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.

[Beck_isright]

I'm going to also answer your post #24 having done time in the desert in Iraq and in Southern Turkey. They Turks do care for stability and the people. They have wanted a stable democratic model for the Islamic nations since the days of Ataturk's modernization of Turkey. But the continuing meddling of the former colonial powers, Great Britain and France, prevented this from evolving. Then came the cold war with the Soviets doing everything to block democracy in the Muslim world. Now the Turks want to spread their version of democracy, which is wise in my opinion, but not allow the U.N., France, England, Russia, China or the U.S. to become the dominant colonial power again. There is a tremendous amount of mistrust of us after the first Gulf War, especially by the Kurds (who have been aligned with the commies and Islamic radicals in Iran for years) and the Shi'ites because of our betrayal in 91-92. Who can blame them? We did nothing to prevent the chemical attacks in the north nor the wholesale slaughters in the south. It's time for us to be put up or shut up. Now more vacillating, no more State Department managed UN initiatives. Keep the U.N. out and let the people restructure what needs to be done. That's why I for one applaud the appointment of General Tommy Franks as military governor after the end of the war. The Ruskies, Chinese and U.N. will have NO say so in the rebuilding. That's the way it should be. Let Turkey and the U.S. build a new nation that replaces the dominance of the corrupt shieks in Saudi Arabia and soon the evil mullahs of Iran. It's a win-win for both nations and all of the people in the region. We can not do it half-assed like we did in 91. This is for all the marbles.

[Beck_isright]

I fill you in on the Kurdish situation briefly: Don't trust them. They were former allies with the Soviets as a thorn to the Shah's Iran and Turkey during the 60's and 70's (both of which were our strong anti-USSR allies at that time). Then when the Iran-Iraq war broke out, the commies, via the Iranian mullahs intensified that supply chaing. The Kurds are fractured (you never hear about the pro-communist, pro-Iran groups in our moron media) and are bought and sold like cheap liquor. The people who compose the "Kurdish" region do not need an independent nation as they would become the Taliban of that region. Let them live in peace under a unified Iraqi state with democratic principles. It can be done.

[Beck_isright]

Yes, the Voice of Turkey has daily English broadcasts as does Iran. It pays to listen to both.

http://www.bclnews.it/b02schedules/turchia.htm

http://www.iribnews.com/front_en.ASP?sec=front_en

I include the latter link because what that evil nation has to say speaks volumes about the problems we're going to encounter in the future and why those 6 Turkish divisions of some of the best damn troops I've ever worked with, are so badly needed now and in the future.

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

not 'mis'informed, a_Turk; rather 'un'informed. It is quite the challenge to:

(a) find information - facts that is; we have no reliable (non-cable) televised news sources -- it feels like we've never been able to really graduate from our research courses in college, because to home in on the truth of a single piece of 'news' we're given, we have to spend hours upon hours to identify sources of both sides of an issue, to develop our own clear picture of the situation. Fortunately, FreeRepublic provides a forum that alerts us to the issues, and provides wonderful interactivity--a refreshing environment in which to grasp a fuller, more accurate vision of what is happening.

and

(b) we have SO many issues here, at home, for which we scramble to sort out fact from fiction, that some of these 'other' issues do not come to light until something just like this transpires -- trying to get at the root of what's going on between Turkey and U.S.

I don't think you answered the question -- in a fair manner -- about the Kurdish support. That was not intended to demean or devalue the contribution that Turkey has made. It was meant to ask you why the Kurds do not, likewise, deserve consideration for their valuable contributions. We concur, obviously, in our conviction that a friend is supposed to be a friend (not just in need); hence, should the same not apply to the Kurds (in this situation), regardless of whether they are an autonomous nation?

Also, I very much appreciate your and the other FReepers offering *concrete* responses to my questions -- the very thing that cannot be found in 'the news'-- derived from their direct experience with Turkey. It's good to have more than one voice ;-)

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

aha, Beck, you have hit on something that has lurked in my own mind...but which I can find no resolution. Will you explain (in your view, of course), how we actually DO resolve this 'conflict of interest'...fairly? Particularly with respect to the Kurds and Turkey. I have had a 'sense' that their agenda is to 'be in charge' after the fact. There is a problem, though, as i see it: a) they are the ones coordinating efforts with us and our allies to overthrow Hussein (thus ensuring freedom for the Iraqi people), yet (b) from what I've read, they seem to be (potentially) a problem which will, ironically, undermine at least one of the goals we have (the freedom of the Iraqi people). They (the Kurds) have gone through 'hell' under Saddam, and deserve SOMETHING, i should think (particularly given their proactive cooperation with us), but then there's the future, which concerns me.

Tell me how having a general (ours, that is) will be good, in the long-run. Is it because it will minimize the potential infiltration of either a (a)Taliban-like government and/or (b) a communistic regime, if the Kurds were able to gain control over Iraq? Thanks.

[a_Turk]

>> Let Turkey and the U.S. build a new nation that replaces the dominance of the corrupt shieks in Saudi Arabia and soon the evil mullahs of Iran

Bravo!

[McGavin999]

I think this is more for public consumption, and it gets a real dig into the EU as well. They are just taking good advantage of the bad situation they're in. It's a good way for them to get their public behind them.

They come out of this looking like shrewd bargainers to their people, make it worthwile for the Turks to endure the massive refugee invasion that will be inevitable, and calms their fears about an independent Kurdistan.

I think this whole bargaining situation has been a shrewed PR move on the part of BOTH governments.

[a_Turk]

>> hence, should the same not apply to the Kurds

Yes it should. Yet creating a country for them would not be doing them a favor.

Look at how they are being governed.. The rulers are from families of rulers, whose daddies used to be in the same business of ruling. These are feudal landlords, clan leaders, who warred against each other during the 90s.

Creating an "independent" (/sarc off) Kurdistan will not bring peace and prosperity to the Kurds of Irak for the reasons I stated above. Add to that the low low level of education, which is really at the very base of their acceptance of their current rulers.

Providing autonomy to an ethnic group, as seen from our countless experiences with such experimentation, is a precursor to the creation of states, and besides, autonomy creates a state within a state, which automatically makes the central authority impotent.

No, if we're talking about a free, democratic, strong Irak, there should be equal rights for all ethnic groups based on the same principles as spelled out in the US and Turkish constitutions. There should not be a Shiite army, a Kurdish army, etc., just as there is no Ohioan or NY army (don't start with the national guard now :).

Sharing the entire stretch of Irak equally would be a lot better for any Shiite, Kurd, or Iraki arab, and would not predispose the region to further political uncertainty as autonomous provinces would.

[Beck_isright]

"I have had a 'sense' that their agenda is to 'be in charge' after the fact."

Actually no. The Turks are sick and tired of the Iranian and Russian meddling on their eastern and southern borders. The only way this will occur is regime replacement in the anti-US and anti-Turk states of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Then the Central Asian republics (formerly of the USSR) cold create a favorable bloc which will buffer Chinese and Russian expanionist dreams and eliminate the EU's attempts to colonialize the region again.

"There is a problem, though, as i see it: a) they are the ones coordinating efforts with us and our allies to overthrow Hussein (thus ensuring freedom for the Iraqi people), yet (b) from what I've read, they seem to be (potentially) a problem which will, ironically, undermine at least one of the goals we have (the freedom of the Iraqi people)."

Actually our goals and the goals of Turkey are one and the same. To eliminate the century old practice of tribal control and create modern unified democratic Islamic republics like their own. This means a strong military, alliances with Western powers and free elections with universal rights for the entire populations regardless of religion or ethnic origin.

"They (the Kurds) have gone through 'hell' under Saddam, and deserve SOMETHING, i should think (particularly given their proactive cooperation with us), but then there's the future, which concerns me."

Don't believe two groups of people in that region; Saudis and Kurds. They have gone through hell with Sadamn. As have Christians, Jews, Shi'ites, Turks, etc. Do not grant special privelage to any ethnic group or you sow the seeds of a future civil war. The Turkish Army will arrange to leave when they and the US agree it's safe and that Iraq can not be attacked by their neighbors.

"Tell me how having a general (ours, that is) will be good, in the long-run."

Simple.
1. No UN command and control structure, thus no EU, no Chicom, no socialist influence. Pure Islamic and Western democracy being introduced safely into a nation which needs to be rebuilt. MacArthur succeeded in Japan and Franks will do the sam in Iraq.
2. No meddling from the old colonial powers.
3. No meddling from the Saudis. They will not be able to dictate a damn thing and that's good for the people of Iraq. Keep the Bedouin influence out of Iraq, once and for all.
4. A chance to bring capitalism into a nation that never has tasted it. Under a "UN" mandate do you honestly think this would happen? Nope. With Bush declaring his new doctrine for the Middle East and with Turkey's help, it will revolutionize the region and within 30 years, if successful, put it on a par with the EU; why do you think the frogs are sweating it?

"Is it because it will minimize the potential infiltration of either a (a)Taliban-like government and/or (b) a communistic regime, if the Kurds were able to gain control over Iraq?"

Yes and no. If the PRK (Kurds) gained their own nation we would have Taliban part 2. With Chicom and North Korean help no less. With a democratic government and pure capitalism being introduced (I'll bet their citizens won't have to pay a repressive income tax!!!!) this nation could start to flourish like post-war Germany did in the late 50's.

I hope that helps. This is a huge gamble as the older powers, old Europe and the corrupt dictators of the Middle East fear the spread of Turkish style democracy throughout the region. The EU fears it for economic reasons. The dictators because then they won't have that direct line to Zurich to transfer 10% of the GDP of their nations into personal accounts. And the Chinese fear it because they will then have to deal with their own Muslim population yearning to join a free, democratic Middle Eastern and Central Asian bloc.

[Beck_isright]

Thank you. I can envision the Middle Eastern and Central Asian nations becoming more powerful than the EU in 30 years. It will be up to the US to decide if they want to bring back the glory days of Istanbul and Tashkent or let the Eurotrash and Communists continue to destabalize the entire region. Turkey of course will help and remember us as they become an economic dynamo in the future.

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

no, you misunderstood me. I meant that it appears that the KURDS want to 'be in charge' -- got a little sloppy with the relative pronouns ;-)

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

hey, you're preaching to the choir about BOTH the UN and Saudi Arabia meddling (see my earlier post ;-) Not only do I think they're no more useful to 'world peace' than a bunch of elitist primadonnas who drain our economies, but they seem to INCITE and rationalize away (which they have to since they've incited/actively supported it in the first place) the worst aspects of human nature. To the rest of your post: A+ ;-)

[Beck_isright]

No problem on 51. The Kurds will not get it. That's the price they should pay for being Soviet stooges in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

[Beck_isright]

Thanks again on 52. This is the ultimate test for our nation. If the demorats sabotage this, then our nation will be lost as well.

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

Thank you,all, for your time, patience and effort in replying to my myriad queries. This has been most 'enlightening'.

[McGavin999]

Isn't FreeRepublic wonderful? It's like a giant international university without the socialist professors.

[ScholarWarrior]

>> hence, should the same not apply to the Kurds

Yes it should. Yet creating a country for them would not be doing them a favor.

Like having the Democrats be in charge of California.

[Beck_isright]

Any time my friend. My areas of expertise are the Middle East and Central Asia. Alot of my parents (God bless them, RIP) money went into this education and Uncle Sam did the rest. I just hope that you enjoy the next 10 years and stay safe. It will be rough here and inside Turkey thanks to the Chicoms, Iranians, North Koreans and Russians (oops, I left out the Klintons). The enablers still have money and power and until they are cut off, this war will rage violently. FRegards...

[thinktwice]

My thanks, too. Your comments are enlightening, persuasive, and sobering.

FreeRepublic.com is worth it's weight in gold as an education forum.

[a_Turk]

>> I think this is more for public consumption, and it gets a real dig into the EU as well.

This guy is like a fox in the hen house...