Speeches
Turkey, the United States and the World We Share
Remarks by Consul General Sharon A. Wiener at Dogus University
Istanbul - May 13, 2008
Well, thank you very much Professor. It is so nice of you to invite me here today and for you to all come. It is obviously a great pleasure for me to be here and to be participating in this conference series that you have.
As you know my job as the U.S. Consul General in Istanbul is basically to preserve and strengthen U.S.- Turkish relations. But for me it is more than just an official responsibility; Because this is a relationship that I feel personally linked to. Because of my own life experiences. Indeed, I first visited Turkey not in 1975, but in 1969 when like you I was a university student. At that time I spend only a few weeks in Turkey, but then in 1975 when I was working on my doctoral disortation in International Relations and I was a university instructor I returned to Turkey with my husband and we lived here for three years. It was that very positive experience of living here in Turkey that led my husband and me to decide to become diplomats. Thinking that that was a career that would allow us to live in and get to know other countries and cultures. It did. And I just wish that I could have come back to serve in Turkey soon. But know I am back and I am extremely pleased to have been named as Consul General to Istanbul. And to return to Turkey and to be engaged officially in fostering this relationship. And to be based here in this historic beautiful and important city, while I am doing so.
There world today is very different from the world in 1975 when I came here to live the first time. At that time there was no email, there were not even fax machines. The cold war was a way of live and Turkey played a very critical role in the strategic balance between the United States and the now-defunct Soviet Union.
And I would say that one of the most interesting experiences of my long diplomatic career was that I actually served in Moscow during the collapse of the Soviet Union. So I went to Moscow accredited to the Soviet Union and one year into that assignment. The Soviet Union disappeared and we were reaccredited as diplomats to the Russian Federation. So I do have a sense of what the cold war was all about. In 1975 Gerald Ford was President of the United States and Suleyman Demirel was Prime Minister in Turkey. The United States and Turkey were at that time grappling with a crisis over Turkish troops having entered northern Cyprus in 1974.
That was thirty-three years ago, and we can all say without a doubt that the relationship between Turkey and the United States survived that crisis -- and many more -- because our relationship is so strong.
Turkey is a vital strategic partner of the United States. If you look back over 50 years in American foreign policy, Turkey is one of the stalwart friends and allies of the United States. As Turkish President Cemal Gürsel said in 1963, the USA is “Turkey’s close friend and partner in peace.” That doesn’t mean that the relationship isn’t complex, challenging, or even very difficult. I learned this early on when just a few weeks after I arrived in Turkey in 1975, the U.S. Congress imposed an arms embargo on Turkey. And that arms embargo continued for the entire three years that I was living here.
But the complexity of the relationship reflects that it is also not based solely on our 55-year NATO alliance, as important as NATO link is. At its heart, the U.S.-Turkish relationship has survived because it is based on shared democratic values: of tolerance, respect for human dignity, and human rights. Throughout history, both Turkey and the United States have struggled to be true to these values. And while we have each made many advances, many struggles lie ahead.
We will not agree on every topic. Sometimes we will experience difficulties on important issues. That is normal in any relationship. But we agree much more than we disagree. On most questions, our interests and our views will largely coincide. As U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Ross Wilson said last year, “Our countries want the same things, and we need each other to achieve those things and to advance our countries’ interests in freedom, prosperity, stability and peace in this region and in the world.”
Yet, only six or eight months ago when I arrived, it was frankly much more difficult, to talk about the positive aspects of U.S.-Turkish relations. When I arrived last August, I very quickly faced critical Turkish public opinion towards the United States over perceptions here on the issues of the PKK and also the problem of the possible resolution in the U.S. Congress over the tragic events concerning Armenians back in 1915. Both of those issues led to a rather tense environment for the bilateral relationship.
But today I can safely say that our relationship, because it is strong, has weathered those storms. The tide started to turn with Prime Minister Erdoğan’s successful meeting with President Bush on November 5, and it was followed by the visit of President Gül to Washington in January. Many U.S. officials have been to Turkey since then, the two highest-ranking being Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Gates. While the United States had been assisting Turkey in the fight against the PKK long before last November 5, intelligence cooperation has increased since then. And I think you have seen the results and the impact on the bilateral relationship.
I believe that now both Turks and Americans are ready to look beyond government and military cooperation to a flowering of ties at all levels between us. So, in thinking about this relationship, allow me to discuss briefly, the world that we face – together – today and what we will face – together – tomorrow.
We face a world where we want to see democracy and freedom florish. We both want Turkey to remain true to the principles of democracy and secularism on which Ataturk founded this nation 84 years ago. As with all countries, it is a work in progress. The United States was founded on great principles, but at first we did not recognize equal rights for blacks or for women. Many courageous individuals fought for years to obtain those rights in the U.S. democracy. That process continues even today. We have learned that, as Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Thus, when we see the process of building and perfecting democracy in a friend like Turkey, we know that the road is not easy. It is, indeed quite, hard.
In 2007, we witnessed the maturity and vibrancy of Turkey’s democracy as it weathered a political stalemate and came out stronger. It was a difficult political year. 2008 is proving to be difficult as well. But the United States trusts that you – the Turkish people, the Turkish voters – will resolve the difficulties in the context of Turkey’s secular democratic principles. All that can be asked of a democratic society is to stay true to those principles as it goes through difficult times.
We must continue to strengthen these values at home in our own democracies. The Turkish Parliament has just amended – and President Gül has signed into law – an amendment to Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which criminalized insulting “Turkishness.” We encourage this. Expressing one’s beliefs is not an insult to the state; it is one of the highest forms of citizenship. In the USA, criticism – even to the point of insult and caricature --of the U.S. government and its highest leaders, including the President, is not only tolerated, it is acknowledged as a right by our courts. This right is vigorously defended in civil society and in academia.
Equally important, to both the U.S. and Turkey want to see Turkey join the European Union. The United States has been among the world’s strongest supporters of Turkey’s EU aspirations. President Bush has reaffirmed U.S. support for Turkey's EU accession on several occasions. Turkish membership in the EU would afford Turkey economic opportunities and cement its reform process.
Europe also has much to gain from Turkey as well. Turkey has a population which is, on average, much younger than that of the rest of Europe, and can provide the labor force and dynamism the European economy will need to meet the challenges of globalization.
We both want Turkey to play the role that only Turkey can play in the many neighborhoods in which Turkey resides. Just look at a map: in addition to Europe – Turkey lives in the neighborhoods of the Black Sea, the Balkans, the Caucuses and the Middle East. During the Cold War Turkey mattered because of where it is; it now also matters because of what it is. Turkey’s geographic location is an undeniable asset. But its status as a secular, democratic country with a majority Muslim population and a dynamic, modern free market economy makes Turkey a critical anchor in all of these regions that are mentioned.
We face an uncertain world in which one fact is certain: Turkey's importance to America is even more pronounced at a time when the Middle East in the 21st century has replaced Europe in the 20th century as the most critical region for U.S. core national security interests. Turkey is a key regional player that works effectively with all of its neighbors in the Middle East. Turkey's influence is substantial and unique. As such, Turkey is an indispensable partner to the United States in the Middle East.
We both want to see peace in the this region. We appreciate the support that Turkey has given to the people across the broader Middle East and North Africa – impatient patriots in those places who are working to strengthen civil society and build democratic institutions as the guarantee for their freedom of conscience. These freedoms are essential to defeating extremism and terror. We have worked together as well, in the Middle East to try and promote a process that would give the Palestinian people an alternative to extremism and terrorism by having their own state. Secretary Rice recently thanked the Turkish Government for its presence at the Annapolis Conference and its continuing support to the Middle East peace process.
But especially we both want to see an Iraq that is stable, secure and free from terrorism, a democratic and prosperous Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, unified, and which retains its territorial integrity. We have had differences over Iraq and honest people can disagree about whether the United States and its coalition partners were right to go into Iraq in the first place in 2003. But however one might feel about the decision to go into Iraq, what Turkey and the United States need to do now – and together – is to deal with Iraq as it is today and to focus on the future, not on the past.
As Iraq’s only democratic neighbor, Turkey can make a unique contribution to ensuring peace, freedom, and stability there. Last November, Turkey hosted the second Expanded Neighboring Countries of Iraq Foreign Ministers Meeting in Istanbul, which brought together more than twenty countries, along with the EU, the UN and others, to jointly address the challenges facing Iraq today. Secretary Rice attended. The nations met again recently in Kuwait.
The United States deeply appreciates the contributions Turkey has made to this effort. Turkey has worked to bring rejectionist elements, especially Sunnis, into the Iraqi political system and has facilitated large-scale movements of food and fuel through Habur Gate. Turkey made these decisions not as a favor to the United States but because senior officials in Ankara determined that they were in Turkey’s strategic interest. Turkey is also the largest foreign investor and business partner in Iraq, which provides a critical measure of support separate from the government.
We face a world where too often terrorists strike at the innocent. Turkey and the United States both want to see an end to terrorism, particularly the end of the PKK and its attacks against Turkish citizens. I want to stress that we deeply sympathize with and understand the frustration that Turkish citizens feel about PKK violence. The PKK is the common enemy of the United States, Turkey, Iraq, and all people who want peace and freedom. The United States was the second country – only after Turkey – to declare the PKK to be a terrorist organization. Our nations, together with our European partners, are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to eliminate the PKK’s safe haven in Northern Iraq and to cut off its criminal and financial networks in Europe.
We welcome the position of the Turkish government: that a comprehensive approach that includes – but goes beyond – military actions will be necessary to resolve this issue. These are measures for the Turkish government to decide upon, not for us the United States. Military steps are part of those comprehensive measures. Social, economic and political developments that take from the PKK the ability to attract or retain fighters, that encourage them return to the life of the state as many as possible of the PKK and to reduce that organization and its appeal as much as possible, are also necessary. How these steps are implemented and their precise content – those are Turkish decisions to make.
Farther afield, we both want to see a stable Afghanistan. Turkey and the United States are working side-by-side in Afghanistan. Turkey has been integral to NATO’s success in supporting the Karzai government, in limiting the Taliban’s influence, and in providing humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for the Afghan people. Together we recognize that sustainable democratic development in Afghanistan is the key to sustainable peace.
We face a world that is increasingly globalized and interdependent. We both want to see trade and commercial ties increase between our countries. Turkey’s growth and stability have made it the 17th largest economy in the world and a highly competitive destination for Foreign Direct Investment. Last year, Turkey attracted $22 billion in Foreign Direct Investment, up from $20 billion the year before. Two-way trade between Turkey and the U.S. now stands at $11.2 billion dollars, and U.S. exports to Turkey grew 15 percent last year to $6.6 billion. Early numbers for this year indicate similar growth. The potential is enormous and exciting. A couple of weeks ago our Foreign Commercial Service concluded an immensely successful “Tradewinds Europe” conference that brought 60 U.S. companies to Turkey to investigate business and investment opportunities in exciting fields such as telecommunications, medical technology and renewable energy. This was the largest U.S. trade mission to Turkey ever. And it’s a tangible sign of the confidence that our private sector has in the Turkish market.
At this point, I’d like to address myself to you especially as students. It is all too easy at your age to focus on problems at home. And it often seems that the difficulties we confront in our lives and in the life of our own nation are enough to deal with. But in this now very globalized world, more is required of us, and I want to encourage you, especially, with your interest in foreign affairs, to take a broader perspective.
Rather than focusing on issues and specific countries or regions, I would like to talk for a moment or two about broader global challenges that we are facing and that the U.S. and Turkey share as part of this increasingly globalized and interdependent world. There is a long list of such challenges, but today I just want to mention three, and I am not going to go into great detail, but I just wanted to get people thinking about them : these are the issues of energy security, food security and the environment.
First, on the issue of energy security: We face a world where traditional forms of energy are becoming scarce and more costly – both in terms of money and in terms of damage to our environment. As President Bush has said, “In the new century, the need for energy will only grow. Much of this increased demand will come from the developing world, where nations will need more energy to build critical infrastructure and grow their economies and improve the lives of their people. Overall, the demand for energy is expected to rise by more than 50 percent by 2030.”
This growing demand for energy is a sign of a vibrant, global economy. Yet it also poses serious challenges, and one of them, of course, is energy security. Right now much of the world's energy comes from oil, and much of the oil comes from unstable regions and rogue states. This dependence leaves the global economy vulnerable to supply shocks and shortages and manipulation, and to extremists and terrorists who could cause great disruptions of oil shipments.
In responding to challenges of energy security, Turkey and the United States both want to see Turkey achieve its potential in the region as an energy transit corridor. Turkey occupies a strategic location in the region’s energy supply chain. Eight percent of the world's oil transits Turkey every day, and its position becomes increasingly more important with the construction of each new pipeline on Turkish soil.
The second issue I would like to bring to your attention is food security: The recent global food crisis has shown once again how interdependent we are. The Director of the World Food Program, Josette Sheeran, has called the crisis a “silent tsunami.” The United States obviously wants to address the short-term problem – of the current food crises and the immediate lack of food, but we also need a broad-ranging and somewhat more integrated approach that harnesses market forces to address the problem in the long term and make sure that we don’t continue to face down the line.
One tool in addressing this crises is agricultural biotechnology. Which can be key to boosting production without constraining limited resources. We are urging countries to remove barriers to advanced crops developed through biotechnology. These crops are safe, they’re resistant to drought and disease, and they hold the promise of producing more food for more people. While using fewer chemical pesticides and fertilizers. In countries where there is often not enough food to go around and where food prices directly affect the incomes of the majority of the population, the potential benefits of biotech crops cannot be ignored.
There is clear evidence that the use of GM biotech crops has resulted in significant benefits. These include: Higher crop yields, reduced farm costs, increased farm profit and improvement in health and the environment.
Biotech crops have had a positive impact on farm productivity and l productivity and efficiency -- the gains are so great that biotechnology has been one of the most rapidly adopted new technologies ever -- despite the political opposition that has hampered its adoption in some countries.
But given its potential -- and given the food crisis that the world faces, it is important that this issue be approached in an objective - not an emotional - manner. And the time to do this is now. The 2008 World Bank Development Report says which is called “Agriculture for Development” specifically recognizes that the evolution in biotechnology offers a unique opportunity to use agriculture to promote development, but that report cautions that there is a risk that the risk is that fast-moving crop biotechnology can be missed by developing countries if the political will and international assistance support are not forthcoming.
Finally I would like to turn to the environment. For many years those who worried about climate change and those who worried about energy security were on opposite ends of the debate. It was said that we faced a choice between protecting the environment and producing enough energy. Today we know better. These challenges share a common solution: technology. By developing new low-emission technologies, we can meet the growing demand for energy and at the same time reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, our nations have had an opportunity to leave the debates of the past behind, and reach a consensus on the way forward. Now is the time to move beyond the Kyoto Protocol – which only set targets for reducing emissions – to actually start reducing emissions through technology and multilateral efforts.
Let me start first with some data, because it is important to have the facts on the table. No question: The United States is the world's largest emitter of CO2. Everybody in the room knows this. But the fact says no more about the United States, than the fact that Germany leads Europe in emissions says about Germany.
The United States is number one in greenhouse gas emissions primarily because it is the number one economy in the world. With 5% of the world's population we produce 25% of global wealth. And despite being relatively clean and green, Germany leads Europe in emissions, because it is Europe's largest economy. Our emissions are not out of line with the size of our economy.
But, more important than current emissions is the trend line. What is actually happening to emissions? Are they being reduced? This, after all, is what Kyoto, which as you know the U.S. did not sign but the point I am trying to make is the important thing is to cut emissions, whether you sign the protocol or not. And that is what we are working on.
According to data from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from 2000-2004--the most recent period for which we have good, comparative data--U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by 1.3 percent. This is an increase, but it is a very modest increase. It translates to 0.325 percent per year. Where it is over the period 1990 to 2000, the U.S. experienced a 14.3 percent increase in its emissions, or 1.4 percent per year. So our emissions have been cut to a mere fraction of what they were in the past.
But notice something else. This time period of 2000 to 2004 was a period of rapid economic growth in the United States. Between 2000 and 2004 we grew our economy by 1.9 trillion dollars.
That's about the equivalent of adding Italy to the economy of the U.S. . As we increased our population by 11.3 million people--adding more than the population of Greece. And added that much economy equivalent to the economy of Italy, during that entire period yet our emissions grew by only 1.3 percent--that tells you a lot about how the U.S. economy is already changing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Through a combination of targeted market decisions, incentives, voluntary partnerships and mandates, U.S. policies have helped speed the deployment of cleaner technology. And this is key: Kyoto provides a target for emissions reductions. To actually cut the emissions -whether one is a Kyoto country or not--one needs to put new, cleaner technology in place. And this is where the United States is leading the world. Our approach, focusing on a broad mix of various technologies, public-private partnerships, and finance, is producing concrete results even as our economy expands.
And that, in fact, gets to the heart of the issue. We all want jobs, education, health, poverty reduction--all the things a healthy, growing economy provides. So the trick is not to cut our economies, but to make them cleaner even as they grow.
This holds true for the developing countries as well. In fact in these countries, new growth and human development is a matter of life and death. Thus the only way for these countries to minimize the increase in greenhouse gas emissions as their energy demand soars with economic growth is through the market application of cleaner technologies. We need to develop these technologies and bring them to the marketplaces of the developing world.
So we are investing heavily in clean technology and instituting policies to help it become cost-competitive. From Fiscal Year 2001 to the end of Fiscal Year 2006, the U.S. Government devoted more than $29 billion to climate science, technology, international assistance, and incentive programs. $29 billion is a lot of money.
The U.S. Government is taking further measures for a cleaner environment. The president has set some new and ambitious mandatory targets that will make a real difference in meeting the challenges of climate change and energy security. The important thing of course is how all this will effect the environment.
The three broad point I want to emphasize on this issue of environment illustrate clearly that perspective in actions of the U.S. for cleaner environment are the following, first: The United States is actively working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and our approach is producing results. We are taking action now, and we are also looking out over the next few decades. Our approach integrates the goals of human development, energy security, and emissions cuts.
Second, at the same time that we are taking steps at home, we are working multilaterally to cut global emissions. To be effective, we need a global approach that supports both human development and lower emissions. We need to promote the commercial deployment of clean technologies in developing countries around the world.
Third, I want to put this in a broader geopolitical context--because the issues of development, energy, emissions and democracy, they are all inter-related, and are of fundamental importance to our people and nations. Frankly, we are concerned that our addiction to foreign oil (and even President Bush has called it in adiction) is bankrolling some of the very dangerous, anti-democratic security threats that we face as a global community. We all need human progress and freedom but we also need clean, secure sources of energy.
So, here we are: our world -- our future – is under threat from these related crises, and governments alone cannot solve these problems. In the United States, as I said, our entrepreneurs are striving to perfect new technologies that just may provide safe, clean and inexpensive energy, and our NGOs and other parts of civil society will insist that this happens. Ways of increasing food production using the latest genetic techniques are available and new ones are being developed. This technology – and accurate information about it – needs to be more widely disseminated.
As I implied above, the private sector has a vital role to play. I mentioned entrepreneurs, but private philanthropy and NGOs are also well placed to urge greater responsibility on our citizens and our governments. In the USA they are doing this. Private businesses and foundations are leading the way in reducing energy consumption and researching new ways to produce energy. Environmental NGOs identify problems and work with the private sector to find solutions. In the U.S., private individuals – and not just Bill and Melinda Gates- are also involved in this process.
As for the role students can play, an interesting recent phenomenon in the USA is the increased importance of volunteerism, particularly among high school and college students.
In fact, just this weekend, I read an article in the New York Times about a high school junior in N.Y., who came down with an illness that forced her to miss the entire 2006-7 school year. So she resolved that if she couldn’t go to school herself, she could at least help other kids who wanted to go to school.
So from her sickbed, this young woman named Rachel developed an email selling service for T-shirts and solicited contributions to build a 316-student elementary school in rural Cambodia. Borrowing an idea from university fund-raising project, she offered naming opportunities: for $25, donors could buy chairs that would be named for them in this school in Cambodia. These are small amounts of money that people were giving. But all told, she raised $57,000, that got channeled through an aid group and a school was constructed in Cambodia with the money she had collected. This one individual doing that.
College students have long used to be the activists, but increasingly they’re joined by high school students and even younger children. The spotlight may be on billionaire philanthropists like Bill Gates, but one of the country’s , in the U.S. one of the healthier trends has been the rise what you might call, kumbara philanthropists. People who take small amounts of saved money and use them to good purpose.
This is a relatively new trend in the U.S. and I hope that students in Turkey too will look for opportunities to volunteer to help resolving global problems.
In Turkey, too, the private sector is involved in addressing these issues. The U.S. and Turkey share a tradition of foundations being actively involved in philanthropy. I expect to see more and more involvement here in Turkey, not only large philantrophic organizations and foundations but also medium size and small groups. Playing the kind of active role that increasingly is happening in the United States.
We will only be able to face these challenges successfully tough if the ties between our people grow stronger. In order to promote this goal, one American university -Duke University, the school from which I received my Masters and PhD - is launching an ambitious program for study abroad. In the future in order to obtain a Duke undergraduate degree, a student will be required to have participated in an overseas program. And some of these students will be coming to Turkey, because I know Duke is involved in discussion here, in finding relationships.
This is a new idea, it is very innovative. I think it is visionary. Likewise, I would like to encourage all of you to think about studying in America after you have finished your studies here. The United States is anxious to accept qualified students from abroad. Nearly 600,000 students and professors from virtually every country in the world participate in the adventure that is American higher education. This diversity is a key strength of our system.
You may think getting a student visa is painful at best or impossible at worst. This simply is not true. Each year about 12,000 Turks study in American universities, more than from any other European country and Turkey is the eighth-highest ranking country in the world in terms of number of students it sends to the U.S. I am confident this number is going to rise even this year. In the last year, the Embassy in Ankara and the Consulate General in Istanbul issued more than 16,000 visas for Turkish students to study and participate in academic exchange programs in the U.S. We give priority appointments to these visa applicants. In the vast majority of cases, applicants learn the decision about whether they will get the visa at the end of their interview with the consular officer, and have the visa in their hands three to four days later. While not all applicants are able to qualify for a U.S. visa, an impressive 85 percent of all applicants do.
The United States recognizes that to remain competitive it must do what is necessary to attract the best and the brightest. While the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States meant we had to improve our security and border processing, it also meant we have invested in technology and staff to improve and speed up our visa processing.
In closing, let me stress that, fundamentally, Turkey and the United States want the same things. We believe in the same values: democracy, respect for human rights, rule of law, free market and open economics, and the spread of peace and stability through the region.
The U.S.-Turkish strategic partnership is complex and sometimes challenging. It may be buffeted by the tides of public opinion, but it is very much alive. The United States wants to work with Turkey to achieve the future we would both like to see, where a democratic, secular, and prosperous Turkey plays an ever increasing role in regional peace, stability and prosperity.
Thank you very much.
I’ll be happy to answer a few questions.