Chairman Seyfi Taşhan 

Today’s topics that we are going to discuss include:  the post-Iraq situation in the Middle East, the general (work) picture; Turkish-American relations; the security questions of the Middle East, particularly that of terrorism and its implications for security in the Middle East; and the problems of the Middle East question as far as Israeli-Palestinian disputes are concerned.  Of course, U.S. policy and where it is going is also an important topic we will discuss.  We will also make some references to American-European relations. 

We have in our studio several distinguished experts on International Affairs including: Professor Ali Karaosmanoğlu, the head of the International Relations department of Bilkent University and member of the board of the Turkish Foreign Policy Institute; Professor Ersin Onulduran, member of Ankara University’s Faculty of Political Science, expert on U.S.-Turkish relations and member of the Turkish Foreign Policy Institute; Ambassador Reşat Arım, has represented Turkey as ambassador in Beijing, Bonn and Amman, has several books to his credit, among them one on international conditions or Conjuncture, and is a member of the board of the Turkish Foreign Policy Institute; Ambassador Oktay Aksoy, who has served as Turkish ambassador in Jordan, Stockholm, Helsinki, is an expert on European affairs, and is a member of the board of the Turkish Foreign Policy Institute; Dr. Ersel Aydınlı, an Assistant Professor at Bilkent University who is very well known for his studies on the subject of international terrorism. I am Seyfi Taşhan, the director of the Turkish Foreign Policy Institute and the chairman of this discussion.  Now to present us with the prevailing conditions and a general picture of the world in the aftermath of the Iraq War, particularly after the 9-11 attacks, is Ambassador Arım.                      

Ambassador Reşat Arım

Thank you sir. The prevailing situation of the world today falls within the preview of my pet subject, which is the international conjuncture, the constellation of forces prevailing at a certain time. The current international conjuncture emerged with the September 11th attacks on the United States and many developments followed which contributed to forming this conjuncture. In my view, this conjuncture will be completed after the Iraq affair.    

With the September 11th attacks the world has been divided into two camps, so to speak.   President Bush put it rather bluntly saying, “You are either with us or against us.” From that State of the Union speech there arose the notion of the Axis of Evil.  Everybody on the whole wanted to be on this side of the fence in Bush’s camp because the other camp is associated with terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, dictatorships--all evil things in the normal patterns of society today. Thus, in this picture the position of the United States becomes important.   

The United States after the Cold War emerged as the only superpower, now in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, and the division of the world into these two camps, the United States position is such that especially in the western world, in the so-called “civilized” world, the United States is in a position to expect the support of its allies. We may refer to this as the strategic part of the situation. If the aforementioned analysis I made is correct then this forms a strategic environment, then the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq etc. may fall under the label of technical aspect, the implementation side. This is my general assessment of the situation as far as things are concerned at the moment.

Chairman Seyfi Taşhan 

Thank you Ambassador Arım for this general assessment.  In recent weeks and months we have been troubled in this country by some statements made by U.S. administrators regarding the current condition of Turkish-U.S. relations.  I’ll ask Professor Ersin Onulduran to say a few words on this topic.

Professor Ersin Onulduran 

Thank you Mr. Taşhan. I think I’ll start with what went right with Turkish-American relations in 1947 and then, from there, move quickly to what went wrong and if there is a glimmer of hope in the future.

As we all know, the aftermath of the Second World War brought about a very intense rivalry between what used to be the Soviet Union and the United States. During this clash, Turkey played a crucial role; there were perceived designs on Turkey, on administering and dominating Turkey, which the United States, after much appeal on our part, decided to counter-intervene with the inception of the Truman Doctrine in 1947.  Turks, at the time, were much relieved that the United States had finally broken its shell of isolationism and had come to the aid of Turkey; that Turkey was not going to be alone.  Soon afterwards Turkey joined NATO. In the ensuing years there was a progression of good relations that lasted about 52-53 years between the two countries.   

Enter the war in Iraq.  In fact, the first war in Iraq in 1991 showed the partners in this region that Turkey was a staunch ally.  Although it didn’t send troops to the Gulf at the time, it was a supporter and there was no question as to where it stood vis-à-vis American policy in Iraq. This year when the Bush administration started focusing on the fight against terrorism Turkey, as a country which had long suffered from terrorism, full support of the administration’s point of view of being against terrorism came about in this country. But, as the focus shifted from Afghanistan and bin Laden to Iraq and Saddam, people and political parties started wavering. In fact, the vote in parliament on the 1st of March, a few months ago, showed that while there was a majority of Parliamentarians who were in support of action in Iraq it was not a big enough majority. The decision that would have allowed Turkish troops to be placed, perhaps, in Northern Iraq, but in particular, would have allowed American troops to pass through the southern part of Turkey and open a new Northern front in Iraq fell three votes short of the qualified majority.   

I think this crisis is a crisis of perception. On one hand, there were raising expectations egged on by some politicians in this country which made the Americans think that Turkey would whole-heartedly and militarily support the action in Iraq. On the other hand, when the majority of members of the Turkish parliament and, especially, the public opinion were decidedly against any kind of war in this region Parliament could not deliver the required votes to allow use of Turkish soil. As a result, American administrators became very disillusioned with Turkish inability to help, at that moment. The recent pronouncements of the Under-Secretary of the U.S. State Department and other officials that Turkey ought to stop and think, perhaps recant its actions, and apologize, although these words were not specifically uttered by Mr. Wolfowitz, the implication there, at least as we perceived it to be, was the kind of thinking that Turks, in general, did not welcome.

It appears now that ordinary citizens in the United States think of Turkey as “that country that let us down” rather than “that country which fifty years ago in Korea to this day supported us and were our trusted allies.” I think we have a major task in front of us in order to erase this perception and convey to our American friends that no lasting policies in this region can be successfully shaped without the aid of Turkey, a major power in the region. There is a display of light-mindedness between the government and people of the United States and the Turks. If not Turkey, who will the United States turn to in order to implement future and lasting policies in Iraq and the Middle East, in general? I’m going to stop here then maybe talk a little later. Thank you.

Chairman Seyfi Taşhan 

This discussion is on Turkish-American relations. There was a book written in the 1950s by George Harris called The Troubled Alliance. Didn’t Turkish-American relations always suffer a little bit from external factors such as issues brought up by Armenian and Greek lobbies? What about the United States embargo on Turkey in the 1970s?  Even to this day we are facing problems in the U.S. congress due to Armenian claims dating back to Ottoman times. Turkey has always been at the receiving end of problems in Turkish-American relations. This time, however, roles were a little bit reversed…

Professor Ersin Onulduran 

Let me say one sentence on this. I think this time the misperception in the American public, egged on by certain press publications, is that Turkey’s inaction cost American lives and that’s not true. In fact, this war was won in military terms at a minimal cost of American lives.

Chairman Seyfi Taşhan 

Yes. From here we can move to the new security picture emerging around the world and particularly in the Middle East. I’ll now ask Professor Karaosmanoğlu to say a few words on this issue.

Professor Ali Karaosmanoğlu

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me begin with a few remarks about Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz’s statement. I think that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz made two significant mistakes in that well-known interview.   The first mistake was that the style was probably too tough and a-diplomatic. The second mistake concerned the substance of the declarations made. There was an obvious contradiction in his remarks. One of the objectives of the United States administration in Iraq is to establish at least a more or less democratic regime in Iraq after the fall of the Saddam regime. Paul Wolfowitz undoubtedly shares this objective; yet, in this interview he criticized Turkey’s handling of the Iraqi crisis by pointing out that the military did not play its proper role, without explaining what its proper role should be. These two positions actually are palpably contradicting.

Now let me turn to the situation in the Middle East. I think the situation in the Middle East, especially the future of Iraq, will be one of the most significant determining factors in the future of Turkish-U.S. relations.  The military operation was successful, the United States and the coalition victorious, a rather easy victory at that, however, the post-operational phase seems to be more difficult. The recent reports from Iraq are unfortunately somewhat disappointing and from time to time they are almost dismal. How things will develop in Iraq is the crucial question; from Turkey’s point of view developments made in Northern Iraq are critical with regards to its own domestic stability. We hear reports of the United States military facing tremendous challenges in disarming certain armed groups in Iraq, especially Kurds including the PKK elements in Iraq. If the United States eventually acknowledges that it is unsuccessful in its efforts to establish a stable, more or less democratic Iraq and loses control of developments in Iraq, if America eventually gives up and the PKK rises again as a strong-armed element in Northern Iraq, then Turkey will feel the necessity to intervene and to resume its cross border operations. I’m afraid that such an eventuality would complicate the situation in Iraq even further, affect the internal situation in Turkey, affect Turkish-American and, in turn, Turkish-European relations greatly.

Our relations with the European Union are entering a new phase; the present government is working hard to pass reform packages through parliament. Such an eventuality in Northern Iraq will affect Turkish internal politics and may urge the government as well as the military to take harsh measures especially in the southeastern parts of Turkey. This may delay at least the implementation of the reforms and this would complicate Turkey’s relations with the EU.

There are other factors that may affect Turkish-American relations. Now let me say a few words about possible positive factors why the United States would need Turkey in the long run. First of all, if Turkey democratizes further then it would play a more constructive role in Eurasia and the Middle East at least by trying to project democratic values to these regions. Such a Turkey would be geo-politically more important in the eyes of the Americans, in particular, and in the eyes of Western countries, in general, than the Turkey of today. The second factor is that Turkey traditionally is a country, which has valuable knowledge about these regions. Such knowledge is a key intelligence capability, which could make Turkey of great help to the United States in its endeavors in the region. An even more important factor than the intelligence issue is the matter of Turkish- Israeli relations. Turkey still is an ally of Israel; probably not in the strict sense an ally but a very close partner of Israel. This is a favorable factor from the point of view of Turkish-American relations

Chairman Seyfi Taşhan 

I believe you gave a few very interesting points regarding the future possibilities in Turkish-American relations with regards to the current situation in the Middle East. You rightly pointed out Turkish experience and knowledge in the Middle East.  The fact that many Turks were administrators in the Middle East until about 80 years ago is often overlooked. It’s a pity that the Americans are taking action in the Middle East and particularly in Iraq without requiring any outside assistance; perhaps this is one of the reasons they are not proving to be so successful at this moment. In recent years and particularly after the intervention in Iraq, international terrorism instead of subsiding is continuing. There were recent bombings in Saudi Arabia and even in Turkey. A bomb just went off in Istanbul this morning.  People thought that after the toppling of the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Osama bin Laden and extreme Islamic terrorists would subside. There was this hope even in Turkey after some of the members of Hezbollah had been caught. This cowardice terrorism in the Middle East where is it going and how is it being done? Ersel Aydınlı could you please clarify these issues for us.

Dr. Ersel Aydınlı 

Thank you. When we look at the history of international counter-terrorism one of the first things that becomes extremely clear is that there is no short, clear, precise or conclusive counter-terrorism that has ever been recorded in history. Counter-terrorist operations always last long, are complicated and strangely enough they always end up serving a different function than chiefly intended. In counter-terrorism issues and studies we define a phenomenon like terror as having its own echo system. Once things start, the minds and mentalities of those involved in international relations all change; they get into a new format then it generates its own dynamics.

When we try to apply the general lesson from history to what happened after 9-11, it’s not surprising that similar developments are taking place. After 9-11 took place, the U.S. declared that they were waging a war against terrorism and rightly warned us that it was going to last a long time. President Bush stated several times that this was not going to be done in a week, a year, maybe even a decade. Thus, in that sense, the world history problem, in terms of counter-terrorism, was entering into a new period where the actors if smart enough would reposition themselves, make their own internal adjustments, and get ready for new developments. In the manner of typical counter-terrorism measures the U.S. first went after the terrorists, a kind of police work. They also started thinking about long-term strategies, how they could deal with this form of terrorism’s root causes.

The U.S. sent forces to Afghanistan and to Iraq to do so-called police work. The moment the United States, the dominant power in world politics, sent troops to the Middle East to intervene she found herself entering a new world where she could not really control every dynamic. The U.S. government was bound to make mistakes because everybody makes mistakes in counter-terrorism. Police work is busy work and U.S. is extremely prepared to take upon this task; the U.S. has the FBI, and maybe the best army technology and technology in the world. However, the long-term strategies in counter-terrorism require something else, which can be defined as social engineering, re-engineering of international relations, or administrating social transformation in unfamiliar lands. This is where the U.S. is getting into a lot of problems. Its government is going to need more Turkish help in the long run.

In analyzing these long-term strategies we should try to understand whether there is a significant role for the Turkish-American relationship. I believe that very soon our American friends are going to understand that the long-term struggle with terrorism and social engineering of political transformations are going to require Turkey’s knowledge of the region and political potential. I think it would be wise to concentrate the “War on Terrorism” and possible American global policies and how they would generate a new potential for Turkish-American relation rejuvenation, if I may call it that. Thank you.

Chairman Seyfi Taşhan 

I thank you.  You raised a very interesting point about social engineering in order to prevent terrorism. There is a wide range of interpretations of Islam—from moderate to radical versions including the concept of continuous jihad. Turkey has created a new definition of Islam, the concept of secular Islam.  Great Atatürk was the first to consider this religious reform, so to speak, as an option.  Turkey has been the only Islamic country to successfully go through this reform process. In the past, this practice of secular Islam was implemented in a kind of Jacobin system, now it is being tested out in a truly democratic society. Our experience since 1950, for half a century, has proven that secular Islam can prevail in a democratic society; I consider this a success. In Turkey there are quite a number of people who require further vigilance on this issue. Certainly vigilance is a virtue of democracies, but we can maintain secular Islam without being too guarded and wary of our surroundings; this is an important point.

Dr. Ersel Aydınlı

May I say something?

Chairman Seyfi Taşhan

Yes, please go ahead.

Dr. Ersel Aydınlı

You brought up a very interesting topic. When we look at the U.S.’s understanding of the new global threat it views it as a radical sector of Islam--dark green Islam. We need to be careful because the U.S. seems to look at radical Islam as the biggest threat and focus on containing it. However, strangely enough, they don’t automatically turn to the type of secularism we understand; they turn to more accommodative policies for lighter color Islam. I think Turkish and American handling of terrorist forces and policies towards radical Islam may be conflicting because Turkey, having dealt with terrorism and radical Islamic forces on its own soil, is clearly and understandably sensitive towards these issues. The U.S. might be forcing Turkey to be more accommodative towards the type of Islam that it’s had clear problems with in the past.

Chairman Seyfi Taşhan

If Islam is present in a society as a way of life then you arrive at an imitation of Islamic society of the 7th century. Some people wish to live in this context by way of their choice of dress, their actions, habits and rituals. However, in today’s modern society this constitutes an anachronism.   The U.S. understanding of Islam is called moderate Islam or Islam in general. Even with Islam in general you have to be selective. The Turkish model has been the most selective of all; a state and social life separate from religion, which is close to the understanding of religion in modern societies as a whole. The U.S. must move a little bit towards the European concept of religion; absolute freedom in religion cannot exist. Ambassador Aksoy would you like to say anything about the implications of the Iraq situation on U.S.-European relations?

Ambassador Oktay Aksoy

I also share the view that there is definitely a deterioration of relations with the United States, not only Turkish relations but European relations as well. The main issue, as Ersin Onulduran, mentioned is that in the new conjuncture after 9-11 this corrosion of ties between the U.S. and Turkey or the U.S. and Europe is a crisis of perception. Expectations for cooperation with the United States position on the “War on Terrorism” were very high at first. It was easier for Turkey, with its experience in fighting terrorism, to support the United States when it was dealing issues far from its neighbourhood, far from the Middle Eastern region; but, when it came to Iraq the main concern for Turkey, due to its experience, was how things would develop in Northern Iraq. U.S. experts probably made a wrong assessment when expecting more support from Turkey when it came to developments in Iraq. Turkey was and is apprehensive about the situation in Northern Iraq. The possibility of the Iraqi Kurds inhabiting the Northern region being granted full autonomy or the right to break off completely and form their own state will no doubt affect Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, among whom certain individuals have had a tendency to partake in terrorist or separatist activities, in its Southeastern region. Europe basically cooperates with the United States on most foreign policy issues. However, in handling terrorism Europe takes a softer approach compared to the United States’ more harsh and conclusive approach in its war on terrorism. The United States is prepared to take risks while Europeans seem less likely to. Since WWII, Europeans have been more accommodating of different groups with different views and have tried to calm their desires by other means.

Chairman Seyfi Taşhan

Thank you all. We had a rather interesting discussion on the post-Iraq situation, the problems the U.S.-a newcomer in the Middle East-is going to face as it tries to implement its policies and democratize the region, and the relationship between Turkey and the United States. Thank you, again.