They say, every no is a blessing. Although the Prime Minister of Turkey has been walking around saying "yes" throughout the country, Turkey is recently famous around the world with its 'no's. Today's topic is the recent remoteness. Turkey - US relations are recently not as warm as toast. We used to have periods like this. Each of these periods had a unique remoteness. Today, let us take a look at the remoteness of the day. The source of the recent remoteness is closely related with two 'no's of today. I believe if we can successfully comprehend the difference between the two 'no's  we can better assess the current process. Would you like to listen the story of the 'no's in Turkish-American relations?

The first 'no' was heard in 2003. Remember, it was when the second Bush was at the office for the first time. Americans were obsessed with the idea that intruding in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Husain would irreversibly change the balances at the region. In fact, it happened so. The US was also of the opinion that they needed Turkey's support to implement this project. Turkey joined all the preliminary negotiations for US's intervention in Iraq from the north. The purpose was to burst American soldiers to the region through Turkey. But in the end, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey 'mistakenly' disallowed the operation. The outcome was not clear at the first instance; votes for were more than votes against. But the procedure required more 'yes' votes. Therefore the bill allowing the American soldiers to use Turkey's territory was not adopted if not rejected. Of course this is the Turkey's side of the story. At the other side was a huge disappointment. Questions raised: "If you were not interested, why were you at the bargain asking for money in exchange for 'yes votes?" So, this was the story of the first no.

The second 'no' was more recent. This time Obama was at the office. Turkey was now a member of the United Nations Security Council and Iran was on the way to produce nuclear weapons. At least it appeared so. And Turkey appeared to be in the same camp with the rest of the world. But then happened a complication. I talked about how I see this issue at this column with a commentary titled   "How was Turkey offside in the Iran issue?" At the end, Turkey voted 'no' for the implementation of new sanctions against Iran in United Nations Security Council. Since then the sanction lobby has been building up. Initial research imply that the decision might affect the corporate sector negatively.  Prominent Turkish firms are recorded in a series of web sites. Sometime we can chalk up to what extent Turkey can face losses with this respect.

So, how can we assess the difference between the two no's? How can we compare the two no's? Where do the Turkish-American relations head? I came up with three points. First, the first 'no' was decided by the National Assembly. And though yes votes were more than no votes, the official result was no. But the 'no of the 2010' was decided by the government. The argument following the 'no of the 2003' that 'the government is a different body than the Assembly. Just as in the US case, the administration cannot completely control the National Assembly' does not make sense in the case of the 'no of the 2010'. In the case of 2003, there was nothing to say against this argument. But today conditions are different. This is the first point to state: Conditions in 2010 are different than 2003.

The second point is related with the shift from Bush era to Obama era. This in fact is a development in favor of Turkey. Barack Husain Obama is actually a "Post-Cold War President" (PCWP)'. In this sense he is completely different than his antecedents. Remember, I talked about him as the first president of the 'Star Trek Generation' quite a time ago. Just like it, being a PCWP means being ready to discuss any issue at any time. It means being ready to do what was never done before; daring to do what was never dared before.  Obama is criticized widely in the US particularly by the Republicans. Fuad Acemi's recent comments in the Wall Street Journal must be read in this framework. Obama is announced to be a 'single-term president' since he could not deal with problems Republicans left behind decisively enough. It might be correct.

But the point we have to be aware of is that the US cannot stay out while the blue planet of ours has been changing comprehensively. Obama is a PCWP, and he says 'the past has passed; you will either take a new shape or disappear'.  He tries to define this new shape instead of stirring up trouble. Is he completely consistent? No. Is he completely aware of what he is doing? Maybe not.  But he instinctively knows that he has to define this new shape. He is aware that he will walk alone when doing this. Being a PCWP implies being the lonely guy nowadays. And this would be the second point.

But, why is Obama the lonely guy? This brings us to the third point: At Washington DC the rest of the administration is composed of the bureaucrats of the Clinton's term. The President is alone also at the Congress. What does this mean? Obama, knowing that we are now at the post cold war era, is open to dialogue on any issue. It is a good qualification that he is from the Star Trek generation. Nonetheless, the rest of the administration and the congress are not yet aware that we need to define 'a new shape'. This is neither good nor bad. This is the fact. And let this be the third point to state.

In fact, the issue is not just acknowledging that a new shape must be defined. How this new shape will be defined is also among the critical issues of the coming period. This second 'no' appeared in a completely different context than the first one. And it can easily be discussed as a part of a much wider issue. The ocean has to become rough before calming down.

But we should be aware that we are in a rough period.

This commentary was published in Referans daily on 17.08.2010