Ankara's eyes

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

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.