NEW ERA IN TURKISH-AMERICAN RELATIONS?

    OBAMA PRESIDENCY: A NEW ERA IN TURKISH-AMERICAN RELATIONS?

    OBAMA PRESIDENCY: A NEW ERA IN TURKISH-AMERICAN RELATIONS?

    By Saban Kardas

    Friday, November 7, 2008

    Many Turks joined the worldwide rejoicing over the Democrats’ victory and Barack Obama’s election as the next president of the United States. The Turkish public is sympathetic to Obama’s call for change as they find parallels in his story to Turkey’s experience with the reformist wave brought about by the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) landslide electoral victory in 2002.

    President Abdullah Gul, in a letter to President-elect Obama, reflected this positive mood in Turkey: “Your message of change and hope is one that meets the expectations of our day. It is a message that Turkey embraces” (www.cankaya.gov.tr, November 5). Similarly, by emphasizing Obama’s background, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan presented Obama’s victory as evidence of the American political system’s democratic credentials (www.cnnturk.com, November 5). Obama’s vision on pressing issues of American politics aside, his promises of reorienting America’s role in the world instilled hope for a new direction in American foreign policy, hence reinvigorating the Turkish American relations in the wake of the Bush administration.

    Growing anti-Americanism in Turkey, caused by the current administration’s unpopular policies, has been one of the factors adversely affecting Turkish-American relations. Several studies have found that the Turkish people harbored unfavorable views about the United States and preferred the Democrat Obama over Republican John McCain (Pew Global Attitudes Survey, June 12; www.pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/260.pdf). Given the positive image of Obama among the Turkish people, analysts expect him to take important steps toward saving the United States’ image in Turkey and helping to revitalize the relationship (Turkish Daily News, November 6).

    When the candidates’ views on specific issues of concern to Turkey were compared, however, many within the Turkish policy community tended to favor McCain. Given his refusal to pledge to recognize the events of 1915 as genocide against the Armenians (in contrast to Obama’s commitment to support Armenian claims) and his familiarity with and appreciation of Turkey’s strategic importance to U.S. interests, McCain had appeared to be the more favorable choice (Today’s Zaman, February 21). Similarly, the widespread belief that Obama’s position on certain issues might damage Turkey’s interests led many Turkish-Americans to support McCain despite their overall preference for Obama (Newsweek, November 1).

    In his campaign Obama partly overcame some of Turkey’s concerns, and grew more sensitive to the strategic value of Turkish-American relations. His new draft agenda for partnership with Europe had a section entitled “Restoring the Strategic Partnership with Turkey.” Having emphasized the negative legacy of the Bush administration, Obama has promised to “lead a diplomatic effort to bring together Turkish and Iraqi Kurdish leaders and negotiate a comprehensive agreement that deals with the PKK threat, guarantees Turkey’s territorial integrity,… [and supports Turkey’s] efforts to join the European Union.” Obama appeared to satisfy Turkey’s concerns on the issues of Cyprus and nuclear proliferation in Iran (www.barackobama.com/pdf/fact_sheet_europe_final.pdf).

    The specifics of Obama’s foreign policy have not yet materialized; hence, they are full of uncertainties for Turkey. Obama’s broad goals, such as supporting global peacemaking efforts, buttressing regional allies, and refocusing on energy security in regions surrounding Turkey, are definitely welcome to Turkey and partly explain the Turkish leaders’ warm congratulations. Moving away from militarization of U.S. policies in favor of diplomacy, for instance, resonates well with Turkey’s new role as a regional peacemaker. Now that Turkey will be on the UN Security Council, cooperation between the two countries in this area will be increasingly important. Erdogan therefore expressed his hope that Barack Obama would contribute to international peace, particularly in the Middle East. Erdogan reiterated his belief that the two countries would maintain strategic relations. Erdogan is due to visit the United States on November 15 and reportedly plans to meet Obama during that trip (Taraf, November 6). The Turkish business community, which has started to feel the effects of the global financial crisis, is also positive about Obama’s election. They believe Obama is better placed to solve the financial crisis (Dunya, November 6).

    Nonetheless, it remains to be seen how the Obama-Biden ticket’s previously announced plans about such issues as the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and possible partition of the country and its controversial statements about Cyprus will affect Turkish-American relations (see “Yeni Amerikan Baskani Obama ve Turk Amerikan Iliskileri,” ASAM Bakis, No.8, November 2008; www.asam.org.tr/temp/temp1181.pdf). Obama’s persistent and unequivocal commitment to the Armenian interpretation of the events of 1915 and the Karabakh conflict remain the main roadblock to improving Turkish-American relations under the new administration (www.obama.com). Just days before the election the Obama-Biden campaign reaffirmed its pledge to recognize the events of 1915 as genocide (ANCA, Press Release, www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=1620). Many Turkish foreign affairs experts believe that mismanagement of the “G” word issue might not only strain relations but also negatively affect ongoing efforts for reconciliation between Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey (www.cnnturk.com, November 5).

    Erdogan was optimistic about avoiding such a head-on collision. He hopes that the promises made on the Armenian theme by Obama the candidate will remain election rhetoric for Obama the President. He believes that Obama will tone down these arguments when he assumes office, because there is a dimension of Turkish-American relations dictated by strategic reality that will not be altered by a change in the White House (Star, November 5). The Turkish leader had demonstrated a similar optimism about the moderating effect of holding office with regard to Obama’s reported reference to Turkey as an “occupier” in Cyprus. Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan maintained, however, that this was part of campaign politics and once elected Obama would adjust his position (Zaman, October 20).

    As the AKP leaders’ own experience in power has shown, political office comes with certain responsibilities and definitely has a transformative impact on political leaders. The party believes that “common sense” might well prevail and that Obama will step back from some of his election rhetoric, which might help avoid tension in bilateral relations. What the AKP’s own experience also shows, however, is that reformists’ return to former practices can entail certain costs. If Obama goes down a similar path, following the dictates of “strategic reality,” he will fail to meet worldwide expectations for drastic changes in American foreign policy, including in Turkish-American relations.