Turkey - Erdogan’s Letter To Bush

STAR- Columnist Zeynep Gurcanli writes on Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal’s visit to the US later this week. A summary of her column is as follows:

This will be a critical week for Turkish-US relations. Ankara is striving mightily to mend bilateral relations, which were strained in the wake of Turkey’s refusal of US troop deployments for the Iraq war. This week’s most important event will be Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal’s visit to Washington, where is expected to convey important messages. In particular, he is due to present a letter plus a report to US President George W. Bush. The letter was written by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and focuses on two important issues, namely, Turkey’s stances on the Iraq war and the Middle East peace process. ‘Our Parliament’s refusal of US troop deployments should be understood as a democratic act and reflection of the nation’s will,’ writes our prime minister. Erdogan also expresses Turkey’s support for the ‘road map’ promoted by the Bush administration to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ‘Turkey is ready to cooperate with the US in the Middle East,’ adds Erdogan. ‘The interests of both our countries lie in further cooperation. Let bygones be bygones, and let us focus on our common future.’

The letter also states that Turkey is ready to soften its ‘red lines’ policy in northern Iraq. Erdogan underscores that Turkey will take into consideration the new facts on the ground in the postwar period. Ziyal is to discuss the details of this issue in Washington, but just what are these ‘new facts’? They refer to the role to be played by Iraqi Kurdish groups. Ziyal is expected to underline Turkey’s ‘no-concession’ policy once again, making clear that the establishment of an independent Kurdish state in the region would be regarded as a ‘casus belli.’ However, he is also to tell US officials that Turkey would not oppose the establishment of ‘an autonomous Kurdish zone’ or ‘a Kurdish federation’ in the region, provided that no concessions are made from Iraq’s territorial integrity.

The second document in Ziyal’s briefcase is a report prepared by two Foreign Ministry officials on their recent visit to Iraq. The report stresses that the US has failed to establish a new system, and that in consequence the country is being wrecked by political and social chaos. It also underlines that the absence of a stable political system together with the US image as an ‘invader’ runs the risk of plunging the region into even deeper crises and problems. Ziyal is expected to suggest to Washington that it cooperate more closely with Ankara, owing to Turkey’s greater familiarity with Iraq’s social structure.

If Ziyal’s mission proves to be successful, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul is expected to follow in his footsteps. Ankara is now holding its breath and waiting for the results of this pivotal visit.

SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION

Are we going to differentiate between ideas and weapons?

By Mehmet Ali Birand,(www.turkishdailynews.com),06/06/03.)

I want to begin today's article with a survey. I will give you two sentences taken from two different statements. Then I will ask a question. The answer you will give to that question will show whether the "freedom of thought" part of the European Union's Copenhagen criteria is going to be embraced or not. The two sentences are:

* "An independent Kurdistan must be founded. Turkey cannot prevent that..."

* We must bring the Shariah rule into Turkey. That is inevitable. Then our country will be saved..."

Would you be upset if you heard these sentences at a meeting of a political party or association or on a radio-TV program?

Should people who utter such words be investigated? Should they be arrested and put on trial?

The existing laws, especially Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Law, punish these ideas. Our general approach is one of, "Ideas are as dangerous as weapons. Today he would disclose his views, tomorrow they would place a gun in his hands. Therefore we need the kind of practices that would be in line with our special position, that is, a more flexible implementation."

Yet these words do not get punished in the EU
Yet, there is no such practice in the EU countries. To put it more correctly, according to the European Human Rights Convention -- which Turkey has signed -- such words comes under the scope of freedom of thought. The European Court of Human Rights decisions too attest to that. The EU complies with that and brings freedom of thought into the foreground as the most important one of the Copenhagen criteria.

Let me give you a specific example about the way the European Court of Human Rights views this subject.

Ibrahim Aksoy, one of the founders of People's Labor Party (HEP) has been convicted three different times on charges stemming from Article 8. The European Court of Human Rights reversed all three court decisions and condemned Turkey to pay damages.

Aksoy was deemed to have engaged in "separatism" and the Article 8 was invoked due to the following statements:

* In the first court case it was because he had said, "I condemn the failure to recognize the existence of the Kurdish people".

* In the second case because he had compared "Kurdistan" with Somalia and Bosnia.

* In the third case because he had referred to "multiculture" in Turkey and, again, used the word "Kurdistan".

According to the Turkish prosecutors' and judges' mentality, the use of the word "Kurdistan" means "separatism" in any case and must be punished according to Article 8.

I do not want to be misunderstood. The freedom of thought does have its limits. For example, if the aforementioned words do not remain in the domain of a debate, that is, if one comes up and says, "Citizens, rebel and attain your goal by using arms!" or attempts to organize armed attacks or even insinuates such a thing, then the laws get him in an unrelenting manner.

In other words, they keep a clear line between words and action. Every move, every potential criminal, gets monitored in the strictest manner. Intelligence organizations keep an eye on the kind of developments that could compromise the state and the democratic system.

It is at that stage that "bans" get imposed -- by differentiating between the thought and the action.

The Copenhagen criteria differentiates between the one that expresses his views and the one that takes up arms or incites others to take up arms.

We impose the bans at the "words" stage.

We act with the assumption that later on we would not be able to control the developments adequately. We believe that freedom of thought automatically breeds terrorists.

We find that method easier.

Are we going to embrace this change?
This is the basic problem.

Will the Turkish society -- that is so devoted to its secular system and that has suffered from separatist terror for 15 years -- be able to cast aside its worries and fears concerning "separatism"?

I think that change is not going to be easy at all.

This is not going to be easy but we have to try.

Turkey has to undergo a change. By learning about the difficult methods it must find a way of protecting its secular system and its territorial integrity. We have no choice other than trying to adjust ourselves to the conditions and rules of the world -- rather than underlining our own "special conditions".

Daily News internet site Mehmet Ali Birand's article is translated by TDN staff

9 June 2003, Copyright © Turkish Daily News
http://www.turkishdailynews.com/FrTDN/latest/comment.htm

Turkey sees realities of northern Iraq

"Interviews with the foreign minister and news reports suggest Turkey has finally come to terms with what we have been saying and writing for 12 years
Better late than never! Turkey has at last acknowledged that it should have a meaningful policy on Iraq and that it should treat northern Iraq as its hinterland.

For years there was a tendency in Ankara to look down upon the Iraqi Kurds, view them with deep suspicion and see the fight against the PKK terrorists as the pillar of our policy regarding Iraq. Once the PKK threat seemed to ebb with the conviction of terrorist leader Abdullah Ocalan, Turkey based its policy on preventing the establishment of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq.

It seems we have been forced to see the realities of Iraq and the Kurds simply because we made the gigantic mistake of preventing the Americans entering Iraq through Turkey and thus creating a northern front against Saddam Hussein.

Once we could not enter northern Iraq at will and impose our authority in the region as we have been doing so for the past decade and once the Americans showed us our limitations in the area through some rather unwanted incidents it seems Ankara realized that it had to either change its attitude dramatically or face more setbacks not only in northern Iraq but also in the whole of the country.

We had been urging meaningful dialogue between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds. But for years no one paid any attention to our pleas. Not one single high powered Foreign Ministry delegation was sent to the region on a fact finding mission. The requests of the Kurds to station some Foreign Ministry representatives in the area by Jalal Talabani and Masoud Barzani for liaison purposes were left unanswered. We urged Ankara to pay attention to these requests and we were told this would amount to the recognition of the Iraqi Kurdish autonomous entity.

We kept on telling everyone that the Kurds are one of the dominating factors of Iraqi society and their enclave which has been set up with the active help and support of Turkey will have added importance once the war is over. Either the past governments as well as the current government did not want to believe us or they were simply scared.

As it turned out both Talabani and Barzani are now very prominent figures who will play important roles in the future of Iraq.

So at last Ankara decided to set aside its prejudices and fears and send a Foreign Ministry delegation comprised of prominent ambassadors on a fact finding mission. The delegation came back with important findings which match all the things we have been saying for the past decade. Ankara has reportedly decided to ease some of the red lines on Iraq and is prepared to be more facilitating towards the Kurds and treat all the groups in Iraq equally without favoritism towards the Turkmens. That is welcome news for the Iraqi Kurds who regard themselves as our relatives, like the Turkmens.

Let us hope the powerful military in Turkey shares the views of the government regarding the reconciliatory mood displayed for the Kurds and the change of heart on Iraq. "

Israel never gave PKK terrorists permission to pitch tent and demonstrate accross from the Turkish embassy in their capital like the US did in Washington DC.. Israel never blocked military sales to Turkey during her war on terror, the US did. Israel's President never made promises to his Turkish counterpart only to be broken by their parliament, but the US did.

I'm sorry it had to come to this.. I have seen similar scenarios unfold during various declines of states in history. You're being taken advantage of by folks whose loyalties lie elsewhere.. Oh well..

Israeli Ambassador to Turkey Uri Bar-Ner, right, and Turkish Foreign Ministery undersecretary Faruk Logoglu, left, pose with retired Turkish diplomats Namik Kemal Yolga, second left, Selahattin Ulkumen, third left, Necdet Kent, second right, during a ceremony in Istanbul,Turkey, in this Tuesday May 15, 2001 file photo. Selahattin Ulkmen, a Turkish diplomat who risked his life to save Jews during World War II died Saturday June 7, 2003. He was 89. In 2001, Kent and two other Turkish diplomatswere honored with Turkey's Supreme Service Medal as well as a special medal from Israel. (AP Photo/Murad Sezer)

In Washington the wounds are still open

WASHINGTON

A few weeks too I had been here. I had arrived in order to conduct the interview with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that has raised a storm. This time I am here for an entirely different reason. Still, I have had a chance to take the city's pulse.

Just as all the other Turks concerned that have visited Washington in recent weeks I have seen that the wounds have remained open.

The message Ankara wants to give is different. Turkey's official circles are saying that, calling it bygones, one has to focus on the future. Stressing that one should not dwell too much on the way Turkish Parliament had rejected the U.S. troop deployment in Turkey motion, they claim that Turkey-U.S. relations have been placed on the right track by now.

They are wrong. Or they are misleading us.

Turkey-U.S. relations will never be the same. It would be very useful to know that.

From now on there will no more be references to "strategic cooperation" or "strategic partnership" to which we had gotten used to. In reality, the content of these phrases had been controversial in the past as well. According to us, we did have a strategic partnership with the U.S.

According to the U.S. that was an empty phrase. In the sense the U.S. used that term the U.S. had a strategic partnership only with countries such Israelm Britain and Canada. They tended to see their relationship with Turkey more as "close cooperation".

Now all this is over.

Now attempts are being made to place Turkey-U.S. relations on a new basis, to give that relationship a new name.

First, let us assess the current situation.

Wounds are not healing
The traces of the "motion" incident are still quite obvious.

The wounds are not healing. On the contrary they are getting worse and they are expanding. Almost all quarters of the bureaucracy seem to be affected.

In the past, American bureaucracy, even the American media, gave Turkey enormous "credit" in the sense that they would tolerate any mistake to be made by the Turkish side.

In other words, in the past Turkey could take decisions that would go against the U.S. expectations. Turkey could even announce these in a loud voice. Even when these decisions went against the U.S. policies, Washington would not raise its voice against Turkey.

Sometimes it would ignore those announcements and, in some other cases, it would engage in "fine-tuning" with Ankara over a certain period of time and, in the end, harmony would be achieved once again in relations with Ankara.

Now Turkey has no such "credit" on any issue. It does not have the luxury to go against the U.S. policies anymore. The U.S. capital is not feeling tolerant towards Turkey on any subject. Bureaucrats, especially those in Pentagon, feel the U.S. has been "stabbed in the back" and this feeling permeats everywhere. Furthermore, Turkey is not being seen as "part of the coalition".

It is all too obvious that the "strategic partnership" deception has come to an end and that Turkish-American relations will be placed on a new basis, maybe a much sounder one. However, it is not clear yet what kind of basis that will be.

Gen. Buyukanit's speech interpreted in different ways
It seems that the speech Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Yasar Buyukanit made at the War Aacademies Command, the speech that has drawn a lot of attention in Turkey, has made waves here too, especially in the Pentagon circles.

The remarks being made here are mostly in the "looking for a path - confusion in the mind - lack of a target" vein. There are also those who say that the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) is not looking in the same direction as Washington. I have come across those who have drawn attention to the Turkish military's uneasiness and asked me what the words on the EU issue that have caused a confusion, meant actually.

Many an American observer pointed out that Turkey is trying to set a direction for itself but that no such direction has been found yet. They noted that attention focuses on Ankara and that the messages to be coming from Ankara are being awaited.

I asked myself the following questions:

"Has the AK Party government managed to draw up its basic itinerary? What kind of route that will be? Islamist or pro-third world? Or a route that would be similar to that of Washington?

In Washington too these questions are being asked. Washington is looking forward to the messages Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal will be bringing when he arrives next week.

Ziyal has a difficult job. He will come under the limelight. When a trip takes place under the limelight amid great expectations, the danger that it would lead to a disappointment would grow.

There are certain words the American administration wants to hear in the short run.

One Pentagon official says, "The ball is in Ankara's court. Turks will play and as Wolfowitz said they will recount where they want to go and how." The official in question has summed up to me what they expect from Ugur Ziyal.

That will be the subject of tomorrow's article.

NOTE: This article appears in daily Posta and, on the same day, in daily Hurriyet's all foreign publications, on Hurriyet's internet site (www.hurriyetim.com.tr), on Milliyet's internet site (www.milliyet.com.tr) and, after being translated by the Turkish Daily News staff, in both that newspaper and on the Turkish Daily News internet site (www.turkishdailynews.com).

Mehmet Ali Birand's article is translated by TDN staff

US awaiting Ankara's reply
WASHINGTON

Next week Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal will be in Washington. That will be the first official contact at the Foreign Ministry level in the wake of the magnitude 8 quake caused by the "motion" incident and the aftershock called Wolfowitz.

Anericans have left behind the era of "from the military to the military kind of message-sending, relying on the views relayed by AK Party politicians and believing the businessmen that operate outside the official channels." To build a new relationship they intend to take the conventional path. They want to hear from the mouth of the Foreign Ministry what the basic foundations of that relationship will be.

The last time Ziyal had visited Washington he had been received by key figures such as Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. This time he will be able to see only Assistant Secretary of State Mark Grossman and probably someone else at the same level. Nothing else, as far as we know, for the time being.

This is not merely a protocol problem. This shows the place the U.S. assigns to Turkey. In the future this may change but for the time being Washington has adopted a wait-and-see attitude.

They want to hear what Turkey intends to do and how. In the short run their efforts will be limited to damage control, to the clearing of the debris caused by the "quake", to ensuring that the "buildings" that have survived will remain erect.

Things they don't want
America has made it crystal clear the things it does not want Turkey to do. From what I gathered from the American and Turkish officials I have talked with and from the observers that have been closely following the way Turkey-U.S. relations unfold, one issue comes to the foreground:

The Bush administration does not want the Turkish prime minister to have so close a relationship with the Iranian officials that they would pose for photographers hand in hand.

The Bush administration does not want Turkey to believe certain doubts and worries expressed by Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Buyukanit. It does not want speeches of this kind to be made.

Things they want
In fact, Americans are trying not to say what they do want from Turkey. They say Turkey is free to conduct any kind of policy it likes. However, at the end of the day, they do not conceal their expectations.

Iran-Syria is first on the line.

Washington will probably not resort to arms but it is not hiding that it is going to squeeze Iran's throat. What Washington wants to know is what kind of policy Turkey would follow in such a case.

Will the Turkish politicians say, "Iran is our neighbor. We must protect them against the U.S."? Will the Turkish military see Iran as an alternative? Will they give Iran that message during their talks with the Iranians?

Or will they explain to the Iranians Washington's approach -- albeit less vigorously than the U.S. itself would?

To give an substantial example I can cite the speech Abdullah Gul made at the Islamic Conference, the way he said that Islamic countries should undergo a change and keep in step with modern times.

This is exactly the kind of approach America wants, the kind of approach it expects Turkey to have.

In fact, Powell's writing a letter to congratulate Gul was not meant to show that bilateral relations were improving. It was meant to underline the message, "This is what we expect from you."

Here is a another question, one that concerns Iraq and northern Iraq. Will Turkey assess the developments in that country only from the standpoint of security or focus on economic and political cooperation?

To sum up, basically, the same question is being asked:

"Do you view the world like we do and intend to act together with us or are you going to shape your own world?"

They will want to learn from Ugur Ziyal how Ankara views the peace process and what it plans to do in order to persuade organizations such as Hamas and the Islamic Jihad and the Palestinians to agree to enter into the peace process.

They will try to find out what Turkey has on mind regarding Cyprus and whether it wants a solution or not.

Most importantly they will try to see how insistent the Turkish government is on the EU issue.

At the end of the day a certain picture will emerge. It will be seen where Turkey wants to place itself under the new world conditions.

Regardless of what happens, Ziyal's talks in Washington will clarify the situation on many issues -- or leave Washington a little more confused that it is now.

The road map for Turkey-U.S. relations will be redrawn, starting from point zero or the crossroads will be all the more obvious.

Would Turkey part ways with the West? If not, how is the way we view the U.S. and the EU taking shape? In tomorrow's article I will share with you the answers I have found to these questions in Washington.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.