Washington Times
October 23, 2007

Ankara’s eyes

By Tulin Daloglu – Sometimes, the timing of events has more say than
the issue itself to determine its outcome. If the so-called Armenian
genocide resolution that recently passed the House Foreign Relations
Committee were to reach a floor vote at a time when separatist Kurdish
terrorist attacks were not intensifying in Turkey, and if there were
no U.S. occupation in Iraq, almost nothing would move House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi to re-evaluate her commitment to pass it.

But all of these things were happening when Mrs. Pelosi pushed the
resolution. She may seek excuses for her inexcusable ignorance of
current challenges, but she may not victoriously claim leadership. And
the way this resolution was handled creates serious doubt about
Democrats’ competence on national security issues.

Turkey, however, can claim victory. So far, Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to be conducting a smart deterrence policy
on two fronts. First, when the resolution passed committee, he
recalled the Turkish ambassador to the United States back to Ankara.
Second, he got parliament to authorize a cross-border operation into
Northern Iraq to combat PKK terrorists. These two decisions touched
off concern in Washington that now may not be the time to bet on
Turkey’s common sense. Amusingly, concerns over the Western
orientation of the Justice and Development (AKP) Party and the
military’s constant suspicion about the goodwill of its Western
alliance over fighting the PKK may have sealed the deal.

But what most worried the U.S. was Turkey’s possible reaction to
restricting use of Incirlik Air Base. Defense Secretary Robert Gates
noted that 70 percent of U.S. air cargo, one-third of its fuel and 95
percent of mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles bound for Iraq
move through Incirlik. President Bush echoed the "very real risk" to
those operations: "Congress has more important work to do than
antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one
that’s providing vital support for our military every day."

Yet a congressional source close to Democrats told me that the AKP
would not shut down the operations in Incirlik because they need U.S.
backing in the face of continuing speculation over a possible coup by
the Turkish military – the guardians of the secular government. It’s
not a wise bet; there are also multimillion-dollar defense contracts
at stake. In a year, depending on developments, Turkey may re-evaluate
them as well.

Meanwhile, the AKP continues to strengthen its relationships with
Syria and Iran. It’s no little thing that first lady Hayrunnisa Gul
was photographed for the first time in official capacity last week in
her turban emerging from Cankaya, the presidential palace, to greet
Syrian President Beshar Assad and his wife. And last Monday, Turkish
Foreign Minister Ali Babacan proposed during a meeting with Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that the conflict with Syria over Golan
Heights be included in the upcoming peace summit in Annapolis. There
is also a commitment to an energy memorandum with Iran.

Although it seems troubling, a positive turn is always possible.
Turkey could play a mediator role between Israel and Syria. When I
interviewed Pinhas Avivi, Israel’s former ambassador to Ankara, in
August, he expressed confidence in the Turkish government and stressed
that Israel’s relationship with Turkey is better under the AKP. But
there remain doubts about the AKP’s goals -" whether its priority is
Muslim solidarity over the secular democracy that bonds Turkey to the
Western world.

The Erdogan government can be smart to strengthen these relationships
with Iran and Syria if they are for tactical reasons. In fact, the PKK
issue has brought Turkey close to Iran and Syria. But there is much
suspicion over the AKP’s hidden agenda. The worry is what will happen
if the Erdogan government strengthens those bilateral relationships
strategically.

The troubling image is that the Bush administration started to hear
Turkey’s concerns as a result of those strengthening relations. When
an estimated 200 PKK terrorists attacked a military convoy on Sunday,
killing 17 Turkish soldiers in Hakkari area, Mr. Bush was quick to
address the issue. "These attacks are unacceptable and must stop now,"
he said. But a Pentagon official told me that although recent
statements emphasize Turkey’s importance to the United States, he
doubts whether there will be any satisfactory action against the PKK.
"Our relations with Turkey will be another casualty of our Iraq
policy," he said.

It’s certain that Turkey will not imminently launch a military
operation into Northern Iraq. It will host a crucial ministerial
meeting of Iraq’s neighbors and major international powers in Istanbul
on Nov. 2-3. Then Mr. Erdogan will meet Mr. Bush at the White House on
Nov. 5. "We want to get a result, especially about [the PKK issue]
during my meetings on Nov. 5," Mr. Erdogan has said.

Now the dilemma is that no deterrence policy can be applied
infinitely. What happens if Turkey runs out of time without being
satisfied? Or what happens if Turkey is satisfied on the PKK issue?
Will it allow the Iraqi Kurds to include Kirkuk in their regional
government? Are the Kurds increasing the fight in Turkey for Kirkuk?

Right now, it seems another red line for Turkey, promising future troubles.

Tulin Daloglu is a freelance writer.

Source: ITORIAL/110230006