Iraq: A perplexing
predicament By K Gajendra Singh
Finally, after ignoring the United Nations and
diminishing it before the illegal invasion of Iraq in
March last year, the United States, faced with the
prospect of the unraveling of its ill-planned project in
Iraq and the Greater Middle East, has turned to the
world body to give its occupation some sense of
legality. In the end, the UN Security Council's members
obviously acknowledged that the strategic implications
of a substantial US failure in Iraq were too serious
even to contemplate.
On Tuesday, the council
approved 15-0 a resolution that endorses the handover of
sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government on June 30.
The resolution also authorizes a US-led multinational
force to maintain security in the country. The vote
followed intense negotiations in which the US and
British sponsors of the resolution agreed to add
language that stresses a US-Iraq "security partnership".
Four of the five veto-wielding members of the
Security Council, representing a 1940s international
political and military balance, are Christian powers but
have large Muslim minority populations (France, Russia,
the United Kingdom and the United States). Even the
fifth permanent member with veto powers, China, has
problems in its Xinjiang autonomous region with its
Turkic-speaking Muslim Uighur majority.
"Stabilization of Iraq" and "pacification" of
its aroused population are in everyone's interest. US
President George W Bush, who is tailoring Iraqi
developments to fit in with his schedule for re-election
in November, is moving closer to being able to tell the
electorate that Iraqis are now their own masters and
that the "mission" has been accomplished.
The
US, Turkey and Israel triangle As with France and
Germany, the US policy of unilateralism, especially over
Iraq, has caused many ups and downs in Washington's
relations with its Cold War ally Turkey, reaching a
point of almost rupture at the time of the invasion last
year when Ankara refused to allow US troops use of its
land for strikes into Iraq.
But with both sides
needing each other, they have moved closer once again,
albeit in fits and starts. The US is wooing "safe bet"
Turkey as a stable and strategically located neighbor to
Iraq.
However, Turkey's pro-Islamist government
has been forced repeatedly and openly to criticize
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's policies (backed
by the US) against Palestinians, despite the fact that
Turkey has an almost ally-like relationship with Israel.
This puts pressure on US-Turkey ties.
Turkey's
policy options are not easy. It has strong diplomatic,
economic and military ties with Israel - it did not
break relations either after the 1967 or 1973 Middle
East wars. But Turkey, with its 99% Muslim population,
traditionally supports Palestinian aspirations for
statehood, and Israel's crackdown in Gaza angered it.
Even Israel's justice minister, Tommy Lapid, the
only Holocaust survivor in the government, told a weekly
cabinet meeting that the Gaza house demolitions were
inhumane. He said television images of an old woman
picking through rubble for medicine reminded him of his
grandmother, who was killed by the Nazis. "The
demolition of houses in Rafah must stop," he said. "It
is not humane, not Jewish, and causes us grave damage in
the world. At the end of the day, they'll kick us out of
the United Nations, try those responsible in the
international court in The Hague, and no one will want
to speak to us."
His cabinet colleagues reacted
furiously to the apparent comparison to Nazi war crimes.
Sharon asked for a retraction, so Lapid clarified that
his comments were misunderstood: "I'm not referring to
the Germans. I'm not referring to the Holocaust. When
you see an old woman, you think of your grandmother," he
said.
Peter Hansen, head of the UN agency for
Palestinian refugees, called the destruction in Gaza
"completely unacceptable". The Israeli human-rights
group B'Tselem said 62 homes had been wrecked in
al-Brazil and neighboring al-Salam during the two days
the military occupied the area, contradicting army
claims to have destroyed only a handful. About 1,600
Palestinians have been left homeless.
After a
spate of media reports and interviews in which Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan criticized Israel's
military drive into Palestinian territories, the Israeli
Foreign Ministry expressed "deep regret" over Erdogan's
remarks and said Israel expected Turkey, a country that
suffered from terrorism, to show more understanding.
The Turkish media reported that the Israeli
Foreign Ministry had conveyed an ultimatum to the
Turkish ambassador in Israel to be passed on to Ankara.
But the Turkish Foreign Ministry in Ankara denied any
ultimatum and clarified on June 2 that its policy toward
Israel remained unchanged. "There is no change in
Turkey's policy towards Israel. Relations between the
two countries are continuing on their own dynamics,"
said a ministry spokesman.
In his May 25 meeting
with Israeli Infrastructure Minister Yousef Paritzky,
Erdogan harshly criticized Israel for its aggression on
the Palestinian people, making it clear that there was
no difference between Israel's actions and the attacks
carried out by terrorists in Turkey. Erdogan asked the
Israeli minister: "What is the difference between
terrorists, who kill Israeli civilians, and Israel,
which also kills civilians?
"You cannot fight
terrorism with terrorism," Erdogan apparently told the
minister at a closed-door meeting. "The Palestinian
people do not have tanks or shells. You say you are
evacuating Gaza. Are you achieving this by demolishing
all the houses there?" Erdogan demanded. "We condemn the
mentality which drops bombs on the Rafah camp as well as
terrorism." The prime minister also said the time was
not right for a visit to Israel after receiving an
invitation from Paritzky, emphasizing that things had to
be stabilized first.
Despite the criticism from
Erdogan, Paritzky played down any differences and said:
"There are disagreements - they occur among friends."
Paritzky added, "But I have the feeling the prime
minister understands the special relationship between
Israel and Turkey, that he wants to continue this
relationship."
Turkey's Zorlu Holding and
Israeli Dorad Energies then went ahead and signed an
US$800 million deal for the construction of three power
plants in Israel. Turkish media reports said the Turkish
military has proposed the purchase from Israeli
companies of several types of equipment and systems
necessary for the modernization of Turkish F-16 jet
fighters, but this was denied by the Turkish Ministry of
Defense.
Erdogan's Justice and Development Party
(AKP) has its roots in the country's Islamic movement.
Ankara recently appointed Vehbi Dincerler, a former
minister, as coordinator to work with the Palestinian
Authority on financial aid from Turkey. Speaking at the
inauguration of the 57th Congress of the World
Association of Newspapers and the 11th World Editors'
Forum in Istanbul on June 1, Erdogan said Sharon had
blown up all efforts intended to resume
Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations by continuing his
assassination policy. He said the criticism was not
aimed at Israeli people, but at the Sharon government
for its policies against Palestinians.
Erdogan
said the recent assassinations and attacks, particularly
that on Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, founder of Hamas, in March
and the subsequent assassination of his successor, Dr
Abdulaziz al-Rantisi, in April left no room for Turkey's
peaceful efforts. But he emphasized that despite this,
Turkey would keep up its efforts for the sake of peace
and would not lose hope, stressing that Turkey strongly
condemned all forms of terrorism in the region,
especially when state-sponsored.
Erdogan was
equally scathing in an interview with the Israeli
newspaper Ha'aretz. When asked the reasons for the
change in the Turkish attitude toward Israel, Erdogan
replied: "First of all, regarding our relations with
Israel, they must be understood on several different
fronts. One is the relationship between the governments,
and the other is between the people. And another way of
looking at our relations would be through our political,
economic, trade and social ties.
"When we look
at relations on the level of the people, we cannot even
conceive of any problems. As far as the Turkish side is
concerned, there are no problems here. It isn't even on
our agenda. There might be different evaluations by some
individuals or some marginal groups, but as far as the
Turkish government is concerned, our view with regard to
the people of Israel is very objective.
"But at
the level of the government, we are in favor of the
peace process being regenerated, and the government of
Israel has not contributed to our efforts to do so. Why
am I saying this? I would have wished that a government,
a cabinet, would not decide to carry out an
assassination, because governments should never put
aside the law."
When asked: "You have recently
defined three kinds of terrorist activities: personal
terrorism, institutional terrorism and state terrorism.
Do you think that Israel is practicing a form of state
terrorism?" Erdogan said: "I'll be very sincere and open
in sharing my observations with you. When you look at
the structure of what has happened, how else can you
interpret it?"
Asked if he thought there is a
fourth way of looking at terrorism - that there are
countries that support institutions or individuals who
are terrorists - Erdogan replied in the affirmative.
When questioned on Turkey's stand on the Middle
East situation, because of its unique position in the
region, against a backdrop of visits by several Arab
leaders to Ankara despite Turkey's close relations with
Israel, Erdogan replied: "Historically, we have played
an important role in the Middle East. There was a period
of cold relations for a while, there was a gap in the
relations. We have closed that gap. While doing so, we
wanted to act as a mediator for peace in the Middle
East, to serve as mediator between Israel and the other
countries of the Middle East. We brought this up in
every meeting we had. I hope to be able to continue in
this."
In the context of Erdogan's recent visit
to Iran, Ha'aretz asked whether he was considering a
visit to Israel, as promised a few months ago, or if
Turkey would invite Sharon to Ankara. Erdogan replied:
"I had a meeting with your minister [Infrastructure
Minister Paritzky] and explained to him what I had in
mind in regard to this visit. Regarding my visit to
Iran, all the ministers involved have already visited
there, and the Iranians have also sent their
counterparts here. So it became a process in which I had
to find time to visit there myself. My counterpart,
Iran's first vice president who serves as their prime
minister, has visited here and I haven't reciprocated
his invitation until now. It is only correct to analyze
these relations symmetrically, be it with Iran or
Israel.
"But I was in the midst of planning to
send my foreign minister to Israel and Palestine [sic]
when all these incidents occurred. According to the
plans, my visit should have taken place after my foreign
minister's visit to Israel. We don't have a problem in
terms of going [there] or receiving [Israeli] guests."
So will Israel be honored with a visit some time
in the near future?
"First we need to rearrange
my foreign minister's visit, and then we can plan the
next steps. After all, the president of Israel came and
was our guest here. As far as Turkey is concerned, we do
not have a problem with this issue."
Ha'aretz
inquired whether the special relations between Israel
and Turkey were unique in another sense - the close
relations between the Jewish state and one of the
greatest Islamic states - and should be a model for the
way in which common ground can bridge differences and
diversities. Will these relations survive the current
crisis?
Erdogan replied: "If the parties are
sincere, yes. The relations are strong enough to
overcome the difficulties. We should never forget this.
Our forefathers, at their strongest time in history,
opened up their hearts to the Jews who had been driven
out of Spain at the time of the Inquisition and opened
up their hearts and homes to the Jews. Jews were the
victims at that time. Today, the Palestinians are the
victims, and unfortunately the people of Israel are
treating the Palestinians as they were treated 500 years
ago. Bombing people - civilians - from helicopters,
killing people without any consideration - children,
women, the elderly - razing their buildings using
bulldozers. When I explained all this to your minister,
his response was, 'Only a friend can be this sincere and
talk this openly.'
"You see, both history and
geography force us to speak out on this matter. When we
get to the roots of our mutual history and when we
analyze the geography, we have to be honest with each
other and talk about our concerns. There was a terrorist
attack in Turkey on November 15 [in Istanbul on a Jewish
temple]. I took all the relevant ministers with me, and
we personally visited the chief rabbi of this country,
just as I visited all the injured Jewish citizens of my
country - one by one - in their hospital beds. Because I
could not have discriminated against them. They are all
my citizens, the Muslims and the Jews and everyone else.
I am the prime minister of all of them, not only of the
Muslims. I was the first prime minister who ever visited
the chief rabbi in the history of Turkey."
On
how a country could protect itself from terrorism,
Erdogan replied: "It is not the problem of only one
country. Terrorism is an international phenomenon. We
have to establish a joint plan to fight terrorism. The
intelligence agencies of various countries should be in
real cooperation with each other. If a mutual platform
to fight terrorism can be established, we can achieve
some results. But while doing so we must never forget
one thing: We have to take on this challenge, fight this
struggle, within the framework of human rights and the
supremacy of the law. Saying 'I am the strong one, so I
can name anyone I want as a terrorist and anyone I want
as a criminal and just kill them and go' - that
mentality is wrong.
"We have to be in solidarity
if we want to serve global peace. We have to go hand in
hand; humanity does not want to see any more bloodshed
or death. All those responsible [for the bloodshed] are
losing their credibility with every passing day. You
must have followed at least as much as I did what kind
of reactions the pictures of the abuse in Abu Ghraib
prison received."
US pressure for Turkish
troops According to a Turkish analyst, the United
States and Britain, once a UN Security Council
resolution is passed on Iraq this week, will pressure
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, of
which Turkey is one, to send troops to Iraq. Diplomats
expect a unanimous vote for the resolution, which gives
international legitimacy to a newly formed Iraqi interim
government and authorizes a US-led multinational force,
now at 160,000 troops.
The media in the US and
the United Kingdom have pointed in this direction. "When
the government in Iraq is transferred to Iraqis on June
30, the country will be divided into two military zones.
Baghdad and its north will be under US military
supervision, while the south will be under NATO forces
led by Britain. The NATO forces include troops from
Germany, Turkey, Greece and Spain. The zone of control
of the NATO force under the command of General Richard
Dannath will include the cities of Najaf and Kut, where
the recent clashes between US troops and militias under
[Muqtada] al-Sadr have taken place."
The
question of troops was discussed during the recent
six-hour visit to Ankara by British Prime Minister Tony
Blair. Many European NATO members would prefer Muslim
troops to stabilize the situation in Iraq. German
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was quoted as saying:
"Let's send troops from Islamic countries to Iraq,
instead of NATO troops. However, we will not veto a NATO
decision to go to Iraq." The US is also trying to
persuade countries in South Asia, especially Pakistan,
India and Bangladesh - US Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld has just visited Dhaka (see India and the interim mess in Iraq,
June 9).
Egypt and Saudi Arabia have already
declined to send troops, but Turkey remains a main
target. According to a statement released by the White
House, Bush expects Turkish support and contributions to
discussions on how the Group of Eight (G8)
industrialized countries - who meet in the US state of
Georgia this week - can help the political, economic and
social liberalization in the Greater Middle East and
North Africa.
In an interview with the Wall
Street Journal, Erdogan said that if a decision is made
at the NATO summit in Istanbul this month for the
alliance to send a multinational force to Iraq, Turkey
will consider the matter. It is believed that it would
be very difficult to convince AKP deputies on the issue.
Serious criticism against the violence in Palestine and
Iraq has been voiced in AKP parliamentary groups.
(Opposition party deputies have also criticized Israeli
and US actions.)
The AKP deputy from Adana and
parliament administrative director Abdullah Caliskan, in
a statement, used very harsh words against the US and
Britain. His statement started with "I am harshly
condemning the disgusting torture, rape and massacres
perpetrated by the crazy and inhuman US and British
soldiers" and ended with "The US, Britain and those
occupying forces cooperating with them should end this
dirty war and leave the country. As if the torture,
violence and rapes they have perpetrated are not enough,
they have the temerity to call for new rapes and
tortures with their Greater Middle East initiative."
Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc, leader of the
strongest group in the AKP parliamentary group with
about 70 deputies, with a national view of history, has
in several statements condemned the massacres
perpetrated by the Israeli army in Palestine and held
the US ultimately responsible for the deaths.
It
would be very difficult, if not impossible, for Erdogan
to get a new troop-deployment resolution passed in
parliament. If Erdogan failed to resist calls from the
US and European Union officials, the resulting chaos
could lead not only to the rejection of the proposal,
but also to political turmoil. Some commentators say
that under such circumstances, the resignation of the 70
deputies with Arinc, followed by a walkout of about 30
former nationalist deputies, is most likely. The AKP
deputies, with strong Islamic tendencies, might even
choose to topple the government. It is not going to be a
peaceful summer for Erdogan and his government. That,
too, at a time when figures show signs of strain in the
Turkish economy.
US-Turkish
relations According to Turkey's left-leaning
daily Cumhuriyet, the US has requested improvements in
the capacity of the Incirlik air base in Turkey, and to
establish new bases in the country. When the news was
refuted, Cumhuriyet published documents to support its
claim. It was also confirmed by the Foreign Ministry
indirectly. Speaking to reporters, the deputy chief of
general staff, General Ilker Basbug, said the US wanted
to station warplanes at the Incirlik base once again. He
added that the US had made demands that went beyond the
Defense and Economic Cooperation Agreement between the
two countries and as such might require parliamentary
approval.
It appears that the US also wants to
open a base in the Black Sea region and to use harbors
and some airports in Trabzon and Samsun on the Black
Sea. Such a request was made before the US-led war on
Iraq, but was rejected. After the rejection of the March
1, 2003, motion on US troop deployment in Turkey to open
a second front against Iraq, the US withdrew its
warplanes from Incirlik. It believed at the time that
after occupying Iraq it would need neither Turkey nor
Incirlik.
Many in Turkey also feared that after
the US established bases in Iraq, Turkey would lose its
strategic importance. However, recent developments have
shown this is not the case. The US has knocked on
Turkey's door once again with a list of demands similar
to those that preceded the war.
So the
Cumhuriyet continued: "What is the United States asking
for?" The answer to this question is very important for
Turkey, as it is obvious that the US will not be able to
stabilize Iraq the way it has wished. Now with Iraq
insecure for the US, this leaves only Israel. There is
now strife in Saudi Arabia, with terror attacks against
Western targets.
The US is transferring its
troops from bases in Germany to Bulgaria, Romania and
Poland, but it cannot establish a chain that would
extend to the Caucasus and the Middle East. To that end,
Turkey is the most important bridge to extend US
influence to the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle
East.
The dimensions and geography of the US-led
Greater Middle East Initiative are not fully known, but
it is clear that the US wants to deploy forces in the
Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East to use
whenever necessary. While assessing the US demands,
Turkey should think carefully and take its national
interests into consideration, the Cumhuriyet newspaper
concluded.
Conclusion The main reason
for the invasion of Iraq against opposition from most UN
members was to occupy the country, exploit its oil and
control the Middle East in collusion with Israel. In
this scenario, the US would have permanent military
bases on the borders of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and
Turkey. Israel, with US backing, now virtually controls
most of Palestine, Gaza, and parts of Syria. The
US-Israeli strategic alliance would become the
foundation of a new Middle East empire.
According to news reports, US engineers in Iraq
have begun work on the construction of 14 permanent
military bases, which US Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt
calls "a blueprint for how we could operate in the
Middle East".
Despite the handover of
sovereignty, through a compliant government the US can
be expected in effect still to control Iraq's economy,
with its embassy in charge of reconstruction aid, its
oil industry and its infrastructure, as well as the
courts and the police. Iraq's 25 government ministries
and the news media will continue to be run by officials
appointed by the new US ambassador to Iraq, John
Negroponte. Only Iraq's overcrowded and poorly equipped
hospitals etc will be run by Iraqis.
There are
many parallels between the US foisting exiles on the
Iraqi nation and the country's takeover by Great Britain
after World War I when a foreign Hashemite dynasty was
imposed on Iraq. A mandate was obtained from the League
of the Nations, a club of European colonizers. A
provisional Arab government, with Feisel as the king of
Iraq, declared on July 11, 1921, that his government
"shall be constitutional, representative and
democratic".
However, when a treaty of alliance,
valid for 20 years, was signed on October 10, 1922, it
reproduced most of the provisions of the league's
mandate. Britain was to offer advice on foreign and
domestic affairs, such as military, judicial and
financial matters (defined in separate and subsidiary
agreements) and prepare Iraq for membership in the
League of Nations "as soon as possible". But it was soon
apparent that the mandate was still operative and that
complete independence had not been granted. There was
strong opposition to the treaty in the press and among
the people.
The period of the treaty was then
reduced to four years, and against mounting opposition
it was ratified on June 11, 1924, after Britain warned
that the matter would be referred to the League of
Nations, dominated by European nations. The control
exercised by the British treaties was seen by the Iraqi
people and their leaders as an impediment to their
aspirations and inimical to the economic development of
Iraq.
The impossibility of government by the
dual authority of the mandate and the so-called
government was called "a perplexing predicament"
(al-wad' ash-shadh). Only in 1929 did Britain
announce that the mandate would be terminated in 1932,
and a new treaty of independence was negotiated by a
government headed by General Nuri as-Said. The main
objective of the political parties was the termination
of the mandate and independence. It was achieved in
1932, but air bases for British troops were granted.
After a long national resistance, King Feisel II
and Nuri-as Said were overthrown and killed in a 1958
military takeover.
While senior-most Shi'ite
cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has given his
conditional approval to the new government under interim
Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, Kurdish leaders in northern
Iraq are up in arms, as the autonomy they have enjoyed
since 1991 finds no place in the new UN resolution, a
concession strongly opposed by the Shi'ite leadership.
Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army fought US-led
forces in Najaf, Kerbala and Kufa, has not recognized
the new arrangement, and his soldiers will not give up
their arms, as other militias have.
Coalition
forces will remain under the control of the US
ambassador, and bases will be granted to US-led
coalition. Soon the impossibility of government by dual
authority will be repeated, and create once again
al-wad' ash-shadh. Except that now, it will most
likely be more brutal and deadly.
K
Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served
as ambassador to Turkey from August 1992 to April 1996.
Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan,
Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the
Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. E-mail Gajendrak@hotmail.com.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
