GEOPOLITICAL DIARY: CONSIDERING TURKEY’S INTERESTS IN IRAQ
Stratfor
Oct 16 2006
Reports are circulating that jihadist groups in northern and central
Iraq are in the process of creating an “emirate,” an independent
region in the Sunni areas. The Shia are already in effective control
of their own region in the south, and the Kurds have controlled
their region of northern Iraq for an extended period of time. There
are ethnically diffuse and disputed areas in and around Baghdad,
so this hardly solves the problem of sectarian violence, but this
regional autonomy is becoming a de facto reality. We now need to
start considering some aspects of a potential partition.
The most important issue here is to recognize what the Sunnis already
know: a partition along ethno-sectarian lines would make the Sunni
region, economically speaking, an abortion. The Shia control Iraq’s
southern oil fields. The Kurds control the northern oil fields. The
Sunnis control nothing. If partition occurs in accordance with current
boundaries, the Sunni position will deteriorate and collapse.
Therefore, it is essential for all involved (given the Sunni unrest
and prospects of violence) that the Sunnis have a share in Iraq’s oil.
To be more precise, the Sunnis must control Kirkuk, a center of the
oil industry and a city in which conflict rages for these reasons.
The Kurds now hold Kirkuk; the Sunnis must take it. The Sunnis are
fighting on four fronts: against the Shia, against the Kurds, against
the Americans and against each other. The Kurds, on the other hand,
are fighting only the Sunnis at this point. Therefore, logic would
have it that the Sunnis don’t stand a chance.
But another element must be added to this calculus: Turkey. Turkey
has tried to keep out of the Iraq war and, so far, has done fairly
well at it. But Turkey does not want to see the Kurdish autonomous
region expand, let alone give rise to an independent Kurdish state.
Such a state would become a focal point for Kurdish nationalism and,
since the Turks would face growing breakaway tendencies in their
own Kurdish region, they would not welcome this development —
particularly if Baghdad collapses as Iraq’s center.
Therefore, the Turks will want to weaken the Kurds. They also will
want to make sure that there is a strong buffer between them and the
Iraqi Shia — a buffer other than the Kurds. That would mean it is
in Turkey’s national interest to see the Sunnis strengthened right now.
It should be recalled that the Turks intervened extensively in
Iraq prior to 2003. They are old players in the region with ties to
Sunni tribal leaders. If they are facing a Kurdish state, they might
well choose to reassert themselves in the region by strengthening
the Sunnis.
Now, the Turks are vehemently opposed to the jihadists, but in this
they share an interest with Sunni tribal leaders, who see the jihadists
as a potential threat to their own authority. While it is the jihadists
who have declared an emirate, neither the Sunni leadership nor the
Turks would want to see the jihadists having any role to play if
independence becomes a reality. The Turks would want to weaken the
Kurds; the Sunnis would want to dominate oil in the north. Alliances
have been formed on less.
There are few constraints on the Turks. They do not expect to be
admitted to the European Union and, given France’s decision to raise
the question of the Armenian holocaust, the Turks have written off
accession, in the intermediate term at least. Nor do they need it.
Turkey has been doing quite well — better than France or Germany,
economically. As for the Iranians, they would have no problem
with seeing the Kurds seriously weakened and the Sunni jihadists
undermined. So long as the Shia control the south and the Iranians
have influence with the Shia in Iraq, they can live with Turkish
influence among the Sunnis.
Meanwhile, the United States seems to be making plans for deploying
forces in northern Iraq. Any such plan would require Turkish support,
as logistical support from Kuwait makes for a long, tough line. If the
United States wants a role in Iraq after redeployment, it will have
to take Turkish interests into account. The United States previously
has backed Kurdish interests. But the Americans need the Turks and
have little to offer them. The one thing the Turks might want —
EU membership without strings — is something Washington can’t help
them with.
It is now time to turn the focus from Baghdad to the north, and the
political evolution there.

ARMENIAN FM OSKANIAN ASSERTS: OUR AIM IS NOT TO HUMILIATE TURKEY
Hurriyet, Turkey
Oct 16 2006
Emboldened by last week’s decision by France to approve a bill
penalizing those who would publicly deny the so-called Armenian
genocide, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian has come forward
with a new allegation against Turkey: “The fact that Turkey has
not recognized the events of 1915-1917 as it should means that the
genocide is still occuring.”
Oskanian, who asserts that despite this Yerevan is anxious to normalize
relations with Ankara, went on to say “It is difficult to say that
things are going well just because France and Switerzerland have
accepted bills recognizing the Armenian genocide. Our real aim is
not to have other countries recognize this genocide. Also, we gain
nothing from humiliating Turkey. For Turkey to ask for a special
research commission to be formed while its borders with us remain
closed is not a very honest or genuine action.”
Oskanian’s comments came in the “NZZ am Sonntag” newspaper on Sunday
in Switzerland. He also said “The fact that Turkey has not accepted
or recognized the Armenian genocide up until now means that it is
still continuing. But, as this country’s foreign minister, my duty is
to look towards the future and to find a way to normalize relations
with Turkey.”

BARROSO: “20 YEARS BEFORE TURKEY JOINS EU”
Tiscali Europe, UK
Oct 16 2006
Commission clears ground for pessimistic progress report
Speaking in Brussels last weekend Jose Manuel Barroso, President of
the European Commission, gave the EU executive’s most pessimistic
evaluation yet of Turkey’s accession saying it could take “up to
20 years”.
A critical progressive report on the status of Turkish efforts to
meet the EU’s accession criteria is due on 8 November and is likely
to paint a bleak picture for Ankara.
Barroso, vice-president Guenter Verheuguen amd enlargement commissioner
Olli Rehn have all criticised to varying degrees elements of Turkey’s
civil code which limit freedom of expression.
Despite that, the commission’s top brass had remained generally
optimistic, until President Barroso’s recent statement, that is.
It has been a difficult few days for the Turkish government’s European
policy: Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk, a fierce critic of the country’s
laws that limit civil liberities, won the Nobel Peace for Literature
and France’s parliament passed a law criminalising the denial of the
1915 Armenian genocide carried out by Ottoman Turkey and denied by
the modern Turkish state.
Pamuk’s award was greeted with a mixture of pride and acrimony,
the French law, however, was widely condemned both in Turkey and
in many quarters abroad. President Barroso called the move “inapt”
and Nobel winner Pamuk said that it was unhelpful.
section=Current%20Affairs&level=preview&co ntent=518002

NATO ADMINISTRATION SATISFIED WITH ARMENIA’S STEPS UNDER IPAP
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 16 2006
YEREVAN, October 16. /ARKA/. The NATO administration is satisfied
with Armenia’s steps under the Individual Partnership Plan (IPAP),
stated Special Representative of the NATO Secretary General to the
South Caucasus and Central Asia Robert Simmons.
He stated that this cooperation will be based on official documents
in the future.
Simmons pointed out that NATO attaches high importance to the
development of cooperation with Armenia and stressed that NATO is
ready to render any possible assistance to the country, particularly
in reforming its armed forces.
In his turn, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan pointed out
that IPAP and EU Neighborhood program are complementary ones.
Simmons also reported that NATO attaches high importance to free and
democratic elections in Armenia. He stressed that it will closely
watch the parliamentary and presidential elections in the country in
2007 and 2008.
The Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) was signed in
December 2005. Armenia’s involvement in the program implies regular
consultations on regional security with NATO, elaboration of a security
strategy and of Armenia’s military doctrine, improvement of defense
and budget planning.

TURKISH PARLIAMENT TO REACT TO FRENCH GENOCIDE LAW
Focus News, Bulgaria
Oct 16 2006
Ankara. Turkey continues its multilateral campaign against the
newly-adopted French law on Armenian genocide, online edition of
Turkish newspaper Zaman reads.
The Turkish parliament will summon a special session on Tuesday on
which it will adopt a decision to reprimand France.
Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that the
criticism towards France should be ‘though over carefully’. On his
part Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc pointed to the necessity ‘Turkey’s
reaction to be decisive but well-considered’, the newspaper notes.

STATUE COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN DEATHS STOLEN
Indianapolis Star, IN
Oct 16 2006
Chaville, France — A statue commemorating the World War I-era massacre
of Armenians in Turkey was stolen, an official said Saturday, two days
after French lawmakers approved a bill that would make it a crime to
deny that the killings amounted to genocide.
The bronze monument, installed in front of the train station in the
Paris suburb of Chaville in 2002, disappeared between Friday night
and Saturday morning, said authorities for the Haut-de-Seine region.
The police have not ruled out the possibility that the statue, which
weighs several hundred pounds, was stolen to be sold as scrap metal,
said Stephane Topalian, who serves on the board of the local chapter
of the Armenian church.
From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL IS “FOOLISH” – FINNISH FM
Newsroom Finland, Finland
Oct 16 2006
Erkki Tuomioja (soc dem), the Finnish foreign minister, said in an
internet diary entry posted Saturday that the French parliament’s
decision to pass a bill making it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide
was “foolish”.
“When I say that I regard the decision to be foolish and hope for
its rapid withdrawal it has nothing to do with what happened to the
Armenians in Turkey,” Mr Tuomioja said.
“Personally I consider genocide to be the right word to describe what
happened and hope that the Turkish would be prepared to accept this
as well. However, parliaments and governments are not to intervene
in it by legislating which historical truths are to be allowed and
which not.”
Mr Tuomioja added that the bill would increase the power of hardliners
in Turkey.

AGAINST STATE-BACKED TRUTHS
By The Crimson Staff
Harvard Crimson, MA
Oct 16 2006
The French bill that criminalizes Armenian genocide should not
become law
Last Thursday, the French parliament exacerbated existing tensions
between European states and Turkey, which is in talks to join the
European Union. In an overwhelming 109-19 vote, the lower chamber of
the French National Assembly unwisely passed a bill to criminalize
the denial of the 1915 genocide of Armenians on Turkish soil. The
French Senate and President have the chance to bury the bill, and we
hope they take it.
Unsurprisingly, the Turkish government reacted swiftly against
this bill, as have Turkish emigrants all over Europe. Some Turkish
parliament members proposed a law criminalizing the denial of the
French colonial genocide of Algerians (historians prefer to deem it
colonial warfare). In France this weekend, vandals defaced one of
the many existing monuments to the massacred Armenians.
These actions must be understood in a larger context. Under the
proposed French bill, Armenian genocide deniers would face fines and
prison terms equivalent to those mandated by anti-Holocaust-denying
laws in some central European nations. Although the motivations
for these laws may have been understandable in the post-war era,
governments should not impose their version of the truth over their
citizens.
The French bill is well intentioned; its goal is to force Turkey to
confront the atrocities committed by the ruling Committee for Union
and Progress during World War I. But we cannot help but be skeptical
of any state trying to impose its version of history and truth.
States should simply avoid this business. Thus, our opposition extends
beyond the French bill to the laws like those in Germany, Poland,
Austria, and Switzerland which criminalize Holocaust denial.
France’s passage of this bill would be an ironic parallel to the
circumstances in Turkey, which tried Orhan Pamuk, this year’s
Nobel laureate for literature, for speaking about the Armenian
genocide-which violates Article 301 of the Turkish penal code. In
defending free speech, even the expatriate Pamuk spoke against the
French bill. A free market of ideas, not laws imposed by the state,
should establish what is true.

TURKEY’S POLITICAL FUTURE
Washington Times, DC
Oct 16 2006
In Turkey’s 2002 elections, only two parties received more than the
10 percent of the vote required to win seats in parliament. This gave
the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which elected Recep Tayyip
Erdogan prime minister in 2003, a two-thirds majority in Turkey’s
first two-party parliament since 1954. Several polls now have AKP
lower than its 2002 election performance. If the election were
held today, says Soner Cagaptay, a Turkey expert at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, AKP would receive around 25 percent
of the vote. Opposition parties, the Republican People’s Party
(CHP) and the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), would likely receive
around 20 percent each. A three-party parliament is almost certain;
a four-party parliament is also quite possible. Even if AKP were to
win 30 percent of the vote, it would lose its parliamentary majority,
and some form of coalition government would be formed.
To achieve electoral success in Turkey, Mr. Cagaptay said, a party
needs two indispensable elements: a well-organized party structure
with good grass-roots support, and a charismatic figure with strong
name recognition. Turkish politics is largely personality-driven,
and Mr. Erdogan, by all accounts a captivating speaker, fits the bill
for the AKP. While several of the opposition parties have strong
organizational structures, they lack leaders with Mr. Erdogan’s
charisma.
The only opposition party to cross over the 10 percent threshold
in the 2002 elections was CHP, which is also the best contender
to overtake AKP in the Nov. 2007 election. CHP is nationalist,
secular and supports government involvement in the private sector —
a left-of-center party similar to the British Labor Party before
Tony Blair. As the only opposition party with seats in parliament,
CHP has also become functionally an anti-AKP party, opposing it on
every issue, sometimes irrespective of its own ideology.
MHP is a nationalist party that naturally picks up support as anger at
AKP — particularly the perception that AKP is failing to deal with
the terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) — grows. The PKK is a
particularly difficult issue for Washington and has proved to be one
obstacle in restoring the U.S.-Turkey relationship that soured in 2003
when Turkey denied the United States use of its territory during the
invasion of Iraq. In the years since, Turkey has been upset by both
the emboldening effect that any increased Kurdish autonomy in Iraq will
have on Kurdish separatists in Turkey and Washington’s refusal to allow
Turkish forces to strike PKK camps located in Northern Iraq. Turkish
attitudes toward America have deteriorated accordingly. Although CHP
and MHP reflect the strong and widespread anti-American sentiment,
both are less vehemently anti-American than Mr. Erdogan’s ruling party.
Opposition to AKP is also widespread in the country’s roughly 50
minority parties. Ali Mufit Gurtuna, like Mr. Erdogan a former mayor
of Istanbul, last week told us of his plans to use his strong name
recognition and good relations with civil society groups to bring
together minority opposition groups in 2007. Mr. Gurtuna, who called
for Turkish support of the U.S. action against Iraq, spoke persuasively
about the need for real political opposition to AKP. In addition to the
PKK, the 2007 election will hinge on corruption and the escalation of
nationalist sentiment. AKP came to power with anti-corruption pledges,
but it has been losing that reputation in recent years due to scandals
involving lower-level party officials.
The problems Turkey has encountered during its European Union accession
to some extent reflect negatively on AKP, as many Turks believe the
process has not been what the government promised. Turkey believes
the EU is treating it unfairly by demanding concessions in Cyprus
and recognition of the Armenian genocide, a dark episode in Turkey’s
history that the government has never acknowledged. At the same time,
many secular Turks are troubled by a shift in the AKP’s position
away from secularism and towards Islamist fundamentalism in both
its domestic and foreign policy. The result of next year’s Turkish
election may well determine whether Turkey remains a friend of the
West, or slips deeper into a hostile Islamist Middle East.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FUNDS APLENTY FOR KARS-AKHALKALAKI-BAKU RAILWAY
By M. Alkhazashvili
The Messenger, Georgia
Oct 16 2006
Construction of the Kars-Akhalkalaki-Baku railway will cost
approximately USD 420 million. Turkey and Azerbaijan have both
committed funding. Azerbaijan has also generously extended a credit
of USD 220 million to Georgia, with no interest and no deadline
for re-payment. Initially, the US expressed interest in investment
in the project, however the Armenian lobby in the US Senate blocked
the initiative, pointing out that were it not for the fact that both
Turkey and Azerbaijan have closed their borders with Armenia over the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the already existing railway from Kars to
Gyumri. The US has now completely withdrawn from negotiations.
Of the two draft proposals for the railway’s construction, the
one which envisages costs of USD 420 million was selected during
the trilateral negotiations currently being held in Baku. Irakli
Chogovadze, Georgian Minister of Economic Development, representing
Georgia in the negotiations, stated that Georgia was very particular
about not allowing the Kars-Akhalkalaki railway to compete with
the Georgian ports of Poti and Batumi for transporting cargo. He
stressed that the Georgian government will control this issue through
implementing a tariff system.
On Georgian territory, the railway will cover 192 kilometres of
existing track in need of rehabilitation, and a 29 kilometre segment,
Marabda-Kartsakhi, which needs to be completely built from scratch.
Unofficially, all three sides expressed their disappointment in US
withdrawal from the project.
Earlier this year US Senators Rick Santorum and Robert Menendez tabled
a bill which prohibits US assistance for the building of railways
traversing the Caucasus that circumvent Armenia.
Most likely, Kazakhstan and China will also join the project.