What is the "Iraq Question?" During the Gulf War, the then president George Bush (The father of the present President George W. Bush) made a big mistake by letting Saddam Hussein survive. The U.S. encouraged the Kurds in the North to rebel, but when Saddam attacked them, the U.S. did not support the Kurds and millions of them fled to the northern frontiers of Turkey and Iran. This onslaught of homeless humanity caused an economic disaster in Turkey. Turkey could not take in all these Kurds. It would have exacerbated its problems with the restless Turkish Kurds.. Eventually, The Iraqi Kurds were resettled in their homes and U.S. and British airplanes began controlling the skies over them, from Turkish bases, so that Saddam does not chase them again.

At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam's generals agreed to let United Nations inspectors search his facilities to discover and destroy his programs of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. After a few years of that, Saddam got rid of these inspectors and the United Nations failed to take any effective measure against him.

During the Golf War and afterwards, the commercial restrictions imposed on Iraq were equally punishing for Turkey. The Allies did not do anything to compensate Turkey for its losses.

Since September 11, the U.S. has resolved to eradicate terror from the face of the earth. Although Saddam does not seem to have his finger prints on September 11, he is a well-known source of terrorism and Iraq is a state that is hard at work to produce weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, an attack on Iraq is being hotly and openly debated in Washington and all over the media. There is a Turkish proverb that says "The one that had his mouth burned by drinking hot milk, will blow upon the yogurt". So, Turkey that had its mouth burned from Iraqi reaction in the Gulf War, will be super-cautious this time. The Turkish government let it be known that Turkey does not want that the U.S. attacks Iraq., because, when Iraq is defeated, it is possible that the Kurds in the North, the Shiites in the South, and the Arabs in the center will form separate governments. An Iraqi Kurdish state is believed by the Turkish Government to influence the ethnic Kurds in Turkey to want to have a separate state, that probably would join the Iraqi Kurdish state. That would brake up the Republic of Turkey. This seems to be a pretty good reason. Lately, Mr. Ecevit's government explained that it does not care about what happens to Saddam Hussein, all it is concerned with is the formation of a Kurdish state in Iraq. It is dead set against such a state.

On the other side, the United States is deeply concerned about the strong probability that soon Saddam will have completed the development of his weapons of mass destruction, perhaps even nuclear ones, and then will be very difficult to deal with. Something must be done to Iraq, before it has workable nuclear bombs. After that point, Iraq will be more of a danger to Turkey than to the U.S., obviously because of Turkey's proximity. When a Saddam with nuclear bombs is compared to handling the desires of Turkish Kurds to have their separate state , I would take any time the desire of a Kurdish state, because it can be handled in several ways, but nuclear bombs have to be faced with nuclear bombs, which Turkey does not have. But apparently, Mr. Ecevit does not think so.

Why should the Turkish Kurds want a separate Kurdish State in Eastern Turkey? Will they be freer, happier, and more prosperous in such a state? When, at the end of the WWI, Ataturk was organizing the Turkish Independence movement, his organization and Turkish Kurds agreed to act as one body in determining the National Charter, that defined the borders of the future Turkish Republic. Kurds and Turks decided to continue to live together, unlike the provisions of the Sevres Treaty, which wanted to separate them. After the Turkish Republic was founded, the British did not leave the Kurds alone. In 1925 they armed an ignorant tribal chief Sheyh Said who made a serious uprising in Southeastern Turkey. That was forcefully crushed and Sheyh Said and a few others were tried and hanged. After the dust settled, a large number of ethnic Kurds were moved to Western Turkey. There they lived trouble-free with other Turks, were never discriminated against, and prospered as much as everyone else. The ones left in the East of Turkey were less fortunate. Governments in general neglected the East, that had fewer resources. But everyone was neglected alike.

When the USSR failed to destabilize Turkey in 1980 with communism (The Turkish Military stopped it by taking over the State) it tried to get the dissatisfied Kurds in the East to revolt. It created the Marxist PKK terrorists that raised havoc in the East. But the Kurdish population did not revolt. The Turkish military had to restructure itself and eventually learned to fight these terrorist guerrillas. The U.S. gave Turkey much help, while Syria, Russia, Iraq, Armenia , and Greece helped the PKK.. This anti-terrorist struggle cost $8 billion a year and wrecked the economy. The Turkish military conducted a forceful and harsh campaign and eventually won. According to Stephen Kinzer of the New York Times, that campaign was comparable to other rebellions fought by the Dutch in Indonesia, the British in Malaya, the French in Algeria, and the Americans in Vietnam. Finally, The leader of the PKK, Aptullah Ocalan was caught and tried by Turkey. He was condemned to death but for political reasons is not executed. Ocalan, the PKK and most Kurds have now given up the idea of a separate Marxist state and want simply to live in a democratic Turkey and be treated decently. Kinzer, in his book titled "Crescent and Star" asks a politically active Kurd in the Southeast what he would do, if a separate Kurdish state would be formed on Turkish soil. He answers "I would immediately go to Istanbul".

Perhaps, Mr. Ecevit's fear of a Kurdish state in Iraq is just an unjustified fear. If he would create an atmosphere in Turkey in which people would elect their own representatives, and a bond would be created between the voter and his representative, where the State would not exist for its own sake, as in the socialist system he believes, but be the servant of the people as is stated in the Turkish constitution ("Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the people") and where human rights violations would not be covered up by the state, but vigorously pursued and punished, Turkey would become an attractive place to live, and no ethnic Kurd of a sound mind would want to exchange it for a Marxist Kurdish dictatorship run by thugs like Ocalan. If Partycracy in Turkey would be abolished , and true democracy would be established, I would rather expect that a great number of Iraqi Kurds would want to come and live in Turkey if they could, and not the other way around.

Thus, if the Iraq question is seen from this angle, it would certainly cease to be a problem.

The Turkish Card
Ali F. Sevin - American tolerance for, indeed deliberate en-couragement of "diversity" made us especially blind to the underlying evil of the international terror network. Each terrorist attack before 9/11 was treated as an individual event. Evidence had been accumulating that terrorist organizations of disparate aims were loosely knit into a global network but their interconnectedness remained below the radar for most Americans. Before bin Laden, there was Abu Nidal and Carlos the Jackal, among others, who paved the way for organizing terrorism on a global scale. And there was Hagop Hagopian of ASALA (The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia). These early organizers needed financial and moral support from many sources to be viable. They found financial support in widely disparate places like The Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, and The U.S. They found moral support in places like Armenia, Greece, and the Islamic Afro-Asian poverty belt. They also had to have a place to call home from which they could direct their nefarious schemes. They found sanctuary in places like Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Libya. The symbiotic relations between many of these organizations were well documented in Claire Sterling's "The Terror Network: The Secret War of International Terrorism" (Berkley Books, 1982, c1981) -- a book of consequence read only by the espionage elite but ignored by politicians and the public.

Osama bin Laden brought a brand new dimension to global terrorism. He had the moral support from the usual suspects but needed little financial support. He had his own money - enough to buy a country to serve as the base of operations for his al Qaeda (The Base) organization. Afghanistan was an easy take. The Taliban, who ruled the country with perverted religious zeal, treated him as the Second Coming of the Caliph 80 years after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had abolished the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire in modern Turkey. Moreover, The Taliban also needed money after they took control of Afghanistan following the war against The Soviet Union. We helped Afghanistan beat the Soviets but we could not save it from Osama bin Laden. American gangsters had bought cities before but Afghanistan became the first country bought by an international gangster who also hijacked a religion in the process.

Before 9/11, some terrorist attacks had produced immediate retaliation from us but no follow-up to eliminate the source. Various motivations were ascribed to the perpetrators of "Terrorist" attacks. Some were thought to be rooted in the urge to take revenge for perceived injustices of the past. Irish were killing British. Arabs were killing Jews. Armenian terrorists were killing Turks whose ancestors they imagined were genocidal killers of their ancestors. Other terrorists were motivated by their very personal dissatisfaction with current events. Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City seeking validation for his view that the government violated the Bill of Rights. Tom Kaczynski sent letter bombs to scientists to avenge the environmental damage he imagined they caused through their dreaded technology. These were loners posting violent protests in their own lonesome way to teach the rest of us a lesson.

There was yet another type of terrorist, however, who is motivated by altruistic impulses for freedom as Timothy Mc Veigh was but who goes beyond Mc Veigh to organize a fighting force that is capable of guerilla warfare. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" was a familiar refrain to define these terrorists in diplomatic doubletalk. Legitimate governments supported such terrorists when it served their interests. During the cold war, The Soviet Union funded such terrorists with abandon in what it called "Wars of National Liberation." In the Communist utopian view, these wars would replicate Lenin's struggle that toppled the imperial Russia of the Tsars in 1917. Workers of the world would unite everywhere against their oppressors to create a world without borders in which the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" would rule. Eternal bliss would befall humankind if no one owned anything but everyone owned everything in a classless society that Karl Marx envisioned.

This was the new way to conquer the world. Other conquerors before had simply invaded. Alexander, Attila, Hammurabi, Suleiman, Napoleon, and Ivan just walked in with military might to invade territory for imperial rule. The Soviet communists, unlike their Tzarist predecessors however, invaded the minds of the downtrodden people of target countries with their ideology first. They knew the downtrodden would be easy targets for the Marxist appeal of a classless society. The indigenous forces were organized as "freedom fighters" against their "capitalist oppressors" to take control as surrogates for the Soviet regime. The brainwashed "freedom fighters" were the tools for the communist elite to enslave the masses in each country. What differentiated these "freedom fighters" from true revolutionaries was their terrorist component. Unlike real freedom fighters like a George Washington or a Mustafa Kemal, this new breed had no qualms about killing noncombatants. To them, communism was a religion and they were on a jihad against the infidel "Capitalist Pigs." Those who did not submit to the communist faith were all combatants and deserved to die in the socialist battlefield.

The United States stopped the Soviet Union from creating a global dictatorship of the communist elite in the name of "The Proletariat." When the dust settled, there would be a Communist North Korea and a Republic of South Korea. There would be communist China and a Republic of Taiwan. These would be laboratories to test the theories of Karl Marx against the real world. The original laboratory had been set up back in 1945 when Germany was split in two by the victors of World War II. Even the capital of Germany, Berlin, was split in two by what Winston Churchill had coined metaphorically as the "Iron Curtain." The real curtain was a stone wall, and it came tumbling down when tested against reality instead of the theoretical ruminations of the communist scholars.

Oblivious to the demise of communism, Abdullah Ocalan and his Marxist PKK posed as "Freedom Fighters" with guerilla attacks in Turkey from Lebanese, Iraqi and Syrian bases. They claimed they were fighting to free the oppressed Kurds in Turkey as they exploded bombs in public places. Turkish Kurds had been presidents, industrialists, and renowned intellectuals but they had not been Marxists. Ocalan raided Kurdish villages to recruit impressionable youngsters for his guerilla force with equal ferocity he applied to terrorizing the rest of the country. In addition to his victims in public places, his warfare against the Turkish armed forces cost thousands of Kurdish lives. Kurds under Ocalan's command killed Kurds in the Turkish army. Ocalan's Marxist religion blinded him to the suffering he caused his own ethnic group as he pursued his quest for the communist paradise.

Armenian terrorists claimed historical injustice to justify their attacks on Turkish diplomats, seeking world sympathy for reparations they wanted from the Turkish government. They even posed as "freedom fighters" who wanted to "liberate" parts of eastern Turkey that, ironically, Ocalan also wanted to "liberate." The Armenian terrorist campaign presaged the al Qaeda modus operandi of cultivating terrorists in a religious environment. Almost all the Armenian terrorists were youngsters who were taught in Armenian churches to hate the Turks. It is a small step to martyrdom for the brainwashed youth even if the church did not promise 72 virgins as the Islamic fanatics promise their martyrs. Many Armenian churches still brainwash the youth to believe "The Turk" is evil. Marxist intellectual circles still lecture about the demon "Capitalist." Muslim Madrassas continue to preach that "The Infidel" (anyone who is not a Muslim) is Satan incarnate. Now, the would-be warriors and martyrs who graduate from these "centers of learning" will come under severe scrutiny. Now, there is a global war against global terrorism. Terrorists can no longer hide behind euphemistic labels like "Genocide Victims," "Freedom Fighters," and "Servants of God" while waging unconventional war on innocent people around the world. Now, we are fighting this amorphous enemy in unconventional ways. Terrorism unmasked is what the world saw in Osama bin Laden's smiling face when the captured videotape was shown to the public. We saw him elated about the number of people his goons killed on 9/11 that exceeded his estimate. We saw him filled with pride as he described his clever scheme of not telling the hijackers they would die as martyrs except those who steered the planes. He was interrupted frequently and praised profusely by the "pious" men in the room (sheiks of some sort) for a job well done in the service of Allah the merciful and the beneficent.

Well, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are history now. What comes next is crucial. Afghanistan must be reorganized into a functioning republic if it is to be safe from further abuse by fanatics. Composed of different ethnic groups, inured to tribal behavior that is more divisive than patriotic, Afghanistan needs tender loving care to goad it into becoming a nation fit for the 21st century. The Pakistani regime of President Pervez Musharraf must be supported, as it is vulnerable to a takeover by Islamic fanatics. General Hameed Gul, a retired chief of ISI (CIA of Pakistan), is waiting in the wings to get Pakistani Islamists riled up enough to stage a coup. If he succeeds in getting control of Pakistan, radical Islam would have access to the nuclear bomb and Osama bin Laden would be revered as the savior who delivered the sward of Allah to the believers.

What we need is a replay of the Truman Doctrine, proclaimed to stem the tide of communism in Europe, and the Marshall Plan that funded it following World War II. Afghanistan today is like Greece then. Greece was on the verge of turning communist as Afghanistan almost turned Islamist. Turkey was vulnerable to a communist takeover, as Pakistan is vulnerable today to Islamist takeover. Pakistan today is like Turkey was then but with a significant difference. Turkey had a military establishment fiercely loyal to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's westward looking republic. The Truman Doctrine and The Marshall Plan had an easy time winning Turkish support, which continues unabated. President Pervez Musharraf is said to be an admirer of Ataturk and would like to do for Pakistan what Ataturk did for Turkey. He has taken a Kemalist step in closing down the madrassas that had become breeding grounds for suicidal fanatics. We must help him take the additional steps necessary to firmly establish a secular republic. The Turkish experience is a valuable asset in the work ahead.

Post Taliban Afghanistan is much more difficult. Unlike Pakistan, there is no established government to work with. Instead, there are tribes who feud with each other but come together to fight against a foreign intruder. If we leave after clearing away the current Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden's foreign troops, we cannot be sure the new government, artificially created in Europe, can prevent the tribe with the most guns from taking over just as the Taliban did after the Soviet's gave up. Here again, Turkey will be of enormous value. Turkish relations with Afghanistan have been long standing and very friendly. It is hard to imagine any other nation with better credentials in this notoriously xenophobic country. Turkish entrepreneurs can help rebuild the infrastructure that was all but obliterated in 20 years of warfare. The U.S. can fund much of this ala The Marshall Plan with no increase in the foreign aid budget. Small diversions from the enormous amounts in the Israeli, Egyptian, and other accounts should do the trick.

Call it the Bush Doctrine and the Powell Plan, we must help both countries educate their people in fundamental ways to be citizens first in the public domain and Muslims first in the private domain. Many have been brought up to believe that if they are to be citizens first, they cannot also be Muslims first. We call it separation of church and state. Jefferson was the champion of the idea here and Ataturk was his counterpart in Muslim Turkey. There is work to be done together for their heirs in the 21st century. President Bush is to meet Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit of Turkey in The White House in January. This is the opportunity for us to play the Turkish card not only in the current conflict but also dealing with the Muslim world in general. It is a world in convulsion, trying to reconcile the totalitarian teachings of The Koran with modernity. The Turks have done it, so can other Muslim nations if they try. It is time to play the Turkish card. ( The author is a past president of ATAA.)

Whither U.S-Saudi Relations?
Bruce Fein - Something is rotten in the state of United States-Saudi Arabian relations. American soldiers fought courageously for Saudi independence from Iraqi annexation during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war, yet were denied the opportunity to celebrate Christmas, a basic human right. (Saudi Arabia is notorious for its resistance to ratifying international human rights covenants, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Until just last January 22, 2002 and by dint of a 7-year lawsuit brought against Secretary of Defense Donald Rusmfeld by Lt. Col. Martha McSally, United States servicewomen based in Saudi Arabia to defend its sovereignty were required to wear head-to toe Islamic garb when off-duty to placate Saudi religious bigotry. Saudi authorities instantly pledged stern justice against any servicewomen who takes advantage of her religious liberty. (But first cousin badges of female subserviency remain, such as prohibitions unchaperoned travel). No United States soldier adornments may celebrate Christianity, Judaism, or other non-Muslim faiths. All this and more implacable intolerance at a time when the United States is condemning virtually the identical religious fanaticism and outrages perpetrated by Taliban in Afghanistan, partially to justify its counterterrorism warfare there. Why shouldn't the United States thus pack up and leave Saudi Arabia and the Saud dynasty to fend for itself as has been suggested recently by United States Senator Carl Levin (D. Mich.)?

Our continued military presence and semi-alliance mocks our global championship of human rights. The annual United States State Department human rights reports on Saudi Arabia are like travelogs through Dante's 10 circles of perdition. The following are but a gruesome excerpts and summaries.

Women are prohibited from driving cars or riding bikes. They are generally segregated in public facilities (like blacks in the United States under Jim Crow) as earmarks of their legal and cultural inferiority. Women must enter city buses by separate rear entrances and sit in specially designated sections, reminiscent of the segregation in the United States that provoked the protest of Rosa Parks and the 1956 Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott culminating in a second black emancipation. Female travel alone is forbidden. A male escort must be a close relative or employee.

Women may not marry non-Saudis without government permission, nor a non-Muslim whatsoever. In public women must conceal themselves in the abaya, a head-to-toe black garment, as punishment for male lust. Under Saudi Sharia law, a daughter's inheritance is but one-half that of a son, and female testimony commands but one-half the credibility of the words of men. Female equality makes a cameo appearance only in the realm of political rights. There, neither men nor women enjoy a crumb of the trappings of democracy, including freedom of expression or due process of law.

The Saudi dynasty despises the practice of any non-Islamic religion. Citizenship is confined to Muslims. The practice of other religions is prohibited with the scrupulousness of the Nazi Gestapo. Conversions by Muslims to other creeds is answered by the death penalty. Islamic practice is generally limited to the Wahabi's sect extremist interpretation of the Hanbali school of Sunni jurisprudence. Neither public nor private non-Muslim activities are legal, and risks a visit or worse from the Mutawwai'n, i.e., the religious police. Criminal punishments smack of Middle Ages barbarism, such as amputation for repeated thievery and execution by beheading or stoning. Further inexact analogies between the Saudi monarchy and Taliban are worrisome. As the latter destroyed magnificent cliff sculptures of Buddha at Bamian as an Islamic religious imperative, Saudi Arabia is planning the destruction of the 1780 Ottoman Al-Ajyad fortress on Bulbul Mountain overlooking Mecca in the name of commercial development. But the genuine motive seems to snub its Ottoman political heritage and the modern secularism of the Republic of Turkey. Indeed, the Saudi government persists in meddling in Turkey's domestic affairs through monetary, non-monetary, and other encouragement of Islamic-based parties in violation of the Republic's cherished constitution.

Human rights, of course, should never conclusively dictate the national security and foreign policies of the United States. During World War II, for example, the United States allied with Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union to defeat Hitler's Third Reich. Stalin, however, was knowingly guilty of aggressive war against Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and was an erstwhile and eager friend of Hitler's under the 1939 Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. The cruel and paranoid tyrant was further guilty of liquidation campaigns against Ukrainians, kulacks, dissidents, both genuine and fantasized, and anyone suspected of disloyalty that surged into the frightening range 40 million. The United States even permitted the Soviets falsely to accuse the Nazis of the Katyn Forest massacre of tens of thousands of Polish officers at the Nuremberg tribunal.

The Saud dynasty, however, features little or nothing of national security significance to offset its human rights inferno. Its military is anemic and of questionable loyalty. United States aircraft carriers and bases in Persian Gulf states like Bahrain are satisfactory substitutes for Saudi air facilities. Saudi cooperation in the United States anti-terrorism war is droopy and more words than deeds. Its investigation of the 1986 Khobar Towers bombing killing many United States servicemen and implicating Hezbollah and the Iranian government, for instance, has been weak and unaggressive. Its denunciation of Al Qaeda and Islamic extremism generally has been muffled or inaudible. Saudi oil supplies, however, are said indispensable to United States and world prosperity. Indeed, President Jimmy Carter in 1980 proclaimed that wholesale curtailment of Persian Gulf oil would be a casus belli for the United States.

But the oil justification for United States support for the Saud dynasty is unconvincing. Saudi Arabia sells oil at a price it desires to advance the interests of the monarchy and nation, not the United States or any other country. A successor to the Saud dynasty would do the same. A selective oil boycotting of the United States would be unworkable, as proven by the failed Arab boycott on the heels of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Middlemen simply purchased more oil and resold their augmented supplies to America. Finally, even if a successor to the Saud dynasty freakishly occasioned a second edition of Taliban and a closure of all Saudi oil and natural gas pumps, the global economic crisis that would ensue would unify virtually the entire world behind an invasion and re-opening overnight.

In sum, isn't the United States squandering its human rights credentials in the Arab-Muslim world and elsewhere for an unproven and highly improbable national security gain in declining to walk away from the religiously bigoted and autocratic Saud dynasty?

Constitutional scholar Attorney Bruce Fein is a well-known media personality and an ATAA Adjunct Scholar.

Turkish Balancing Act
Interview by Steve Kettmann, Mother Jones - Jan.14, 2002 - Even before September 11, Turkey was in a pivotal geopolitical position. As a member of both NATO and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Turkey has been long been cited as a possible bridge between the muslim world and the west.

Recent months have only highlighted the unique nature of Turkey's dual role.

In September, Turkey strongly condemned the September attacks, and joined other NATO countries in invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for the first time, saying they viewed the September attacks on the United States as attacks on all of NATO. Just as importantly, Turkey in October joined with the 56 other members of the Islamic Conference to condone -- in a limited fashion -- the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan.

At that meeting, member states warned that their support would not continue should the US seek to expand its war on terror to other muslim nations. Turkish officials are now reiterating that message -- at least as far as it applies to Iraq. Turkey's Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, is expected to make a case against an Iraqi invasion when he meets with President Bush at the White House this week.

Turkey's ambassador to NATO, Onur Oymen, discussed his nation's concerns about action against Iraq and Turkey's potentially pivotal role in an interview with Mother Jones.com.

MotherJones.com: How concerned are you that the United States will take further military action against Iraq?

Onur Oymen: We have not received any indication from the American government that they intend to operate against any other countries. We have no indication that the Americans have decided to attack another country.

MJ: Is that in contrast to what you were told before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan?

OO: In the beginning, they communicated to us the evidence they had on the connection between the Al Qaeda organization and these attacks, and it was obvious to us that the Americans would do everything they could to fight against the Al Qaeda organization and their supporters. And everyone knew where they were. Therefore there was no doubt about the intentions of the Americans. At this moment, we have not received any signals from our American friends about operating in any other country.

MJ: Some have called the U.S.-led war on terrorism a war on Islam. Does this put Turkey in an awkward position?

OO: We say just the opposite. We believe that terrorists have no religion, and no right to identify with religion. The fight against terrorism should not be seen as a fight against Islam, or a fight against religion. But the unfortunate thing is we believe that while talking about terrorism, we should not be putting any adjectives in there, like Islamic terrorist. We are of the opinion that we should not attribute religion to these terrorist organizations. They are not qualified to represent religion.

MJ: That's Turkey's position. But it's not universally shared.

OO: Turkey is going to organize an international conference in February between European Union countries and Islamic countries on this subject, so we will see the position of different countries. I'm confident that we will see the end result is that this fight against terrorism should not be seen as a fight against Islam. We are confident that most of the Islamic countries, as it was expressed at the October emergency meeting of the Islamic Conference in Qatar, condemn this Al Qaeda organization.

MJ: So does Turkey embrace the role of being a bridge of sorts between nations?

OO: The word bridge does not represent the exact situation perhaps. A bridge is a natural element, whereas we are a member of the western community of nations. As such, we may serve as a model for the rest of the Islamic countries, if they choose to follow the model and profit from our experiences as a member of NATO and a member of the western family of organizations. We can certainly provide them all support if they wish to profit from our experience.

MJ: But has this role of being a model become different after September 11?

OO: On the contrary. Everyone understands that the democratic model of Turkey will help to create an environment in this country that will not be suitable for destabilization. The best way to create stability is to have a democratic government. Therefore, our democratic system may serve as a model.

MJ: Speaking of stability, the New York Times reported a year ago that European Union officials are concerned that the Turkish military exerts too much influence on Turkey's democratic government. It quoted one European diplomat as saying, "In its present military-civilian configuration, Turkey would be unacceptable to the EU. The Turks have to find a way to get the pashas out of politics." Is that a fair assessment?

OO: It's unjust and unfair. In our constitution, the main power in the country belongs with the parliament, and the parliament elects the government. The only role the military plays is in a national security council, whose role is only advisory. This organization can make suggestions to the government, but it is up to the government to accept the suggestions or not. Traditionally the Turkish military has played a very important role in our history. Ataturk, the founder of the modern republic, was a general. The tradition of the Turkish military in our history was to be an influence for progress.

MJ: About that national security council? A majority of its members come from the military, yes? That was true as of last year.

OO: That's the old system. Now we include more civilians than military. It doesn't matter, because it's an advisory council. But yes, last year changes were made and there are more civilians on the council than military officials.

MJ: That's part of the changes Turkey is making to try to be accepted by the European Union. Are you frustrated at the pace of that process?

OO: We were expecting to have this process go faster, because the EU had accepted Turkey as a formal candidate in December 1999. They still have not started enlargement talks with Turkey, even though they have started enlargement talks with all the other candidate countries. We believe we have to start these enlargement talks as soon as possible without unnecessary delays.

MJ: What do you see as "unnecessary" delays?

OO: The delays are that we have not finalized all the necessary steps to start enlargement talks. As far as Turkey is concerned, we have changed a lot of rules, one third of our constitution, and the parliament is working hard to change other laws, and in return we expect the European Union to start enlargement talks pretty soon.

MJ: EU leaders have talked about the need for a rapid reaction military force that would be capable of taking quick and decisive action, but governments have been slow to budget the needed funds. Do you think this force will ever become a reality?

OO: We have pledged one brigade together with sea and air components for the rapid reaction force. This is more than the pledge of 10 EU countries. We believe that the European Union should develop its ability to manage crises, international crises, and as a future member of the European Union, we believe that it is in our advantage to have a stronger union rather than a weaker union.

We have actively participated in all operations in the Balkans. We believe the EU should stay in the region as long as the basic conditions of peace and prosperity to do not prevail. Toward that goal, we are all making some sacrifices. We pay the expense of our troops from the national budget. This is a sacrifice. But we believe it is our duty.

MJ: Are other countries making enough of a budgetary commitment for this force to become a reality?

OO: They say it should be operational by the year 2003. The EU needs new capabilities. They need new technologies. They have to invest in defense technologies. They have to increase their defense budgets. Some of the EU countries realize they have to spend more for defense. There is a new awareness on the need for more capabilities. I am not pessimistic in this area. I am confident that the European Union countries will spend more money. I can't say that the Europeans are reluctant in improving their militaries; whether their budgets are enough for that, it's an open question. But on the other hand, they should profit from the existing capabilities of non-EU nations like Turkey. We are the second-strongest military country in NATO after the United States. Therefore, it would be inappropriate if the EU did not profit from the capabilities of some NATO country when they need them. Of course we are not a nuclear power, like the UK and France. But in terms of the troops and capabilities, we are the second-strongest army of NATO.

MJ: What's your assessment of how the war on terrorism is going so far?

OO: Turkey has expressed very strong commendations for the events of September 11 and we gladly joined in NATO's decision on Article 5. We provided all possible assistance to our American friends. We shared with our American friends the view that there should be no tolerance for any form of terrorism regardless of their origins, aims and methods. We should combat terrorism as such without any qualification or limitation. This is our understanding.

On this issue, we are happy that the Americans have included on their list of terrorism groups operating against Turkey, Kurdish and other extreme leftist organizations working against us. For example, the PKK and Hezbollah, operating in Turkey. Our prime minister said it was unforgivable that the European Union has not included these organizations on this list. We are of the opinion that such an attitude may give a wrong signal to terrorist organizations and may not help our common battle against terrorism.

I believe that no other nation can better understand the Americans than us. The number of victims of terrorism in Turkey is higher than the number of people who died on September 11. We share fully the sorrow of the American people. We believe these feelings should turn in to a real cooperation all over the world. But if we have attempts to justify some terrorist groups, it will create a big disappointment in Turkey. The victims of terrorism in Turkey were not children of a lesser god. They are equally human beings. The PKK are responsible for the deaths of 5,000 civilians, and 5,000 policemen. An organization guilty of such massacres is not at this time classified by the European Union as terrorists? It's unbelievable. What do you think?

Steve Kettmann, a finalist for the 2001 Online Journalism Award in commentary, lives in Berlin and is a regular contributor to several publications, including Salon, The New Republic and The New York Times.

The Fears of a Muslim Ally
"Turkey doesn't want to prove its worth to the West by fighting a war with neighboring Iraq"
Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek - January 28, 2002 - When visiting Turkey last week, I happened to read Private View, a smart Istanbul quarterly of mostly political and economic analysis. I was not prepared for the essay lamenting Turkey's backwardness in ... wine drinking. "With a yearly consumption rate of 1 liter per person," it scolds, "Turkey is lagging way behind its Western counterparts." But how to reconcile Islam with wine? Well, the author concludes that "the Turks' persistence to enjoy this drink despite all the obvious religious prohibitions must be due to their determination to fully exploit the delights of this world." Someone forgot to tell these guys about the clash of civilizations.

Turkey shatters the conventional image of Islam. It is 99 percent Muslim and yet resolutely secular, democratic and pro-Western. And these are not attitudes held only in Istanbul salons. Seventy-five percent of the country is in favor of joining the European Union. Popular attitudes are generally pro-American. Since September 11 we've all heard dozens of instant experts explain that in Islam, religion and politics can never be separated. Well, Turkey's done it for seven decades.

But despite September 11, the Turkish establishment is currently obsessed about something else: Europe. Over the past three years, the European Union has made some encouraging noises about Turkey's potential to become a member. It has caused a quiet revolution in the country. The government-despite being a weak multiparty coalition-has been steadily pursuing significant economic and political reforms for a year. In October 2001, the Turkish Parliament passed 34 of 37 proposed amendments to the 1982 Constitution to bring it more in line with European Union standards. (Interestingly, the Islamic parties are now in favor of EU membership because they realize that their freedom of expression would be better guaranteed by European courts than Turkish generals.) Even on the decades-long impasse over Cyprus, Ankara is inching toward a negotiated solution. "For Turkey, EU membership would be the culmination of Ataturk's dream: to catch up with civilization," said Sukru Elekdag, one of Ankara's veteran diplomats.

The road to the West has cleared up since September 11. Now Turkey is important as a modern Muslim country, but more crucially because of its geopolitical location and heft-a major power straddling Europe, the Middle East and Asia, with easy access to all the major oil lands. "It's as if a magic wand has tapped Turkey," says former foreign minister Emre Gonensay.

But its location has also produced its greatest headache: Iraq. "Every time we hear that Washington wants to intervene in Iraq, I want to say, think twice, think three times, and then think again," says Cevik Bir, former deputy chief of the armed forces. "If there is a war, it is impossible that Iraq will hold together."

Turkey's nightmare is not that an invasion of Iraq will produce an independent Kurdish state on its southern border. "That's not an option," a senior source close to the military explained. The nightmare is that the Army would be forced to preclude that option by occupying northern Iraq. (With 12 percent of its population Kurdish and having battled a terrorist movement for decades, Turkey believes that Kurdish self-determination even across the border would mean the end of the nation's unitary existence.) There are already contingency plans for such an operation in Ankara. "If there is an American intervention," this source told me, "we would have to watch and see whether the Kurds began rising up in northern Iraq-and they likely will. We would be forced to make sure that once the war ends we are in a military position to affect the political settlement that follows. It's a last resort, but we have to be masters of our own fate."

Washington has told Ankara that it supports the principle that Iraq should remain one nation. Many Turkish generals don't believe it. They think that once the war begins, all bets are off. The Iraqi Kurds have been the chief opposition to Saddam Hussein for a decade. Were they to declare independence, the United States would not crush them. We're for self-determination, remember? As a result, Turkey wants assurances that no Afghan-style operation-bombing plus reliance on local forces-will be attempted. (In such a scenario, the Kurds would play the role of the Northern Alliance and thus would become the victors.) A senior military officer observed that if 500,000 American troops were required to evict Saddam from Kuwait, then surely the much larger task of occupying Iraq would require at least as many American troops.

An American intervention in Iraq would hit Turkey hard economically-as it did during the gulf war. It would also take the focus of the country away from economic and political modernization. Economic reforms, political reforms and human-rights issues would all take a back seat to the life-and-death problems of national sovereignty. "The gulf war set us back for almost a decade," said General Bir. "Now as we are moving forward, this would create new problems. We would become obsessed for years with all the security problems it would create."

There are good arguments for intervention in Iraq. If successful, a democratic or at least friendly Iraq would ease tensions in the region and might even transform its geopolitics. The status quo, with Saddam Hussein and his weapons intact, is not that stable anyway. But for Turkey the stakes are very high. For years it has dreamed that its key strategic location will bring it inexorably closer to the West. Now it has, but that same geography could thrust Turkey way off course. That's as close to Greek tragedy as geopolitics gets.

Have You Hugged Your Congressman/woman Today?
Oya Bain, Jan. 2002, ATA-News, A publication of ATA-DC - Do you even know who is your congressman/wo-man in your area? Do you really care how your interests are represented in the most important legislative body of the world, namely The US Congress? From my experience, most members of the Turkish American community are blissfully ignorant and indifferent to legislative issues which are of vital importance to Turkey and to Turkish Americans. I have heard lame excuses such as "our organization is not involved in politics". This is NOT politics, but Civics 101!. Naturally non profit, charitable organizations cannot be involved in political lobbying. We are talking about individual awareness, knowledge and empowerment about the legislative process of this country.

Another frequently used, lame excuse is "The Turkish Government should be working with the legislators-not me". This attitude reflects a deep seated Turkish tradition of extreme dependence on a central government to take care of all issues. After 600 years of monarchy, a very strong central government was much needed during the early years of the Turkish Republic to bring the unprecedented social, political and economic changes in the Turkish society.

The Turkish Diaspora carried that habit of dependence to the countries they settled and even though they excelled in many professional areas, they stayed totally inactive in the civic and political system of their adopted countries.

Most Turks could not comprehend that a foreign government, especially a good ally like Turkey, has practically no influence in the local politics of the US. Turkish Government can deal with the US State Department (appointed officials) effectively. On the other hand, elected officials, like US representatives and senators will only listen and respond to their VOTERS and DONORS.

In the fall of 2000, Rep. Rogan pushed for the so called Armenian genocide resolution in the US Congress, the only reason being to get the 10,000 votes of the Armenians of his small district in California. Rogan apparently never traveled outside of US and from all accounts he had a minimal knowledge of international issues. It mattered little to him whether it is the Armenians or Patagonians or bad foreign policy, or historical distortion, as long as he got elected. President Clinton intervened (he was not running for election) and the resolution was stopped and did not come to a vote in the House.

The House of the US Congress has 435 Representatives, elected every two years from districts in the 50 states apportioned by their total populations The Senate of the US Congress has 100 members, two elected from each state regardless of its population and serve six years.

Of all the 535, how many have met a Turkish American? Probably a pitifully small number. One of the most hurting messages we receive from the legislators we meet, is that they have never known or met a Turkish American before, have no idea about Turkey, its history, its beautiful lands and its people. From the legislators, it is not ignorance or indifference, after all there are close to 200 countries in the world and there is already an overload of information. From our side, we are guilty of gross negligence.

What to do?
Find out who your legislators are. Locate your congressional district. The Internet is an excellent source:www.visi. com. Put your address, it will give you all the information. Also you can call your national organization, Assembly of Turkish American Associations at 202 483 9090 for information.

Contact your legislator's office. Get an appointment to get acquainted. The Assembly has prepared concise information packages about Turkey, its demographics, relationship with the US etc. Call your friends, form a group and go visit your congressman/woman. Take a gift, for example Andrew Mango's book, "Ataturk" makes an excellent gift. Invite him/her to Turkish events. Go to his/her fund raising events. Make small donations. Once is not enough, it needs to be done on an going basis.

Register to vote. Registration forms can be obtained from the local libraries or from internet from www.fec.gov/votregis/vr.htm. Be prepared to vote in November 2002 in an informed manner.

Encourage your sons/daughters to be a congressional page or intern. Volunteer your time to work at your legislators office. Congressional page service is an exciting opportunity for high school students. Pages serve as messengers and floor assistants and usually serve six months to a year, during their junior year in high school.

Application deadline is March 2002. Detailed information can be obtained by calling your legislator's office. Interns are older, they work in the Congress and the district offices of the legislators. It is a great way to gain legislative experience which often can be used for college credit. Vice-versa, the interns make a positive impact on the legislators in promoting their ethnic community. Applications can be obtained form your legislator's office.

Strengthen your English. The Turkish language is probably the most important cultural bond we have with our mother country (That is why ATA's Turkish language school is so important), but it should not stop us from striving to write and speak good English. We should aim to be integrated to the US society without being assimilated.

These are some thoughts for the New Year. Getting acquainted with our legislators, cultivating on going good relations and participating in the political process require great deal of diligent, hard work from our community and may not give immediate results. Other ethnic groups have been doing this for close to 100 years and they now reap the benefits. Sooner or later we have to do the same.

Have a Happy New Year...

Thinking Aloud About Cyprus
"Why didn't Britain make some sacrifices?"
Oktay Eksi, Hurriyet - November 27, 2001 - After being criticized for 'leaving the negotiation table,' Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) President Rauf Denktas understood that the issue has been clouded and so he challenged the world and said that he was ready to meet Greek Cypriot leader Glafcos Clerides. Now everybody who is interested in the Cyprus issue is waiting for the face-to-face meeting between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot leaders on Dec. 4.

In fact, this meeting's intent is to determine whether solutions can be found for the island this way, rather than actually finding such solutions. Therefore neither pessimism nor optimism is precisely warranted.

However, there is a great pressure on Turkey both from the European Union countries and the EU's commissioner responsible for enlargement, Gunter Verheugen, on behalf of them and from the Western world, insisting that Denktas should be convinced that the Turkish Cypriots can live with the Greek Cypriots and that a solution to the Cyprus issue can be found. But those who give such high-sounding advice forget that although there is no difference between the actions of Slobodan Milosevic - who is being tried at the International Court of Justice for committing atrocities against innocents in Bosnia-Herzegovina - and the actions of the Greek Cypriots against Turkish Cypriots between 1963 and 1974, no one is prosecuting the latter murders. What's more, they want us and the Turkish Cypriots, who lived through the massacres, to forget as well. In addition, they accept that following the crimes against humanity committed by Milosevic and his accomplices, the former Yugoslavian Federation will end up divided, but when it comes to Cyprus, they reject the same solution. West's double standards, which I have often discussed in this space, appear here concerning the Cyprus issue.

While we are unable to either convince the Western world, or reach a solution under the current arrangement, would it not be possible to deal the cards again and to look for a solution through a new arrangement?

For example, the main problems for Turkey and for the Turkish Cypriots are the security of Turkey and the Turkish people there and the Turkish Cypriots' living under their own sovereignty with their own identity. Why is Britain, one of the three countries which gave Cyprus the guarantee of maintaining its status in the London and Zurich agreements, contented with merely giving advice to the parties, particularly saying that the Turks should abandon their current views? Why didn't Britain make some sacrifices? For example, why doesn't it leave the Dikhelia Base near Magosa to the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), which will guarantee the protection of the Turkish Cypriots and protect the sovereignty of the North? If this main problem, that is, the issue of security and sovereignty, is solved this way, why can't the others be solved?

A slippery slope for the Saudis
Semih Idiz, STAR - No doubt what bothers the Saudi regime the most is that the world is also getting to understand what Wahabbizm represents, and how this ultra ultra fundamentalist approach to Islam is in fact part and parcel of the dominant setup in that country. This is a fact that has been successfully hidden from international attention for decades. But now the Pandora's Box has been opened and it looks like it is going to cause major headaches for the Fahd regime.

The rulers of this country are bracing themselves for bad things to come. If they pander too much to the West at this moment in time then they risk inciting more fundamentalist hatred towards them. If they have a standoffish attitude in the face of all that has transcribed after September 11, then they run the risk of supporting the kind of fundamentalism the bred the Taliban and Al Qaida. One wonders what kind of political foresight Saudi officials have to go and demolish a 300-year-old Ottoman antiquity at a time like this. How could they not see the parallels that would be automatically drawn with the Taliban, and the destruction of the 1700 year old Buddha statue in Bamyan, Afghanistan.

It does not need a genius to understand that Saudi officials are utterly shocked at the growing international reaction against the vandalism they displayed over the Ajyad Fortress in Mecca. It is no surprise therefore that they should now try and dig deep into the dirt bag in an effort to rake up what they can against Turkey. Saudi papers have now started running commentaries about the dark side of Ottoman history, in an effort to bring up a smokescreen to obfuscate the issue, and prevent the Turks from taking the matter further in the west.

'If you like the Ottomans so much own up to the Armenian Genocide then' one Saudi Paper is reported as commenting in the face of the Turkish reaction. This is a slippery slope for the Saudis. I explained in my last opinion piece how I was accosted by radical Muslims recently in Pakistan for defending the secular Turkish Republic and criticizing Ottoman theocracy. I also pointed out how it was the Saudi Ambassador who told the conference I was attending that I had been too harsh on the Ottomans.

It seems the Saudis now want to have their cake and eat is as well. Wahabbi's of course do not like the Ottomans for obvious reasons. They were crushed by them. But the whole of the Islamic world is not Wahabbi, and many Islamic nations, for example Pakistan, revere the Ottomans and all it represented. So Saudis attempts to drag up dirt against the Ottomans and Turks in an effort to stem the tide of anti-Saudi sentiment unleashed in the West by Turkey is, as I said, a slippery slope for them.

For one thing they do not seem to understand that this is not just a 'Turkish issue.' It is an international issue. It has to do with historic and cultural patrimony. The Hungarians toiled under the Ottomans for 150 years. But they to not go around destroying Ottoman antiquities even though they are a Christian nation. It is inevitable, given the present international climate, that the world should see a direct parallel between the demolition of this 18th century fortress and the destruction of the 1700 year old Buddha statue in Bamyan.

The Saudis of course refuse to see the link. The reason is obvious to anyone who has visited that country. It is one of the most insular of countries one can imagine. The elite lives behind close doors as if there is no world outside, apart, of course, from their mansions in Turkey, or palaces in Marbella, Great Britain and the South of France, where they like to go 'to let of steam.'

In other words the world revolves around them, until that is, they are rudely awakened by the likes of Saddam, as was the case in 1990, or Osama bin Laden on September 11, or now by the Turks now over the demolition of Ajyad Fortress. One really wonders what kind of policy makers this country has. They have even alienated their own natural allies in Turkey with this move. Powerful allies such as Necmettin Erbakan, for example.

But worst of all for them, some Turkish Islamists have now started saying Mecca should not be under any country's sovereignty, but should instead be an open city like the Vatican. Open to all believers, that is, regardless of nationality or race. Such an idea could garner quite a lot of attention in the Islamic world. The Saudis are now worried that the Turks, with some other countries, possibly Iran, will push for an international Islamic administration for Mecca.

Of course there is no indication that Turkey is preparing to do this on an official basis. But if the public clamoring grows then who knows the government may have to adopt this as a policy. Given all this it is truly surprising that the Saudis should have opted for a move like the demolition of the Ajyad fortress. As I said this incongruous step at a time like this shows the degree to which Saudi officials are cut off from the events of the world, and the order of the day. Given this it is better for them to draw the necessary lessons from this incident that has infuriated many, not just Turks, and to take meaningful steps to prevent such incidents in the future, rather than dig into the dirt bag which will only make the slope they are on even more slippery.