Tweet
The New Anatolian, Turkey
Jan 30 2007
Sea change needed on Ankara's foreign policy plate
Cem Sey30 January 2007
Next week Washington will witness a wave of high-level visitors from
Turkey. Both Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, the chief of the General Staff,
and Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, will be in the U.S. capital.
At the same time there are several problems on the plates of both
countries. Most of them are defined from the view of Ankara: the
terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in northern Iraq, Kirkuk,
and the Armenian problem.
For Turkey's part, there may be clarity on these questions. At least
the majority of the Turkish public seems to share the same ideas in
these areas:
"The PKK has to be eliminated militarily, Kirkuk should never be part
of a Kurdish entity, and the U.S Congress shouldn't pass any
resolutions claiming there was a genocide of the Armenians." This may
be sum up these "clear" ideas in the Turkish public.
But seen from outside, none of these "clear ideas" seems so clear.
Americans -- and even Europeans -- understand that the presence of
the PKK just over the border is disturbing Turkey. The Americans have
other problems in Iraq to deal with, though, and they don't need any
more. This dilemma ties their hands in terms of military action
against the PKK. Not only that they can't fight the PKK, but also
that they can't tolerate any cross-border Turkish military operation,
because the Kurds are their only real allies in Iraq. The Kurds in
Iraq are very suspicious about any Turkish military action on their
soil. Probably, therefore, U.S. diplomacy will try to bring Turkish
and Kurdish officials together to work out this problem. Which, in
turn, is seen in Ankara as a delaying tactic.
Kirkuk is definitely an Iraqi city. So Turkey really isn't in any
position to influence decisions about its future, and it seems to
almost everybody else in the world as normal that this question
should be dealt with, as foreseen in the Iraqi constitution. The U.S.
may listen to Turkey. Even the Iraqis could listen to what Ankara has
to say about Kirkuk. But nobody believes that Turkey could or should
do more than just express its opinion. But Turkey, in fact, says
nothing. Ankara is just warning or sometimes even issuing threats.
What Turkey wants in Kirkuk to happen, is -- at least for the public
-- not clear.
The Armenian question is a question only in Turkey. Everywhere else
not only politicians but also the public believe that there was a
genocide of Armenians in Anatolia. This is nothing new and won't
change in the future. Even if a committee of historians were
assembled someday, the result would really be no different. So
outside Turkey not condemning the genocide is seen as a great
courtesy to Turkey, and one which becomes more disturbing as time
passes.
So one can say that nobody really understands what Turkey wants.
In all of these problems Turkey can and has to take some steps
forward to change the political climate in which it operates.
Further reforms to ease future steps on the PKK issue -- like
preparing a sincere amnesty for PKK members and lowering the 10
percent hurdle in the election laws, and so allowing the political
entities preferred by the Kurdish part of the population to take
seats in the Turkish Parliament -- would change the mood of all other
parties involved.
Turkey very often states that it has profound national interests in
Kirkuk. This phrase alone doesn't persuade anybody to think about
steps other than applying the Iraqi constitution. If Ankara wants to
stop these developments, it has to explain what these interests are
and has to find some other logical reason than stopping the emergence
of a Kurdish political entity in the region.
And on the Armenian question, Turkey has to move forward again.
Pragmatic politicians and diplomats know that you have to talk to
your foes to solve the problems you have with them. Thus, Turkey has
to begin talks with Yerevan to open the border. It's at the
negotiating table that you mention your conditions. If Turkey can
bring itself to take this step, then the international community will
be truly shocked. Because nobody believes that Turkey can talk to the
Armenians. Everybody believes it's the denial policy that prevents
Turkey from negotiating with its difficult neighbor.
Next week, unless Gul and Buyukanit have some kind of pragmatic
approaches to present, they won't they be able to seriously change
anything. I doubt very much this will happen.
Jan 30 2007
Sea change needed on Ankara's foreign policy plate
Cem Sey30 January 2007
Next week Washington will witness a wave of high-level visitors from
Turkey. Both Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, the chief of the General Staff,
and Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, will be in the U.S. capital.
At the same time there are several problems on the plates of both
countries. Most of them are defined from the view of Ankara: the
terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in northern Iraq, Kirkuk,
and the Armenian problem.
For Turkey's part, there may be clarity on these questions. At least
the majority of the Turkish public seems to share the same ideas in
these areas:
"The PKK has to be eliminated militarily, Kirkuk should never be part
of a Kurdish entity, and the U.S Congress shouldn't pass any
resolutions claiming there was a genocide of the Armenians." This may
be sum up these "clear" ideas in the Turkish public.
But seen from outside, none of these "clear ideas" seems so clear.
Americans -- and even Europeans -- understand that the presence of
the PKK just over the border is disturbing Turkey. The Americans have
other problems in Iraq to deal with, though, and they don't need any
more. This dilemma ties their hands in terms of military action
against the PKK. Not only that they can't fight the PKK, but also
that they can't tolerate any cross-border Turkish military operation,
because the Kurds are their only real allies in Iraq. The Kurds in
Iraq are very suspicious about any Turkish military action on their
soil. Probably, therefore, U.S. diplomacy will try to bring Turkish
and Kurdish officials together to work out this problem. Which, in
turn, is seen in Ankara as a delaying tactic.
Kirkuk is definitely an Iraqi city. So Turkey really isn't in any
position to influence decisions about its future, and it seems to
almost everybody else in the world as normal that this question
should be dealt with, as foreseen in the Iraqi constitution. The U.S.
may listen to Turkey. Even the Iraqis could listen to what Ankara has
to say about Kirkuk. But nobody believes that Turkey could or should
do more than just express its opinion. But Turkey, in fact, says
nothing. Ankara is just warning or sometimes even issuing threats.
What Turkey wants in Kirkuk to happen, is -- at least for the public
-- not clear.
The Armenian question is a question only in Turkey. Everywhere else
not only politicians but also the public believe that there was a
genocide of Armenians in Anatolia. This is nothing new and won't
change in the future. Even if a committee of historians were
assembled someday, the result would really be no different. So
outside Turkey not condemning the genocide is seen as a great
courtesy to Turkey, and one which becomes more disturbing as time
passes.
So one can say that nobody really understands what Turkey wants.
In all of these problems Turkey can and has to take some steps
forward to change the political climate in which it operates.
Further reforms to ease future steps on the PKK issue -- like
preparing a sincere amnesty for PKK members and lowering the 10
percent hurdle in the election laws, and so allowing the political
entities preferred by the Kurdish part of the population to take
seats in the Turkish Parliament -- would change the mood of all other
parties involved.
Turkey very often states that it has profound national interests in
Kirkuk. This phrase alone doesn't persuade anybody to think about
steps other than applying the Iraqi constitution. If Ankara wants to
stop these developments, it has to explain what these interests are
and has to find some other logical reason than stopping the emergence
of a Kurdish political entity in the region.
And on the Armenian question, Turkey has to move forward again.
Pragmatic politicians and diplomats know that you have to talk to
your foes to solve the problems you have with them. Thus, Turkey has
to begin talks with Yerevan to open the border. It's at the
negotiating table that you mention your conditions. If Turkey can
bring itself to take this step, then the international community will
be truly shocked. Because nobody believes that Turkey can talk to the
Armenians. Everybody believes it's the denial policy that prevents
Turkey from negotiating with its difficult neighbor.
Next week, unless Gul and Buyukanit have some kind of pragmatic
approaches to present, they won't they be able to seriously change
anything. I doubt very much this will happen.