November 21, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Re: Turkey's misleading Members of Congress; Turkey's ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide against its 20 percent Kurdish minority; and Turkey's "international terrorism" against Cyprus.

Dear Mr. President:

On November 9, 2001, 36 Representatives sent to you a letter (copy enclosed) regarding Turkey that contained false and misleading statements given to those Representatives by Turkey's military and political officials and Turkey's U.S. foreign agents, three former congressmen who receive $1.8 million a year. The letter closed with a request for economic aid to Turkey.

The letter erroneously states:

"Turkey's critically important geographical location and her unconditional readiness to assume geostrategic responsibilities on behalf of the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance have made Turkey an indispensable ally throughout the Cold War, the Persian Gulf War, and the volatile years since then."

Comment:

False. This statement is highly inaccurate. The facts are otherwise, which Turkey's military and political leaders go to great lengths to cover-up. The facts are that during the Cold War, Turkey actively aided the Soviet military. As long ago as 1974, strategic analyst Edward Luttwak wrote:

"No longer presenting a direct threat to the integrity of Turkish national territory, and no longer demanding formal revision of the Straits navigation regime, the Soviet Union has nevertheless successfully exercised armed suasion over Turkey, even while maintaining a fairly benevolent stance, which includes significant aid flows. Faced with a sharp relative increase in Russian strategic and naval power, and eager to normalize relations with their formidable neighbor, the Turks have chosen to conciliate the Russians, and have been able to do so at little or no direct cost to themselves. It is only in respect to strategic transit that Turkey is of primary importance to the Soviet Union, and this is the area where the concessions have been made. Examples of such deflection, where the Russians are conciliated at the expense of western rather than specifically Turkish interests, include the overland traffic agreement (unimpeded Russian transit to Iraq and Syria by road), the generous Turkish interpretation of the Montreux Convention, which regulates ship movements in the Straits, and above all, the overflight permissions accorded to Russian civilian and military aircraft across Turkish air space. The alliance relationship in NATO and with the United States no doubt retains a measure of validity in Turkish eyes, but it is apparent that its supportive effect is not enough to counteract Russian suasion, especially since the coercion is latent and packaged in a benevolent, diplomatic stance." (E. Luttwak, The Political Uses of Sea Power 60-61, 1974)

The following are several factual examples of Turkey's disloyalty to the U.S. and unreliability as an ally:

(1) During the 1973 Mid-East War, predating the Turkish invasion of Cyprus by one year, Turkey refused the United States military overflight rights to resupply Israel and granted the USSR overland military convoy rights to resupply Syria and Iraq, and military overflight permission to resupply Egypt. See E. Luttwak, The Politics of Sea Power, 60-61, (1974). A member of the Turkish Foreign Policy Institute in Ankara wrote:

"During the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, Moscow's overflights of Turkish airspace were tolerated. On the other hand, during the same Middle East conflict, Turkey refused to allow the United States refueling and reconnaissance facilities during the American airlift to Israel." Karaosmanoglu, "Turkey's Security and the Middle East," 52 Foreign Affairs, 157, 163 (Fall 1983).

(2) In the 1977-1978 conflict in Ethiopia, Turkey granted the Soviets military overflight rights to supply the pro-Soviet Ethiopian communists under Col. Mengistu, who eventually prevailed. C. Meyer, Facing Reality -- From World Federalism to the CIA, 276-80 (1980).

(3) Over NATO objections, Turkey allowed three Soviet aircraft carriers, the Kiev on July 18, 1976, the Minsk on February 25, 1979, and the Novorosiisk on May 16, 1976, passage rights through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits into the Mediterranean in violation of the Montreaux Convention of 1936. See generally Washington Post, July 19, 1976, at A26, col. 1; New York Times, February 26, 1979, at A13, col. 1. The Soviet ships posed a formidable threat to the United States Sixth Fleet.

(4) In 1979 Turkey refused to allow the United States to send 69 marines and six helicopters to American military facilities at Incirlik in Turkey for possible use in evacuating Americans from Iran. New York Times, February 13, 1979, at A8, col. 3.

(5) Again, in 1979 Turkey refused the United States request to allow U-2 intelligence flights (for Salt II verification) over Turkish airspace "unless Moscow agreed." New York Times,May 15, 1979, at A1, col. 3. This position was voiced over a period of months by Turkish officials, the opposition party and the military Chief of Staff, Gen. Kenan Evren.

(6) In May 1989, Turkey rejected an American request to inspect an advanced MIG-29 Soviet fighter plane, flown by a Soviet defector to Turkey. New York Times, May 28, 1989, at A12, col. 1.

(7) The Turkish government refused repeated American requests for the installation of antennas in Turkey concerning 11 transmitters whose broadcasts would have been directed primarily to the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites. The initiative by the United States Department of State sought to improve reception of programs broadcast by Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and the Voice of America.

(8) Turkey further damaged NATO by vetoing NATO's effort to put military bases on various Greek islands for defensive purposes against the Soviet navy.

(9) During the Persian Gulf War, Turkey sat on the sidelines throughout Desert Shield, refusing to send any forces to the U.S.-led Coalition, refusing to authorize a second land front from Turkey (see Washington Post, January 16, 1991, at A6, col.5), and refusing to allow the use of the NATO air base at Incirlik, Turkey. Throughout Desert Shield there was large-scale, openly organized smuggling along the Turkey-Iraq border. (See Wall Street Journal, October 30, 1990, at 1, col. 1; Turkish newspapers Sabah, September 3, 1990, andCumhuriyet, September 22, 1990, and the weekly magazineYuzil, September 9, 1990.) That smuggling, including smuggling of oil from Iraq, has been going on ever since Desert Storm.

Desert Storm began on January 16, 1991. It was not until over 48 hours after the air war had begun on January 16, 1991, and only after the Iraqi air force and air defenses had been neutralized and the U.S. had achieved air superiority, that Turkey allowed a limited number of sorties out of the Incirlik NATO air base. Only one out of twenty coalition sorties originated in Turkey, and these were clearly unnecessary. The Turkish military and Turkish public opinion opposed the use of Incirlik NATO air base.

Turkey's unreliability as an ally, as evidenced by the above examples, should come as no surprise to those familiar with Turkey's history in the twentieth century. Turkey fought against the Allies in World War I. In World War II Turkey violated a treaty with France and Britain to enter the war on the side of the Allies. Instead, Turkey declared neutrality and openly aided Hitler by supplying Nazi Germany with vital chromium ore and as a transit country for other war materiel which prolonged World War II by seven months. See Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich (1970).

The letter also erroneously states:

"From 1984 to 1999, Turkey bore the brunt of a vicious terrorist campaign in which over 30,000 Turkish citizens were killed and thousands more injured."

Comment:

False. The facts are otherwise. It is the Turkish military and its full-scale military operations since 1984 with more than 250,000 troops used in a "war of terror" against its 20 percent Kurdish minority utilizing U.S. and German supplied arms that killed 35,000 innocent Kurds, destroyed more than 2,500 Kurdish villages and created 3 million Kurdish refugees. These are undeniable facts, yet the Turkish military and political leaders have deliberately misled Members of Congress by asserting that the PKK (Kurdish rebel organization) did it. It is a lie of Orwellian proportions.

In an exceptional article in Foreign Affairs (November/December 2000) entitled "Turkey's Dream of Democracy," Eric Rouleau, former Ambassador of France to Turkey, details Turkey's crimes against its Kurdish minority. Ambassador Rouleau writes the following:

“Over the years, individuals who advocate conciliation, including parliamentarians of Kurdish origin, have been imprisoned by the hundreds. Parties formed by moderate Kurds have been outlawed one after another. Torture has become widespread, and disappearances and assassinations of lawyers, journalists, politicians, and business executives suspected of sympathizing with the rebels have multiplied. According to the Turkish Ministry of Justice, in addition to the 35,000 people killed in military campaigns, 17,500 were assassinated between 1984, when the conflict began, and 1998. An additional 1,000 people were reportedly assassinated in the first nine months of 1999. According to the Turkish press, the authors of these crimes, none of whom have been arrested, belong to groups of mercenaries working either directly or indirectly for the security agencies” (pp. 111-112).

In other words, the Turkish government is putting the blame on the Kurds for these 35,000 deaths, when in reality the orders originated from nowhere else but the Turkish military-controlled government itself. The killings have been under the direct orders of the Turkish military.

Ambassador Rouleau's article should be required reading for anyone dealing with Turkey.

The letter also requests the United States to give economic aid to Turkey "either through debt forgiveness, trade concessions, multilateral aid, or any other such means."

Comment:

Economic aid to Turkey from the American taxpayer is not warranted, particularly at this time of U.S. economic slowdown. The Administration has turned down Turkey's request for $5 billion Foreign Military Sales (FMS) debt forgiveness and should continue to do so. The Congress halted grant military aid to Turkey several years ago. Congress should not allow this back-door attempt to give grant military aid to Turkey.

No benefits should be extended to Turkey at the expense of U.S. values and foreign policy objectives. The U.S. must not relinquish long-held positions on human rights based on strong moral roots for the sake of short-term cooperation. This is doubly so since Turkey is not a front-line country, is far from Afghanistan (over a thousand miles away) and, as events have demonstrated, of little value to U.S. and British military actions there.

The Turkish military owns vast private sector businesses and has tens of billions of dollars in reserves, which should be used to pay the U.S. the $5 billion in military sales debt and for use in Turkey's current financial crisis. Did the Turkish military inform Members of Congress of these facts?

It is important to remember Turkey’s long record of failed economic bailouts, and that debt forgiveness in and of itself does not lead to full democracy and protection of human rights under the law.

The IMF has bailed Turkey out of 17 financial crises over the past decades, yet these rescue efforts have not stabilized the Turkish economy because of the failure to identify and address the key factor in Turkey's financial crises: the Turkish military. The Turkish military controls foreign and domestic policy under the Turkish constitution. Its political control is augmented and supported by (1) its ownership of substantial financial assets, and (2) its control of its own budget -- amounting to one-third of state revenues. Several key policy analysts have indicated the same in recent statements:

• In a perceptive article in the January 2001 issue of "Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy," editor Gregory R. Copley cites the Turkish General Staff as the main obstacle to governmental reforms needed for accession to the EU and states that "it is time for Washington to support the real advocates of change in Turkey." (p.9)
• Mr. Brett D. Schaefer, fellow at the Heritage Foundation, states in a February 28, 2001 article on the Turkish economic crisis that: "The Administration must not…perpetuate the Clinton Administration's disastrous policy of insuring developing countries and international investors against their own imprudent actions."
• In his article in Foreign Affairs former Ambassador Rouleau details the Turkish military's vast economic holdings.

Shoring up the Turkish economy without reforming the military's hold on the modern Turkish state is self-defeating and only ensures that American interests will not be served. The IMF, U.S. and other outside assistance to Turkey must be conditioned upon meaningful economic and political reforms. Such reforms, not additional "free handouts," are needed in Turkey if she is to play an effective role in facilitating U.S. interests in the region -- short term and long term.

The recent reform package passed by the Turkish parliament does not go far enough to correct Turkey’s abhorrent human rights record. According to a comprehensive report titled Turkey: Human Rights and the European Union Accession Partnership issued on September 6, 2000, Human Rights Watch states: "Turkey's history of gross and widespread human rights violations has been thoroughly documented by non-governmental organizations, including Human Rights Watch, and by international governmental organizations including the United Nations (UN) and the Council of Europe."

Furthermore, the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2000 devotes 52 pages to Turkey's human rights abuses. According to the report, "Torture, beatings, and other abuses by security forces remained widespread…. Female detainees often face sexual humiliation and, less frequently, more severe forms of sexual torture. After being forced to strip in front of male security officers, female detainees often are touched, insulted, and threatened with rape" (Section 1c.) Regardless of the myriad protests voiced by these organizations, Turkey's violations continue today.

A recent public opinion poll in Turkey illustrates how closely public support and sentiment for the U.S.'s anti-terrorist efforts is contingent on additional economic aid to Turkey. According to the striking results of this poll, "88 percent of Turks are against the country's involvement in any anti-terrorist military venture -- but 86 percent approve 'if Turkey is given funds for its economy'" (Washington Times; October 5, 2001; p. A15).

Official corruption in Turkey is endemic, including the smuggling of oil from Iraq with substantial revenue for military commanders, and complicity in drug trafficking.

Turkey's "international terrorism" against Cyprus

Mr. President, it is also important to bring to your attention the violations of law and human rights perpetrated by Turkey against Cyprus, which the Representatives' letter conveniently omits to mention.

For 27 years, Turkey has violated the will of the U.S., the UN and the EU by refusing to end its illegal occupation of 37.3 percent of Cyprus. On the contrary, Turkey has reinforced its military presence in Cyprus and has sent over 80,000 illegal Turkish colonists to settle in the occupied areas of Cyprus, in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949. Turkey’s occupation costs the Turkish government an estimated $1 billion dollars annually. We can no longer encourage this situation by acting as both a political and economic crutch to Turkey when her alternative is to undertake more exacting and meaningful governmental reform.

Turkey’s involvement in Cyprus has violated every sense of the rule of law. Turkey’s illegal invasion of Cyprus on July 20, 1974, with the illegal use of American supplied arms, in which it seized about four percent of Cyprus’ territory, and its renewed aggression on August 14-16, 1974, in which it occupied an additional 33 percent of Cyprus, violated U.S. laws, the UN Charter, and the NATO Treaty. It should be noted that the renewed aggression on August 14-16, 1974 occurred after the legitimate government of Cyprus had been restored on July 23, 1974. Turkey's actions are war crimes.

Prior to the horrific acts of September 11, aggression by nation states had been the main form of international terrorism -- Iraq's aggression against Kuwait, Turkey's aggression against Cyprus in 1974, and in World War II, Nazi Germany's aggression against several countries and Japan against China and the U.S. in which innocent civilians were killed and brutalized. Turkey's aggression against Cyprus in 1974 with the illegal use of U.S. arms including airplanes, bombs and tanks was international terrorism. Turkish pilots flying American planes dropped American made bombs including napalm bombs which terrorized and killed innocent Greek Cypriot civilians in Nicosia, Kyrenia and elsewhere. There is no legal distinction between Iraq's aggression against Kuwait and Turkey's aggression against Cyprus.

The regional European Convention For The Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) is, by the terms of its preamble, an extension of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The government of Cyprus filed three applications to the European Commission on Human Rights. The Commission issued its report on the charges made in the first two applications on July 10, 1976. In it, the Commission found Turkey guilty of violating the following articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:

(1) Article 2 -- by the killing of innocent civilians committed on a substantial scale;
(2) Article 3 -- by the rape of women of all ages from 12 to 71;
(3) Article 3 -- by inhuman treatment of prisoners and persons detained;
(4) Article 5 -- by deprivation of liberty with regard to detainees and missing persons -- a continuing violation;
(5) Article 8 -- by displacement of persons creating more than 170,000 Greek Cypriot refugees, and by refusing to allow the refugees to return to their homes -- a continuing violation; 
(6) Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention -- by deprivation of possessions, looting and robbery on an extensive scale.

On January 23, 1977, the London Sunday Times published excerpts of the report and stated: "It amounts to a massive indictment of the Ankara government for the murder, rape and looting by its army in Cyprus during and after the Turkish invasion of summer 1974."

In addition, on May 10, 2001, the European Court of Human Rights found Turkey guilty of 14 violations under the European Convention of Human Rights stemming from Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

Enclosed are copies of our letters of March 12, 2001 and May 9, 2001 to you on Turkey's financial crisis which includes a copy of Ambassador Rouleau's exceptional article in Foreign Affairs. I have also included a copy of testimony submitted on June 29, 2001 by the American Hellenic Institute to the House International Relations Subcommittee on Europe.

These documents further delineate the pitfalls behind additional economic support without preconditions for meaningful economic and political reforms in Turkey, including the disgorging of the tens of billions of dollars in the military reserve fund, and the need for a just settlement of the Cyprus problem in accordance with UN resolutions.

Respectfully,

Eugene T. Rossides

Enclosures

March 12, 2001 AHI letter to President Bush with "Turkey's Dream of Democracy," by Eric Rouleau (Foreign Affairs, November/December 2000)
May 9, 2001 AHI letter to President Bush.
AHI June 29, 2001 testimony
November 9, 2001 letter to President Bush from 36 Representatives

cc: Vice President Richard Cheney
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill
Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
36 congressional signatories to November 9, 2001 letter