11
March 2003
2. "Turkish military in step with US", Turkey's chief of military staff General Hilmi Ozkok has spoken of the "inevitability" of Turkish military involvement in a war on Iraq, despite parliament not sanctioning US forces a foothold on Turkish soil.
3. "Erdogan: US Must Clarify Turkey's Role in Post-Saddam Iraq", Turkey's likely new prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he wants the United States to clarify what Turkey's role would be in a post-war Iraq, before he resubmits a U.S. troop deployment motion to parliament.
4. "A last, last chance?", is it really now or never? Having failed to get the leaders of Cyprus’s two communities to agree a plan to reunify the Mediterranean island by a February 28th deadline, the United Nations is giving them one last chance.
5. "Turkey wants more talks on Cyprus, rejects EU-linked time pressure", Turkey said Tuesday that talks to end the 29-year division of Cyprus should continue, but denounced pressure to resolve the conflict under a tight timetable linked to next year's EU enlargement plans.
6. "Historical Factors Influence Turkey’s Stance On Iraq War", the Turkish parliament’s reluctance to accept US troop deployment reflects widespread concern among the country’s governing class about the merits of overhauling the region’s geopolitical balance.
1. - The Times - "Kurds will fight back if Turkey enters Iraq":
10 March 2003
From Anthony Loyd in Northern Iraq
THE most powerful Kurdish militant group has threatened to resume its war with Turkey, should Ankara’s Armed Forces enter northern Iraq.
“We will undertake military actions throughout Turkey, in the countryside and cities, on military, economic and bureaucratic targets,” said Othman Ocalan, 47, a commander of Kadek, the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress, formerly known as the PKK.
A bear-like figure who said that he possessed nothing but the uniform in which he stood and a .38 Smith & Wesson seized from a dead Turkish commando officer, Mr Ocalan was speaking in his Qandil Mountain stronghold in Iraq.
The younger brother of the group’s imprisoned leader, Abdullah Ocalan, and a leading member of its Central Committee, Othman Ocalan withheld support of a US invasion of Iraq and rejected the proposed postwar disarmament of Kadek while the Kurdish issue remained unsolved.
“Until the British and American policy on Kurdistan clears we won’t back them,” he said. “There will be no Kadek disarmament if the US demands it. In this instance we will resist them very strongly.”
With some 10,000 fighters deployed inside Turkey, Iran and northern Iraq, Kadek also wields great power among the Kurdish diaspora in Europe, where it can put thousands of Kurdish activists and demonstrators on the streets.
Mr Ocalan made clear that for him the future of the Kurds was paramount and the fate of Saddam Hussein almost incidental.
Although other Kurdish rebel armies claim larger gross numbers than Kadek, Mr Ocalan’s group is a full-time, professional army. Espousing a mix of Marxist-Leninist ideology with pan-Kurdish nationalism, members of the armed wing are lectured by political cadres on the outlook of figures such as Ché Guevara, Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong for up to six hours a day. Sex and marriage are discouraged and fighters have neither pay nor possessions other than their uniform and weapons.
“I never hung out in bars with girls, even during my years in Europe,” said Akif, a 27-year-old fighter, who spent his teens in Wood Green and Westminster. “For me the cause was always more important than possessions, and after the bad treatment I received by officials in Britain I wanted to return to my Kurdish roots in this clean ideological environment and participate in the struggle.”
The indoctrination and hardiness of its fighters and leadership was vividly apparent in their snowy Qandil Mountain base. The terrain, accessible only by foot, mule or pack-pony, was a natural fortress of cloud, buttressed peaks and plunging ravines. Eight Kadek fighters died in a recent avalanche here — they are said to be commonplace.
Fighters armed with Ak47 and M16 rifles could be seen ascending valleys in patrol-sized groups on their way to bases at higher altitude, where they have been strengthening positions and distributing ammunition in anticipation of action. Word of the potential Turkish entry to northern Iraq appeared to have galvanised them with a new morale. The cult-like atmosphere, with its emphasis on self-sacrifice, was enhanced by a shrine to Kadek dead at the foot of the Qandil range. Dominated by the portrait of Abdullah Ocalan and the organisation’s red and yellow flag, photographs of assassinated leaders, slain fighters, suicide bombers and self-immolating protesters hung from whitewashed walls.
“For us martyrdom is the bridge between the people, the comrades, and the cause itself: the cement of unification,” explained Raperin, a 34-year-old Syrian Kurd fighter and one of the women who comprise a third of Kadek’s strike forces.
In 1997 the United States named the PKK as one of the world’s top 30 terrorist organisations. To date it has not struck American targets, but Othman Ocalan did not rule out a change in strategy. “We don’t want to oppose America and in this matter we will tread very carefully. But if they don’t change our label as terrorists then we will oppose them with all means,” he said.
“Kurds in the east, in the north, in Europe will back Kadek. Any force which does not find a solution for all parts of Kurdistan will gain our antipathy.”
Formed in 1978 to counter the repression of Kurds living in Turkey, in 1984 the PKK began a guerrilla campaign. Some 20,000 people died as the group’s militant wing attacked Turkish security forces, judicial figures, teachers, landowners and local authorities. The Turkish Army responded with equal brutality, using tactics not unlike those of Iraq against Kurdish guerrillas. Up to
3,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed or emptied by the authorities during the creation of a security zone in southern Turkey, while two million Kurds were displaced northwards.
After Abdullah Ocalan’s arrest in 1999, the PKK changed its
tactics. Renaming itself Kadek in 2002, its leadership contended that
the armed struggle was on hold pending the “democratisation”
of Turkey, a decision that it declared to be reversed last month.
2. - The Asia Times - "Turkish military in step with US":
by Nadire Mater
ISTANBUL / 10 March 2003
Turkey's chief of military staff General Hilmi Ozkok has spoken of the "inevitability" of Turkish military involvement in a war on Iraq, despite parliament not sanctioning US forces a foothold on Turkish soil.
"Unfortunately, we are left to choose between worse and worst, not between good and bad," Ozkok said "If we would remain completely uninvolved in the war we will be faced with the same losses should we have been involved," he said in a public statement. "But we would remain without any say in the post-war situation or in any compensation for our losses from the war."
Heavy US military mobilization was reported following his remarks in the southern Mediterranean ports of Iskenderun and Mersin and in Silopi and Mardin towns close to the Iraqi border. US military convoys are reported to have resumed transportation of personnel, vehicles and supplies after a week's break.
The military moves, that run opposite to the verdict of parliament, point to plans for a second resolution in the Turkish parliament soon, says Yavuz Onen from the Human Rights Foundation. "In legal terms, Turkey is under US occupation because the US military presence is devoid of any framework under Turkish law," Onen told IPS. "Notwithstanding the parliament decision, US troops have rented land in southeast Mardin for a year. The government will have to move another resolution to bring the de facto situation into a legal framework."
Turkey's power behind the throne, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was elected to parliament on Sunday, leaving the road clear for him to become prime minister and allow a possible second vote to let US troops into the country.
Erdogan, chairman of the governing Justice and Development party, won a seat in the eastern province of Siirt, 60 miles from Turkey's border with Iraq, with about 85 percent of the votes. Erdogan was barred from standing for parliament in the election that his party won in November because of a previous conviction for inciting religious hatred. But once his party took power in parliament, with almost two-thirds of the seats, it changed the constitution, enabling him to stand.
While Erdogan has left his options open he has expressed a desire for a second UN resolution prior to any troop deployment. And it is thought that a reshuffle and a vote of confidence in the new government may come first.
Also of priority is review of a resolution that was also blocked in parliament at the same time that the vote on US troops was taken: Turkish troops have not yet been given parliamentary sanction to operate outside of their borders, as it is expected that they will want to do in northern Iraq once war begins.
At the heart of the Turkish military moves are questions over the Kurd minority divided between southern Turkey and northern Iraq. Kurds in Iraq have been protesting against Turkish military intervention following a US attack on Iraq. The Turkish military is warning already of retaliation.
Fifteen years of internal conflict with Kurdish guerrillas has left the Turkish government wary about the emergence of any Kurdish state. Turkey is more concerned with preserving Iraq's territorial integrity than with the fate of Saddam Hussein's regime, former prime minister Bulent Ecevit told US leaders on a visit to Washington last year.
Turkey fears that a Kurdish move towards independence or autonomy in Iraq could stir up its own Kurd population of about 12 million in a total of 68 million. Kurds were split across four countries after the collapse of the Turkish Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. The split has left a population of 12 million Kurds in Turkey, 2 million in northern Iraq, about 1 million in Iran and close to 1 million in Syria.
General Hayri Ates, secretary of the pro-Kurdish HADEP (People's Democracy Party) in Turkey is critical of Ozkok's stand, "His position is far from public expectations," he says. "Considering the heavy losses from the 15 years of conflict in southeast Turkey, we are against any military intervention in northern Iraq."
But Turkish intervention in northern Iraq has been continuing for some time, says analyst Umit Firat. "Turkish troops frequently launch cross-border operations and strike northern Iraq in countless air raids," he told IPS. "Turkey fears the replacement of Saddam Hussein by a democratic regime that could grant northern Iraqi Kurds more freedom." That would give Kurds a stronger voice to resist both Iraqi dictatorship and Turkish intervention.
Turkey is reported to be considering a multi-ethnic equation for northern Iraq where the local Turkoman population would become a part of an autonomous administration if the present status quo were destroyed. In Ankara's view, such an approach would safeguard Turkey's greater influence in the region in the aftermath of a collapsed Saddam regime.
But Firat believes that "Turkey is making a mistake in playing the Turkoman card". The move would only lead to "conflict and competition between the Kurds and Turkomans who have been coexisting in the area for decades without significant conflict," he says.
The Washington-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) has raised concerns over any Turkish military intervention in northern Iraq. "The record of the Turkish military in combating Kurdish rebels at home raises serious concerns about its engagement in northern Iraq during or after any war," the group warned in a briefing paper "Turkey and War in Iraq: Avoiding Past Patterns of Violation".
"If Turkish operations in northern Iraq bear any resemblance
to those in southeastern Turkey, we can expect to see a human rights
disaster," says Elizabeth Andersen, executive director of the
Europe and Central Asia division of HRW. "The best bet against
a repeat performance would be to keep past abusers out of northern
Iraq, and to make sure civilian monitors are on the ground to observe
the military's conduct."
3. - Voice of America - "Erdogan: US Must Clarify Turkey's Role in Post-Saddam Iraq":
11 March 2003
Turkey's likely new prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he wants
the United States to clarify what Turkey's role would be in a post-war
Iraq, before he resubmits a U.S. troop deployment motion to parliament.
Mr. Erdogan told the Associated Press that Turkey may not be eager to take the risks of a war with Iraq if it will not play a part after Saddam Hussein is deposed.
President Bush spoke with Mr. Erdogan by telephone Monday. The White House said their discussion was part of a round of telephone calls Mr. Bush made to international leaders, seeking support for the U.S. position on the Iraq crisis.
The U.S. military wants to use Turkish military bases to open a second front in northern Iraq in case of war. In exchange, Washington has offered Turkey a multi-billion dollar package of U.S. grants and loan guarantees.
Turkey fears that Iraqi Kurds may try to declare an independent Kurdistan in a post-Saddam Iraq and inspire the Kurdish population in Turkey to rise up. Iraqi Kurds have been living in a semi-autonomous state since the end of the 1991 Gulf War. They are protected by U.S. and British jets patrolling the no-fly zone over northern Iraq.
Mr. Erdogan, Turkey's ruling party leader, is poised to become the
next prime minister this week after winning a seat in parliament in
a special election held Sunday. Current prime minister Abdullah Gul
says he will resign as soon as Mr. Erdogan is sworn in as a member
of parliament.
4. - The Economist - "A last, last chance?"
March 10th 2003
IS IT really now or never? Having failed to get the leaders of Cyprus’s two communities to agree a plan to reunify the Mediterranean island by a February 28th deadline, the United Nations is giving them one last chance. An exasperated Kofi Annan, the UN’s secretary-general, extended his ultimatum to March 10th, when he was due to meet with Rauf Denktash, the Turkish-Cypriot leader, and his Greek-Cypriot counterpart, Tassos Papadopoulos, in The Hague. There would, Mr Annan said, be no discussion of the plan, just a request for a yes or a no.
This may be the closest the two sides have come to a settlement in the 29 years since they were driven apart by a Greek-backed coup followed by a Turkish invasion, but the omens are not good. Even before the meeting in The Hague, diplomats were saying the chances of a deal were remote. Should the two sides fail to agree, Mr Annan has warned, it could be a decade before they have another chance. That would hurt the Turkish-Cypriots and Turkey itself far more than the Greek side.
The UN has worked hard to get this far. The plan currently on the table is the umpteenth redrafting. It envisages stitching Cyprus back together as two “constituent” states, each of which would run its own affairs, leaving the central government to look after foreign policy. The Turkish-Cypriots would hand back to the Greek-Cypriots 8% of the whole island. Before the 1974 invasion, the Turkish-Cypriots were 18% of the island’s population. They now control 37% of its territory.
Despite all the horse-trading and amendments in recent months, both sides still appear to think the plan is unacceptable. Last week, Mr Denktash called it “unbalanced and unjust”. Turkey’s government, too, is unimpressed: a spokesman described the lastest draft as “far from meeting the expectations of the Turkish side”. The Greek-Cypriots have been quieter in public, but they also have big reservations. Mr Papadopoulos, who was elected president last month, is seen as more hawkish than his predecessor, Glafcos Clerides. The Greek side is particularly upset about the status of the Karpas peninsula in the Turkish-controlled north-east of the island. At one point, it looked like this prong would be returned to the Greek-Cypriots, but Mr Denktash protested and got his way. Without it, say the Greek-Cypriots, their hoteliers will have little room to expand.
If a deal is reached on March 10th, the UN has asked that both sides hold a referendum on the reunification plan on March 30th—and that if both populations say yes, their leaders agree to sign the European Union accession treaty. If, on the other hand, the last-ditch talks in The Hague collapse, one of two things will happen. The UN could extend the deadline again, but there is probably little point: if the two sides cannot find enough common ground now, under huge pressure to do so and after numerous missed chances, they are unlikely to see the light over the next couple of weeks.
Alternatively, the UN might decide that there is no point continuing to broker a deal amid such intransigence. In that case, the Union would admit only the Greek part of the island (which, unlike the Turkish bit, is an internationally recognised state) next year. Cyprus is due to sign an accession treaty with the EU on April 16th, along with eight central European countries and Malta.
Most Turkish-Cypriots are in favour of the settlement as it stands.
They worry that Mr Denktash is throwing away their best hope of coming
in from the cold and ending decades of poverty: GDP per head in the
Turkish zone is about a third of the level on the Greek side, and
membership of the EU would mean big subsidies from Brussels. But it
is Turkey itself that has the most to lose if no deal is reached.
At best, that outcome would complicate the country’s precarious
accession talks with the EU. At worst, it could poison relations with
Brussels and set membership back several years
5. - AFP - "Turkey wants more talks on Cyprus, rejects EU-linked time pressure":
ANKARA / March 11, 2003
Turkey said Tuesday that talks to end the 29-year division of Cyprus
should continue, but denounced pressure to resolve the conflict under
a tight timetable linked to next year's EU enlargement plans.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan failed Tuesday to get Greek and Turkish
Cypriot leaders to agree on a UN reunification plan, which has been
under negotation for months.
The failure of the talks strengthened prospects that the island will
remain divided when the internationally-recognized Greek Cypriot side
joins the European Union in 2004.
"The problem requires more negotiations. Annan's plan is neither
totally acceptable nor totally objectable... The talks should continue
in a sincere atmposhere on the basis of mutual sacrifices," Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, the head of Turkey's ruling party who is soon to take
over as prime minister, said.
"But this process should not turn into demanding the impossible
with squeezed timetables," he added.
Admitting only Greek Cypriots into the EU could spark tensions between
the pan-European bloc and Turkey, which has stationed some 30,000
troops in the Turkish Cypriot north of the island.
The EU warned Ankara last week that its lagging bid to join the bloc
could suffer further if the Cyprus conflict is not resolved in time.
"The relationship between the EU, Cyprus, Turkey and Greece should
be set up in a way that will not upset the balance in favor of one
of the parties," Erdogan said.
After marathon talks in The Hague that stretched into the early morning
hours, Annan announced he had been unsuccessful in trying to resolve
the 29-year dispute before Greek Cyprus signs the EU accession treaty
in April.
Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul said Ankara would continue to
work for a settlement in the island.
"A compromise has not been reached but the doors have not been
slammed shut," Gul told a news conference to lay out the achievements
of his
government before stepping down to clear the way for Erdogan.
"We will fulfill our responsibilities so that this difficult
issue is finalized in a positive way, but we do believe that the concerns
of Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be understood,"
Gul said.
Only Ankara recognizes the breakaway Turkish Cypriot side.
"From the very beginning our government has maintained that non-solution
cannot be a solution. We have made all kinds of positive efforts and
we will continue to do so," Gul said.
"Our only concern is that the arrangements to be made should
not give an opportunity for the repetition of the chaos and massacres
of the 1960s and 1970s," he said in reference to intercommunal
violence on the island.
Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis, meanwhile, rejected suggestions that
the Turkish Cypriot side was solely responsible for the failure of
Annan's
initiative.
"The Turkish side could not obtain all its expectations... and
(Greek Cypriot President Tassos) Papadopoulos has raised equally important
objections to the Annan plan," Yakis told reporters.
Cyprus has been divided since 1974, when Turkey occupied its northern
third following an Athens-engineered military coup in Nicosia seeking
to unite the island with Greece.
6. - Eurasia Insight - "Historical Factors Influence Turkey’s Stance On Iraq War":
by Igor Torbakov / 7 March 2003
The Turkish parliament’s reluctance to accept US troop deployment reflects widespread concern among the country’s governing class about the merits of overhauling the region’s geopolitical balance. Many are loath to abandon the cautious, if not isolationist, foreign policy principles established by the founders of the Turkish Republic.
On the surface, the Grand National Assembly, Turkey’s parliament, simply yielded to the overwhelming pacifist emotions of the public when it voted March 1 not to permit American deployment. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Roughly 90 per cent of Turks, according to polls, oppose Turkey’s potential involvement in the war against Iraq. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the ruling Justice and Development Party, described the parliament's vote as "a completely democratic result."
Besides popular opposition to a war to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, however, the parliament vote was the product of a deeply rooted political instinct in Turkey. It is an understanding that, historically, Turkey’s security interests are better served by maintaining regional stability than by altering the existing geopolitical order.
A sizeable segment of Turkey’s political class remains wary of the Bush administration’s grandiose plans to revamp the Middle East. Many in Ankara are particularly concerned about the possible consequences for Turkey of a regional geopolitical restructuring. The March 1 parliament vote was, according to political analyst Burak Bekdil, mostly “the product of Washington's failure to convince the Turkish military, which traditionally has an upper hand in deciding on security matters, that its war plans … did not contain a hidden agenda that might pose a security threat to Turkey.”
Among the sensitive issues that concern Turkish leaders, Bekdil pointed to possible demographic changes in the area of the oil-rich cities of Kirkuk and Mosul in northern Iraq, and to the possible formation of a loose federation in a post-Saddam Iraq that, in its turn, might eventually lead to the emergence of the independent Kurdish state.
The razor-thin margin of the March 1 parliamentary vote testifies to the sharpness of the internal political debate on the Iraq issue. This debate has reminded some commentators of another, even more dramatic, parliamentary session when, by only a single vote, Turkey avoided being drawn into the Second World War.
Of course, Turkish reluctance to enter the conflict was influenced heavily by the country’s experience during the First World War, which cemented the break-up of the Ottoman Turkish empire and the tumultuous emergence of the modern Turkish Republic under Ataturk. Some observers have pointed to analogies between Turkey’s current situation and that which existed prior to the outbreak of World War I. The most significant similarity is that Turkey is confronted now – as it was in 1914-1923 – with the geopolitical ambitions of powerful external players that are pursuing self-interested policies in the region. In addition, the current Turkish government is grappling with mounting economic hardships – a reminder of the economic decay that marked the waning days of rule by Ottoman Turkish sultans.
US officials are now exerting pressure for a reconsideration of the March 1 parliament vote. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The evident irony of Washington’s displeasure over the vote is not lost on many Turkish political observers. Taking heed of public attitudes and reflecting them in legislative decisions are democratic practices that “the American (and European) democrats have been advising the Turks to follow,” one Turkish observer noted sarcastically.
Turkish opponents of the conservative defensive strategy argue, however, that the potential damage of the isolationist policy could be much higher than the risks of the possible war with Iraq in alliance with the United States. If Turkey maintains its anti-war stance, they contend, Ankara will find itself unable either to prevent the war, or to maintain the regional geopolitical balance once hostilities commence.
"The greatest nightmare would come to be true if the United States goes ahead without Turkey and wins the war against Iraq. In this case, it will have no responsibility to ask Turkey's opinion on how to restructure Iraq," says Ali Nihat Ozcan, an Ankara-based expert on the Middle East.
The potential effect of Turkish parliament’s vote on the country’s European Union membership bid is also a matter of controversy. EU leaders France and Germany are outspoken opponents of military action against Iraq. As a result, Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Ertugrul Yalcinbayir asserted that the parliament’s decision raised Turkey's standing in EU’s eyes and may accelerate the nation’s accession process.
Not everyone in Turkey shares this optimistic opinion. Turkey's already troubled European prospects, many experts say, might receive a serious blow if developments lead to the revival of Turkey’s armed campaign against the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). "The Kurdish assembly in northern Iraq has become a new center of attraction for Kurds living in neighboring countries," says Cengiz Aktar, an expert on EU enlargement, hinting that this would lead to increased PKK activity.
"The EU has already closed its doors to Turkey," Aktar said in the interview with the Turkish Daily News and added that the EU anti-war leaders had so far seemed unmoved by the Turkish lawmakers’ snub of Washington. "I do not see any sign they will be in the future," he said.
The seemingly ambiguous behavior of some of Turkey’s powerful neighbors, local analysts argue, additionally contributes to the nation’s sense of insecurity. “Russia and its ambitions are also playing a major role in the rise” of Ankara’s uneasiness, writes Mete Belovacikli in a commentary published in the Turkish Daily News.
Moscow’s official line is that the Iraq crisis should be resolved peacefully and that war should be avoided at any cost. On March 4, Russian President Vladimir Putin praised the Turkish parliament’s vote. Turkish leaders, though, are wary of Russia, believing that Moscow is capable of quickly abandoning its current position. Symptomatically, a commentary published March 3 in the nationalist-leaning Ortadogu newspaper accused Moscow of trying to cut a behind-the-scenes deal with Washington. Allegedly referring to the not much-publicized-talks Aleksandr Voloshin, head of Putin’s presidential administration, held recently with US leaders, the commentary said that “Russia has entered into a secret bargaining process with the United States while Russian Foreign Minister [Igor] Ivanov hurls the veto threat at the UN.”
Editor’s Note: Igor Torbakov is a freelance journalist and researcher
who specializes in CIS political affairs. He holds an MA in History
from Moscow State University and a PhD from the Ukrainian Academy
of Sciences. He was Research Scholar at the Institute of Russian History,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1988-1997; a Visiting Scholar
at the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
Washington DC, 1995, and a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia University,
New York, 2000. He is now based in Istanbul, Turkey.