Turkish Forum English

Category: Middle East & Africa

  • U.S. diplomat in Ankara on Turkish-Kurdish talks

    U.S. diplomat in Ankara on Turkish-Kurdish talks

    PUKmedia       21-10-2008    19:12:55

    A top U.S. diplomat, Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, has arrived at Turkish capital to hold talks with the country’s officials over the PKK problem and the developments of recent Turkish- Kurdish meetings, Turkish news agencies reported on Tuesday.

    Fried met the undersecretary of the foreign ministry, Ertugrul Apakan, CNNTurk reported.

    Bilateral U.S.- Turkish relations, the fight against PKK, as well as the new process in relations between Turkey and the “Kurdish regional administration in northern Iraq” are expected to be among the issues topping the agenda in the contacts, Turkish officials was quoted by the Media sources as saying.

    U.S provides Turkish military intelligence information on the whereabouts of PKK guerrillas in the mountainous Qandil on the border between Kurdistan region and Turkey, where PKK is believed to operate against the Turkish forces.

    Also, U.S has urged Ankara in the past to hold direct talks with KRG and Baghdad to discuss the problem of PKK, a call refused by Turkish government until the recent meeting of Kurdistan region president Masoud Barzani with Turkish special representative to Baghdad Murat Ozcelik.

    The visit comes hours after the Turkish foreign minister announced his country would start holding dialogue with U.S and Iraq to draw plans for ending PKK issue in “northern Iraq”

    Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said Monday Turkey is considering three-way consultations with Iraq and the United States for fresh measures to purge PKK bases in neighboring Iraq.

    He added this trilateral mechanism is not a format that can substitute bilateral mechanisms Turkey is separately carrying out with the United States and Iraq.

    Fried is expected to depart Turkey later in the day.

    Relevant to the newly building relations between Erbil and Ankara, PUK representative to Turkey on Monday revealed that a high level Turkish delegation would visit Erbil in a near future to hold talks with the Kurdish officials, as a completion to the previous meetings took place in Baghdad.

    Bahroz Gelali, PUK representative told Kurdistani Nwe newspaper the delegation may be headed by Turkish government representative Murat Ozcelik, but did not elaborate.

    -kurdsat.tv-

  • Sen. Byrd and Rep. Wexler on Turkey and Iraq war

    Sen. Byrd and Rep. Wexler on Turkey and Iraq war

    Emil Sanamyan’s articles on Armenian-Americans, Armenia and its neighborhood.
    Saturday, October 11, 2008
    Sen. Byrd and Rep. Wexler on Turkey and Iraq war
    First published in September 13, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

    Turkey’s friends on the Hill: U.S. was wrong, Turkey right on Iraq
    In recent books, two Democrats offer whitewash of Turkey’s position
    review by Emil Sanamyan

     

    WASHINGTON – Senator Robert Byrd (D.-W.V.), a veteran politician referred to in the past as the “senator from Istanbul,” and Rep. Robert Wexler (D.-Fla.), a young member of Congress who just may be popular enough in Turkey to one day become its prime minister, published their books over the summer.

    Timed for release in a presidential election year, both books focus on criticisms of the Bush administration and particularly its decision to invade and occupy Iraq. In the process Mr. Byrd and Mr. Wexler also share their admiration for Turkey, highlighting in particular its opposition to the Iraq war – without listing, however, many of the reasons for that opposition.

    Both authors also avoid any mention of their efforts, on behalf of Turkish government, to kill resolutions affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide.

    Commenting on that subject during a July 14 book presentation organized by the Turkish lobby in Washington (see the Washington Briefing in the July 19 Armenian Reporter), Mr. Wexler noted that he represents a Florida district with probably the largest number of Holocaust survivors nationwide.

    “Issues relating to genocide of any type, alleged or not, have great sensitivity,” Mr. Wexler admitted, adding that one of his opponents this year is a son of a Holocaust survivor and used Mr. Wexler’s position on the Armenian Genocide resolution against him.

    Although West Virginia may have the smallest number of Holocaust survivors nationwide and there is hardly another member of Congress with a safer seat, Mr. Byrd also decided not to parade his record as an opponent of Genocide affirmation.

    The “Senator from Istanbul”

    Mr. Byrd is the longest-serving member of Congress; next year he will mark 50 years in elected office.

    As the Bush administration readied for the 2003 invasion, Mr. Byrd made an impassioned speech in the Senate arguing that the administration was going to war without a clear mandate from Congress and without Congress clearly informed as to threats Iraq posed to U.S. interests.

    In his book titled Letter to a New President: Commonsense Lessons for Our Next Leader (Thomas Dunne Books, 2008), Mr. Byrd also suggested that the “Bush Administration made the mistake of taking Turkish cooperation in the [Iraq war] for granted.”

    He writes: “The bitter and intemperate U.S. reaction to [the Turkish parliament’s decision not to allow the United States to open a northern front,] put more strain on U.S.-Turkey relations, as did U.S. backing of Iraqi Kurds in Kurdistan.”

    As a result, Mr. Byrd writes, the United States was left with “a foreign policy disaster,” whereas Turkish public’s approval for the United States fell from 52 percent in 1999 to 9 percent in 2007.

    In the book, Mr. Byrd also recalls the start of his relationship with Turkey in the early days of the Cold War. Shortly after his election to the House of Representatives and appointment to its Foreign Affairs Committee, the 38-year-old Rep. Byrd made his first-ever trip abroad with a delegation led by committee chair Rep. Clement Zablocki (D.-Wis.)

    The 1955 trip included a number of Western European countries and Turkey, which impressed the young member of Congress as a “key U.S. ally . . . with a largest standing army in Europe.”

    Turkey’s would-be prime minister

    “My wife jokes I could run for Prime Minister of Turkey,” Rep. Wexler writes in his Fire-breathing Liberal: How I Learned to Survive (and Thrive) in the Contact Sport of Congress (Thomas Dunne Books, 2008).

    The representative is proud of his popularity in Turkey and that, having been to the country seven times, he gets the same level of access in Ankara as does Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

    In Congress since 1996, Mr. Wexler “as co-founder of the Turkey caucus, worked hard to improve relations between the United States and that democratic, secular Muslim nation, a critical ally in the fight against terrorism.”

    As Mr. Byrd, Mr. Wexler writes that Turkey was right and the United States wrong on Iraq. “Had Bush listened to the advice of experts in the Turkish Foreign Ministry before launching the Iraq war, it is quite possible we wouldn’t be facing the chaos we’ve created now,” he writes.

    The representative recalled that shortly before the U.S. invasion, he met the Turkish Foreign Ministry’s undersecretary Ugur Ziyal, who “smoked many cigarettes with the most knowledgeable and powerful diplomats in the region.”

    Mr. Ziyal told Mr. Wexler that as bad as Saddam Hussein was, he was successfully containing various conflicting groups within Iraq and that without Hussein “chaos would replace despotism.”

    But instead of listening to these arguments, the United States’ message to Turkey, as delivered by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was “either you are with us or against us.”

    Mr. Wexler writes, “you will never successfully persuade a Turkish political entity, whether it’s individual or the Turkish Parliament, by first demeaning them.”

    He added: “Even if your logic is correct, and they should take certain steps, if you belittle them, they are not going to give you what you want.”

    Why Turkey opposed the war in Iraq

    While discussing U.S.-Turkish differences over Iraq, both authors leave the impression that Turkey’s opposition to the U.S. invasion was either born out of Ankara’s penchant for nonviolence or based on some deep knowledge of regional realities rather than selfish calculations.

    In fact, for more than 30 years Turkey has occupied northern Cyprus and repeatedly invaded northern Iraq both before and after the 2003 war. Maintaining one of the largest militaries in the world, Turkey remains a big believer in hard power.

    At the same time, it is no secret that Saddam Hussein’s rule over Iraq – and particularly his persecution of Kurds – was seen as beneficial to Turkey’s own security interests, focused as they have been since World War I on the Kurdish rebellion within Turkey that has gone on, with some significant interruptions, for more than 80 years.

    As both U.S. and Turkish sources make clear, Turkey’s eventual decision to stay out of the 2003 invasion of Iraq was more likely a product of an exaggerated sense of self-importance which led Ankara to demand a steep price for its cooperation.

    In the Turkish Milliyet newspaper, Fikret Bila wrote on December 5, 2002: “The USA has demanded military support from Turkey [in Iraq]. Turkey has put forth four conditions that must be fulfilled if Turkey is to meet the American demands. Here are Turkey’s conditions:

    “1. The war would entail, for Turkey, an estimated cost of $20-25 billion. America should meet that cost. Furthermore, that money must come directly from the USA’s War Budget.

    “2. Establishment of a Kurdish state in the North must not be permitted. If a federation is to be established in Iraq, Turcomans must be given the same status as the Kurds.

    “3. In the operation to be staged against Saddam, the Peshmergas [Kurdish militia groups in Northern Iraq] must not be used so as not to compromise the security of the Turcomans and Arabs in the region. The Peshmergas must not be armed.

    “4. If the war is going to be waged from the North, the region’s coming under British control would be unacceptable to Turkey. Security and control in Northern Iraq must be a job for Turkey.”

    Writing in his book Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (Pantheon, 2006), Michael Gordon recalls that months before the war “Turks… demanded $25 billion in outright grants from Colin Powell at an 11 PM meeting at the home of the Secretary of State.”

    The United States could not afford that price tag for Turkish cooperation and instead scraped up a package that included “$3 billion in aid, $3 billion in financing, and a promise to make a concentrated effort to persuade Persian Gulf states to provide $1 billion in free oil to help Turkish companies secure reconstruction contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    But this $10 billion package was not deemed as sufficient baksheesh. The Turkish government and military did not lobby their national parliament to approve U.S. use of Turkish territory for the invasion, and the proposal failed by just a few votes.

    Days later, the United States invaded without the Turkish front.

  • Cultural Influences on Politics in Caspian

    Cultural Influences on Politics in Caspian

    Brenda Shaffer who is an American thinker works to define cultural domination on foreign or domestic affairs of states in the “Is there a Muslim Foreign Policy?”article. Shaffer is explaining this event via some sharp examples. Firstly, Shaffer begin the article with Huntigton’s thesis: “The Clash of Civilizations”. Samuel Huntigton’s thesis follows an idea that culture has a main role in defining of policy. Also Brenda Shaffer agrees thesis of Huntington and creates new approaches about conducts of civilizations and state actions. Shaffer says that culture was a main mechanism to diplomatic relations. Also she interprets culture as specific subject of country’s within religion, history and civilization.

    Western scholars researched about strong Islamic effection in Muslim countries after 11 September terrorist act and looked at Muslim scholars, historians, diplomats and generals who have an extraordinary situation over the people. As a result they understood Islamic effection as strong as nuclear weapons against to the world. But this is not a physical danger, this is an ideological spread. Their speeches to newspapers and political journals which had a title as “Do Muslim countries have a different outlook against Non-Muslim States?”

    On the other hand Shaffer interests about this subject under the psychological perspective. Human beings are often driven by culture according to Shaffer. Also human behavior effects on to state affairs. But state acts partly different from human behaviors. We can give example from philosophical history: Some philosophers think that the state is a thing like human. But it is systematically human as a big organism. State actions have similarities with people actions. State is a big form of human and human is a small form of the state. As behavioral psychological meaning has different dimensions.[1]

    Shaffer gives an example about different state decision-making; some Muslim countries have an anti-American approach as behavioral. But these are making alliance with the USA like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. Commonly we can see inharmonious dimensions between state policies and people behaviors. Caspian perspective of Shaffer has a common beliefs. According to Shaffer, all Caspian countries have been influenced by Islamic effection after from the Soviet Union. Shaffer judges all Caspian and Middle Asian people as Islamic effected nations but it is not totally true if we looked at historical and contemporary situations. Also today these countries are secular except Iran.

    Iran – Politics with Islamic Style

    The Islamic Republic of Iran is an important country in this area as ideological mechanism according to idea of western scholars. After the collapse of the USSR, Iran wanted to export their Islamic regime for other neighbor states via some absolute ways. In Central Asia and Caucasus territory Iran plays to export their Persian Islamic mind as a regime under the title as “Islamic Solidarity” with economic and security events. Western idea is true about activities of this country. But common outlook to Islamic countries of American or Western scholars is different. They agree Islam as a common political tool among all Muslims. Example, Iran works to create an Islamic governing system for all Muslim countries. But Islamic mind of Iran is very different from normal Islamic idea. Persian Islamic system bases on fundamentalist movement. If we look at Turkey, Egypt or Tunis, we could see normal or laic Islamic behavior. Also Shaffer says their false point in next sentence. “Poor Muslim countries have an effective circumstance about this issue but secular Muslim countries challenges to Iran like Turkmenistan.” But Tehran has faced three regional disputes :

    – The Nagorno-Karabagh conflict (Christian Armenia versus Muslim Azerbaijan)

    – The Chechen conflict (Chechen Muslims versus Moscow)

    – The Tajik civil war (The Islamic Renaissance Party versus Moscow)

    In these mix circumstances Iranian fundamentalist approach transformed to self-interest system. An interesting point about is that Iran supports Armenia instead of Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.[2] With these events, Iran state security was challenged in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia since Iran was a multiethnic state. We give information about Iran’s population: Half of Iran’s population is comprised of non Persian ethnic minorities; Turkmens, Kurds and Azerbaijani groups. Largest minority Azerbaijanis live in northwestern provinces of Iran which bordered with Azerbaijan. Relations of Iran bogged down with Baku because of Iranian self interests.

    Shaffer shows her ideas that Iranian diversity of opinion is a good example to explain Iranian foreign policy. There are some different points as historical legacies and religious differences in policies.

    “On the other hand Turkey attempted to conduct a balanced policy toward both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Also Turkey helped for Karabagh conflict to Baku.”

    Turkey changed its policy when Karabagh became a conflict. It can be an example for cultural combines if western scholars wanted to define their issue. But it cannot be an absolute example about regional cultural alliences subject.

    According to many observers, religious differences have played a central role in the Caspian region. With these circumstances Azerbaijan supported Chechenya. Also some analysts have assumed that religious differences serve as a basis for conflict between Muslim Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia. Over these events, common culture serves as a basic role for alliances and coalitions and different cultures act as an obstacle to cooperation.

    Shaffer’s opinion is that there are cultural alliances are created follow by from collapsing of the USSR.

    Tehran’s main argument is Shiite background in their support system. Also Turkey and Azerbaijan shares ethnic Turkic and Muslim backgrounds. Also Russian and Armenian background is Orthodox Christian form. But Georgian-Russian conflict is different from this event. Shaffer and other western scholars can not define this reality.

    Final

    Culture may be a certain material of regime survivability. Islam can be an effective reason to influence state system and people behavior like speeches of western scholars. Some governments explain and justify their policies in cultural terms. We must analyze a country’s foreign policy on the basis of actions. We have anticipated the New Testament to Germany and Russia or Torah to Israel like Islamic system. Shaffer asks question : “What does the Koran has to say a foreign policy question?” If Islam influences them, they should act with Islamic interaction.

    The USA wants an enemy to rebuild their father emotion on the world. They forced as goodness of the world during the Cold War. They defended the world countries from dangerous communist system. Their interest was communism in that time. But they wanted a new enemy to regulate the world with themselves. After the Cold War, their White House scholars worked for a new enemy establishment. There was a “Red Dangerous” line. But today there should be “Green Dangerous” line. And its name is Islamic effection on politics.[3]

    Fans of the USA defense western style always. There shouldn’t be a religious system like Islam around the world according to them. But they don’t look at Israeli system or American Christiantic base. Main question should be about Western classification about cultural conflicts. There are too many problems about this thesis.

    Today there is a Muslim conflict. And the USA isa  patron of the world. So they are working for peace, democracy and other good things. But the world’s people will know works of the USA. All terror acts, all problems, all ethnic clashes…

     

    [1] Arnold Wolfers, Behavior of States, Dogu Bati Journal – 26, Istanbul 2003

    [2] Karabagh conflict borned in the late 1980. Armenia attacked to the legal boundaries of Azerbaijan.

    [3] Political Declaration Fikret Baskaya – Ideologies, Dogu Bati Journal 2003

    Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU

    Baku Qafqaz University

    International Research Club (INTERESCLUB)

  • Georgia’s conflict and Iran and Turkey

    Georgia’s conflict and Iran and Turkey

    Georgia’s conflict and Iran and Turkey
    By Rayyan al-Shawaf
    Commentary by
    Tuesday, September 09, 2008

    Although the Russo-Georgian military clash is over, its ramifications will be felt for a long time, especially as the political crisis between the two countries remains unresolved. In the Middle East, two major countries, Turkey and Iran, have been directly affected by the recent events. While Turkey stands to lose should Russia and Georgia fail to resolve their differences, Iran stands to win.

    An embattled Russia cornered by the West would never forgive NATO member Turkey; as a result, Russian-Turkish relations would plummet and Russia might even stop providing Turkey with natural gas. In casting about for allies, Russia would find a similarly isolated Iran to be amenable to giving the two countries’ ties a strategic dimension, but only in return for political and economic concessions. Thus, the Russo-Georgian crisis may ironically change the balance of power in the Middle East.

    Both Russia and Iran have become increasingly alarmed with the West’s attempts to bypass them in the quest for oil. Moscow wanted the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, the world’s second longest, to pass through Russia. That way, Russia would not only benefit financially, but also be able to exert some control over the supply of oil to the West, much as it does with the longest pipeline in the world, the Druzhba, which flows from southeast Russia to Europe. During its invasion of Georgia, Russia pointedly demonstrated that it can threaten the BTC pipeline, and that, as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently put it, “Russia is a nation to be reckoned with.”

    Meanwhile, Iran, most of whose oil flows to Asia, has long sought to lay oil pipelines to the West, a desire more often than not frustrated by Western sanctions. By supporting Russia in its current confrontation with the West, Tehran may have secured a future economic and political payoff. This would be especially true should Iran have extracted from Russia a commitment to devise a common oil strategy vis-a-vis the West.

    However, even without this possibility, there are several indicators of the benefits that may accrue to Iran as a result of its pro-Russian policy. For example, Iranian (and Syrian) requests for a sophisticated missile defense system are being taken seriously in Moscow, much to the chagrin of the United States and Israel. When one remembers that Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant – built with Russian support – is slated to begin operation in 2009, it becomes apparent that Iran may be on the verge of radically enhancing its regional and international position.

    Even as Iran makes a bid for regional power status, Turkey has almost by accident emerged as the country that could hold the key to solving the Russo-Georgian crisis. Indeed, Turkey is exceptionally well-positioned to be mediator, a role it is already playing with some success between Syria and Israel, and to a lesser extent between Iran and the West. Russia is Turkey’s biggest trading partner, and Turkey is dependant on Russian natural gas. At the same time, Turkey maintains strong economic and military ties with Georgia, which aspires to join NATO, of which Turkey is a strategic member. Turkey cannot afford to allow its relations with Russia to deteriorate – they have already been strained by the passage of American ships through the Bosphorus on their way to the Georgian port of Batumi – but neither can it shun the West’s call for supporting Georgia. As a result, mediating the current conflict is not only a role that could propel Turkey into the limelight as a major regional player, but also a necessity insofar as Turkish politico-economic imperatives are concerned.

    If Turkey meets the challenge, there may even be added benefits. Turkish-Armenian relations could thaw, which would be of great significance to the oil and natural gas industry. The most direct overland route for an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Turkey would begin in Azerbaijan and pass through Armenia. Yet no such pipeline has ever been constructed due to political instability: Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a war over Nagorno-Karabakh and remain at loggerheads, while Turkey’s border with Armenia has been closed since 1993 in solidarity with Azerbaijan.

    With the Russo-Georgian clash illustrating the vulnerability of Georgia, through which the BTC pipeline passes, Armenia’s importance has increased. Turkish President Abdullah Gul, on a groundbreaking visit to Yerevan last week for a Turkish-Armenian soccer match, spoke about the need for the countries of the Caucasus to work together to enhance stability. To that end, Turkey has called for the creation of a regional cooperation group comprising Turkey, Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

    The trajectory of the Russo-Georgian conflict during the next few months could be critical in determining what happens in the Middle East. If mediation succeeds in bringing the two sides together and defusing the crisis, Russia will not find it necessary to turn to Iran. If the successful mediation is Turkish, then Turkey will have demonstrated a unique ability to bring stability to the Caucasus, broker Syrian-Israeli peace talks, and mediate between Iran and the West.

    On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, Russia’s ties to the West and Turkey will inevitably deteriorate. Facing diplomatic isolation and possibly even sanctions, Russia may forge a strategic alliance with Iran, thereby drastically increasing Iranian influence in the Middle East.

     

    \\\ a freelance writer and reviewer based in Beirut. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.is

    #

  • A strategic agreement between the Kurdish government and the U.N

    A strategic agreement between the Kurdish government and the U.N

    PUKmedia     08-10-2008    14:51:57
    kurdishglobe.net
    A strategic agreement will be signed between the Kurdish government and the U.N.

    Kurdistan region’s coordinator for U.N. affairs said on Tuesday that a strategic agreement will be signed between the Kurdish government and the U.N. for cooperation in a number of services fields.

    “A delegation from the U.N. headed by Deputy Secretary General David Sherrar will arrive in Erbil, the Iraqi Kurdistan’s capital next week to sign a strategic agreement with the Kurdish government,” Dindar Zebari told VOI.

    “The agreement aims to help the region in health, agriculture and education fields in three years between 2008 until 2010,” he added.

    “The agreement is an important step to boost relations between Iraq’s Kurdistan region and the U.N.,” he also said, noting that Deputy Prime Minister of Kurdistan Omar Fatah will sign the agreement with the U.N. delegation.

    “The U.N. had signed a similar agreement with the Iraqi government last month,” Zebari highlighted.

  • Turkey Threatens Iraqi Kurdistan with Incursion

    Turkey Threatens Iraqi Kurdistan with Incursion

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened Iraqi Kurdistan on Tuesday with an incursion. The threat came days after militants for the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) attacked Turkish troops within Turkey’s borders, kiling 17.Most PKK militants stage attacks in Turkey after which they quickly cross the border with Iraq where they hide. Northern Iraq is home to many Kurds, and the PKK has established several major training camps for future militants.

    The PKK is deemed a terrorist organization by, among others, Turkey, the United States and the European Union.

    Iraq’s central government had promised several times in the last couple of years to do something about the PKK presence in the northern part of the country, but has yet to take significant action.

    “The sole target of a possible cross-border operation will be the terrorist organisation,” Erdogan told lawmakers from his ruling party the AK Parti (or Justice and Development Party).

    “Turkey is in a position of self-defence when it comes to terrorism. Everyone should understand this,” he said. “The best choice for the regional administration of northern Iraq is to cooperate with us against terrorist elements because the terrorist organisation is a cause of regional unrest and tension.”

    Iraq and Turkey have been at odds with each other for years over this issue. Turkey believes that Baghdad is not doing enough against the PKK, forcing Turkey to do take matter into its own hands, while Baghdad says there is not much it can do because the PKK hides in regions difficult to enter for government forces, and argues that cross border operations by Turkey are unacceptable, because Turkey would not be allowed to act in breach with Iraq’s territorial integrity.

    The United States, meanwhile, is caught in the middle because it has fought a war against terrorism for quite some years itself, and has invaded two countries in order to destroy terrorist organizations (both Afghanistan and arguably Iraq). This means that it is difficult if not impossible for the U.S. to criticize Turkey when it goes into Iraq, occupies a significant part of its ‘Kurdistan’ part, and withdraws weeks, perhaps months, later.

    On the other hand, Iraq’s government is not willing to let Turkey deal with problems too big for itself to handle, and calls on Turkey to withdraw immediately whenever it takes military action against PKK target in Iraq. The U.S. has to, of course, stand with Iraq, also because more than 100,000 of its troops are stationed in this country. Furthermore, the U.S. fears that a Turkish incursion will destabilize one of the historically most stable parts of Iraq.