Category: Iran

  • End the hypocrisy and talk Turkey

    End the hypocrisy and talk Turkey

    By Gideon Rachman

    ErdoganAtCastle

    You can gauge the importance of Turkey to the western world by the fact that both Barack Obama and David Cameron gave speeches to the Turkish parliament in Ankara within months of taking office.

    The west cares about Turkey because it is a hinge state between east and west and a rare example of a majority Muslim state that is also a secular democracy. Turkey is a neighbour of both Russia and Iran, and is also a member of Nato. It has a rapidly growing and dynamic economy. And yet these days Turkey is also increasingly a source of anxiety to the west.

    The country voted against new UN sanctions on Iran and has a dangerously antagonistic relationship with Israel. But it is Turkey’s faltering effort to join the European Union that has come to symbolise the country’s uncertain relationship with the west.

    “Talking Turkey” is meant to mean speaking frankly and getting to the heart of the matter. But, in the European Union, “talking Turkey” has become a synonym for double-talk and evasiveness.

    Since 2005, the EU and Turkey have been negotiating a treaty that is meant to get Turkey into the EU – a prospect that was first dangled in front of the Turks in 1963. But Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, have made it clear that they oppose Turkish membership. The Turkish government says it still wants to “join Europe”, yet its foreign policy betrays understandable impatience.

    So perhaps it is time really to “talk Turkey” – and to be frank. It would indeed be a wonderful thing if Turkey were to join the EU. But if that is to happen, Turkish membership has to be agreed on a new basis. It cannot involve total free movement of people between Turkey and the rest of the EU.

    At present, citizens of all the current 27 members of the EU enjoy visa-free travel around the union – and can move to any other country to work. There are transition arrangements for recent members such as Bulgaria and Romania, which mean that complete free movement of people will not kick in until they have been in the club for seven years. But the rules are clear. Eventually, all citizens of the EU have to enjoy equal rights.

    It is those rules that will have to change if Turkish accession to the EU is ever to become a reality. Creating special rules for the Turks would be denounced as unfair, and even racist. But, as long as Turkish membership raises the prospect of mass emigration to the rest of the EU, it will be impossible to sell it to western European voters.

    This stark fact has been pretty clear since the enlargement of the EU to central Europe triggered large-scale migration westwards. The British government infamously suggested that about 13,000 Poles would move to Britain to work after Poland joined the union. The real number was well over half a million. The French government is currently controversially deporting gypsies who have moved to France, following Romanian accession to the EU. The surge in the vote for the radical, anti-immigration right in the recent Dutch elections demonstrated that mass migration, particularly from Muslim countries such as Turkey, is unpopular enough to transform domestic politics in some western European countries.

    In the face of all this evidence, European politicians would simply be irresponsible to press ahead with negotiations to bring Turkey into the European Union without addressing the issue of immigration. In the long run, they will not do it. In the short run, they take refuge in double-talk and hypocrisy.

    On his recent trip to Ankara, Mr Cameron carefully positioned himself as a champion of Turkish membership of the EU, claiming that he was “angry” that Turkey was being so badly treated. The very next day, Mr Cameron re-iterated his determination that the number of immigrants coming into Britain should be sharply reduced. Logically, he cannot have it both ways.

    Western European leaders would doubtless argue that now is not the time to deal with these contradictions and hypocrisies. Even on the best-case scenario, Turkish membership is still many years off. The difficult issues can be dealt with later.

    But that is far too complacent. The fact is that Turkey is an important country whose relations with the west are deteriorating fast.

    It would be a gamble to try to revive the Turkish-EU conversation by finally facing up to the question of immigration. The Turks might walk away in a huff. But even without complete free movement of people, Turkey would still have a great deal to gain from joining the EU.

    As the second most populous nation in the union – and perhaps soon the largest – it would have a huge weight in the framing of European law, and a big delegation at the European Parliament. Turkey would also get the financial and structural aid that the EU lavishes on poorer, new members. It would have unfettered access to the European single market, a big say in the framing of EU foreign policy and the legal and diplomatic protections that come with EU membership. Under the new deal Turkish citizens would not get the automatic right to work anywhere in the EU; but they could expect travel to become significantly easier.

    Membership of the EU, without complete free movement of people, is a deal Turkey might choose to reject or accept. But, at least it is an offer that could be made in good faith.

    gideon.rachman@ft.com

    , August 23 2010

  • The great mediator

    The great mediator

    Sometimes Turkey really is a bridge between west and east

    Turkish foreign policy

    How can Davutoglu help you
    How can Mr Davutoglu help you?

    IN JUNE 2006, days after a young Israeli private was captured by Hamas, Israel’s ambassador to Turkey paid a midnight visit to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister. Gilad Shalit was feared to be gravely ill, perhaps even dead. Could Turkey help? Phone calls were made and favours called in. Mr Shalit turned out to be alive, and his captors promised the Turks they would treat him respectfully.

    Turkey’s relations with Israel, once an ally, have worsened of late, and hit a fresh low in May, when Israeli commandos raided a Turkish ship carrying humanitarian supplies to Gaza, killing nine Turkish citizens. Yet Turkey continues to lobby Hamas for Mr Shalit’s release.

    Turkey’s falling out with Israel has sparked a flurry of anguished commentary in the West about its supposed eastward drift under the mildly Islamist Justice and Development party, which has governed the country since 2002. Concern over its cosy relations with Iran, despite that country’s refusal to suspend suspect nuclear work, has run particularly high. Yet nobody complained in April 2007 when Turkey brokered the release of 15 British Royal Navy sailors who had been seized by Iran. Similarly, France was delighted in mid-May when a personal intervention by Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, secured the release of Clotilde Reiss, a French teacher being held in Iran on spying charges.

    Turkey is the first stop for thousands of political refugees from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Central Asia. These include Mohammed Mostafei, an Iranian lawyer who took up the case of Sakineh Ashtiani, a woman facing death by stoning in Iran for alleged adultery. Mr Mostafei fled to Turkey earlier this month after receiving death threats (he has since gone to Norway). Now Turkey has discreetly taken up his client’s case (although Iran has turned down a Brazilian offer of asylum for Ms Ashtiani). It is also pressing Iran for the release of three American hikers who were arrested, on suspicion of “spying”, near the Iraq border a year ago and who have been rotting in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison ever since.

    Turkey’s mediating skills have even aroused excitement in Africa. Mr Davutoglu recently revealed that Botswana had sought his help in fixing a territorial dispute with Namibia. Flattered though he was, however, Mr Davutoglu confessed that, for once, he was stumped.

    http://www.economist.com/node/16847136?story_id=16847136&fsrc=rss, Aug 19th 2010

  • Iran poised to fill vacuum after U.S. withdrawal

    Iran poised to fill vacuum after U.S. withdrawal

    By Richard Engel, NBC chief foreign correspondent

    BAGHDAD – Every conversation I have in Iraq these days reaches back in history. When I ask policemen, government officials or Iraqi journalists what they think will happen after U.S. combat troops leave at the end of this month, our discussions inevitably become two-hour examinations of Islamic and Middle Eastern history. This is not simply an American pullout. Here August 2010 is seen as a turning point for Iraq.

    The biggest concern many Iraqis seem to have is that the U.S. combat withdrawal will leave a power vacuum that will be filled by Iraq’s traditional rival and longtime enemy, Persian Iran. For seven years the United States has exerted its influence in Iraq bluntly, sending in troops, tanks and contractors. Iran’s strategy to influence its neighbor has been slower, cheaper, but also effective.

    In the early 16th century, just a few decades after Christopher Columbus landed on America’s shores, the last great Islamic empire was fighting to rule the Middle East, the Mediterranean and the rest of the world. From his capital on the Bosporus, Istanbul, the hero of the Ottoman Empire Sultan Suliman “The Magnificent” seemed undefeatable. Suliman’s mission was to impose Ottoman domination around the globe. His call to war was jihad. Suliman believed he was a Muslim successor to the Roman Caesars. He liked to be called Caesar. Suliman’s dream was to unite the world under one ruler and one God. Suliman’s ability to raise soldiers, build warships and transport armies was unmatched by his Christian adversaries in Europe. Suliman skillfully used North African corsairs, Christian mercenaries and slaves and an elite corps of riflemen armed with arquebuses to spread the Ottoman superpower.

    While European armies fought Suliman with stone-ball cannons, swords and “Greek Fire” – a medieval flamethrower – one city-state tried a different approach to confront the Ottomans. The Venetians were the great shippers of the age. It was a lucrative trade that made the people of St. Mark so wealthy they built their almost magical capital on water. Despite their riches, the Venetians knew they could never confront Suliman in a direct flight. So the Venetians played coy and used politics. The Venetian strategy was to undermine the Ottoman Empire from within. They spied relentlessly on the Ottoman court, the “Sublime Porte” in Istanbul’s opulent Topkapi palace. They bribed Ottoman officials handsomely. They bought Suilman’s advisers summarily. It allowed the Venetians to confront a superpower, at least for a while.

    Five centuries years later, many Iraqis believe Iran has played a similar game with the United States in Iraq. Iran knew it could never take on American army divisions and Air Force wings in a direct confrontation in Iraq. So Iran infiltrated the Iraqi government. For seven years Iran has spied relentlessly on Iraqi governments in the Topkapi of today, Baghdad’s grim, prison-like Green Zone. Iran has bribed Iraqi officials handsomely. Iran has bought Iraqi advisers summarily. It has allowed Iran to confront a superpower, at least for a while.

    Iran could well be the biggest benefactor of the American withdrawal.

    Richard Engel will be providing special coverage throughout the U.S. drawdown. Check back here at worldblog.msnbc.com and at nightly.msnbc.com to follow his reports.

  • Kurdish PKK Using PJAK to Isolate Turkey

    Kurdish PKK Using PJAK to Isolate Turkey

    Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 33August 19, 2010 04:49 Featured By: Wladimir van Wilgenburg Rezan Javid, PJAK Coordinator

    The rising tension and provocative rhetoric surrounding Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons are a matter of public record. Yet, are there other agendas being played out amidst the larger confrontation between Iran and the West? One such agenda may be found in the mountainous border region between Iran and the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, home to camps of the Partiya Jiyana Azad a Kurdistane (PJAK – Party of Free Life of Iranian Kurdistan), a Kurdish militant nationalist group that claims to be fighting for the “democratic autonomy” of the Kurdish community in northwestern Iran. The movement has been engaged in a low-level insurgency in the border region since 2006. Recently, there have been signs that the larger Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan (PKK – Kurdistan Workers’ Party) is using its junior partner PJAK to isolate Turkey by pushing Ankara into an alliance with Iran, which  would strengthen the PKK’s position vis-à-vis both Turkey and Iran and would result in weakened relations between Turkey and its Western allies.

    PJAK is part of the Koma Civaken Kurdistan (KCK – Kurdistan Democratic Confederation) headed by PKK General Murat Karayilan and is generally considered to be an integral part of its umbrella organization. The movement admits it has relations with the PKK and recognizes imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan as its own supreme leader (Rudaw.net, July 19). [1] According to the U.S. Treasury Department, PJAK is controlled by the PKK and has Turkish Kurds in its ranks. [2]

    Currently, Iranian artillery shells the border regions of northern Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to pressure the KRG to take action against the PKK/PJAK and to convince them to support Iranian-supported Shi’a parties in Iraq, according to local journalist Kamal Chomani. [3] Another source suggests that Iran is using PJAK and PKK to militarize the border regions in case of an American attack. Iran fears the United States could use the Iraqi Kurdistan region as a launching pad against Iran. [4] Despite this, the KRG does not carry out operations against PJAK and tries to limit media access and attention to PJAK by sealing off PJAK-controlled regions.

    The KRG sees PJAK as an internal Iranian problem and considers the Iranian bombardments interference in Iraqi affairs. Iran and the KRG prefer to maintain economic relations, but the KRG also wants to maintain a strategic relationship with the United States to give it leverage with Turkey and its Arab partners in Iraq. Officially, the KRG is against the presence of PJAK in its administrative territory and favors a diplomatic solution. According to KRG Foreign Minister Fallah Mustafa Bakir, “We don’t believe violence can solve this problem. We do not allow any groups to launch attacks.” [5]

    PJAK’s armed activities against Iran have made it the main Kurdish opposition party among Iranian Kurds. Other Kurdish Iranian parties are allegedly financed by the KRG and their camps are tolerated in the Kurdistan region. In exchange for this, these actors do not carry out attacks against Iran in order to prevent any damage to the KRG’s relations with that country. Furthermore, the main Iranian Kurdish parties and rivals to PJAK, the left-wing Komala Party and the Partiya Demokrata Kurdistan (PDK – Kurdistan Democratic Party), are both weakened and splintered after being defeated militarily by Iran.

    PJAK is attracting international attention and support from Kurdish youth through its armed actions and assassinations in Iran. A Kurdish political rival of PJAK confirmed that the armed struggle is making PJAK more popular among the young Kurdish population. Other sources indicate PJAK is making some inroads among Kurdish students in Tehran. [6] PJAK leader Hadji Amedi is a former member of the Partiya Demokrata Kurdistan – Iran (PDK-I) and according to journalist Hawar  Bayzan, 40% of the Kurds executed in Iran were PJAK-members. [7] This shows the growing influence of PJAK among Iran’s Kurdish community.

    Iran perceives PJAK as a minor threat and has tried to increase cooperation with Turkey against the PKK and its partners since 2004 (southasiaanalysis.org, August 3, 2004). Despite this, the Iranian consul in Erbil claims that the presence of PJAK is a “small issue.” While PJAK can kill a few soldiers, it cannot destabilize Iran or hurt relations between Iran and the Kurdistan region, according to the consul. [8] It indeed appears that Iran is robust enough to deal with internal enemies like PJAK, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK) and the opposition Green movement, while increasing trade with the KRG. Apart from Iranian pressure, PJAK’s activities have been hurt by the U.S. designation of the movement as a terrorist organization. PJAK’s leader claimed negotiations to form a united Iranian opposition failed after the United States took measures against PJAK (Newsmax.com, November 24, 2009). According to PJAK Coordinator Rezan Javid, the movement is very positive about Iran’s new Green opposition movement. [9]

    Therefore, PJAK is trying to gain American support or induce America to stop cooperating with Turkey against PJAK/PKK. “My party hopes that in the future the United States changes its policies towards PJAK and Iran. We are not against the United States,” the PJAK-coordinator said, citing similar democratic goals in the Middle East. [10]

    A former PJAK commander, Mamand Rozhe, told an American daily in 2008 that the PKK wanted to have a relationship with the United States and formed PJAK as a means of attracting American support (Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2008). Now there are indications that PJAK/PKK is trying to lure Turkey into cooperating with Iran against a common cause (PJAK/PKK) to create tension between Turkey and the Western powers and Israel. For instance, both PJAK and the PKK welcomed recent tensions between Turkey and Israel. According to Javid, this stopped intelligence sharing between Israel and Turkey against the PKK. “Israel gave intelligence to Turkey, but after the flotilla crisis Israel stopped giving intelligence to the Turkish regime,” he stated. [11]

    The pro-PKK news agency Firatnews.com concluded after the fifth PJAK Congress that Turkey has to make a choice between Iran or the United States and that this would ultimately benefit the PKK (ANF, May 11). If Turkey chooses the United States, Iran could again resort to covertly supporting the PKK against Turkey. However, if Turkey chooses Iran, this opens the door for the PKK and PJAK to receive indirect Western backing and the removal of its terrorist designation. It seems that the PKK is using PJAK against Turkey, while Iran is using the PJAK threat to both pressure the KRG and build up a military presence in the border regions of Iran.

    Notes

    1. Author’s interview with PJAK Coordinator Rezan Javid in Qandil, August 12, 2010.
    2. Ustreas.gov, February 4, 2009.  The author has also spoken with PJAK members from Turkey.
    3. Author’s interview with journalist Komal Chomani, August 12, 2010.
     4. Author’s interview with Kurdish journalist Rebwar Karim, August 13, 2010.
    5. Author’s interview with the KRG Head of Foreign Relations, August 12, 2010.
    6. Author’s interview with the PDK-I’s UK representative, Loghman H. Ahmedi, August 4, 2010.
    7. Author’s interview with Hawar Bazyan, August 3, 2010.
    8. Author’s interview with Iranian Consul Seyid Azin Hosseini in the Kurdish capital of Erbil, August 13, 2010.  
    9. Author’s interview with PJA Coordinator Rezan Javid in Qandil, August 12, 2010.  
    10. Ibid
    11. Author’s interview with PJAK Coordinator Rezan Javid in Qandil, August 12, 2010.

    https://jamestown.org/program/kurdish-pkk-using-pjak-to-isolate-turkey/

  • White House denies giving Turkey ultimatum over Israel, Iran

    White House denies giving Turkey ultimatum over Israel, Iran

    Bill Burton
    'I really don't know where they would have divined that from'

    US admits holding ‘ongoing dialogue’ with Turkey but ‘no such ultimatum was issued’.

    MILWAUKEE – The White House on Monday denied press reports that President Barack Obama warned Turkey it could lose its chance to obtain US-made weapons over its position on Israel and Iran.

    Britain’s Financial Times newspaper quoted a senior official as saying that Obama told Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan that “some of the actions that Turkey has taken have caused questions to be raised on the Hill” referring to the US Congress.

    These questions centered on “whether we can have confidence in Turkey as an ally,” said the official.

    But while he confirmed the two leaders spoke several days ago, White House spokesman Bill Burton denied that any “ultimatum” had been issued to Ankara.

    “I really don’t know where they would have divined that from,” he said.

    “The president and Erdogan did speak about 10 days ago and they talked about Iran and the flotilla and other issues related to that,” Burton said.

    “We obviously have an ongoing dialogue with them, but no such ultimatum was issued.”

    Erdogan wants to buy American drone aircraft to combat separatist Kurdish rebels after the US military withdraws from Iraq at the end of 2011, the Financial Times reported.

    The rebel group, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), has bases in the mountains in the north of Iraq, near the Turkish border.

    The United States voiced disappointment after Turkey voted against fresh UN sanctions on Iran, which the United Nations Security Council adopted in June.

    Ankara argued that Tehran should be given a chance to carry out a nuclear fuel swap deal, brokered by Turkey and Brazil.

    The paper quoted the unnamed official as saying congressional concerns over Turkey mean “that some of the requests Turkey has made of us, for example in providing some of the weaponry that it would like to fight the PKK, will be harder for us to move through Congress.”

    Relations between Turkey and Israel were thrown into crisis after an Israeli raid targeting Gaza-bound aid ships on May 31 that left nine Turks dead.

    Obama called on Turkey to cool its rhetoric about the raid when he met Erdogan at the G20 summit in Toronto in June, said the FT.

    http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=40649, 17.08.2010

  • Obama warns Turkish PM over stance on Israel, Iran: report

    Obama warns Turkish PM over stance on Israel, Iran: report

    President Barack Obama has warned the Turkish prime minister that Ankara’s position on Israel and Iran could lessen its chances of obtaining US weapons, a report said Monday.

    The Turkish leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, wants to buy American drone aircraft to attack separatist Kurdish rebels after the US military withdraws from Iraq at the end of 2011, Britain’s Financial Times newspaper reported.

    The rebel group, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), has bases in the mountains in the north of Iraq, near the Turkish border.

    “The president has said to Erdogan that some of the actions that Turkey has taken have caused questions to be raised on the Hill (Congress),” a senior administration official was quoted as saying in the daily paper.

    These questions centred on “whether we can have confidence in Turkey as an ally,” said the official.

    “That means that some of the requests Turkey has made of us, for example in providing some of the weaponry that it would like to fight the PKK, will be harder for us to move through Congress.”

    The United States voiced disappointment after Turkey voted against fresh UN sanctions on Iran, which the United Nations Security Council adopted in June.

    Ankara argued that Tehran should be given a chance to carry out a nuclear fuel swap deal, brokered by Turkey and Brazil.

    Relations between Turkey and Israel were thrown into crisis after an Israeli raid targeting Gaza-bound aid ships on May 31 that left nine Turks dead.

    Obama called on Turkey to cool its rhetoric about the raid when he met Erdogan at the G20 summit in Toronto in June, said the FT.