Untitled Document

26 June 2002

1. "Axis of Evil’: Turkey, Israel, and United States?", Chomsky Addresses ANC Forum on US Policy in West-Central Asia.

2. "Turkey awaits news on ill premier", anyone who doubts that Turkey's fractious coalition government is held together largely by one man need only look at what has happened in Bulent Ecevit's absence.

3. "Turkey Sentences Kurdish Rebel", a Turkish court on Tuesday sentenced a senior Kurdish rebel to almost 19 years in prison for leading an armed group against the state.

4. "Turkey's squabbling coalition partners, nervous financial markets await news on premier's health", Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit was to go to the hospital Wednesday for a physical that may determine whether he stays in power.

5. "Turkish-Armenian talks could change Caucasus calculations", in signs of a possible geopolitical breakthrough in the Caucasus, Turkish, Armenian and Azerbaijani news organizations have reported secret talks between Turkey and Armenia in June.

6. “Current debates do not reflect all the Copenhagen Criteria", speaking at a conference on “Turkey’s Development Through European Union Membership” organized by the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodities Exchanges (TOBB) in Brussels yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz said that issues of the death penalty and teaching and broadcasting in mother tongues were only part of the Copenhagen criteria.

1. - Armenian National Committee of Eastern Massachusetts - "Axis of Evil’: Turkey, Israel, and United States?":

Chomsky Addresses ANC Forum on US Policy in West-Central Asia

WATERTOWN / 7 June 2002

World-renowned dissident intellectual Noam Chomsky, speaking at an Armenian community forum, analyzed and condemned repressive Turkish, Israeli, and US policies in “West-Central Asia,” likening them to the thuggish tactics of angsters using force to maintain control.

Professor Chomsky made his comments during a public forum organized by the Armenian National Committee (ANC) of Eastern Massachusetts. Titled “US Policy in West-Central Asia, Freedom of Speech, and the Kurds in Turkey,” the event was held on June 7, at the Armenian Cultural and Educational Center, in Watertown, and was attended by some 200 Armenian and non-Armenian supporters and activists. Introduction Prof. Chomsky was introduced by Armenian Weekly editor Jason Sohigian, on behalf of the ANC of Eastern Massachusetts.

The Axis of Evil

Prof. Chomsky began his talk with an overview of the region and the role of the US there. He discussed the “axis of evil” recently described by President Bush as including Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He noted that the term was inappropriate because these countries “cannot possibly be considered an ‘axis,’” in that two of them were recently at war with each other and have nothing to do with the third.

He therefore explored why these countries were selected as leading enemies. Chomsky said North Korea was chosen because it is not Muslim, so that current actions by the US wouldn’t be portrayed as a war against Islam.

Iran

In describing Iran, Chomsky began by stating that “Iran bears directly on Armenia because of their alliance in opposition to most other states of the region.” He noted that the goal of reformists in Iran was to integrate the country in the global system, but this was rejected by the US. He also said that the oil industry would like to exploit the oil reserves and take advantage of more practical pipeline routes, but this is being blocked by US policies.

Chomsky noted that this was one of the few cases where state policy is in conflict with domestic economic interests, which usually shape policy. He also noted that the policy has been pursued by successive administrations with broad congressional support, and the support of Israel and Turkey, but not Europe.

He explained that this was part of an effort in diplomacy to “maintain credibility,” so that if a country “steps out of line, they will be punished,” in order to make them an example for others. He also cited the bombing of Serbia, and the policy toward Cuba as other examples. “Iran broke the rules in 1979 when it removed itself from the US-dominated system, violated orders, and followed an independent course,” he stated.

Iraq

Chomsky highlighted the diverging views of the US military and civilian leadership on whether the US should invade Iraq, citing the opposition in the military to an attack on Iraq. The reasons cited for an invasion are Saddam Hussein’s development of weapons of mass destruction, and the use of chemical weapons against his people. “While the reasons are valid,” said Chomsky, “they are ‘transparently irrelevant’ and are a tribute of the obedience of the educated classes.”

Chomsky noted that while the indictment was correct, it ignores that Hussein did these things “with our support, which continued long past the worst crimes” he committed. He noted that the US and England continued to provide Hussein with dual-use technology for the development of weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, although he was more dangerous during that period.

Chomsky cited the real reasons for an invasion of Iraq, including the fact that it has the second-largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia, and the US would not allow such reserves to be out of their control or allow privileged access to it by rivals. He also discussed the problem of regional attitudes, or the Arab opposition to an attack on a Muslim country, and the problem of regime replacement. He explained the US interest in keeping Iran isolated and maintaining control over Iraq’s Kurdish population in the north, which is considered a threat by Turkey.

Turkey

Chomsky discussed other meanings of the phrase “axis of evil” as used in international discourse. He noted that the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram called the US, Turkey, and Israel the true axis of evil. “In Bush’s example, there is evil, but in the other case, there is an actual axis,” said Chomsky, adding that there’s plenty of evil to go around.

Turning his attention to Turkey, Chomsky acknowledged that Turkey has been a US ally since the end of World War II, has a powerful military force, was valuable for its proximity to the Soviet Union, and was the recipient of a large flow of arms from the US, which is “the measure of how close an alliance is.”

“During the Clinton years, the flow of arms was four times higher as during the entire Cold War period,” revealed Chomsky. “In 1997 alone, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than during the entire Cold War period combined.” The flow was so extreme that Turkey was the leader for the transfer of US arms, aside from Israel and Egypt.

“This flow of arms had nothing to do with the Cold War, and took place after the Cold War was winding down and ended, and increased after the Cold War through the late 1990s,” said Chomsky. He noted, however, that these were the years that the Turkish operations against the Kurds were taking place. “It began in 1994, atrocities escalated in the mid-1990s, and the flow of arms increased along with them. This is straightforward ‘state terror,’ a term borrowed from the [Turkish] Minister of Human Rights in 1994, when two million were driven from homes in southeast.”

According to Chomsky, Kurdish human rights groups in Diyarbekir estimate that by now over three million refugees have been created by the attacks. He said it was very easy to find accounts of these “barbaric atrocities” in human rights reports, and that it is estimated that 50,000 Kurds have been killed.

Chomsky called it “state terror” and even some of the worst “international terrorism” seen in the 1990s. He said that US support came not only through arms but also in the ideological realm, through silence: “Keep it all under wraps, because if people here find out about it, they are not going to permit it,” adding that an important task of the educated sector of society is to go along and make sure that people don’t know anything about what is going on. “It is extremely important not to let people know that they are participating in some of the worst atrocities of the time.” He explained that this approach has been carried out very successfully in the US, as almost nobody knows about what was going on in Turkey.

Chomsky noted that this was all going on at the same time as everyone was praising “our commitment to principles of human rights” in the late 1990s. He explained that the US and England were unwilling to tolerate atrocities near the border of NATO in Kosovo, but that worse atrocities were tolerated inside the borders of NATO. Chomsky described it as “a tribute to the discipline and submissiveness of the educated sector,” and as “another kind of contribution to the atrocities.”

Chomsky admitted that it was not completely true that nothing was said about state terror in Turkey. He said there is some discussion of it, but that Turkey “is lauded” for it. He pointed out that the annual State Department report on terrorism in 1999 singled out Turkey for its “positive experiences in countering terror.” He also indicated that this assessment was considered perfectly reasonable when reported on the front page of the New York Times. In Fletcher Forum, US Ambassador to Turkey Robert Pearson recently credited Turkey for its “positive accomplishment in countering terror” and said “the US can have no better ally in countering terrorism because of Turkey’s achievements in countering terror.” Pearson also said, “It is no surprise that Turkey should be in the lead in joining the war against terror.” Chomsky reminded the audience that Turkey was the first country to offer troops to the US after Sept. 11. He added that Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit declared that it was, as Chomsky put it, “in gratitude for proving arms for the enormous state terror operation he was conducting.”

Chomsky said that Turkey has been selected by the US and England to fight the war against terrorism. He also pointed out that operations such as those carried out by Turkey in the southeast are always called “counter-terror.” He reminded the audience that Nazi propaganda also claimed that the Nazis were protecting their populations from a terrorist threat--a reference to the various anti-Nazi resistance movements.

US-Israel Relationship

Discussing the US-Israel relationship, Chomsky stated that since 1967, “Israel has virtually become a US military base, and a significant one.

It is a small country, but it has a huge military. Its air force, tank force, and advanced technology are greater than any in NATO aside from US.” He said that it was essentially an offshore US military base, and that it performs other tasks as well throughout the world. Chomsky indicated that a major geopolitical outcome of the US war in Afghanistan was the establishment of a major US military base in Central Asia, and also in the Republic of Georgia. He said this is important for the natural resources there, but more for access to the Gulf region.

Israeli-Turkish Relationship

Chomsky noted that 12 percent of the Israeli air and tank force are now in eastern Turkey, and that they are probably operating in northern Iraq and moving toward the Iranian border. He cited this as being part of the growing conflict with the “axis of evil,” and against the local alliance of Iran and Armenia.

He explained that Turkey relies heavily on the domestic Israeli lobby in Washington for its support. Chomsky said Turkey has received $30 billion from the World Bank and the IMF in the last year alone, and that this aid depends on the pressure of the US government and the Jewish lobby in favor of Turkey. He also added that this alliance is being extended to include Azerbaijan because of the 30 million Azeris living in northern Iran, which the US would likely want dismembered as a state.

Chomsky also discussed the conflicts taking place over the control of Caspian energy resources, with Turkish, Israeli, and US forces backing Azerbaijan. “Small Armenia is caught up in the middle of all of this,” he noted. Chomsky noted that Russia was certainly able to assess the balance of forces in the region and so is behaving accordingly, at least for the moment. He described that balance as being Iran and Armenia on one side, and the US, Israel, Turkey, and Azerbaijan on the other side. He also explained that most of the conflict concerns pipeline routes from the Caspian avoiding Iran—a route that the energy companies prefer because it is more economical—and without Russia having any control, meaning that they would go through Georgia.

Trial in Turkey

Chomsky told the gathering that he was in Turkey in February for a political trial. He said because a series of his essays on US policy in the Middle East were translated into Turkish, the publisher was being charged in a military court. He noted that the essays included a few sentences taken from standard human rights reports on Turkish repression of the Kurds, which was the basis of the trial. He said that because of the television cameras from everywhere, except the US, the charges were dropped immediately because there was too much attention.

Chomsky said he was optimistic because of the courage of people in Turkey struggling against legislation restricting free expression and repressing ethnic identity. He noted that these activists have a lot of support, and that they are engaged in constant civil disobedience, which includes the publication of banned writings. He said what he saw was nothing like civil disobedience in the US, particularly because of the danger of imprisonment in Turkey. He stressed that they are constantly facing up to the danger. “If they get support from the outside, they can win,” he claimed.

After the trial, Chomsky visited the southeastern part of Turkey, which he described as “a dungeon.” He cited examples of severe repression, including the arrest of the head of a local human rights commission for using the Kurdish spelling for the word referring to New Year’s celebrations. He said people are sentenced for playing Kurdish music or wearing the colors of the Kurdish flag. He told of his surprise when during a press conference in Turkey he was presented with a Kurdish-English dictionary, which is banned, with an inscription about the desire to speak in their mother tongue. “While this may not seem like an extreme demand, it is enough for torture and imprisonment, destroying people and villages,” Chomsky commented.

He also recalled that he was taken to see the remains of an Armenian church in Diyarbekir. He said there was not much left to it, that it was just ruins with no roof and pieces falling off. He was able to meet the caretaker of the church, an elderly man, and he learned that there was supposed to be a small Armenian community, but that no one talks much about it. “That’s what’s left of this major center—another monument to Turkey’s positive experiences in countering terror,” commented Chomsky.

Prof. Chomsky concluded by acknowledging the courage of the people in southeastern Turkey, and not just the intellectuals in Istanbul. He noted that it was impressive that people continue to struggle under those conditions, and said there is no excuse for inaction from people in places where they are free and don’t face this kind of repression.

Armenian National Committee of Eastern Massachusetts, Contact: Siran Tamakian, 47 Nichols Avenue, Watertown, MA Phone: 617-926-1918 , Email:ancem@hotmail.com, www.anca.org

2. - AP - "Turkey awaits news on ill premier":

ISTANBUL / 26 June 2002 / by Ben Holland

Anyone who doubts that Turkey's fractious coalition government is held together largely by one man need only look at what has happened in Bulent Ecevit's absence. It is close to two months since Ecevit, 77, has been well enough to work properly. But while the premier recovers at home after a string of ailments, his coalition government appears equally frail. Nationalists in the government threaten to block reforms, like lifting the death penalty and granting Kurds wider rights, that are crucial for Turkey's long-term goal of European Union membership.

The political instability has financial markets hitting new lows almost daily. The lira has lost some 20 percent of its dollar value since Ecevit fell ill. On Wednesday, Ecevit has a date with the doctors at Ankara's Baskent Hospital for a comprehensive checkup. If Ecevit's doctors tell him that he is unfit to continue - a possibility no one here is ruling out - then many fear the government could fall apart, triggering elections that could bring fresh economic turmoil.

With millions already unemployed and angry after an economic crisis last year, few wish to contemplate the prospect of another sudden slump in a country that is held up by the United States as a model Muslim society - a stable democracy that supports the anti-terror campaign. Just last week, Turkish peacekeepers took command of the international force in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Ecevit has insisted he's healthy enough to stay in office, while even if he can't his coalition has a clear parliamentary majority and could survive under another leader. The question is: Who? Ecevit has failed to encourage potential successors in his Democratic Left Party, over which he and his wife Rahsan exert an iron grip. That means leading figures from within the party - such as Foreign Minister Ismail Cem and Deputy Prime Minister Husamettin Ozkan, both potential successors to Ecevit - lack a political base.

If Ecevit does leave, his largest coalition partner - the nationalist party headed by Devlet Bahceli - could demand the premiership. That would bring economic problems, as the nationalists have only grudgingly submitted to the fiscal discipline of an International Monetary Fund-backed program to rescue Turkey's economy from last year's crisis. It could also mean trouble for Turkey's EU bid. At last weekend's EU summit in Seville, Spain, Turkey's President Ahmet Necdet Sezer demanded a date for opening membership negotiations by the end of this year. But before it will grant this, the EU wants Turkey to abolish the death penalty and enact human rights reforms that would allow Turkey's estimated 12 million Kurds to teach and broadcast in their native language.

Bahceli's nationalists campaigned in the last election on a promise to hang Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan. Wider rights for Kurds could "tear the country into little pieces," Bahceli told party members at the weekend. Bahceli said last month he would rather break up the coalition than be a party to the EU reforms - comments that instantly shortened the government's expected lifespan. Elections are not due until 2004. But if early elections are required, markets fear they will undermine the IMF-backed economic plan. The delicate state of the economy and Turkey's EU membership bid are seen as the main reasons why Ecevit is so reluctant to step down. Many believe that the government will try to remain in power long enough to pass the EU reforms - if Bahceli's objections can be overcome, or opposition backing secured - and oversee an economic turnaround that would give them a better chance at the ballot box.

An early election could wipe out the coalition parties, who are likely to bear the brunt of public anger over a crisis that saw the economy shrink 9.4 percent last year amid mass layoffs. But under the leadership of the frail Ecevit, many Turks wonder if the government has the dynamism to accomplish these daunting tasks. Even Turkey's unprecedented run to the semifinals of soccer's World Cup has not entirely lightened the political and economic gloom. "If only the 2002 soccer revolution had taken place in politics as well," columnist Derya Sazak wrote in daily Milliyet. "We need a coach and a team to prepare us for the EU."

3. - AP - "Turkey Sentences Kurdish Rebel":

ANKARA / 26 June 200

A Turkish court on Tuesday sentenced a senior Kurdish rebel to almost 19 years in prison for leading an armed group against the state. Cevat Soysal was accused of ordering a 1999 Istanbul arson attack that killed 13 people, as well as a number of other attacks. Prosecutors had demanded that Soysal, once a leading member of the banned Kurdistan Workers' Party or PKK, be sentenced to death for treason. But judges sentenced him to 18 years and nine months on the lesser charge of leading an armed group.

He was expected to appeal. Soysal was captured in 1999 while in Moldova, and he reportedly admitted to training Kurdish fighters in Romania and Moldova. But he later said he signed the confession under duress. His lawyers said Turkish interrogators injected him with drugs and sprayed him with freezing water. Soysal was seized five months after Turkish commandos captured rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan in Kenya. Ocalan was sentenced to death in 1999. Ocalan is awaiting a European Court of Human Rights ruling over his appeal.

Earlier this year, the PKK changed its name to the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress, or KADEK.

KADEK said it was ending its armed struggle and would campaign peacefully for greater rights for Kurds in southeastern Turkey - but would not disband its armed wing. The Turkish government has said that all Kurdish rebels must surrender or die and has dismissed the name change as meaningless.

4. - AP - "Turkey's squabbling coalition partners, nervous financial markets await news on premier's health":

ISTANBUL / 25 June 2002 / by Ben Holland

Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit was to go to the hospital Wednesday for a physical that may determine whether he stays in power. If Ecevit's doctors tell him that he is unfit to continue - a possibility no one here is ruling out - then many fear the government could fall apart, triggering elections that could bring fresh economic turmoil. It is close to two months since Ecevit has been well enough to work properly.

But while the 77-year-old premier recovers at home after a string of ailments, his coalition government appears equally frail. Nationalists in the government threaten to block reforms, like lifting the death penalty and granting Kurds wider rights, that are crucial for Turkey's long-term goal of European Union membership.

The political instability has financial markets hitting new lows almost daily. The lira has lost some 20 percent of its dollar value since Ecevit fell ill. With millions already unemployed and angry after an economic crisis last year, few wish to contemplate the prospect of another sudden slump in a country that is held up by the United States as a model Muslim society - a stable democracy that supports the anti-terror campaign. Just last week, Turkish peacekeepers took command of the international force in Kabul, Afghanistan Ecevit has insisted he's healthy enough to stay in office, while even if he can't his coalition has a clear parliamentary majority and could survive under another leader.

The question is: Who? Ecevit has failed to encourage potential successors in his Democratic Left Party, over which he and his wife Rahsan exert an iron grip. That means leading figures from within the party - such as Foreign Minister Ismail Cem and Deputy Prime Minister Husamettin Ozkan, both potential successors to Ecevit - lack a political base.

At last weekend's EU summit in Seville, Spain, Turkey's President Ahmet Necdet Sezer demanded a date for opening membership negotiations by the end of this year. But before it will grant this, the EU wants Turkey to abolish the death penalty and enact human rights reforms that would allow Turkey's estimated 12 million Kurds to teach and broadcast in their native language.

Elections are not due until 2004. But if early elections are required, markets fear they will undermine the IMF-backed economic plan. The delicate state of the economy and Turkey's EU membership bid are seen as the main reasons why Ecevit is so reluctant to step down. Many believe that the government will try to remain in power long enough to pass the EU reforms - if Bahceli's objections can be overcome, or opposition backing secured - and oversee an economic turnaround that would give them a better chance at the ballot box.

"If only the 2002 soccer revolution had taken place in politics as well," columnist Derya Sazak wrote in daily Milliyet. "We need a coach and a team to prepare us for the EU."

5. - Eurasianet - "Turkish-Armenian talks could change Caucasus calculations":

25 June 2002 / by Mevlut Katik

In signs of a possible geopolitical breakthrough in the Caucasus, Turkish, Armenian and Azerbaijani news organizations have reported secret talks between Turkey and Armenia in June. Officials in Yerevan, the Armenian capital, have confirmed that talks have taken place. Armenia and Turkey currently have no diplomatic relations and, with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict unresolved, no open border. While those conditions will not change quickly, the fact that Armenian and Turkish officals are talking indicates a new commitment to diplomacy and reconciliation.

The three countries’ foreign ministers broached official talks during a NATO meeting in Reykjavik in mid-May [for more information, see Eurasianet Insight archive]. Senior diplomats from Armenia and Turkey met several times thereafter, laying groundwork for more intense talks at the tenth anniversary summit of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) Pact nations, which began June 24 in Istanbul. A spokesperson for the Armenian Foreign ministry, confirming the communication, said the sides had discussed issues including the opening of the border between Armenia and Turkey without preconditions and eventually establishing possible diplomatic relations. Turkey, a close ally of Azerbaijan, wants Armenian forces to withdraw from Karabakh before the border opens and any diplomatic relations are established. These sticking points may come up as Turkish Foreign Minister Ismail Cem and his Armenian counterpart, Vartan Oskanian, meet in Istanbul on June 25.

This course of events reflects Turkey’s desire to establish itself as a regional leader. The talks also came shortly after reports that Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev asserted that Baku and Yerevan had discussed a system of security corridors that could force progress in Karabakh negotiations. Aliyev, quoted in Tass on June 14, claimed that he and Armenian president Robert Kocharian had broached the idea of jointly opening transport corridors out of the disputed region during an OSCE-sponsored meeting in Paris in April 2001. In the report, Aliyev said that the sides had discussed swapping sovereign rights to two disputed corridors between the countries and the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhichivian, which also has a tiny border crossing into Turkey. Aliyev claimed the Armenians had disowned the agreement one month later, at negotiations in Key West, Florida; Kocharian denied this version of events, and opposition groups in each country criticized their leadership for missing an opportunity to establish peace. Against this background, Ankara and Yerevan - which have no explicit land disputes - began more optimistic talks.

Talks are not expected to proceed quickly. The Armenian side claimed that the Turkish side did not set any preconditions, while Turkish papers close to government sources claimed four. The four conditions Ankara reportedly set have formed the backbone of Turkey’s attitude toward Armenia since the Soviet Union's collapse. They involve Armenian claims of genocide, territorial claims in the Armenian constitution over Turkey, Armenian withdrawal from Karabakh and security swaps like the ones Aliyev claims to have pursued. This dispute raises a possibility that may trouble the Armenians: Aliyev, who is reportedly grooming his son Ilham for the presidency, would gain political cover by encouraging Turkey to negotiate with Armenia. The timing of Aliyev’s disclosure of 2001 negotiations regarding creating mutual security corridors is noteworthy in this respect.

More broadly and perhaps more importantly, Turkey would enhance its global reputation by achieving a rapprochement with Armenia. Turkey took over leadership of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in June. [For more information, see the Eurasia Insight archives]. If it plays a key role in brokering an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Turkish government can contribute to regional peace and stability. It can also improve the likelihood that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which skeptics continue to doubt will come to fruition, will attract meaningful investment. [For more information see the EurasiaNet Business and Economics archive].

Land-locked Armenia would also benefit from normalized relations with its big neighbor. The country struggles to generate trade revenue. Of course, it remains to be seen if these talks could yield any results. In a region where conflict has defined interstate communication for centuries, negotiations can stall as quickly as they begin.

Editor’s Note: Mevlut Katik is London-based journalist and analyst. He is a former BBC correspondent and also worked for The Economist group.

6. - Milliyet - “Current debates do not reflect all the Copenhagen Criteria":

26 June 2002

Speaking at a conference on “Turkey’s Development Through European Union Membership” organized by the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodities Exchanges (TOBB) in Brussels yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz said that issues of the death penalty and teaching and broadcasting in mother tongues were only part of the Copenhagen criteria.

Yilmaz added, “There are certain reasons for discussing these issues. The EU hasn’t singled out Turkey among nations in insisting that it comply with the Copenhagen criteria. Unfortunately, it’s painful for us to accept this fact. The traces and scars of terrorism, under which we suffered for many years, are still very much there. We understand the sensitivities of the state about the EU.

However, the state’s role is not to display sensitivities. The state’s role is to protect and develop the country’s best interests and the freedoms of its citizens using the yardstick of science and modern civilization.” Yilmaz added that the Copenhagen criteria weren’t limited to these much-discussed three conditions but that there many things remained to do to achieve this goal.