Turkish Forum

Category: Regions

  • MOSCOW SUMMIT ON KARABAKH FALLS SHORT OF KREMLIN’S GOALS

    MOSCOW SUMMIT ON KARABAKH FALLS SHORT OF KREMLIN’S GOALS

    By Vladimir Socor

    Tuesday, November 4, 2008

     

    Presidents Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, and Serge Sarkisian of Armenia met on November 2 near Moscow to discuss the current state of negotiations on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. With those negotiations moving slowly forward at several levels and on their own momentum, Medvedev initiated this summit hoping to lift Russia into the driver’s seat of the process.

    The Kremlin hoped to capitalize on the political effects of its recent invasion of Georgia and seizure of that country’s territories through military occupation and diplomatic “recognition.” The Georgia crisis served to demonstrate that Russia can and does act decisively, brutally, and with impunity in the South Caucasus, while the United States was drifting toward strategic disengagement and the European Union failed to fill the vacuum. The moment seemed ripe for Russia to display “regional leadership” by taking the initiative in negotiations to settle the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

    Moscow also hoped to display a capacity for conflict resolution through diplomacy, not just through force. One major goal of this exercise in diplomacy, however, is to deploy Russian troops in this conflict theater as “peacekeepers” or “guarantors” at some stage of the settlement.

    The summit’s only apparent result, however, was a joint declaration that fell clearly short of Moscow’s goals (www.kremlin.ru, Arminfo, www.day.az, November 3, 4). The Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents first held a two-hour, face-to-face session and were then joined by Medvedev for finalizing the declaration. Signed by the three presidents in front of TV cameras, then read out to the media by Medvedev, the five-point declaration does not commit the signatory parties to any specific approaches or actions within the continuing negotiating process. If the Kremlin wished to show “forward movement” after hosting this summit, its hopes were in vain.

    The declaration’s preamble underscores the continuity of direct dialogue between the two countries with the mediation of the three OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs (Russia, the United States, and France).

    Point 1 envisages a “political settlement of the conflict based on the principles and norms of international law.” This, however, neither resolves nor circumvents the dilemma between territorial integrity of states and the inviolability of internationally recognized borders on one hand and national self-determination on the other hand. This dilemma has been created and maintained artificially on the Armenian side as a means to freeze the post-1994 situation, with Azerbaijani territories occupied and the Azeri population forced out.

    Point 2 reaffirms support for the ongoing and future mediation by the OSCE Minsk Group’s co-chairs, “taking into consideration their meeting with the parties on November 29, 2007.” The reference is to the three co-chairs’ joint proposals presented during the OSCE’s 2007 year-end ministerial conference in Madrid. The Armenian side interprets that document as elevating the national self-determination principle to the same level as territorial integrity and inviolability of borders. Yerevan therefore prefers to cite “the Madrid principles” as a point of departure for further negotiations. Azerbaijan, however, argues for the primacy of the territorial integrity principle in OSCE and other international documents of normative character. The Moscow declaration downgrades the significance of Madrid to a mere “meeting,” not principles and not even a document for further reference. This undoubtedly comes as a disappointment for Yerevan.

    Point 3 stipulates that the “peaceful resolution should be accompanied by legally binding international guarantees in all aspects and stages of settlement.” Russia and Armenia insist on such guarantees: Yerevan refers to the security of the Armenian population of Upper Karabakh while Moscow needs an excuse for deploying Russian “peacekeeping” or “guarantor” troops. For its part, Azerbaijan does not oppose international guarantees but does insist that any such guarantees be in line with Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.

    Point 4 records Azerbaijan’s and Armenia’s intention to continue their efforts for a political settlement of the conflict, at the level of the presidents and ministries of foreign affairs, and through cooperation with the OSCE Minsk Group’s co-chairs.

    Point 5 “emphasize[s] the importance of creating conditions that will contribute to the consolidation of trust, within the framework of efforts aimed at settling the conflict.” However vague, this point clearly does not imply that Azerbaijan ought to agree to Armenia’s inclusion in regional energy and transport projects in order to facilitate the resolution of the conflict.

    During the last few years, the European Union and even the United States have attempted to persuade Azerbaijan to include Armenia in regional projects before the Armenian forces withdraw from occupied territories, presumably in order to advance efforts for peace. Ideologically, this argument is a late legacy of the classical liberal belief that trade in and of itself promotes peace (“pipelines for peace” is a latter-day incarnation of that belief). On a more mundane level, that argument reflects the influence of political lobbies in Brussels and Washington, which has resulted in withholding funds from projects of Western interest in Western-oriented Azerbaijan. For its part, Azerbaijan is open to such cooperation with Armenia after the Armenian forces vacate the occupied territories and the refugees are free to return home.

  • Talabani dismisses US base offer

    Talabani dismisses US base offer

       

    Barzani, left, said Kurdistan’s people and government would welcome US military bases [AFP]

    “It is not possible for US troops to stay in Kurdistan without the approval of the central government,” Talabani said in an interview with state television Al-Iraqiya late on Sunday.

    “Kurdistan is part of Iraq, and all of the country’s constitutional laws apply to it.”

    ‘Warm welcome’

    Barzani, who heads the Kurdish administration in the country’s north, had offered his region as an alternative for US military bases if the status of forces agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad fell through.

    Iraqi newspaper Khabat quoted Barzani, who has strongly backed the controversial proposal, as saying during a recent visit to Washington that his regional government would “welcome” the setting up of US military bases.

    “All the attempts are going right now to sign the pact, but if the pact is not signed and if US asked to keep their troops in Kurdistan, I think the parliament, the people and government of Kurdistan will welcome this warmly,” he said at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

    Supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia leader, criticised Barzani for his comments.

    “We reject the statement by Massud Barzani,” Sheikh Saleh al-Obeidi, a spokesman for the group, told the AFP news agency.

    “This position reminds us that Kurds want to separate … There is a constitution in this country and they have to respect it.”

    Proposed changes

    The US government – after initially balking at making any changes demanded by the Iraqi government in the draft pact – is now expected to respond in the next few days.

    The agreement is supposed to outline the framework under which US forces will stay in Iraq beyond 2008.

    The signing of the pact was delayed after the Iraqi cabinet sought key changes, including greater legal jurisdiction over US troops and guarantees that US soldiers would not launch attacks on other countries from Iraq.

    The pact is unpopular among Arab Iraqis who have seen the bulk of violence and destruction since the US-led invasion in 2003, and who see the pact as nothing more than another form of occupation.

    Al Jazeera’s Hoda Abdel Hamid reporting from the Kurdish city of Irbil, said that Kurds felt safer having US troops around given the distrust between the Kurds and the Arabs.

    Kurds have also been spared the worst of the violence since 2003 and many actually feel that their lives have improved over the last five years, with foreign investments and a flourishing local economy, our correspondent said.

    The final draft of the proposed pact must be endorsed by the Iraqi parliament after the amendments are finalised by both Washington and Baghdad.

    Iraq’s president has dismissed Kurdish leader Massud Barzani’s invitation to the US to set up military bases in the Kurdish region if a proposed security pact with Baghdad fails.

    Jalal Talabani, himself a Kurd, said Washington could set up bases in the country – even in the Kurdish region – only with Baghdad’s approval.

  • Karabakh Peace Agreement Impossible Without U.S. Involvement

    Karabakh Peace Agreement Impossible Without U.S. Involvement

    By Harry Tamrazian

     

    Meeting in Moscow on November 2, the presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia signed a document pledging their continued commitment to resolving the Karabakh conflict peacefully. It was the first time that officials from Armenia and Azerbaijan had signed such a joint document since Russia mediated a cease-fire agreement in 1994, putting an end to one of the deadliest wars in the former USSR.

    The so-called Moscow Declaration of Intent on Nagorno-Karabakh was an important diplomatic event in the 15-year long negotiating process. But it was much more important for Moscow, which thus reminded everyone that it holds the key to a solution to this conflict. The joint declaration was co-signed only by Russia, despite the fact that other two Minsk Group co-chairs, the United States and France, were also present.

    A closer look at the declaration leaves no doubt that much of what was discussed during the closed-door talks was not reflected on paper. The declaration is just another expression of intent by the two leaders that they are serious about seeking a peaceful solution and that the military option can no longer be considered an alternative to peaceful diplomacy.

    In short, both sides agreed on paper to tone down harsh military rhetoric and expedite the peace process. However, taking the text at face value would be overly optimistic.

    Questions Arise

    Every time Russia steps up its mediation efforts, questions arise about its motives for doing so. The simple answer in this case would probably be that it wants at least to preserve the level of influence that it had in Armenia, and more importantly in Azerbaijan, which has long been suspicious about its real intentions in the region.

    Now that Georgia is out of the Russian sphere of influence, at least for the foreseeable future, Moscow will do all in its power to keep the two remaining South Caucasus countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan, under its control.

    The only way to do that is to act as an honest broker to bring about a settlement of the frozen, and potentially deadly, Karabakh conflict. Moscow’s mediation could also be seen as an attempt to restore its credibility in the region following the war with Georgia, which further eroded its relations with the United States.

    Depending on who wins the U.S. presidential election, Moscow will try to showcase its good behavior to the new leadership in Washington. There is one important line in the joint declaration, which shows that Moscow will not mediate the potential peace deal alone, bypassing its American and French partners in the OSCE Minsk Group. The declaration clearly states that the peace process will proceed within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group based on the “Madrid Principles” endorsed by the OSCE Ministerial Council, which envisage the return of occupied Azerbaijani territories and the possibility of holding a referendum on the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

    High Expectations

    It is hard to imagine that a Karabakh peace deal could be achieved without the United States, one of the major players in the OSCE Minsk Group. Azerbaijan and Armenia will not easily bow to Moscow’s pressure without the approval of the new administration in Washington. It would therefore be premature to expect a breakthrough in the talks before January 2009, when the next U.S. president is sworn in.

    Armenians have high expectations for Democratic Senator Barack Obama, hoping that, if he is elected president, he will support their cause.

    “I will promote Armenian security by seeking an end to the Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades, and by working for a lasting and durable settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that is agreeable to all parties,” Obama said in one of his campaign promises to Armenian-Americans.

    The Armenian government will seek help from the United States if it is pressured to give up Azerbaijani territories without obtaining guarantees that the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians will be able to hold a referendum on their future status. 

    Some experts in Azerbaijan and Armenia believe that Russia might try to secure a substantial military presence in the conflict zone as part of the future peacekeeping force that is to be deployed once a peace agreement is signed. Azerbaijan will most probably seek support from the United States in ensuring that Russian troops do not return to Azerbaijan.

    The Georgian experience has demonstrated that once they come, they are unlikely to leave peacefully.

    Haryy Tamrazian is director of RFE/RL’s Armenian Service. The views expressed in this commentary are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL.

  • Turkish delight at German cult series’ new hero

    Turkish delight at German cult series’ new hero

    Rough talking, leather jacket-clad and quintessentially Teutonic: the intrepid detectives in the cult German-Austrian crime series Tatort have always been one of a kind. Until now that is.

    Enter Cenk Batu, the latest addition to the crime squad, who has given the hit show something it has never had before: a hero of Turkish descent.

    Millions tuned in for last week’s episode, shown at its usual Sunday prime-time slot. Tatort, translated as crime scene, serves up a typical dose of criminal-chasing antics, but the arrival of Batu, an undercover agent in Hamburg, made history for the 37-year-old series.

    “Finally we see a Turkish-German character who is not a bully or a drug dealer but a clever commissar,” said Cinar Safter of the Turkish Union in Berlin, which represents Germany’s 2.6m-strong Turkish community – its largest minority. “This is good news but it comes far too late.”

    Although the country’s Turkish population is Germany’s largest ethnic group, it is still under-represented on television.

    Sabine Schiffer, who heads the Media Responsibility Institute, argued that more “normal shows” should include minorities. She also complained that newsreaders in particular were rarely from minority communities, projecting an image of the country that is “blonder” than it really is.

    Actor Mehmet Kurtulus is well aware of his character’s symbolic value. When he was given the part last year he said the pioneering role had “social and political implications”.

    Kurtulus, who moved to Germany from Turkey when he was two years old, has described himself as a representative of a “bridge generation” between the two countries. He sees Batu, who speaks broken Turkish and has no contact with the Turkish community except through his father, as a realistic character.

    “The third generation is a lost, identity-less generation,” he said, referring to those whose grandparents moved to Germany as “guest workers” during the economic boom after the second world war.

    “They speak a mish-mash of German and Turkish and are not properly linked to Turkey or Germany.”

    in Berlin

    Guardian

  • OBAMA: Our First French President?

    OBAMA: Our First French President?

    Our First French President?
    by  Jed Babbin
    10/30/2008
    iF he’s elected next week, Barack Obama won’t be our first black president: Toni Morrison labeled Bill Clinton our “first black president” in October 1998.  (We have seen no reports that she retracted that label as a result of the South Carolina primary campaign). 

    And never mind all the nonsense floating around the internet.  Barack Obama wasn’t born in Indonesia, or Kenya or wherever.  He was born in Hawaii.

    Race isn’t an issue for conservatives, but cultural indentity is.  And that’s a problem because if he’s elected, Barack Obama will be our first French president.

    The man who would lead the most productive, hard-working, achievement-oriented society in history told on his campaign website to take the day off to vote at our ease and make sure all our relatives and friends do the same.  He tells students to ask their professors to let them out of class to canvass neighborhoods and drive people to the polls.

    Take the day off to vote?  Us? We’re the American workaholics:  we thrive in the can’t-wait-to-dial-push-to-talk society.  People in Washington get carpal tunnel syndrome from thumbing their Blackberrys.  Stakhanovites all, we dedicate ourselves to our work, identify ourselves by our jobs, and compete with everyone within range. That’s how we succeed.

    In America’s heartland, many families have a mom and a dad who each work two jobs to put the kids through college. Lots of people work Saturdays or Sundays or both.  We take Christmas and Thanksgiving and July 4th off and — if we’re lucky — we save up to take a week’s trip somewhere in driving distance.

    And this guy wants to stop the world just to make sure he gets elected?

    Just think about this:  if every American voter took the day off on Tuesday, it would cost our economy a big chunk of cash.  How much?

    In 2004, there were about 123 million voters.  The best estimate says there are about 181 million registered voters today.  One economist did a computation for me, using that probable voter base.  If they all work for the average wage and all take an unpaid day off, the cost would be about $22.3 billion in lost wages for the first Obamaday.

    How much would the stock market fall just because the earth stood so that we could elect Obama?

    In France, they care little about such things. That’s why they have — by law — a 35-hour workweek that’s interrupted by strikes and five-week vacations.

    Last summer, the French made a half-hearted attempt to repeal the 35-hour work week, but only managed to succeed in reducing the minimum number of vacation days.  Unless a President Obama wants to limit our workweek, we’ll stay ahead of France in economic power.

    All over America, we go to work, we go to school and some time during the day — before we go to work or after we get home, on a long break from school or when classes are over that day — we manage to vote.  We accomplish our duties, meet our responsibilities, and manage to perform our patriotic duty to vote all on the same day.

    Much of this happens in the suburbs and this is the candidate who’s not interested in how that works.  Remember?  He said, “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.” Of course they do: that’s where all those gun-and-bible-clinging people live.

    This election is the most important in living memory, and the Democrats’ candidate is proving that — underneath the trim American exterior — a Frenchman lurks.

    We have, as others have noted, been learning more about Obama in the past two weeks than we have in the past two years.  As a hyperliberal politician, Obama has been doing his best to conceal his liberalism and the press has been all too eager to leave the “progressive” cloak in place.  But we are, in the last weeks of the campaign, getting a better view.

    It started with Joe the Plumber asking a better question than all the reporters and debate moderators who preceded him.  And the answer Mr. Wurzelberger got — that Obama wants to spread the wealth around — revealed Obama’s cultural commonality with European socialists.

    “I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.”  Spread the wealth like Robin Hood? No, like robbing you. And if you read the Obama economic plans — including about $800 billion more in spending on health care, college subsidies and climate controls — his methods for spreading the wealth are the same ones the European redistributionists use.

    Think about their primary redistribution program, the agricultural subsidy. As Dr. John Hulsman memorably told me a few years ago, the European Union’s agricultural subsidy is “really a sop from Germany to pay French farmers to sit around, play boule, and do nothing.” Apply that to health care and college tuition and, et voila, you’ve got Obama’s plan.

    As Michelle Malkin reported on her blog, in a 2001interview with Chicago Public Radio, Obama was talking about the Warren Court which, in the 1970s, was the source of great social and legal change. Obama said it wasn’t really radical:

    It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

    There’s no need to parse these words with Clintonian exactitude:  Obama is saying that he disagrees with the most basic theory of the Founders in crafting the Constitution: that it is written as the preserver of liberties from government intrusion, not to make the government the source of those liberties.  In Obama’s mind, a more perfect union would be the provider of rights and entitlements, not the guarantor of freedoms. 

    This is the key to Barack Obama’s legal knowledge and judgment.  The purpose of our Constitution is not to provide rights: Americans’ rights are endowed by the Creator, not the Government.

    A Constitution written to describe what the government and subordinate governments must do for citizens does not recognize rights that already exist: it would be one that grants rights that exist only as long as the government wishes them to.  And, of course, with every right comes the cost which the government would be obligated to tax to pay for.

    The French Constitution is probably more to Obama’s liking.  Thanks to a recent amendment, the French peoples’ constitutional rights now include “the right to access information about the environment” and an obligation of the government to “promote sustainable development” that doesn’t damage the atmosphere, the wine, or the cheese.

    Anyone who still doubts Obama is culturally (and probably genetically) French should consider this statement by the Illinois naïf:  “This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.”  Or, if he made himself clearer, he might have said, “My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.  I hope you’ll join me as we try to change it.”

    Either way, who but a Frenchman could have uttered those words?

    WILL MCCAIN BE THROWN OVERBOARD ALLOWING THE CORRUPT DEMOCRATS TO TAKE OVER THE SHIP OF STATE
    lawrencehoule@yahoo.com

    Many Americans are getting ready to throw McCain – a good, honest, genuine American hero overboard back into the rice paddy and do to him politically what his Vietnamese captors tried to do to McCain physically.

    Before you vote ask yourself – How Could a Community Organizer Afford to Buy a Mansion in Chicago. And read below:

    11 REASONS BARRACK CHAVEZ OBAMA IS NOT THE ONE

    1. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the causes of this financial disaster. In order to ensure that they were not regulated these corrupt companies bought off congressmen. This is corruption. In just 3 years, these corrupt companies gave Obama $123,000 to buy him off. $123,000. Obama was the second largest recipient of Fannie and Freddie corrupt donations. This is the corruption McCain has fought against his whole life. $123,000 is corruption.

    2. Earmark projects are corruption incarnate. Obama had 1 billion dollars worth of earmarks. 1 billion dollars. This is CORRUPTION RUN AMUCK. This money goes to political cronies in return for support and donations, relatives, family members. We are in this financial mess because of this kind of corruption. It created a culture of corruption that lead to the wall street debacle. Barrack Obama is at the very center of this CULTURE OF CORRUPTION. He is the WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE. 1 billion dollars of hard earned tax payer money FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET BOWL OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION.

    3. Barrack Obama gave his First Cousin $70,000 of tax payer money. $70,000 of hard earned tax payer money to his first cousin. We elect representatives to Congress to serve the people. Not to ENRICH themselves. Not to enrich their family members. Not to enrich their political supporters. THIS IS TRULY CORRUPTION.

    4. Obama wants to raise taxes on corporations, small businesses, capital gains. If you raise taxes in this economic crisis YOU WILL CAUSE A GREAT DEPRESSION. Business won’t create jobs. People will not invest. The 401 ks of seniors and all Americans won’t be worth anything. The DOW WILL COLLAPSE TO to 4000/5000. The US will become another failed state like Venezuela. It’s that simple. If you want a SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION BARACK OBAMA IS YOUR MAN.

    5. Obama wants our troops out of Iraq in 16 months. As General Petraeus has warned such a withdrawal will lead to the collapse of the Iraqi government. Iraq is not Afghanistan. IT IS AT THE VERY CENTER OF THE OIL PRODUCING UNIVERSE. If the Iraqi government collapses, OIL PRICES WILL SOAR TO $200.00/barrel and $10.00/gallon/gas. If you want to pay $10.00/gallon/gas vote Barrack Obama.

    6. Barrack Obama called our troops fighting in Afghanistan WAR CRIMINALS. He said that they were air raiding villages and killing innocent civilians. WAR CRIMES. You cannot be commander in chief of our great armed forces and call them WAR CRIMINALS. Not only that but these statements put THE LIVES OF OUR TROOPS AT RISK.

    7. When Move On. org – a large money Barrack Obama supporter called General Petraeus – one of the greatest American generals – GENERAL BETRAYUS – Barrack Obama refused to vote on a senate motion defending this great general. You cannot be President of the United States and stand by while one of your generals is being viciously maligned. Obama did this because he didn’t want to lose the money from Move On. Barrack Obama is A COWARD.

    8. Barrack Obama gave $800.000 to a organization called Acorn. Acorn is trying to steal this election by fraudulently registering thousands and thousands of voters throughout this country �” registering everything from dead people to cats, dogs. THIS IS CORRUPTION. Obama has a long and illustrious relationship with Acorn. Incredibility – ACORN leader Wade Rathke was in the Weather Underground along with Bill Ayers.

    Ladies and gentlemen of America in the rescue package of 700 billion just passed by Congress the Democrats tried to include $500,000,000 for ACORN. DO YOU HEAR WHAT I JUST SAID – 500 MILLION FOR ACORN. THATS ONE OF THE REASONS MCCAIN RUSHED BACK TO WASHINGTON TO KILL THIS FRAUDULENT FUNDING. In Chicago, Obama was involved in training Acorn activists to go to the HOMES OF BANK PRESIDENTS AND THREATEN THEM IF THEY DID NOT GIVE OUT FRAUDELENT LOANS THAT COULD NEVER BE REPAID. $500 million to Acorn by the democrats in Congress and $800,000 from Obama. Can you imagine what will happen with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama in charge. Acorn will get the 500 million. 100%. Every vote is precious. It is the very essence of our democracy.

    9. Bill Ayers was a terrorist who bombed the Pentagon, police stations and homes of people trying to capture him. Obama has a long and illustrious relationship with this arch criminal and hater of the US. Obama received $50 million dollars from Ayers to indoctrinate children in Chicago in revolutionary ideology. NOT READING AND WRITING AND SCIENCE BUT REVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGY like Chavez teaches in Venezuela . Obama says – he was just a guy living in my neighborhood. Obama doesn’t understand that as President one of your most important obligations is NOT TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    10. Obama called the people of this country when he thought nobody was tape recording his great genius – Bitter people clinging to their bibles and their guns. You cannot denigrate the great people of this country and be their president.

    11. In order to create a PERMANENT DEMOCRATIC PARTY MAJORITY – Obama and the Democrats FAST TRACK CITZENSHIP FOR ALL 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants. And all those who will pour into the US to share in the new STATE WELFARE STATE. This will happen immediately.

    Corruption is what this election is all about. McCain must demand justice. Jail the bastards. Jail them all. MUST BE THE BATTLE CRY

  • Israel to begin new UAV deliveries to Turkey

    Israel to begin new UAV deliveries to Turkey

    TURKISH DEFENSE MINISTER VECDI GONUL VISITS ISRAEL

    Saban Kardas

    Turkey’s Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul visited Israel on October 29 and 30 to expedite the Turkish Armed Forces’ (TAF) purchase of 10 Heron Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) from Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI). He was accompanied by a large delegation that included Undersecretary for Defense Industries Murad Bayar and several military officers and civilians. The meeting also provided opportunities to discuss regional diplomacy and bilateral relations between Turkey and Israel.

    In 2005 Turkey awarded a $180 million contract for the off-the-shelf purchase of 10 UAVs to IAI and Elbit Systems, which outbid offers for the U.S. Predator UAV (Zaman, October 25). In response to the acceleration of the PKK’s terror campaign, the TAF’s new counter-terrorism strategy has been centered on the effective use of intelligence (Terrorism Focus, August 12). In addition to real-time images provided by U.S. satellites, the reconnaissance missions conducted by UAVs have come to play a crucial role in the air strikes against PKK strongholds in Northern Iraq and PKK militants inside Turkey.

    Despite the urgency of the TAF’s order, however, the Israeli contractor has postponed the delivery of 10 Herons to Turkey several times over the past year, citing technical failures in the camera system that will be produced by a Turkish subcontractor. In addition to accelerating domestic programs to develop national UAVs and the purchase of three Israeli Aerostar Tactical UAVs, Turkey leased Herons from Israel in 2007 (Yeni Safak, December 28, 2007). When one Heron at the TAF’s disposal crashed in July due to engine problems, Israel could not replace it because it did not have one available in its inventory (Referans, October 21). Turkey instead bought a smaller UAV called the Searcher.

    The shorter range of the Aerostars has hindered the flow of intelligence for the TAF. Surveillance shortages are speculated to have played a part in the TAF’s failure to prevent the PKK attack on Aktutun outpost, which claimed the lives of 17 soldiers on October 3 (Milliyet, October 18). Domestic debate on this attack has refocused attention on the difficulties Turkey has experienced with surveillance aircraft. On the eve of the trip, Gonul was urged to put pressure on Israel to speed up the delivery of the UAVs (ANKA, October 21).

    Gonul visited Israel at the invitation of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak to observe the test flights of the Heron UAVs. Following the demonstrations, Gonul found the drones’ performance excellent and remarked that they would fill the requirements successfully and strengthen Turkey’s military capabilities. Reiterating the urgency of the UAVs for Turkey, Gonul noted that two of the Herons would be delivered to the TAF by the end of November and the remaining eight in early 2009 (Yeni Safak, October 31). At a meeting with Barak and Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, Gonul stated that cooperation with Israel in defense projects would not be limited to UAVs, although he declined to name any other specific projects (Milliyet, October 31).

    For its part, the Israeli side also is keen on deepening its partnership in defense projects with Turkey. When Barak visited Ankara in February as Gonul’s guest, he called for greater cooperation between the two countries and emphasized that Israel did not harbor any concerns about transferring sensitive technology to Turkey (Voice of America, February 12). Barak was particularly eager to convince Turkey to purchase Israel’s Ofeq spy satellites (Jerusalem Post, February 11). Israel’s flexible attitude has definitely been welcome to Ankara, because most of Turkey’s ambitious defense procurement and modernization programs contain stringent rules requiring greater domestic contribution in production or technology transfers to Turkish companies. Given the problems that U.S. weapons producers face in obtaining Turkish defense contracts due to the Turkish procurement policy, Israel provides an alternative for the Turkish military to obtain high-tech weapons systems for its fight against the PKK and to upgrade its aging weapons systems with larger domestic input. It has been reported, however, that the TAF is close to acquiring U.S.-made Predators to meet its urgent needs but is constrained by the Turkish procurement rules (Today’s Zaman, October 29).

    Vecdi Gonul also met Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipora “Tzipi” Livni, both of whom emphasized Turkey’s strategic importance in the Middle East and the value they attached to maintaining bilateral relations. They commended Turkey’s constructive efforts to contribute to stability and peace in the Middle East, in particular its role in the recent Syrian-Israeli negotiations. Livni, however, used this opportunity to express Israel’s displeasure with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Turkey in August, and she called on Turkey to support international efforts to increase pressure on Iran. Israel and the United States have been critical of Turkey’s warm relations with Iran at a time when they are seeking to isolate Tehran on the nuclear issue (see EDM August 14). Gonul avoided confronting his Israeli hosts but clarified Turkey’s position by maintaining that Turkey would continue to develop relations with all countries in this volatile region on the principles of nonintervention in domestic affairs and good-neighborliness (CNNTurk, October 30; Milliyet, October 31). At a meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres, Gonul discussed possibilities for building industrial zones on the West Bank (Zaman, October 31).

    Political differences aside, the two countries share a common ground: Turkey needs cooperation with Israel to fill its deficiencies in combating the PKK, while Israel views Turkey as a lucrative market for its sophisticated weapons systems. The recent visit reaffirmed both parties’ determination and ability to put an occasional divergence on regional diplomatic issues aside and maintain cooperation in mutually beneficial projects.