Chairman Seyfi Taşhan:

In our previous discussion, we discussed the situation in Central Asia, the Caucasus, Russia and Iran.  Of course, the Turkish environment being rather wide we will now proceed to the Middle East, Mediterranean, and the Balkans. The participants in this debate are:  Professor Huseyin Bağcı of the Middle East Technical University, Professor Mustafa Kibaroğlu of Bilkent University, Ambassador Oktay Aksoy, Ambassador Reşat Arım, and Assistant Professor Meryem Kırımlı of Çankaya University. I am moderating this discussion; I am Seyfi Taşhan of the Foreign Policy Institute. We will start by discussing the Middle East.  An initial introduction will be made by Ambassador Reşat Arım. Then we will debate what he says.

Ambassador Reşat Arım:

Thank you sir.  I will try to fit into the picture that was described previously by the speakers on Central Asia.  I will try to describe how the Middle East will fit into this picture. In the new international environment that has emerged in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks there is a movement towards Central Asia and in this movement the Middle East can be considered as a corridor.  It can be likened to the previous century’s route to India of the British.  Now the Middle East may be the corridor to Central Asia. If we take it like that then of course this should be a safe corridor. In this new environment we have to eliminate totalitarian regimes, rogue states, weapons of mass destruction etc. After doing so we have to then introduce liberalism, democracy and free market etc.  If this will be the order of the day then the Middle East is a good laboratory.  This has already started to function with Iraq.

Already, of course, there was the simmering problem of Palestine. The questions that shaped the whole 20th century experience of the Middle East included: whether Israel would be accepted in the Middle East by the Arab states.  Of course, this corridor, so to speak, was influenced by the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union; the United States taking Israel‘s side and the Soviet Union supporting the Arab states and Palestine.  We cannot say that this was a very healthy situation for the Middle East. As the Middle East suffered from it, in turn, Turkey also has suffered from this conflict. There have been many wars and there has been terrorism in this region.  This was the breeding ground of terrorism.  This breeding ground probably brought about the famous Al Qaeda. This terrorist organization was stationed in Afghanistan, however, because Osama bin Laden hails from Saudi Arabia the origin of this terrorism was unfortunately in the Middle East.

In the new picture shaped by current events wars against terrorism, totalitarian regimes, and weapons of mass destruction have materialized in the region. The first experiment of such kind was in Iraq. Although the Iraqi situation contained some of the elements of this war on terror it was not really very much appreciated around the world. There were demonstrations against the war in Iraq, but we have not witnessed any demonstrations against the Saddam regime. This was shocking to me. The European attitude was also a bit surprising because they first voted alongside the United States in favor of Resolution 1441 and then they came out against any action against Iraq.  Now European Union countries and NATO countries had differing views, but it seems that now the war is over the EU countries are trying to patch up things with the United States. The resolution on oil for food was passed unanimously so it seems that the position of many powers in this new situation whether it be regarding Iraq or the Middle East in general is rather ambiguous.

Coming to the Palestine question, this has been, as I mentioned before, the breeding ground for much terrorism.  The Palestinians suffered most after the September 11th attacks because they gave Israel leeway to declare its actions as fighting against terrorism. The Israelis punished not only the suicide bombers intending to harm Israelis, but they took actions against all Palestinians.  They have destroyed the infrastructure.  Now there is a new road map for peace prepared by the quartet. The quartet is composed of the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations. There is an air of unanimity among this group which means the Russians, the Europeans and the United Nations have left the job in the hands of the United States.  I hope very much that this road map goes forward.  The Oslo peace process along with all other previous attempts came to naught because at the time the international conjuncture was not favorable for the solution of the Palestinian problem.

Mr. Seyfi Taşhan:

I would like not to challenge your points, but just to say that while the international conjuncture is quite amenable for this roadmap to go through we have seen other roadmaps, such as the Oslo and Camp David processes, and they have all started with good will. Nobel prizes even have been given to leaders of both sides for their achievements.  Unfortunately we then saw that there was no long-lasting peace achieved. Here too, I have certain doubts about whether the roadmap will be a lasting process or a temporary relief from the current destruction campaign in Israel. In fact, this destruction campaign has caused such speculations as to attribute to Israel a policy of transfer of all Palestinians out of Palestine. On the other hand, it is very difficult to comprehend how major settlements that have been constructed in the West Bank can be evacuated or destroyed by Israel. I don’t know whether they will be destroyed or left over to the Palestinians in either case it seems to be a very difficult step to be taken, particularly by Sharon.  This policy’s aim could be to put the Arabs at ease a little bit about what’s happening in Palestine so that they can be encouraged to allow the American led transformation process in Iraq to go through and probably do the same in other countries.  So I have certain doubts about the success of the roadmap peace process.  I don’t know if you share these doubts with me, but such brutality on either side cannot be smoothed out so easily. Do you agree? I don’t know.

Ambassador Reşat Arım:

Yes Mr. Taşhan you have a very good point there. I would tend to think that the Palestinian-Israeli problem is very much linked to the Iraqi situation.  Let us recall my description of [the Middle East as a corridor.  Now in this corridor there is a linkage between Iraq and Palestine.  The more one can achieve in Iraq the more can be achieved in Palestine and vice versa.  If things do not take better shape in Iraq soon then there will be more emphasis on solving the Palestinian problem. In any case, the central problem in the Middle East is the Palestinian crisis, all other problems, such as the emergence of dictators like Saddam Hussein emanated from it.  Saddam used the Palestinian problem, as the motive behind all his actions, thus, my assessment is that they are very much linked.

Mr. Seyfi Taşhan:

Dr. Mustafa Kibaroğlu.

Dr. Mustafa Kibaroğlu:

Thank you.  It is certainly not possible to underestimate the significance of current developments.  The point that we have reached thus far is that certain people believe or hope that the road map may lead to peace.  However, we should be quite careful and a little bit cautious in our optimism.  We should not forget that there are certain roadblocks on the road to peace.  These are the sine qua nons, such conditions that should be fulfilled absolutely by the parties concerned, namely the Palestinians and Israelis in particular, and in general, Arabs and Israelis.  We should also add to this picture the Iranians because Iran plays a very powerful role [in this situation] that not many people openly or specifically discuss.

We know that the Palestinians, first and foremost, asked from the Israelis to end the occupation in their lands and to dismantle the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Sharon has acknowledged this.  It is important for Israelis that a leader of very high authority from a very high level acknowledge that there should be a Palestinian state by the year 2005, or at a later time. The Israeli government has acknowledged formally the need for having a Palestinian state in order to obtain an everlasting, if possible, peace in the region. The dismantling of Jewish settlements involves the displacement of some 400,000 Jews, many who came from former Soviet territories who have recently built these buildings. This will create a lot of disturbance within the Jewish society once this policy is established. The ending of Israeli occupation and the dismantlement of the settlements are just for start because there are the insurmountable issues of the possession of Jerusalem and placement of refugees.  They are quite difficult problems when we look at the issue from the Israeli perspective.

The first and foremost request of the Israelis is to put a stop to the terrorist attacks. The Israelis ask Mahmud Abbas to use his influence on Hamas, Hezbollah and other organizations to stop their attacks against Israelis. However, in my view Mahmud Abbas is not the right person to ask such a demanding task. Neither does he have any significant charisma nor does he have any authority over the members of Hamas and Hezbollah without the consent of Arafat, whose shadow prevails over the discussions within the Palestinian community. Thus, in my view the Israelis should ask Tehran and Damascus to use their influence over Hamas and Hezbollah because these groups are operating their headquarters in several parts of Lebanon and Beirut. Therefore, the right governments to address are situated in Tehran and Damascus. The United States’ policy is to isolate Iran while starting a new set of negotiations with Syria. We know that during the 1990s the Clinton administration’s Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, paid dozens of visits to Damascus to cut a deal.

As we know from Kissinger one cannot fight a war in the Middle East without Egypt on board and one cannot cut a peace deal in the Middle East without Syria on board. This is an important point that I heard Professor Bağcı mention once a long time ago. To achieve long lasting peace in the Middle East the Israelis should have the Syrians on their side. In my view, Paul Wolfowitz’s recent visit to Damascus and his discussions with Bashar al-Assad are important steps.

One particular request of the Syrian government is the return of Golan Heights, which is under the control of the Israelis.  Israelis are ready to return the Golan Heights, which have lost their major significance for some time, but they don’t want to return certain regions  where there are rich or significant water resources, which are crucial for the Israelis.  Therefore, one has to find a solution; while returning the Golan Heights to Syria the Israelis have to substitute for the water loss that Syria will suffer. There will be mounting pressure on Turkey from the Israelis and the Americans, of which the latter are now our new neighbors. I’m afraid the Americans will lend their support to the Iraqi and Syrian common position, since the 1970s, to share the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. If we summarize the situation: to have a lasting peace, Syria’s consent is crucial, but to get its consent Golan Heights must be returned to Syria. In turn, in order to return Golan Heights to Syria, water in the Golan Heights must be substituted from an outside source.

Mr. Seyfi Taşhan:

Well, that is a perspective, an interesting perspective, to look at, but obviously there are other handicaps. Syria now controls Lebanon as part of “Greater Syria.” So, I think that if the Golan Heights question is resolved, Syria will have to withdraw from Lebanon. That will be a major loss, so the continuation of the dispute on Golan Heights is a justification for Syria to remain in Lebanon. This, I think, is much more important for Syria than the water issue.

Secondly, the water problem is that Turkey’s water is shared between Turkey, Syria, and Iraq and that Turkey must use its own water. I suppose Turkey has already cut a deal with Syria and I think Syria is, for the moment, quiet unless they are prodded to do something more. I think the Golan Heights problem is much more important than of course it is ascribed to. Syria has other issues at stake as well. A financial problem may arise, for instance, because Syria receives economic and other assistance from Arab countries simply because it is putting up resistance against Israel. Also, it has its importance, as you say, to prevent peace in the Middle East. Huseyin has things to say.

Professor Huseyin Bağcı:

Thank you Mr. Chairman.  First of all, there was a mentioning of the quartet. The question in this peace process is what this quartet is playing, which songs which pieces? Certainly the Middle East education is much different than ever before. The Cold War conditions no longer exist. Russia is no longer an ideological actor, but rather a country that is trying to exercise certain influence emanating from its past traditional involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.  The United Nations has always been there, but we have the European Union factor as a new factor. One should not underestimate this European Union factor.

Under these new circumstances, the “roadmap” peace accord would be very unlikely if we had only a map but no roads. I think 2005 is indeed an important date for this resolution.

I would like to stress two points. One: Bill Clinton’s policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian problem was based on time; there were no time limitations, whereas, George W. Bush is putting more pressure on rapid results. He is trying to exercise huge influence on the Palestinians as well as Israelis to get a quick solution. If next year Bush is elected once again then most likely in his second term he will aim to solve this problem. Two: Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas is, as Kibaroğlu said, not the right person to handle this situation. I think we have to make a comparison between Yasser Arafat and Mahmud Abbas. Yasser Arafat is a symbol of the Palestinian conflict. But, given, as Yasser Arafat is no longer existent somebody has to deal with this conflict. I think Mahmud Abbas is number two in importances. Since the sixties he has been working alongside Yasser Arafat. He is the best man that the Israelis can actually find at the moment for the negotiations. As a psychological difference, Mahmud Abbas’s chemistry is much more in the same line with Sharon whereas Yasser Arafat and Sharon hate each other. We have seen in Akaba, for example, Abbas and Sharon shaking hands. Sharon offering his hand to be shaken is perhaps the biggest concession given by the Israelis within this negotiation process.

I agree that Syria‘s consent is an important factor, alongside that of Iran and Egypt. However, we have to recognize that Arab nationalism is no longer such a strong psychological factor as it was times before. Edward W. Said in his recent article in Al-Hayat, published in London, criticizes that Arab nations do not come together and support the Palestinian issue as they did before. This Arab nationalism is, I think, no longer in function.  It is not a unifying factor anymore and I think the Americans and Europeans know this. With this knowledge they will now exercise much more pressure on the Palestinians and Israelis.

Mr. Seyfi Taşhan:

I would like to say just a few words to invite you to debate what Turkey can do to assist in the process of peace in the Middle East.  Particularly after the Iraq debacle, the voting in Turkish parliament against the use of Turkish territory by American troops, what can Turkey now be expected to do with regards to its relations with Syria, the transformation process and current situation in Iraq, and the peace process?  Who would like to answer this question?

Professor Huseyin Bağcı:

To find an answer to this is difficult. Turkey at the moment, at least, seems to be an external factor that is trying to bring the Arab nations and other countries in the region together while keeping very close relations with Israel. It is trying to introduce a new atmosphere into the political development of the Middle East. I think for the first time since the 90s there is no strong negative reaction from the rest of the region to Turkey’s relations with Israel. This is a positive development.  Due to Turkey’s decision not to allow American troops to pass through its territory it is currently receiving a lot of sympathy from Arab as well as European countries. On the other hand, this decision, of course, caused great anger for the American government because they realized that Turkey is no longer acting along the same lines. I think the Turkish parliament’s decision not to bring the motion was an ethically right but strategically wrong decision for Turkey’s overall foreign policy.  My expectation is that the Ak Party government’s policies will be important from now on.  They will help decide whether Turkey can be a real player in the shaping of developments in the Middle East.  Turkey may have better cards in its hand than in previous experience, however there lies the danger that Turkey is excluded from this process altogether.  There are some signs to this respect because the American government will put much stronger pressure on the regional countries to take part in the process of transforming the Middle East.  Thus, Turkish-American relations will determine how much Turkey can get involved in the affairs of the Middle East and be a part of it.  The more Turkey works together with the United States of America then the better chance it will be part of the Middle East transformation process; the more Turkey is confrontational with the United States of America then most probably it will be “kicked out” of Middle Eastern developments.

Mr. Seyfi Taşhan:

Now let me just say a word on this.  Some years ago I spoke with a Romanian scientist who said to me, “How lucky you are that your ally is far away!”  He was referring to Romania’s neighborhood and the pressure Russia puts on them.  The United States at the time was far away and we had rather calm relations, but now the U.S. is our neighbor. This neighborhood will bring in greater collaboration in certain senses, but in certain other areas greater tension, misunderstanding, or differences of opinion. Ambassador Arım.

Ambassador Reşat Arım:

In the area of the Middle East we have mostly Arab countries then there is Israel, Turkey and Iran.  Now, for the time being, we can exclude Iran for a little bit because it seems the United States is putting huge pressure on it not to have its government involved in the new arrangements to be made in the area. This leaves Turkey, Israel and the Arab countries. The Iraqi situation will be solved in an Arab context because it is an Arab country and it will remain an Arab country. In Iraq the new regime will be a regime acceptable to Arab countries, therefore, Arab law in the area will be prominent. Of course, for the time being, some countries are criticizing Saudi Arabia, the Sheikhdoms etc. about democracy. But most likely they will try to fall in line with the new situation; that is to say taking on a more liberal behavior. Turkey and Israel are kind of natural allies as far as democracy is concerned; we don’t have any problems. However, we are not allies against Arab countries. We have to work with the Arab countries. In order to be able to exert any influence either on the Iraqi affair or Israeli-Palestinian affair, Turkey’s relations with the Arab countries should be very good.  Relations should be improved because, in the last ten years, Arab countries have been very critical of Turkey because of Turkish-Israeli relations. Turkey has tried to explain that this alliance was not something against the Arab countries, but I don‘t know whether we have succeeded in doing so. In this new picture, since the Arab countries will have to adopt a new mentality towards liberalism and democracy they also have to have a new position vis-à-vis Turkey. There is an opportunity here for Turkey to have better relations with Arab countries.  If turkey can achieve this, then we will be in a better position to influence either the Iraqi situation or the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Thank you.

Professor Huseyin Bağcı:

Maybe one sentence… I think I share the same view as Ambassador Arım because the more Arab societies are getting transparent and democratic, the more they will approach the Turkish side. Turkey is not going to meddle in their political affairs, but rather they will approach the Turkish government.  The level of relations will increase for a better situation.  It will be helpful for Turkey to be present as a democratic society in order to bring the Islamic world much closer to the West.

Mr. Seyfi Taşhan:

Ok.  Dr. Kibaroğlu.

Dr. Mustafa Kibaroğlu:

Thank you Mr. Taşhan.  Let me, first of all, clarify a point that I raised a while ago about Mahmud Abbas not being the right person. The Israeli government’s request with the institution of the road map is to stop the violence against its citizens. Abbas declared yesterday that Hamas and Hezbollah should stop fighting against Israelis. He got a quick reply from these groups that they will not stop fighting.  Therefore, I personally don’t believe that Abbas has enough charisma and enough authority over these groups. However, somebody must stand up there and shake hands with Sharon and sign a peace deal. In this respect, somebody like Mahmud Abbas, a cool looking guy, is needed. On the other hand, when we discuss whether Turkey can have a role in Middle Eastern affairs, in the recent past Turkey tried to sort of use its position vis-à-vis or its perception in the eyes of the Israelis as well as the Palestinians.  When negotiations were cut because of Sharon’s visits to holy sites and Arafat’s sort of being under pressure from his fellow PLO members, Turkey always invited the parties to meet somewhere in Turkey. Well those days are over we should now acknowledge the fact that the United States is in the region. As Mr. Taşhan and other speakers have rightly said the U.S. is our new neighbor; we must acknowledge this fact and look at the issue from this perspective. The only thing Turkey can do diplomatically is to use its influence to the furthest possible extent. Turkey should use its influence on the Palestinians as well as the Syrians and tell them to seize the moment. This may be the unique opportunity to find a lasting solution and, therefore, Syrians and Palestinians should do their best to facilitate the peace process and to achieve the steps one by one. Turkey can also turn to Iran and tell the Iranians not to interfere with the situation, with the conflict, and not to lend support to Hezbollah and Hamas. Turkey being physically present in Iraqi territory life will be much more difficult for them. Therefore, resolution of the Palestinian problem may fulfill the expectations of Iran and Syria and send the United States back home. Therefore, the only thing that Turkey can do diplomatically in this situation would be to induce in their minds that the only way to “get rid of” the United States, in their words, would be to find a solution to the Palestinian problem. On the other hand, as I just mentioned, Turkey may face more demands for water. It should look into what it can do in terms of facilitating the peace process. Whatever solution that can be found in this respect can tell both neighbors, I mean Syria and Iran, that so long as this conflict is not resolved, with the United States

Mr. Seyfi Taşhan:

There may be expectations for water from Turkey, but let me remind you that we are offering water from Manavgat.  Yes, of course, nobody wants to pay for that water. Turkey can only give water in excess of its own necessity.  Turkey’s own needs come first. If you compare the development rate, urbanization rate, and improved agriculture in Turkey, in the coming years it will need more water for its own purposes. The European average of water consumption is about 10,000 cubic meters per person a year; Turkish availability is 2,500 cubic meters.   Turkey’s consumption at the moment is around 1,500 cubic meters so we do not have much excess capacity. Even water from Turkey cannot solve the water problems of the Middle East.  It’s impossible with the rate of population growth and economic growth in its societies. There will be need for more water. All the water in Turkey’s possession would not be enough to solve the problems of water in the Middle East.

Dr. Mustafa Kibaroğlu:

But they do not want to understand this…this is the problem.

Mr. Seyfi Taşhan:

Well, they should understand this.  I think Turkey will have to be firm on this. With this said, I think I’ll conclude.  We have omitted the Mediterranean from this debate, but we’ll discuss it at a later stage. Arising in the Mediterranean region is the Cyprus question. We have discussed the Cyprus question before and we will have the opportunity to discuss it again and again because of its relevance to the candidacy to Turkey’s membership in the European Union and because of the recent changes on the island. Of course, we’ll take advantage of the availability of Huseyin Bağcı who has visited Cyprus several times and of Mustafa Kibaroğlu who has also visited Cyprus. Thank you very much Professor Bağcı, Dr. Kibaroğlu, Dr. Kırımlı, Ambassador Arım, and Ambassador Aksoy for having joined in this discussion.