| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| How France Blocked U.S. In Ankara |
| 2003-03-27 |
| Cited yesterday in Instapundit, but I'm not sure Murat reads that :-) Everybody knows that Turkey did not permit America to stage operations from Turkish bases, but hardly anybody realizes that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the vote was not an Islamic protest against the American-led coalition,but an act of anti-American intimidation by France and Germany. The Turkish government, which for the first time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire is based on an Islamic party, fully expected that Parliament would approve its proposal that America be given the use of Turkish air bases in the Iraqi war.The government was so confident that the party failed to demand internal discipline, and thus several deputies voted against the resolution. But that does not account for the failure to approve the governmentâs proposal. Primary blame for the defeat of the measure lies with the opposition â the secular, Kemalist parties that have governed the country since Ataturk. Contrary to expectations, the opposition, responding to orders from party leaders, voted unanimously against the governmentâs position. The leaders insisted on a disciplined "no" vote because of pressure â some would call it blackmail â from France and Germany. The French and German governments informed the Turkish opposition parties that if they voted to help the Coalition war effort, Turkey would be locked out of Europe for a generation. As one Turkish leader put it, "there were no promises, only threats." We should have offered the Turks membership in NAFTA. One can describe this behavior on the part of our erstwhile Old Europe allies only as a deliberate act of sabotage against America in time of war. It is even worse than the behavior of France in the Security Council â first joining with us to give Iraq a "really, really, last chance" and then preventing us from acting as if the language of Resolution 1441 meant what it said. It is of a piece with the exertions of French diplomats to "convince" African countries to vote against us in the U.N. I think that when the events of the past few months are sorted out, we will find that French actions constitute the diplomatic equivalent of chemical and biological warfare. To take such action, Mr. Chirac must have conceived of a French future not only independent of the United States, but in open opposition to us. To be sure, he does not speak of France alone, or of the Franco/German entente, but rather of "Europe." But he sees Europe as an extension of French power, not as a federal union in which all states will be free to pull their weight and pursue their sometimes diverging interests. Thus, his rude insults to the Central European countries who joined with Spain, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and the others who support our efforts to liberate Iraq. If they want to be part of Europe, he said, they should just shut up. This is all part of the tectonic shifts taking place all over the world. President Bush the Elder intuited the emergence of a new world order once the Soviet empire fell,but it is only now that we can begin to see the profundity of the changes and the magnitude of the challenges we will face in the immediate future. To blame a transformation of such magnitude on the diplomatic style of this administration, as so many of President George W. Bushâs critics do, is to personalize, and thereby trivialize a world-historical event. Weâd better understand it, and fast. So, Murat, do you really want Turkey to be a department of France? |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #23 frankly, none of us is privy to the negotiations between the US and Turkey, we dont know exactly what Turkey asked for, if it was only a small refugee buffer, or if it was a broader veto over the Kurdish situation, and we dont know what the US responded with. We also dont really know what the final outcome was. Even now the 173rd Airborne is landing in Kurdistan, to be followed, apparently by elements of the 1st ID. As someone pointed out it will be very difficult to supply a large force by air - and as Murat and others have pointed out theres been a lot of activity at Turkish ports lately - it may be too soon to connect these particular dots, but i continue to look for a surprise in this area. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-03-27 12:47:53 |
| #22 Fact is, Turkey is teetering on the edge of becoming another Iran or Taliban/Afghanistan. If their Army doesn't roll on the Fundies, it is just a matter of time. I figure the Fundies take over, move to do to the Kurds what they did to the Armenians, and we are at war with them within 5 years. |
| Posted by: Hodadenon 2003-03-27 12:33:24 |
| #21 Since we have been denied the opportunity to forge a "proper" northern front (heavy armor) the U.S should consider very carefully who their friends ae and to what extent we should bankroll their economies with our aid. Check out a recent oped by William Safire in the NY Times regarding aid and loans only conforming to World Monetary Fund guidelines |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-27 11:06:15 |
| #20 Murat, in all honesty I don't think a "buffer zone" would solve Turkey's terrorist problems. And you can't blame Washington for being a bit suspicious of any such Turkish buffer zones inside Iraq. So, any other Turkish interests the US should be regarding?? Or is this the only one? |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-27 10:42:57 |
| #19 What Glenn Reynolds wrote is true, but it's only half the story - the other half is that Turkey intended to screw us, they just didn't get the chance. France offered the EU. However less noticed is that China offered trade, lots of it - in exchange for Turkey's cooperation. (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200301/15/eng20030115_110148.shtml ) Notice the date on this article is 1/15/03. Notice (yet unelected) Erdogan made public statements they wanted "a peaceful solution to Iraq" on the same day. It was obvious - to anyone who wasn't consumed with wishful thinking - that the Turks would say no to US troops, WEEKS before they finally plunged the knife in our back. I said it then, I'm saying it now - not that anyone has ever listened. Turkey was feeling smug until it became clear that their denial of the front did not prevent us from going to war as planned and we ARE going to win it. Furthermore, Allied Forces made it crystal clear that we will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by their troop movements. We'll fight them if they force us to. Now they are backpeddaling like crazy and pretending like it's not their fault - it's mean old France's. Poor happless Turks - NOT! |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-27 10:31:06 |
| #18 it is not possible to install a buffer zone on a mountain I don't get it. It would seem to be easier for Turkey to defend the mountain passes than to irritate the Kurds on Iraqi soil. Also, Murat, you made your choices (turning down $15B in the process) and your choices were respected, so why are you so hostile to the American government lately? Do you prefer Saddam to a free Iraq? In truth, would you prefer that we pull out, eliminate the no-fly zone, and let the Kurds be slaughtered by Saddam and/or Turkish forces? |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-27 09:39:21 |
| #17 "The more I look at the situation, the less I think that relations b/t the US and Turkey have sustained serious damage." Regardless of Turkey's recent actions the relationship between the US and Turkey will diminish because Turkey will no longer be that important, geo-strategically to the US. Turkey has been very useful during the past 50+ years because of it's proximity to the Soviet Union (cold war) and Iraq (Saddam Hussein war). Once Iraq falls, Turkey is no longer that useful. I expect the long term relationship to be amiable, but mostly one of indifference. z |
| Posted by: ziphius 2003-03-27 08:54:44 |
| #16 "This is a strange notion there is no real friendship between nations but alliances and trade relations... Thank you, Murat, for stating the Kissingerian doctrine. When followed by the USA, it leads to howlings all over the planet, but righteous defensiveness when espoused by everyone else against the USA. expect it to be requoted at a later date, and in such a way as to make you regret you ever said it... |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-03-27 08:44:52 |
| #15 Hey Murat, Good to see you on the board. As always, raising some hackles and challenging some viewpoints. The more I look at the situation, the less I think that relations b/t the US and Turkey have sustained serious damage. I DO think it was a huge surprise to Americans that Turkey did not want to help the US, but I think that Turkey has better reasons to decline than, say, France or Germany. However, from what I've read, it seems also that many Turks themselves were surprised that they didn't support the US action. The expectation of many in the government seemed to have been that 1.) many parliamentarians would vote FOR helping the US, so they needn't; 2.) the parliamentary vote was a stage in the negotiations for US aid offers, and so did not constitute a final rejection. As was notably quoted in a news release on Rantburg earlier this week (I think) some government minister admitted that they had mis-calculated the tolerance of the US for bargaining. Bottom line, Turkish interests are defined by Turks. From the American viewpoint, it seemed that our aid offers and support for NATO protection(opposed by Germany and France)were accommodating those interests, and that Turkey would respond in kind. It seems downright irrational for Turkey to have refused our requests, and in so doing, seemingly damage themselves AND one of their closest allies. |
| Posted by: mjh 2003-03-27 07:55:10 |
| #14 Dubya supporter: "As for me, I think that Turkey has probably made a mistake." Yeah, that's kinda what we're trying to say. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-27 07:51:07 |
| #13 Gulf War I - The Kurds were left alone to be slaughtered precisely because of Turkish fears that the uprising would lead to a new Kurdistan. The Turkish government did exactly what their people wanted. That doesn't mean it was the best thing for Turkey. They lost money, a military and political hand in northern Iraq and the good will of the U.S. What did they gain ? French support ? The U.S. was their ONLY hope of getting into the EU. |
| Posted by: WhoMe? 2003-03-27 07:50:11 |
| #12 I think that the speculation on this (and other boards) about Turkey and its motivations have pretty effectively demonstrated that the posters have no idea as to what they are talking about, Murat possibly excepted. No one has addressed Murat's basic points: (1) Turkey suffers from substantial Kurdish terrorism, much resulting from GW1, (2) Turkey is a real democracy, and so the actions of its gov't can't be reduced to "tool of the military" or some other simplistic formulation and (3) Turkey (like the US) is generally going to do what its gov't perceives is best for Turkey. Btw, this last point is completely consistent with Turkey being a US friend and ally. As for me, I think that Turkey has probably made a mistake. But consider India: after a massacre of 24 civilians by islamists (one of countless post-9/11 atrocities almost certainly attributable to Pakistan and its agents), our public reaction is to tell them to continue to diplomatically engage Pakistan. Of course, our strategic interests (and maybe even India's) may favor this course. But is it really ridiculous that the Turkish gov't would have reservations about cooperating with the US, being caught between wide public disapproval of the Iraq action and fears that "terrorists" are defined with respect to US interests? |
| Posted by: Dubya supporter 2003-03-27 06:25:13 |
| #11 The US requested Turkey to allow the use of 3 bases Ãncirlik, Malatya and Batman, probably there will be another round of voting by our parliament soon. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-03-27 06:02:11 |
| #10 "...there is no real friendship between nations but alliances and trade relations." Murat, that comment betrays a strange blend of cynicism and naivety. Of course nations have 'friends' in the same way individuals, families and communities do. Nothing happens on the international scene without reference to past events and without a degree of emotion involved. Why do you think there's been such a tremendous backlash from the US and UK towards France, when other countries, such as Russia and China, have supported Saddam more so and are yet barely considered as targets for anger - because France was considered to be betraying us. What ignited the first world war? Alliances and their promises based on something far more akin 'friendship' than national self-interest, dragged Europe into a war that laid waste to so much national power and ambition, at little or no national gain. A country that believes it has no friends is probably right. I hope that for Turkey's sake, your view is not representative. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-27 05:52:02 |
| #9 So Turkey's refusal has nothing to do with the fact that between 80%(www.washingtonsost.com) and 90% (www.sptimes.com) of the Turkish people didn't want US troops in their country? This decision was made by the elected representatives of the Turkish people. What hope would there be for the people of Iraq if the Bush administration didn't respect the democratically made decisions of America's oldest and closest allies? What does democracy mean if not respecting the wishes of your people? If allegance to the US requires suspending our democratic processes and going against the will of the majority of our citizens, what hope do any of us US "allies" have for enjoying the celebrated US values of freedom and democracy? |
| Posted by: British Citizen 2003-03-27 05:46:20 |
| #8 R.McLeod, What was the national interest in angering your best ally and friend in a time of need? This is a strange notion there is no real friendship between nations but alliances and trade relations, especially no friendship when the US is pursuing her interests. Anyway, it is also very obvious that points of Turkish national interests with the US are widely diverting, the US felt no need as a superpower to commit herself to regarding the national security concerns of her ally and this situation has appeared. Do you really and truly believe that the masses in your country would have risen up and down anything consequential if your government had helped us? No way. No way? What about the protesters in your own land, do you have a grip on the free mind of the people, the will of the masses are strong and we canât shove aside democracy because we have to please the US. Do you actually believe that had the U.S. and Turkey worked out a deal that there was a chance in hell that we'd back an independent Kurdistan? No way. We don't double-cross true friends. EVER. The US officials gave only oral assurances, you donât want to know what kind of pledges we heard before in GW1 none to little have been kept, oral assurances have no worth. Why didn't the US commit herself to written assurances, when the prime minister would have excepted also a written declaration of Bush or Powell, but I am sure the US papers didn't wrote anything about that of course, the oral pledge of GOD Bush should suffice! |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-03-27 05:31:20 |
| #7 Think about it Murat. You don't have a pipeline into the machinations of the Turkish government. You only know what you read in the papers and on TV, right? Decisions like Turkey's, or any rational government, are usually based on a mixture of reasons. Every country acts first in it's own self-interest, we know that. Obviously, there is legitimate concern about an independent Kurdistan. Certainly there is real domestic internal opposition against the war in Iraq. But were those REALLY the only reasons for the fiasco in your parliament? What was the national interest in angering your best ally and friend in a time of need? Obviously, a political calculation was made that something else was more important. National honor? Squeamishness about taking $15 billion? C'mon. $15 billion is peanuts, a one-off, compared to what Turkey believes would come of being in the European Union. I think your real problem with the German-French blackmail story is that it's extremely PLAUSIBLE. Your politicians played their hand very poorly. Do you really and truly believe that the masses in your country would have risen up and down anything consequential if your government had helped us? No way. Do you actually believe that had the U.S. and Turkey worked out a deal that there was a chance in hell that we'd back an independent Kurdistan? No way. We don't double-cross true friends. EVER. The U.S. and Turkey will remain allies, because there is plainly still some military cooperation. But don't expect any help from the U.S. in promoting your cause to the EU (not the Germans, especially the Germans, and French want you anyway). If the war goes well, this will blow over for the most part. But if it doesn't, if the delay in getting the 4th ID into the theatre results in serious U.S. losses, the U.S. isn't going to forget this for some time. And, if the Kurds do start pushing for an independent Kurdistan, well, I guess our Congress will have to debate very long and very hard about whether we'd want to get involved in that... |
| Posted by: R. McLeod 2003-03-27 02:52:06 |
| #6 Turkey only wanted to station troops in Northern Iraq to prevent a mass influx of refugees into Turkish soil like the one in 1991 when also thousands of PKK (on the US list of terror) militants infiltrated disguised as refugee, it did cost us thousands of terror casualties, the US is insisting to make the same failure again. The whole American press is presenting a diverted view as if Turkey wants to grab land and all kind of other nonsense. And some wiz kids are airing columns in some of the ârespectedâ American papers like âwhy donât the Turks put the buffer line on their side of the borderâ, without having even the notion of how the border of Turkey-Iraq looks like. The border of Iraq Turkey is separated by a huge mountain chain, with the mountain on the Turkish side and the slope and plains on the Iraqi side, it is not possible to install a buffer zone on a mountain. All what Turkey has asked for is to put up a buffer zone of 20km inside Iraq on the plain, what kind of land grab would that be? A no from the US resulted in a big NO from the Turkish parliament, and it serves right, we will be receive again the mess on our plate due to US botch-up. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-03-27 02:44:35 |
| #5 Eh, Turkey took a wonderful opportunity to keep its mouth shut. French Occupation is already under way. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-03-27 02:07:45 |
| #4 And precisely what Turkish interests should the US be regarding? |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-27 01:58:58 |
| #3 This is the most ridiculous piece i have read, Turkey and France, nonsense. The reason is the total disregard of the Turkish interests by the US, if the US sees herself in the position that she can disregard others interest, so can do other nations. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-03-27 01:49:22 |
| #2 "As one Turkish leader put it, 'there were no promises, only threats.'" That means: it didn't help, fools -- France is going to veto your ass anyway. Have fun in the wilderness; we're certainly not going to take you in after this. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-03-27 00:57:39 |
| #1 Turkey joins the EU. Tell me when to stop laughing! |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-27 00:57:26 |