WHAT WILL ERDOGAN DO?

Turkey's failed attempts to join the European Union, the lack of a solution to the Cyprus problem, the worsening of the situation in northern Iraq and the weakening of  support for Ankara by US political circles are forcing the government of Turkey to rethink the country's foreign policy doctrine. Attempts by the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan to find a way out of the crisis situation have not been crowned with success. The latest polls show that hat the situation is having an effect on the popularity ratings of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) which is to face a tough test at the end of the year - elections to the Grand National Assembly (the parliament). If you add to this the presidential elections which are planned for May then it becomes clear that the ruling party's most substantial success, high economic growth rates, will be placed in jeopardy. No matter what Erdogan says about the elections not having any effect on the markets, the situation bears witness to the contrary. It is an open secret that the government which he heads is the first non-coalition Cabinet of Ministers in decades.

The victory of the democrats in the US congress elections have not only called into question the continuation of the White House's current Iraq doctrine but have also weakened Ankara's position in the issue of support for counteracting propaganda about the alleged genocide inflicted upon Armenians under the Ottoman Empire.

Predictable outcome  

High-ranking officials from Ankara went to Washington one after another in order to clarify the situation. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul was the first to go. During his meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he demanded support in opposing terrorists' activities in northern Iraq and also guarantees that a resolution in support of the so-called "Armenian genocide" would not be adopted. Then Prime Minister R.T. Erdogan himself paid a visit. And finally came talks with Gen Yasar Buyukanit, Turkey's chief of General Staff. Although no details of the talks were announced, one can say that the visits were not successful judging by the statements made by US spokesmen and the subsequent split between the government and army leadership in Turkey. 

In particular, the position of the US army's top brass, who through Gen Michael Moseley, chief of staff of the US Air Force, expressed regret over the fact that "NATO'S military base of Incirlik in the south of Turkey was standing idle" confirmed that the differences between the two countries remained. The US general said that aerial operations in Iraq were being carried out in more difficult conditions than if the NATO base in Turkey were being used in them. M. Moseley also confirmed that the White House's position with regard to Turkey carrying out military operations in Iraq remained the same and he said that "such a step would create a new seat of destabilisation in the region". 

All of this is confirmed once again by the fact that during the talks in Washington neither Prime Minister Erdogan nor Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul obtained the support they wanted on the Iraq issue. It goes without saying that the results of the recent elections to the US Congress also affected that for the democrats favour the adoption of a resolution on the alleged genocide of the Armenians. Debates on this issue are planned for April this year and this will further exacerbate relations between Ankara and Washington. A similar situation arose in September 2000 when over 10,000 Turkish citizens held a protest at Incirlik base in response to discussion of the question of alleged genocide. This protest led to the base not operating for three days. In view of the worsening of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, the USA will hardly want to run such a risk.

The US Department of State's reaction followed immediately after the statement by the Pentagon spokesman. Department of State spokesman Tom Casey said that the question of opposing terrorists in Northern Iraq was not just the prerogative of official Baghdad but was also the prerogative of "representatives of Kurdish regions bordering on Turkey". Consequently, Washington presented Ankara with a difficult choice - to hold talks with forces which de facto supply the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) with weapons. However, in view of Washington's anti-Turkish stance on holding a referendum on the future status of the city of Kirkuk, the situation is at an impasse. Ankara "simply has no-one left to talk to" and the statements by the Department of State spokesman were seen as a kind of failure of the attempts by the Turkish leadership to force the White House to ensure the security of the Iraqi sector of the Turkish-Iraqi border which is simply not being guarded today. Casey's statements about the USA supporting the idea of holding a referendum on the future status of the city of Kirkuk which he said "proceeds from the demands of the Iraqi constitution" were the last straw.

Curiously, the American press passed over the visits by Gul and Erdogan to Washington but attached particular importance to Buyukanit's talks in the Pentagon. About the results of the visit by Turkeys chief of General Staff, The Washington Times says that Buyukanit's talks were "the last warning to Washington" to get the USA to stop turning a blind eye to the activities of the PKK. The article said that actions which "will harm the interests of both parties" would be the next step. In this context, the newspaper cites the following words by Buyukanit: "If the Iraqi side is unable to guarantee border security, and if innocent Turkish citizens die as a result of this, official Ankara will take steps to avert a threat." The Washington Times called upon the White House "not to trifle with the trust of allies" and recalled that this was the first visit in person by the head of the Turkish General Staff since the start of the Iraq campaign and particular account should be taken of this fact.

The military versus diplomats  

The final aspect of the visits was an attempt by the government of Ankara "to find a common language with the leaders of the Kurdish formations in northern Iraq". In particular, when taking part in the inauguration ceremony of the new president of Turkmenistan, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed the possibility of holding free talks. The reaction of the army leadership swiftly followed. Ending his visit to the USA, the chief of the Turkish General Staff stated that "he did not see how appropriate it would be to meet people who openly support terrorists".  In view of the imminent presidential elections, it is not surprising that the opposition immediately took up this argument, accusing Erdogan of betraying Turkey's national interests. A serious crisis erupted. 

The first reaction to Buyukanit's statement came from Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul who said that talks with the president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, and with Masoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), did not mean recognising the independence of "Iraqi Kurdistan". "The prime minister merely stated a readiness for talks with forces making it possible to normalise the situation in the region, and Barzani and Talabani have already visited Ankara many times even before that statement was made. We have pointed out their errors openly. In their time, both of them spoke from Turkey's positions and we expect similar tactics from them today. There is no doubt that there are matters to discuss with them, "A. Gul said on Kanal-7 TV channel. 

Commenting on the words by the chief of the General Staff, to the effect that "it would be wrong to meet people who openly support terrorists", the minister also said that Buyukanit was speaking "not as a diplomat but as a military man". "There are certain subjects which diplomats, not military men should talk about," Gul stressed.  In this connection, the foreign minister asked himself: "If we don't hold talks with anyone, how will we find a way out of the situation?" He said that diplomats hold talks even with enemies and that in the case of the Iraqis there could be no talk whatsoever of them being enemies. The Turkish foreign minister stressed in particular that the disintegration of Iraq into several states would lead to new wars, and "the creation on the territory of northern Iraq of an independent Kurdish state is utopia."

There will be no talks 

According to reports in the Turkish media, official Ankara planned to organise a meeting with representatives of Iraqi Kurds in Istanbul in February but the meeting was postponed in view of the sharply negative reaction by the army leadership. The position adopted by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer is curious in this connection. He openly disassociated himself from supporting the government and said that "he did not invite and did not intend to invite the head of Iraq to Ankara, and he did not consider Masoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, to be someone he could hold talks with". Turkish presidential administration spokesmen have said that Sezer will not meet Talabani and Barzani until they change their stance towards the PKK. Sezer and Buyukanit are both of the opinion that the leaders of the Iraqi Kurds openly support the activities of the terrorist PKK. Intelligence shows that these statements are not unfounded. In particular, Barzani has often stated that "the PKK is the political problem of Turkey itself, and official Ankara should declare a general amnesty". Barzani has never called the PKK a terrorist organisation either. 

Everything is clear in this regard for the Turkish opposition which is preparing for the general elections in November. Deniz Baykal, the leader of the Republican People's Party (CHP), spoke out immediately in support of the chief of the General Staff, Yasar Buyukanit, saying that "the USA, Talabani and Barzani should change their policy. Otherwise talks won't be of any use". Baykal accused those who supported holding talks with the Kurds of promulgating a lack of confidence in the strength of the 800,000-strong Turkish army, and he said that meetings with the representatives of the Iraqi Kurds would signify de facto "recognition of the creation of a state formation on those territories". And after all, Turkey has the second largest army among NATO member countries. The working visit to Ankara by an Iraqi deputy president, Adel Abdul Mahdi, a representative of the Shi'ite bloc, merits particular attention in this context. It is curious that Abdul Mahdi arrived in Ankara on the airplane of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan who personally issued instructions to send the aircraft to Baghdad. During the two-day talks, Turkish officials called on Baghdad to prevent the holding of the referendum on the status of Kirkuk arguing that "the absence of stability in the northern provinces of Iraq will prevent voting from proceeding normally". Particularly memorable is the statement by the Turkish foreign minister to the effect that "if the leadership of Iraq is not able to prevent the activities of the terrorist PKK, Ankara may itself establish order on its borders".

Observers in Ankara note at the same time that the government of Turkey was unable to obtain the "anticipated reply" from Abdul Mahdi. As was expected, official Baghdad did not agree to compromise on any of the thorny issues, including the question of proposed military operations by the Turkish army in northern Iraq which left Erdogan with just one way out - direct talks with the Iraqi Kurds. The central government of Iraq simply does not have he capacity to focus on the PKK question. Turkey's president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, also refused to meet Abdul Mahdi, which was a kind of response to the anti-Turkish stance of Jalal Talabani, the head of Iraq. Sezer has frequently rejected proposals by Baghdad officials to organise a visit by Talabani to Ankara.

Political circles in Ankara say at the same time that Abdul Mahdi's invitation should be viewed as the desire to balance the country's policy with regard to representatives of the various confessions in Iraq.  In particular, it is noted that the other deputy president of Iraq, Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni, has been invited to Istanbul several times over the past few months and this gave rise to a lot of dissatisfaction among the Shi'is.

As for the position of the leader of the northern Iraqi Kurds, Masoud Barzani, as was to be expected, he rejected claims that he supported the terrorist PKK, and he stated his readiness for talks. He said that even under the rule of Saddam Hussein, the government of Iraq practically did not control the remote districts on the Turkish-Iraqi border. 

The Iraqi Turkoman factor

There is still the Iraqi Turkoman factor but as the December 2005 elections showed, the Iraqi Turkoman Front (ITC), which enjoys Ankara's support, did not receive the expected support. The ITC proved unable to bring together the Turkoman who are the third largest ethnic group in Iraq and, as a result, it won just five seats in the Iraqi parliament. It should be noted that the Turkish leadership has never counted on the Iraqi Turkoman although up until recently they accounted for the majority of the population of Kirkuk which the Kurds want to turn into the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan after the referendum. The Turkomans themselves favour postponing the referendum on the status of Kirkuk until 2010.

To sum up, in choosing the strategy of a non-military solution to the problem of northern Iraq, official Ankara will be forced to hold talks with the Iraqi Kurds and not just because the USA wants it. It is also demanded by the new Iraqi constitution which prescribes the creation of Kurdish self-government in the northern territories of the country. It is clear that the situation in Iraq will not change to Turkey's liking.  

As for the status of the city of Kirkuk, the International Crisis Group, which is well known to the public in Azerbaijan, has drawn up a number of proposals under which the city should be handed over to UN control for a ten-year period. The ICG thinks that the situation will normalise over this period and it will only be possible to hold an objective referendum after that. However, the experts of the group see the Turkoman as a component part of a federative Kurdistan which Ankara rejects. It should be noted that Kirkuk and adjacent territories possess large oil reserves which will create an economic base for the Kurdish state. 

In choosing a military path to resolve the northern Iraq issue, Ankara will face the problem of clashing with US interests and it is obvious that it will not do that in the run-up to the elections. 

An analysis of the statements by the chief of the Turkish General Staff and foreign minister shows that there is no actual crisis in relations between the army and the government. In fact, both statements reflect the two paths along which Ankara might go. The deadlines for taking decisions are fast approaching. The referendum on the status of Kirkuk is planned for the autumn. Will Erdogan be able to take the same step as his predecessor, the late Bulent Ecevit, took in his time? It was Ecevit who went down in history for sending the Turkish army to Cyprus.