11 February 2003

1. "New and still newer wars", American officials are evidently attempting to broker a deal between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey. This deal would allow for the Turkish military to occupy what is called a small part of Iraqi Kurdistan when war begins.

2. "Turkish military objects giving command to US", Turkey’s military is objecting to a US proposal to put Turkish troops who might enter northern Iraq under US command if there is a war in Iraq, a news report said Sunday.

3. "Germany, Two Other Countries Block NATO Planning On Turkey", source of NATO conflict: Plans to ship Patriot missiles to Turkey.

4. "US Troops deal alarms Kurds", Kurds in northern Iraq yesterday expressed alarm over a deal between Ankara and Washington that will allow Turkish troops to occupy a part of the Kurdish self-rule area during a war to oust Saddam Hussein.

5. "Turkey offers political asylum to Saddam", Turkey has offered an exile option to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if he steps down to prevent a US-led war, a Turkish newspaper said on Tuesday.

6. "Cypriot Forces worried over being Disbanded", the Greek Cypriot military is quietly concerned that it will be disbanded under any settlement over the future of the Mediterranean island.

1. - Asia Times - "New and still newer wars":

10 February 2003 / by Stephen Blank *

American officials are evidently attempting to broker a deal between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey. This deal would allow for the Turkish military to occupy what is called a small part of Iraqi Kurdistan when war begins.

Naturally enough, Iraq’s Kurds, who have lived under the umbrella of US military power for over a decade and who have thus gained a substantial amount of autonomy, have misgivings about this idea, even if their ties with Turkey have lately improved. Nevertheless the real question is, what do Washington and Ankara hope to gain from such a deal?

For Washington, securing Turkey’s participation would facilitate its plans for mounting an invasion of Iraq from Turkey into Northern Iraq, thus accelerating its military pressure on Saddam Hussein. Turkish support would also ease, if not reduce, the already high degree of suspicion of American motives prevalent throughout the Islamic world. Allowing Turkey's army to occupy a strip of as yet undefined land in Iraqi Kurdistan may also be seen as an effort to prepare those Turkish forces for post-conflict duty in an international peace support operation (to use US military language) in Iraq and ease any future burden on US forces there. This deal would also energize the overall US-Turkish alliance and reconfirm Turkey's position as one of America’s closest allies in critical areas of the world, like the Middle East. America’s bases in Turkey would also again be fully usable as points of departure for American power projection abroad.

These American interests are relatively easy to determine, Turkey's gains are a more complex affair. The new Turkish government has cleverly walked several tightropes since coming into power late last year. For example, it must keep the powerful military happy, yet show Europe that it wants to join the EU and make the necessary reforms. This already implies a contradiction between a military which sees any concessions to the idea of an independent Kurdish state as anathema and a betrayal of Ataturk's legacy, while Europe demands reforms that enhance Kurdish rights within Turkey. Whereas the military resists anything that might challenge Ataturk’s vision of a unitary state; Turkey’s economy has long since broken the bonds of his statist vision and must reform along Western lines for Turkey to be a competitive player in the years to come.

But all these maneuvers must also be undertaken at a time of Turkey's greatest economic crisis in years. This crisis, though, is not merely economic, but is also a direct outgrowth of the decomposition of its political system which remains mired in multi-party corruption, insufficient democratic control over the armed forces and an obsession with Ataturkism that is readily apparent to any observant visitor to Turkey. Indeed, Turkey arguably needs a new Ataturk to shatter his now ossified system in order to rescue the spirit of Ataturk and of Kemalism from his successors' constricted viewpoints.

Some figures also evidently hope that by occupying Iraqi Kurdistan they will not only be able to deflect or suppress Kurdish nationalism, including dreams of an independent Kurdish state, but also that they will once again be able to lay claim to the rich oil prizes of Mosul and Kirkuk. Turkey tried this repeatedly in the 1920s, only to be decisively rebuffed, but evidently the dream of acquiring rich oil fields under Ankara's control still haunts some offices within Ankara. Supposedly this, plus a large aid and defense package from Washington, will offer sufficient compensation for Turkey's risks during and after the upcoming war with Iraq.

Thus the new government has on the one hand publicly sought to convince Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq, announced publicly its reluctance to participate in a war, thereby propitiating both indigenous Muslim and West European sentiment, and privately admitted to Washington that it could tolerate a reduced American footprint in Turkey in return for "compensations". These compensations include this occupation, the large aid package that includes defense assistance, and perhaps a favorable response to Ankara's claim to Mosul and Kirkuk. While Turkey certainly could benefit from the economic package, particularly if it comes with strings attached obliging Ankara to return to International Monetary Fund prescriptions that had started to work earlier; a new Kurdish occupation and claims to Iraqi oil fields can only bring a new conflict after the forthcoming Iraqi war. Those claims are an invitation to war and political crisis.

Can one imagine that the Kurds will sit still for a Turkish occupation or that Iraq will? Is it reasonable to assume that Iraq will accept Ankara's claims on Mosul and Kirkuk? Likewise, it is not hard to imagine the hue and cry from the EU about the violations of human rights and the naked old-fashioned spheres of influence deal that would have then been made over Iraq's corpse. Whatever gains accrue to Ankara from supporting Washington would probably be lost vis-a-vis a post-Saddam Iraq, the Kurds, and the EU.

This appears to be a rather short-sighted bargain by the government, perhaps because it is still overly concerned about the military's response to a war and the outcomes of any liberation of Iraqi Kurdistan from Saddam Hussein. But when one looks at the outlines of this deal, especially as they relate to the Kurds and to oil, its long term strategic potential for embroiling Turkey yet again in a frustrating and debilitating war that robs it of the ability to play a major role abroad clearly outweighs those short term gains. Moreover, it certainly is possible that another and less welcome short term outcome would be the strengthening of the military's position in Turkish politics and society that would enhance its ability to block domestic and security policy reforms that are absolutely essential if Turkey is to enter Europe fully or become a truly important international actor.

Turkey's actions throughout this crisis, pleading reluctance and simultaneously demanding payoffs are entirely understandable in view of its delicate internal and international situations. Neither is it surprising that it would try to exploit prospective Iraqi weakness. That kind of action is hardly news in world politics. So the problem with this policy is not that it is cynical, but rather that it is too greedy and hence too dangerous. On the eve of a new war it promises to create the conditions that will spawn new crises and conflicts, if not newer wars. Or to quote Talleyrand, a statesman of a very old school, "It is worse than a crime, it is a blunder."

* Stephen Blank is an analyst of international security affairs residing in Harrisburg, PA.

2. - The Daily Star (Lebanon)- "Turkish military objects giving command to US":

Ankara wants control of its troops in Iraq

10 February 2003

Turkey’s military is objecting to a US proposal to put Turkish troops who might enter northern Iraq under US command if there is a war in Iraq, a news report said Sunday.

Turkey is looking to move thousands of troops into northern Iraq during any US-led war against Baghdad ­ a prospect that worries Iraqi Kurdish groups that rule the autonomous area.

Earlier this week, US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad said any Turkish troop presence in northern Iraq should be under US command.

The speaker of Turkey’s Parliament, Bulent Arinc, immediately said the proposal was “most likely unacceptable.” “Commander Crisis,” the daily Milliyet headlined Sunday.

Turkish generals “strongly” object to the proposal, the newspaper said. It quoted the country’s military leaders as saying they could not agree to putting Turkish soldiers under foreign command.
Washington’s suggestion to put Turkish troops under US command aims at persuading Iraqi Kurds to cooperate in a possible war in Iraq.

Iraqi Kurds are worried that Turkey may use the war to try and realize historical ambitions to control the oil producing areas of northern Iraq. Kurdish officials have said they would agree to only a small Turkish presence that would safeguard humanitarian efforts.

Turkey has said that its troops would enter northern Iraq to prevent a refugee influx from the area. Turkish officials also say that Kurdish rebels in Turkey took advantage of a mass exodus into the country following the 1991 Gulf War and infiltrated into Turkey, leading to a dramatic upsurge in guerrilla fighting.

Many believe, however, that Turkey would cross into Iraq to prevent the possible creation of a Kurdish state. Some speculate that Turkey could use the buildup to wipe out Kurdish-Turkish rebel bases in northern Iraq.

Osman Ocalan, a senior rebel commander and brother of imprisoned Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan, warned that if attacked, the guerrillas would break their unilateral truce and launch attacks on Turkey, the pro-Kurdish daily Ozgur Gundem reported Sunday.

Some 5,000 PKK rebels are believed to have found refuge in northern Iraq since 1999 when the PKK declared an end to its armed campaign for self-rule in adjoining southeast Turkey.

“If Turkey sees the issue as a vendetta and starts an annihilation war, the (Ankara) government will seal its own end,” Ocalan said.

“Just as our democratic struggle is carried out anywhere our people are, the armed resistance will be carried out in the widest possible area as part of a defense war,” he added.

Ocalan also warned the Iraqi Kurds against any attempts to expell the PKK from their region following a possible downfall of the Baghdad regime.

“If they say ‘we are in power now, you will get out of here,’ then we will defend ourselves … We will insist on political means. If this fails, we will enter a defensive war,” he said.

Ocalan said that the PKK should be taken into account in the shaping of postwar Iraq and that the group would insist on peaceful means before resorting to military action both against Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds.

3. - Deutsche Welle - "Germany, Two Other Countries Block NATO Planning On Turkey":

Source of NATO conflict: Plans to ship Patriot missiles to Turkey.

10 February 2003

A "serious" crisis took hold within NATO on Monday after Germany, France and Belgium veteoed a U.S. proposal to begin preparations for NATO's defense of Turkey if war breaks out against neighboring Iraq.

A gaping fissure worked its way Monday through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the collective defense alliance that withstood four decades of Cold War but seems to cracking over a potential U.S.-led war against Iraq.

"I am not seeking today to minimize the seriousness of the situation. It is serious," NATO Secretary-General George Robertson said.

The issue facing the alliance's 19 members was whether they should begin planning to support Turkey if the United States attacked Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis decided to launch a counterstrike against their neighbor. In response, Germany, France and Belgium veteoed the matter and plunged the alliance into a crisis.

Turkey quickly replied to the veto by asking the alliance to reconsider the issue, the Turkish television station NTV reported. The Turkish government plans to cite an article in the North Atlantic Treaty that established the alliance in 1949 as justification for the review. "The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened," the article says. The issue was expected to be debated Monday.

Dispute simmers within alliance

The veto by Germany, France and Belgium had been building for weeks. Because of the dispute, the alliance decided on Thursday to put off a decision in hopes of reaching agreement, and Robertson applied the alliance's "silent procedure" to the matter. Under this system, the 19 alliance members had until 10 a.m. Monday to file a veto. Otherwise, their silence would be interpreted by Robertson as agreement.

At the time of Thursday's decision, Robertson described the dispute this way: "Where there has been a disagreement is over when to formally task this military planning. Not whether to plan but when to plan."

Robertson did not have to wait until Monday to get an idea of the direction that the issue was taking. On Sunday, Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said his country would file a veto and France said it might do so as well.

The issue has been simmering within the alliance since mid-January when the United States asked its other 18 NATO allies for assistance. The United States wants Turkey to receive three forms of help: Airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft to provide surveillance, Patriot missiles to provide air defense and special forces to combat biological and chemical weapons.

Schröder faces touchy question

The issue is particularly sensitive for German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder because he has said Germany would not fight any war against Iraq and would vote against any resolution that is presented in the U.N. Security Council to authorize such a war. But Germans serve in the surveillance planes, and if the alliance provided the planes to Turkey, Schröder would have to decide whether they remain on board. If they were pulled out, the alliance would have a difficult time carrying out the mission.

The issue is also sensitive to the United States. At a security conference held in Munich over the weekend, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said a potential veto could endanger the alliance. "I can’t imagine doing that. It is beyond my comprehension. ... Turkey is an ally, the North Atlantic Treaty provides for this. Turkey is a member of the alliance. To prevent defensive capabilities – just the planning, not even deployment – I think that is inexcusable," Rumsfeld said Saturday.

The U.S. ambassador to NATO expressed similar sentiments on Monday. "This is a most unfortunate decision," Ambassador Nicolas Burns said. "Because of their actions, NATO is now facing a crisis of credibility."

Belgium, however, said the automatic start of military planning would force the crisis into a "logic of war" when diplomatic alternatives still stood a chance of success. "It would signify that we have already entered into the logic of war, that ... any chance, any initiative to still resolve the conflict in a peaceful way was gone," Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said.

Countries try to defuse dispute

Both Turkey and Germany sought to play down the significance of the decision.

Turkey's foreign minister ,Yasar Yakis said in Ankara: "There was no veto on defending Turkey. There is disagreement over the timing" but not on the principle of defending Turkey. "These problems can be overcome."

In Berlin, Schröder's spokesman said the veto did not present any sort of "fundamental danger" to NATO. The alliance "has experienced and survived many such cases, and that will also be the case here," said the spokesman, Bela Anda.

A spokesman for the German Defense Ministry also said that Germany would be sending Patriot missiles to the Netherlands and that the Dutch would ship the missiles to Turkey.

U.S. weighs military cuts in Europe

The dispute within the alliance comes amid a discussion among U.S. military leaders on a radical change in its military presence in Europe, the Washington Post reported on Monday. In interviews, members of the U.S. delegation that attended an annual security conference in Munich told the newspaper of plans being contemplated by Marine Gen. James Jones, the new U.S. commander in Europe. The delegates said they expected a permanent U.S. military presence eventually to be cut from the current level of about 100,000 personnel, most of them Army.

The delegates also told The Post that Jones and other top Defense Department officials were contemplating something like the U.S. presence in Kuwait, where military equipment is stored and then used by troops who fly in to exercise or deploy with it.

4. - The Guardian - "US Troops deal alarms Kurds":

SULAYMANIYAH / 10 February 2003 / by Michael Howard in Dohuk and Luke Harding

Kurds in northern Iraq yesterday expressed alarm over a deal between Ankara and Washington that will allow Turkish troops to occupy a part of the Kurdish self-rule area during a war to oust Saddam Hussein.

The agreement, hammered out at a two-day meeting between US and Turkish officials in Ankara last week, is said to provide for a big Turkish presence in northern Iraq alongside US troops.

US officials have offered assurances that a "limited" Turkish deployment in northern Iraq would be for "humanitarian reasons", and that Turkish troops there would be under control of a US-led coalition.

Turkey still insisted that it did not want its troops under US command.

Kurds mistrust Ankara's intentions and say Turkish involvement in Iraq's affairs could also cause Iran, Ankara's great regional rival, to intervene.

A senior Kurdish official said of the talks: "They were aimed at reassuring Turkey that we Kurds in the self-rule area will not take advantage of fighting against Baghdad and declare an independent state, or make a move on the [oil-rich] city of Kirkuk. But when the Turks enter a country they take a long time to leave."

America wants to establish a northern war front through Turkey and the autonomous Kurdish areas, which have been free of central government control since 1991.

The US needs to keep Turkey onside. It wants to bring as many as 80,000 troops to Turkish bases in the south of the country in readiness for deployment within Iraq.

Public opinion in Turkey is staunchly opposed to a war in Iraq, but last week the cabinet of prime minister Abdullah Gul bowed to pressure from Washington to allow US troops to upgrade Turkish bases.

A parliamentary vote on whether to accept US troops is expected on February 18.

Turkey, which has a large and disaffected Kurdish population of its own, has repeatedly threatened to invade northern Iraq if the Kurds there rise up.

It has also expressed concern about the prospect of thousands of refugees crossing its borders as they did in 1991. Turkish troops have already established a limited presence in northern Iraq for what they call "contingency planning".

The militant Islamist group Ansar al-Islam yesterday shot dead a leading commander with Iraq's Kurdish opposition, along with five others, after tricking him into a house .

The Ansar fighters, who control a tiny mountainous enclave in north-eastern Iraq, shot dead Shawkat Haji Musheer and two of his bodyguards, a woman, a 10-year-old boy, and a civilian who came to the rescue.

Musheer was the most senior victim of Ansar al-Islam since it began a campaign of violence against the secular Kurdish parties who control northern Iraq.

Last week the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, denounced Ansar as a terrorist organisation, and said it had compelling links with Baghdad and al-Qaida.

5. - channelnewsasia - "Turkey offers political asylum to Saddam":

11 February 2003

Turkey has offered an exile option to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if he steps down to prevent a US-led war, a Turkish newspaper said on Tuesday.

The mass-circulation daily Milliyet said Prime Minister Abdullah Gul had made the offer to Iraqi Vice President, Taha Yasin Ramadan, during a secret visit he made to Ankara this month.

On the Turkish offer to the Iraqi strongman, Fikret Bila, a columnist with good government connections, was quoted to have said:

"Step down to prevent a war, for the future of the Iraqi people. If you take this decision Turkey is ready to make you its guest and provide for your security. Such a step would prevent a war."

Milliyet said Iraq had given no answer.

But aides to the Turkish prime minister and Foreign Ministry officials had no immediate comment.

Turkey, a NATO member, is reluctantly gearing up for a war in neighbouring Iraq that it fears could destabilise the region and damage its own fragile economy.

It has tried to lead efforts to avert war, hosting a meeting of regional leaders last month.

The country has been cautious in moves towards allowing U.S. access to Turkish bases to prepare for a war. A final parliamentary vote is expected next week.

Turkish officials have previously denied any efforts to encourage Saddam to step down.

6. - Middle East News - "Cypriot Forces worried over being Disbanded":

NICOSIA / 11 February 2003

The Greek Cypriot military is quietly concerned that it will be disbanded under any settlement over the future of the Mediterranean island.

Officials said the commanders in the National Guard have privately expressed concerns of a United Nations-sponsored settlement that would lead to the demilitarization of the military in the Republic of Cyprus. The National Guard has close to 15,000 soldiers and is a major source of employment in the country.

The concerns were relayed to Defense Minister Socrates Hasikos during a recent tour of an army base in Nicosia. Officers asked Hasikos for his view on the future of the National Guard.

Hasikos refused to discuss the issue. The minister warned that he did not want to raise the prospect of demilitarization before the completion of negotiations for a solution to the Cyprus issue.