posted on the web on April 21 2003

Country Data

Full Name: Republic of Turkey Capital: Ankara Population: 67,308,928 (2002 est.) Location: Europe / Middle East Total area: 780,580 sq km Language: Turkish Ethnic groups: Turkish 80%, Kurdish 20% Religions: Muslim 99.8% Currency: Turkish Lira IGO memberships: NATO, UN, WHO, WTO Internet site: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Source: CIA World Factbook

It really surprised me when a friend asked why Turkey is against the war in Iraq. Living in a peaceful ‘island’, more than 5000 miles away from Iraq, it may be hard to comprehend how dangerous war next door can be. Turkey still remembers the humanitarian crisis it faced in 1991 during the first Gulf War when 500,000 Iraqi refugees arrived on its borders overnight. Turkey also has major concerns over Kurdish separatism. The current war causes instability and a political vacuum in the region that could easily spark terrorist activities. Fighting Kurdish terrorism cost the lives of more than 30,000 Turkish civilians and soldiers during the 1980s and 1990s. Moreover, virtually all the tourist bookings in Turkey were canceled on the very first day of war. Decreases in tourism, an important part of the Turkish economy, will take away 15 billion US dollars from the Turkish economy, and losses due to several other economic strains may add up to $40 billion, according to Turkish press. This is one of the main reasons that over 90 percent of the Turkish population oppose the war.

People have also asked me why Turkey is trying to move into Iraq, or even why Turkey has territorial ambitions over Northern Iraq. I sincerely believe that Turkey has no territorial ambitions in any country whatsoever. First and foremost, it would be naïve to expect that Turkey could expand its borders in the current democratic era, especially since Turkey has been a symbol of peace and democracy since its founding almost 80 years ago. Along with Israel, Turkey is one of the few true democracies in the Middle East, and sets a unique example as a secular Muslim country in that region. Turkey is a role model for countries like Iraq, Iran and Syria, not a threat.

The only reason for Turkey’s interest in moving troops into parts of Northern Iraq is national security. General Hilmi Ozkok, Turkish Chief of Staff, summarized very well what I have been trying to explain to my American friends: “I have difficulty understanding those who claim there is a threat to them [Iraq] across the ocean. When Turkey says the same threat exists on the other side of its border, this is found to be unbelievable.” Turkey learned a big lesson after the First Gulf War, after suffering from the results of the immigration crisis and Kurdish terrorism. Turkey’s reluctance to support war is due to its desire to protect itself and not make the same mistakes again.

Country Data

Full Name: Republic of Iraq Capital: Baghdad Population: 24,001,816 (2002 est.) Location: Middle East Total area: 437,072 sq km Language: Arabic Ethnic groups: Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20% Religions: Muslim 97% Currency: Iraqi dinar IGO memberships: UN, WHO Internet site: Iraq.net Source: CIA World Factbook

It is unfortunate that I have to explain the motivations behind Turkish policy over Iraq when they are so clear and obvious to most Turks. Neither the Americans nor the Turks seem to understand each other’s issues very well. In fact, this is one major reason why Turkish-American relations were strained during the negotiations over Iraq. Realizing that President Bush would attack Iraq even if the whole world opposes it, Turkey wanted to reduce the negative impacts of war as much as possible. The US officials and media overlooked the extent of negative consequences for Turkey if war broke out, and thought that Turkey was just bargaining over financial aid. Indeed, the proposal allowing US troops in Turkey failed to pass partly because the Turkish parliament was predominantly concerned with proving Turkey was not after money. Humiliating articles and cartoons published in the US press only increased the number of MPs voting against the proposal.

In the end, the rejection of the proposal did nothing but hurt both countries. On one hand, Turkey’s financial markets have been falling ever since war began, as foreign investment is quickly diminishing. On the other hand, the US is restricted to parachuting troops into Northern Iraq, which is making the war more costly and bloody for them. If both sides had paid more attention to understanding the policies and interests of the other side, the outcome would be much more positive today for both Turkey and the US.

Another big issue where the US has trouble understanding the Turkish point of view is Kurdish separatism. This became especially evident when Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times used the phrase “a Turkish invasion of peaceful Iraqi Kurdistan” in an op-ed article. Though he ignored the violence within Kurdistan and failed to appreciate the military, civil, and economic losses that Turkey suffered due to terrorism, Kristof was right in acknowledging one thing: that this is a deep-rooted, extremely complex issue.

A friend summed up the Kurdish issue very wisely when he said that Turkish politicians were using “80 year old solutions to 80 year old problems.” By this he meant that Turkey’s leaders are still using concepts like state-enforced secularism and a Turkish ethnic identity to keep the country together. When Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, was fighting for Turkey’s independence after World War I, he needed every single person on board, and reached out to many distinct ethnic groups including the Kurds. However, once the secular Turkish democracy was established it was necessary to find a unifying factor other than religion. Religion had been the main focus of the Ottoman Empire but was considered a threat to secularism. An ethnically Turkish national identity was selected as this unifying concept. Turkey was defined as where the Turks lived, and the concept of a separate Kurdish identity was regrettably overlooked. This was a necessary measure that had to be taken at the early years of the republic, but it is unclear if the same strategy should be applied today.

In the years after Ataturk’s death, his successors believed that they were responsible for protecting his legacy, or rather their own interpretation of it. Therefore, Kurds have been ignored and neglected throughout modern Turkish history. The powerful army, who identifies Kurdish identity with ethnic and territorial separatism, refuses to change the status quo of the Kurdish situation. Kurds definitely deserve more cultural, educational and ethnic rights, but even so, granting these rights is not that easy, given the violence of the PKK separatist group.

PKK, one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the 1990s, was founded and led by the notorious Abdullah Öcalan, a man born and educated in Turkey. He later took to the mountains and chose life in exile as a terrorist leader. After decades of cultural repression and lack of economic development in their region, the southeast corner of Turkey, many Kurds were desperate enough to resort to terrorism and to join the PKK. These Kurdish terrorists murdered thousands of innocent civilians, teachers, public servants and children. At this point, the issue expanded from granting cultural rights to Kurds to fighting terrorism.

While some may hold Turkish policies towards Kurds responsible for the actions of PKK, the fact remains that Kurdish terrorists with separatist motives murdered tens of thousands of Turkish citizens. This demonstrates why it is extremely unfair to overlook this death toll and accuse Turkey of ‘invading peaceful Northern Iraq’. As a country that has suffered gravely from terrorism and is very aware of the importance of territorial integrity, Turkey would never make plans to invade and occupy another country.

More importantly, throughout its history Turkey has never focused primarily on countries in the Middle and Far East. When Atatürk established Turkey, he set westernization as the state’s supreme goal. Yet today, almost 80 years after Turks were directed towards the West, Turkey still does not seem to belong there. Turkey’s hopes of European Union membership, already damaged by human rights issues, took another serious blow when the Annan plan failed to resolve the deep-rooted Cyprus issue. Moreover, Turkey still has not fully recovered from the economic crisis of 2001, the biggest in the republic’s history, and is dependent on IMF’s financial support, an organization closely associated with the USA.

Turkey can only benefit from continuing its strategic alliance with the US. Mending this bilateral relationship is a crucial step to solve Turkey’s regional, political and economic problems. Moreover, Turkey has yet to realize the enormous potential of this relationship in terms of trade, tourism and investment. A strong US-Turkey alliance is in the best interest of the US as well. The US truly needs Turkish friendship and loyalty, especially now when resentment of Americans is increasing throughout the rest of the Muslim world. The US should assist Turkey in improving its economy and joining the EU. The Turkish government should make more courageous moves to utilize a stronger political and economic alliance between the two countries. Only if both sides work harder and actually attempt to understand each other will US-Turkish relations begin to improve again. Now is the time for Turkey and the US to make this happen.

Berke Nayman is a student at Princeton University, USA, from Istanbul, Turkey.