Eser Şekercioğlu is a visiting scholar at the Center for Policy Studies at Sabanci University in Istanbul.

This has been an exceptionally busy week for Turkish foreign and economic policy makers. The G20 and NATO Summits were immediately followed by Barack Obama's visit to Turkey, which happened to be the president's first official visit except for the international summits in London and Prague.

This extraordinarily intense week meant, at least partially, that the public had to prioritize. Unfortunately, the "Rasmussen crisis" in the NATO Summit and President Barack Obama's two-day program in Ankara took centre stage at the expense of the attention needed for the G20 meeting and its long-term implications. Still, the media outlets were in general responsive to the summit, albeit somewhat superficially.

Economic Interests

The G20 Summit has been evaluated, especially when it comes to short- to middle-term economic consequences, not as a stand-alone process with explicit and concrete results, but in conjunction with its implications for Turkey through the IMF. With this regard, the resulting communiqué issued by the G20 leaders was welcomed. The additional funds made available for the IMF are especially regarded positively. This perception was buttressed by the speculations that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan might strike a deal with the IMF during the London Summit.

For Turkey, the G20 Summit's most profound results might prove to be the confident but cautious tone of the final document and the commitment of the group to restore confidence in the financial markets and economic growth. It is still unknown to what extent actual steps will be taken, but one important aspect is confidence, and any step toward restoring confidence should be welcome. This point was generally either overlooked or mentioned only in passing. Then again, in the aftermath of the summit there was little time to absorb and digest the implications and produce in-depth analyses of the summit and the Leaders' Statement issued on April 2.

Despite these above mentioned factors that affected the public perception of the summit, the general reception was positive even if it was a little too romantic. Several newspapers mentioned the summit on their front pages with references to "The end of wild capitalism," "A new world order," etc. Such headlines were not limited to marginal publications but seen in the mainstream media. The general message from the summit, as it is received in Turkey, is the call for more international cooperation and tighter control of the financial markets.

International Interests

In the run-up to the summit, Prime Minister Erdogan tried to publicize the importance of the G20 and Turkey's role in the group. However, naturally, unlike the more heavyweight actors, Turkey's actual weight in the group is limited. However, one story that has had some impact was the news based on a Financial Times story which "revealed" that the British Foreign Ministry grouped G20 countries according to their importance for Britain, and that Turkey was in the "second league." There was little infuriation about the news, but it still lent support to the impression that the G20's global reach might be limited and that it would primarily serve the wealthier members of the group.

The tension between the "continental" and Anglo-Saxon approaches to financial regulation and the size of fiscal stimulus was largely ignored in Turkish public opinion. Turkey seemed to have refrained from supporting either position in a binding manner. Given Turkey's sometimes conflicting bilateral relations with the US and the EU, this position is perhaps understandable.

However, as an economy increasingly dependent on foreign capital and exports for its fiscal solvency, Turkey might have been more vocal against the possibility of a rise in protectionism. The final document of the summit was generally perceived as a positive development. However, Turkey is viewed as a recipient of these policies rather than a participant in the decision-making process itself.

As far as domestic reverberations of the summit go, again the G20 Summit was left in the shadow of the "Rasmussen crisis" at the NATO Summit and Barack Obama's visit. Both developments were regarded as having more important and immediate implications for Turkey. I shall focus on these points more on the Political Interests section.

Political Interests

On the domestic front, the G20 Summit had little impact. Two reasons can be identified: first, the NATO Summit and Obama visit took centre stage in Turkish politics. The NATO Summit was seen as quite important even without the "Rasmussen crisis." France's return to the military wing and Turkey's response to it (that is, whether to make Turkey's support conditional on a positive change in France's attitude towards Turkey's accession to the EU) was an important subject. But the NATO Summit turned out to be even more dramatic with the selection of Anders Rasmussen as the secretary-general. Erdogan's public objection was well publicized in Turkey and bolstered his image among his supporters. It could be debated whether this was a sound foreign policy choice, but it cannot be debated that Erdogan earned some political capital at home. Most newspapers declared this so-called "Rasmussen crisis" and its resolution through some vague concessions as a victory for the prime minister. Any political impact of the G20 Summit was bound to be left in the shadows.

Second, Turkey's actual role in the G20 meetings and shaping of policy was limited. Unlike in France, Britain and Germany, there was little if any political capital to be transferred from the summit to domestic politics. In fact, in the newspapers, Prime Minister Erdogan's short conversation with Barack Obama was given more emphasis than whatever role he had in the summit. As a prelude to the impending visit of the US president, this short conversation was deemed more newsworthy than the actual processions of the summit.

Global Leadership

Overall, the London Summit was viewed as a positive and constructive step towards managing the global crisis and maybe the first indications of a reformed capitalism and less volatile market system. A least, the summit produced a document that focuses unequivocally on increased international cooperation, which is perceived quite positively in Turkey. However, there seems to be no clear role drawn for Turkey. The transition from G8 to G20 is not only viewed positively, but was publicly endorsed by the prime minister himself. Since a couple of months before the summit, Prime Minister Erdogan, on a few occasions, talked about the need for an expanded group of leading economies to discuss and decide on international economic issues. In the meantime, he also tried to portray Turkey as an active member of this leading group. Despite his efforts, both because of other developments that are deemed more important and Turkey's actual weight within the G20, it is hard to say that the G20 Summit in London had any consequential change in Turkey's international standing. After all, size matters, it seems. Overall, what characterized the perception of the G20 Summit in London was an initial positive response based on superficial evaluation of the summit and a lack of in-depth analysis in the aftermath due to factors I described above.