Barin Kayaoglu
JTW Columnist

printable version
send your friend
message to author
add comment ()

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

As you read these lines, you will probably hear the latest on the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Tehran’s response to the latest Western offer – to further develop Iran’s low-enriched uranium in France and Russia and return it to Iran – is likely to be negative. Iranian officials will let the world know – once again – that nuclear energy is their “inalienable right,” that the proud Iranian nation will not bow to bullying, and, at any rate, they are not seeking nuclear weapons.

American officials will respond by saying that Iranian intransigence poses a grave threat to regional and international security, that they are suspicious of Iran’s motives in having a nuclear energy program, and they will threaten Iran with a new set of sanctions at the United Nations Security Council.

And hundreds of op-eds and blogs will argue about what to do. Some will blame Iran and call it a “terrorist state.” Others will use this as another example to show “American imperialism” at work.

I will refrain from joining those ranks. Instead, I will talk about two national burial grounds outside of Washington and Tehran: Arlington National Cemetery and Behesht-e Zahra Cemetery.

Arlington National Cemetery, located south of Washington across the Potomac River, came into being during the American Civil War (1861-65). The federal government expropriated the land from General Robert E. Lee as punishment, whose service to the Confederate side had caused the war to continue for 4 years.

Since 1865, the United States has buried over 300,000 servicemen and women at Arlington National Cemetery. Many families agree that the honor of having their loved ones buried there eases their suffering (as much as it could be eased). Every Memorial Day (May 25) in the United States, many families and former comrades visit their loved ones at Arlington.

South of Tehran, Behesht-e Zahra serves a similar purpose. Unlike Arlington, however, it is a burial ground for ordinary Iranians as well. But of the 250,000 who are buried there, the majority was combatants in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). Saddam Hussein had started that war and sustained it with massive Western military support. Most of those Iranian soldiers were young boys under the age of 25 when they died. And similar to Memorial Day in America, on every Thursday and religious holiday in Iran, relatives go to Behest-e Zahra to visit those soldiers.

The graves of fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters at these places are somber reminders of the real price of war.

So before Iranian and American policy-makers make up their mind about the next step, it would be humane for them to spend some time at Behesht-e Zahra and Arlington. Nothing can bring back the dead. But there is no good reason to start another Middle East war that would create new ones.

*****************

Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. candidate in history at The University of Virginia and a regular contributor to the Journal of Turkish Weekly.

E-mail: kayaoglu@virginia.edu

NOT-NOTE:

-Yazı önce Journel of Turkish Weekly’de yayınlanmıştır.Article first ıssued at Journal of Turkish Weekly

http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/3219/two-cemeteries-in-washington-and-tehran.html

-Ayrıca aşağıdaki blogda da yayınlanmıştır-Also publshed in blog below.

http://hopladedegi.wordpress.com/category/kisi-people/makaleleri-his-articles/two-cemeteries-in-washington-and-tehran/

Paylaş-Share

Barın Kayaoğlu

printable version
send your friend
message to author
add comment (0)

Friday, 17 April 2009

President Barack Obama’s visit to Turkey last week, his first to a Muslim nation since becoming Chief Executive on January 20, was a significant success. During his two-day visit to Ankara and Istanbul, Obama did and said all the right things. His most crucial statement came in response to the question of whether he was sending a message to the world by concluding his European trip in Turkey. His answer was, in plain and simple Turkish, “evet” (yes). “Turkey is a critical ally,” Obama said, “Turkey is an important part of Europe.” Therefore, “Turkey and the United States must stand together – and work together – to overcome the challenges of our time.” Obama also brought back old memories of U.S.-Turkish relations: “Turkish troops have served by our side from Korea to Kosovo to Kabul.”

To be sure, not all that the American president said was music to every Turkish ear. During the press conference with his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gül, Obama was reminded of his campaign promise to recognize the events of 1915 and the fate of Ottoman Armenians as genocide. The American president’s adroit response (that he stood by his statements, but Turks and Armenians are the ones who could resolve this issue) and his reference to the problematic episodes of U.S. history (slavery and the extermination of the Natives) was not welcomed by those on the Turkish political right.

Overall, however, Obama’s visit – less than three months into his presidency – has been well-received in Turkey. As opposed to the Bush administration, which carried out policies detrimental to Turkish interests and fueled anti-Americanism, Obama passed his first Turkish test.

The next test is approaching fast: On April 24 (the day that Armenians claim their genocide began), immense pressure will be brought on Obama. To be sure, Armenians’ hope to get Western powers – in this instance, the United States – to talk over Turkish heads is just as counterproductive today as it was a century ago. Therefore, as president, Obama will probably extricate himself by reiterating the statement he made in Turkey (“my views are on record and I have not changed my views [but] what I want to do is not focus on my views right now and focus on the views of the Turkish and the Armenian people”) and advise Armenian Americans and the Armenian Diaspora to sit down and talk things through with Turkey and Azerbaijan (Armenia’s occupation of twenty percent of Azeri territory bedevils Armenian-Turkish relations even more than the question of whether 1915 was a genocide or not).

A more critical test will be to secure Turkish cooperation in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. With the Bush administration’s successive blunders, Turkey, until recently, had followed a more independent course in all three countries. Ankara refused to deal with the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Northern Iraq and threatened unilateral military operation into the area; further improved its relations with Iran; and objected to U.S. pressure to increase its military presence in Afghanistan.

To be sure, Turkey has been readjusting its Iraq policy some time. In fact, both President Gül and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have paid state visits to Iraq since last summer. Meanwhile, as the Iraqi government does more to restrict the terrorist group PKK’s ability to stage attacks against Turkish forces and civilians, Ankara becomes more lenient toward the KRG. That change in attitude is now allowing Ankara to become involved in Iraq more constructively. For its part, by paying closer attention to Turkish concerns over the PKK, the Obama administration can pass that Turkish test as well.

Beyond Iraq, Turkey can use Obama’s presidency as an opportunity to underline its critical importance in the region. Ankara should help Washington with “talking Turkish” to Tehran. The Obama administration has already declared its willingness to negotiate directly with the Islamic Republic. This position very much reflects what Turkey has done with Iran since the late 1990s: trade and talk. By buying Iranian natural gas and negotiating the elimination of PKK terrorists from Iranian territory, Ankara has been able to resolve many of its disagreements with Tehran.

In this respect, if Washington addresses Iran’s security concerns – mostly emanating from the two American wars in its neighborhood – and supports projects to transport Iranian oil and natural gas to Europe through Turkey, it could achieve multiple objectives at once: Once Iran has more markets for its hydrocarbon and does not feel threatened by the United States, it will cooperate much more effectively in Iraq and Afghanistan and will be more open about its nuclear program (also rendering a pre-emptive strike by Israel useless). For Ankara, that mean removing Iran as a potential flashpoint and avoiding a third regional war in less than ten years.

With respect to Afghanistan and NATO, it is unlikely that Turkey shall commit more forces, something that Washington has been pushing for a while. Arguably, Turkey could have taken the initiative in the Central Asian nation by sending, say, 10,000 troops in exchange for Washington’s withdrawal of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s candidacy as the next Secretary-General of NATO. Regardless of one’s position on the Danish cartoon crisis, it is almost certain that the Taliban and Al Qaeda will use Rasmussen to undermine NATO efforts in Afghanistan.

But Rasmussen is clearly taking over on August 1. The good news is that Turkey has apparently secured one of the Deputy Secretariats-General as well as several senior military commands within the Alliance. On top of these, Turkey needs to do the smart thing and complement these gains with an increase in its civilian presence in Afghanistan. Even a symbolic increase in Turkish military posture will be an even more brilliant stroke. Turkish engineers and troops have been a welcome sight for Afghan people since the toppling of the Taliban in 2001. It is reported, for example, that some NATO countries that have troops in Afghanistan are putting small Turkish flags on the shoulders of their soldiers in order to protect them during patrols and convoy escorts. By assuming a commanding position in Afghanistan, Turkey can demonstrate to the United States and European Turcophobes its undeniable significance in one of the world’s most troublesome spots.

Given the negative reaction from French president Nicolas Sarkozy and German chancellor Angela Merkel to President Obama’s express endorsement of Turkey’s EU bid last week, it is unlikely that Turkey will be able to join the EU. On the other hand, Turkey can use the Obama opportunity to increase its posture in the areas to its south and east by playing a more constructive role. If Turkey accelerates its domestic economic and political reforms and set a better example to the Muslim world that democracy, secularism, and Islam can co-exist; if Turkey and the United States work more closely in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan; and if Ankara can resolve its problems with Armenia and mediate between Armenia and Azerbaijan, there will be no reason to worry about the likes of Sarkozy and Merkel.

Last week’s visit created a new momentum in Turkish-American relations. It must be used effectively. If Obama takes his Turkish tests seriously and if Ankara makes good use of the Obama opportunity, the future of U.S. relations with the Muslim world and Turkey can improve remarkably. “Evet, yapabiliriz!”

——————————————————————————–

Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. candidate in history at The University of Virginia and a regular contributor to the Journal of Turkish Weekly.

E-mail: kayaoglu@virginia.edu

See His Other Article (Bakınız Barın Kayaoğlu diğer makalesi)

http://www.dedegi.com/?p=336

Friday, 17 April 2009
Issued At
http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/3136/evet-yapabiliriz-obama’s-turkish-test-turkey’s-obama-opportunity.html