Obama’s speech did not receive much attention in the Turkish press. Most newspapers mentioned it in a tiny box on their front pages with a little more mention in their foreign affairs sections. Newspapers Akşam, Güneş, Sabah, Yeni Şafak highlighted the part of Obama’s speech concerning Syria, interpreting it as a ‘clear ultimatum’ to Assad. Only one newspaper, Cumhuriyet, mentioned the Arab-Israeli aspect of the question, highlighting Obama’s call for 1967 borders, while mass-circulation Hürriyet and Zaman defined the speech as ‘Marshall aid for the Arab revolt’. Radikal, Star, Taraf and Vatan highlighted Obama’s call for democratization, interpreting his speech as a ‘call for change’. Islamist Vakit did not mention Obama’s speech, but instead mentioned Philip Gordon’s warning to Turkey concerning sending a second Gaza flotilla.
In online news sections, secularist Milliyet presented ‘British support for Obama’s 1967 border plan’ as the most important news, quoting William Hague’s statement that the ‘Arab spring’ rendered an Arab-Israeli peace ”more urgent” than ever before. Moderate-conservative Zaman on the other hand featured an article by the Bahraini author Akbar al-Khalej, which criticized Obama’s speech, arguing that ”if Obama intends to help the Arab spring, he should stop Israeli terrorism”, referring to the speech as a ”stupid counsel”. In another report on the same issue Zaman’s Ankara bureau has indicated that the Turkish diplomatic corps found the speech ”positive, but insufficient”. While it is stated that Obama’s position on Syria is convergent with Turkey’s position, the report states that Turkish diplomats noted Obama’s 1967 reference as a very important and positive point; yet, same sources indicate that Obama’s decision to overlook the issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank was a weak point in the speech. Secularist Hürriyet portrayed the speech in a relatively less sensationalist way, highlighting American pledge of economic aid to Egypt and Tunisia, while strengthening trade relations between the region and Europe. Islamist conservative Yeni Şafak, decided to focus on the Israeli response to Obama’s speech, rather than the speech itself, quoting statements from Israeli members of Knesset, Dani Danon, Gilad Erdan, Yoel Hasson, Tzipi Livni, Ahmed Tibi and Zevulun Orlev – highlighting the growing disagreement between the Obama administration and the Israeli government position. Pro-government Sabah on the other hand, quoted President Abdullah Gül’s evaluation of Obama’s speech. President Gül expressed his support for Obama’s emphasis on 1967 borders, restructuring Egypt’s and Tunisia’s debts. While claiming Obama’s decision to emphasize Israel’s security ”was the right choice”, President Gül also warned Israel concerning the danger of ”drifting away from strategic considerations” and approaching Arab revolts in an ideological manner. Gül also indicated that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Hamas while Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel’s existence and had further indicated that he had communicated his ”due vision” to Hamas.
To sum up, it is safe to say that Obama’s Middle East speech did not receive much attention in the Turkish press. This is in some ways a good thing, because usually a U.S. President’s speech receives more attention in the press when it is explicitly against the common wisdom of Turkish public. Bush-era speeches received more attention in the Turkish press in negative ways, so Obama’s speech receiving little attention is not really a bad thing. Secondly, there seems to be a complete mental block in the Turkish-Islamist press regarding anything that comes from the United States, be it from the President, Secretary of the State, or Pentagon; American image in that regard is closely linked to Israel’s actions and as far as Israeli policy is unpopular, so will the United State be. Third, the most highlighted aspect of Obama’s speech was the Syrian part and what Turkey will have to do if diplomatic efforts don’t produce the desired effect. Although Turkey had invested a lot of political capital on Assad regime, there clearly is a convergence between Turkish and American annoyance regarding Assad’s suppression policy against his own citizens. Fourth, as I had indicated in my previous post, Obama did the right thing by not mentioning Turkey in his speech, alongside the problematic countries of the region. From this perspective, Obama made clear that his administration sees Turkey in a different place and that was the right message.
.
