26 March 2002

1. - Boston Globe - "US should press Turkey on terrorism":

''It is a sign that Turkey is purged of the traitors, the Christians, and the foreigners, and that Turkey is for the Turks.''- Mustapha Kemal

25 March 2002 / by Theodore G. Karakostas

The above words belong to the founder of the supposedly secular and democratic Republic of Turkey. In truth, Mustapha Kemal put an end to the ancient cultures of the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks in Anatolia. His military ''victory'' in September 1922 led to the mass slaughter of over 100,000 Greek and 30,000 Armenian Christians in the historic city of Smyrna. In 1923, Kemal ordered the expulsions of over one million Greeks from Asia Minor.

For Greek Orthodox Christians, terms like jihad, giavhour, and infidel, which are used by modern-day mass murderers such as Osama bin Laden, are nothing new. Turkish leaders have used these words to denigrate and provoke hatred of Christians for centuries, ranging from the era of the Ottoman Empire to the recent history of the Turkish Republic, which has sponsored violent pogroms against its Greek and Armenian minorities. Although Mustapha Kemal became known for secularizing Turkey, he waged his war against civilian Greek, Armenian, and Assyrian populations in Asia Minor as a jihad.

Greek Orthodox Christians remember the atrocities of Kemal and his associates through memorials and through the martyrdom of clerics such as Archbishop Chrysostomos of Smyrna, whose dismemberment was ordered by one of Kemal's top generals. For Orthodox Christians, the demented and murderous policies of the Taliban and Al Qaeda today resemble those of Ottoman and Kemalist Turkey between 1914 and 1923.

Like Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, the Young Turks and Mustapha Kemal's nationalists celebrated the death of the innocent.

The Young Turks planned and carried out the genocide and mass extermination of more than 1.5 million Armenian Christians. As the war against terrorism evolves, Washington should finally get serious about fighting evil in all its forms and should recognize the Armenian genocide. The United States should tell Turkey that it will not allow its censorship of history to be imported to America. The United States should also recognize Turkey's extermination of the Greeks and Assyrians.

In the worldwide fight against terrorism, the United States must pressure allies who are active in promoting terror. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, spiritual center of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, is frequently bombed by terrorists in Constantinople. Turkish authorities must be pressed to stop creating a climate in which attacks on Christian institutions are encouraged. Discrimination against the patriarchate is enforced by the forcible closure of its only theological seminary.

Finally, the United States must pressure Turkey to end its sponsorship of terror and ethnic cleansing in Cyprus. Turkey's invasions of Cyprus in 1974 resulted in the forced expulsions of over 200,000 Greeks on the basis of their ethnic and religious heritage. Over 1,600 Greek Cypriots remain missing. The Turkish government, whose forces occupy the north of Cyprus, are responsible for atrocities which occur there, such as the brutal killings of several Greek Cypriot civilians during the summer of 1996.

Theodore G. Karakostas is founder of the American Byzantine Cultural Federation.

---

2. - Sabah - "Post-Saddam Period":

25 March 2002 / by Sukru Elekdag

Retired Ambassador Sukru Elekdag writes on Turkish-Iraqi relations and what may be done in case of an operation against Iraq.

Even as Turkey’s strategy towards Iraq should be focused on the post- Saddam period, we see that it is benig bogged down in dealing with issues saving the day. With this near-sighted approach, it is impossible for Turkey to defend its national interests in the post-Saddam period when the cards will be dealt anew. In fact, just like the other states in the region, Turkey has also pointed out to the US the dangers of a military operation and asked Bush to solve the feud between him and Saddam within the framework of the UN. However, if despite all warnings, the US insists on toppling Saddam, Turkey has three alternatives to choose from.

First, it may decline participate in any way in a military operation. Second, it may open up Incirlik and other bases for the use of the US and help in supplying logistical support. Third, it may not limit its contributions to the operation to bases and logistical support but actually participate in the military operation. Reportedly, both civilian and military officials are both a taking realpolitik appproach in not dwelling on the first option, but instead are in favor of limiting Turkey’s contribution in line with the second. I believe that such a line of action would create serious threats for Turkey’s national interests as a war against Saddam will lead to a natural alliance between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) led by Barzani, the Kurdistan Patriotic Union (KPU) led by Talabani and the United States. Thus, when new political restructuring and arrangements are taken up, Barzani and Talabani will have a say on the matter, and opportunities will be created for the establishment of a Kurdish state.

That is why Turkey has to take its place in the operation against Iraq to protect its vital interests and not leave the field in northern Iraq to Barzani, Talabani or other opposition leaders. However, if Turkey actively participates in an operation against Iraq, it has to reach an accord with the US on the following issues apart from the compensation of the financial losses it may suffer: In the post-Saddam period, Ankara must have a say in the new Iraqi political restructuring on constitutional arrangements and all doors for the establishment of a Kurdish state should be closed. Musul and Kirkuk, where Turkmens live, should be left in an autonomous Turkmen region and the rights and security of Turkmens should be constitutionally guaranteed on an equal basis with Arabs and Kurds. In addition, the US must be able to end Israel’s stance regarding Palestine and gather the sides around a negotiation table. Thus it will soften the opposition in the Arab world against a military operation and reduce the tension in the region. In such a climate some Arab states may participate in the operation and the problems which could emerge on Turkey’s participation as the only Muslim state will be averted.

---

3. - Turkish Daily News - "Retired Gen. Ilhan says EU membership contradicts Turkish revolution":

ANKARA / Mar 26, 2002

Retired General, Suat Ilhan, said over the weekend that Turkey had two options concerning European Union membership, stressing that Turkey could either become an EU state, or it could preserve the independent state established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Attending a panel on EU-Turkey relations organized by the Turkish States and Communities Friendship, Brotherhood and Cooperation Foundation, Ilhan said that EU membership was against Turkish history and contradicted the revolution based on Kemalist principles, which is significant in terms of reflecting a military official's views on the EU.

Ilhan claimed not enough was known about what the EU would bring to Turkey. According to Ilhan, decisions were being made in line with individual political preferences and Turkey had entered a path without the public's knowledge. "The constitution has been breached. The decisions are not legitimate," he added.

Emphasizing that Europe is no longer the 'gorgeous Europe' of the 19th and 20th centuries, Ilhan said that Europe was losing all of its strategic resources, adding that they were trying to form a union to combat this concern. He added that they were lacking a market, raw materials and a cheap workforce.

Ilhan said that Turkey had two options, based on geopolitics rather than on foreign policy. "Turkey will either be a state of the EU or preserve the independent sovereign nation state founded by Ataturk. We have to make one of these decisions," he added.

Touching on National Security council (MGK) Secretary General Gen. Tuncer Kilinc's statements, Ilhan noted that people had ridiculed the Iran alternative, but that a country's geographical structure and position, strategic resources and the motivation of its people should be considered in external relations. He stressed that today's managers would change, and that Turkey should determine its path according to these factors.

---

4. - The Times - "British hint of peaceful solution to Iraq crisis":

26 March 2002 / by Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor

US PLANS for military action against President Saddam Hussein of Iraq suffered a setback yesterday after Baghdad launched a diplomatic charm offensive and Britain appeared to offer the Iraqi regime a peaceful way out of the present crisis.

As leaders gathered in Beirut for the Arab League summit this week, Iraqi ministers were making a huge effort to court the Arab world, including appearing ready to recognise Kuwait’s sovereignty.

Much of the groundwork had already been laid by Izzat Ibrahim, the Iraqi Vice- President, who toured Arab capitals last week shoring up Baghdad’s position and will represent Saddam when the summit opens tomorrow.

Naji Sabri, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, built on the success when he held what were described as “constructive” talks with his Kuwaiti counterpart, Sheikh Mohammed al-Sabah. The Iraqis are preparing a document that would recognise Kuwait’s “security and independence” for the first time since they invaded the Gulf emirate and annexed it as their “19th province” in August 1990.

“There were no harsh exchanges between the two countries as is sometimes the case in this sort of meeting,” one delegate said. The Iraqi move was in contrast to the Arab summit last year in Amman when Muhammad Said Sahhaf, then the Foreign Minister, opposed peace moves with Kuwait.

Mr Sabri, his more urbane successor, was ordered to rebuild relations with the Arab world. Next month he is also due to meet Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, to discuss the possible return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. The warming of ties with Kuwait and the UN coincided with growing divisions within the Cabinet in Britain over how to act against Saddam.

Yesterday Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, hinted broadly that he wanted to avoid further confrontation with Baghdad, describing himself as “full square with the reasonable people within the international community”.

Speaking at the Foreign Policy Centre, he insisted that Britain had “to stand up to bullies like Saddam” and “not leave these problems to the next generation to sort out”. However, he suggested that if Iraq allowed UN weapons inspectors into the country, then the present crisis would end.

“If, as the Iraqis sometimes claim, they are not developing weapons of mass destruction, let them readmit weapons inspectors,” he said.

“If they are able to give Iraq a clean bill of health then the problem, in many respects, will dissolve.”

The remarks were in sharp contrast to more hawkish statements by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, who has aligned himself more closely with the hawks in the Pentagon who advocate “regime change” in Baghdad. However, preparations for possible military action aimed at removing Saddam from power were further complicated yesterday. The main Iraqi opposition group said that it did not expect to be in the forefront of any military operations against Baghdad.

Sharif Ali, the spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress (INC), said that his umbrella organisation would play only a secondary role and that any military assault would have to be “overwhelmingly American”.

“We have only lightly armed forces. We do not have armour or artillery,” he said. “If Saddam is going to be removed we will play a part. But the real operation will have to be conducted by the Americans.”

The remarks seemed to discount hopes of using the Iraqi opposition like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, which conducted the bulk of the ground operations and was backed by US air power and small numbers of special forces troops on the ground.

Part of the problem facing the Iraqi opposition comes from its own Kurdish members. Kurds in northern Iraq live in a self-ruled mini-state protected by American and British aircraft and largely free to run their own affairs. A post-Saddam government, whether led by the majority Shia Muslim community or the dominant Sunni Muslims, would almost certainly want to reintegrate the Kurdish regions into the country. “We need assurances from the US about what a future Iraq will look like before we remove this regime,” a senior Iraqi Kurdish source said.

---

5. - Milliyet - "Long and winding tale":

Columnist Hasan Cemal writes on the supposed ban on Kurdish

26 March 2002 / by Hasan Cemal

There is freedom to publish a Kurdish newspaper in Turkey as long as you abide by the rules. One can also publish magazines and books in Kurdish and release audiocasettes in Kurdish. There is freedom to do all of this so long as you comply with the laws. You can find all of them being sold on the stands and stores and buy them. In other words newspapers, magazines, books and audiocasettes in Kurdish are all freely sold and bought.

Only radio and TV broadcasts in Kurdish are banned, in addition to teaching or learning Kurdish. No one can set up a course to teach Kurdish. These bans have existed all along. However, in practice Kurdish TV exists, and what’s more these are TV broadcasts of the PKK. Med-TV, the PKK terrorist organization’s station can reach a wide audience of its followers in the Southeast through satellite antennas. PKK propaganda is being followed right from the horse’s mouth and Kurdish is being taught. But the ban in the country has not been lifted.

The view is that if Kurdish is taught or Kurdish broadcasts are allowed, the state would have done what the PKK asked for. ‘What’s more, the spread of the Kurdish language aids the separatist movement and the threat to division will grow more than ever.’ If these rules are there to prevent such developments, they are being broken, as Kurdish TV is watched and Kurdish is taught in Turkey. PKK television is not the only institution acting in spite of this ban. There are other Kurdish channels broadcasting from northern Iraq, Armenia and Europe. Let’s also not forget that, there are serious studies being conducted to standardize and improve the Kurdish language in many centres abroad, including many European capitals.

What do the bans in Turkey accomplish? Don’t these bans help those serving the cause of separatism and Kurdish nationalism? Now that PKK has been weakened and Ocalan imprisoned, isn’t it time to lift these bans? If these bans together with capital punishment obstruct Turkey’s road to Europe, will the separatist threat directed towards the country grow or fade? Will holding onto these bans facilitate the work of those in the EU trying to puts obstacles in Turkey’s way by applying embarrassing double standards regarding terrorism and politicizing the PKK, or not? Bans may backfire. It is time to think calmly.

I believe Turkey must lift these bans, taking the French model as an example. France is a unitary state with French as the official language of education. The first year of our National Programme presented to the EU ended yesterday. That is to say, the time for short-term goals is up, the calendar for the medium-term goals has been set in motion. Time is passing. We hope Turkey doesn’t miss its date with history as in the 1970s.

---

6. - Turkish Daily News - "If the EU is acting like a school principal, we are being oversensitive":
.
26 March 2002 / by Mehmet Ali Birand

The illness is spreading. The EU and Turkey are not on the same wavelength. What we call white, they call black. The EU countries fail to prepare their public on the Turkey issue. And Turkey does not seem eager to adapt itself.

A veritable dialogue of the deaf is taking place between Turkey and the European Union. These relations seem to suffer from a serious "wrong approach" problem. We are telling one another exactly what we should not be saying. Wherever we should be seeking a compromise, we opt for a confrontation. Whenever we want to hear nice words, we step on one another's toes.

The EU does not take into consideration Turkey's sensitivities. And Turkey does not take the EU principles seriously.

In a two-part series of articles, I want to draw your attention to this dangerous process.

EU continues to act like a school principal

The EU has always viewed Turkey in a certain way.

Generally speaking, Turkey does not fit into their concepts, such as in democracy and human rights. The EU public -- including the Parliaments, media and nongovernmental organizations -- see Turkey as a country who has a fight with all its neighbors, a country with a military kind of approach to issues and too nationalistic even to the point of being racist, an etatist country with a "centralized" administration, a country where freedoms are restricted and those who cross any boundary set by the state get punished by the severe laws and the police-military force."

This impression is one gained over many years. Not only historical prejudices and the campaigns launched by anti-Turkish circles, but also certain policies deliberately conducted by Ankara have played an important part in the creation of such an impression.

Unfortunately, Europe has failed to understand that Turkey has shed its "shell" for a new layer of skin, especially since 2000 after the political Islamist movement was stemmed, Ocalan was arrested, the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) lay down its arms, and Hizbullah was dispersed.

With the end of the PKK and Hizbullah terror, society breathed a sigh of relief. Democratic steps have been taken. Significant reforms have been made. Unfortunately, all these have not been brought adequately to the attention of the general public in the EU.

As a result, the EU maintained its old, traditional stance. It continued to believe that Turkey could be made to accept things only by putting pressure on it. Unfortunately, as a country, we have contributed greatly to the survival of that belief.

In other words, acting with the air of a school principal, the EU kept telling Turkey to do this and to do that. Especially when speaking in public, the EU side failed to take care, using the kind of language one uses in issuing instructions.

The European Parliament decisions constitute ample and clearest examples of this kind of attitude. The national Parliaments too adopted that kind of attitude along with the commentators in the media.

Let us leave aside the media, the nongovernmental organizations and the individual parliamentarians. They are independent. They can speak any way they like. Let us say that this cannot be prevented.

What about certain EU people with official titles?

How are we to interpret their statements?

The Turkish society is too touchy as a rule. I accept that. What I cannot see is the logic behind what seems to be a special effort to step on the toes of such oversensitive people.

If there has been a hidden agenda, if the aim is to become unpopular in Turkey, to trigger public indignation and thus damage the EU-Turkey relations and dampen the Turkish people's enthusiasm to join the EU, then, well done! I can say that this "strategy" has been successfully carried out.

EU countries acting in a disgraceful manner

After giving Turkey the candidate status at their Helsinki summit, the EU countries have carefully ignored Turkey -- either to correct the mistake (!) they had made, or to delay any progress on this issue. It is as if they had accidentally took the Helsinki decision and are too embarrassed to explain that to their own public. Knowing that supporting Turkey or being overtly close to Turkey would cause them to lose votes -- or, to say the least, would go against the wishes of the public in their own countries -- some of these governments have opted for projecting the "We are giving Turkey a good beating to make it toe the line" kind of image. Some other EU governments lay low. They prefer not to speak up at all.

Not even a single one of the EU countries has properly prepared its own public for a potential Turkish accession. The public in those countries continues to have a negative reaction to the "Turkish" element in general.

Not even a single country has come up and told its people, "Turkey has the right to become a full member."

They are yet to take any step that would help remove the prejudices harbored against a big, populous, Muslim country. They have not moved to break these chains.

In this respect, they have acted in a disgraceful manner.

Are we any different?

So, the EU approach to Turkey leaves much to be desired. But this does not mean that our way of looking at them, our approach to them, or the language we use when dealing with them, are any better. We are saying that they are not fulfilling their part of the bargain. But are we fulfilling our own part?

They accuse us of being barbaric, of acting in a militant manner, of failing to comply with the universal standards of democracy and human rights.

And we accuse them of being insincere and self-centered, and of having double-standards.

They fail to prepare their own public, and we incite our own public against them.

Today I described the EU face of the coin. Tomorrow I will describe the Turkey face of the coin.

And I will ask you to draw your own conclusions.