Turkish Forum English

Category: Middle East

  • Turkey to mediate Iran-West talks

    Turkey to mediate Iran-West talks

    MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov) – On his way back from the inconclusive Geneva talks between Tehran and the Iran Six over the disputed Iranian nuclear program, Tehran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili stopped in Ankara and held talks with Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babajan.

    Babajan, who also met with his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki that same day, flew to Washington after the talks ended.

    Tehran, which must reply to the Iran Six proposals offering the required amount of enriched uranium and state-of-the-art technology to Iran in exchange for freezing its enrichment activities by August 2, must accept the offer or face all-out political isolation.

    “We are in the strongest possible position to demonstrate that if Iran does not act then it is time to go back to that (sanctions) track,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in her first comments after Washington broke from its usual policy and joined nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva on Saturday.

    Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly barred President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from making any decisions on the national nuclear program. On July 23 Ahmadinejad, who was obviously taken aback by Western demands, said Iran would not deviate by one inch from its nuclear program.

    It is therefore unclear whether Ankara will manage to save the situation and find a compromise.

    Turkey has already said it would not take part in official talks, and that its main objective was to tone down the negotiators’ positions. It would be an understatement to say that Ankara and Tehran can profit from an alliance.

    Turkey, which is still on track to become a member of the European Union, wants to score additional points, while Iran is playing for time. And no mediator can join the talks overnight.

    Ankara wants Iran to assist in solving the Kurdish problem in Iraq, while Tehran would like to pump natural gas to Europe via Turkey. Moreover, Turkey is ready to mediate peace talks between Israel and Syria. Iran wants to mediate negotiations between Turkey and Armenia and between Armenia and Azerbaijan, another South Caucasian state patronized by Ankara.

    The concerned parties will be unable to compromise on the Iranian nuclear program unless they heed the interests of Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.

    A regional conference could be convened to discuss the Iranian nuclear program, enabling everyone to speak their mind on the issue, while the United States and the EU would deal with Israel.

    Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit recently said Iran would be unable to solve its nuclear problem without the support of regional states, and that Tehran should also pay attention to their interests.

    Each time the international community starts discussing the Iranian nuclear program, the Arab world reiterates its support for Tehran’s right to develop civilian nuclear facilities. This ambiguous stand implies that the Iranian nuclear program may have military implications.

    Washington still prefers to negotiate separately with Arab countries. On July 21, Rice met in the UAE with the foreign ministers and other officials of the six Arab monarchies of the Gulf, namely, Bahrein, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia, as well as Jordan, Egypt and Iraq, briefing them on the nuclear stand-off with Iran.

    Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns was scheduled to brief Rice on the results of the July 19 Geneva talks involving chief EU foreign policy negotiator Javier Solana and Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, during her stay in Abu Dhabi and to assess prospects for subsequent negotiations with Tehran.

    Joint U.S.-French-British naval exercises in the region are strong evidence that Iran may face political and economic isolation.

    Washington is now pursuing a more active policy with regard to the Iranian nuclear program, because it does not want the next administration to tackle this issue. Most importantly, major European powers, namely Italy, France, the United Kingdom and Germany, have also started getting tough on this issue.

    Consequently, Ankara will have trouble mediating the talks between Iran and the West. More to the point, the outcome and the long-term situation in Iran will still depend on Tehran.

    The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. 

  • Kurds ask for US bases to be built near Iran border

    Kurds ask for US bases to be built near Iran border

    As part of a long-term security agreement with Iraq, US forces could be stationed in Kurdistan. [sic.]

    The Iraqi government and the head of northern Iraq’s regional Kurdish administration, Massoud Barzani, have suggested to military officials that US forces be permanently based in Kurdistan. [sic.]

    Mr Barzani has said a permanent US military presence in the Kurdistan region would defend Iraq from internal and external risks.

    On hearing the request, US Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama said it would be appropriate to redeploy US troops there in the future.

    Mr Obama is known to believe troops stationed in the Kurdistan [sic.] area are not in any great danger.

    There are currently no US airbases in Kurdistan, [sic.] although there are two Air Force facilities in neighbouring provinces.

    The US military has denied any intention of building a US air base, but Kurdish sources have said if the US military decides to establish a permanent presence it will be closer to the Iraqi-Iranian border.

    Source: BirminghamStar.com, 22nd July, 2008

  • Mozart in Arabia

    Mozart in Arabia

    By Peter Hannaford
    Published 7/22/2008

    Mozart’s music gets around a lot, but never before in Saudi Arabia where it was recently on the program of a first-ever concert of European music to be performed in the desert kingdom. Not only that, the German quartet was playing before an audience composed of both men and women in the same hall.

    In Saudi Arabia’s carefully gender-segregated society, the event was unprecedented. This came on the heels of King Addullah’s call for an interfaith dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews — this in a country where conducting religious services other than Islamic can land one in prison.

    The king followed through with his call, first by convening in June a group of 500 Muslim scholars — Sunni and Shiite — in Mecca to exchange views about interfaith dialogue. The conference closed with an endorsement of such a dialogue.

    This led to King Abdullah’s invitation to 200 Muslim, Christian and Jewish clerics to meet with him last week in Madrid to discuss areas where all could find common ground. While this meeting produced no breakthroughs, it was not intended to. Spain was chosen for the meeting site because, from the 8th to the 13th century, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived more-or-less in harmony there.

    The conference reflects Abdullah’s own growing moderation in the face of terrorist attacks on Saudi soil four and five years ago. While he has considerable support for moderation of Saudi Arabia’s austere Wahhabist version of Islam as well as liberalizing some social customs, he also has critics among hard-line clerics within his country, so he must move with some care.

    Abdullah discussed his idea for the interfaith initiative with a group of visiting Japanese scholars last spring. He said his goal would be “to agree on something that would maintain humanity against those who tamper [with] religions, ethics and family systems.” He told them he had discussed his ideas with Pope Benedict XVI.

    In Saudi Arabia major decisions are made by consensus, developed cautiously. King Abdullah, with a strong base of tribal support, is well positioned to take such initiatives and to gradually introduce reforms in Saudi society.

    MEANWHILE, MODERATE VOICES in Islam are beginning to speak out elsewhere. In Late May, several thousand Indian Islamic clerics and madrassa teachers met in New Delhi for an Anti-Terrorism and Global Peace Conference. The major event was the issuance of what has been called the world’s first unequivocal fatwa against terrorism. The fatwa states, “Islam is a religion of peace and security. In its eyes, on any part over the surface of the earth, spreading mischief, rioting, breach of peace, bloodshed, killing of innocent persons and plundering are the most inhuman crimes.” The fatwa was developed at Darul Uloom Deoband, the world’s second largest Islamic seminary which controls thousand of Islamic seminaries in India. The fatwa was validated with pledge by the approximately 100,000 people at the conference.

    Other Muslim groups are speaking out against Islamist terrorism. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, with 20 million members worldwide, routinely takes the position that there is nothing in the Koran to justify violent jihad in modern times.

    In Britain, which tends to handle matters pertaining to its Muslim minority with kid gloves, the government is developing a plan to send imams into schools to teach students that extremism is wrong and to emphasize citizenship and multiculturalism.

    In Pakistan, an idea of a Turkish Islamic scholar, Fethullah Gulen, himself steeped in the Sufi tradition of introspection, has materialized in the form of seven schools in Pakistan cities. There, Turkish teachers dispense a Western curriculum of courses, in English, from math to science to literature. They also encourage the maintenance of Islam in the schools’ dormitories. In a country with a weak public school system which competes with many hard-line madrassas, the Turkish schools have found a strong following.

    While suicide bombings may capture the attention of the evening news’s cameras, the forces of moderate Islam are finally beginning to emerge vocally and in numbers.

    Peter Hannaford is a member of the Committee on the Present Danger.

    Source: The American Spectator, 22.07.2008

  • Kurdish Political Party Chief Arrested In Syria – Rights Group

    Kurdish Political Party Chief Arrested In Syria – Rights Group

    DAMASCUS (AFP)–The head of a banned Kurdish political group has been arrested by the Syrian security services under emergency laws, a human rights group said Monday.

    “The military security services in Damascus arrested Mohammed Mussa, secretary general of the Kurdish Left Party on Saturday,” the National Organization of Human Rights in Syria, or NOHRS, said in a statement.

    Mussa was arrested and questioned previously by security services in Hassake, northeastern Syria because of “his party’s activities and his comments to the Arab media,” NOHRS said.

    The group branded his detention as unconstitutional because he was arrested under “emergency powers which have been in place in Syria for 45 years,” rather than by judicial authorities. Syrian authorities should release Mussa immediately and abandon the emergency powers under which they are making arrests, the group said.

    Mussa’s party also called for their leader’s release, saying, “Mohammed Mussa is a nationalist who defends the interests and the legitimate rights of the Kurdish people as well as those of all the Syrian people.”

    The majority of Syria’s 1.5 million Kurds live in the north of the country. There are 11 unauthorized Kurdish political parties in Syria, independent observers say.

    Syrian Kurdish officials deny claims they aim to establish a separate state and say they only want political rights and recognition of their language and culture.

    Source: www.nasdaq.com, 21.07.2008

  • Iran’s nuclear negotiator meets with Turkey’s foreign minister

    Iran’s nuclear negotiator meets with Turkey’s foreign minister

    The Associated Press

    ANKARA, Turkey: Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator met Sunday with Turkey’s foreign minister, who reiterated his country’s position that the Islamic Republic has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

    Saeed Jalili, on his way back to Tehran after attending talks with envoys from the U.S. and five other world powers in Geneva on Saturday, met with Foreign Minister Ali Babacan during a stopover in Istanbul.

    “We believe every sovereign country has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful aims and to have that technology,” Babacan told a joint news conference with Jalili.

    Babacan, who said Turkey is against nuclear weapons, supports diplomacy to resolve the Iran nuclear issue.

    The six world powers — the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany — have called on Iran to freeze uranium enrichment, arguing that it is designed to make nuclear weapons.

    Iran has rejected the demand, as it has repeatedly done in the past. It says its uranium enrichment program is for peaceful purposes.

  • Turkish déjà vu

    Turkish déjà vu

    By Soner Cagaptay
    Friday, July 18, 2008

    If Washington were to pursue a military solution in its efforts to halt the Iranian nuclear program, Turkey – the only NATO country bordering Iran – must be a part of its planning. Likewise, if the United States and its European allies were to implement tighter economic sanctions against Iran, Ankara would have to play a key role because much of Iran’s trade with Europe goes through Turkey.

    On the surface, Turkey seems to be on board with the West regarding Iran. But the Turkish position on Iran today looks much like the Turkish position regarding the buildup to the Iraq war in 2003. The specific factors that led to Ankara’s decision to oppose the war are re-emerging, building opposition to American plans to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, either through sanctions or military measures.

    In 2003, the Turkish public had little awareness about the approaching Iraq war. At that time, the United States was using Turkey’s Incirlik air base to bomb Saddam Hussein’s air defenses. At the same time, Ankara was paralyzed by its internal struggle to preserve secularism within the government. If you read Turkish papers published back then, you would not guess that the United States was about to occupy one of Turkey’s neighbors and forever change their neighborhood.

    Five years later – déjà vu. Turkey is once again stricken with political paralysis over the battle between secularists and the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP. As a result, there is almost no coverage in the Turkish media on foreign policy issues, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Domestic tensions make it impossible for that issue to penetrate the debate. Perhaps Turks won’t even notice until Iran actually detonates a bomb.

    Another similarity between today and the events of 2003 is that the AKP government is playing both sides to get away with doing nothing. As it negotiated with U.S. diplomats in 2003 about a joint front against Saddam, the AKP voiced antiwar rhetoric at home. Moreover, days before the war began, the AKP’s trade minister went to Baghdad to sign a multibillion-dollar trade deal with Saddam. In the end, the AKP-dominated Turkish Parliament voted to keep Turkey out of the war.

    Now, once again, the AKP is playing both sides to shirk responsibility. While opposing U.S. military action, the party continues to spout its official line: “Turkey wants a nuclear-free Middle East.” Albeit a good start, this policy implies that Israel’s nukes are as much a problem as Iran’s would be – a stance that absolves Ankara from any real political obligations toward Europe and the United States on Iran. Moreover, at a time when the West is imposing sanctions, the AKP has signed a memorandum of understanding to invest $3.5 billion in Iran’s South Pars gas field – a move eerily similar to 2003.

    Another similarity is America’s failure to communicate with the Turks. In 2003, Turkish officials expected, in vain, that Secretary of State Colin Powell would come to Ankara to promise that the war against Saddam would not break up Iraq and create an independent Kurdish state.

    Today, seasoned diplomats in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot tell from one day to the next how America is planning on dealing with Iran. And like in 2003, Ankara is waiting with crossed fingers for a high-level American statesman to explain Washington’s plans.

    There is, however, one difference between 2003 and 2008: the role of the Turkish military. In the run-up to the Iraq war, bickering between the Turkish government and the military complicated matters for the United States. Neither the AKP nor the military wanted to be responsible for making the decision for their country to go to war. This thinking proved to be a fatal mistake for the military, rendering it irrelevant in Washington and powerless in Turkey.

    After dropping out of the foreign policy debate in 2003, the military lost popularity, as was seen in the July, 2007 elections. Today it is in disarray.

    This leaves the AKP in charge of major decisions regarding Iran. The AKP opposes both a military solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as well as non-military measures like strong economic sanctions. As a result of the AKP’s rapprochement with Tehran since 2003, the official line in Ankara is that “Turkey’s economic interests in Iran are too important to sacrifice.”

    The latest American overture to Ankara, supporting Turkish efforts against the Kurdistan Workers Party, has not sufficed to change the government’s attitude. While Washington has allowed Turkey to target PKK terrorist camps in northern Iraq, Tehran, as a favor to Turkey, has upped the ante with Washington by actually bombing such camps.

    If the United States was betting on Turkish cooperation against Iran, it might as well plan to navigate around the looming iceberg. It might already be too little too late for Washington to count on Turkey on Iran.

    Soner Cagaptay, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is the author of “Islam, Secularism and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who is a Turk?”