10.03.2007

There are two apparent realities. Lately, the government and the Foreign Ministry in particular are working hard to play an influential role in Iraq. However, these efforts are disregarded considerably by the international community and especially by the United States.

Moreover, as for Iraq, Turkey is still seen as a country which creates problems, not a country which solves problems.

Based on his observations from Washington, journalist Ali H. Aslan, whose views I value, explicated about how Turkey is viewed from the U.S. capital in his article, “The republic of skinny louses.” (Zaman, March 5, 2007). After stating, “The saying, ‘Nobody wants the Turkish louses to get fat,' was once widely used in diplomatic circles,” he looks for its reasons as follows:

“... Then why is Turkey ignored so much? Shall I tell you the grim truth? Because very few people in Washington care about Turkey. Turkey cannot go beyond the agenda of a narrow circle of experts and middle echelon bureaucrats as long as it causes no problem....”

According to Aslan, regardless of what the politicians in Washington promise about the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK), American bureaucrats do not take these promises seriously.

The two Ankaras:

I am pleased with the recent special efforts exerted by our Foreign Ministry concerning Iraq, but I also think that the reason why the United States regards Turkey only as the source or trouble is Turkey itself.

Turkey gives the impression of a divided country concerning its Iraq policy and northern Iraq policy in particular. On one hand, Turkey recognizes Iraq's territorial integrity and has respect for the Iraqi Constitution. But on the other hand, it presumes northern Iraq does not exist as a main element of Iraq's integrity and its constitution!

The government seems to acknowledge the reality of Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani; yet, the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) and the Presidency clearly describe them as adversaries.

Moreover, as we collect from the statement of the chief of general staff, this view is the “formal” view of the TSK.

And we all know that a country cannot have two different formal views on the same issue!

Don't ever say, “the view that counts is that of the government.” Everyone, including the United States, knows very well that in political issues the TSK's views are as significant as that of the government.

The American view:

Under these circumstances, how would you think if you were an American bureaucrat working on the Turkey desk? Probably like this:

“What we mostly expect from Turkey is to look after, to guard and be a big brother to northern Iraq that protects its internal peace as most righteously. However, it is not clear what Turkey thinks on the subject. All right, the civilian wing loosens up a little, but the TSK on which the future of northern Iraq mostly depends, still follows an adamant approach. On the other hand, we all know that in a Turkey heading towards the presidential election, the TSK is quite active in the political arena and a part of the society expects it to do so. In such a chaotic period, why should we help Turkey regarding the PKK issue? What we could do at most is to pretend that we are helping out. Let's wait for the election's outcome.”

Since Turkey follows a policy of “wait and see” on some domestic issues on the verge of important elections, it is quite natural for the United States and the European Union to conduct the same “wait and see” policy towards Turkey.