CNN  TURK / June 27, 2004

Host: Today our guest is Mr. Adnan Nas. He is the Chairman of the Turkish-American Business Association. Welcome Mr. Nas. Let's start with demonstrations. In fact there has been a surge of demonstrations since the NATO Summit became a hot topic in our agenda. How do you feel about the course of things? Yes, there are slogans; but it is not clear if NATO or the American government or the Bush government is being protested against.

Adnan Nas: I don't think that all those crowds are acting in consensus to protest a specific matter. There seems to be a fashion-like attitude because NATO is actually not an aggressive organization. Since its organization, NATO has acted rather as a defense organization, that is to say, more like a deterrent force, and has functioned in this vein so far. Now NATO is on the verge of changing its identity, or more appropriately, concentrating its identity. NATO is on its way from a defense organization to a security organization to, who knows, a political organization. The details in this respect are discussed, particularly among the members of the Western Alliance; I mean, between the USA and the European Union. While the picture is that detailed in intellectual terms, the way the masses perceive it makes one smile. If you protest something you have to support a counter thing. When you protest NATO, then what are you supporting? I don't think its the Warsaw Pact. I mean I see a question mark here. I suppose they identify themselves with the USA, just as you said.

Host: Yes. The credibility and trustworthiness of the Bush government has already plummeted down following the death shots aired in relation to the Ebu Garip Jail. In addition, there is a huge, natural reaction against the events going on in Iraq. This seems to be intertwined with NATO. If we look from this perspective, NATO was already, and is undergoing an identity problem. This may be probably understood from these protests. NATO has so far appeared to be an organization to be too much under the influence of the USA.

Adnan Nas: Yes, but one should be aware of that: Was there another one willing to control NATO but the USA did not allow it? NATO is not merely a blessing but also its budget and military expenses are burdens. This is the most discussed topic in this respect in the European Union. The European Union has come so far with minimum expenditures on the security and defense issues because it is not an easy thing to make those expenditures; it is almost a social sacrifice. As a matter of fact, the way NATO is funded is discussed at the moment. When you look at it from this point of view, in fact you wouldn't like to be in "control" of NATO that much. I think it should exert its authority much more. I guess the USA, too, is not so pleased that NATO is regarded only as an USA-axis organisation. It is argued and considered that NATO should be a balancing factor of the European Union, turning into a security and political umbrella, safeguarding the Western Alliance; I mean the left and right sides of the North Atlantic...this should be so, considering the new world order. This means a great deal to Turkey.

Host: In fact, it was quite obvious with regard to the Iraqi issue that NATO is not so much controlled by the USA; that at least there is a check on the part of the European Union countries. The further the USA urged on NATO to march into Iraq, the harder resistance it came across.

Adnan Nas: When you look at it now, the most capable organisation likely to overcome troubles seems to be NATO in terms of structure; because there is more or less a balance in it. Many states enjoy the right to have a say there. In this respect, one should favour very much the identity change in NATO. As a matter of fact, when the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO's mission in Europe came to an end. For this reason, that cold-war NATO should be either destroyed and dissolved or change its identity. Because there is not any better organisation around, there are serious talks to change its identity and make it a bigger, stronger organisation.

Host: However, on the other hand, the war waged against other countries, and anti-terrorism fights have been so intertwisted that NATO should be defined in this sense in a more strict form because where anti-terrorist clashes are going on or where there is an attack on a country's national territory...everyone is confused at this point. And that's one of the reasons for the demonstrations. Don't you think so?

Adnan Nas: In fact, NATO seems to be much stronger than its name suggests but when you talk about NATO, you cannot see around huge military units. For instance, there is a very powerful army in Turkey with more than 500.000 soldiers. NATO has nothing like this. NATO is rather an organisation which requests soldiers from member states when necessary. There are ongoing debates in NATO in this sense: To turn NATO into a more agile and quick power. NATO is far slower than everyone thinks; it has a bureacracy specific to it. And to speed up the things in that bureaucracy is what the USA wants. Europe here talks about the philosophical aspect of the things as usual but it is not as fast as the USA in terms of "performance". Therefore, one of the most important and hidden agenda items of the "Istanbul Summit" is the fact that the compromises between the European Union and the USA in relation to the NATO's identity shall be improved to a large extent, reaching a zenith and final conclusion. According to me, this is actually the most important item in otherwise very transparent agenda.

Host: Yes, we have gone through this in Afghanistan. We are going through this in Iraq and we see that nothing can be achieved under the present circumstances. Perhaps as a result of these phases, the NATO Summit will show that everything must find its place.

Adnan Nas: One should wish it. But attention should be paid to this: In my opinion, for all protests, theses, anti-theses, there should always be the counter party. I mean it is not enough to have a stand against something; you have to show why you are standing against it. You know there is a motto in dramatic arts, like "I am against everything". We are living in a world where when you say "I am against" it is sufficient, well even at intellectual level. However, a chaotic world or region is to no one's benefit. For this reason, those protesters should bring something convincing to tell that there are better alternative organisations to avoid this chaotic environment; to get rid of these threats. We will not arrive any where if we don't have anything to say but only shouting "equal respect to all peoples". This means that we have to show equal respect to terrorists, too.

Host: But it is a fact that particularly in the Iraqi War, the United States of America and England were very untethered and independent. At that point, don't you think the European Union and NATO should have taken a tighter stand? If today NATO is protested against, the reason may be that it cut off the branch it was sitting on?

Adnan Nas: You hit the bull's eye. I am of the opinion that the responsibilities of the European Union are greater. If you are an important figure in NATO, then you have to duly use your weight; your function; it is not good that whenever it suits you, you will use it; but whenever it doesn't you, you will refrain from it. I suppose that no matter how Europe and the USA seem to be in conflict from time to time, they are two integral parts of the Western Alliance. For this reason, one should not regard them in extremely separate fronts. I hope and say that they will eventually get along. If the Istanbul Summit becomes a pivotal milestone at that point, it will have fulfilled its functions to a large extent.

Host: Just a few minutes ago, you said: "Turkey is actually underway in a very important period and perhaps we are not very aware of it. " It is certain that a NATO summit in Turkey means much for Turkey in terms of content and meaning, going beyond a mere summit that will allow us to be promoted to the world in better terms.

Adnan Nas: Yes, definitely so. Turkey is on the verge of a very serious period in the sense that it is not only a troubled period which imposes huge and severe responsibilities on the society and the state but also a serious period of opportunities on the other hand, provided that we shall have been able to exploit them. Turkey is more pivotal in the region than ever before. While it was a peripheral country in the past, now it gradually comes to the center. Let me  say that being a central country brings along with it very serious responsibilities we, or some circles in the society are not used to them. These demonstrators remind me of them, let me tell you this. Turkey has to act more and more responsibly; it has to think more strategically and come up with more sound policies. We cannot make a progress with romantic ideas and logic, defending  ourselves with statements like "we are like this, don't worry". If we can make use of this period, Turkey may turn into a regional power; that's what I call a case of opportunities. There is only one global power in the world today and it is the USA. This is a fact, whether you take it or don't. And by the way, I don't understand much about not liking the USA. The USA is too important to identify it with Bush-likes or some other president. It has a very good democracy. The present government or any other government does not matter much. Regardless of who is at the helm, the USA is a considerable power in both military and economic terms. It is the sole global power. The European Union represents a serious absolute power in economic terms. Is the European Union a consolidated power or absolute economic power? In the political arena, Europe is not a global power yet; only a regional one. There are severe differences from the USA. If you watch the BBC or other channels, or if you are interested in some think-tank organisations in those countries, you will realize that there are some differences in the way they are thinking. The way the Americans think is much more broader and global, where Europe insists on remaining conditioned to specific issues. I think Europe has a responsibility here. It should gradually extend its scope.

Host: Alright. The Great Middle East Project is in fact a huge one; it has been discussed and talked about for a zillion times; some said it will be successful some said no. Today, as much as we can understand, the meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Erdoğan was on this topic. More importantly, it will be discussed at the NATO summit. Don't you think that this project was discussed and studied enough in Turkey, particularly on the part of the government which takes it very seriously?

Adnan Nas: It is too early to blame the government on this matter because the Great Middle East Project itself is not a very clear one. Before everything else, the name does not matter much; I mean the underlying concept is really true. This region both has the most important wealth in the world in addition to very seriously threatening potentials. The most important threatening potential comes from the fact that there are utterly poor masses. The more you have destitute people in your country the higher the risk of a major threat. That's the reason why one should approach the region with huge responsibilities kept in mind. In this sense, the Great Middle East Project is a very true project. The fact that Bush desires it should not make someone antisympathetic towards the project. I mean the underlying idea should be taken into consideration. In this sense, Turkey remains at the centre of a very problematic region. The hottest trouble topics in the world are in this region. You remember, once we used to love the USA when it was far away. Distance lends enchantment to things. Now we have to act with more responsible. If even your very close friend is almost nearby and you are on a daily exchange of ideas, you should be very careful because there is also a limit to friendships. One should not be destroyed; I mean if your friend commits a mistake, you have to help him with your advises and warnings. As a result if the project itself is true and sound, you have to smooth out the flawed parts and put it back on track. I think this is everyone's duty.

Host: Let's set aside the Great Middle East Project or if it is discussed and considered in Turkey; but what do you think in this respect: Unless the terror is diligently defined, no matter whatever it may be, aren't all these talks by the USA, the European Union and the Middle East countries left dangling? I mean is the USA still capable of bringing out a project? Should NATO adopt it as one of its duties? In very plain words, what's terror?

Adnan Nas: I think that NATO may be a little bit more talented in this respect; I mean, as an organisation that takes something out on unilateral ground, offering debate and argument channels and platforms for it. I think that the terror is somehow defined; but no one defines a terrorist. It should be defined too. In this respect, too, NATO is more talented than its peers.

Host: Consequently, probably it will be one of the most important agenda items at the Summit.

Adnan Nas: You are very right. The official agenda and media agenda always hint that Afghanistan comes first to be followed by the Iraqi and Kosovo issues. The Kosovo issue is also an important topic because in Kosovo, too, NATO is willing to hand it over to the European Union but is the European Union willing to take over it; does it have that capacity? These are extremely important topics. That's why I argue that in the Summit meetings, responsibilities in NATO will be seriously discussed between the USA and the European Union.

Host: Now in the President's Manson, the talks between President Sezer and President Bush is still on; we have no other details at hand. Of course political issues are on the front agenda but I would like to ask you something, addressing your businessman identity. You are the Chairman of the Turkish-American Businessmen Association and, besides, a businessman. What do you think about President Bush's visit? Is it only formally important for Turkey or does it have other important connotations? What have the Turkish-USA relations gained and lost during President Bush's office?

Adnan Nas: Before everything else, it is a very favourable thing that the president of the world's super power pays a visit to Turkey. It is another positive thing that such a meeting is held in Turkey. There s no doubt here. However, there is something we discussed as per the March 1 writ; or let me correct myself; let's not call it a "missing" but rather a process. Turkey has a parliament and decided so; every democratic individual respects that decision; but you cannot deny the fact that it somehow cooled the relations. These cooled relations were somehow made up in the meeting in Washington organised for Turkey Economic Combined Commission Meeting at the end of 2003. This combined commission was founded in 2002, during the office of the previous government. Let me remind you of the reasons why we needed such a combined commission. In 1985, a treaty was signed between Turkey and the USA for the Mutual Encouragement and Safeguarding of Investments. After all, a Double-tax Treaty was signed in 1996. This entire Investment Encouragement Treaty did not function thus in 1999 an Investment and Trade Frame Agreement was signed. Yes, treaties have been signed by the parties for ages, but what happens in practice? Not much more. The underlying reason is that the trade is of course exposed to politics to a great extent; but the trade is another category. The trade is first of all a cooperation where its parties are two businessmen and both of them shall surely get an interest from such cooperation, I mean there is a concept of "win-win" here; both parties have to win. But these two businessmen can win only if they first talk to and understand each other. All of us know that the USA has problematic relations with the entire world in this respect, not only with Turkey. I have to talk about the issue of the investment environment  once again. What's important here is that there is an opportunity regarding the USA but we are unable to exploit it. Since the 1950s, when we fought in Korea, our foreign policy in this respect ringed very true. And in fact we were admitted to NATO thanks to this sound foreign policy. This is really important. Our generation did not place much importance on NATO since our beginning because Turkey is a NATO member since before you were born. If you have relations and contact with the eastern European countries  -not that we don't have- you can observe something: Yes, they were admitted to the European Union of which our public is somehow jealous; but they have been just recently admitted or are to be soon admitted to NATO. Being a member of NATO is much more pleasing than being a member of the European Union, you observe this fact. I remember that I was extremely surprised during the talks between those countries and NATO. I remember saying: "God, we have been a member for 50 years, what is it that you are superfluously happy? A member of NATO fails to grasp its importance; its merits. According to me, we have to re-analyses and understand the importance of the fact that we are a NATO member. Yes, it is a very important organisation, but did we make use of it to a sufficient extent? Could we push it beyond the alliance in military terms, or a partnership in the true sense of word as much as we claim? I have doubts there. Strategic partnership is a very different story.

Host: What's a strategic partnership?

Adnan Nas: I suppose both parties mutually confirmed it in the last two years. The Ecevit government confirmed that Turkey is a strategic ally. But there is a concept in the trade called "joint-venture" both partners act jointly; bid in tenders; make business; take it to the very end and share the profits. Strategic partnership is something like that. It is not a relation where while one party always demands, the other party always act coyly. When you think in commercial terms, we should be two parties making joint business.

Host: OK, who is acting coyly here? Us or the USA?

Adnan Nas: Of course, the more powerful one, the USA because we are the one that we always demand something in commercial terms; eliminate the quotas etc, etc. It is very natural if they say: "Don't you have to do something too?" And we should be able to retort: "Look we have corrected this and that. Come in and let's invest here. Come and let's organize a company; make investments in Uzbekistan or Iraq"

Host: However, when you think about Cyprus, after the elections of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Turkey completed its share of tasks to a large extent.

Adnan Nas: In my opinion, the Cyprus issue is the most important foreign policy achievement in recent years.

Host: There were initially huge messages. At this point we have come so far, Turkey holds the position to challenge: "Please do that" But Washington is still hesitant to take that step.

Adnan Nas: I think it rather leaves it to the discretion of the European Union. It is very natural because we are talking about a place which will eventually be a member to the Union The USA may be hesitant to have the final say in this respect, negating the others completely.

Host:  We have been talking for agents about the quotas; that they have to be pulled down. Then we talked about the organisation of high quality industrial zones; but the latest decision in this respect was only  for the state-of-the-art technology. This was evident. We are not able to speak the same language in the business world. We are behind the necessary partnership with the USA. But what is the solution for it? We should see that we cannot achieve anything only by saying we are a strategic partner; or we are a very important partner.

Adnan Nas: These things do not go in hand with only optimistic wishes. But we are not in very poor condition that we have to be demoralized. The reasons: Turkey is the most serious and dynamic country in the region thanks to its secular state, tolerant structure, flexible people, true politics in NATO and in Cyprus. The second is that we have advantages regarding our relations in strategic terms: We have no conflicting interests with the USA in both economic and political terms. We may have been a little bit angry against each other but these things are not important. In the midterm and long terms, there is not a political or economic conflict between the USA and Turkey; on the other hand, we are complimenting each other. For this reason, there is not a trouble in terms of vision and mission at this point; but we are making mistakes in terms of strategies and tactics. We shouldn't make these mistakes. But why are we failing at this point? There is a huge region around us: Independent Soviet Republics that we call Turki Republics, the Middle East countries, the North African countries, the Balkan state. In fact, the US companies are still struggling in these regions if they act by themselves because they are not aware of the cultures in which they will make business; their habits are almost alien to these companies etc. But you know Turkish businessmen are extremely flexible. Turks are not in the habit of deserting a country when there is a military coup d'état there. For instance, when people jumped over tanks in Russia during the Yeltsin era, all foreign businessmen abandoned Russia except for the Turks. Turks are much more accustomed to every trouble and difficulty. This is the same in Iraq; yes there are some deaths but Turks don't give  up. We are really used to living with troubles and difficulties. For this reason, we must convince the Americans that joint companies are for their benefit; we have to draw up action plans, business plans here. We have to convince them. We have to draw up projects instead of merely dreaming about it. The ability of Turkish people to draw up projects is really weak; the discussion competence is weak. We have a habit of sitting at the tables only to leave them without reaching any agreement; this is hereditary I think. This will of course not change within one day; but if we know about our mistakes we can change and improve.

Host: But who has to do what at this point? Are you criticizing the government or are you self-criticizing yourself?

Adnan Nas: No in fact I am criticizing the whole society. I am not of the opinion that we have to criticize the state at any point. The society, I mean, the civil society, private sector etc should act more strategically. I think everyone of us has a duty here. This government achieved goods things thanks to its recent political attacks as we can see in Cyprus. What's more, it took some risks here although there was not a huge support on the part of the civil society. Therefore we have to think more strategically and get equipped with more compromise-oriented abilities and draw up tangible strategic plans on the project basis, creating a synergy in this respect. For example you talked about textile industry. This topic has been on the agenda for ages. There are more than one hundred quotas that we have to rely on. We are only exporting 8 to 10 quotas from those categories. We are filling the quotas only in those categories, in which we also have complaints against. But why are we not filling the remaining one hundred odd quotas? No one talks about it; no one criticizes himself. Let us fill those quotas, too. There is not a preparatory act in this respect. We have to inquire: Why are we unable to fill those quotas? Is there a clog in the production mechanism? How can we overcome it? The USA may be told that "finance me and let me expand the production capacity." There are Eximbank resources to think about. I mean we have to be more daring, more inquisitive instead of insisting on the USA that it has to buy those ready goods I keep in stocks. The USA has its own problems in its backyard, too. It has a current deficit and budget deficit. The USA producers have also complaints. There are people sleeping under the bridges, hungry as wolves. I am trying to say that the fact that the USA is a super power does not mean that it has no problems. Our problems may be more small-scaled and easier to overcome when compared with their problems. But before everything else, you have to be in strict control of your own agenda. First you keep your agenda under control; then synchronize it with other people's agenda.

Host: When you talk to your USA peers or make evaluations among yourselves, can you say that the USA's business world still disregards Turkey from the list of those countries with a prevalence for investment? Is there still a lack of confidence? Of course, particularly due to the Iraqi war, do they think that Turkey is not worth "to come and start doing something"?

Adnan Nas: The truth is that one should distinguish the American public from the American government. Turkey is a well-known country to the American government; but we cannot say the same thing for the USA people. The USA public has always been of a different kind. It is a little bit different from Europe. In fact, Turkey's image in Europe is also poor. We are, in my opinion, luckier in the USA than Europe in this respect because at least the street people in the USA don't have much idea about Turkey. The ones who have an idea vaguely remembers that we had helped them during the Korean war. This is a positive starting point according to me. But we have been unable to further things in this respect. There is not much about the Turkish image on the minds of the street people in the USA, of an average company or enterprise. Because of geographical distance, tourism relations are also slow in development. Of course, there are problems related to the security; but is Turkey among the first countries that the USA businessman would give a thought before others? It is very hard to say yes to this question. Perhaps we should convince the U.S. businessmen to give a priority to Turkey. What should we do to achieve this?  We should offer them something more advantageous than the one that businessman gets in another place. This advantage may be in the form of offering a joint business in regional countries; the efficiency of our labor; other issues. It is reported that the US has big problems with China. It is said that it sees China as its biggest competitor; however, the trade between the USA and China is on an upwards surge notwithstanding the huge foreign trade deficits. The USA is unable to resist the goods offered by China because they are very cheap. The US company is making investments in China. I mean, commercial logic runs a little bit different. The commercial logic may not always be matching with what the governments indicate.

Host: Are you hopeful about the new era? If the Iraqi war continues, will this be a blowing strike to Turkish business world? Notwithstanding the fact that relations with IMF are on good tracks, and Turkey is implementing a program, will a long-term commotion in Iraq continue to represent a risk for both foreign investments and Turkish business world? Because the USA has yet to decide about what to do in Iraq.

Adnan Nas: It is true that there is a chaos in Iraq. For instance, we have yet to find very tangible cooperation projects contrary to those ones we see in Afghanistan. I think this is due to Turkey's proximity to Iraq, and because of the sensitive relations with the Kurds; hence the difficulties here. I don't think it is a deterrent factor for all foreign investors and the USA investors. We have more important problems. If we can overcome them, and as for the investments, if we can convince the USA companies to make joint ventures or subcontracting agreements with Turkish companies for their own benefit, Iraq may be a basket of opportunities. Risk in the political arena does not always mean risk in trade area because in trade return is important; revenue is important. I mean if the return is huge and considerable, then some risks may be assumed.

Host: Mr. Adnan Nas, we thank you very much. Today, with Mr. Adnan Nas, the Chairman of Turkish-American Businessmen Association, we talked about the impacts of President Bush's visit.

Adnan Nas: One final thing. First: All indicators point out that the world system is undergoing a redesigning. This new line is a huge opportunity for Turkey; we have to make use of it. One of the most important things we have to do while making use of it is to think strategically and the other is to strengthen our economy with a very powerful and hard-will concentration. In my opinion, it is up to us to strengthen our economy. Other than these, we have to maintain our secular, democratic state of law. I believe this is what NATO is also expecting from us; what the Western Alliance is expecting from us.

Host: For this reason, the NATO Summit is an opportunity for us to think and review the situation; to evaluate it. We thank you very much for your opinions. Ladies and gentlemen, with my guest, Mr. Adnan Nas, the Chairman of the Turkish-American Businessmen Association, we commented and talked about the messages hidden behind President Bush's Ankara visit, and what those messages may mean for the business world; what, more importantly, we had the chance to look at tomorrow's NATO Summit more closely.