4 December 2001

1. “Cyprus Problem Enters Crucial Phase”, deadlocked reunification talks between Cyprus' Greek and Turkish communities enter a crucial phase with their leaders meeting in the U.N. buffer zone splitting the Mediterranean island.

2. “EUROPE: Turkey lifts objection to EU rapid reaction force”, Turkey has lifted its objections to the European Union's 60,000-strong rapid reaction force, ending a row that threatened to damage relations between Brussels and Ankara, its largest candidate member.

3. "The Transatlantic Relations of the Afghanistan War and Its Consequences with Regard to Turkey“

4. “US warnings against Iraq worry neighboring Turkey”, suggestions that Iraq might be next on the list of US targets in the war against terrorism are raising fears in neighboring Turkey, which served as the launching pad for attacks against Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War.

5. “HADEP denounced the raids”, HADEP (People's Democracy Party) Istanbul Organization released a written statement, denouncing the raids on their part and non-governmental organizations.

6. “Ilisu dam threat to cultural heritage”, a report to be submitted to the European Council Parliamentarians Assembly Culture, Science and Education Commission states that the construction of the Ilisu Dam "will cause sever damage" to the region's cultural heritage, the Anatolia news agency reported yesterday.


1. – AP – “Cyprus Problem Enters Crucial Phase”:

NICOSIA / by ALEX EFTY

Deadlocked reunification talks between Cyprus' Greek and Turkish communities enter a crucial phase with their leaders meeting in the U.N. buffer zone splitting the Mediterranean island.

Tuesday's meeting of Cyprus President Glafcos Clerides and Rauf Denktash, the leader of the breakaway Turkish Cypriot state, will be the first direct talks between the region's leaders in more than four years.

It comes amid concern that a failure to resolve their dispute may have implications on European Union expansion, block Turkey's entry, and solidify the island's 27-year-old division.

Cyprus has been split into a Greek Cypriot controlled south and an occupied north since Turkey invaded in 1974 in the wake of an abortive coup by supporters of union with Greece. Denktash's state in the north is only recognized by Turkey, which maintains 35,000 troops there.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell who will be in the Turkish capital as Clerides and Denktash meet, said he will try to speed up efforts for a Cyprus settlement.

Hopes of a breakthrough dimmed following fresh warnings last week by Turkey it will annex the occupied north if Cyprus joins the EU. It said such a development could spark war between Greece and Turkey.

Indirect talks between the two Cypriot leaders collapsed in November last year. Denktash, backed by Ankara, walked out demanding recognition of his breakaway state and the discontinuation of Cyprus-EU accession negotiations.

Denktash invited Clerides for the direct ``heart to heart'' talks last month after U.N. and EU criticism for rejecting a return to indirect talks. Clerides agreed to the invitation, but only if it was in the presence of U.N. special adviser Alvaro de Soto.

``We hope that the Turkish side will see the light and agree to Cyprus's accession to the EU for the benefit of all Cypriots,'' Clerides recently said.

But Denktash made clear in an interview that the EU question will be a make-or-break point.

``Anything can be settled, anything can be arranged,'' provided that Greek Cypriots ``accept they are not representing us in the EU,'' Denktash said.

The Turkish side also rejects U.N. Security Council demands for the withdrawal of the 35,000 Turkish troops and estimated 85,000-100,000 mainland settlers from the north and the return there of 185,000 Greek Cypriot refugees.

Denktash wants a loose federation of two states, with separate representation in the EU, and with the two communities living separately.

This approach is rejected by the EU. The European Court of Human Rights which has branded the breakaway state an illegal subsidiary administration of the Turkish occupying power. The court supports the refugees right to return.

``Cyprus will join the European Union and will be among the first candidate countries to do so,'' expected by 2003, said Romano Prodi, president of the EU Commission, during a visit to the island in October.

Turkey is unlikely to join the EU for at least a decade.

Gunther Verheugen, the EU Enlargement Commissioner, said Turkey will lose its chance to join the EU if it annexes north Cyprus.

Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit declared last week that he considered abandoning north Cyprus tantamount to ``sacrificing a piece of Turkey's soil.


2. – Financial Times – “EUROPE: Turkey lifts objection to EU rapid reaction force”:

By LEYLA BOULTON and JUDY DEMPSEY

Turkey has lifted its objections to the European Union's 60,000-strong rapid reaction force, ending a row that threatened to damage relations between Brussels and Ankara, its largest candidate member.

The deal, clinched by British and US diplomats in Turkey after 10 rounds of negotiations this year, breaks a two-year deadlock that prevented Nato and the Europeans from co-operating over the establishment of the force.

Under the terms of the deal, Turkey, a leading Nato member, agreed to give the EU's European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) access to Nato's planning assets.

These assets are essential elements for launching any operation by the rapid reaction force.

Turkey had strongly opposed European access to Nato planning assets unless it was given a veto in ESDP over how they were used.

The EU rejected this request on the grounds it would undermine its autonomy in decision-making.

The Europeans, however, will only have access to Nato's other assets ona case-by-case basis - something Turkey has always insisted on.

However, Turkey has dropped its demand for the right to be involved in all EU military operations not involving Nato equipment or planning. It will, instead, be consulted over any operations involving Nato assets, although the level of those consultations is still unclear.

Turkey's shift came under intense pressure from its allies, in particular Britain. In a letter sent last week to Bulent Ecevit, Turkish prime minister, Tony Blair, British prime minister, said ESDP would not be used in disputes between Nato allies and that Turkey's security interests had been taken into account.

EU diplomats said Turkey's acceptance of the deal was announced in an obliquely worded statement from Mr Ecevit implying Ankara had accepted a deal on ESDP.

The statement, issued on Sunday night after Mr Ecevit met military leaders and his coalition partners, expressed a "belief" that there was now "a concrete basis that will provide an opportunity to take relations between the EU and Nato forward in every field".

However, the Turkish media and some western diplomats warned that Greece might yet block the proposed deal that greatly diminishes any possible chances by Athens to use ESDP in its dispute with Turkey over Cyprus and the Aegean Sea. Nato diplomats dismissed ESDP being used in this way, insisting "such a scenario was unimaginable".

The deal was made ahead of a visit to Ankara today by Colin Powell, US secretary of state.

Later this week, he will attend a Nato meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels where the deal is expected to be endorsed. It will then go to EU foreign ministers at their regular meeting next Monday in Brussels.

EU leaders are expected to endorse it at the Laeken summit later this month where they will also announce limited "operationality" of ESDP. The rapid reaction force is supposed to be up and running by mid 2003.


3. – Zaman – “The Transatlantic Relations of the Afghanistan War and Its Consequences with Regard to Turkey“:

Though not quite bright, the light at the end of the tunnel started to be seen in Afghanistan. Taliban moved to the mountains and though can resist for some time, will soon be eliminated. And though this does not mean the end of the struggle with terrorism Al-Qaida will take a serious hit on its back. The Afghan people will find the courage to wait something from their future. Those who claimed after the attack on the Twin Towers that the operation will be extremely hard and will even fail reminding what had happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan were mistaken. They could not see the difference. They failed to consider the high military technology, the power of money, the separation in Afghanistan, the potential capabilities of the Northern Alliance and the fact that opposite to the Soviet Union, USA is being backed by not only the regional countries, but also the World community.

Still we do not know what kind of a future is waiting for the Afghan People. Will they be able to found a dependable state overcoming the internal problems? Or failing these, will they continue to be a state open to foreign interventions? Despite all uncertainties the final events point one fact: America is emerging from the crisis strengthened. American People did not fall in to a moral collapse. The situation is extremely different from the post-Vietnam period. They managed to mobilize the deteriorating conventional ballistic power of their Armed Forces effectively to targets thousand of kilometers afar. And managed to make the World accept the legitimacy of the military operation. The September 12 (1368) and September 28 (1373) resolutions of the Security Council, affirmed the right of individual and common response of USA against terrorism repeating the 51st article of the United Nations Treaty word-by-word. The resolutions did not fail to stress that this was an inherent right. Thus NATO included anti-terror struggle into the common defense obligations recorded in the 5th Article of the Northern Atlantic Alliance.

As a result of this development the USA found the opportunity to continue its political and military influence in the Central Asia. It has been strengthening its influence in the Southern Caucasus already. In other words, it is besieging the Caspian Sea basin that turned out to be one of the most critical strategic regions of the World, both from East and West. But it has to be stressed that this was neither the purpose, nor the pre-designed aim of the Afghanistan operation, as some would suggest. This is rather, a consequence of the operation that will come out willingly or unwillingly. If Washington does not want Afghanistan to be a terrorist bed again, and it will not, it shall continue its influence in the area one way or the other. It is only natural that this influence will have geo-strategic consequences.

Transatlantic Relations

How the Afghanistan operation affected the transatlantic relations and Turkey? In the first sight, NATO seems to have strengthened itself and have come to the front lines, and the European allies have given a good example of cooperation. To some extent this is true. Yet, in the long run the operation can give way to other consequences.

Washington used NATO, first of all, as a platform of legitimization. Besides, it utilized the military bases at the service of NATO and its logistic and communicative facilities. But the Afghanistan operation did not turn out to be a NATO operation. It stayed as an operation started and ruled by the USA. Washington, fearing to re-experience the problems it had in Bosnia and Kosova, abstained from sharing the strategic planning and the command and rule of the operation with its European allies. The European Unions, that presumably will have a role in the re-building of Afghanistan, did not have any significant military role. The fact that only the United Kingdom set forward within the EU, proved that the traditional USA-UK solidarity is more meaningful and functional than the European unification.

The EU member states are uneasy with the fact that the Afghanistan operation underlined the US power and influence so evidently. French being first, most EU members hoped that the international system would move to a multi-polarization with the speeding up of the European unification process and the supports of Russia and China in chipping the American unilateral interventions and influence down. It is obvious today that this hope will not give any fruit in the near future. Besides, even the European thinkers are stressing today that after September 11 state-based policies will gain precedence and that the unification move will lose its momentum, given the fact that Europe will experience problems in suiting the human rights with the state security.

There is a high probability that there will emerge discords between the USA and the European allies with regard to countering terrorism. The definition of terrorism will continue to be a point of argument and thus an agreement on the countering measures will not be easy to accomplish. While the US is pushing “punishing the terrorists” option to the front, the EU will stress the preventive measures for terrorism itself. While the US will execute the capital punishment, the EU will continue to condemn the executions. USA will believe in the functionality of the military measures and the EU will put the political and economic measures afore. These kinds of problems will force the USA to act without EU - despite EU and this will endanger the Atlantic relations.

The geo-strategic viewpoint of the USA is influenced by the domestic socio-political changes in the country also. The bureaucrats taking care of the security policy and taking place in the foreign policy are no longer from the families of the New England with an inclination towards the Europe. Today most of the key positions in the Department of State and Defense are occupied by Americans with Jewish origins. The Secretary of State and the Foreign Policy Advisor of President Bush are Afro-Americans. Experts with Asian origins are occupying important positions in effective research institutes like the RAND Corporation. It is said that by 2020 the Americans with Latin American origins are going to reach the 20% of the total population of the States. The migration movement from the Eastern regions of the USA to the Pacific Shore strip results in a shift of interest of millions of Americans from the Atlantic to the Big Ocean or even afar. These developments will not eliminate the interest of the US to Europe indeed. And the Atlantic Alliance will continue to exist. But the geo-political importance of Europe will be a part of and depended on the larger Euro-Asian continent. The clearest definition of how the US started to perceive Europe after the Cold War was done by Brzezinski: “The Transatlantic Alliance is the most important global relation of the US. It is the jumping stage for the US to play a definitive judge role in Euro-Asia and to be able to realize its global obligations”. The expansion of NATO towards the East, the “open gate” policy and the Partnership for Peace program of NATO are all the fruits of this same view point.

The Position of Turkey

Turkey is fighting terrorism till 1970 and is at the head of the list of countries that have suffered from terror. The US administration has been the prime supporter of Turkey in this fight. The American help in the arrest of Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader, in Kenya should not be forgotten. Besides, Turkey is a NATO member and had brought the terror issue into the NATO agenda more than once. And continues to be a prime target of terrorism being a secular and democratic state. Because of these reasons, Ankara had only one choice after the September 11, 2001 events: it could not stay out of the developments, it should stand with the USA. In this point there was no place for bargaining. Ankara could have a choice on what kind of a support or help to offer. Ankara behaved accordingly and without hesitation or any bargaining declared that she would offer any kind of help including sending of troops. But there was a point neglected: in our times public relations is an important part of international relations. Governments have to inform both their own and foreign nations about their foreign policy decisions. Ankara can be criticized in this respect.

Being both a Muslim and a secular and westernized country, Turkey has a special position. Keeping the conditions of this special position, Ankara did not neglect the duty of warning the World that the developments should not turn into a “Muslim-Christian” struggle. What Turkey should not and can not do with regard to its own position and past is a double-standardization in terrorism issue or entering into “ethic equations” that will legitimize terrorist activities. The Turkish understanding of encountering terror is today still closer to the USA then to the EU.

Turkey is trying to prevent a military campaign against Iraq. But, if an operation starts how shall Ankara behave? In case of such an event, it is almost impossible for Turkey to keep herself out of it. The future of all Iraq in general, and the Northern Iraq in separate has to do with the crucial interests of Turkey. Turkey was forced to enter into military campaigns several times in the Northern Iraq after the Gulf War. There is a possibility that there are still Turkish soldiers and armaments deployed in the Northern Iraq. This means, we are already in Iraq today. If Ankara wants to have decisive role in the future of Northern Iraq, her options are not unlimited.

The first impact of the Afghanistan operation on Russia’s behaviors was not good news for us. Taking the courage from the USA operation Russia increased her pressure on Georgia, which she claimed to be protecting the Chechen terrorists. This development was a source of anxiety for Ankara that believes Georgia to be a key country of Caucasus. But then, we realized that Russia’s rapprochement to the US was signaling an increase of cooperation between Turkey and Russia in Euro-Asia. The capitals of both the countries managed to utilize this opportunity. The foreign ministers of Turkey and Russia signed an action plan on cooperation in Euro-Asia in New York, in November 16, 2001. In the action plan titled “From Bilateral Cooperation Towards Multi-dimensional Partnership” it was stressed that the radical changes that occurred in the World “opened a new period for Turkey and Russia to improve bilateral and regional cooperation in every area and within this framework the two countries are determined to move their existing relations into a level of strengthened productive partnership”. Besides in the action plan all the cooperation areas from the Balkans to the Middle East and all the cooperation issues from encountering terrorism to the European security structure were openly recorded.

The “Euro-Asian Action Plan” can be perceived as the first step in Russia and Turkey’s passing from rivalry to partnership. Whether the second and the third steps will follow depends on whether Ankara will neglect the interest of Russia in the mentioned areas or not, and whether Moscow will give up its suppressive policies on the former Soviet Republics or not.

We can move to this conclusion about Turkey’s position: The events will give way to neither a USA-EU rapprochement, nor a European-Turkish rapprochement. Besides the transatlantic relations may turn out to be more problematic. The improvement of NATO-Russia cooperation may turn NATO from a common defense organization into a common security organization. The EU-Turkish relations will continue on their own way. But the Turkish American security interests will be more fitting compared to the pre-September 11 period. The inclusion of Turkey in the re-structuring of Afghanistan, her active participation in the war against terror and passing from a cooperation to a partnership with Russia will underline her importance not as a European but as a Euro-Asian country.


4. – AP – “US warnings against Iraq worry neighboring Turkey”:

ANKARA

Suggestions that Iraq might be next on the list of US targets in the war against terrorism are raising fears in neighboring Turkey, which served as the launching pad for attacks against Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War.

Turkey, which fully backs the US-led anti-terrorism campaign and was the first Muslim country to commit combat troops to Afghanistan, was firmly against spreading the campaign to its southern neighbor.

But now, ahead of a visit here by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the government seems to have relaxed its opposition.

In recent days, US officials have accused Iraq of developing a germ warfare program, and President George W Bush suggested on last Monday that once the al-Qaeda network is routed from Afghanistan, he may shift the campaign to Iraq.

On Wednesday, Turkish Defence Minister Sabahattin Cakmakoglu said his country does not want an operation in Iraq but added that "new conditions could bring new evaluations onto our agenda."

His comments signaled a shift in Turkey's Iraq policy, leaving the door open for a wide range of talks during Powell's visit.

Although Powell, who will hold talks with Turkish leaders on Wednesday, has stressed that no one has declared war on Iraq, Turks remain worried.

Many fear that if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is ousted, Iraqi Kurds who control a de facto autonomous zone in northern Iraq would take advantage of a power vacuum to set up a Kurdish state which may boost aspirations of autonomy-seeking Turkish Kurdish rebels.

Also, Ankara was hit hard by UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq and feels it has not been compensated for an estimated $35 billion in losses from trade and the shutdown of the oil pipeline between the two countries.

In addition to serving as the base for attacks during the Gulf War, Turkey still hosts US and British planes that enforce a "no-fly" zone over northern Iraq.

Michael Radu, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, said Turkey's support is crucial for any military action against Iraq.

"Basically, I do not believe that we can do anything about Saddam Hussein without decisive support from Turkey," said Radu. "If for no other reason, just logistics."

Turkish concerns about a broader war were further fueled by suggestions this week from former CIA director James Woolsey that Turkey could send in troops to Iraq in return of a share in the oil-rich Mosul and Kirkuk regions of northern Iraq.

Ferruh Demirmen, a Turkey analyst, said Turkey could agree to make ground and air space available, depending on the strength of evidence against Iraq and the political and financial assurances that the United States might give as to the aftermath of a post-war Iraq.

But he said the Ankara government would have a hard time justifying sending Turkish troops into operations against Iraq.

Woolsey wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post on Tuesday that Turkey's concerns about the Kurds could be met by giving it a role to establish order in northern Iraq together with the local Iraqi Kurdish opposition groups.

Murat Bozlak, leader of Turkey's only legal pro-Kurdish political party, the People's Democracy Party, said unification between Kurds of the two countries could be a result of military action in Iraq.

"There are Kurds and Turkmens in northern Iraq. We think that if they and Turkey agree then a unification could be possible following an intervention," Bozlak said.

Turkish leaders are not likely to accept such an offer.

However, despite the cost of sticking by Washington's side in its anti-terror war, most agree that there is little Turkey can do. US support is vital to Ankara in its bid to join the European Union and for the construction of an oil pipeline that would bring all Caspian oil through Turkey - the most likely reasons behind Turkey softening its policy.


5. – Kurdish Observer – “HADEP denounced the raids”:

HADEP (People's Democracy Party) Istanbul Organization released a written statement, denouncing the raids on their part and non-governmental organizations.

MHA - ISTANBUL

The statement said that the raids were executed by those who could not enjoy the political rise of HADEP, adding the following: "Those who did not enjoy the step towards democratisation raided on a number of non-governmental organizations and HADEP's provincial and district organizations." Saying that there were no justification of the raids, the statement emphasized that they were resulted from prejudices. HADEP drew attention that the raids were the continuation of the repression which has begun with disappeareds in Silopi and raids on Dogubeyazit and Istanbul provincial and Sisli district organizations, and said the following: "The repression on our party shows that the new assaults on democracy and human rights activists are being developed systematically." The statement called on the public to be sensitive.

On the other hand 38 of the 40 members who have been detained were released but Sevda Getiren and Hamza Supurgeci were kept in Istanbul Security Directorate.


6. – Turkish Daily News – “Ilisu dam threat to cultural heritage”:

A report to be submitted to the European Council Parliamentarians Assembly Culture, Science and Education Commission states that the construction of the Ilisu Dam "will cause sever damage" to the region's cultural heritage, the Anatolia news agency reported yesterday. The report, on the Ilisu Dam's effects on the region's cultural heritage, was prepared by Czech parliamentarian Ms. Vlasta Stepova.

The report states that the construction of the dam was an extremely damaging initiative and that should work continue then interest in the region's cultural heritage would diminish. It adds that funding provided by the Turkish government for archaeological research would also be reduced.

Calling for the Hasankeyf site to be officially declared a protected site, Ms. Stepova maintained in her report that the rescue operation's funding and administration should be coordinated as a whole and that more archaeologists needed to be taken on board. The report will be seen by the Commission on December 11.

The Ilisu Dam project came about in order to make better use of the River Dicle (Tigris), which provides 15 percent of Turkey's water. Once completed the dam would provide energy equivalent to 55 percent that generated by the Ataturk Dam, or 5 percent of Turkey's total electricity capacity. It would also bring largely needed employment and development to the region, which is largely populated by Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin.