Turkish Forum English

Category: America

The Sarah Palin affair: World should breathe a sigh of relief

By Ferruh Demirmen

Anyone who thought that the U.S. 2008 Republican National Convention held in Saint Paul, Minnesota last September would be a dull event, got a big jolt of surprise when the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin walked onto the stage and delivered a rousing speech to a frenzied crowd. With gusto, a shrilly voice and an ever-present smile, amid catch phrases such as pit bull, lipstick, and hockey mom, she charmed and galvanized the Republican base – who had hardly heard of her, let alone know her.

It was the start of a political soap opera that lasted until the elections on November 4. It was quite entertaining to watch.

But beneath it all, lay the frightening possibility that this newly discovered political cheer leader, coming from nowhere, as it were, could one day be the President the United States, in effect the leader of the free world. After all, the Presidential candidate Senator John McCain was 72 years old, and if he won the race and died or became incapacitated while in office, Palin was next in line to assume the presidency.

The fact that the elections, as they turned out, removed the possibility of Palin becoming the President, is something the world should feel very relieved about.

Who was Sarah Palin? A 45-year old governor of Alaska (population 670,000), ex-mayor of Wasilla (pop. 6,700), one-time runner-up for Miss Alaska, nicknamed “Sarah Barracuda,” with 5 children, married to a husband she calls “First Dude,” an ultra- conservative Republican, in fact an evangelist, and a shopaholic with a keen eye for expensive clothes and jewelry she could not afford. She was a moose hunter and a lifetime member of NRA (National Rifle Association).

She talked lavishly of love of country and family values (never mind that her unmarried teenage daughter was 5 months pregnant), who had put her life in “God’s hand,” called Iraq war “God’s plan,” the Alaska gas pipeline “God’s will,” and the eventuality of her moving to a higher office “God’s calling.”

All this foreshadowed the possibility that another anti-science, anti-progress, anti-environment president with a faith-based agenda could soon occupy the White House. It would be quite a trip from igloo to White House.

Amid slogans “Drill baby, drill,” she talked of “energy independence” ad nauseam as though she is the all-time visionary on energy. A compulsive talker, she had a habit of giving long-winded, often irrelevant answers to questions from the media. When things did not go her way, she blamed the media, and post-election, called McCain aides “jerks.”

What was most striking about her utterances were that they contained lots of sound bites but little substance.

Such idiosyncrasies are not too unusual for politicians, even for those running for high office. Politicians do not always come from the cream of the crowd. But there was something uniquely special about Governor Palin: She had no foreign policy experience, and this did not seem to bother her. Her scant knowledge of the world made President George W. Bush look like a guru in international relations.

Palin was utterly unprepared to be Vice President, let alone President. She had never met a head of state, and she barely left her native Alaska. First time she got a passport was in 2007 when she visited US troops (Alaskan National Guard) in Kuwait and Germany. Her spokesperson said that she also visited Ireland. It was later discovered that the Ireland “trip” was a short refueling stop at the Shannon airport on return from Germany.

To boost her foreign policy credentials, Palin cited Alaska’s proximity to Canada and Russia. During a televised interview on CBS, she told a bewildered Katie Couric: “We have trade missions back and forth. We — we do — it’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where — where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border.”

It was a shocking performannce.

To repair the damage, McCain’s staff gave her crash courses on foreign affairs and arranged a whirlwind tour of New York City and the UN to meet Henry Kissinger and a few world leaders. There were plenty of photo-ops. Incredulously, Kissinger endorsed her candidacy for the VP position. But her image did not recover.

Lawrence Eagleburger, an ex-Secretary of State who strongly endorsed McCain’s candidacy, when asked during a radio interview whether Palin was prepared to assume presidency, his spontaneous response was: “Of course not.” It was a frank and bleak assessment. Realizing that he was talking about McCain’s running mate, Eagleburger subsequently qualified his assessment.

Rumors, which she denied, circulated toward the end of the campaign that Palin thought Africa was a country, not a continent. Someone suggested jokingly that she move to southern France so she can gaze southward and learn about Africa.

In every humor there is an element of truth.

Only McCain, a maverick himself, knows why, after meeting her only once, chose Palin as his Vice-Presidential mate. One would think that picking a VP running mate would require thorough vetting. Evidently what he though he needed was a cheer leader. McCain never admitted that he had made a big mistake.

Now that the presidential race is over, the world can breathe a sigh of relief that Sarah Palin will not be one heartbeat away from the presidency. The consequences of a wayward or dangerous U.S. foreign policy and its impact on world peace under her leadership, if it were to be, are discomforting to imagine. Considering her huge ego and high ambition, of course, Palin may return to the national stage in 2012 with a vengeance. Still, that is four years from now, and a lot can happen during that time.

But imagine for a moment, if the McCain-Palin ticket had won and by some accident Palin had moved to the White House in 2010, the following tete-a-tete conversation on world affairs taking place between Palin-the-President and Vladimir Putin, by that time the president of Russia again:

Putin: “Madam President, we in Russia took matters very seriously when two years ago the U.S. encouraged Georgia to send military troops to …”

Palin, interrupting: “No, Mr. President, Georgia would never do that. O.K., Georgia fought in our Civil War, hmm, in 18 …, well, whatever …, but that is all over now. Georgia now is a very peace-loving state in our great nation. I have never visited Georgia, but I know they grow delicious peaches there, and my First Dude and I sometimes have peach pie a-la-mode after moose chili. Also, …”

Putin, interrupting: “Madam President, when I said Georgia, I meant The Caucuses.”

Palin: “Well, of course, caucuses. We have no problem with caucuses. When the Republican Iowa caucuses were held in January 2008, you know I was not included in the selection process, but, like, God wanted me to serve my country and asked me to plow through the campaign, and … God knows, we never wanted to make trouble for Russia, you are our neighbor to our great state of Alaska.”

Putin: “Madam President, I was also going to raise our concern about the missile issue, but…”

Palin, interrupting, with a big smile: “Let’s talk about missiles, I mean, auw, mistletoes, at Christmas.”

ferruh@demirmen.com

November 19, 2008
Turkey’s diplomatic offensive: no time for second thoughts

By The Daily Star

Iran’s expression of open-mindedness to Turkish mediation between itself and the United States is the latest evidence of Ankara’s increasing indispensability, at least for those who prefer negotiated solutions over imposed remedies for the Middle East’s many quandaries. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been especially active in recent months, parlaying improvements in Turkey’s relations with Syria to broker contacts between that country and Israel, for instance, and working behind the scenes to help defuse tensions in Lebanon this past May. These endeavors have been acutely helpful given the poor state of ties between the West and Syria, which until the past few years had positioned itself a bridge between Iran and France. With Damascus only now emerging from isolation imposed since 2005, Turkey’s role has been essential, and Erdogan has not limited it to the Middle East: He has also sought to make Turkey a fulcrum for the development of cooperation in the Caucasus.

The strategy is not without risks: Every project Ankara adopts stretches its diplomatic resources and creates expectations. The potential payoffs, however, are enormous: Apart from the general shared benefits to be derived from greater stability in its neighborhood, Turkey also stands to reap considerable revenues from pipelines crossing its territory from areas previously seen as untouchables because of their instability and/or poor relationships with other partners. This is not to mention all the goodwill that the Turks stand to generate by helping to end conflicts among its neighbors or between some of them and outside powers.

Turkey’s conspicuous raising of its public profile means that its prestige is invested, and Erdogan has taken something of a personal gamble by doing what many hope US President-elect Barack Obama will do when he takes office in January: He has de-emphasized interactions with some of Turkey’s traditional partners and turned away from some of the policy priorities pursued by successive governments before his. His own reputation is therefore in play, and by extension that of his party – which has not been without determined enemies at home.

Given all of the foregoing, this is no time for second thoughts. Turkey needs to undertake even more of the active diplomacy that Erdogan has overseen if it is to meet the expectations it has created at home and abroad. Overall, no country is better-equipped to serve as a moderator in a “dialogue of civilizations” that is more necessary than ever. And if Obama fulfills even part of his promise as an agent for change, Erdogan might even have an enthusiastic colleague in the White House.

#

November 18, 2008
ERDOGAN VISITS THE UNITED STATES: ECONOMY AND RELATIONS WITH OBAMA ON THE AGENDA

By Saban Kardas

Monday, November 17, 2008

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited the United States to attend the G-20 Summit, where he joined the leaders of developed and industrializing nations to discuss the global financial crisis. In addition to his participation in the summit activities, Erdogan held bilateral meetings with several world leaders.

In his public statements throughout the trip, Erdogan underlined the importance of international cooperation in fighting the global crisis. Having emphasized the experience that Turkey had gathered from its own economic recovery programs as a result of the devastating crises of the 1990s and early-2000s, Erdogan maintained that his country represented a hope and a model for those countries seeking a way out of the current crisis (www.akparti.org.tr, November 13; Yeni Safak, November 16).

These inflated statements aside, how the AKP government will cope with the global financial crisis and whether it will seek help from the IMF had been matters of debate (EDM, October 31). Since the AKP came to power in 2002, reducing Turkey’s dependence on the IMF has been one of the government’s primary economic goals. The AKP has been arguing that Turkey could overcome the current crisis without significant support from the international community. Since the previous stand-by agreement with the IMF expired in May, Turkey has been resisting another arrangement with the IMF because of the strict fiscal conditions it would impose (New York Times, November 7).

During the G-20 Summit Erdogan met with Managing Director of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn on November 14, and their teams had additional talks on November 15. Erdogan also met the President of the World Bank Robert Zoellick. The World Bank is expected to increase credits to Turkey to support various projects dealing with small and medium-sized enterprises and renewable energy (www.cnnturk.com; Anatolian Agency, November 15).

The statements coming from both sides following the meeting between Erdogan and Strauss-Kahn indicate that Turkey might be reversing its stubborn position on IMF aid. Both parties stressed that Turkey would maintain cooperation with the IMF in the future. Economic sources speculated that a new stand-by agreement worth $15 to $20 billion might be signed soon, although differences of opinion remain about the extent and kind of IMF aid to Turkey (www.tgrthaber.com.tr, November 16; Today’s Zaman, November 17). Experts believe that the decision, albeit late, to start negotiations with the IMF is a step in the right direction (Referans, November 17).

Erdogan also gave two public talks, in which he outlined the parameters of the new activism in Turkish foreign policy and Turkey’s strategic partnership with the United States, as well as developments in domestic politics. On November 13 Erdogan spoke at a conference at Columbia University, entitled “Turkey’s Role in Shaping the Future” (www.ntvmsnbc.com, November 14). On November 14 Erdogan discussedTurkish foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. During these addresses, he congratulated U.S. President-elect Barack Obama and emphasized that Turkey was ready to work with the new administration, provided that it was sensitive to Turkey’s priorities.

On relations with Armenia, Erdogan repeated Turkey’s position that the issue must be dealt with by the parties concerned through channels of dialogue already established. He warned the incoming administration not to let ethnic lobbies dictate American policy and spoil bilateral relations between Turkey and the United States (Hurriyet Daily News, November 17).

On the issue of nuclear proliferation and Iran, Erdogan highlighted Turkey’s new-found role as peace broker and criticized U.S.-led efforts against Tehran. Earlier in the week, the New York Times reported that Erdogan had offered to mediate between Iran and the incoming Obama administration (New York Times, November 11). During his talk at the Brookings Institution, Erdogan said that given the trust Turkey had built up with Iran, it was better positioned than the EU’s troika to facilitate talks with Tehran. Some of his remarks on this issue were, however, more controversial. Erdogan maintained that trying to force Iran to drop its nuclear program while other countries maintained nuclear arsenals was no ground for reducing tension. He instead urged the countries pressuring Iran to eliminate such weapons themselves, which would be a better basis for a comprehensive solution (www.cnnturk.com, November 15). Erdogan’s call for “total nuclear disarmament” has been criticized as a fundamental deviation from Turkey’s official position (Milliyet, November 15).

On the issue of Iraq, Erdogan emphasized Turkey’s positive contributions to the reconstruction efforts there. He criticized Obama for setting a clear exit date, however. He expressed concerns about a premature American withdrawal, arguing that Iraq’s infrastructure had not matured enough. (Cihan Haber Ajansi, November 14). U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesman Robert Wood criticized Erdogan’s assessment as overly pessimistic (Washington Times, November 15).

There were questions about whether Erdogan would meet Obama during the trip; but because Obama has decided not to meet foreign leaders before his inauguration, Erdogan searched out people who were likely to shape Obama’s policies. In a separate meeting during his visit, Erdogan met with Obama’s advisers Madeline Albright, Jim Leach, and Philip Gordon (Yeni Safak, November 15). Some Turkish observers believe that the choice of the Brookings Institute as the venue of Erdogan’s speech in Washington, D.C., was also part of Turkey’s attempts to influence the incoming administration. Veteran journalist Cengiz Candar noted that despite its non-partisan position, Brookings was regarded as a pro-Democrat organization and many Brookings specialists, such as Philip Gordon, who were familiar with Turkey may end up working in the new administration (Referans, November 15; Today’s Zaman, November 17). Another senior analyst, Semih Idiz, however, argued that Erdogan’s controversial statements on Iran might ironically rock the boat, just as Erdogan was seeking to build bridges (Milliyet, November 17).

Only time will tell whether “think-tank diplomacy” will put Turkish-American relations on the right track. In any case, given Erdogan’s critical position on Obama’s declared policies, it will be interesting to see how the new administration will manage relations with Turkey.

November 17, 2008
Memorandum to President-elect Obama, re: Turkey

Mark R. Parris, Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy

INTRODUCTIONAs your Administration undertakes the Herculean task of restoring America’s footing and leadership abroad, some countries will be able to help-or-hurt-more than others. Turkey has the potential to place high on either list.

Under your predecessor, US-Turkish relations have been chronically dysfunctional, punctuated by periodic near and real disasters. We have to do better. That will require prompt steps to correct conceptual and structural handicaps that have harmed our approach to Turkey for decades, but which have become acute in recent years.

People wave Turkish national flags as they visit the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Reuters/Umit Bektas

November 17, 2008
Obama Dips Into Think Tank for Talent

The Walt Street Journal

WASHINGTON — The Center for a New American Security, a small think tank here with generally middle-of-the-road policy views, is rapidly emerging as a top farm team for the incoming Obama administration.

When President-elect Barack Obama released a roster of his transition advisers last week, many of the national-security appointments came from the ranks of the center, which was founded by a pair of former Clinton administration officials in February 2007.

The think tank’s central role in the transition effort suggests that its positions — which include rejecting a fixed timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq — will get a warm reception within the new administration.

Richard Danzig (above) and James Steinberg and Susan Rice (below), who all have ties to the Center for a New American Security, are contenders for key positions in the Obama administration.

Michele Flournoy, who co-founded the center with Kurt Campbell, a former Clinton National Security Council and Pentagon official, now serves as its president. She is one of two top members of Mr. Obama’s defense transition team and is likely to be offered a high-ranking position at the Pentagon. Some Obama advisers say she could eventually be tapped as the nation’s first female defense secretary.

Wendy Sherman, co-head of the Obama State Department transition team, also serves on the center’s board of advisers and is expected to land a high-ranking post. Richard Danzig, a front-runner for defense secretary, is on the think tank’s board of directors. Susan Rice and James Steinberg, both of whom are on Mr. Obama’s short list for national security adviser, serve on its board of advisers.

Although most of the center’s staffers are Democrats, its boards include prominent Republicans, and its policy proposals have largely sought to find a middle ground between standard Democratic and Republican positions. On Iraq, for instance, Ms. Flournoy helped write a June report that called for reducing the open-ended American military commitment in Iraq and replacing it with a policy of “conditional engagement” there.

Significantly, the paper rejected the idea of withdrawing troops on the sort of a fixed timeline Mr. Obama espoused during the campaign. Mr. Obama has in recent weeks signaled that he was willing to shelve the idea.

At least half a dozen of the think tank’s policy experts — including John Nagl, a retired Army colonel and a counterinsurgency specialist — are expected to get tapped for midlevel national security positions.

The potential departures mean that the center could be a victim of its own success. “The challenge will be convincing our board, our funders and our staff that we are a going concern and will remain that way into the future,” said Jim Miller, its senior vice president.

Mr. Miller said he is confident the center would weather the departures. Other officials said the center is planning to recruit departing Bush administration officials to fill some vacancies. The center’s budget comes mainly from foundations such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and it also gets some government money to study particular issues.

New presidents regularly raid Washington think tanks for experts and policy ideas. The Reagan administration drew heavily from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation after the 1980 election, while the Clinton administration hired from the left-leaning Brookings Institution.

More recently, staffers at the conservative American Enterprise Institute took senior positions in the Bush administration and drafted some of its signature policies, including the “surge” strategy for Iraq.

The success of conservative think tanks sparked the creation of some left-leaning counterparts, most prominently the Center for American Progress. Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta started it in 2003 with tens of millions of dollars from wealthy liberals.

“The success of Brookings begat AEI. The success of AEI begat Heritage. And the success of Heritage begat CAP and CNAS,” said Murray Weidenbaum, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis who wrote a book on Washington think tanks.

Mr. Podesta is now running the Obama transition effort. He also serves on the CNAS board of directors of the Center for a New American Security, which Ms. Flournoy founded along with Kurt Campbell, a former Clinton National Security Council and Pentagon official.

The security center remains a relatively small player, with an annual budget of less than $6 million and about 30 employees including support staff. By comparison, Brookings has more than 200 policy experts, while AEI has nearly 100 scholars and fellows.

Nonetheless, the security center enjoys an outsize public profile here, a function of its media savvy and ability to regularly attract high-profile public figures to its events. In September, it hosted Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, James Baker and two other former secretaries of state at a roundtable event that was carried on CNN. The event made news when all of the officials endorsed talks with Iran, an idea backed by then-candidate Mr. Obama but opposed by Republican challenger Sen. John McCain.

Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com

Source: online.wsj.com, November 16, 2008

November 17, 2008
Madeleine Albright: A letter to the next president

[Interestingly this “memo” appeared in a serious right-wing newspaper in UK- food for thought -h]

By Madeleine K. Albright

Congratulations on your success. You have won an impressive victory – but with that victory comes the responsibility to guide a troubled America in a world riven by conflict, confusion and hate. Upon taking office, you will face the daunting task of restoring America’s credibility as an effective and exemplary world leader.

Barack Obama's first job will be to re-establish respect for America

This cannot be accomplished merely by distancing yourself and your administration from the mistakes of George W. Bush. You must offer innovative strategies for coping with multiple dangers, including the global economic meltdown, two hot wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan), al-Qaida, nuclear threats and climate change. In every realm, you will need to recruit a first-rate team of advisers, apply the principles of critical thinking and develop a coherent strategy with a clear connection between actions and results.

Your first job as president will be to re-establish the traditional sources of international respect for America: resilience, optimism, support for justice, and the desire for peace. As you recognised during your campaign, America’s good name has been tarnished. Your message to the world should be that the United States, though unafraid to act when necessary, is also eager to listen and learn.

That first step is important, but you will need to do much more.

Starting on Inauguration Day, you must strive to restore confidence in the economic soundness and financial stewardship of the United States. The October crash proved that our current leaders have lost their way. All eyes are now on you. Pick the right people; show discipline; stick to the rules you establish; and push for an economic system that rewards hard work, not greed.

Overseas, you should begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. If you hesitate, you will be forced _ by an evolving consensus within Iraq _ to do so nonetheless. By initiating the process and controlling the timing, you can steer credit to responsible Iraqi leaders instead of allowing radicals to claim that they have driven us out.

The troops that remain as the redeployment proceeds should focus on further preparing Iraqi forces for command. Despite recent gains, the country is still threatened by sectarian rivalries. These have a long history and can be resolved only by Iraq’s own decision-makers. American troops cannot substitute for Iraqi spine. The time for transition is at hand.

In Afghanistan, an unsustainable stalemate has developed in which the majority of the population fears the Taliban, resents Nato and lacks faith in its government. Given the stakes, you may be tempted to “do more” in Afghanistan, but that alone would be a reaction, not a strategy.

Our own military admits that the current approach is not working. We cannot kill or capture our way to victory. We need more troops, but we also need a policy that corresponds to the aspirations and sensitivities of the local population. Under your leadership, Nato’s primary military mission should be to train Afghan forces to defend Afghan villages, and its dominant political objective should be to improve the quality of governance throughout the country.

Economic development is crucial, and you should encourage global and regional institutions to take the lead in building infrastructure and creating jobs. Diplomatically, you should concentrate on enhancing security co-operation between Islamabad and Kabul. Overall, allied efforts must go beyond killing terrorists to preventing the recruitment of cadre to replace them.

In addition to the Taliban, the reason we are in Afghanistan is al-Qaida, which remains an alien presence wherever it exists. Even its roots in Pakistan are not deep, and the failure of its leaders to articulate a positive agenda has reduced the allure of Bin Laden-style operations even to potential sympathizers. Al-Qaida, still dangerous, is beginning to lose the battle of ideas.

Targeted military actions remain essential, but you should avoid giving the many in the Muslim world who disagree with us fresh reason to join the ranks of those who are trying to kill us. This is, after all, an important distinction. Closing Guantánamo will help.

From the first day, you should also work to identify the elements of a permanent and fair Middle East peace. Cynics are fond of observing that support for peace will not pacify al-Qaida, but that is both obvious and beside the point. Your efforts can still enhance respect for American leadership in the regions where al-Qaida trawls for new blood.

Only effective regional diplomacy can persuade Israelis and Arabs alike that peace is still possible. In the absence of that hope, all sides will prepare for a future without peace, thereby validating the views of extremists and further complicating every aspect of your job.

The dangers radiating from the Middle East and Persian Gulf are sure to occupy you, but they should not consume all your attention. Just as an effective foreign policy cannot be exclusively unilateral, neither can it be unidimensional. You should devote more time and resources to regions, such as Latin America and Africa, that have been neglected.

As a leader in the global era, you must view the world through a wide lens. That is why I hope you will establish a new and forward-looking mission for our country: to harness the latest scientific advances to enhance living standards across the globe.

This initiative should extend to growing food, distributing medicine, conserving water, producing energy and preserving the atmosphere. It should include a challenge to the American public to serve as a laboratory for best environmental practices, gradually replacing mass consumption with sustainability as an emblem of the American way. Such a policy can serve the future by reducing our vulnerability to energy blackmail, while conveying a clearer and loftier sense of what the United States is all about.

Mr. President-Elect, the job once held by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and the Roosevelts will soon be yours. In years to come, you will be required to maintain your balance despite being shoved ceaselessly from every direction, and to exercise sound judgment amid the crush of events both predictable and shocking.

To justify our confidence in you, you must show confidence in us. End the politics of fear. Treat us like adults. Help us to understand people from distant lands and cultures. Challenge us to work together. Remind us that America’s finest hours have come not from dominating others but from inspiring people everywhere to seek the best in themselves.

Madeleine K. Albright was U.S. secretary of state from 1997 to 2001. She is the author of “Memo to the President: How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership” (HarperCollins, 2008).

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk, 04/11/2008

November 17, 2008