TURKEY VIEWS KURDISH ARRANGEMENTS IN WASHINGTON AS TEMPORARY

Turkey has officially informed the U.S. that the Washington summit with Barzani and Talabani is a temporary arrangement requiring final adjustments with the participation of Iraq. Ambassadors will be exchanged with Iraq by stepping up mutual diplomatic relations. The Ankara process is coming to an end, says Ecevit.

The agreement reached in Washington by the two Iraqi Kurdish leaders, Barzani and Talabani, was received in Ankara coolly. Turkey officially informed the State Department about this agreement announced in Washington on September 17^th, in the presence of the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, that it views this agreement as transitional. Turkey was especially annoyed by the agreement about a Federation in Iraq between the Baghdad Government and the Kurds.

Expressing this annoyance Deputy PM Bülent Ecevit said on September 26^th that the Washington agreement by the Kurdish leaders was a fait accompli for a federal system in Iraq. Even though the Kurdish government and parliament were described as temporary at the moment they would be permanent at the next stage. The agreement was putting an end to the Ankara process because the contacts between the Kurdish groups for the preparations of a new administration were being shifted to London. Only matters concerned with security would be discussed in Turkey. This would put an end to the Ankara process, said Ecevit. Certain expressions of the agreement indicated that they would oppose the Turkish Armed Forces’ trans-frontier operations in Northern Iraq. Turkey could not possibly accept such arrangements, he affirmed. Ecevit also said that Turkey would step up diplomatic relations with Baghdad. Ambassadors would be mutually assigned between Ankara and Baghdad, he said.

The MFA’s (Ministry of Foreign Affairs’) Middle East Chief, Uğur Ziyal, told Martin Indyk, an Assistant Secretary of State, in New York earlier last week that it was not right to exclude Iraq from arrangements concerning its future. He said, “The future regime in Iraq will be determined by the people of Iraq, including those of Northern Iraq when the time comes. It is not right that this decision should be taken in Washington in the absence of the Baghdad Government. The decision to be taken by the people of Iraq in this regard should be respected by all.”

Turkey further informed the United States that arrangements concerning Northern Iraq should be transitional and local. Iraq’s territorial integrity should definitely be observed and activities of the secessionist terrorist groups in Northern Iraq should be stopped. It was also affirmed by Turkish diplomatic sources that “from the viewpoint of the balances in the region”, Ankara has felt the necessity of officially informing Washington about its unease and reservations against the arrangements reached in Washington with Barzani and Talabani. International observers should observe the elections to be held in Iraq, Turkey suggests.

Şebnem Şeneryener reports from New York in Yeni Yüzyıl (25^th) that Turkey is not viewing the Washington arrangements as a “long term security threat” and for that reason it has not engaged in dramatic initiatives such as protesting the move. That is why press reports claiming that Turkey handed a protest note to the UK are not true. Consultations with the countries concerned are continuing about the Washington arrangements. Ankara views this latest move as an American tactic “to annoy Saddam.” Foreign Minister İsmail Cem said in New York, “There are a good many things we approve of in this agreement, but the question is if the practice will be in that direction. We will wait and see.”

Turkish Ambassador to Washington Baki Ilkin said that Turkey approved of two points in the Washington arrangements and objected to two points as a matter of principle. The good points are that the agreement confirms Iraq’s territorial integrity and that it pledges Barzani’s and Talabani’s cooperation with Turkey in the fight against the PKK.

Turkey rejects, as a matter of principle, the section that calls for establishing a parliament in Northern Iraq three years after the foundation of the administration now, according to the rules of the agreement called the “transitional period.” Ambassador Ilkin said that Turkey views these provisions as transitional. “Conditions are not suitable for giving this administration the final form. We do not approve of certain flexible expressions that this administration can have a federal system in Iraq. It is not possible to take resolutions about long-term arrangements concerning a certain part of the territory of Iraq in a conference where Iraq is not represented,” said the Ambassador.

Ambassador Ilkin discussed these points with Barzani twice in Washington, before and after the agreement was announced. The first meeting concerned Turkey’s views and expectations of the agreement and the second was about “Turkey’s understanding of the agreement.”

Back in Ankara, MFA spokesman Sermet Atacanlı said on September 23^rd that the political system to be founded in Iraq would be established by all the parties concerned. Turkey is against suggesting a federal system from this time on even though it may be put in the agreement with flexible expressions as a wish, he affirmed. Under the agreement, Barzani and Talabani will hold meetings once every two months and the first meeting will be in Ankara. “Turkey has not contributed to the preparation of this document. Neither has it sought to do so. Consequently, it should not be taken for granted that we will take part in the implementation of these arrangements,” said the spokesman. He expressed satisfaction with the strong pledge of Barzani and Talabani in the agreement to fight against PKK terrorism. It was the first time that PUK led by Talabani was making such a pledge. It was an important breakthrough. Turkey would meticulously watch over the enforcement of that pledge, he said.

Atacanlı said that the observation of Iraq’s territorial integrity was the foremost principle for Turkey on the Iraq question. It was pleasing that this principle was expressly confirmed in the Washington arrangements. “Still, we will carefully oversee that this principle is sincerely respected and that actions prejudicial to it are not resorted to even indirectly or tacitly,” he said.

About the durability of this agreement Ankara notes that in 1992 elections were held in Northern Iraq and a temporary administration was set up, but it collapsed when the two Kurdish groups fought one another. (Issue No:48).

While this was the unhappy “agree-to-disagree” state of the Iraq leg of Turkish-Anglo-American relations last week, the Iranian and Afghanistan leg was not very different. There was a slight improvement on the Iranian side with Tehran and London deciding to restore full diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level last week. And Turkey’s suggestions to both sides, if not necessarily direct influence had a lot to do with this improvement. It is sure to be only the beginning. Only time will tell what future developments will take place in Iran’s relations with the UK and the U.S. and what impact it will have on Turkey’s relations with Washington, as well as on the future course of events in the region.

On the Afghan side, Turkey’s role in influencing Washington’s policies was less prominent, but not less important for Turkish-American relations. Having no common borders with Afghanistan was a factor diminishing Turkey’s role and importance in developments in Afghanistan, but not much. It was another area where Ankara and Washington do not see foreign policy questions eye to eye. uras@ada.net.tr, September 27^th, 1998