PATRIOTS IN TURKEY FOR IRAQ CRISIS

Is the deal over Patriot batteries indicative of a change of policy in Turkey’s missile strategy or a temporary arrangement? Does it concern the US-Iraq confrontation and other Middle East balances or is it part of a wider defence arrangement by Turkey for the new century? What will Turkey’s stance be in the imminent showdown between the United States and Iraq? Ecevit’s plan for Iraq is being revised before re-launched.

While the Turkish nation was enjoying the 9-day Ramadan holiday, the Americans were swift to ship on January 21^st, one battery of Patriot missiles from Germany to Incirlik along with 150 American soldiers to operate them.

The installation of Patriots and the associated command and control equipment is going on rapidly, if it has not already been completed.

Contradictory outlooks over Patriots and defence industry

Even though official American statements speak of one Patriot battery to Incirlik, the Turkish press repeatedly reported on Friday and Saturday (22^nd and 23^rd) that Turkey had received three batteries with eight Patriot launchers in each.

Yet earlier dispatches in the British and American media reported (on January 15^th) that a team of US military officials were in Turkey to evaluate the air defence needs for Incirlik. It would decide whether a “minimum engagement package” of three launchers would be enough, or a whole battery of Patriot missiles containing eight launchers would be sent to Incirlik. It is understood that following Greece’s decision to buy four Patriot batteries for $1.2 billion Ankara pressed for three batteries and got them.

The same confusion also exists about the conditions and terms of the Patriots deployed in Incirlik. According to Turkish sources, all transport and installation expenses of the Patriots belong to the Americans and, contrary to the Greek deal, Turkey is not purchasing these batteries. They are here until Turkey finalizes its own anti-ballistic missiles program, around the Arrows developed by Israel and the United States or within its own armament programs for the new century. This Turkish version, however, does not conform to the American official statements either.

About the duration of these missiles in Turkey, State Department spokesman James Rubin said on January 15^th, “We agree in principle to provide the Patriots for the duration of the current crisis with Iraq.” AA (The Anatolian News Agency) quoted on January 23^rd Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon as saying that the Patriots would stay in Turkey for 30 or 60 days.

These confusing and contradictory statements between Ankara and Washington are due to the different outlooks of the two countries. The United States sees it merely from the angle of the current Iraqi crisis and Turkey’s role in it and Turkey sizes the Patriots up from the viewpoint of its competition with Greece in the Aegean and Cyprus.

According to the “White Book 98” recently published by the Ministry of Defence, the Turkish Army will have long-range surface-to-surface tactical ballistic missiles, in addition to the anti-ballistic missiles in the years 2000s.

The Under-Secretary for the Defence Industry, Yalçın Burçak, said to the AA on January 22^nd that they would conclude the contract for the purchase of four to six AWACS aircraft this year. They had received tenders from four companies for AWACS in December and would finalize it this year. He said, “At the end of 1998 we started the manufacture of 30 Cougar helicopters in the TAI (Turkish Aircraft Industry) installations for the Police. Also, 145 helicopters will be manufactured as a joint venture with a foreign company in TAI’s installations. Last November we concluded a $55 million contract for building 10 patrol boats. We concluded another contract for the 5.56mm infantry rifle and its ammunition. An agreement has been signed with a multinational consortium for the modernization in the Eskişehir Aircraft Maintenance Centre of F5 jets that figure in the Air Force’s inventory. TAI will also manufacture nine naval patrol aircraft for the Coast Guard. The contract was signed in September 1998. We have decided to manufacture the electronic war systems of 80 F-16s at home and are negotiating conditions with Mikes company.”

The above activities for an independent defence industry in Turkey are enough to explain the different outlooks between Turkey and the United States over Patriots. And the same holds good for the Gulf policies of the two countries.

While a fresh confrontation took place in the southern no-fly zone between the Iraqi MIGs and the American fighters on Saturday (23^rd), the north was calm throughout the week because Ankara did not allow Operation Northern Watch flights to continue during the Ramadan holiday.

Iraqi crisis is heading for a showdown between Washington and Saddam 

Deploying the Patriots in Incirlik so quickly was only one of the steps the Americans had taken in this short period. They were also preoccupied with distributing among seven Iraqi dissident groups the $97 million allotted to the efforts to topple the Saddam regime, within the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA) of 1998. Even at the outset these efforts met with difficulties, as the biggest of these groups, SCIRI, refused to receive the money from the Americans and some others especially in the north may follow suit.

The Clinton Administration announced that its long-standing efforts within ILA were:

• To encourage greater unity and effectiveness of the Iraqi opposition groups,
• To foster reconciliation between the two major Kurdish parties, the KDP and PUK,
• To establish Radio Free Iraq which began broadcasting in late October, and
• To extend Economic Support Fund to these groups, in addition to the $97 million within ILA.

These announcements in Congress were quite an answer to PM Ecevit who says that Washington has no Iraq policy other than bombing the country. Not only the aim, but also the ways to be followed in this policy are common knowledge if American documents are examined carefully. This policy is to topple the Saddam regime and bring to office a pro-American government in Iraq. Washington has already done this in Jordan. Upon his return from the United States King Hussein announced in Amman that one of his sons would replace Prince Hassan as the Crown Prince. Even though the Jordanian Constitution stipulates since 1965 that he will succeed King Hussein on the King’s forthcoming death this is now being changed highhandedly because the Americans were displeased with the Crown Prince’s pro-Iraqi policy during the Gulf War.

In addition to this basic operation in an Arab country, Washington has also accelerated its preparations to topple the Saddam regime with military action backed up by its opponents within the country.

Unity among the Saddam dissidents is still precarious 

The seven opposition groups to receive financial support from the US were chosen from among broad-based groups primarily living in Iraq, but some groups in exile were also extended these funds. These seven opposition groups are:

1. The Iraqi National Accord (INA) headed by Ayad Alawi. It has an office in Turkey among some other Middle Eastern and European countries.
2. The Iraqi National Congress (INC) headed by Ahmad Chalabi. It serves as an umbrella organization for various dissident groups.
3. The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan (IMIK) headed by Sheikh Ah Abdel Aziz. Its centre is Halabja where Saddam committed a massacre with chemical weapons in 1988.
4. The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) headed by Massoud Barzani. It has an office in Ankara and follows a friendly policy towards Turkey.
5. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) headed by Jalal Talabani. It has an office in Ankara and pledged along with the KDP not to support the PKK according to the Washington agreement last September.
6. The Movement for Constitutional Monarchy (MCM) headed by Sherif Ah.
7. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) headed by Ayatollah Muhammed Baqir al Hakim. It is the biggest opposition group that is basically Shi’a Arab and which will determine the fate of the forthcoming confrontation in southern Iraq.

Of these opposition groups, IMIK, KDP and PUK call for a federative system in Iraq. SCIRI, with its religious and popular strength among the Shi’as of southern Iraq, was a serious blow to Washington’s plans to topple the Saddam regime in the expected clashes ahead, as it has refused to be designated under the Iraqi Liberation Act and not accepted the American funding. Baghdad has now appealed to the two Kurdish groups in the north, KDP and PUK to do the same and refuse the American financing. They may well comply eventually, despite the Washington agreement that Turkey has held with utter disapproval and suspicion from the outset.

Washington assigns a representative to coordinate Iraqi dissidents

A report presented to Congress by the Clinton Administration stresses the importance of SCIRI and states, “its position among the Shi’as of southern Iraq would make this list incomplete without it.”

To coordinate the flow of the $97 million American aid to the Iraqi opposition the State Department has appointed its Deputy Chief of Mission in Ankara, Frank Ricciardioni, Special Representative for Transition in Iraq, according to a plan drawn up in Washington in June 1998. From where Ricciardioni will run his representative duties is not certain, but PM Ecevit has already said that it is not possible to do so from Turkey.

Ricciardioni will probably go somewhere in the Gulf or to an Arab country like Jordan to oversee the appropriations under ILA and funds designated as ESF (Economic Support Fund). The American aid to the opposition groups will be mostly arms and ammunition from the United States surplus supplies, yet the Iraqi groups prefer cash dollars. SCIRI Representative in London Dr Hamid Al-Bayati told Reuters that “any western help should be in the form of providing security and safeguarding human rights in Iraq.”

All these developments show that it will not be an easy task for the US and UK to change the government in Iraq in the aftermath of the Ramadan holiday. There are already disagreements among the opposition groups, although the new State Department chief for Kurdish affairs, Elizabeth Jones, did manage to work out a consensus between Barzani and Talabani at their meeting in Sulaimaniya on January 9^th. Still it will not be plainsailing for American diplomacy to go places with this precarious cooperation.

Ecevit’s “neighbourhood dialogue” is to gain momentum

In addition to the difficulties involved in coordinating harmonious cooperation among the various opposition groups of Iraq, the neighbouring countries, Turkey, Iran and Syria also have their fingers in the pie. They are all against the September 1998 Washington agreement for the Kurds. The current state of relations between Washington and Tehran is self-evident. Syria is also against the American efforts for a Kurdistan in the region. The raid on the American Embassy in Damascus with the Government’s tolerance, to say the least, put an end to Operation Desert Fox last December.

And now, after Syria and Iran, the Ecevit Government is taking the initiative for Iraq. In February 1998 Ecevit’s neighbourhood dialogue policy was instrumental in preventing American military action against Saddam.

PM Ecevit is again restoring that policy which aims at lifting UN sanctions and restrictions on Iraq in exchange for its observance of the Security Council resolutions. Ecevit complained to Cumhuriyet (24^th) that the Saddam regime was not helping him and others who want to contribute to the solution of its problems. Nevertheless, he believes that cooperation between northern Iraq and the Baghdad regime will contribute to the restoration of normal conditions in that country.

In short, if the Americans launch an all-out offensive in Iraq in the near future as some observers expect and speculate about, it is almost certain that Ankara will not be “supportive” to that policy which, by all indications, does not stand much chance of success. uras@ada.net.tr,   January 24^th, 1999