Tag: NATO

NATO- Perry Comments Ruffle Turkey’s Feathers
By Joe Parkinson

Reuters

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry is seen backstage during a debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on Monday.

Updated at 4:20 p.m. CET

For Turkey, busy riding an economic boom and preoccupied with soccer scandals and revolutionary shifts across its borders, the race for the U.S. Republican nomination hasn’t exactly been a box office draw. Until Tuesday, that is …

Late Monday, Texas governor and presidential hopeful Rick Perry said that Turkey was governed by “what many perceive to be Islamic terrorists,” and suggested the country should be booted out of NATO.

The governor’s remarks, made during the Fox News Channel and Wall Street Journal GOP debate in South Carolina, came in response to a question from the moderator over whether Turkey still belonged in NATO amid international concern over media reports of declining press freedoms, deteriorating relations with Israel and a rising murder rate of women.

“Obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then … not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it,” Mr. Perry said.

In Turkey, a long-time ally of Washington and NATO’s only majority-Muslim member, the comments were too late to make the Turkish dailies, but early Tuesday, news websites and Twitter feeds here were abuzz with Turks’ angry and confused reaction. Turkish daily Milliyet ran a banner on its website calling the comments “scandalous.” Hurriyet said the governor’s words were “offensive.”

Readers comments were a little less diplomatic. “America really must be a land of opportunity if this man has managed to become governor,” one reader commented on the website of Vatan newspaper.

A Turkish government spokesman said: “I’m not going to comment, but I think you can imagine what my comment would be,” adding that the Turkish embassy in Washington would be studying the remarks to formulate a response.

Turkey’s foreign affairs ministry said in a statement that the remarks were “untrue” and “inappropriate,” and stressed that presidential candidates should be “more careful when they are making statements.”

“Turkey has been a NATO member since Perry was 2 years old,” the statement said.

Mr. Perry’s campaign, which has faltered in recent months after entering the race as favorite in August, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Some voters and international observers have been unnerved by the policies of Turkey’s Islamically-influenced AK Party government, as the country appeared to reorient toward the Middle East and clamp down on press freedoms. But the ruling party, under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, remains popular, successfully presiding over rapid economic growth and expanding diplomatic clout while maintaining good relations with NATO allies.

Analysts said Mr. Perry’s musings were all the more curious since Washington and Ankara’s alliance has been bolstered in recent months by Turkey’s strong backing of pro-democracy movements during Arab Spring uprisings.

“Ankara and Washington are now walking in lockstep… The essence of the new relationship is one where Turkey is more empowered, and more crucial to the U.S. because of its leverage,” said Atilla Yesilada, of Istanbul Analytics, an Istanbul-based political risk consultancy.

Turkish and U.S. diplomats say they cannot remember a time when cooperation between Ankara and Washington was closer, citing that President Barack Obama called Turkey’s prime minister more than any other leader except Britain’s prime minister in 2011.

What analysts call an increasing symmetry of Washington and Ankara’s policies has formed after a period of significant strain in 2009-2010, when Turkey moved closer to Iran and tensions with Israel were at boiling point over the killing of seven Turkish nationals by Israeli commandos on the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara flotilla.

In a crucial shift, Turkey agreed last fall to host a North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile-defense system, which was designed by the U.S. to contain Iran.

Turkish media outlets on Tuesday were keen to claim that Mr. Perry’s infamous “oops” moment, when he failed at a November campaign debate to recall the name of a government department he would ax if elected U.S. president, undercut the credibility of his comments.

Mr. Perry’s campaign will likely consider Monday’s comments as significantly less of a stumble, unless the Texan is planning a visit to Istanbul.
- NATO,
- Politics,
- Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
- Rick Perry,
- Turkey,
- U.S.
January 17, 2012
Arab Spring Sees Turkish-Iranian Rivalry Take a New Turn

Arab Spring Sees Turkish-Iranian Rivalry Take a New Turn

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 186

October 11, 2011

By: Saban Kardas

Turkey’s decision to host a NATO early warning radar in the US-led missile defense program continues to reverberate, especially for its relations with Iran. High ranking Iranian officials repeatedly criticize not only Turkey’s cooperation with the United States on the missile shield, but also Ankara’s recent foreign policy initiatives. These include the Turkish government’s efforts to set a model for the transformation of the regional countries in the wake of the Arab Spring, Ankara advocating a two-state solution for the Palestinian problem, or its increasingly assertive position on Syria.

The decision on radar deployment apparently was a tipping point for Iranian officials, who now vocally criticize Turkey on a myriad of issues (EDM, September 20). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during a live TV interview that Iranian officials told their Turkish counterparts it was wrong to grant such permission and it would not benefit Turkey , October 5). Major-General Yahya Rahim-Safavi, the military advisor to the Iranian supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also maintained that Turkey had recently committed various strategic mistakes and would pay a heavy price if it failed to change course (Hurriyet, October 9). The Deputy Head of Iran’s Armed Forces’ Joint Chiefs of Staff Brigadier-General Massoud Jazayeri joined the wave of protest and urged Turkey to rethink its long-term strategic interests and side with Muslim nations instead of the West (www.presstv.ir, October 10).

Iranian officials criticize Turkey on a range of issues of substantial importance. First, Iranian leaders increasingly label the missile shield as a project that is designed to boost Israel’s security against a counter-attack from Iran in case Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities. However, considering that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan repeatedly rebuff such claims, which were also raised by Turkish opposition parties, it appears that the Iranian campaign is driven by a concern to discredit Turkey in the eyes of regional countries.

In order to contextualize Iran’s accusations against Turkey, it might be useful to recall Erdogan’s recent criticism of Israel’s nuclear program. As late as last week, Erdogan continued his recent criticism of Israel, going as far as arguing that he saw Israel as a threat to the region and surrounding countries, because it possessed the atomic bomb. Moreover, Erdogan raised a related criticism, when he pointed to the double standards of world powers: while Iran came under international scrutiny because of its nuclear program, there had been a lack of comparable debate on Israel’s nuclear weapons (Anadolu Ajansi, October 5). Iranian officials’ lambasting of Turkey through manipulative accounts, despite Erdogan’s staunch position on Israel at the expense of harming relations with the West, reveals their intent and approach toward Turkey.

Iranian officials have recently expressed differences of opinion on the Palestine issue. Erdogan’s stance on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians has not necessarily contributed to forging common ground with Iran. Erdogan devoted a large portion of his address at the UN General Assembly last month to the rights of the Palestinians, supporting their bid for recognition. While Turkey has invested a great deal of political capital advocating a two-state solution in international venues, Khamenei, in a recent address at an international conference on the Palestinian Intifada, labeled this formula as tantamount to capitulation to the demands of “Zionists.” Rejecting the Palestinians’ bid for statehood at the UN, Khamenei argued that any solution based on the recognition of Israel’s right of existence would threaten the stability and security of the Middle East. Describing Iran as the greatest defender of the Palestinians, Khamenei criticized other regional powers that maintain close relations with Washington , October 1).

Moreover, Turkish-Iranian divergence exists in an undeclared rivalry for regional leadership over the Arab Spring. For some time this rivalry was only evident in the realm of speculation by analysts. While Iran has been working to put its imprint on the regional transformation, by labeling the popular uprisings as an “Islamic awakening,” Turkish government sources or analysts close to the government have highlighted how Turkey’s democratic and capitalist model inspired the Arab revolutions. Perhaps in the first ever direct affirmation of this rivalry, Rahim-Safavi criticized Erdogan’s recent visit to the region. In Cairo, Erdogan stressed a secular-democratic form of government, which seems to have angered the Iranian leadership, sparking their more direct confrontation with Turkey.

A related area of tension is over competing positions on the Syrian uprising. Faced with the continuation of the Baath regime’s violent campaign to suppress the popular uprising, Turkey has progressively downgraded its ties with Damascus, as well as providing shelter to the Syrian opposition. Turkey’s imposition of sanctions might also negatively affect Damascus’s direct ties to Tehran. Iran, viewing the maintenance of the current regime in Syria as vital to its penetration to Lebanon and Palestine, has grown anxious over Turkey’s policy on Syria, again reflected in Rahim-Safavi’s reactions.

Some common themes are emerging in Iranian views on Turkey. First, there is a continuous and sustained reaction to Turkey, and it is worth noting that the mounting criticism of the country came from the religious leadership and the Revolutionary Guards. Second, Iranian officials work hard to present Ankara’s recent foreign policy initiatives as simply following the dictates of the US, in order to sustain their oft-repeated argument that they are the only genuine independent power in the region.

Finally, there is a deliberate attempt to discipline Turkey by sending harsh messages as to how the country should behave. It is unclear whether this rhetoric reflects self-confidence on the part of the Iranian leadership or anxiety over Turkey taking an anti-Iranian position and siding with the US, which might lead to Iran’s isolation in the region. The Iranian side appears ready to exploit economic ties if necessary, in an effort to discipline Turkey. They daringly refer to Turkey’s gas purchase contracts with Iran as well as Ankara’s plans to boost the bilateral trade volume to $20 billion, going as far as sending veiled threats that Ankara might suffer if it fails to reverse its current position and accommodate Iranian concerns.

https://jamestown.org/program/arab-spring-sees-turkish-iranian-rivalry-take-a-new-turn/

October 12, 2011
Joint article on Libya: The pathway to peace

Friday 15 April 2011

Prime Minister David Cameron, President Barack Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy have written a joint article on Libya underlining their determination that Qadhafi must “go and go for good”.

Read the article

Together with our NATO allies and coalition partners, the United States, France and Britain have been united at the UN Security Council, as well as the following Paris Conference, in building a broad-based coalition to respond to the crisis in Libya. We are equally united on what needs to happen in order to end it.

Even as we continue military operations today to protect civilians in Libya, we are determined to look to the future. We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya, and a pathway can be forged to achieve just that.

We must never forget the reasons why the international community was obliged to act in the first place. As Libya descended into chaos with Colonel Qadhafi attacking his own people, the Arab League called for action. The Libyan opposition called for help. And the people of Libya looked to the world in their hour of need. In an historic Resolution, the United Nations Security Council authorised all necessary measures to protect the people of Libya from the attacks upon them. By responding immediately, our countries halted the advance of Qadhafi’s forces. The bloodbath that he had promised to inflict upon the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi has been prevented.

Tens of thousands of lives have been protected. But the people of Libya are suffering terrible horrors at Qadhafi’s hands each and every day. His rockets and his shells rained down on defenceless civilians in Ajdabiya. The city of Misrata is enduring a mediaeval siege, as Qadhafi tries to strangle its population into submission. The evidence of disappearances and abuses grows daily.

Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qadhafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qadhafi in power. The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal.

Furthermore, it would condemn Libya to being not only a pariah state, but a failed state too. Qadhafi has promised to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian ships and airliners. And because he has lost the consent of his people any deal that leaves him in power would lead to further chaos and lawlessness. We know from bitter experience what that would mean. Neither Europe, the region, or the world can afford a new safe haven for extremists.

There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya. A future without Qadhafi that preserves Libya’s integrity and sovereignty, and restores her economy and the prosperity and security of her people. This needs to begin with a genuine end to violence, marked by deeds not words. The regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zintan, and their forces return to their barracks. However, so long as Qadhafi is in power, NATO and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. In order for that transition to succeed, Colonel Qadhafi must go and go for good. At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Qadhafi has destroyed – to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.

This vision for the future of Libya has the support of a broad coalition of countries, including many from the Arab world. These countries came together in London on 29 March and founded a Contact Group which met this week in Doha to support a solution to the crisis that respects the will of the Libyan people.

Today, NATO and its coalition partners are acting in the name of the United Nations with an unprecedented international legal mandate. But it will be the people of Libya, not the UN, that choose their new constitution, elect their new leaders, and write the next chapter in their history.

Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.

The Prime Ministers Office

Number 10

April 15, 2011
Turkey Scores Diplomatic Victory as NATO Declines to Name Its Enemies

Missile shield moves forward, but alliance policy statement doesn’t mention Iran as its object

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is getting ready to build a defensive shield of missiles based in Turkey and eastern Europe but, thanks to Turkey and its new policy of fast friendships in the Middle East, the missiles’ officially have no enemy to aim at.

As originally conceived, the $270 million U.S.-backed missile system was designed to protect Europe against possible attacks by “rogue states,” a code word for Iran. But intensive lobbying by Ankara at NATO’s Lisbon summit over the weekend pushed the alliance into adopting a neutral stance on targeting. “The alliance does not consider any country to be its adversary,” NATO’s Strategic Concept declared in an end-conference statement.

The compromise formula, which was opposed by France and other NATO members, is the latest sign of Turkey’s efforts to distance itself from the West and warm up to its neighbors in the Middle East, including Iran and Syria — two states the U.S. regards as hostile. Analysts say Ankara remains committed to the alliance, but they see continued friction ahead.

”It seems neither side is listening to the other before these problems emerge. There is a growing sense of distrust between Turkey and its traditional Western allies. Both sides have to do much more to overcome this distrust,” said Hugh Pope, Turkey-Cyprus project director for the International Crisis Group.

Last September, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen named Iran’s nuclear program as one of the reasons that justify the necessity of a missile system. “If Iran eventually acquires a nuclear capability, that will be very dangerous, and a direct threat to the allies,” he told a conference.

As the date for the NATO summit approached and Turkey’s opposition appeared implacable, Rasmussen backed down, saying the final plans of the missile system “need not mention the names of any particular country.” He said some 30 countries possess ballistic systems that could hit Europe. “This is reality; you don’t need to mention names,” he told Germany’s Welt am Sonntag newspaper last week.

Europe, and Turkey in particular, have reason to be concerned about Iran’s arsenal. Tehran’s longest-range ballistic missiles, including the Shahab-3 and the Qiam-1, have ranges of around 2,500 miles, putting NATO allies Turkey and Greece in their line of fire. Europe’s anti-missile defenses now consist of American-made SM-3 missiles, based on American warships. Concern about Iranian missiles is coupled with the West’s fear that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons to arm them.

Turkey is opposed to Iran’s developing nuclear weapons but has sought to emphasize a negotiated solution to ending the program rather than engaging in threats, including labeling the missile shield as a measure to defend against Iran, Pope told The Media Line. He said Turkey remains committed to the Western alliance and, indeed, has pulled back from staking out more independent positions after an initiative it took with Brazil last May to reach a nuclear accord with Iran elicited an angry U.S. response.

“Turkey found itself on a limb and found that uncomfortable,” Pope said.

Nevertheless, the missile issue isn’t over. Although NATO allies agreed to the deployment in principle, they will only decide next June where to locate the weapons and command center. Ankara is angling to have NATO’s İzmir headquarters designated as the command center, instead of Germany’s Ramstein base, as the U.S. wants, Istanbul’s Hurriyet newspaper reported Monday.

“It’s an agreement for now just to get the problem away, but it’s not the end of the problem,” Hüseyin Bagci, a professor of international relations at the Middle East Technical Univeristy in Ankara, told The Media Line.

He said that Turkey’s move will do little to assuage Iran, but that Ankara believe the option it has created for itself as a bridge between the West and Middle East will help moderate the reaction.

Some analysts in the West – and particularly in Israel, which has seen a sharp deterioation in ties with Turkey – say Ankara’s new orientation reflects the tastes of Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), which is mildly Islamist. But Bagci discounted AKP’s ideology as being behind the shift, saying it was a function of economics.

Two-way trade between Turkey in the Middle East grew to $40 billion last year from $7 billion in 2002 as the price of oil raised the cost of Turkey’s imoported indsutry. But just as importantly, Turkey’s growing indsutrial might is turning the Middle East into a key export destination for eveything from television sets to prepared foods, Bagci said.

“Turkey is committed to the West, it won’t be on the side of Iran – but it will mediate, to cool down any Iranian reaction,” said Bagci, who is currently a visiting professor at Humboldt University in Berlin.

He said that in the regional competiton between Turkey and Iran, Turkey is in the stonger position because it is economically dynamic and enjoys close trade ties with the European Union. By contrast, Iran, which is feeling the pressure of Westen sanctions and the failure to succesfully export its Islamic revolution.

Copyright © 2010 The Media Line. All Rights Reserved.

November 23, 2010
NATO or Israel?

James Joyner | June 03, 2010

Israel’s attack on a Gaza aid flotilla, killing nine, has earned near-universal condemnation, with even sympathetic observers terming it the act of a bully, tone deaf, staggeringly stupid, tactically incompetent, a major tactical blunder, a moral victory for Hamas, and an unqualified disaster for Israel’s reputation. But Israel is rather accustomed to international scorn and has every right to chart its own course. However, this latest incidence has potentially grave consequences for United States and its transatlantic allies.

Turkey, a founding member of the NATO alliance and heretofore Israel’s only friend in the region, is apoplectic.

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu proclaimed Tuesday morning, ““Psychologically, this attack is like 9/11 for Turkey.” As idiotic as that may seem — there were 9 deaths, not 3000, and the incident involved provocateurs flouting a naval blockage, not innocents in the Turkish homeland — the actions of his government indicate that the sentiment is genuine.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel of “state terrorism” and he told his parliament the Israeli assault violated “international law, the conscience of humanity and world peace.” Erdogan proclaimed the incident “a turning point in history. Nothing will be the same again.” Serkan Demirtas, writing in Hurriyet, sees “a long-term diplomatic war between Turkey and Israel” as “unavoidable.” Similar statements have been made by Turkish pundits and analysts, including those considered moderates.

Erdogan, noting what seems to be the end of the Turkish-Israeli alliance for the foreseeable future, proclaimed, “Turkey’s hostility is as strong as its friendship is valuable.” And veteran columnist Sami Kohen proclaims, “Turkey now is one of the sides in the Middle East conflict. It is quite clearly opposed to Israel.”

Erdogan also raised the specter of Article 5: “Citizens of member states were attacked by a country that was not a member of NATO,” he said. “We think that should be discussed in NATO.” Again, this is overblown. Whatever one thinks of the Israeli action, it was decidedly not an attack on Turkey “in Europe or North America.” And, while Article 6 makes provisions for extending the umbrella of protection to “forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Party” operating in the Mediterranean Sea, it rather clearly is intended to apply to the defense of colonial territories.

But security analysts Steve Hynd and Robert Mackey think this irrelevant and that if Turkey invokes the Charter, the U.S. will face a dire choice, indeed. As Mackey puts it:

Because if Turkey invokes the NATO charter and the US doesn’t react, then NATO is GONE. GONE and DEAD. Why? Because when the US was attacked on 9/11, the NATO charter was invoked–and that is why NATO troops are in Afghanistan today. 9/11 was proof that NATO was not just an ‘anti-Russian’ pact–that it applied anywhere. If the US doesn’t go along with a Turkish response…it will reveal NATO as being a “US pact”–that the entire alliance exists only to help the US. Oh, there will still be mutual defense treaties with the UK and maybe Germany. But that is just about it. And the US will have to go on its own in Afghanistan.

Legally, this strikes me as over-reach. But politically? At very least, Turkey’s continued membership in the alliance would be in question. They’ve already moved to distance themselves from the West in recent years. And, goodness knows, the European allies would be happy for any excuse at all to get out of Afghanistan.

All the major European powers have criticized Israel’s actions, with Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, and David Cameron all issuing stern statements. More interestingly, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has weighed in with uncharacteristically stern words:

I offer sincere condolences to the families of all victims and condemn the acts which have led to this tragedy. I add my voice to the calls by the United Nations and the European Union for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation into the incident.

As a matter of urgency, I also request the immediate release of the detained civilians and ships held by Israel.

While tame by op-ed standards, diplomats don’t use words like “victims” and “condemn” lightly.

National Interest senior editor Jacob Heilbrunn asks the right question: “Where does this leave Israel and America?”

Thus far, the Obama administration is keeping its powder dry, issuing a cautious statement expressing “deep regret at the loss of life in [the] incident, and concern for the wounded” while also stressing “the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning’s tragic events as soon as possible.” That’s exactly the right position for the world’s superpower—and perhaps Israel’s only remaining friend—to take at the outset. But the facts are quickly coming in and it will be time to make tough calls.

In the meantime, stalling for time isn’t going to please anyone. Certainly not the Turks, who have already declared themselves “deeply unsatisfied” with the response.

Does it matter? American administrations have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel and against the international community dozens of times in the past. But the stakes are higher now.

Writing in this space, journalist and author Barbara Slavin declared, “Israel has scored an own-goal, shifting the narrative from Iran and its nuclear and human rights transgressions to Israel’s lack of regard for pro-Palestinian lives.” Former National Interest editor and current Naval War College professor Nick Gvosdev agrees, noting that the “argument that Iran is violating its international commitments and so should be sanctioned may be much harder to make.” And, as the Financial Times’s Gideon Rachman notes,

. . . a sanctions package against Iran is arguably as much in the interests of Israel, as in the interests of the US itself. The US may now feel that it has to go along with a UN condemnation of Israel to preserve the chances of getting its Iran resolution through. It would be a classic Israeli own goal, if their assault on the Gaza ships sank the choices of a new resolution on Iran.

Apparently, the impending World Cup has analysts thinking of soccer.

But Iran isn’t the only issue at stake. Turkey is a pivotal state bridging East and West, Christendom and Islam. The Christian Science Monitor’s Yigal Schleifer:

Ankara’s shift complicates a historic alliance between Turkey and the US, which has become more important in recent years. An air base in southern Turkey is one of the most important transit bases for ferrying troops and supplies to Afghanistan. Turkish mediation, meanwhile, had gotten Israel and Syria back to the peace table until that effort was aborted when the Gaza war broke out.

Increased tension between Turkey and Israel clouds one of the few sunny spots the US had previously enjoyed in the region.

The deterioration in the once-close relationship between Turkey and Israel has been mirrored by an equally precipitous rise in Turkey’s visibility and involvement in the Middle East, an area that it had kept at arm’s length for decades because of historical enmity and mutual suspicion.

Switching sports, the ball is now in Obama’s court. Will he handle this according to the national-security interests of the United States? Or will he continue a bipartisan tradition of subordinating our interests to Israel’s? My bet, alas, is on the latter.

James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council. This essay was originally published by The National Interest. Photo credit: Getty Images.

June 3, 2010
Israeli army chief visits Turkey amid tension

JERUSALEM, March 15 (Xinhua) — Israeli army chief headed for Turkey Monday morning for a one-day visit amid tension between the two countries.

Gabi Ashkenazi, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of the general staff, is scheduled to take part in a NATO conference on terrorism and international cooperation, and hold a meeting with his Turkish counterpart during the trip, IDF said in a statement.

It is the first time in five years that an Israeli army chief has visited Turkey, according to the statement.

The once close ties between Israel and Turkey were strained after the Jewish state launched a massive attack at the Gaza Strip at the end of 2008.

Turkish military cancelled a joint air force drill with Israel last October due to the offensive.

The relation hit a freezing point when Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon in January humiliated Turkish ambassador to Israel by deny the latter a handshake and sitting him on a lower chair at a meeting.

An IDF spokesperson told Israeli army radio on Monday that Ashkenazi’s visit “is on the military-strategic level, not a diplomatic level.”

xinhua net

March 15, 2010