Statement of Gene Rossides, American Hellenic Institute general counsel April 23, 2003 The war on Iraq has demonstrated Turkey’s unreliability as an ally and that The need in the interests of the U.S. to change the flawed U.S. policy towards Turkey Turkey is the cause of tensions and problems in its region Richard Perle should resign or be removed from the Defense Policy Board The war on Iraq has demonstrated and dramatized Turkey’s unreliability as an ally and that Turkey is of minimal value for U.S. strategic or other interests in the Middle East. In the interests of the United States, it is past time to change a flawed U.S. policy towards Turkey. It is past time to recognize that Turkey is the cause of tensions and problems in its region. And it is past time to stop the double standard towards Turkey and apply the rule of law to Turkey. The war on Iraq has demonstrated Turkey’s unreliability as an ally Turkey’s refusal to allow up to 62,000 U.S. troops to use bases in Turkey to open a northern front against Iraq was a clear demonstration of Turkey’s unreliability as an ally. It came as a surprise to many in the administration, the foreign policy establishment and the media. It should not have been a surprise because there are a number of other occasions throughout the past decades evidencing Turkey’s unreliability as an ally. Indeed, during the Cold War Turkey’s military-controlled government actually aided the Soviet military. The record shows that during the Cold War Turkey brushed aside U.S. and NATO interests on several occasions and deliberately gave substantial assistance to the Soviet military. Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz in remarks in Istanbul on July 14, 2002 referred to Turkey:
The facts are otherwise. Turkey has been an unreliable ally and is hardly self-reliant, requiring 19 financial bailouts by the U.S., the IMF and the World Bank over the past four decades. Please see Exhibit 1 for the details of Turkey’s unreliability as an ally. “extortion in the name of alliance” In the lead article on February 20, 2003, the New York Times reported that Turkey was demanding $32 billion for use of Turkish territory by U.S. troops for a northern front against Iraq, that the U.S. had offered $26 billion, that Turkey’s governing party leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the White House’s final offer of $26 billion ($15 billion in one year) “was not good enough and that Parliament would not vote this week on whether to allow the deployment of upwards of 40,000 American troops along the Iraqi border.” The New York Times reporters David E. Sanger and Dexter Filkens also wrote (Feb. 20, 2003, at A1; col. 6):
The Administration’s offer of $26 billion ($15 billion in one year) was unconscionable and should not have been made. It is extortion at $32 billion, at $26 billion, at $15 billion, at $1 billion, at $1 million or at 1 cent. The Turkish military, by its decision not to openly press for an affirmative vote in the Parliament, and other signals on the U.S. use of bases in Turkey, maneuvered to insure a no vote on March 1, 2003. The measure lost by 3 votes in a Parliament of 550 members. A number of media accounts indicate that the Turkish military believed the U.S. needed Turkey regarding Iraq and thought it could get more money, a veto over policy regarding the northern Iraqi Kurds and access to Kirkuk oil. They made a major mistake, the irony and unintended consequences of which demonstrated (1) Turkey’s unreliability as an ally, (2) that Turkey is of minimal value for U.S. strategic or other interests in the Middle East and (3) that Turkey’s main interests are to suppress the Iraqi Kurds, get more dollars from the U.S. and access to northern Iraqi oil—not weapons of mass destruction, regime change and democracy for the Iraqis. Members of Congress and media commentators have referred to Turkey’s actions as disloyal, shocking, extortion, blackmail, bribery and shakedown. The New York Times syndicated columnist, William Safire called it “the unkindest cut of all.” (NY Times, Mar. 17, 2003, at A23, col. 5.) The Washington Post’s nationally syndicated columnist, Jim Hoagland wrote (Mar. 6, 2003, at A23; col.1):
Turkey is of minimal value for U.S. strategic or other interests in the Middle East The war against Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq proved beyond a doubt that Turkey is of minimal value for U.S. strategic interests in the region. Turkey was neither vital nor needed, as its proponents had stated, in the U.S.-led coalition war against Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. On March 3, 2003, Army Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the U.S. ground commander who would head an invasion of Iraq told reporters "he was prepared to attack 'with or without Turkey,' asserting that a full-fledged northern front is not critical to defeating President Saddam Hussein's forces…. 'If a decision is made to conduct combat operations, when you put together all the pieces of air, ground, maritime, special operating forces, I will tell you it will be more than a one-direction effort.'" (Wash. Post, March 4, 2003, at A1; col. 5.) General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, said "that American forces would open a second front from the north against Iraq, with or without Turkey's help.” (NYTimes, March 5, 2003, at A1; col. 6.) The U.S. military outlines plans to President Bush for defeat of Saddam Hussein without Turkey's help On March 5, 2003, Mr. Eric Schmitt, reporting for the New York Times (Mar. 6, 2003, at A14; col.1) wrote:
The need in the interests of the U.S. to change the flawed U.S. policy towards Turkey In the interests of the United States, the flawed U.S. policy towards Turkey needs to be changed. The policy towards Turkey these past decades has been to consider Turkey a strategic and reliable ally against the Soviet Union and after the fall of the USSR to say that Turkey was still important regarding the countries of central Asia and the Middle East strategically and as a “moslem democracy” for them to emulate. Both propositions were in error and not supportable by the facts. Turkey is not a democracy. Turkey is a military-controlled authoritarian government. While the present war on Iraq has demonstrated that Turkey is an unreliable ally, it is not the first instance of such unreliability, as discussed above and in Exhibit 1. Turkey’s several previous examples of unreliability as an ally have been put under the rug by Turkey’s proponents to the detriment of U.S. interests. Indeed, Turkey’s proponents and paid registered foreign agents have misled the Congress and the American people regarding the facts of Turkey’s previous unreliability. What should be a new policy towards Turkey? It certainly should not be business as usual as advocated by Mr. Richard Perle who actually stated at an American Enterprise Black Coffee Briefing that “the long-term and close relationship between the United States and Turkey needn’t change.” (Wash. Post, 4-13-03, at F1, col. 3, at F5). Our future dealings with Turkey should be at arms length in view of Turkey’s recent and past actions as an unreliable ally and its lack of democracy at home. Our dealings should also recognize that Turkey is the cause of tensions and problems in its region. Any aid to Turkey should be given only if Turkey has met specific conditions. The $1 billion dollars in aid to Turkey in the $78.5 billion Supplemental Appropriations Bill for the war in Iraq (which the Congress passed on Saturday, April 12, 2003, at the close of the war), was “a request not a commitment” according to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. (Daily press briefing, Mar. 25, 2003, pages 2-3.) Certain members of Congress urged in early April that the $1 billion in aid to Turkey be subject to “performance standards relating to Turkey’s economic policies and its role as an ally.” The role as an ally referred to Turkey allowing overflight rights, and food and non-military supplies to U.S. troops in northern Iraq, which role it turned out was not needed after a few days and was of minimal value. Turkey refused to allow military arms and equipment through its territory. There should be no military aid to Turkey of whatever nature. Economic aid to Turkey should recognize that the military-controlled government of Turkey is the cause of tensions in its region and aid should be subject to the following conditions:
In future dealings with Turkey a special effort must be made to work with the democratic forces, reformers and human rights activists in Turkey to assist Turkey to become a full and true democracy. Fundamental to this effort is civilian control of the Turkish military and the divestiture by the Turkish military of its ownership of the arms production companies of Turkey and its other substantial businesses. Turkey is the cause of tensions and problems in its region Cyprus Turkey’s 1974 invasion of the sovereign Republic of Cyprus with 40,000 Turkish troop’s and the occupation of 37.3 percent of the island—all accomplished with the illegal use of U.S. arms and equipment—are affronts to the international legal order, violations of the UN Charter, article 2 (4), the North Atlantic Treaty and the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and are a continuing threat to regional stability. AHI supports a settlement of the Cyprus problem through negotiations based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation in a sovereign state, incorporating the norms of constitutional democracy, the EU acquis communautaire, all UN resolutions on Cyprus, and the pertinent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. To achieve such a settlement, the U.S. should apply forceful economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Turkey, including sanctions. We condemn the Turkish military’s and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash’s hindrance of settlement negotiations and Turkey’s repeated threats to annex the occupied part of Cyprus if Cyprus becomes an EU member. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan put the blame for the failure of the talks between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots at The Hague on March 10-11, 2003 squarely on Turkey and Rauf Denktash, The Turkish Cypriot leader. In his report of April 1, 2003 to the UN Security Council he wrote “In the case of the failure of this latest effort, I believe that Mr. Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot leader, bears prime responsibility.” Secretary-General Annan recognized President Tassos Papadopoulos’ “continued desire to seek a settlement on the basis of my plan even after accession to the European Union.” Turkey’s Suppression of Human Rights in Turkey Turkey has a notoriously dismal human rights record, which is well documented in numerous credible reports. Of special interest is the November 1999 report “Arming Repression: U.S. Arms Sales to Turkey During the Clinton Administration,” produced jointly by the World Policy Institute and the Federation of American Scientists. Other reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and successive State Department Country Reports on Turkey have stated that “extrajudicial killings, including deaths in detention from excessive use of force, ‘mystery killings,’ and disappearances continued. Torture remained widespread.” Thousands of political prisoners cram Turkish jails. Dozens of journalists have been assassinated, and many others are in jail. Abuses Against the Kurds The suppression of human rights has been particularly brutal against Turkey’s twenty percent Kurdish minority and amounts to ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Kurds have a unique language and traditions. Mostly Sunni Muslims and numbering about 20 million in Turkey today, they have been settled for more than two millenia in a broad arc spanning southeastern Turkey, northwestern Iran (3 million), and northeastern Iraq (3.5 million). They have traditionally resisted subjugation, but history has consistently denied them a national homeland. They are therefore political and ethnic minorities wherever they live, the easy target of majorities casting about for the sources of political, economic, and social discord. Particularly in Turkey and Iraq, the abuses against Kurds by governments ostensibly rooting out rebellion and “terrorism” have been chronic and genocidal. In the past two decades, the Turkish military and mercenary groups have killed, either by direct military intervention or assassination, tens of thousands of Kurds, over ninety percent of whom have been innocent civilians. It is also well-documented that since 1984, the Turkish military’s genocidal policy has destroyed over 3,000 Kurdish villages (some in northern Iraq outside of Turkish territory), creating over 2.5 million Kurdish refugees. France’s former ambassador to Turkey, Eric Rouleau, detailed Turkey’s massive elimination of Kurds between 1984 and 1999:
Mr. Edward Peck, a retired U.S. ambassador, served as U.S. chief of mission in Baghdad from 1977 to 1980. In an article in the Mediterranean Quarterly (Fall 2001), Mr. Peck stated that the Kurds in Turkey “have faced far more extensive persecution than they do in Iraq.” He writes:
The assaults against Turkey’s Kurdish minority reveal that democratic norms have still not taken root in Turkey. In view of Turkey’s horrendous record, AHI believes that the U.S. policy toward Turkey should be driven by forceful incentives for democratic reform. These include an arms embargo, diplomatic and economic pressure and economic sanctions. Aegean Sea Boundary Turkey has made claims to one-half of the Aegean Sea and refuses to take its claims to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The U.S. should publicly state that it accepts as final the treaty-defined demarcation of the maritime border between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea. The U.S. should vigorously repudiate any challenge to this demarcation and should urge Turkey to submit its difference of opinion to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. We urge the Congress to pass H. Con. Res. 87, the Aegean Sea Boundary Bill introduced by Rep. Robert E. Andrews on March 11, 2003, which expresses the foregoing policy. Suppression of Religious Freedom Religious freedom, a basic human right, is not enjoyed by Orthodox Christians in Turkey. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne expressly guarantees the religious rights of Turkey’s Orthodox Christian minority and of Greek Orthodoxy’s Ecumenical Patriarch, whose throne has been located in Istanbul (formerly known as Constantinople) since Byzantine times. But the failure of successive Turkish governments to enforce the treaty’s protections has resulted in the chronic persecution and harassment of Turkey’s Greek Orthodox Christians. In recent times these acts have included assaults on the Ecumenical Patriarchate, desecrations of Orthodox cemeteries and churches, restrictions on the Saint Nicholas Festival, and the prohibition of non-Turkish citizens from working at the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Since 1971, the Turkish government has deliberately choked off the supply of eligible candidates for Greek Orthodox sacramental positions in Turkey by ordering the illegal closure of the centuries-old Halki Patriarchal School of Theology, one of Greek Orthodoxy’s preeminent schools for the training of priests. The school has remained closed ever since. We condemn Turkey’s toleration of assaults against religious minorities and closure of the theological school. AHI calls on the U.S. to insist that Turkey immediately reopen the school and enforce strictly the guarantees of religious freedom set forth in the Treaty of Lausanne, the UN Charter, and other international agreements. In accordance with the sense of Congress expressed in Section 2804 of the 1999 Appropriations Bill, which became law on October 28, 1998, we urge the U.S. government to use its influence with the Turkish government to safeguard the Ecumenical Patriarchate, its personnel, and its property, and to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology. Armenia The Greek American community enjoys long-standing contacts and affinities with the Armenian American community. We support the Armenian community’s efforts on the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, passed as part of the 1997 Foreign Aid Bill, which calls for a halt to U.S. assistance to any country blocking U.S. aid to another country. The Turkish blockage of aid to Armenia includes U.S. humanitarian and pharmaceutical aid. We deplore the previous Administration's waiver of that Act for Turkey. It is in the interests of the U.S. to recognize the 1915 Armenian Genocide on the lines of H. Con. Res. 56. Richard Perle should resign or be removed from the Defense Policy Board U.S. relations with Turkey have been driven by a handful of appointive, career and military officials and Turkey’s U.S. foreign agents registered with the Department of Justice. Key among the appointed officials are Messrs. Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Over the past decades they have misrepresented Turkey’s value to the U.S. and overlooked Turkey’s horrendous human rights violations. By advocating and successfully pressing for grant military arms to Turkey in the 1980’s and 1990’s, with full public knowledge that U.S. arms would be used against Turkey’s Kurdish minority, they made the U.S. an accessory to Turkey’s ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide against Turkey’s 20% Kurdish minority. The killings of innocent Kurds lie at their doorstep. Their policy and actions towards Turkey have been harmful to U.S. interests in the region and have cost the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars of unnecessary expenditures in military and economic aid to Turkey. Mr. Perle, a democrat, was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Reagan administration. In 1992 Mr. Wolfowitz was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Reagan administration and is now Deputy Secretary of Defense. Mr. Feith, Perle’s protege, was his special assistant in the Reagan administration and is now the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Mr. Perle was, until recently, the appointed chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a non-paying position subject to the rules of conduct and ethics of paid government employees. He resigned as chairman on March 27, 2003 after “disclosures that his business dealings included a recent meeting with a Saudi arms dealer and a contract to advise a communications company (Global Crossing) that is seeking permission from the Defense Department to be sold to Chinese investors.” (NY Times, Mar. 28, 2003, at C1; col.5.) Mr. Seymour M. Hersh, in a New Yorker magazine article (Mar. 17, 2003, pages 76-81), exposed Perle’s business dealings as “a managing partner in a venture-capital company called Trireme Partners L.P.” as a conflict with his position as chairman of the Defense Advisory Board. “Trireme’s main business...is to invest in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defense.” The New York Times in an editorial on March 24, 2003 labeled Mr. Perle’s connection with Global Crossing “ a conflict pure and simple, and Mr. Perle should immediately drop one of his two roles.” (NY Times, Mar. 24, 2003, at A18; col.1.) However, Mr. Perle did not resign from the Board, choosing to remain as a member. The conflict of interest with his business dealings remains with him as a member of the Defense Policy Board and he should resign or be removed. Mr. Perle is a stain on the integrity and the professed values of the Bush administration and will remain so until he resigns from the Defense Policy Board. If he refuses to resign, the Secretary of Defense should request his resignation. Representative John Conyers, Jr. (Mich.) said that if Mr. Perle continues as a member of the board “that continues to be a problem.” Senator Carl M. Levin (Mich.) voiced similar views. (NY Times, Mar. 28, 2003 at A6, col.1.) Mr. Perle’s use of an official position for financial gain is not new. In the Reagan administration he successfully pressed for increased grant military aid to Turkey from 1981-1987. Mr. Perle resigned from the Reagan Administration in 1987, before the end of the Cold War, and went to Turkey and negotiated an $800,000 contract for International Advisors Inc. (IAI), a company which he initiated and for which he recruited six former Executive Branch staff officials, including Douglas Feith as the managing principal for IAI. IAI registered with the Justice Department as Turkey’s foreign agent and received $800,000 from Turkey in 1989, and then received $600,000 annually from 1990 to 1994. Mr. Perle became a consultant to IAI and received $48,000 annually from 1989 to 1994. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, is a former registered agent for Turkey from 1989 to 1994. Mr. Feith was a principal for IAI. As such, he received $60,000 annually and his law firm Feith and Zell received many hundreds of thousands of dollars from IAI. He was previously a special assistant to Richard Perle at the Defense Department in the Reagan administration. Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz gave three speeches on Turkey in 2002 which contained false and misleading statements with serious errors of fact and omission of Orwellain proportions. Members of the House were mislead by Mr. Wolfowitz’s remarks in connection with the debate and vote in the House Appropriations Committee and in the debate on the House floor regarding Representative Duke Cunningham’s amendment to strike the $1 billion in aid to Turkey from the Supplemental Appropriations Bill for the Iraq war because of Turkey’s refusal to allow 62,000 U.S. troops to use bases in Turkey to open a northern front against the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. The amendment failed, in part, because of misinformation given to members by administration officials. In joint letters to President George W. Bush on September 4, 2002 and December 11, 2002, we responded in detail to Mr. Wolfowitz’s false and misleading statements. Copies are available at www.ahiworld.org. Turkey’s U.S. foreign agents registered with the Department of Justice Turkey has a long and impressive list of U.S. foreign agents registered with the Department of Justice. It is presently paying $2.4 million dollars for its U.S. foreign agents lobbying the Congress and the Executive Branch. Since money is fungible, the U.S. taxpayer is paying the bill from foreign aid monies Turkey receives. There are two groups presently working for Turkey’s interest: The Livingston Group at $1.8 million a year and the Harbour Group at $600,000 a year. Ms. Judy Sarasohn, in a Washington Post column titled “Special Interests” (Wash. Post, April 3, 2003, at A21; col. 1), detailed the persons working for these groups as follows (emphasis in original):
__________________________________ For copies of the following letters to President George W. Bush, please see our web site at www.ahiworld.org.
Exhibit 1 Turkey's Unreliability as an Ally and Lack of Self-Reliance as an Ally The assertion by Mr. Wolfowitz that Turkey is “one of our… most reliable … allies” is false. The record shows that during the Cold War Turkey brushed aside U.S. interests on many occasions and deliberately gave substantial assistance to the Soviet military. In 1974, Edward Luttwak, the noted strategic analyst, stated the following regarding Turkey’s cooperation with the Soviet military. He wrote at that time the following:
Examples of Turkey’s unreliability for U.S. strategic purposes include:
• “one of our…most…self-reliant allies” The assertion that Turkey is “one of our…most …self-reliant allies” is another false statement. The record is clear that since the 1950’s Turkey has sought and obtained billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in grant military and economic aid and loans, and billions of dollars from the IMF and World Bank. The IMF, at the U.S. initiative, has bailed Turkey out of 19 financial crises these past decades with the latest being in 2002 for $16 billion and in 2001 for $11 billion. During this period the Turkish military with its ownership of vast business enterprises, has amassed “tens of billions of dollars” in a reserve fund. |
|
Statement of Gene Rossides, American Hellenic Institute general counsel
|