The need to speak with one voice
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Mayıs 18, 2009 00:00
One cannot expect total harmony among leaders at the top of the state’s hierarchy. However, whenever there is a divergence of views, leaders at the top have to do their utmost to find common ground and speak with one voice to the outside word.
We at the Daily News have been extremely careful while dealing with speculations on the cold winds between President Abdullah Gül and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. We have made the judgment, for example, that alleged skirmishing between "two first ladies" is not appropriate for a serious newspaper.
But disputes spilling into the affairs of state are another matter. There seems to be a tendency that contradictory statements from Gül and Erdoğan, especially on the diplomatic front, have become the general rule rather than exception.
We witnessed one of the most striking examples during the process to choose NATO’s new secretary general. While President Gül refrained from making a clear-cut statement and remained rather ambiguous, concealing Turkey’s objection to one of the candidates, namely Denmark’s prime minister at the time, from the public, Prime Minister Erdoğan saw no reason to hide Turkey's opposition from international public opinion. Erdoğan’s statements tied the government’s hands and left little room to maneuver. Later the Turkish government went through pains to explain why it had to accept a candidate it openly opposed.
Nowadays, we are witnessing another confused jumble of statements coming out of the top leadership and this on an issue so sensitive that the Turkish government does not have the luxury of backing away later. The Turkish government first agreed with the Armenian government on a road map to normalize bilateral relations. Although the content of the road map was not revealed, most believed there could have been no link between opening the border and a solution to the Nagorno Karabakh problem in order for a deal to be worked out.
Now Turkey is saying that it will not open the border unless the Armenians withdraw from occupied Azerbaijani territory. It is our belief that Turkey has neglected the Azerbaijani dimension while it was negotiating with the Armenians, or that it has grossly miscalculated Baku’s potential reaction to a deal between Ankara and Yerevan. The visit of the prime minister to Baku raised many questions on how the road map with Armenia would be implemented.
Statements made by the president and the prime minister on the issue seem contradictory, to say the least. While President Gül is being quoted as saying that normalization will proceed without preconditions, Prime Minister Erdoğan last Friday reiterated his resolve that the border between Armenia and Turkey would remain shut until Armenia withdrew from Azerbaijani territory. Having many differing opinions in politics is a sign of healthiness in a democracy, however, when diplomacy is concerned, a country and its top leadership need to outwardly project a single stance or its policies appear jumbled and incoherent.
But disputes spilling into the affairs of state are another matter. There seems to be a tendency that contradictory statements from Gül and Erdoğan, especially on the diplomatic front, have become the general rule rather than exception.
We witnessed one of the most striking examples during the process to choose NATO’s new secretary general. While President Gül refrained from making a clear-cut statement and remained rather ambiguous, concealing Turkey’s objection to one of the candidates, namely Denmark’s prime minister at the time, from the public, Prime Minister Erdoğan saw no reason to hide Turkey's opposition from international public opinion. Erdoğan’s statements tied the government’s hands and left little room to maneuver. Later the Turkish government went through pains to explain why it had to accept a candidate it openly opposed.
Nowadays, we are witnessing another confused jumble of statements coming out of the top leadership and this on an issue so sensitive that the Turkish government does not have the luxury of backing away later. The Turkish government first agreed with the Armenian government on a road map to normalize bilateral relations. Although the content of the road map was not revealed, most believed there could have been no link between opening the border and a solution to the Nagorno Karabakh problem in order for a deal to be worked out.
Now Turkey is saying that it will not open the border unless the Armenians withdraw from occupied Azerbaijani territory. It is our belief that Turkey has neglected the Azerbaijani dimension while it was negotiating with the Armenians, or that it has grossly miscalculated Baku’s potential reaction to a deal between Ankara and Yerevan. The visit of the prime minister to Baku raised many questions on how the road map with Armenia would be implemented.
Statements made by the president and the prime minister on the issue seem contradictory, to say the least. While President Gül is being quoted as saying that normalization will proceed without preconditions, Prime Minister Erdoğan last Friday reiterated his resolve that the border between Armenia and Turkey would remain shut until Armenia withdrew from Azerbaijani territory. Having many differing opinions in politics is a sign of healthiness in a democracy, however, when diplomacy is concerned, a country and its top leadership need to outwardly project a single stance or its policies appear jumbled and incoherent.