BACK CORRIDORS: ROUND 2 FOR THE MARCH 2003 MOTION
by Ayla Ganioglu
The New Anatolian, Turkey
Sept 4 2006
Opinions
Lebanon troop deployment motion, set to start tomorrow at 3:00 p.m.,
will be round two for the March 1, 2003 motion on sending troops
to Iraq.
The Bush administration, which got a negative response to the 2003
motion, must be expecting a positive response this time around.
Before it came to power, the ruling Justice and Development (AK)
Party promised the U.S., behind closed doors, to support its Iraq
operation. But this promise turned out to be empty, as around 100
deputies from the AK Party voted against the motion that would have
allowed the U.S. to open a front on Turkish soil for its Iraq invasion.
The rejection of the motion strained Turkish-U.S. relations.
The motion regarding Turkey’s contribution to the international
peacekeeping force to be deployed in Lebanon, following Israeli attacks
in July and last month’s cease-fire, will be voted on tomorrow. This
vote will be a critical turning point for Turkish-U.S. relations.
This vote, in fact, seems to be significant for relations between
the AK Party and Bush administration, rather than for U.S.-Turkish
relations. Speculations in the backrooms indicate that if Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants a successful visit to the U.S. in
October, the motion should be passed. The speculations also indicate
that Erdogan’s eagerness to send Turkish troops to Lebanon since
the very beginning of the debates is an attempt to mend the damaged
relations with the U.S. following the 2003 resolution.
While these debates are going on behind closed doors, Democratic Left
Party (DSP) leader Zeki Sezer was the first figure to speak openly
on the issue. "The AK Party took power having promised to serve the
interests of global forces," said Sezer. "It considers the support
of these forces essential for its staying in power. In this regard,
the AK Party wants to send troops to Lebanon to get foreign support
so it can stay in power."
The second round of the March 2003 motion will take place tomorrow. If
the motion on Lebanon is passed, Turkey will open its bases and ports
to foreign armed forces, although it didn’t do that three years
ago. The most important part of the motion seems to be this. Will
the AK Party government be able to block the use of these bases and
ports for other countries (maybe Iran and Syria) as well in the future?
Armenians’ approach
Before the arrival of Turkish troops, AK Party Sakarya Deputy Suleyman
Gunduz traveled to Lebanon. Going there as a member of the "Ground
Doctors group" following the declaration of the cease-fire, Gunduz
tried to assess its problems regarding health and made promises to send
medicine and other medical supplies. Following his arrival in Turkey,
Gunduz started to meet with the Health Ministry and civil groups,
trying to obtain these supplies.
Gunduz said that around 1 million internally displaced people are in
public buildings and face grave health problems. He also said that
epidemics may break out in the country and there are very serious
problems in importing medicines and medical supplies. Gunduz pointed
to the problems in finding a number of medicines and particularly
antibiotics.
In northern Beirut, Gunduz came across Turkish-speaking
Armenians. After having a close dialogue with these Armenians, most
of whom migrated there from Turkey, Gunduz argued that the Armenians
won’t oppose Turkish troops’ taking part in the international
peacekeeping force.
"The area that I stayed in was predominantly populated by Armenians,"
said Gunduz. "None of them objected to us. Around 90 percent of the
Armenians that I spoke to were immigrants from Turkey. The area is
also one where the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia
(ASALA – an Armenian terrorist group that killed a number of Turkish
diplomats) originated from.
While I was there, the issue of Turkey’s sending troops to Lebanon
wasn’t certain yet. But I think the Armenians there won’t oppose the
Turkish troops."
News agencies reported last week that a group of Armenians demonstrated
against Turkish troops in Beirut, though not very many.
However, Gunduz is making plans to improve the dialogue he established
with Lebanese Armenians in the coming years. Arguing that there are
thousands of people in Turkey who came from Armenia to work, Gunduz
said that he will make a project regarding diaspora Armenians if he is
able to stay in politics following the next elections. "I will propose
developing friendship between Turkey and diaspora Armenians and not
passing on a historical mistake to the generations to come," said
Gunduz. "I will also suggest that the problem be resolved within the
citizenship framework." Under Gunduz’s proposal, diaspora Armenians
who have migrated from Turkey will be given the chance to become
Turkish citizens.
Turkish friend of PKK envoy
One of the figures who views with suspicion the new model of fighting
terrorism through the U.S and Turkey’s appointing Kurdistan Workers’
Party (PKK) envoys is CHP deputy head and former diplomat Onur Oymen.
Oymen argues that the aim of appointing envoys is a political
solution. "The U.S. doesn’t want the elimination of PKK through the
full use of force," said Oymen. "It isn’t moving militarily against the
PKK and doesn’t want Turkey to do that. If there had been a military
fight, a liaison officer would be appointed. But an envoy seeks a
political solution. It doesn’t matter is the envoy is a military
man. If the military man appointed is retired, his task is political."
Former Gen. Joseph Ralston, the U.S.-appointed PKK envoy, is a figure
Oymen knows very well.
"Ralston is my friend," Oymen said. "While I was serving as the
permanent representative to NATO (1997-2002), he was the Supreme
Allied commander Europe. He’s a very good soldier. He used to say that
he has warm feeling for Turkey. But this is one thing, and being an
envoy is another."
Oymen argued that it’s not important that the U.S. administration
announced Ralston won’t meet with the terrorist group. He said that in
diplomacy this is called indirect or proxy negotiation. According to
Oymen, the process will unfold as follows: "Ralston won’t travel
to Mt. Kandil in northern Iraq to meet with PKK leader Murat
Karayilan. Ralston will meet with the Iraqi government. The Iraqi
government will talk to [Kurdish region leader Massoud] Barzani,
and Barzani will communicate the demands to the PKK. This is called
proxy negotiation. The PKK will be told to lay down its arms and
a threatening message will be sent. The PKK, meanwhile, will draw
up a list of demands, including a general amnesty and political
participation. The U.S. will put pressure on Turkey to accept the
PKK’s demands."
Oymen argued that if Turkey resists the PKK demands, the U.S. will
say in the end that they did their best but Turkey didn’t help at all.
"So the U.S. will protect itself from blame," Oymen said.
As for the other option, the deputy said, "If Turkey accepts these
demands, we can’t know what the consequences will be."
As an example of the model of political efforts against terrorism,
Oymen referred to the U.S.
appointment of former Senator George Mitchell as an envoy for the
negotiations between the IRA and the British government.
Oymen pointed to how the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons (TAK) claimed
responsibility for the latest terrorist attacks in southern Turkish
tourist resorts, arguing that reaching an agreement with the PKK
won’t end terrorism.
"They will say that a splinter group established the TAK, ending the
PKK’s responsibility for terrorist attacks," Oymen argued. "On the
one hand, Turkey will make concessions to the PKK to end terrorism,
and on the other, terrorism will continue under different names."
Key words
In an interview with daily Sabah, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
was very angered by a question on an alleged secret plan for the
elimination of PKK forces, and said that asking such a question
amounted to treason.
Erdogan’s attitude indicated that the government will stay silent about
the model-in-preparation of fighting terrorism through envoys. But
some key words will signal the stage that the new model is here. The
most important key word, in this regard, is cease-fire.
If the terrorist PKK declares a cease-fire, this will mean that the
first stage in the talks through envoys was successfully completed. The
PKK cease-fire will likely be for a limited time, with set dates.
If the terrorist group declares a cease-fire for an indefinite period,
that means the process is about to be concluded. We should assume
that the AK Party won’t remain silent anymore in this case.
If the government passes a secret or open amnesty law in the coming
months, that means the talks are at a critical stage, which can be
considered the most difficult stage for the government.
The amnesty model suggested back in 1993 by then President Turgut
Ozal to Ahmet Turk, now Democratic Society Party (DTP) head, was very
comprehensive. According to Turk, Ozal suggested that the terrorist
group members submit a petition including the crimes they committed
in a sealed envelope and these petitions would be destroyed if they
didn’t commit any more crimes in the next five years.
Right now the AK Party government sees an amnesty as impossible. Under
the "secret plan" Sabah published, the AK Party doesn’t consider an
amnesty possible for the time being but will allow the administrative
ranks of the terrorist group to silently return to Turkey. These
administrators will then go to northern countries.
We’ll see whether the key words will work this time.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress