Turkey's leader blames EU for failing to give political support in crisis

Guardian Unlimited ^ | 2/21/2003 | Helena Smith

[a_Turk]

---

Here Mr. Erdogan puts the blame on the EU for "having had to obey" the US. Man, this guy knows how to play this game well. Awesome!!

You know he is ticked at the EU for:
1- Harboring terrorist organizations that target Turkey,
2- Stringing Turkey along re: the EU membership issue,
3- Blocking NATO moves to defend Turkey, who defended them for fifty years

Go ream them a new one, Erdogan, underline their shameful behavior :^D

---

Helena Smith in Ankara
Friday February 21, 2003
The Guardian

Turkey's de facto leader, Tayyip Erdogan, yesterday lashed out at Europe for failing to provide it with the necessary political support to confront the crisis over Iraq.

Mr Erdogan said the EU's refusal to give Ankara a concrete date for accession talks as a candidate country had backfired because Turkey now had less clout to stand up to America, its longstanding Nato ally.

In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Erdogan complained that his country would be far better equipped to deal with the crisis over whether the US military should be allowed to use Turkish bases if the EU had opened the door to Turkish accession to the union at the Copenhagen summit last December.

"The United States is our friend," he said. "But if Turkey had received a date, if Turkey was strong in its relations with Europe, knew it was a part of Europe and could act with Europe to eliminate the presence of weapons of mass destruction, a better road map could be prepared for the rest of the world regarding a solution to this crisis."

For several weeks Ankara and Washington have been embroiled in what many diplomats have described as "unseemly haggling" over the amount of money Turkey will receive in grants and credits for allowing US soldiers to be deployed there.

This week the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, announced that Washington was willing to make a "final offer" of $6bn in grants and $20bn in loans - $6bn short of Turkish demands.

Mr Erdogan, who is expected to be elected prime minister after running in a by-election next month, said Turkey not only faced immense US pressure to host thousands of combat troops in the event of conflict but the prospect of catastrophe for its economy, which has yet to recover from the first Gulf war.

In a message to Washington, Mr Erdogan said he was utterly opposed to military action against his neighbour. "We may not approve of the regime in Iraq but that doesn't mean we see it as our responsibility to remove. Put simply, we do not want the 21st century to be a century of war."

Mr Erdogan said it was wrong to think that Turkey's infant government was intent only on bargaining for more financial aid from America in exchange for help in a possible war. US military planners say opening a northern front from Turkey is vital to ensure that any invasion of Iraq is swift.

"Our discussions [with the US] are not only economic. They also have political, military and social dimensions - on a political level we want to ensure the integrity of Iraq," said Mr Erdogan. "We have to come up with some strong reasons for our parliament to vote on [stationing US troops]."

The ruling AK party controls 363 of the 550 seats in Ankara's parliament and unlike any of its predecessors has excellent relations with the Islamic world.

But Turkey fears that if Iraqi Kurds assume control of the country's rich oil resources it will not only empower them to proclaim independence but stir up similar secessionist sentiment among its own predominantly Kurdish population in the south-east.

Since 1984 30,000 Turks have died in a guerrilla war waged by Kurdish separatists which some say despite a ceas fire has already been reignited with all the talk of war.

Fearing the worst, Ankara has deployed an estimated 5,000 troops to northern Iraq. Post-war, Turkey will almost certainly move in to ensure that any attempt at independence by the Iraqi Kurds is quashed, regional analysts say.

Anti-war sentiment is not only running high in Turkey but apparently growing by the day.

"About 95% of the Turkish people are opposed to a war because they still remember the effects of the first [Gulf] war," said Mr Erdogan.

[a_Turk]

>> I hope this works out for Turkey.

I am certain that this will work out for both the USA and Turkey. We are watching saussage being made (God I love that phrase) :^D

[a_Turk]

>> hate to see Turkey join the EU, an organization I despise

Here's our chance to transform the EU. Erdogan is already shoving his wedges in the cracks.. The EU could be turned into an asset for the USA. THat would be easier and more practical than to destroy, or ignore it..

[Dog Gone]

The EU would be worth saving if it expelled France, perhaps. But they are the driving force behind it, and it's pretty clear from Chirac's tirade this week that he sees the EU as an extension of French foreign policy.

That foreign policy included a prolonged attempt to deprive Turkey of NATO defensive equipment, which ought to give the Turks some pause for thought.

The EU also seeks to control social policy in the member nations. I believe I read that Turkey abolished the death penalty in an attempt to comply with EU requirments. Caving in to the EU while standing up to the US on troop transit sends mixed signals, from my perspective.

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

A few questions for you, please. I believe that YOU care. That is not what I am calling into question, so there is no need for you to feel 'hurt' (personally). If Turkey 'cares', as you claim they do, tell me, please, what Turkey would do (actively) to help the Iraqis, in the absence of America's assistance; what has Turkey done, for instance, over the past 12 years to demonstrate their concern?

Secondly, if they truly are an ally to the U.S., tell me, please, why, in the proverbial '11th hour', they pull this stunt of virtually DOUBLING their monetary requirements? You see, *that* is what makes their allegiance most suspect. My primary concern is for OUR troops, first and foremost. This delay may be to their detriment, for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that they are 'sitting ducks' while Turkey dances around, deciding which country is their 'friend'.

Thirdly, if they truly are an ally to the U.S., tell me, please, why, in the proverbial '11th hour', we are informed that were if it were not for their hopes of making money out of this 'deal', they would have allied themselves, instead to others? They have every right to make choices about which countries they wish to ally themselves; they need to make that choice, though, and not flip-flop. Otherwise, their credibility is quite suspect.

Perhaps you do not know the American people, all that well, if you believe that we have all been 'brainwashed' about the 'rogue' states. If you mean that we have a conviction that our system of government is superior to others; yes, I would admit to that. It IS the best system. And, it doesn't take much to see that it is true. Because of our 'brainwashing', we've agreed innumerable times to allow our government to spend more on other nations' development than we have on the *individual* development of our own people. Show me any country that comes close to our generosity and commitment to *actively* promoting the freedom of other people, please-- if you can. Now you can appreciate why Americans would be 'hurt' to see this game-playing that Turkey is engaging in now. We can and are the strongest of friends, a_Turk, when integrity and character are at the core of that relationship; but likewise, if we feel 'crossed', we can be the most stalwart foe. France is beginning to understand that-now.

[a_Turk]

>> The EU would be worth saving if it expelled France, perhaps. But they are the driving force behind it, and it's pretty clear from Chirac's tirade this week that he sees the EU as an extension of French foreign policy.

Great American phrase: A leader shuld turn and look back every once in a while to make sure that there are actually folks left to be led..

The leadership of France is obviously questionable at this time. I saw their NATO ambassador insult the Bulgarians by saying: "Young Europe should be quiet and let her elders handle this."

>> That foreign policy included a prolonged attempt to deprive Turkey of NATO defensive equipment

We held out by a year and a half longer than the US on that. Yes, you're right, it is a sign of French and German designs at Empire. It won't succeed.

>> I believe I read that Turkey abolished the death penalty in an attempt to comply with EU requirments.

True, abolished except in war or near war situations. Hehee..

[a_Turk]

I have to get my boy to his basketball game, so I want to quickly correct this misunderstanding, and then get back to your other questions after I get back home.

>>Perhaps you do not know the American people, all that well, if you believe that we have all been 'brainwashed' about the 'rogue' states.

You're not brainwashed about the rogue states. Here again is what I wrote:

"It shows me that you as an individual are as brainwashed as the anti-American public in those rogue states we're about to secure."

If you think that I am not an ally to you, after helping you in all those countless situations from the Cold war, to the Balkans, to Somalia, to Afhanistan, to even flying scurity missions over the USA post 9/11, then you must be brainwashed, just like the public in the rogue states are brainwashed, even though you are the one people in the world who donate the most food and aid to those who need it.

I'll get to your other questions later :)

[ScholarWarrior]

Because if the Turkish government was able to form a new alliance from Ankara to the Chinese border through Central Asia, it creates new problems with Pakistan and Russia. I would prefer it, but I think the technocrats in DC would hate it. Especially since it would be fiercely independent and control tons of natural resources.

I think you are dialing ahead a bit just at the moment. These kinds of discussions could realistically only take place after both Iraq and Iran have been dealt with. Probably North Korea and possibly China as well.

Quite honestly, once that's done, the Saudi issue would also have been addressed.

Then, all sorts of interesting options and end games come up.

[Mortimer Snavely]

"...while our BILLIONS are being extorted left and right by other nations."

Concerning Turkey, this is a logical conclusion to what you've seen on TV and read about in these articles. The problem is that these articles and TV reports don't deal with the background of the situation, perhaps deliberately.

The last war with Iraq nearly wiped Turkey out economically. I know, I was there. Turn on the tap, and out comes nothing. Water was rationed in some parts of Istanbul to about an hour or two a week. That's what economic war means. Turks would be insane to risk all this happening again.

I know how this looks from the outside, but believe me, these are reasonable requests. This is not extortion. If it were, I'd be as irate as you are, believe me.These requests are as vital to Turkish national security as any military aid. There is an economic, as well as military, war on. There's a lot more to this than these articles and the two minute blurbs on TV .

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

Thank you. I appreciate your response. Very on-target. Btw, i do not get *any* of my information from television; i do not have cable, and i won't put my b.p. through the trauma of listening to the talking-heads in the lamestream media. Yes, I derive my information substantially (about Turkey, that is) from the articles here. Other topics, I've done significant research even outside of the ones posted here.

I would like to know more about this, sincerely, but am not sure what resources are available to ferret out the 'truth'.
Thank you, again.

[a_Turk]

Ok, I'm back. The game was forefeit, most the kids are out camping with the boy scouts..

>> If Turkey 'cares', as you claim they do, tell me, please, what Turkey would do (actively) to help the Iraqis, in the absence of America's assistance;

We would fill in for you while you move up.. What did we do in Afghanistan?

>> what has Turkey done, for instance, over the past 12 years to demonstrate their concern?

Supported Operation Northern Watch since it's inception? Kept bitching that a federated Irak based on ethnic states was a bad idea?

>> Secondly, if they truly are an ally to the U.S., tell me, please, why, in the proverbial '11th hour', they pull this stunt of virtually DOUBLING their monetary requirements?

To get the US to agree to a state based post war Irak not designed around ethnic boundaries? To get the US to agree to an alternative command structure where Turkish soldiers would be commanded by Turkish generals who would coordinate activities with their US counterparts while providing security for both parties in an area vital to Turkish national interests?? The US has ignored the Turkish position for months up to half past the 11th hour.

>> deciding which country is their 'friend'.

Turkey already knows who their best ally is, yet that ally seemed to be puting other entities ahead of Turkish national security interests.

>> that were if it were not for their hopes of making money out of this 'deal', they would have allied themselves, instead to others?

Do you mean this article? Did you get that impression about "they would have allied themselves, instead to others" elsewhere? This article hints to me that Erdogan is working to push the EU structure, made wobbly by France and Germanies recent snafus, over. You should be laughing! How do you think they (the divided EU) are going to respond to a message that says: We couldn't help you (the EU) in your quest for "peace" because you (the EU) have been assholes and kept us down?

I am so sure that recent developments help us work shoulder to shoulder. The months ahead will remove any doubt that these recent negotiations may have introduced in your minds.

Be safe.

[xm177e2]

Put simply, we do not want the 21st century to be a century of war

Then getting rid of Saddam should be a top priority, he's likely to start a war somewhere down the line. Better to fight him at a time of our own choosing.

[a_Turk]

>> Then getting rid of Saddam should be a top priority

Yes.

The plan to getting rid of Saddam, the development of principles to lay the foundation of the next Irak, and the casting of a structure to guarantee its security is prerequisite.

Additionally all those willing must do everything possible to help the US move forward in this war against terror, and not get bogged down is some silly little aspect of it.

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

We would fill in for you while you move up. Good.

Supported Operation Northern Watch since it's inception? Good.

Kept bitching that a federated Irak based on ethnic states was a bad idea? I am not persuaded that this is necessarily a good thing. Possibly because my resources with facts related to the Kurd/Turkey issue are limited, I remain concerned that Turkey's hope for the structure you described is rooted in what appears to us 'not in the know' to be a Kurd-phobia (i.e., a racism of sorts), and, as such, that the Turkey/Kurdish issue will be perpetuated, or possibly even exacerbated. If the Iraqis, including the Kurds, wish to establish their country in such fashion, why does Turkey reject that proposal? Is it not even conceivable that by so doing that it might alleviate (and even end) the conflict between the Kurds and Turkey ? I fully admit that i don't understand the full scope of the Turkish/Kurdish strife.

The US has ignored the Turkish position for months up to half past the 11th hour. Why? Is there perhaps already a 'master-plan' in place that making the changes Turkey would like to do would (possibly) disrupt, and (possibly) compromise, the effectiveness of the total mission?

yet that ally seemed to be puting other entities ahead of Turkish national security interests. Again, I assume you mean the perceived threat of the Kurds to the Turkish national security? Have not the Kurds been highly instrumental (in both the last Gulf War and the present pending war) in assisting the US with both information and tactical recommendations in defending itself against Iraq? If so, why would they be worthy of any less consideration for their efforts than Turkey?

Do you mean this article? Did you get that impression about "they would have allied themselves, instead to others" elsewhere? Yes. And, yes ;-)

Thank you.

[Beck_isright]

You're forgetting one thing; George I and Klintoon stabbed Turkey in the back after Gulf War I. They can not trust us now, nor should they. George Sr. guranteed that between the EU and the US that their economy would get relief from any damage due to Desert Storm. They got zilch. They got less from Klintoon. What kind of ally would you call that? One that asks for your help, gurantees you help then renegs? I see their point only because I'm used to the years of backstabbing to former allies (i.e., Chile, El Salvador, Taiwan, Cambodia, etc.) that our State Department has engineered in the name of the U.N. and "world peace". Turkey is no Laos or Cambodia. And they will not be screwed again by the U.S. and I hope Powell knows this. Because if we screw them this time, they will fall into the Russian camp and our problems will multiply 1000 fold.

[Beck_isright]

I agree with you totally. I think that the Saudi issue however, will have to be dealt with at the same time we deal with Iran. They are tied too closely together with the Shi'ite desire to control Mecca and Medina.

[Beck_isright]

I don't think Turkey will get into the EU because of Germany and france. I think they will develop a new Central Asian alliance which will strech from Turkey to the Chinese border and act as an oil trading bloc in addition to anti-radical Islam bloc politically and militarily. It's the buffer the Russians have dreamed of yet feared for a century.

[Beck_isright]

FYI, just so you know, the Voice of Turkey provides excellent coverage on shortwave with their news in English and also via streaming on the net. Just do a search for the Voice of Turkey in Yahoo and you can find them. I prefer to read online but also hear word for word from the originating nation what their leaders and people think and say (even if it is through governement filters like our VOA).

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

Actually, I'm not 'forgetting it'; rather, I don't yet understand the entire background of it. I've seen statements 'here and there' precisely to the effect you've mentioned, but not anymore than that. Your comments about the State Department are apt; they seem always to walk in quicksand; no perception of right/wrong; just, 'what's in it for me' --not EVEN, 'what's REALLY in it for Americans'. If I was 'queen' (haha), I would disband two entities: 1) the UN; 2) the State Department.

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

No, I didn't know that; I never heard of 'the Voice of Turkey'. It has English? I will check it out, for sure, if it does ;-)

[a_Turk]

>> The political structure of post Saddam Irak:

We maintain that this should be based on ethnically meaningless geographical states just as those in Turkey and the USA.

Our own multimillenial national history on the rise and decline of more than 15 Turkish states has taught us that states based on ethnic boundaries lead to states within a state, and ultimately lead to a breakup.

>> Kurd-phobia (i.e., a racism of sorts)

Terror phobia. Our 12 million Kurds are among the best citizens we have because of their hard working, honest, entrepreneurial, reliable menthality. There is no racism pre se, and one of our recent presidents, Turgut Ozal, was a Kurd.

>> Is it not even conceivable that by so doing that it might alleviate (and even end) the conflict between the Kurds and Turkey ?

No. The otherwise unemployed factions who lead a drive to Kurdish statehood claim 1/3 of Turkey proper. Now, those people I am exremely prejudiced towards. They just bombed a nursery (for kids) in the city of Van.

>> I fully admit that i don't understand the full scope of the Turkish/Kurdish strife.

First of all, the term Turkish/Kurdish strife does not do this situation justice. There is the Marxist PKK, a so called party which is based in some European nations, and also receives support from groups in Irak and Iran. This "party" was first conceived by the USSR to weaken NATO and Turkey, by fomenting seperatism among the poor. The feudal landlords Barzani and Talabani in northern Irak also gave this party intermittent support. If this were a Turkihs/ Kurdish issue, we would have lost long ago, because face it: if 12 million people pissed on the rest all at once, then everyone would be washed away..

>> Is there perhaps already a 'master-plan' in place that making the changes Turkey would like to do would (possibly) disrupt, and (possibly) compromise, the effectiveness of the total mission?

The security of this area being vital to Turkish interests, any master plan hatched by folks 6000 miles away, nice as they may be, that does not include Turkish minds would be unacceptable. It would obviously be better for all those concerned that such "secret" and therefore "halfbaked" plans be opened up to the Turks and agreed upon at the 11th hour rather than at disrupted at half past 12.

>> If so, why would they be worthy of any less consideration for their efforts than Turkey?

Well, if that is how an ally of 50 years thinks, then all bets would be off. That statement shows absolutely no loyalty, no alliance.

The American quest is not to play around and make mud pies with little piles of shit. It is to war on terrorism. This silly tinkering will only get the US bogged down, which is not what you want happening.

>> Yes. And, yes ;-)

Loyalty is very important. You have misread something. We've thrown our lot in with the US a long time ago, and the US with us. Too bad that some of the populus of this most educated ally is sooo misinformed...