Category: USA

Turkey could be America’s most important regional ally, above Iraq, even above Israel, if both sides manage the relationship correctly.

  • An Obama Policy toward Turkey: Continuity or Change?

    An Obama Policy toward Turkey: Continuity or Change?

    Contact:mailmaviboncuk(at)gmail.com

    February 19, 2009

    Mavi Boncuk |
    An Obama Policy toward Turkey: Continuity or Change?
    Featuring Soner Cagaptay, Mark Parris, and Ian Lesser
    February 18, 2009

    Listen to MP3 Audio files

    Soner Cagaptay | Mark Parris | Ian Lesser | Q&A

    The Obama administration faces a number of imminent decisions in developing U.S. policy toward Turkey. Should Washington choose sides in Turkey’s protracted struggle over secularism and democracy involving the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its opponents? Can the United States bring the reluctant AKP to support U.S. efforts on issues ranging from Iran’s nuclear program to Russian regional ambitions?

    To discuss these issues, The Washington Institute invited Soner Cagaptay, Mark Parris, and Ian Lesser to address a special Policy Forum on February 18, 2009.

    Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow and director of the Institute’s Turkish Research Program. A visiting professor at Georgetown University, he recently spent four months in Turkey researching and writing on Turkish foreign and domestic policy.

    Mark Parris, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, is counselor to the Turkey Project and visiting fellow for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.

    Ian Lesser is a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, focusing on Turkey and the U.S.-Turkey-EU triangle.

    Labels: PolicyWatch, politics

  • Brzezinski reviews US policy towards Russia

    Brzezinski reviews US policy towards Russia

    Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US National Security Adviser under Jimmy Carter, claims that bringing the Ukraine closer to the West is the key to assuring the democratization of Russia.

    In an interview for the French paper Le Figaro said that the West must work to reopen relations with Russia and that Georgia and the Ukraine must be part of that dialogue.

    Western nations, including Poland and the United States, must rework their relations with Russia in order to `slowly limit Russia’s nostalgia for imperialism and renew disarmament negotiations.`

    Brzezinski told the paper that initiating a new dialogue with Russia cannot happen at the cost of limiting the aspirations of those countries seeking NATO membership – such as the Ukraine and Georgia – especially because the Ukraine, as a NATO member opens up a transformative path to democratize Russia.

    Source:  The Georgian Times, 02.19.2009



  • Turkey’s New Regional Role

    Turkey’s New Regional Role

    Two Calls, Many Scenarios: How Will Washington Readjust to Turkey’s New Regional Role?

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 33
    February 19, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    President Barack Obama telephoned President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip separately on Monday. In his first official contact with the Turkish leaders since his inauguration, Obama discussed cooperation between the two countries over a wide spectrum of issues of common concern. Earlier this month, Vice President Joe Biden met Foreign Minister Ali Babacan at the security conference in Munich. Obama might have a face-to-face meeting with Gul during the NATO summit in April, celebrating the Atlantic alliance’s 60th anniversary.

    The statement released by the White House said “President Obama had warm and productive phone conversations with Turkish President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan… The President emphasized the importance of the United States’ alliance with Turkey and said he looks forward to working with both President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan on a broad agenda of mutual strategic interest.” Obama stressed the need to strengthen the U.S.-Turkish relationship and work together toward meeting the challenges of the 21st century (www.whitehouse.gov, February 16).

    The Turkish President’s office also issued a statement saying that “President Obama emphasized the importance he attaches to Turkish-U.S. relations and expressed his appreciation for [Turkey’s] leadership role in regional issues.” It was noted that the two sides had reiterated their determination to work together (www.tcbb.gov.tr, February 16).

    In its report, the Turkish Prime Minister’s office highlighted President Obama’s positive remarks about the Turkish-American strategic partnership and Turkey’s role for regional peace. The statement said that Erdogan had “expressed [to Obama] Turkey’s sensitivities in Armenia and the Middle East and emphasized the importance of a fair and impartial American attitude in order not to hurt bilateral relations [between Turkey and the United States].” The statement also quoted Obama as saying, “I would like to affirm the vital role played by your leadership in the Middle East peace process. America has always appreciated Turkey’s sensitivities” (www.bbm.gov.tr, January 16).

    Figuring out the reasons behind the timing of Obama’s calls has been a guessing game. Most observers focus on the issues raised during the talks as a key to understanding the content of the conversations and how Turkish-American relations may evolve in the days to come. According to official statements and various news stories, the issues discussed during both conversations included cooperation in NATO, U.S. support for Turkish-Iraqi rapprochement, the need for collaboration in Middle-East peace efforts, developments in Turkish-Armenian relations, Turkish-EU relations, and the United States’ policies toward Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Statements from the Turkish leaders preferred to highlight Obama’s praise of Turkey’s strategic role, especially its policies in the Middle East. Following Turkey’s vocal criticism of Israel during the Gaza invasion, concerns had arisen about the future of Turkish-American relations. Pro-AKP media outlets maintained that Obama’s expression of U.S. readiness to cooperate with Turkey was a positive sign that tension between Turkey and Israel would not undermine Turkey’s place in the United States’ Middle East policies. They go so far as to claim that despite the urging by some pro-Israel lobbyists for Washington to punish Ankara for the Davos incident, the warm phone conversations show that Ankara has successfully managed to keep its relations with Tel Aviv and Washington in separate baskets (Yeni Safak, February 18).

    Other reports claimed that Obama solicited Turkey’s contributions for his administration’s plans for a new peace initiative in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Turkish side was reportedly assured by Obama that legislation recognizing the Armenian claims of genocide would not be brought before Congress (Radikal, February 17; Ihlas Haber Ajansi, February 17). According to a Turkish expert evaluating the phone conversations, it is unlikely that Obama will use the word “genocide” in his Armenian Remembrance Day statement on April 24 (Zaman, February 18). Erdogan said that he had had a detailed conversation with Obama about the Armenian claims, but he declined to give any details (Milliyet, February 19).

    Turkish media outlets critical of the government, however, noted that the White House statement had departed from the issues highlighted by Ankara, instead putting emphasis on Turkey’s NATO membership and changes in the U.S. policies toward Pakistan and Afghanistan. They also pointed out that Obama’s office did not even mention the Armenian issue in the list of topics being discussed. According to these sources, some Washington-based analysts maintain that the reference to NATO was meant to remind Turkey of its responsibilities under the Atlantic alliance and warn Ankara about its “independent initiatives” (www.cnnturk.com, February 17; Cumhuriyet, February 17).

    Indeed, Turkey has opted to develop special missions for itself outside the alliance framework—its role as peace broker in the Middle East, for example—and has occasionally deviated from the transatlantic community on issues such as how to deal with Russia, Sudan, and Iran. In Ankara’s view, this new activism could be complementary to Western efforts to promote peace and stability in troubled regions; but according to critics of the government, Turkey’s attempts to carve an autonomous international profile might strain Turkish-American relations.

    Many Turkish analysts also agree that the mention of Afghanistan by the White House was significant in light of Washington’s recently announced plans to bolster U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan. About 800 Turkish troops are currently serving in Afghanistan under the NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF), and Turkey has held the ISAF command for two terms in the past. Given the difficulties NATO has encountered in carrying out its mission in Afghanistan and the Obama administration’s determination to refocus its attention there, Ankara, along with other NATO allies, might be coming under pressure to increase its contributions to the ISAF and remove the obstacles it sets to EU-NATO coordination (Today’s Zaman, February 18, Hurriyet Daily News, February 18; EDM, February 9). When this issue was brought up in the past, Turkey declined to commit additional troops, but it remains to be seen how Ankara will respond to such requests in the run-up to the NATO Summit in April.

    Discussions following Obama’s two telephone calls show that Turkish-American relations in the Obama administration are still in uncharted waters. By calling Gul and Erdogan separately, Obama showed that he was aware of who wielded power in Ankara; but how Washington will readjust itself to Ankara’s more assertive role in regional politics is a question that still begs for an answer. Developments ahead of the NATO summit and Obama’s handling of the Armenian claims will give more concrete indications of whether and how the parties will find common ground beyond rhetoric.

    https://jamestown.org/program/two-calls-many-scenarios-how-will-washington-readjust-to-turkeys-new-regional-role/

  • Report for Obama: How to Disarm the PKK

    Report for Obama: How to Disarm the PKK

    Academic Barkey from Lehigh University has prepared a report on conflict prevention in Kurdistan for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Bıa news centre – Washington

    12-02-2009


    Erhan ÜSTÜNDAĞ

    Professor Henri J. Barkey, chair of the International Relations department at Lehigh University, USA, has prepared a report entitled “Preventing Conflict over Kurdistan” for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    The report tells the new Obama administration that the Kirkuk issue is pressing. However, the priority must be the solution of Turkey’s domestic Kurdish issue.

    Kurdish issue needs to be handled with care

    The website of the Carnegie Endowment introduces the report, saying:

    “The invasion of Iraq has surfaced long-suppressed nationalist aspirations among the Kurds, most notably the emergence of the federal Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). If ignored or mishandled, Kurdish aspirations have the potential to ignite violence and instability in Iraq, as well as the region, at a particularly delicate time.”

    In the report, Barkey warns that US influence in the region will decrease if US forces withdraw from Iraq, one of the main promises of Obama’s election campaign. The academic suggests the following policies:

    • Break the deadlock between the Iraqi government and the KRG over oil and gas revenue sharing and refugee resettlement. This will go a long way toward rebuilding trust and preventing Kirkuk from becoming a flashpoint—the first priority for the United States.
    • Continue to support the federal system outlined in Iraq’s constitution and avoid any suggestion that Iraq be partitioned.
    • Solidify the dialogue between Turkey and the KRG through U.S. involvement. Warming relations between Turkey and the KRG would stabilize the region and aid in a smooth U.S. troop withdrawal.
    • Demobilize the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and encourage its fighters to disarm or defect under a joint political and military effort coordinated by the KRG, Turkey, and the United States.
    • Work with European allies to resolve Turkey’s internal Kurdish disputes. Supporting Turkey’s counterterrorism program and its bid for EU accession, and providing development assistance in Turkey’s Kurdish regions would allow the U.S. and Europe to address problems from both sides.

    Barkey warns that the leftist and rightist nationalist movements in Turkey, as well as the army, need to be convinced to accept Iraq’s federal structure.

    Amnesty and disarmament in Turkey

    As far as PKK disarmament is concerned, Turkey must issue an amnesty. PKK militants should hand their arms over to the US, with Turkey monitoring the process. He believes that a transparent disarmament process would help to get public opinion to support it. As for the leadership of the PKK, they must be allowed to leave the region safely.

    Following these steps, so Barkey, Iraqi Kurds would have to announce that they would not tolerate any remaining PKK presence, and the KRG must control the area. US military support might be available at this point.

    Barkey argues that Europe must also take part in this process, and that the PKK must dissolve PJAK, the Iranian branch of the PKK.

    He also believes that US and European leaders should have direct contact with nonviolent Kurdish leaders in Turkey.

    The report was introduced at a panel moderated by Marina Ottaway. Barkey discussed the report with Qubad Talabani, a representative of the KRG, and Ian Lesser of the German Marshall Fund.(EÜ/AG)

    Source: bianet.org, 12.02.2009

    Full text is HERE

  • PJAK listing an error, group says

    PJAK listing an error, group says

    WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 (UPI) — A move by the U.S. Treasury Department to freeze the assets of an Iranian Kurdish group linked to separatist factions in Iraq was erroneous, officials say.

    Treasury last week froze the assets of the Free Life Party of Kurdistan, or PJAK, for its alleged ties to the blacklisted Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK.

    PKK is a separatist movement operating in parts of Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. The Turkish military has engaged the militant group in northern Iraq using U.S. military intelligence. PJAK operates predominately in Kurdish provinces in Iran.

    Hajji Ahmadi, a PJAK official, told Kenneth Timmerman writing for Newsmax in Washington, D.C., that the link to the PKK was invalid.

    “We are an Iranian party, fighting the Iranian regime. We have nothing to do with Turkey,” he said.

    Timmerman, a journalist known for his Iranian dissidence, said PJAK believes the move by Treasury was to win favor from the Iranians as Washington tries to improve relations with Tehran.

    Treasury in the statement announcing the PJAK decision said the move was intended as a protective measure against Turkey, however.

    “With today’s action, we are exposing PJAK’s terrorist ties to the PKK and supporting Turkey’s efforts to protect its citizens from attack,” said Stuart Levey, the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence with the U.S. Treasury Department.

    © 2009 United Press International.

    Source:  www.metimes.com, February 12, 2009

  • Why Turkey, Israel Must Stay Friends

    Why Turkey, Israel Must Stay Friends

    Osman “Oz” Bengur
    Special to the Jewish Times

    The present rupture in relations between Turkey and Israel is unfortunate and cause for great concern. Relations between Israel and Turkey have been strong and for the sake of both countries and U.S. interests, it is critically important they remain so.

    With that in mind, I would like to respond to Dr. Alexander Murinson’s February 6 article, “Turkey’s Islamic PM Rocks Israel’ Ties” CLICK HERE

    As Dr. Murinson points out in his article, there have been deplorable anti-Semitic rhetoric and activities in Turkey following the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza. Turkish leaders were too slow to condemn these acts and the Prime Minister and his government have now made clear that anti-Semitic outbreaks in Turkey will not be tolerated.

    There are clearly serious differences between the two governments’ views over Gaza that should be addressed in a more temperate way. Unfortunately, Prime Minister Erdogan’s ill-chosen words at Davos were not constructive. It is especially important in these times of heightened emotions that great care is given to the choice of words.

    In his article, Dr. Murinson characterizes Prime Minister Erdogan and his AK party (AKP) and the government of Turkey as “Islamist” which I am concerned creates a misleading impression. The term “Islamist” is usually associated with countries like Iran that are governed according to Sharia law, or mistakenly, with terrorists. Even though Turkey’s population of 75 million is predominantly Muslim, and its ruling party expresses its Muslim faith openly (both the Prime Minister and President’s wives wear headscarves) the secular foundations established by modern Turkey’s founder, Kemal Ataturk, remain strong. In fact, a recent survey showed that only 9 percent of the population would support Islamic law.

    The AKP has twice been elected by increased pluralities and has largely governed pragmatically. Under its leadership, Turkey has made strides to bring its laws into compliance with European Union norms (by abolishing the death penalty and strengthening equal rights for women). There also is broad public support for instituting anti-corruption, judicial and electoral reforms that are a pre-requisite for the EU membership that Turkey seeks.

    The Turkish secular democratic “model” serves as an example to the Islamic world. Turkey’s willingness to send peacekeeping troops to Lebanon and to mediate talks between Israel and Syria are important to obtaining the goal of peace in the Middle East.

    At the same time, AKP’s attempts to remove prohibitions against religious expression such as the wearing of headscarves in universities (a measure that was ruled unconstitutional by Turkey’s highest court) has generated heated opposition from Turks who defend the country’s secular heritage.

    The modern Turkish republic was founded almost 86 years ago and is still a young nation. Turkey has made enormous strides in the past 20 years to broaden its democracy and is now struggling to balance democracy with faith, but it is not “Islamist”.

    Dr. Murinson attempts to “de-legitimize” (to borrow his word) Turkey’s objections over Gaza by implying that Turkey has no moral standing since it has attacked PKK terrorist strongholds in the Kurdish region of Northern Iraq. Like Israel, Turkey has a right to defend itself against terrorists and has come under criticism for its actions. Recent reports indicate that the Turkish military has taken greater care not to attack villages and that civilian casualties are rare.

    It is deeply disturbing to many Turks and Americans of Turkish heritage like me to see anti-Semitism in Turkey. While diplomatic, military and commercial cooperation between Turkey and Israel is relatively recent, the emotional ties between Jews and Turks span more than 500 years since the time the Ottoman Sultan provided haven for Jews fleeing the Inquisition. Over the centuries, Turkey has provided refuge for Jews seeking asylum. Yad Vashem named a Turkish Consul General “Righteous Among Nations” for saving Jews from the Nazis. Turkey was the first predominantly Muslim country to recognize the State of Israel in 1949 and with Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

    This history cannot be taken for granted, however. Turkey must reassure its Jewish citizens by taking decisive action against anti-Semitism. The recent disagreements over Gaza shouldn’t be allowed to escalate to the point where the relationship between the two countries is irreparably damaged.

    A strong relationship between Turkey and Israel is vital to both countries and vital to the strategic interests of the United States.

    We all have a stake in its success.

    Osman “Oz” Bengur, who lives in Towson, is a former candidate for the U.S. Congress. More of his work can be found at: citybizlist.com

    Source: www.jewishtimes.com, February 13, 2009