20
February 2003
2. "Turkey demands pledges in writing", Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan said on Thursday his country would not open its bases to U.S. troops unless Washington guarantees economic aid and Turkey's role in any Iraq war in writing.
3. "Turks make issue of new Cyprus chief", Turkey charged that the new Greek-Cypriot leader elected on Sunday was burdened by his past as a fighter for the island’s independence.
4. "Kurds betrayed again", when they give out the prize for the unluckiest ethnic group of the 20th century, the Kurds will surely be in the running.
5. "The Turkish military and northern Iraq", military aspects of any Turkish incursion into northern Iraq and political aspects of northern Iraq's future are the significant sticking points that separate the US and Turkey.
6. "US concern as Iranian-backed troops enter Iraq", Iranian-backed Iraqi opposition forces have crossed into northern Iraq from Iran with the aim of securing the frontier in the event of war, according to senior Iranian officials.
1. - Kurdish Observer - "Ocalan demands urgent meeting with his lawyers":
19 February 2003
The European Committee for Preventing Torture (CPT) delegation stated after meeting with KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan in Imrali that he demanded to see his lawyers and family members urgently.KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan's lawyers who had not been able to see their clients for nearly 12 weeks met with the members of a delegation sent by the European Committee for Preventing Torture (CPT) who had gone to Imrali by a military helicopter and met with Ocalan.
MHA/FRANKFURT
KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan’s lawyers who had not been able to see their clients for nearly 12 weeks met with the members of a delegation sent by the European Committee for Preventing Torture (CPT) who had gone to Imrali by a military helicopter and met with Ocalan. Lawyer Aysel Tugluk talked to MHA on the meeting. Tugluk said that the delegation members had not made a detailed statement on their meeting with Ocalan justifying it as “confidentiality principle”. “The members of the delegation said, ‘Ocalan requested a number of things but his first demand was to be allowed to see his lawyers as soon as possible’,” said Tugluk.
The lawyer mentioned that as far as the delegation was concerned the most important point was the transportation means. “They asked us about the boat ‘Imrali 9’ and whether we previously used the boat ‘Imrali-10’. We said that Imrali-9 was technically inadequate, old and not sturdy and transportation had numerous serious risks, on the other hand Imrali-10 was technically more developed and capable of meeting the needs. The delegation asked which offices we had applied to and with what demands, and we replied saying that we had applied to all offices related with the matter.”
Lack of meetings is a political decision
Tugluk pointed out that they had related that even there were no bad weather conditions they were not allowed to see their clients and also related their opinion that the lack of meetings was a political decision. The lawyer said that lack of any steps taken towards a solution was a sign of it, adding the following: “Otherwise they would take a step to solve the problem. But they did not take any step though we applied several times. The fact that although we were informed of the suitable weathers by meteorology sources we were not allowed to go to the island increased our suspicions.”
The delegation reportedly asked the result of their efforts to change the day of visit. Tugluk said the following: “They have emphasised that because of other activities of General Directorate of Prisons they can not change the existing pattern and there can be no visits at the other days of the week, we related this to the delegation members. They have said that more than one boat docking to the quay is risky and they have to take security measures for the lawyers. But we stressed during the meeting that all of these were only pretences and we considered them usurping of legal rights.”
Justifications are not convincing
Tugluk related the information given to the delegation as follows: “There are three cases pending. We must enjoy our right to defence effectively. And the family members also have the legal right to see him. Its solution is possible. They say that there cannot be more than one boat docked at the quay but we have seen more than one. Moreover, there are no any extraordinary security measures taken for us, almost 10 minutes are necessary to complete the procedure. We stressed that these justifications were not convincing and see them as rights violations and a political stance.”
His right to communication is usurped
Another point dealt with the CPT delegation was whether KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan enjoyed his right to communication and whether he sent and received letters. Tugluk said that they had pointed out that they had not been able to enjoy a healthy communication with their clients for four years: “The minutes taken during the meeting may not be given back us at the end of the meeting. We do not have the right to take even a law book, an article of a law. We are searched meticulously, everything on our persons are taken, therefore our communication is limited by being only verbal. Mr Ocalan has written some petitions but they were not given us as they were considered ‘unsuitable’ by the authorities. That is his right to communication and writing petition is also limited.”
The delegation reportedly asked whether the lawyers had called their client by telephone and if not whether they had taken any action on the matter. Tugluk said that they had given the following information: “We communicate the matter to prosecution offices and the Ministry of Justice after being not able to see our client every week. These include the demand telephone calls. But we have not yet received a positive reply. We have sent telegraphs but not been yet received any reply. We have stressed to the delegation that he had been in solitary confinement not only for 11 weeks but since September.”
The delegation will submit their report including their recommendations
to the Turkish government and the European Council. Turkey should
take the recommendations into considerations and make the necessary
changes. In case that Turkey does not comply with them, there will
be sanctions like condemnation, warning and even expel.
2. - CNN - "Turkey demands pledges in writing":
Response to Washington's 48-hour deadline
ANKARA / 20 February 2003
Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan said on Thursday his country would not open its bases to U.S. troops unless Washington guarantees economic aid and Turkey's role in any Iraq war in writing.
On Wednesday Washington said it had made its final offer of economic aid in exchange for securing access to Turkish bases in a possible invasion of Iraq -- $6 billion in grants and up to $20 in loans. It gave Ankara just 48 hours to respond.
If the U.S. did not get an answer, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, it would have to move ahead on an alternative basing arrangement. Ships carrying equipment for a U.S. infantry division are already at sea off the Turkish coast.
NATO ally Turkey has dragged its feet on a parliamentary vote to allow up to 40,000 U.S. troops to station on its soil, frustrating U.S. officials and throwing into doubt U.S. plans to launch a secondary northern front against Iraq, which it says would shorten any war.
"This will not happen without a signature," Erdogan told Yeni Safak newspaper, an Islamist-leaning publication. "We don't have a date in mind. Only when we reach agreement will we send the request to parliament."
Turkey argues that it lost out heavily after the 1991 Gulf War in financial terms and had insufficient say in the new order constituted in the area, especially northern Iraq. It also fears Kurds in the region could use the turmoil of war to try to set up an independent state.
CNN's Jane Arraf says that it is a difficult dilemma for Turkey's new government, Arraf says, with significant risks for Turkey's leaders whichever way they decide.
"If they refuse, they anger an ally that gives them economic and political support and could lose some of their input into a post-war Iraq.
"If they agree, they anger their own population. Turkey is western-oriented but almost exclusively Muslim and overwhelmingly against a war."
At a Pentagon news conference Wednesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he expected Turkish cooperation in the end.
"I suspect that in one way or another -- a variety of ways probably -- they'll end up cooperating in the event that force has to be used in Iraq, he said.
Turkey wants a formal assurance the U.S. Congress will act quickly to release financial aid, Erdogan said.
"They talk about two months when asked how long such a decision could take in Congress," he said. "It's not clear what will happen in two months, Congress could make a negative or positive decision."
But Erdogan said fears of social upheaval and instability in the region outweighed Turkey's concerns over whether its crisis-hit economy could withstand the shock of an Iraq war.
"It's ridiculous to call this bargaining for dollars. The political and military dimensions are far more important, the economic dimension comes after these," Erdogan said.
Prime Minister Abdullah Gul was due to meet Chief of General Staff General Hilmi Ozkok and President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who argued this week that no parliamentary vote on U.S. troops was possible under the constitution without a second vote in the United Nations authorising use of force against Iraq.
A war next door could stir unrest in Turkey's impoverished mainly Kurdish southeast, scene of a separatist conflict that has killed 30,000 people since 1984. The region borders semi-autonomous northern Iraq, administered by Iraqi Kurds since the end of the 1991 Gulf War.
The Turkish military wants to send thousands of troops into the enclave to stem a potential refugee flow and to block any attempts by Iraqi Kurds to establish an independent state out of the turmoil of war.
Erdogan led the Justice and Development Party, which traces its roots to two banned Islamist parties, to an overwhelming victory in a November parliamentary election. He was barred from contesting the race because of a previous conviction for inciting religious hatred. He says his party is a conservative, secular group that is pro-Western.
Erdogan's deputy Abdullah Gul serves as prime minister, but a March by-election in which Erdogan plans to run could pave the way for him to take over the top job.
Other options for getting U.S. troops and equipment into Iraq include bringing them overland from southern Iraq or flying them into a Kurd-controlled air base in northern Iraq.
On Wednesday NATO finally approved the deployment of radar planes,
Patriot missile systems, and biochemical units to defend Turkey in
the event of a war against Iraq after opposition from France, Germany
and Belgium
3. - Kathimerini - "Turks make issue of new Cyprus chief":
Ankara notes EOKA ‘baggage’
ATHENS / 20 February 2003
As Cyprus’s president-elect, Tassos Papadopoulos, met twice yesterday with UN envoy Alvaro de Soto to be briefed on talks aimed at ending the island’s division, Turkey charged that the Greek-Cypriot leader elected on Sunday was burdened by his past as a fighter for the island’s independence.
Turkish-Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash also commented on a reporter’s question that in 1967 Papadopoulos had called for his death, saying that he could still meet with him. “Everything happens in politics,” the Anatolia news agency quoted Denktash as saying. “I think he will say: ‘God took pity on you, so I did not get you killed. I did a good thing in not murdering you.’”
Denktash added: “We are obliged to meet with the leader of the Greek-Cypriot side, whoever he is, for the interests of our people and for the solution of the Cyprus question. To this end, there is not any meaning in saying bad things about him and souring relations. He knows what he did. We know what he did. However, there is no meaning in focusing on those.”
Papadopoulos, a London-trained lawyer, was a member of the island’s first Cabinet in 1959 and was a political leader in the Greek-Cypriot EOKA underground organization that fought Britain for independence.
He has denied being an anti-Turkish hardliner, something that his political opponents accused him of before his election.
In Ankara, Foreign Ministry spokesman Yusuf Buluc said Papadopoulos was not an unknown. “On the contrary, he brings with him the fairly heavy baggage of his having supported EOKA.” Anatolia said that Foreign Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal had warned de Soto of Papadopoulos’s past in a meeting on Monday. De Soto replied that Papadopoulos said he would continue negotiations within the framework of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s plan.
Annan is to visit Ankara on Sunday before coming to Athens on Monday.
He will go to Cyprus on Wednesday to push for a deal by the Feb. 28
deadline. “No one can force me to sign anything,” Denktash
repeated yesterday. Greek, Cypriot and Turkish officials have expressed
doubt that agreement will be reached by deadline.
4. - The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, MA)- "Kurds betrayed again":
20 February 2003
When they give out the prize for the unluckiest ethnic group of the 20th century, the Kurds will surely be in the running. They lost out in their bid for nationhood in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, and so were split up between Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran, a minority in each place to be oppressed by their enemies and manipulated by the great powers. The gassing of 5,000 Kurdish civilians by Iraqi troops at Halabja on March 16, 1988, at a time when Iraq was an ally of the United States, is the worst episode in a century-long cavalcade of horrors.
For the Kurds of northern Iraq, who represent about a quarter of that country's population, the last 12 years have been some of the best in their history. The United States and Britain have atoned for their post-Gulf War betrayal, when they encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein and then let them be slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands, by evicting Iraqi military forces from the northern third of Iraq. For the first time in their history, the Kurds have been able to govern themselves and they've made the most of the opportunity, building schools and civic institutions that allow people more freedom than just about anywhere else in the Middle East.
But now the United States appears ready to betray the Kurds again, this time to their ancestral enemies, the Turks, in return for Turkish support in opening a northern front against Iraq. Turkey brutally crushed a bid by its own substantial Kurdish minority for autonomy, and is adamantly opposed to any Kurdish state anywhere, so it's understandable that the Iraqi Kurds are wary of seeing Turkish troops enter their territory to bring "humanitarian relief," in the wake of a U.S. invasion.
It's an abrupt turnabout for Washington, which until recently had treated the Kurds as major players in a rebuilt Iraq. Indeed, journalists who visit northern Iraq report that these people overwhelmingly favor a U.S. invasion to remove Saddam Hussein from power, despite the near certainty that they will again be targets for genocide. They are dying to be our allies, despite the fact that their best interest may lie in the continuation of the power vacuum that gives them de facto autonomy.
The administration's policy (or lack thereof, it's hard to tell)
toward the Kurds is not only morally bankrupt, it is dangerous. The
Kurds have roughly 100,000 men under arms. If they are not our allies,
they are a problem. So far, their demands have been modest -- self
determination within a reconstructed Iraq. But they are unlikely to
give up their little country to the Turks without a fight. Suppose
they decide to take the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and declare it the
capital of an independent Kurdistan, rallying Kurdish minorities across
the region to their cause? It would serve us right, the way we treat
them. This betrayal of their aspirations for self-determination undermines
talk about this coming war being about freedom and democracy.
5. - The Asia Times (Hongkong)- "The Turkish military and northern Iraq":
HONGKONG / 20 February 2003
by Robert M Cutler
Press reports have indicated that what separates the United States and Turkey in their negotiations is the size and nature of the economic package wanted by Ankara. This is partly true, but it is not the whole story, and not even necessarily the most important part of the story. Military aspects of any Turkish incursion into northern Iraq and political aspects of northern Iraq's future are, rather, the more significant sticking points. Before discussing the latter, it is nevertheless useful background to review how the level of the economic package has recently increased.
Ten days ago the first press reports appearing in American sources mentioned a size of US$15 billion for the economic package. This figure increased to $20 billion before Turkish politicians declared even this insufficient on the weekend and postponed the planned February 18 parliamentary vote on the presence of American soldiers on Turkish soil to prepare for the invasion of northern Iraq. Following intensive negotiations by the two sides at the highest levels, the figure next quoted in the press was $26 billion. This number was qualified as the final American offer.
But even agreement on a number would not be enough to seal a deal, for the composition of the package is also disputed. The US is offering direct grants of about $6 billion, with the remainder composed of loans and trade concessions. However, Western diplomats in Ankara are quoted as saying that Turkey is seeking $10 billion in grants, $15 billion in credits and loans, and nearly $7 billion more in forgiveness of military debts. (Reported figures that approach $50 billion probably include the value of Turkish participation in postwar reconstruction projects in Iraq.) The subtext of statements by Turkish government leaders indicates that Ankara may not consider the deal sealed until it is voted by the US Congress, which must approve it for the agreement to be legally binding on the executive branch. But settling the economic package may be the easy part.
Likewise 10 days ago, there were reports of a tacit US-Turkish-Kurdish agreement that would permit between 10,000 and 20,000 Turkish troops to enter northern Iraq, ostensibly to secure a strip of Iraqi territory shadowing the border, so preventing (nonexistent) Kurdish pretensions to political independence in northern Iraq from bearing fruit. In fact, the purpose of this deployment would have been to hunt down armed PKK remnants that withdrew into northern Iraq when the PKK dissolved itself in the late 1990s and then re-formed itself as KADEK, focusing on social action in Turkey rather than armed struggle.
According to that tacit agreement, American troops would march on Mosul and Kirkuk, and Turkish and Kurdish elements would agree not to attempt to enter the cities, while the Turks would reserve the right to do so if the Kurds did. This agreement was indeed so tacit that a three-way meeting presided over in Turkey by Zalmay Khalilzad, President George W Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition, broke up without manifest agreement, and with the Americans reduced to warning both other parties simply to stay away from the two cities concerned. Relations between the Turkish authorities and the Iraqi Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) have progressively worsened since then, while Washington's positive rapport with the KDP has created a bone of conflict with Ankara.
The first figure circulated in reports - of 10,000 to 20,000 Turkish troops in northern Iraq - became inflated to 38,000 in later reports last week. This is about the same as the number of American soldiers projected to occupy northern Iraq. Thirty-eight thousand Turkish soldiers would be enough to restrict severely, if not eliminate, the autonomy of action of the Iraqi-Kurdish KDP headquarters in Irbil. As the economic deal faltered, press reports in Turkey alluded to plans by the country's military general staff to put in fact twice that number of Turkish soldiers - a full 76,000 - into northern Iraq, from where they would march literally halfway to Baghdad.
This number of Turkish troops could exert significant political and strategic pressure on all the major cities in the KDP canton: not only Irbil (as well as Dohuk) but also the area around Mosul - the nominal capital of Iraqi Kurdistan under the joint KDP-PUK regime in the 1990s - not to mention a major segment of the pipeline taking oil from Kirkuk to Turkey's port at Ceyhan. And still the dimension and extent of Turkey's military deployment in northern Iraq is not the last sticking point.
The Turkish press has in the past few days given acute voice to the indignation felt by Turkish military staff over apparent American insistence, or perhaps naive assumptions, that Turkish troops in northern Iraq would be under US command. Perhaps in response to this, hints were made as recently as Tuesday in Ankara that Turkish troops could enter northern Iraq with their own battle plan and their own military objectives. Part of this misunderstanding between the two sides may have been an initial American assumption that the US-Turkish campaign in northern Iraq would have a NATO aegis, creating the possibility for American command leadership of Turkish troops. But the Turks were not pleased by this assumption, which outlived NATO unity over military assistance to Turkey.
As of late Tuesday, Andalou Press Agency reported that the US and Turkey had "made progress in political aspects of negotiations and they partially reached an agreement on [the] 'command' issue". This may involve allowing Turkish troops a privileged place in Kirkuk, where Ankara claims special concern with the Turkmen in the city, or even Mosul itself, but more probably Irbil. (Irbil and Kirkuk are by population the two major Turkmen cities in Iraq.) This was not to be a reversal of the original Turkish-Kurdish understanding over the mutual non-intervention agreement, brokered by the US but which fell apart at the meeting presided by Khalilzad. That is because Kirkuk would be in the canton of northern Iraq controlled by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which - in contrast with the KDP - has had very good relations with Turkey ever since dropping support for the PKK some years back.
And yet the final outcome is still undetermined. American troop ships will arrive in the region before too long, and they will have to know by then where to go when they get there. The Pentagon has an undivulged date by which they must know whether Turkey is available as a staging-area/launching-pad, and on which date they will have to begin implementing backup plans if it is unavailable: which still would not mean that Turkey would not intervene unilaterally in northern Iraq. Even if some sort of joint US-Turkish command were established - which is far from being certain - nothing prevents the Turkish military from pursuing its own objectives in northern Iraq. Indeed, this is to be expected and has regularly been declared by both military and political leaders in Ankara. It may be expected, further, that regardless of any cooperation between the two sides, actual Turkish war goals in Iraq will be made no more transparent to the Americans, than the Americans have made their own war planning to the Turks.
It remains to be seen at what point the national interests of Turkey and the United States may diverge in practice, not only tactically on the ground but also strategically in the political aftermath of the war. The first evident conflict regarding the latter will come when the Turks will push for the Iraqi Turkmen to be given a prominent role in a post-Saddam Iraqi government, whereas the Turkmen have been marginalized in the planning by Iraqi exiles and expatriates as well as by the American sponsors of the latter. That is when the military situation on the ground in northern Iraq after the end of hostilities will first show its political significance for Baghdad.
Dr Robert M Cutler is Research Fellow, Institute of European and
Russian Studies, Carleton University, Canada, http://www.robertcutler.org
6. - The Financial Times - "US concern as Iranian-backed troops enter Iraq":
WASHINGTON / February 19, 2003
by Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran and Guy Dinmor
Iranian-backed Iraqi opposition forces have crossed into northern Iraq from Iran with the aim of securing the frontier in the event of war, according to senior Iranian officials.
The forces, numbering up to 5,000 troops, with some heavy equipment, are nominally under the command of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, a prominent Iraqi Shia Muslim opposition leader who has been based in Iran since 1980 and lives in Tehran.
A US State Department official said he was aware of reports that part of Ayatollah Hakim's Badr brigade had crossed into northern Iraq but declined further comment. Analysts close to the administration of President George W. Bush said the US was concerned about the intentions of this new element in an increasingly complicated patchwork of forces in northern Iraq.
Turkey has long had a limited military presence in northern Iraq, and US special forces began moving into the region several months ago. The Badr brigade has been trained and equipped by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and could be regarded as a proxy force of the Iranian government.
Iranian officials insist the force's role in the north is defensive but its presence will exacerbate the concerns of the US and especially the Arab world that military intervention in Iraq will lead to a permanent disintegration of the country. Through inserting a proxy force, Iran is underlining that it cannot be ignored in future discussions over Iraq's make-up.
Ayatollah Hakim's forces had previously been based in southern Iran, close to Iraq. Two months ago they began moving into the area of northern Iraq governed by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), one of two Kurdish parties that rule an area the size of Switzerland outside Baghdad's control.
A senior Iranian official said the presence of Ayatollah Hakim's
troops was defensive and aimed at countering a possible attack on
Iran by the People's Mujahideen Organisation (MKO), an Iranian opposition
group based in Iraq and strongly supported by Saddam Hussein.