Category: America

  • U.S. military indiscriminately killed civilians in the Korean War

    U.S. military indiscriminately killed civilians in the Korean War

     

     

    By CHARLES J. HANLEY and JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 26 minutes ago

    SEOUL, South Korea – South Korean investigators, matching once-secret documents to eyewitness accounts, are concluding that the U.S. indiscriminately killed large groups of refugees and other civilians early in the Korean War. military

    A half-century later, the Seoul government’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission has more than 200 such alleged wartime cases on its docket, based on hundreds of citizens’ petitions recounting bombing and strafing runs on South Korean refugee gatherings and unsuspecting villages in 1950-51.

    Concluding its first investigations, the 2 1/2-year-old commission is urging the government to seek U.S. compensation for victims.

    “Of course the U.S. government should pay compensation. It’s the U.S. military’s fault,” said survivor Cho Kook-won, 78, who says he lost four family members among hundreds of refugees suffocated, burned and shot to death in a U.S. Air Force napalm attack on their cave shelter south of Seoul in 1951.

    Commission researchers have unearthed evidence of indiscriminate killings in the declassified U.S. archive, including a report by U.S. inspectors-general that pilots couldn’t distinguish their South Korean civilian allies from North Korean enemy soldiers.

    South Korean legislators have asked a U.S. Senate committee to join them in investigating another long-classified document, one saying American ground commanders, fearing enemy infiltrators, had adopted a policy of shooting approaching refugees.

    The Associated Press has found that wartime pilots and declassified documents at the U.S. National Archives both confirm that refugees were deliberately targeted by U.S. forces.

    The U.S. government has been largely silent on the commission’s work. The U.S. Embassy here says it has not yet been approached by the Seoul government about compensation. Spokesman Aaron Tarver also told the AP that the embassy is not monitoring commission findings.

    The commission’s president, historian Ahn Byung-ook, said the U.S. Army helped defend South Korea in the 1950-53 war, but also “victimized” South Korean civilians. “We feel detailed investigation should be done by the U.S. government itself,” he said.

    The citizen petitions have accumulated since 1999, when the AP, after tracing Army veterans who were there, confirmed the 1950 refugee killings at No Gun Ri, where survivors estimate 400 died at American hands, mostly women and children.

    In newly democratized South Korea, after decades of enforced silence under right-wing dictatorships, that report opened floodgates of memory, as families spoke out about other wartime mass killings.

    “The No Gun Ri incident became one of the milestones, to take on this kind of incident in the future,” said Park Myung-lim of Seoul, a Korean War historian and adviser to the truth commission.‘s Yonsei University

    The National Assembly established the 15-member panel in December 2005 to investigate not only long-hidden Korean War incidents, including the southern regime’s summary executions of thousands of suspected leftists, but also human rights violations by the Seoul government during the authoritarian postwar period.

    Findings are meant to “reconcile the past for the sake of national unity,” says its legislative charter.

    The panel cannot compel testimony, prosecute or award compensation. Since the commission may shut down as early as 2010, the six investigators devoted to alleged cases of “civilian massacre committed by U.S. soldiers” are unlikely to examine all 215 cases fully.

    News reports at the time hinted at such killings after North Korea invaded the south in June 1950. But the extent wasn’t known. Commission member Kim Dong-choon, in charge of investigating civilian mass killings, says there were large numbers of dead — between 50 and 400 — in many incidents.

    As at No Gun Ri, some involved U.S. ground troops, such as the reported killing of 82 civilians huddled in a village shrine outside the southern city of Masan in August 1950. But most were air attacks.

    In one of three initial findings, the commission held that a surprise U.S. air attack on east Wolmi island on Sept. 10, 1950, five days before the U.S. amphibious landing at nearby Incheon, was unjustified. Survivors estimate 100 or more South Korean civilians were killed.

    In clear weather from low altitude, “U.S. forces napalmed numerous small buildings, (and) strafed children, women and old people in the open area,” the commission said.

    Investigator Kang Eun-ji said high priority is being given to reviewing attacks earlier in 1950 on refugees gathered in fields west of the Naktong River, in North Korean-occupied areas of the far south, while U.S. forces were dug in east of the river. One U.S. air attack on 2,000 refugees assembled Aug. 20, 1950, at Haman, near Masan, killed almost 200, survivors reported.

    “There were many similar incidents — refugees gathered in certain places, and there were air strikes,” she said.

    The declassified record shows the Americans’ fear that enemy troops were disguising themselves as civilians led to indiscriminate attacks on “people in white,” the color worn by most Koreans, commission and AP research found.

    In the first case the commission confirmed, last November, its investigators found that an airborne Air Force observer had noted in the “Enemy” box of an after-mission report, “Many people in white in area.”

    The area was the village of Sanseong-dong, in an upland valley 100 miles southeast of Seoul, attacked on Jan. 19, 1951, by three waves of Navy and Air Force planes. Declassified documents show the U.S. X Corps had issued an order to destroy South Korean villages within 5 miles of a mountain position held by North Korean troops.

    “Everybody came out of their houses to see these low-flying planes, and everyone was hit,” farmer Ahn Shik-mo, 77, told AP reporters visiting the apple-growing village. “It appeared they were aiming at people.”

    At least 51 were killed, the commission found, including Ahn’s mother. Sixty-nine of 115 houses were destroyed in what the panel called “indiscriminate” bombing. “The U.S. Air Force regarded all people in white as possible enemy,” it concluded.

    “There never were any North Koreans in the village,” said villager Ahn Hee-duk, a 12-year-old boy at the time.

    The U.S. itself said there were no enemy casualties, an acknowledgment made Feb. 13, 1951, in a joint Army-Air Force report on the Sanseong-dong bombing, an unusual review undertaken because Korean authorities questioned the attack. military

    Classified for a half-century, that report included a candid admission: “Civilians in villages cannot normally be identified as either North Koreans, South Koreans, or guerrillas,” wrote the inspectors-general, two colonels.

    The Eighth Army commander, Lt. Gen. Matthew Ridgway, held, nonetheless, that Sanseong-dong’s destruction was “amply justified,” the AP found in a declassified document. Today’s Korean commission held otherwise, recommending that the government negotiate for U.S. compensation.

    A U.S. airborne observer in that attack, traced by the AP, said it’s “very possible” the Sanseong-dong mission could be judged indiscriminate. George P. Wolf, 88, of Arlington, Texas, also said he remembered orders to strafe refugees.

    “I’m very, very sorry about hitting civilians,” said the retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, who flew with the 6147th Tactical Control Squadron.

    The day after the Sanseong-dong attack, the cave shelter at Yeongchun, 120 miles southeast of Seoul, came under repeated napalm and strafing attacks from 11 U.S. warplanes.

    Hundreds of South Korean civilians, fearing their villages would be bombed, had jammed inside the 85-yard-long cave, with farm animals and household goods outside.

    Around 10 a.m., Cho Byung-woo, then 9, was deep in the narrow, low-ceilinged tunnel when he heard screams up front, and saw choking fumes billowing inside. Air Force F-51 Mustangs dropped napalm firebombs at the cave’s entrance, a declassified mission report shows.

    “I ran forward and all I could hear were people coughing and screaming, and some were probably already dead,” Cho recalled, revisiting the cave with AP reporters. His father flung the boy out the entrance, his hair singed. Outside, Cho saw more planes strafe people fleeing into surrounding fields.

    He and other survivors said surveillance planes had flown over for days beforehand. “There was no excuse,” Cho said. “How could they not tell — the cows, the pieces of furniture?”

    Survivors said the villagers had tried days earlier to flee south, but were turned back at gunpoint at a U.S. Army roadblock, an account supported by a declassified 7th Infantry Division journal.

    Villagers believe 360 people were killed at the cave. In its May 20 finding, the commission estimated the dead numbered “well over 200.” It found the U.S. had carried out an unnecessary, indiscriminate attack and had failed — with the roadblock — to meet its responsibility to safeguard refugees.

    The commission also pointed out that Ridgway — in a Jan. 3, 1951, order uncovered by AP archival research — had given units authority to fire at civilians to stop their movement.

    Five months earlier, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea confidentially informed Washington that the U.S. Army, fearing infiltrators, had adopted a policy of shooting South Korean refugees who approached its lines despite warnings. Ambassador John J. Muccio’s letter was dated July 26, 1950, the day U.S. troops began shooting refugees at No Gun Ri.

    American historian Sahr Conway-Lanz reported his discovery of the declassified Muccio letter in his 2006 book “Collateral Damage.” But the Army had learned of the letter earlier, during its 1999-2001 No Gun Ri investigation, and had not disclosed its existence.

    The Army now asserts it omitted the letter from its 2001 No Gun Ri report because it discussed “a proposed policy,” not an approved one. But the document unambiguously described the policy as among “decisions made” — not a proposal — at a high-level U.S.-South Korean meeting, and AP research found declassified documents in which U.S. commanders in subsequent weeks repeatedly ordered troops to fire on refugees.

    In a May 15 letter to Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the then-vice speaker of Seoul‘s National Assembly, Lee Yong-hee, called on Congress to investigate whether the Army intentionally suppressed the Muccio letter in its inquiry.

    Since targeting noncombatants is a war crime, “this is a matter of deep concern to the Korean people,” wrote Lee, whose district includes No Gun Ri.

    Lee, who has since lost his leadership position as a result of elections, suggested a joint U.S.-Korean congressional probe. Frank Jannuzi, the Senate committee’s senior East Asia specialist, said its staff would seek Pentagon and State Department briefings on the matter.

    In 2001, the U.S. government rejected the No Gun Ri survivors’ demand for an apology and compensation, and the Army’s report claimed the No Gun Ri killings were “not deliberate.”

    But at a Seoul on May 15 with survivors of No Gun Ri and other incidents, their U.S.-based lawyers pointed out that powerful contrary evidence has long been available. news conference

    “The killings of Korean civilians were extensive, intentional and indiscriminate,” lawyers Michael Choi and Robert Swift said in a statement.

    In its 2001 report, the Army said it had learned of other civilian killings by U.S. forces, but it indicated they would not be investigated.

    ___

    Associated Press investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York contributed to this report.

  • `Ice warrior’ poised to repel rise of Islamic rule in Turkey …. Jon Swain

    `Ice warrior’ poised to repel rise of Islamic rule in Turkey …. Jon Swain

     
    From The Sunday Times, August 3, 2008

    As a result, Turks know the commander of the armed forces has the
    fate of their nation in his hands every bit as much as any elected
    prime minister.

    So the appointment of a new chief of the general staff is always a
    closely monitored event. Seldom have Turks watched more closely than
    at this moment.

    The next chief of the armed forces is being chosen this weekend at
    the end of a tumultuous week. Two terrorist bombs exploded last
    Sunday night in Istanbul, killing 17 people, including five children
    whose bodies were riddled with shrapnel.

    Erdogan makes unity plea after bombings

    Turkey managed to step back from the brink of political chaos last
    Wednesday after the country’s highest court rejected an application
    to close the governing party on the grounds that it was seeking to
    introduce Islamic laws in violation of the secular constitution. Even
    so, a majority of the judges found the party guilty of eroding
    secularism.

    Adding to the crisis, two senior retired generals are in jail pending
    charges of involvement with a group dedicated to overthrowing the
    government.

    To choose a new armed forces supremo and make other senior military
    appointments, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, is chairing a
    meeting of the supreme military board at army headquarters in Ankara,
    the capital.

    The meeting started on Friday and will last four days. The name of
    the general who is to be promoted to the top job will be announced
    when it ends tomorrow.

    He is widely expected to be General Ilker Basbug, commander of the
    army, who is called in military circles the “ice warrior” because he
    has a reputation for being calm and pragmatic.

    Sandhurst-trained Basbug, 65, will have the top job for the next two
    years. He is a formidable military figure and an ideological
    hardliner who will ensure that Erdogan’s government – which was
    elected last year with 47% of the vote but is mistrusted by the
    military, which sees itself as guardian of a secular society – walks
    a narrow political line.

    For these reasons Basbug is almost certainly not the general Erdogan
    would choose to promote. The outgoing chief of the general staff,
    General Mehmet Yasar Buyukanit, was also a hardliner but he was
    impulsive and could be outmanoeuvred by the prime minister.

    “Erdogan will find Basbug is a much more formidable opponent than his
    predecessor. He is a lot more subtle,” said a military source.

    The prime minister has the constitutional authority to oppose
    Basbug’s appointment – this authority has been invoked in the past
    but has almost always backfired – and Erdogan knows last week’s
    dramatic events have left him politically vulnerable.

    “Erdogan is wary of Basbug and would have preferred to have appointed
    someone else, but I’d be very surprised if he would be stupid enough
    to try to stop Basbug. This is no time to upset the armed forces’
    hierarchy,” said the military source.

    Last Wednesday Erdogan narrowly survived legal moves to ban him and
    the president Abdullah Gul from politics and to close his governing
    party on the grounds that they were steering the country towards
    Islamic rule.

    After three days of deliberations, the 11 judges of Turkey’s
    constitutional court decided against an indictment accusing the
    Justice and Development party (AKP) of pursuing an Islamic agenda and
    undermining Turkey’s secular constitution.

    The court punished Erdogan’s party for its Islamic tilt by cutting in
    half its public funding for next year, but a verdict against the AKP
    had been widely expected.

    The court had already overturned AKP efforts to lift a 1989 law that
    banned women from wearing Islamic headscarves in universities.

    Erdogan’s secularist opponents, who dominate the military and
    judiciary, claim his policies mask plans to make Turkey more like
    Iran or Saudi Arabia.

    In Turkey, the military has traditionally had multiple pressure
    points on the civilian government, through the chief of the general
    staff’s weekly meetings with the prime minister and president, and
    through the twice-monthly meetings of the national security council.

    Manipulating the civilian government, sometimes through thinly veiled
    threats
    , is a subtle art that Buyukanit was not good at.

    However, Basbug is expected to be more effective in influencing
    Erdogan’s government without giving the prime minister the excuse to
    complain he has come under undemocratic pressure. Basbug is known for
    well-crafted public statements that do not alienate the government.

    The decision of the constitutional court not to ban Erdogan and his
    party clears the way for the prime minister to pursue democratic
    reforms and his goal of European Union membership. As a prerequisite
    for membership, the EU has demanded a reduction in the military’s
    influence in Turkish politics.

    Erdogan is expected to start work on a new constitution, but the
    court’s verdict has served notice that it and the military will be
    watching his party closely for any signs of Islamic activity and he
    will have to be careful how he goes about constitutional reform.

    If he tries to go too far there is no doubt, regardless of the EU’s
    disapproval, that Basbug and the military will come down hard, just
    as the armed forces have in the past.

    Turkey calls itself a democracy but the military has always hovered
    in the wings. Military coups have removed elected governments from
    power three times in the past 50 years.

  • Obama is not the right candidate if you are focused on Turkish issues.

    Obama is not the right candidate if you are focused on Turkish issues.

    REPUBLICANS VS. DEMOCRATS  –  

    From: aynur heller [aynurheller@yahoo.com]

     

    REPUBLICANS VS. DEMOCRATS

     

    Speaking of Obama, I’d like to share my experience with you. 

    Probably some of you have already experienced the same thing with Obama as I have.

    I sent him two letters in the last past 6 months concerning Turkey’s dilemma

     “the so-called genocide” .

     

    However, two days ago, finally, I received a mail from him telling me how important his presidency would be for this country and asking me to support him by my contributions for his campaign by Aug.30th  not mentioning anything on the genocide issue and nothing about Turkey, no concerns or whatsoever. All he is showing me is the ways of payment and he needs the money by Aug. 30th.

     

    I figured this might give you or – Obama supporters- a little hint as to what kind of president he would be for US and what steps we, as the Turkish Americans, can take towards Turkey’s problems with him. It is outrageous!

     

    Aynur

     

    Subject: Republicans Vs. Democrats

    I am writing under my fiancee’s name, who is Turkish.  My name is Jeff and I am not Turkish but am very much in tune with issues facing Turkey today.  She shares posts with me and I am often floored by the inane and ridiculous arguments that are made.  Especially when it comes to Democrats vs Republicans. 

    Let’s start off by saying this;  The United States is a democratic country.  Turkey is a democratic country.  Democrats are a democratic party and guess what?  Republicans are a democratic party.   Some of you can’t seem to comprehend that. 

    The US Democrat party has notoriously not supported Turkey in a political stance, on the Armenian issue and in military positioning.  The Republicans have.  The democrats have produced great Americans and political leaders such as Nancy Pelosi (hates Turkey, loves Armenians), Ted Kennedy (drunkard murderer) and many more people that have no integrity (Bill Clinton).

    Let me pose this question to you.  Who do you think was the greatest American PresidentAbraham Lincoln?  Republican.  Ronald Reagan?  Republican. 

    JFK?  Did not even complete a term in office  Bill Clinton?  Made a mockery of the greatest office in the world. 

    Ok ok…. I know some of you are thinking “What about Nixon?”  Well he was an amazing leader who I think went insane. 

    The point is this… The fact that any of you are supporting the Democrat’s cause amazes me.  Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to get Congress to recognize the Turkish / Armenian issue as a genocide.

    How can a foreign country condemn another for something that occurred  nearly one hundred years ago when that country was not even a country?

    Turkey is a great and beautiful country and in some ways as diverse as the US. 

    Stop giving in to what the media feeds you and start really looking at the track record of our elected officals.

    Thanks for reading.

    Jeff Martens  

  • Turkey can bridge the US-Iran divide

    Turkey can bridge the US-Iran divide

    By Manik Mehta, Special to Gulf News
    Published: August 03, 2008, 23:35

    Turkey’s relations with the US went through a rollercoaster, last October, when the US Congress passed a resolution on Armenia, describing the killings of Armenians during the First World War in the Ottoman empire as “genocide”. This had angered Istanbul which was already riled by the war in Iraq from where the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) launched attacks on Turkey.

    However, US-Turkish relations considerably improved, particularly after the warm welcome to Turkish President Abdullah Gul during his visit to Washington earlier this year. The ensuing strategic cooperation between the two sides is a manifestation of what Gul called a “new chapter” in bilateral relations.

    Although Turkish public opinion is unfavourable against the US, the strategic cooperation has, meanwhile, resuscitated the relationship between the two Nato partners. Kurdish nationalism is Ankara’s Achilles’ heel; it has brought Turkey closer to Iran which has its own Kurdish problem and has found a common cause with Turkey. Additionally, both sides have a vibrant trading and economic relationship.

    While critics fear that closer Turkish-Iranian ties will have ramifications for US-Turkish relations, others see an opportunity. Turkey’s close ties with Iran should be used to persuade the latter to renounce its nuclear programme which is causing a lot of concern to the US and, particularly, Israel which has been the target of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s belligerent outbursts.

    US-Turkish contacts have recently intensified on Iran’s nuclear programme. President George W. Bush’s National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, met Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan in July in Ankara – just before Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki arrived in Turkey – to send, apparently, a carrot-and-stick message on Iran’s nuclear programme. Subsequently, US and Iranian representatives met, for the first time in three decades, at the six-nation meeting in Geneva to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme.

    Indeed, Mottaki sounded unusually conciliatory, even calling the presence of Undersecretary of State William Burns, the third senior-most American diplomat, at the talks as “a new positive approach”. Turkey has apparently played a quiet role in Mottaki’s moderate reaction which was a far cry from Ahmadinejad’s fiery rhetoric. Though glaring fundamental differences between the two will persist, an atmospheric improvement, with some help from Turkey, could bring both sides on “talking terms”.

    Iran’s testing of two separate rounds of long-range ballistic missiles in early July has also unnerved not only the United States and Israel, but also the Gulf Arab states. The missile firing was intended to send different messages to different audiences. The missile tests warn the West that Iran, which has strengthened its presence in the Strait of Hormuz, could target oil shipments from the Arabian Gulf ports and deal a crippling blow to the Western and also the oil-driven Arab economies.

    They were also aimed to silence Iran’s domestic critics, frustrated with the regime’s ruinous economic policies, by whipping up nationalist fervour and take the wind out of the critics’ sail.

     

    Rapprochement

    According to some American strategists, Turkey would be willing to bring about the rapprochement between the US and Iran, and thus prevent a military conflict. On the other hand, the hardcore Iranian leadership would prefer making concessions on the nuclear issue to Muslim Turkey rather than directly to the US.

    Indeed, some Americans argue that by allowing it a face-saving withdrawal, Iran could be persuaded to eventually abandon its nuclear programme. The Iranian people desperately want an end to the West-backed sanctions against their country which is treated like a pariah at every international venue because of their unpopular regime.

    Indeed, the regime knows this and also the fact that it will not be able to stop for long the tide of public disenchantment with its dogmatic attitude. This is a good time for the US to take more Turkish help and resolve the stalemate with Iran.

    Manik Mehta is a commentator on Asian affairs.

    Source: Gulf News, August 03, 2008

  • KLO: “Matthew Bryza’s last report prejudices Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity”

    KLO: “Matthew Bryza’s last report prejudices Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity”

     

    [ 02 Aug 2008 15:22 ]

    Baku. Ramil Mammadli-APA. Karabakh Liberty Organization made a statement on Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, OSCE MG Co-Chair Matthew Bryza’s report on the solution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. KLO Press Service told APA.
    “Matthew Bryza stated that liberation of regions around Nagorno Karabakh, deployment of peacekeeping forces in the region, voting on the status of Nagorno Karabakh had been discussed during the negotiations. KLO stated many times that this plan and discussions directed to give Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia forever. Bryza’s report prejudices Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. KLO considers that Azerbaijan should refuse negotiations within the framework of OSCE MG. Moreover, U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan should clear up absurd report”, the statement says.

  • Why Are Neocons Attacking Turkey?

    Why Are Neocons Attacking Turkey?

     

    Birkac ay once Michael Rubin’in AKP aleyhine yazdigi bir makalesi bazi Amerika’da yasayan Turkler tarafindan, Amerikan kongre ve senatosu uyelerine gonderilerek Turk Hukumeti aleyhinde propaganda yapilmisti. Bu yazi isin perde arkasinda Turkiye’ye oynanmak istenilen oyunu gozler onune seriyor; ama neden bazi Turk-Amerikalilarin bu oyuna dustuklerini izah etmiyor.  GTIecer@aol.com
     
    ***************************************
    Why Are Neocons Attacking Turkey?
     
    Global Research, July 31, 2008
    Foreign Policy In Focus – 2008-07-24
     
    Some neoconservatives in Washington are obsessed with attacking Iran before President Bush leaves office at the end of this year. Hence, they have been pushing the Bush administration for increased economic and political isolation of Iran in order to weaken its current regime. Crucial to this plan is the support of Turkey, a traditional U.S. ally and an increasingly critical player in the region.

    But to the enormous frustration of the neoconservatives, such an attack does not align with Turkey’s interests given its newly enhanced regional ties, maturing democracy, and new foreign policy. Instead, Turkey plays the negotiator role and favors diplomacy and direct talks to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

    With neoconservatives pressing for an attack on Iran and Turkey maneuvering to play a mediating role, which way will U.S. policy swing?

    Turkey’s Transformation Much has changed in Turkey’s approach to foreign policy in recent years. When the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002, it quickly broke the old patterns of Turkish foreign policy. Turkey’s role evolved from an introverted peripheral country to a significant country with a regional and global influence.

    According to this new policy, Turkey aims to play a more active and constructive role in developing relations with its neighboring regions and beyond. “As a major country with a historical and strategic depth in the midst of the Afro-Eurasia landmass, Turkey is a central country with multiple regional identities that cannot be reduced to one unified category. In terms of its sphere of influence, Turkey is a Middle Eastern, Balkan, Caucasian, Central Asian, Caspian, Mediterranean, Gulf and Black Sea country all at the same time,” said Ahmet Davutoglu, the intellectual architect of the new multi-dimensional foreign policy, during an interview on CNN-Turk on January 2, 2008.

    A fundamental principle of the new approach is a “zero problems with the neighbors” rule, which has improved diplomatic relations with all of Turkey’s neighbors — most notably Syria, Georgia, and Bulgaria – and boosted trade volumes as well. The share of Turkey’s trade volume with neighboring nations increased from 6% of the total foreign trade volume in 2000 to 35% in 2007.

    In addition, a significant Turkish-Iranian rapprochement has taken place, not only because of Iran’s policy against the Kurdish separatists (PKK), but also because of Turkey’s growing energy needs. Trade volume with Iran alone increased from $1 billion in 2000 to over $8 billion in 2007. And in July 2007, the Turkish government signed an agreement with Iran to transport Iranian natural gas to Turkey and Europe and to develop the Iranian natural gas industry by investing $3.5 billion in its South Pars gas field. This figure reaches approximately $10 billion when other contracts, such as for electricity generation, are factored in.

    Although Turkey’s enhanced ties with Iran and Syria have caused concern in certain quarters of Washington, this change – stemming from a transparent diversification of the Turkish policy – has not distanced Turkey from the West and Israel. However, Turkey’s clear lack of interest in isolating Iran has prompted neoconservative hardliners, led by former assistant secretary of defense Richard Perle, to undertake a smear campaign against the ruling AKP.

    Neocon Attack Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, and Michael Rubin, three leading neo-con writers, have published pieces equating Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan with far-right ultra-nationalist politicians such as France’s Jean-Marie Le Pen, Austria’s Joerg Haider, and even Osama bin Laden. They have accused the AKP and Erdogan not only of having a hidden agenda to turn Turkey into an Islamic state, but also of paving the way for an Iranian-style Islamic revolution by Fethullah Gülen, a prominent religious leader known for his moderate and progressive views. Moreover, Rubin defended both the case to shut down the ruling AKP and the coup launched by the Turkish military last year as democratic. These accusations and assertions against the AKP government were harsher even than those made by the government’s own critics. Rubin’s arguments went largely ignored in Washington, since they are in clear conflict with U.S. foreign policy. However, they were more than enough to rally his friends in the Turkish military.

    In addition to attacking the Erdogan government, Rubin claimed that Massoud Barzani, the president of the Regional Kurdish Government in Iraq, of selling U.S. arms to the Kurdish separatist group PKK. Rubin even went as far as to boldly suggest that Turkey should capture and imprison Barzani next to PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan in the Turkish island prison of Imrali in order to stop the PKK terror. Once again, although not taken seriously in Washington, Rubin’s arguments were applauded in Turkey by the hawkish wing of the military general staff. His surreal arguments were reflected as “American expert opinion from Washington” in Turkey’s anti-AKP media outlets to create an illusion of international support for their cause.

    The neoconservative campaign has had two main goals. The first has been to team up with non-democratic powers within Turkey, primarily some circles within the military as well as the state and the political system, to oust the democratically elected government. A less democratic Turkey with a more dominant and politically active military would be more susceptible to neocon pressure to support a U.S. attack on Iran. The second goal has been to strengthen the Israeli-Turkish alliance by boosting the influence of the more Israel-friendly military circles within the Turkish politics. Not surprisingly, in order to strengthen the position of the military in Turkish society, the neoconservatives have not hesitated to support something the Bush administration has been desperate to avoid: opening another front in the Iraq War by supporting a possible Turkish incursion into northern Iraq to hunt down PKK terrorists..

    Neoconservatives have had a deep and continuing interest in Turkey. In the past, Richard Perle has been involved in some lucrative consulting deals and has made some very high-level friends in Turkey. In 1986, he became the co-chair, along with the Turkish general staff, of the U.S.-Turkish consultative defense group. From 1989 to 1994, he worked as an adviser for the International Advisors Inc. (IAI), a lobbying firm started by Douglas Feith and registered as Turkey’s foreign agent with the Justice Department. Perle is also known as the key architect of the Israeli-Turkish alliance of the late 1990s. This alliance has resulted in close military cooperation between the two countries, and Turkey has been an important customer of Israel’s defense industry.

    Shifting Geopolitics Despite speculation that Turkey’s importance to the United States would decrease after the Cold War, Turkey remains pivotal to U.S. security interests. The United States depends on Turkey in an unstable region that intersects the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus as well as Central Asia. Turkey has continued its close cooperation with the United States through both NATO and the UN. It cooperated in the missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan and has participated as well in several key peacekeeping missions such as Sudan and Lebanon. It hosts the Incirlik Air Base, which provides logistical support missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seventy percent of U.S. air cargo bound for to U.S. troops in Iraq goes through Incirlik.

    But Turkey is no longer dependent entirely on the United States for its geopolitical position. It has demonstrated a willingness to position itself as a regional and global power. In addition to economic and military power, the appeal of Turkey’s soft power has increased thanks to its political and economic domestic reforms and its new perceived image in the neighboring regions as a good example of the coexistence of Islam with democracy and modernity.

    Turkey has been playing a key mediating role in several conflicts, including those between Syria and Israel, between Palestine and Israel, and in Lebanon. Syria and Israel just had their third round of indirect talks under Turkey’s mediation in Istanbul. Similarly, the Ankara Forum had several meetings so far and brought the private sectors of Israel and Palestine together to work on possible rapprochement. The Ankara Forum also hosted a meeting between the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres before the Annapolis summit in November 2007. After the 2006 Lebanon war, the AKP government decided to send 1,000 troops – one of the largest contributions – to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon despite harsh domestic opposition. Also, during the recent Lebanon crisis in May 2008, Turkey played the mediator role between the Shia opposition and the Sunni establishment thanks to its good relations with both parties. Its balanced policy toward each group also secured Turkey an active role in bridging the Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq in 2007. It has similarly worked behind the scenes in Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan on peace-building efforts. In fact, Turkey is now the only country that enjoys good relations with every country in the Middle East.

    Turkey’s willingness to engage hasn’t just been limited to its immediate region. As a result of Turkey’s opening to Africa in 2005, the African Union declared Turkey a strategic partner after China, India, and Japan in January 2008. More importantly, Turkey is now a UN Security Council candidate for 2009-2010; this is an important position where Turkey can use its current experience as a promoter of stability and democracy on a broader level, especially in bridging the divide between East and West.

    Turkey’s good-neighbor policy doesn’t extend in every direction. Cross-border operations in Iraq, the Cyprus issue — despite a significant rapprochement with Greece — and the historical dispute with Armenia still pose major potential setbacks.

    Moreover, the transformation in foreign policy depends in part on continuity in domestic reforms. The biggest challenge is the high court’s recent attempt to shut down the governing AKP. The groups manipulating the high court to shut down the AKP are the same ones that favor an insulated and more autocratic Turkey. They see both the United States and the European Union as major threats to Turkey’s unity, and have very rigid positions on the Kurdish, Cypriot, and Armenian issues. Therefore, if the AKP is shut down, all of the aforementioned achievements and policy changes will be overturned. Put simply, if these pro-military and anti-AKP forces are successful, they will mark the end of an era of unprecedented reform in Turkish politics, second only to the period of the country’s modern leader, Kemal Ataturk.

    Future of U.S. Policy The teaming up of U.S. neoconservatives with pro-military and anti-AKP circles in Turkey in an effort to topple the Erdogan government is self-destructive and has little chance of success, given popular support for a stronger and more pluralistic democracy in Turkey. Moreover, such neoconservative manipulations taint the image of the United States in Turkey, even at a time now when the Bush administration is distancing itself from many neoconservative positions.

    The Bush-Erdogan summit in Washington in November 2007 marked the beginning of a new era in U.S.-Turkish relations. The Bush administration put pressure on Congress to squelch a resolution calling on Ankara to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, and Turkey got a more sympathetic audience for its security concerns related to the PKK in northern Iraq. Both sides now keep communication channels open in order to avoid the kind of dips in relations that have taken place in the past.

    It is in the U.S. interest for Turkey to play an expanded peacemaking role in the region. But for Turkey to do so, it must continue on its current path of democratic reform. By supporting the military’s return in Turkey and a more hardline approach to Iran, U.S. neoconservatives want to turn the clock back on Turkish reform and plunge the entire region into even greater chaos.

     


    Looking for a car that’s sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.