| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| The Reasons Turkey Rejected U.S. |
| 2003-03-03 |
| The Reasons Turkey Rejected U.S. By Richard Boudreaux, Times Staff Writer ANKARA, Turkey -- Early last month, Vice President Dick Cheney phoned Turkey's prime minister with an urgent message: The Bush administration wanted the country's parliament to vote within days — just before the Muslim holiday of Bayram — on a request to base U.S. troops in Turkey for an assault on Iraq. The timing of the pressure struck a raw nerve here, one that was still aching when Turkish lawmakers finally took up the request Saturday and dealt it a surprise defeat. As Turks offered explanations Sunday for this stinging defiance of their strongest ally, tales of American insensitivity were high on the list. Religious feelings run deep here before and during Bayram. It was going to be hard enough for Washington to persuade one predominantly Muslim country to join in a war against another. But Cheney was making his pitch to a government led by an Islamist party as its lawmakers were about to head home to join pious constituents for several days of feasting and prayer. Prime Minister Abdullah Gul, a reluctant supporter of the U.S. request, told Cheney that a vote in parliament would have to wait, according to Turks familiar with the conversation. But word got around, adding to a series of blunders by the Bush administration and Gul's 3 1/2-month-old government that now seem to have doomed the Pentagon's goal of a northern front against Iraq's Saddam Hussein. "We don't like the way we were pushed around by the Americans," said Emin Sirin, one of dozens of lawmakers from the ruling Justice and Development Party who defied its leaders and voted against U.S. deployment. "The Americans kept giving ultimatums and deadlines, asking Turkey to jump into a barrel of fire," he said. "They seemed to think we could be bought off, but we had real security concerns about what Iraq would look like after Saddam. They never addressed those concerns." Really stupid and without tact, the US thinks it can fight terror by arming up local militias. By doing that you create terror which Bush apparantly doesn't care about, all he cares about is his personal vendeta Saturday's vote, which fell three short of the majority required by Turkish law, was a study in miscalculation. The ruling party's leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, joined Gul in endorsing the deployment resolution, and they had good reason to predict its passage. The party had swept 363 of the parliament's 550 seats in November elections. But the party managed just 264 votes in favor. The rebellion by more than a quarter of its deputies, whose support had been taken for granted, and a unified stand by the opposition yielded 250 votes against the plan and 19 abstentions. The other 17 lawmakers were absent. The plan would have authorized 62,000 U.S. troops, 255 warplanes and 65 helicopters to move through Turkey to bases along its border with Iraq, creating a force that could advance on Baghdad from the north while a larger U.S. force based in the Persian Gulf region moved up from the south. Such a two-pronged assault, American officials say, would shorten any war to disarm Hussein, minimizing U.S. casualties. American officials said Sunday that they would keep an armada of U.S. warships waiting off Turkey with tanks and equipment, in the hope that Turkey will soon reverse its decision. They warned, however, that the Pentagon is running out of time to decide whether the vessels — and the troops they would supply — should change course and head for the gulf. Relax, don't hurry keep it cool man. Parliament's decision left the Turkish government stunned and discredited. Some analysts said a rush to a new vote would be risky because a second defeat would further weaken the government's hold on power. "The proposal has been delayed for an open-ended time," Eyup Fatsa, the Justice and Development deputy chairman, said Sunday after a closed meeting of the party's governing board. The government has been under relentless U.S. lobbying since taking office, forced to choose between Turkey's powerful benefactor and a public that opposes war on Iraq by a 4-1 margin in surveys. Turks historically are averse to large numbers of foreign troops on their soil and fear a repeat of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when half a million refugees poured across the border from Iraq and Turkey's economy was devastated. Some analysts say antiwar rallies across Europe last month hardened popular sentiment here. Does Bush care, Turkey is an ally who is supposed to make a harakiri jump to please the American taxpayer, right? Turkey's armed forces, which usually dictate policy behind the scenes but are divided over the prospect of war, left the decision to the civilian leadership. Gul and Erdogan responded with mixed signals. After making no secret of their distaste for American war plans, the two men began arguing in recent weeks that Turkey might benefit by cooperating in a war — for example, by gaining influence in the affairs of postwar Iraq and by being able to restore trade with a neighbor freed from international sanctions. "Their U-turn came too late," said Mehmet Ali Birand, a leading Turkish columnist and television commentator. "They failed to bring the public and their own party with them. It was a classic case of miscommunication between leaders and the grass roots." American officials believed that the Turks could not afford to turn them down. On the assumption that Turkish leaders thought the same, U.S. officials led by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz kept pressing hard for a decision. When Turkey balked, American officials, in private comments to reporters, often questioned the country's value as an ally. Arrogance? "The disinformation campaign against Turkey played a big role in upsetting national feelings," Erdogan said Sunday. In the end, Washington tried to bargain for Turkey's loyalty with the promise of a $15-billion aid package that would include $6 billion in grants. The deal nearly fell apart last week when Turkey balked at one of the conditions — that it agree to strict International Monetary Fund guidelines for reform of its economy. By week's end, the government had accepted the condition, but it had no time to explain and sell the accord to lawmakers, many of whom felt that Turkey had been shortchanged. "The time pressure put on Turkey did not help the Americans' case," a senior Turkish diplomat said, because it forced the government to call a vote prematurely. |
| Posted by:Murat |
| #30 whats not mentioned here is that Turkey has been trying to enter the EU for a long time. This might be negotiations for more cash, or a nod to the french. Frankly, paying a bribe of $15 billion is unreasonable. The missile strikes can be extended long enough for us to bring troops in through kuwait. Makes for a bad logistics problem. Hope they got plans for no Turkey participation... It does mean the campaign needs to begin earlier though, if we are to avoid the summer. Also, we will have a large bottleneck that will need protecting. |
| Posted by: flash91 2003-03-04 00:35:26 |
| #29 TGA, I thought the use of some of the US bases in Germany was the result of the post-WW II Four Power Agreements, which gave us unhindered basing rights. I know some of the bases aren't covered by this, but I thought some were. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-03-03 22:31:59 |
| #28 Here's what Biran was talking about, Murat. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-03-03 21:16:35 |
| #27 Sounds like this would be good time for Abdullah Gul to spend a weekend at Crawford. |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-03 19:57:37 |
| #26 Interesting perspective. The Germans DO allow the U.S. to use their bases in Germany at will for this war, even without UN authorization. You might belittle this fact but actually this could get Germany into trouble. The German constitution (Grundgesetz Article 26 (1) forbids actions helping the "preparation of an offensive war" ("Handlungen, die geeignet sind und in der Absicht vorgenommen werden [...] die Führung eines Angriffskrieges vorzubereiten, sind verfassungswidrig. Sie sind unter Strafe zu stellen"). An US attack on Iraq without U.N. authorization would qualify (at least leading legal analysts say so). Schroeder could technically end up at court for allowing the U.S. to prepare war from German soil. Technically he could even end up in The Hague. Germany adopted the treaty of the International Criminal Court (the U.S. did not). Sure, not very likely that this will happen. But if the U.S. strike without U.N. backing things could get messy. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-03-03 19:49:19 |
| #25 Murat's points are valid. The aftermath of Gulf War I sucked for them... they had a lot of dead people too, and the economic hit was equally harsh. All of which could have been avoided if we'd just taken Saddam out the 1st time, but that's another rant. Bottom line, we weren't there to pick them up in a public way (quiet help via the IMF is nice but a mixed blessing). Now we want their help again, and they're suspicious. I have no time for the Euros, but reverse the circumstances - wouldn't you be? They wanted guarantees we couldn't give, or couldn't be seen to give, and there was too much distrust to get a meeting of minds. That's too bad, and it will cost us both unless some miraculous diplomatic save can be made. But sometimes that's the way the world works. I'm all for putting the French in our sights, and the Germans too. I'm all for doing everything we can to make the EU's life hell over their conduct on the Iraq issue. But I have zero animosity for Turkey, even though I wish they had decided differently. |
| Posted by: Joe Katzman 2003-03-03 18:23:32 |
| #24 A light rise is not a 12.5% decline. A light rise isn't a 5% depreciation in the currency. A light rise is not the Prime Rate soaring past 60%. Nevertheless, let's see how tomorrow's trading session goes. I'm sure that Erdogan can blame it on the Jews (read Soros). After all, we decadent Western Capitalists are the root of all evil and not poor economic planning... |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-03-03 17:18:09 |
| #23 Well, ships move at X speed and there comes a point when we need to know their destination. So putting pressure on people for a time to decide isn't bad. Keeping up the schedule is a good thing. Sh*t or get off the pot. |
| Posted by: Lord Ben 2003-03-03 14:35:56 |
| #22 Turkey is holding up the invasion. Had this been settled long ago, we would've seen the vote at the UNSC, followed by Bush telling Chiraq "Vas t'faire foutre!", followed by the scream heard 'round the world as Saddam gets his balls yanked off by an M1A1, just before he gets hacked to pieces by his own people and fed to the lions at the Baghdad Zoo. But that's ok Turkey, go ahead and side with your real friends the Europeans. It was a tough choice, EU membership or US loyalty, wasn't it? |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-03 13:31:49 |
| #21 pro-fatherland, murat? Couldn't you have chosen a term less nazi-like? Like birth-country? homeland? And "got rid" not "got of the tribal aspect" |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-03 12:25:37 |
| #20 Whine about us being heavy-handed w/them, yet how heavy a hand do the Turks want to use against the Kurds? Maybe if Turkey got its act together and made itself attractive/prosperous for the kurds, it might change a few minds and hearts. Or let got of the tribal aspect. Which is what we're seeing in the rest of the world. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-03 12:22:26 |
| #19 If this is halfway accurate, it's time we keep Cheney away from anything that even looks like diplomacy. I recall that we had to send Powell out to mend fences when the VP made his grand tour of the Middle East. To put it another way, if we have essentially returned to pre-World War II norms of diplomacy it's time to relearn the niceties. More hands to be played in this game for sure though |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-03-03 11:55:31 |
| #18 Murat, I agree with AWW: I'd have been surprised if you DIDN'T regard your homeland with fierce patriotism and want to do what's needed to be done to establish the security of your nation. I even recognize your right to whine when equally motivated and equally patriotic Americans, with a similar regard for America, act in a similar self-interested manner. Fair's fair, right? |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-03-03 11:18:17 |
| #17 Let's all admit that there's blame for everyone here. The Turks need to understand how important ridding the world of Saddam is. They also need to understand the importance of having a say in post-war Iraq, and how they WON'T have a say if they don't work with us. The Turks also need to understand that the US has stood up for them in the past; EU membership, NATO, and an even-handed approach with the Greeks (e.g., Cyprus) are but a few examples. We don't like being dissed after putting ourselves on the line for someone. We could certainly be more understanding of Muslim religious holidays, if the story is correct. There are times when the US isn't especially good at quiet diplomacy, and dealing with the Turks strikes me as something where quiet diplomacy is the best option. After all, the goal is for each side to get what they need so that we can get moving. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-03-03 10:54:40 |
| #16 AWW - I will be the last one ever to say anything like "they deserved 9/11". As I think the US didn’t deserve that, I think also we don’t deserve terrorism after another gulfwar. How many Americans suffered terror, 3000, 4000? In my country more than 30.000 suffered that evil, mainly trough American failures of GW1 and their wildly arming up of the local Iraqi militias, those weapons eventually exploded in my country. Agreeing that it might be a strategically poor decision by Turkey (in economical aspect), it sets however the final wish to give a sign that we want very solid assurance that GW2 will not take another 30.000 lives in my country. None of the billions of losses you hint at can match that. As long as the US doesn’t firmly assure disarming the Iraqi militias after a war, I think that the Turkish government was right in not passing the bill. If we are talking about fighting terrorism it must not be limited to terrorism against the US, which saddles an ally with mess after wart. It’s really up the US officials once they ensure that a second motion can pass the next day. Regards, |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-03-03 09:49:47 |
| #15 Murat - I have no problem with you being more pro-Turkey than pro-US, I'd be surprised if you weren't. My dissapointment came in the "it's America's fault" analysis of the Turkish vote - it sounds eerily familiar to the "they deserved 9/11" rant. Granted that Turkey suffered from GW1 but to assume they will screwed again after this war, after the US has gone to great lengths to help Turkey (noted above) is an assumption. As for the UN we have seen over the past 6 months how useless this organization is. I enjoy your posts and insight Murat so I don't want to get into a p*ssing match with you - I just believe this was a strategically poor decision by Turkey that will hurt them in both the short run and long run. |
| Posted by: AWW 2003-03-03 09:27:34 |
| #14 Typical media and Euro blather where the Turks are not responsible for their own indecision and waffling, Dick Cheny is. You think they'd get it by now. After 9-11, we aren't playing with words anymore and the enemy never was. This is not a game. We intend to kill the terrorists and protect our freedom at ANY cost, though we'll do our very best to limit the suffering. Just as we misunderstood the character of the Turks (they'd rather hurt us than help themselves) they misunderstood OUR character. You are either with us or against us in this fight. The Turks chose their position - as is their right - now they need to live with the consequences instead of blaming the US because we forgot to ask for the cherry when we said, pretty please. Americans are so waaay beyond playing that little game. |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-03 09:14:39 |
| #13 The US has supported Turkey's desire to join the EU and Turkey's defense by NATO. The US was willing to pay an ally for assistance and work with Turkey's concerns about its own Kurdish problems. That is arrogance? Turkey has not shown sensitivity to American concerns about Iraq. It is hypocritical for Turkey to condemn American insensitivity. Many commenters here have observed that playing politics with vital American interests is foolish and short-sighted. This is not a proud moment for Turkey. |
| Posted by: Arthur Fleischman 2003-03-03 08:58:10 |
| #12 Rigggghhhtt ....the U.S. is acting like a cowboy - insensitive to others' high principles and religious pieties. Of course, this could have been overcome for a few billion more... reminds me of the joke with the ending: "sir...what do you take me for?" "I think we've already established that ma'am, now we're just negotiating a price" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-03-03 08:52:23 |
| #11 MWW, If my views are more pro fatherland than pro American, which disappoints you that’s not a pitty, so be it Turkey is a billion times more precious to me than the US, but this is not anti-Americanism. I really doubt this saves anything to the US, that $15-$30BN you mention are balloons as empty as the promises of 1991, but anyway that’s not to the point or as important as some media stories try to balloon it. What’s important is the after war prospects in which the US give no guarantees, the words of Bush are not enough as Powell and ambassador Pearson want to make us believe, experience from the Gfwar 1 did teach that. To be short the US asks Turkey to jump in an internationally unapproved war without giving any solid assurances. One of the UN guidelines says that no country should allow a second country to use its territory for attacking a third country without UN authorization (one that has been signed by the US as well). |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-03-03 08:50:23 |
| #10 I agree with Brian and Ptah. Perhaps finally in all this the US will come to see who its true allies really are. We are so sorry we did not ask for your help as politely and sensitively as we should have, Murat. You see, we are under a wee bit of stress here as each day we wait to see whether a WMD will be set off here in our own country. That might cause us to be a bit testy now and then, but at least as long as GWB is president our true friends (Blair, Howard) will not be forgotten. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-03 08:29:38 |
| #9 Dissapointing post and comments by Murat. Turkey is a "democracy" and we should respect their decision. However to turn around and blame the negative decision on US pressure is infantile and smacks of anti-Americanism. As mjh notes if this decision stands it will hurt Turkey, for the US it complicates the war effort a bit but is not a show stopper. And the US saves $15-$30BN. |
| Posted by: AWW 2003-03-03 07:58:55 |
| #8 Hello Ptah I have no doubt that the US will cross that bridge, it will take a bit longer but she will cross. I do however disagree about the Kurds running their little world, I would ask you how if it where not the 13% share of Iraqi oil enforced by the UN sanctions and the UN administrated projects that runs that sub-sub artificial 36th parallel entity in northern Iraq. Thank you for asking, this morning the stock market showed a sharp dive but it is stabilizing now with a light rise. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-03-03 07:44:15 |
| #7 I think many parliamentarians just signed their own resignation letters. Caving to populism and ignoring economic reality is a surefire means of destabilization. Turkey looks to be losing its secular appeal. If Turkey alienates both the EU and the US, it does not bode well for its future. One question is whether this is an attempt to cozy up to the Axis of Weasels and strengthen Turkey's bid to enter the EU. If so, I believe they're pumping a dry well. Old Europe has proven that it does not remember nor stand by its friends, whereas the US has a very long memory, and the means to help its friends. Another question is how the Kurds will use this to their advantage? My thinking is that they just became more valuable to the US. I wonder if an independent Kurdistan could ever emerge? |
| Posted by: mjh 2003-03-03 07:42:20 |
| #6 Turkey's motivations are a jumble. Different members of the legislature have diffirent reasons for what they do. Also, the Kurdish motivations are not unified. Although most Kurds are very willing to live in a unified Iraq, there are some who aren't, and a few or the latter are potential terrorists. Still, as pointed out, the number and scope of open democratic institutions the Kurds have created in the last ten years is worthy of praise. I hope that as they get more power, it doesn't corrupt them. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-03-03 07:32:08 |
| #5 "Might" is not "will", Murat, a subtlety in the english language that perhaps is escaping you. You're neither a prophet, seer, or genius, and nor is anyone else, so neither you, nor anyone else, can say with 100% certainty what will or will not happen. "It might, it might, it might" may be successful against the insecure who want cradle to grave security and 100% guarantees, but it's lost on people used to evaluating the risks and taking action in view of known threats. The ability to take risk is an american cultural thing, so YOU be multicultural about it and LIVE with it. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. A world with one less WMD-seeking and using dictator is a better world, regardless of the bogey men you see in the shadows that MIGHT leap out to bite us. I don't like the idea of multiplying nations that just add up to more demands on American taxpayer generosity. At the same time, the Kurds have proven to run their little world a hell of a lot better than most other, more established arab countries. By the way, how's your stock market doing? |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-03-03 07:23:44 |
| #4 How dare you lecture us, Murat? Your nation has made their choice, and now I hope they are prepared to reap what they sow. And let's just see where those calls from Ankara to Washington go... |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-03-03 07:10:39 |
| #3 Nobody can deny the road to Bagdad has it's share of potholes. But we will travel there. |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-03 06:45:07 |
| #2 Can anybody tell me what it means when the US have distributed so many weapons to the militias, that you can buy hand grenades for $2 on the market in Arbil (North Iraq). What is Bush doing, fighting terrorism or creating terrorism? Those same hand grenades the Kurds will use soon or later on the American GI's (and suddenly they will become terrorist in American terms) |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-03-03 04:14:14 |
| #1 The stupid, arrogant, tactless ones are the legislators who -- absent quick reversal -- will soon watch their economy crater and their Kurdish population get restless or worse. But at least they'll still have their vanity. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-03-03 03:49:21 |