Paper no. 1023	11. 06. 2004
US GETS UN COVER FOR IRAQ BUT ALLY TURKEY REBUKES ISRAEL  Guest Colum-by. K. Gajendra Singh After months, US President George W. Bush looked somewhat relaxed on 9 June at the G-8 (rich industria nations group) summit in the safety of an island in Georgia, USA. On Tuesday, the UN Security Council had approved by 15-0 a resolution that endorses the handover of “sovereignty” to an interim Iraqi government on June 30. Prominent members of the interim government are Iraqis exiles as were members of the dissolved Iraqi Governing Council, with connections to US and British governments and intelligence agencies .The resolution also authorizes a US-led multinational force to maintain security in the country.   The vote followed intense negotiations in which the US and British , co-sponsors of the resolution agreed to a formulation that stresses a US-Iraq "security partnership". Russian leadership wants to see how the resolution would translate on the ground. In spite of bon homie in Georgia, French President Jacque Chirac expressed reservations on Bush proposal to send Nato troops to Iraq.   It was a come down for USA which after ignoring the United Nations and diminishing its standing  before the illegal invasion of Iraq in March last year, but faced with the prospect of unraveling of its ill-planned project in Iraq and the Greater Middle East, returned to the world body to give its occupation some sense of legality. In the end, the UN Security Council's members obviously acknowledged that the strategic implications of a substantial US failure in Iraq were too serious even to contemplate. Western commentators heaved sigh of relief.   Four of the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council, representing a 1940s international political and military balance, are Christian powers but have large Muslim minority populations (France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States). Even the fifth permanent member with veto powers, China, has problems in its Xinjiang autonomous region with its Turkic-speaking Muslim Uighur majority.   "Stabilization of Iraq" and "pacification" of its aroused population are in everyone's interest. President Bush, who is tailoring Iraqi developments to fit in with his schedule for re-election in November, has moved closer to telling the electorate that Iraqis are now their own masters and that the "mission"(whatever it is) has been accomplished.   Apart from Turkey , a Nato ally, USA will now concentrate on India and other south Asian states for troops to “stabilize” Iraq . India's new coalition government supported by communists and leftists  thus faces a major foreign-policy challenge. Even the rightist Bhartiya Janata party government did not accede to the US request for sending around 20,000 troops to Iraq. That was before the Iraqi resistance to occupation had forced USA to look for an exit policy, now being implemented. India recently trained Iraqi diplomats, with whom the author interacted , but the new dispensation seems reluctant to even train Iraqi police officers . The Communist and Left Front has threatened countrywide protest demonstrations if the request for troops were accepted.   The US, Turkey and Israel Triangle:   As with France and Germany ,US policy of unilateralism on Iraq has gone through many ups and downs with its cold war ally Turkey too, and reached a point of almost rupture after the invasion . But with both sides needing each other they have moved closer, albeit by fits and starts.  Aware of unraveling of its pre-invasion dream of controlling the Middle East from bases in Iraq ,USA is now wooing safe bet Turkey for salvaging the position, not only in Iraq but even beyond the region.   Turkey’s pro-Islamist government has repeatedly and openly criticized Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s policies (with US support) against Palestinians. In a way this is a proxy criticism of US policies and excesses in Iraq. Turkey has an almost ally like relationship with Israel and it is not likely to fracture. Turkey’s policy options are not easy. But then even Israel's justice minister, Tommy Lapid, the only Holocaust survivor in the government told a recent cabinet meeting that the Gaza house demolitions were inhumane.  He added that television images of an old woman picking through rubble for medicine had reminded him of his grandmother, who was killed by the Nazis. "The demolition of houses in Rafah must stop," he said. "It is not humane, not Jewish, and causes us grave damage in the world. At the end of the day, they'll  kick us out of the United Nations, try those responsible in the international court in The Hague, and no one will want to speak to us."  His cabinet colleagues reacted furiously to the alleged comparison to Nazi war crimes. Sharon asked for a retraction so Lapid clarified that his comments were misunderstood: "I'm not referring to the Germans. I'm not referring to the Holocaust. When you see an old woman, you think of your grandmother," he said.   Peter Hansen, head of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, who toured the camp, called the destruction "completely unacceptable". The Israeli human rights group B 'Tselem said 62 homes had been wrecked in al-Brazil and neighbouring al-Salam during the two days the military occupied the area, contradicting army claims to have destroyed only a handful. About 1,600 Palestinians were left homeless by the destruction wrought over 10 days.   Following a spate of media reports and interviews in which Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan criticized Israel’s military drive in Palestinian territories,  Israeli Foreign Ministry  expressed "deep regret" over Erdogan's remarks and said Israel expected Turkey, a country which suffered from terrorism, to show more understanding. Turkish media reported that the Israeli Foreign Ministry had conveyed an ultimatum to the Turkish Ambassador in Israel to be passed on to Ankara.   Turkish Foreign Ministry in Ankara denied reports of the ultimatum and clarified on 2nd June that its policy towards Israel remained unchanged. "There is no change in Turkey's policy towards Israel. Relations between the two countries are continuing on their own dynamics," said a ministry spokesman.  In his May 25, 2004 meeting with Israeli Infrastructure Minister, Yousef Paritsky, Erdogan bluntly criticized Israel for its aggression on the Palestinian people, making it clear that there was no difference between Israel’s actions and the terror attacks carried out by terrorists in Turkey. Erdogan asked the Israeli minister,” What is the difference between terrorists who kill Israeli civilians, and Israel, which also kills civilians?” "You cannot fight terrorism with terrorism," Erdogan told the minister at a closed-door meeting. "The Palestinian people do not have tanks or shells." "You say you are evacuating Gaza. Are you achieving this by demolishing all the houses there?" Erdogan demanded. "We condemn the mentality which drops bombs on the Rafah camp as well as terrorism." The prime minister also said the time was not right for a visit to Israel after receiving an invitation from Paritzky, emphasizing that things had to be stabilized first.   Despite criticism from Erdogan, Paritzky played down the differences and said  "There are disagreements -- they occur amongst friends." Paritzky added ,"But I have the feeling the prime minister understands the special relationship between Israel and Turkey, that he wants to continue this relationship."   Turkey's Zorlu Holding and Israeli Dorad Energies signed last week an $800-million deal for construction of three power plants in Israel. But Turkish media reports that Turkish military’s proposal for the purchase of several types of equipment and systems necessary for modernization of Turkish F-16 jet fighters from Israeli companies were denied by the ministry of defense.   Turkey has strong diplomatic, economic and military ties with Israel ( It did not break relations either after 1967 or 1973). But Turkey with its 99% Muslim population traditionally supports Palestinian aspirations for statehood, and Israel's crackdown angered them. Turkish officials were dismayed at Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories. Erdogan's Justice and Development (AK) Party has its roots in the country's Islamic movement .Ankara recently appointed Vehbi Dincerler, a former minister, as coordinator to liaise with the Palestinian Authority on financial aid from Turkey.   Speaking at the inauguration of the 57th Congress of the World Association of Newspapers and the 11th World Editors Forum at Istanbul on 1 June , Erdogan said that Ariel Sharon had blown up all efforts intended to resume Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations, by going on his assassination policy. He clarified that the criticism was not aimed at Israeli people but at the Ariel Sharon government for its policies against Palestinians. Erdogan said that the recent attacks, particularly the assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, founder of Hamas on March 2004 and the subsequent assassination of his successor Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Rantisi on April 2004, left no room for Turkey’s peaceful efforts. But he emphasized that despite that, Turkey would keep up its efforts for the sake of peace and would not loose hope, stressing that Turkey strongly condemned all forms of terrorism in the region, especially the state-sponsored one.   Erdogan was equally scathing in an interview with Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, When asked for the reasons for change in Turkish attitude to Israel with whom Turkey has strong bilateral relations , Erdogan replied, "First of all, regarding our relations with Israel, they must be understood on several different fronts. One is the relationship between the governments, and the other is between the peoples. And another way of looking at our relations would be through our political, economic, trade and social ties.   "When we look at relations on the level of the peoples, we cannot even conceive of any problems. As far as the Turkish side is concerned, there are no problems here. It isn't even on our agenda. There might be different evaluations by some individuals or some marginal groups, but as far as the Turkish government is concerned, our view with regard to the people of Israel is very objective.   "But at the level of the government, we are in favor of the peace process being regenerated, and the government of Israel has not contributed to our efforts to do so. Why am I saying this? I would have wished that a government, a cabinet, would not decide to carry out an assassination, because governments should never put aside the law."   When questioned that ,”You have recently defined three kinds of terrorist activities: Personal terrorism, institutional terrorism and state terrorism. Do you think that Israel is practicing a form of "state terrorism"?, Erdogan said ,” I'll be very sincere and open in sharing my observations with you. When you look at the structure of what has happened, how else can you interpret it?"   Asked if he thought if there is a fourth way of looking at terrorism - that there are countries that support institutions or individuals who are terrorists? , Erdogan replied in the affirmative.   When asked about Turkey’s stand on the Middle East situation, because of its unique position in the region , visits by several Arab leaders to Ankara in the background of Turkey’s close relations with Israel , Erdogan replied,  "Historically, we have played an important role in the Middle East. There was a period of cold relations for a while , there was a gap in the relations. We have closed that gap. While doing so, we wanted to act as a mediator for peace in the Middle East, to serve as mediator between Israel and the other countries of the Middle East. We brought this up in every meeting we had. I hope to be able to continue in this."   In the context of Erdogan’s scheduled visit to Tehran , Ha’aretz enquired if he was considering a visit to Israel, as promised a few months ago, or if Turkey would invite Prime Minister Sharon to Ankara? Mr Erdogan replied , "I had a meeting with your minister [Infrastructure Minister Paritzky] and explained to him what I had in mind in regard to this visit. Regarding my visit to Iran, all the ministers involved have already visited there, and the Iranians have also sent their counterparts here. So it became a process in which I had to find time to visit there myself. My counterpart, Iran's first vice-president who serves as their prime minister, has visited here and I haven't reciprocated his invitation until now. It is only correct to analyze these relations symmetrically, be it with Iran or Israel.   "But I was in the midst of planning to send my foreign minister to Israel and Palestine [sic] when all these incidents occurred. According to the plans, my visit should have taken place after my foreign minister's visit to Israel. We don't have a problem in terms of going [there] or receiving [Israeli] guests."   So would Israel be honored with a visit sometime in the near future? Haaretz enquired!   "First we need to rearrange my foreign minister's visit, and then we can plan the next steps. After all, the president of Israel came and was our guest here. As far as Turkey is concerned, we do not have a problem with this issue."   Harretz enquired if the special relations between Israel and Turkey were unique in another sense - the close relations between the Jewish state and one of the greatest Islamic states , and should be, a model for the way in which common ground can bridge over differences and diversities. Would these relations survive the actual (current ) crisis?   Mr Erdogan replied ,"If the parties are sincere, yes. The relations are strong enough to overcome the difficulties. We should never forget this. Our forefathers, at their strongest time in history, opened up their hearts to the Jews who had been driven out of Spain at the time of the Inquisition and opened up their hearts and homes to the Jews. Jews were the victims at that time. Today, the Palestinians are the victims, and unfortunately the people of Israel are treating the Palestinians as they were treated 500 years ago. Bombing people - civilians - from helicopters, killing people without any consideration - children, women, the elderly - razing their buildings using bulldozers. When I explained all this to your minister , his response was `only a friend can be this sincere and talk this openly.'   "You see, both history and geography force us to speak out on this matter. When we get to the roots of our mutual history and when we analyze the geography, we have to be honest with each other and talk about our concerns. There was a terrorist attack in Turkey on the 15th of November. I took all the relevant ministers with me, and we personally visited the chief rabbi of this country, just as I visited all the injured Jewish citizens of my country - one by one - in their hospital beds. Because I could not have discriminated against them. They are all my citizens, the Muslims and the Jews and everyone else. I am the prime minister of all of them, not only of the Muslims. I was the first prime minister who ever visited the chief rabbi in the history of Turkey."   On how could a country protect itself from terrorism, Mr. Erdogan replied "It is not the problem of only one country. Terrorism is an international phenomenon. We have to establish a joint plan to fight terrorism. The intelligence agencies of various countries should be in real cooperation with each other. If a mutual platform to fight terrorism can be established, we can achieve some results.   "But while doing so we must never forget one thing: We have to take on this challenge, fight this struggle, within the framework of human rights and the supremacy of the law. Saying `I am the strong one, so I can name anyone I want as a terrorist and anyone I want as a criminal and just kill them and go' - that mentality is wrong.   "We have to be in solidarity if we want to serve global peace. We have to go hand in hand, humanity does not want to see anymore bloodshed or death. All those responsible [for the bloodshed] are losing their credibility with every passing day. You must have followed at least as much as I did what kind of reactions the pictures of the abuse in Abu Ghraib prison received.”   US pressure for Turkish Troops;   According to a Turkish analyst USA and Britain after the UN resolution on Iraq would pressurize Nato ( its Summit would take place in Istanbul in June ) members to send troops to Iraq. The media in US and UK has pointed in this direction. "When the government in Iraq is transferred to Iraqis on June 30, the country will be divided into two military zones. Baghdad and its north will be under U.S. military supervision, while the south will be under NATO forces led by Britain. The NATO forces include troops from Germany, Turkey, Greece and Spain. The zone of control of the NATO force under the command of General Richard Dannath will include the cities of Najaf and Kut, where the recent clashes between U.S. troops and militias under al Sadr have taken place."   The question of troops was discussed during his 6-hour visit to Ankara by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Many European Nato members would prefer Muslim troops to stabilize the situation in Iraq . German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was reportedly quoted , "Let's send troops from Islamic countries to Iraq, instead of NATO troops. However, we will not veto a NATO decision to go to Iraq in Istanbul," .US is also trying to persuade countries in South Asia ie Pakistan, India and Bangladesh ( US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld just visited Dacca) . For the  G-8 summit in Georgia ,USA, while other countries were also invited but Turkey was the main target. U.S. has underlined what role Turkey was expected to play in Iraq. According to a statement released by the White House, Bush expected Turkish support and contribution to discussions on how the G-8 countries can help the political, economic and social liberalization in the Greater Middle East and North Africa.   In an interview Erdogan told the Wall Street Journal- Europe that if a decision was taken at the NATO summit in Istanbul for the alliance to send a multinational force to Iraq, Turkey would consider the matter. It is believed that it would be very difficult to persuade the AK party deputies on the issue. Serious criticism against the violence and torture in Palestine and Iraq has been voiced in the AKP parliamentary groups. These criticisms, which were made by former nationalist AKP deputies in the beginning, are now being voiced by those who have religion oriented views . Opposition party deputies have also criticized Israel and US actions.   AKP deputy from Adana and Parliament administrative director Abdullah Caliskan, in a statement, used very strong words against the U.S. and Britain. His statement started with "I am harshly condemning the disgusting torture, rape and massacres perpetrated by the crazy and inhuman U.S. and British soldiers," and ends with "The U.S., Britain and those occupying forces cooperating with them should end this dirty war and leave the country. As if the torture, violence and rapes they have perpetrated are not enough, they have the temerity to call for new rapes and tortures with their Greater Middle East Initiative. “   Parliament speaker Bulent Arinc , leader of the strongest group in AKP parliamentary group with around 70 deputies with national view of history has in several statements, condemned the massacres perpetrated by the Israeli army in Palestine and held the U.S. ultimately responsible for the deaths. It would be very difficult if not impossible, for prime minister Erdogan to get a new troop deployment resolution passed in the Parliament. If Erdogan failed to resist calls from the U.S. and EU officials, the resulting chaos could lead not only to the rejection of the proposal, but also political turmoil . Some commentators said that under such circumstances, the resignation of the 70 deputies with Arinc, followed by a walk out of around 30 former nationalist deputies was most likely. AKP deputies with strong Islamic tendencies might even chose to topple the government. It is not going to be a peaceful summer for Erdogan and his government .That too at a time when figures show signs of strain in Turkish economy.   US-Turkish Relations & New Demands ; According to Turkey’s left leaning daily Cumhuriyet USA has requested modifications in the Incirlik base and to establish new bases for USA in Turkey . When the news was refuted, Cumhuriyet published documents to support its claim. It was then confirmed by the Foreign Ministry indirectly (and later in New York Times). Speaking to reporters, Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen. Ilker Basbug said that the United States wanted to station warplanes at the Incirlik base once again. He added that USA had made the demands which went beyond the Defense and Economic Cooperation Agreement between the two countries . Gen. Basbug said the demands of the United States might require a parliamentary approval.   It appears that USA also wants to open a base in the Black Sea region and to use harbors and some airports in Trabzon and Samsun situated on the Black Sea . Such a request was made before the U.S.-led war on Iraq war but was rejected.   After the rejection of the March 1, 2003 motion on US troop deployment in Turkey to open a second front against Iraq , the United States withdrew its warplanes from the Incirlik base. It was then believed that after occupying Iraq it would need neither Turkey nor Incirlik. Many in Turkey also feared that after USA established bases in Iraq Turkey would lose its strategic importance. However, recent developments have shown this was not the case. USA has knocked on Turkey's door once again with a list of demands similar to those that preceded the war.   So the paper continued “ What is the United States asking for?” The answer to this question was very important for Turkey as it was obvious that USA would not be able to stabilize Iraq the way it wished . Iraq was insecure for USA for whom there was no secure country in the Middle East except Israel. There were conflicts even in Saudi Arabia.   The United States was transferring its troops from bases in Germany to Bulgaria, Romania and Poland, but it can not establish a chain that would extend to the Caucasus and the Middle East. To that end Turkey was the most important bridge to extend US influence to the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East. The dimensions and geography of the U.S.-led Greater Middle East Initiative were not fully known but it was clear that the United States wanted to deploy forces in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East to use whenever necessary.  While assessing the U.S. demands, Turkey should think carefully and take its national interests into consideration, the paper concluded.   Conclusion   The main reason for the invasion of Iraq against opposition from most UN members was to occupy the country, exploit its oil and control the Middle East in collusion with Israel. In this scenario, the US would have permanent military bases on the borders of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Israel, with US backing, now virtually controls most of Palestine, Gaza, and parts of Syria According to news reports, US engineers in Iraq have begun work on the construction of 14 permanent military bases, which US Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt calls "a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East".   Despite the handover of sovereignty, through a compliant government the US can be expected in effect still to control Iraq's economy, with its embassy in charge of reconstruction aid, its oil industry and its infrastructure, as well as the courts and the police. Iraq's 25 government ministries and the news media will continue to be run by officials appointed by the new US ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte. Only Iraq's overcrowded and poorly equipped hospitals etc will be run by Iraqis.   There are many parallels between the US foisting exiles on the Iraqi nation and the country's takeover by Great Britain after World War I when a foreign Hashemite dynasty was imposed on Iraq. A mandate was obtained from the League of the Nations, a club of European colonizers. A provisional Arab government, with Feisel as the king of Iraq, declared on July 11, 1921, that his government "shall be constitutional, representative and democratic".   However, when a treaty of alliance, valid for 20 years, was signed on October 10, 1922, it reproduced most of the provisions of the league's mandate. Britain was to offer advice on foreign and domestic affairs, such as military, judicial and financial matters (defined in separate and subsidiary agreements) and prepare Iraq for membership in the League of Nations "as soon as possible"..  But it was soon apparent that the mandate was still operative and that complete independence had not been granted. There was strong opposition to the treaty in the press and among the people.   The period of the treaty was then reduced to four years, and against mounting opposition it was ratified on June 11, 1924, after Britain warned that the matter would be referred to the League of Nations, dominated by European nations. The control exercised by the British treaties was seen by the Iraqi people and their leaders as an impediment to their aspirations and inimical to the economic development of Iraq.   The impossibility of government by the dual authority of the mandate and the so-called government was called "a perplexing predicament" (al-wad' ash-shadh). Only in 1929 did Britain announce that the mandate would be terminated in 1932, and a new treaty of independence was negotiated by a government headed by General Nuri as-Said. The main objective of the political parties was the termination of the mandate and independence. It was achieved in 1932, but air bases for British troops were granted.   After a long national resistance, King Feisel II and Nuri-as Said were overthrown and killed in a 1958 military takeover.   While senior-most Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has given his conditional approval to the new government under interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq are up in arms, as the autonomy they have enjoyed since 1991 finds no place in the new UN resolution, a concession strongly opposed by the Shi'ite leadership.   Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army fought US-led forces in Najaf, Kerbala and Kufa, has not recognized the new arrangement, and his soldiers will not give up their arms, as other militias have.   Coalition forces will remain under the control of the US ambassador, and bases will be granted to US-led coalition. Soon the impossibility of government by dual authority will be repeated, and create once again al-wad' ash-shadh. Except that now, it will most likely be more deadly. (K Gajendra Singh, served as Indian Ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan in 1992-96. Prior to that, he served as ambassador to Jordan (during the 1990-91 Gulf war), Romania and Senegal.  He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies.  The views expressed here are his own.- Email-Gajendrak@hotmail.com)
Back to the top Home  | Papers  | Notes  | Forum  | Search  | Feedback  | Links Copyright © South Asia Analysis Group  All rights reserved. Permission is given to refer this on-line document for use in research papers and articles, provided the source and the author's name  are acknowledged. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.