President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday evening that there is no obstacle in the way of further expansion of Tehran-Ankara all-out cooperation.
In a meeting with the visiting Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Guler, he expressed hope that bilateral relations would further boost in all areas.
Terming his August visit to Turkey as a crucial and determining visit, the president said the visit was in line with the two countries mutual interest.
During Ahmadinejad’s visit to Turkey, a joint statement was issued by the two sides stressing the importance of energy in economic development of the two states.
The two sides agreed to promote the level of cooperation in the fields of energy, gas and oil to the highest level and try to finalize agreements signed between the two capitals in 2007 and 2008 to this end.
Guler expressed his satisfaction with the current level of cooperation between the two neighboring states.
He reiterated that Ankara attaches great importance to expansion of ties with Tehran.
The Turkish energy minister further called for materialization of the agreements reached between the two sides.
Guler, heading a delegation, arrived in Tehran Saturday evening to finalize a gas accord with Iranian officials.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited the United States to attend the G-20 Summit, where he joined the leaders of developed and industrializing nations to discuss the global financial crisis. In addition to his participation in the summit activities, Erdogan held bilateral meetings with several world leaders.
In his public statements throughout the trip, Erdogan underlined the importance of international cooperation in fighting the global crisis. Having emphasized the experience that Turkey had gathered from its own economic recovery programs as a result of the devastating crises of the 1990s and early-2000s, Erdogan maintained that his country represented a hope and a model for those countries seeking a way out of the current crisis (www.akparti.org.tr, November 13; Yeni Safak, November 16).
These inflated statements aside, how the AKP government will cope with the global financial crisis and whether it will seek help from the IMF had been matters of debate (EDM, October 31). Since the AKP came to power in 2002, reducing Turkey’s dependence on the IMF has been one of the government’s primary economic goals. The AKP has been arguing that Turkey could overcome the current crisis without significant support from the international community. Since the previous stand-by agreement with the IMF expired in May, Turkey has been resisting another arrangement with the IMF because of the strict fiscal conditions it would impose (New York Times, November 7).
During the G-20 Summit Erdogan met with Managing Director of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn on November 14, and their teams had additional talks on November 15. Erdogan also met the President of the World Bank Robert Zoellick. The World Bank is expected to increase credits to Turkey to support various projects dealing with small and medium-sized enterprises and renewable energy (www.cnnturk.com; Anatolian Agency, November 15).
The statements coming from both sides following the meeting between Erdogan and Strauss-Kahn indicate that Turkey might be reversing its stubborn position on IMF aid. Both parties stressed that Turkey would maintain cooperation with the IMF in the future. Economic sources speculated that a new stand-by agreement worth $15 to $20 billion might be signed soon, although differences of opinion remain about the extent and kind of IMF aid to Turkey (www.tgrthaber.com.tr, November 16; Today’s Zaman, November 17). Experts believe that the decision, albeit late, to start negotiations with the IMF is a step in the right direction (Referans, November 17).
Erdogan also gave two public talks, in which he outlined the parameters of the new activism in Turkish foreign policy and Turkey’s strategic partnership with the United States, as well as developments in domestic politics. On November 13 Erdogan spoke at a conference at Columbia University, entitled “Turkey’s Role in Shaping the Future” (www.ntvmsnbc.com, November 14). On November 14 Erdogan discussedTurkish foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. During these addresses, he congratulated U.S. President-elect Barack Obama and emphasized that Turkey was ready to work with the new administration, provided that it was sensitive to Turkey’s priorities.
On relations with Armenia, Erdogan repeated Turkey’s position that the issue must be dealt with by the parties concerned through channels of dialogue already established. He warned the incoming administration not to let ethnic lobbies dictate American policy and spoil bilateral relations between Turkey and the United States (Hurriyet Daily News, November 17).
On the issue of nuclear proliferation and Iran, Erdogan highlighted Turkey’s new-found role as peace broker and criticized U.S.-led efforts against Tehran. Earlier in the week, the New York Times reported that Erdogan had offered to mediate between Iran and the incoming Obama administration (New York Times, November 11). During his talk at the Brookings Institution, Erdogan said that given the trust Turkey had built up with Iran, it was better positioned than the EU’s troika to facilitate talks with Tehran. Some of his remarks on this issue were, however, more controversial. Erdogan maintained that trying to force Iran to drop its nuclear program while other countries maintained nuclear arsenals was no ground for reducing tension. He instead urged the countries pressuring Iran to eliminate such weapons themselves, which would be a better basis for a comprehensive solution (www.cnnturk.com, November 15). Erdogan’s call for “total nuclear disarmament” has been criticized as a fundamental deviation from Turkey’s official position (Milliyet, November 15).
On the issue of Iraq, Erdogan emphasized Turkey’s positive contributions to the reconstruction efforts there. He criticized Obama for setting a clear exit date, however. He expressed concerns about a premature American withdrawal, arguing that Iraq’s infrastructure had not matured enough. (Cihan Haber Ajansi, November 14). U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesman Robert Wood criticized Erdogan’s assessment as overly pessimistic (Washington Times, November 15).
There were questions about whether Erdogan would meet Obama during the trip; but because Obama has decided not to meet foreign leaders before his inauguration, Erdogan searched out people who were likely to shape Obama’s policies. In a separate meeting during his visit, Erdogan met with Obama’s advisers Madeline Albright, Jim Leach, and Philip Gordon (Yeni Safak, November 15). Some Turkish observers believe that the choice of the Brookings Institute as the venue of Erdogan’s speech in Washington, D.C., was also part of Turkey’s attempts to influence the incoming administration. Veteran journalist Cengiz Candar noted that despite its non-partisan position, Brookings was regarded as a pro-Democrat organization and many Brookings specialists, such as Philip Gordon, who were familiar with Turkey may end up working in the new administration (Referans, November 15; Today’s Zaman, November 17). Another senior analyst, Semih Idiz, however, argued that Erdogan’s controversial statements on Iran might ironically rock the boat, just as Erdogan was seeking to build bridges (Milliyet, November 17).
Only time will tell whether “think-tank diplomacy” will put Turkish-American relations on the right track. In any case, given Erdogan’s critical position on Obama’s declared policies, it will be interesting to see how the new administration will manage relations with Turkey.
He was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, a hawk in terms of foreign policy. In an interview with Stern magazine Zbigniew Brzezinski explains why President-elect Obama reminds him of John F. Kennedy, what he expects from the new administration’s foreign policy – and why the US will demand a greater European military commitment in Afghanistan
Dr. Brzezinksi, as one of Washington’s ultimate insiders you have witnessed many presidential elections. How did you experience Obama’s victory last Tuesday?
I was with friends, watching television. I had predicted his win. But when it actually really happened, it was exactly 11.01 p.m., I was very moved.
You? During your time as National Security Advisor, you were regarded to be one of the toughest politicians ever.
I saw the faces of so many citizens, black and white, reacting to their choice. And it just dramatized to me, that this was really a historically significant election. We might witness the birth of a 21st century America. In fact, this election could define America as the prototype of an eventual global society.
And why should this be America?
I cannot imagine another country, neither in Europe, neither in Asia, which could have elected someone as uniquely different as Barack Obama is. Barack Hussein Obama is accepted and cherished, really cherished, because he epitomizes the unique diversity of American society and shares the dominant values of that society.
Which are?
Racial equality, a basic commitment to democracy, a notion of elementary social justice. The notion that some people should not be allowed to be as poor as they are – and that some are not entitled be quite as rich as they think they can be.
Don’t you expect a little too much from a relatively inexperienced Senator from Illinois?
I met him last year, and he made the best impression on me of anyone since John F. Kennedy.He is better equipped in intellect and temperament for the highest office than anyone I can think of in recent memory. He is very different from most American politicians.
What makes him so unique?
A kind of intellectual self-confidence, which reflects real intelligence, not arrogance. A friendliness – but with a distance and a dignity. A little patrician, almost. And a calculating rationality. He does not wave the do-gooders flag. He is an idealist, but not an ideologue. He knows, that compromises will be needed.
Will Obama be the President of a superpower in decline?
No. That’s nonsense and often said with a lot of schadenfreude. The matter of fact is, that the era of American superpower stupidity is over, the time of self-isolation. Under President Bush, we acted arrogant, unilateralist and – worst of all – driven by fear. A culture of fear was cultivated by this administration, which replaced the Statue of Liberty as a symbol for America with Guantanamo. America has lost its confidence. This is one of the worst legacies of the Bush era. But that will come to an end now, very quickly.
Obama already claims the dawn of a new American leadership. How could he achieve this while the country faces the worst economical crisis since 70 years?
He will inherit a grim reality. But the painful financial crisis also teaches us an important lesson: without America the world is in trouble. If America is declining, the rest of the world is falling apart. And have no illusions: the German economy will not recover without an American recovery. America can recover without Germany. At the same time, we understand: we have to cooperate with the world in order to do well.
What will be the biggest foreign policy challenges for the new President?
Afghanistan is certainly one of them. There, for he time being, we would need to deploy more troops. But more soldiers are not the solution. The solution is a demilitarization of our engagement.
By negotiating with the Taliban, as Obama already indicated?
By negotiating wit the various groups of Taliban. We should be able to reach local and regional arrangements with them. If they would stop al-Qaeda activities, for example, we would locally disengage.
You are promoting a de facto withdrawal of Nato troops?
No. Nato has to continue our military activities in the meantime. And if we are serious about our alliance and about consultations, we have to be also serious about sharing burdens. You cannot have arrangements, where some soldiers risk their lives day and night and some soldiers cannot even go on patrols at night. That is not an alliance.
Will Obama expect more engagement from Europe, Germany?
The American people expect this. If the Europeans want to give us only nice advise, but expect us to do the heavy lifting – then don’t expect America necessarily to listen to these advises. Europeans will no longer have the alibi of Bush’s bad policy. But let’s be clear: there are no alibis for us any more, either. We will have to consult, share decisions and cooperate.
Russia’s President greeted Obama by announcing he would deploy short range missiles along the Baltic Sea.
Yes, but I think we can relax.
Relax?
Russia is a country with enormous problems. Its leaders should know, that Russia cannot isolate itself from the world or base its foreign policy on the assertion that it is entitled to an imperialist sphere of influence. It is baffling to me, how unintelligent its leaders are. Self-isolation will be destructive for Russia, not for us.
Would you suggest relaxing also in regard to Iran and its nuclear ambitions?
We need a more realistic, a more flexible and sensible approach. We should negotiate; we might negotiate even without preconditions. A successful approach to Iran has to accommodate its security interests and ours. This new diplomatic approach could help bring Iran back into its traditional role of strategic cooperation with the United States in stabilizing the Gulf region. This would be a sensible path.
Benim iki Amerikali arkadasim Filistine gonullu olarak gittiler. Amaclari onlara yadimci olmak. 6 ya veya bir sene orada kalmayi planliyorlar. Onlarin gonderdigi emalleri okudukca icim burkuluyor. Onceki emailleri gondermedim; fakat bundan soraki emailleri sizinle paylasmanin uygun olacagini dusundum. Cunki bu emaller bize oradaki olaylarin ve yasamin gercek yuzunu yansitiyor. Bu emiller bize emperyalizmin acimsiz, inaslikla alaksi olmayan vahis yuzunu gosteriyor. Bu guce tellaligini yapan dunya basininin nekadar tarafli oldugu ve basinin hangi guclerin elinde oldugu birkez daha gosteriyor. Nerde domokrasi ve insan haklari telallari?
Israelin Filistinlilere yatigini Turkiye yapmis olsaydi neler olacagini siz dusunun. Bu konuda soylenecek cok sey var. Geirsisni sizin gorulerinze birakiyorum.
KM
Forwarded message
From: Patricia Daugherty <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Subject: Bethlehem News Updates: Number 4, 11-16-08
To: Maggie Coulter <[email protected]>
Bethlehem News, Volume 4, Sunday, November 16, 2008
As we sit down to write this week’s update it seems hard to believe we have already been in Palestine for one month! Our days are always full – with both planned and spontaneous happenings. (Note: If you have not received our 3 previous updates, please let us know. Also, please pass these on to others who would be interested. And if you don’t want to receive our updates, just let us know.)
This week we will limit our update to describing our visit on Friday to Wadi Fukeen. It encapsulates the bittersweet experience of Palestine: the persistent hope, tenacity and grace in the jaws of a virulent Israeli occupation of land theft, settlement building, environmental damage and ethnic cleansing.
Visiting Wadi Fukeen
Wadi (Arabic for valley) Fukeen is located in the Bethlehem district. As the crow flies, it is almost as close to the old city of Jerusalem as it is to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Distances are not far here – but for Palestinians this does not equate with ease of movement. For nearly all Palestinians in the West Bank, Jerusalem might as well be in California as they are not allowed to travel there without a difficult-to-get Israeli-issued permit (*more info below).
We had received two invitations to visit Wadi Fukeen, one from the young woman studying about the environment, mentioned in last week’s update and one from a young man who was working the hotel where a conference we attended was held. As we made plans to visit, we realized that we also had another contact (from Sacramento), an Israeli peace activist working with the people of Wadi Fukeen.
We took a Bethlehem taxi, which, because it had Palestinian license plates, could only travel a few miles of the well-maintained settlement bypass road, before being diverted off to a poorly maintained road to the village. The bypass road, which continued on to the illegal Israeli only settlement, Beitar Illit, was built on land stolen from Bethlehem district towns and villages. And the Jewish-only settlement itself was built on stolen land from the villages of Wadi Fukeen and Nahhalin.
As we traveled down the potholed, single lane road, we passed through ancient terraced hills of olive trees into a small beautiful fertile valley; stone farm houses formed the central village. Further on were fields planted with lush vegetables tucked in on the valley floor. Since this is a dry place, seeing these beautiful green vegetables was quite a sight!
But the other sight from which one can not escape is the massive and looming settlement snaking along the length of the ridge and spilling down towards the village homes. Everyone in the village has lost land to this illegal settlement and the land theft continues. As your eye follows the settlement along the ridge you see more housing units being constructed. Beyond that, one sees where the hill has been leveled flat for more construction. Rocks and dirt scraped from the hill were pushed into the next valley, covering olive groves belonging to the village of Nahhalin. While building of the illegal Israeli settlements continues unabated, construction in the Palestinian villages is completely restricted by Israel. Our Israeli contact told us that recently, when villagers asked the Israeli authorities what land they might be able to build on in the future, they were told that all the remaining available land would be taken for the settlement.
It is difficult to comprehend how Palestinians cope with this ever-present threat to their future and that of their children. Looking at the scar left from bulldozing the ridge top, we were reminded of Har Homa, the huge illegal settlement we see everyday from Bethlehem. Har Homa used to be covered with a forest; it had been designated by Israeli as a “nature preserve”, a euphemism for land they would eventually steal. Just 10 years ago the Israelis mowed down the trees, flatted the hill top and replaced the forest with what looks like a concrete jungle. It must have been sickening for the families of Bethlehem to watch, unable to change the outcome. This all took place in plain view from the Church of the Nativity as did the construction of the huge cement apartheid wall that presumably provides security to the settlement.
After sage tea and delicious baked flat bread of zataar (like oregano) and cheese, we went off to see the vegetable fields, meeting and talking with people along the way. Wadi Fukeen is blessed by 11 natural springs. These flow into a series of rectangular collection pools from which water is let out as needed to irrigate the fields. This is traditional farming method.
Settlers have come into the village, taken off their clothes and gone swimming in the pools, contaminating the water. Villagers have posted signs in Hebrew asking them not to do this. We have heard stories of deliberate contamination of the water by settlers in other areas of the West Bank In the past, Wadi Fukeen’s spring water was potable – but we were told that it is no longer safe to drink, in part due to the settler contamination. Now villagers must buy their drinking water from Mekorot, the Israeli water company that basically steals the water from the deep aquifer that is under the Palestinian West Bank. (Palestinians are not allowed to drill wells without Israel’s permission.)
Our village friends pointed out a large open pipe below the settlements. The pipe is an overflow for the settlement sewage (which is set up to be piped to Jerusalem for treatment). When the system overflows, raw sewage comes out of the pipe, down the hillside, contaminating the vegetable fields below. The farmers have tried to ameliorate the problem by building large raised beds and diverting the source of contamination away from the beds. However, as we write this we just received an email saying that the sewage is flowing again
The trip home
After more tea and gifts of vegetables we prepared to return to Bethlehem. In the center of the village we met up with school kids from the Aida Refugee Camp (in Bethlehem) on an afternoon field trip. A wonderful outing for kids living in very cramped conditions next to the Apartheid Wall, which cut off the last remaining near-by open space for them – an olive grove. (see ** below for more on Aida Camp) The kids and adults were waiting for their bus which had a flat tire, so we tagged along to wait, chatting more with our young village friends and playing with the kids. It was nearly dark when the bus finally came.
As the bus bumped down the road and we watched a harvest moon rise, suddenly the bus came to a halt with a repeated whisper of “Jaysh” (Arabic for army – the Israeli soldiers). All the men were ordered off the bus, both Palestinians and internationals. An armed Israeli soldier got on the bus walking down the aisle; at one point some of his gear got caught the hair of a little girl. The children were quiet. The young men got back on and we proceeded. Then suddenly there was crying and screaming! The bus lurched to a stop again. Children were running in the aisle. Patricia (who was in the back of the bus) heard several yell, “grenade!” The children were helped to file off the bus. Several had to be held tightly and consoled as they were screaming in pure terror. Thankfully, it soon it became clear that it was just a bus malfunction. A hole had blown in the heating system and steam had gushed out. But these are children who have witnessed Israeli military incursions into their camp – into their homes. A grenade on the bus after the soldier walked down the aisle was a real possibility in their minds.
We finished the day by attending a sister city event in the Bethlehem Peace Center. (Czestochowa, Poland to Bethlehem, Palestine) The Representative of the Republic of Poland to the Palestinian National Authority talked about Poland’s connection to Palestine, as two peoples who have been occupied, had their people killed and their land stolen. He offered his hope that Palestine, like Poland would also one day have its freedom from occupation and its lands restored.
* Israelis are can visit Wadi Fukeen in the Palestinian West Bank. However, Israel forbids the people of Wadi Fukeen to travel in Israel without a permit. In reality, these are rarely given except in extenuating circumstances like an illness requiring hospital treatment.
** Aida camp is one of three refugee camps in the Bethlehem district. We have mentioned Dheisheh camp (the largest) in past updates. These refugee camps have been in existence since 1948 when upwards of 800,000 Palestinians (3/4 of the population) were either forcibly expelled or forced out in fear for their lives in the months before and after Israel declared itself a state.<–>
In the latest Presidential election the U.S. has chosen to withdraw from Iraq. There will be an inevitable vacuum in the region. Many expect Turkey and Iran to become dominate in the region. Clearly, in a region that has depended on the U.S. to define the balance of powers for so many years, this is a possibility. Turkey has been pumped up over the years with U.S. military aid and supplies and looks to aggressively define its role. Syria as a Ba´athist power would be most likely to align with the militaristic Turkish regime.
Iran has social forces in the region but no real military power. Iran´s effort to acquire a nuclear weapon is clearly an attempt to address this. Should some power demonstrate a willingness to act decisively the influences of Hezbollah and Hamas on the ground could be eliminated in a week´s time. Iranian influence is based on its programs for dispossessed populations and military supplies to its sponsored militias. Iran´s performance in the Iran-Iraq war demonstrated that its military capabilities are limited. Iran may be able to influence the political landscape of Lebanon and Gaza, but it is unable to consolidate these gains territorially or economically. Militarily, Hamas and Hezbollah are engaged in a war for the Safavid Empire and its restoration. The Palestinian national question has been subordinated and redefined as an Islamic trust.
At issue is land power versus military power. Russia presents itself in this context as the dominating Asian power in the region. Economically, Turkey is dependent on Russia depends on Russia for 29 percent of its oil and 63 percent of its natural gas. Turkey´s bubble as a regional power is dependent on its alliance with the United States. Otherwise, it pops and becomes just one of several Islamist powers trying to configure a new caliphate capable of governing. Turkey´s secular status is based on its military rule and is decreasing as the Turkish military accommodates the Islamism of Justice and Development (AK). Russia has obviously faced a contentious Turkey in agricultural trade disputes, energy issues and in Turkey´s supplying Georgia with military equipment.
Last year Russia opened a consulate within the Kurdish Autonomous Region. The statement by Nechirvan Barzani Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government declared: “We in the Kurdistan Region believe in friendship and good relations with the international community, and have been trying hard to achieve this, especially with countries like Russia with whom we share a common history.” Russia´s economic and political role in the region is growing. Its recognition of the KRG and its work with the KRG on economic and political issues are significant.
Moving forward means learning to address old problems with new solutions. Turkey remains a threat poised on the border of the Kurdistan Autonomous Region. Russia is a power that has recognized the Kurdish nation. IntelliBriefs website reports: “Russia has made significant strategic forays in the Middle East especially in countries which were known to be strong military allies of the United States. Today it has both a political and strategic foothold in the Middle East.”
Russia has not been oblivious to Turkish actions on the border of northern Iraq in its plans against the Kurdish peoples and nation. In 2007, Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences in Moscow, elaborated that such an invasion would create a “hotspot” for Russia close to its borders. He predicted that such a Turkish invasion would create “instability, risks and challenges that would be very hard to deal with.” The Russian parliament passed an appeal in 2007 to the Turkish government calling on it to show “wisdom and restraint,” and warning about possible negative consequences of a cross-border military campaign.
In the meantime, in October the Turkish Parliament passed 511-18 an extension authorizing Turkish troops to invade Iraq. As indicated in my article “Turkish Troops Enforce Baghdad´s Violation of the Kirkuk Referendum” such an action is simply a means of enforcing what Baghdad is not capable of enforcing itself, the refusal to implement Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution. It is clear that Russia is a more significant power in the region and has a much longer historical role in the region than the United States. As the United States relinquishes its influence in the region there will be new decisions to be made. One thing is assured: Turkish antipathy towards the Kurdish nation and peoples has shown no indications of changing.
Ambassador Peter Galbraith, senior diplomatic fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, talked about Iraq on NPR’s All Things Considered on November 12. The transcript is below.
SIEGEL: Well, our guest today has written in support of the partition of Iraq, the idea of splitting the country up into three countries, Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. Peter Galbraith is a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and now senior diplomatic fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. And Peter Galbraith, partition, still a good idea?
Mr. PETER GALBRAITH (Senior Diplomatic Fellow, Center For Arms Control and Non-Proliferation): Well, I don’t actually advocate partition. My point is that the country has already broken up, and the United States should not be in the business of putting it back together. We have, in the north, Kurdistan, which is, in all regards, an independent country except it doesn’t have international recognition with its own army, its own government.
And now between the Shiites and the Sunnis, there are two separate armies. There’s a Shiite army. It’s the Iraqi army, but it’s dominated by the Shiites. And in the Sunni areas, there’s now the Awakening, a hundred-thousand-man-strong militia. And it is because of the Awakening, and not so much the surge of U.S. troops, that there’s been this enormous decline in attacks by al-Qaeda. But they remain very hostile to the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi government sees them as a bigger threat than al-Qaeda.
SIEGEL: Are you satisfied by the degree to which the incoming Obama administration – what has been the Obama campaign – sees as the reality of Iraqi politics? Is it close enough to what you see as the reality of Iraqi politics?
Mr. GALBRAITH: Yes. Of course, it’s very encouraging to me that Joe Biden is the incoming vice president. He has been the prime proponent of a decentralized Iraq. And although in the campaign Senator McCain described his plan as, I think, a cockamamie idea, it is in fact what the Bush administration has done in part. The Bush administration, in 2007, decided to finance a Sunni army, which is the Awakening. And that’s why we’ve had success. Biden would only take this a next step and encourage the Sunnis to form their own region, which would control that army just as the Kurdistan region controls the Peshmerga, which is the Kurdistan army.
SIEGEL: Iraq has prickly relations with – certainly with two of its neighbors. Turkey is distressed at the possibility of a de facto or truly independent Kurdistan on its border. And the Iranians have, it seems, have been intervening in a variety of ways. Is a decentralized, loosely federalized, some would say partitioned, Iraq, is it capable of actually defending its own interests against bigger neighbors?
Mr. GALBRAITH: Well, Iraq is not, today, defending its interests. The Iranians wield enormous influence because the United States actually paved the way for Iran’s allies to become the government of Iraq. With regard to the Kurds, actually there’s been a change in attitude on the part of Turkey. There was a time when they thought the idea of an independent Kurdistan, or a de facto independent Kurdistan, was an almost existential threat to Turkey. But increasingly Turks recognize, first, that this is an accomplished fact. It’s already happened. And second that there are opportunities. After all, they share in common they’re secular, they’re pro-Western like the Turks, aspire to be democratic, and they’re not Arabs.
SIEGEL: Should the Obama administration, once it takes over, should it have a new diplomatic initiative in Iraq? And is there an occasion for some Iraqi version of the Dayton peace conference that addressed the war in the Balkans some years ago?
Mr. GALBRAITH: Yes. There are two things that the United States can do that would enhance stability in Iraq as it leaves. First, to try and solve the territorial dispute over Kirkuk and other disputed areas between the Kurds and the Arabs, and secondly to work out a modus vivendi between the Iraqi government and the Shiite-led army and the Sunni Awakening as to who will control what territory. And a Dayton-style process, with a tough negotiator like Richard Holbrooke, if he doesn’t end up being secretary of state, I think that’s exactly what the Obama administration should look at doing.
SIEGEL: So, in that argument, it’s not, let’s try to do away with this conflict between Shia and Sunni and armed groups, but rather, let’s try to negotiate a better, more equitable deal and more stable deal between the two groups that will continue to exist for the near future.
Mr. GALBRAITH: Precisely. And if we can minimize the things that Sunnis and Shiites are going to fight over, it may be, over time, that they will find it in their interest to have much greater cooperation and that voluntarily they’ll build a stronger Iraqi state. I think it’s unlikely the Kurds would ever join that, but I think it’s quite possible as between the Sunnis and Shiites.
SIEGEL: Well, Peter Galbraith, thank you very much for talking with us today.
Mr. GALBRAITH: Well, thank you.
SIEGEL: That’s former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, who is author of a new book called “Unintended Consequences: How War In Iraq Strengthened America’s Enemies.”
Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith is the Senior Diplomatic Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation where his work focuses on Iraq, the greater Middle East, and conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction, specifically in the Balkans, Indonesia, Iraq, India/Pakistan, and Southeast Asia. Galbraith has authored numerous books, including, most recently, The End of Iraq (2006).
