US, Turkey: Keep communication alive

Here we have a Turkish president coming to town for the first time in 11 years. For some time, the debate has gone along the lines of whether President George Bush would serve "fast food" to him due to a mistranslation of "quick lunch" in a Washington Times article. Suddenly, the White House menu was the center of attention. And for damage control, understandably so, the first thing Turkish officials did after the Gül-Bush meeting was to distribute a copy of the menu to press corps.

For American leaders, meetings with Turks usually have no or minimal domestic political implications. Because the Turkish threat of unilateral military action in northern Iraq caught the US media's attention, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's November visit probably had some domestic relevance for the Bush administration. But on the day of the dramatic New Hampshire primary and immediately before Bush left home for his first major tour in the Middle East, not to mention the situations in Pakistan and Kenya, it should be no surprise that there was minuscule public attention to the Gül visit. Actually, in a crisis-management oriented town, you might be better off with that. No news means no major problems with Turkey. But that certainly does not satisfy us Turks. We'd rather be at the center of attention. This is why attention and expectations are disproportionately high for any Washington visit in Turkey.

The attention deficit at the White House was evident in Gül's visit as well. National Security Advisor Stephan Hadley was unsure (or unwilling) about labeling this a working visit or a state visit. White House spokesperson Dana Perino used a politically incorrect term, "political solution," in speaking about how to deal with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) question. An apparently confused senior administration official who spoke to the press after participating in the meeting had Gül in mind as head of the Turkish government rather than the state. Here is the quote:

"There was a lengthy discussion of PKK, and a whole bunch of different solutions to the problem. The discussion was along the lines of having a comprehensive solution to the PKK problem, which means not just military action, but also political action, including things within Turkey -- economic, political development, social development in the Southeast -- which, as you know, this Erdoğan government had done and the Gül government will continue."

Gül government? Against all odds, fortunately, Bush had done his homework. His remarks were right on target. He reiterated that the PKK is a common enemy, pledged continuing cooperation and rightly emphasized Turkey's European Union bid and the relevance of the country's Muslim identity to democracy. But that was not satisfactory for everyone. For example, a Turkish television program was seriously deliberating why Bush did not say "secular" along with "democracy." True, you may not have a Washington 100 percent focused all the time, but frankly, is it ever possible to fulfill Turkish standards for attention? It's a well stated and established fact that the US supports both a secular and democratic Turkey. Reading too much into what Americans say in all instances by analyzing each and every word is a bad habit.

I'm not suggesting Turkey is an unimportant country in the eyes of Washington. Had that been the case, the White House would not have invited a Turkish prime minister and a president two months in a row. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates would not separately seek meetings with Gül. Since it's important for both countries to stay focused and in tune in the bilateral relations, perhaps one should not find it useless to have such frequent high-level deliberations.