I also happen to know that in our country, none of the “military” attempts will reach the target if Washington is not directly involved or gives “tacit approval.”

- 19 / 05 / 2008 14:26

As a group of media representatives in addition to faculty members and administrators from Bilgi University in Istanbul, we got together with former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at the Santral Istanbul Museum the other day and talked about a series of events varying from the U.S. presidential election race to Ms. Albright's criticisms about foreign policy of the Bush administration, to the “closure case” making the agenda in Turkey.

  Ms. Albright was appointed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, having the right to attend governmental meetings, in the first half of the eight-year Bill Clinton presidency period and she became the secretary of state in the second half of it. Today, she supports Hillary Rodham Clinton in the presidential race. But I see through her remarks that she seems to accept Barack Obama's possible victory as the Democratic presidential candidate. As for the Republican candidate John McCain, “If a third Bush period is wanted, McCain will have votes,” she cuts it short. But she previously had said McCain was not a “typical Republican.”  

  Albright on Turkey:

  What is of interest to us is her approach and remarks about Turkey's internal politics. To me, Ms. Albright is “interesting” in two ways. During the “post-modern coup” in Turkey, i.e. the February 28 process, she was U.S. secretary of state. I know that she tried at that time to prevent a “military coup détat” in Turkey and gave a “green light” to the removal of the Refah Party from the government, without having a coup.

  I also happen to know that in our country, none of the “military” attempts will reach the target if Washington is not directly involved or gives “tacit approval.” Besides, a month before the July 22 elections Ms. Albright was in Istanbul again and we met again. She seemed to adopt the middle-way approach of the United States, which was found “shameful” by democracy observers, against the April 27 military e-memorandum. She tried to explain her approach with the rights and authorities of the military granted both by the Turkish Constitution and the legal system. When I elaborated that this is not the case, there is no article allowing such an act neither in the Constitution nor in the legal system, she was so surprised and had a need to correct her attitude.

  This time, the Ms. Albright I saw on Saturday was more lucid. She clearly noted that “Even the Bush administration cannot affirm and support a military intervention” as she looked against the “closure case.”

  Noteworthy information came from U.S Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Dan Fried, who met a TUSİAD delegation last week in a closed Washington meeting, that in case of a decision to shut down the government party in Turkey, Washington will not “understand, cannot understand, accept and back” the decision.

  Apparently, Washington adopts clearer language in private meetings than seemingly “balanced” ones reflected in official statements. Or, Europe's crystal-clear and principled attitude on the subject slowly drags the United States into a stance sharing the same wavelength with the European Union.

  In this respect, one should pay attention to the meeting to take place in California this week between British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice, since Britain, in the course of Queen Elizabeth II's visit to Turkey, has already given extremely strong support to Turkey's democratic process and EU membership bid.

  One other piece of information from the U.S. capital Washington is that, aside from the Republican administration counting down to leave, neither the Obama team nor the Clinton camp, will approach Turkey if the country's ruling party is closed down.

  Mark Parris' influence:

  At this point, an article by Mark Parris, a retired career diplomat, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey and a counselor to the Brookings Institution's Turkey Project, in his article titled “Turkey's Court's Should Respect the Will of the People” published in the Wall Street Journal's May 17 edition, should be seen and evaluated as a “sign.”

  In this article, Parris seriously criticized the Tayyip Erdoğan government in terms of the policies it followed after the July 22 elections. Albright in her remarks and questions often reminded us of Parris' article and reflected the importance of Parris' op-ed in the eyes of American decision-makers.

  Let me share how Parris enumerates in his article about the consequences of a possible closure for Turkey:

  "The consequences for Turkey are as grim as they are predictable: parliamentary and bureaucratic dysfunction as the case makes its way through the court (a process that could consume months); political churning and a greater likelihood of disruptive and polarizing new national elections; evaporation of foreign investor confidence and economic slowdown; undermining of Turkey's already fraught candidacy for admission to the EU; and the devaluing of its image and influence abroad. In short, a lost year, or more, for a country of enormous strategic importance and almost unlimited potential.”

  Parris touched upon not just Turkey but the entire international system being harmed due to the characteristics of the country, in the following paragraph:

  “The loss will not be Turkey's alone. While some have sought by labeling the party ‘Islamist' to suggest its hostility to Western values, and thus to avoid a discussion of the merits of the case to close it down, the fact is that the AKP – with all its warts – is the closest thing to a liberal democratic party in Turkey today. None of the alternatives even come close.

  Yes, the AKP has made mistakes that have raised questions about its ultimate intentions. And Turkey's voters ought to hold its leadership accountable at the ballot box. But the party's neutering would be a serious setback for democracy in a region where – and at a moment in history when – it matters greatly.”

  And from there on, Parris criticizes that the United States' indifference to the AKP's fate would be “myopic.” From all these, we can say that the United States is getting closer to the EU in this aspect. Apparently Ankara will have to decide soon whether it is living in this world or on another planet.