|
CounterPunch
March 4,
2003
A Very Fine Thing
Turkey Stands Up to Bush
By GARY LEUPP
March 1. It had been another encouraging week for the
global antiwar movement. The momentum generated by the massive
demonstrations of mid-February held, with the Arab world finally
playing a central role. There were huge rallies in Khartoum (100,000,
Feb. 26), Cairo (100-500,000, Feb. 27), and Sana, Yemen (300,000,
March 1). Significant peace rallies were also held in Rabat (30,000,
Feb. 23) and Manama, Bahrain (up to 20,000, Feb. 28). In Oman,
which like Bahrain plays host to an unpopular U.S. troop presence,
hundreds gathered Feb. 23 to protest an Iraq attack. Meanwhile
in Turkey (not an Arab country but a Muslim one, the only Muslim
NATO state), on March 1, up to 300,000 took to the streets of
Ankara to express the nearly universal antiwar sentiment in Turkey.
That same day, Iraq began destroying
its al-Samoud missiles under U.N. inspectors' supervision. The
mainstream press depicted this as a setback for U.S. war preparations.
But it was dwarfed by another. The Turkish parliament created
a far more substantial roadblock in refusing to back a U.S. proposal
to station 62,000 troops in the country, with the explicit intention
of launching an invasion of its neighbor. Washington had arrogantly
assumed the bill would sail through, given Turkey's status as
U.S. client state, and the threat of Turkish exclusion from a
role in post-war U.S.-occupied Iraq as well as a cutoff in aid.
The U.S. was already unloading troops and equipment, assuming
obedience. But the smug assumption that the world will kowtow
to overwhelming military power, long a trademark of imperialist
diplomacy, turned out in this case to be flawed.
Surprise, surprise, chicken hawks! "The
defeat stunned American officials," noted Dexter Filkins
in the New York Times, "who were confident that Turkey's
leaders would be able to persuade the members of their [Justice
and Development] party to support the measure." That very
cockiness has strained U.S. ties with this longtime ally. "As
the discussions wore on," writes Filkins, "and tales
of American high-handedness spread, Turkish lawmakers and the
Turkish public appeared to become more and more alienated. 'The
relationship is spoiled,' said Murat Mercan, a member of Parliament
from the majority party. 'The Americans dictated to us. It became
a business negotiation, not something between friends. It disgusted
me."
Think about it. The Bush administration
has been saying all along that Saddam Hussein is a threat to
his neighbors; this is a key justification for war. Problem is,
none of his neighbors agree! Not Kuwait and Iran (both of which
have been invaded in the past), not Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia
nor Turkey. (Only Israel, which does not share a border with
Iraq, and is the only state in the region armed with its own
nukes, cheers on the U.S. war preparations.) Last March, Turkish
president Bulent Ecevit declared, "We feel that Iraq should
not be the subject of military attack since it would upset the
whole Middle East. Since the Gulf War, Iraq has been under strict
control. It is under constant surveillance, so it is not in a
position anymore to inflict harm on any of its neighbors or even
its own people." That's the (thoroughly reasonable) position
of the current Turkish government as well.
But brushing aside such reasonable assertions,
the U.S. has depicted Turkey as an allied state immanently threatened
by Iraqi aggression. On February 10, Washington proposed to
NATO that it send alliance equipment, including AWACS early warning
planes and Patriot anti-missile batteries, and NATO troops to
operate them, to Turkey to assist it in the event of an
Iraqi attack. (Four days later, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
referred to this proposal as Turkey's "request for assistance,"
as though the idea originated in Ankara.) The Belgians, French
and Germans opposed the plan, noting that Ankara had stated it
does not feel threatened by Iraq, and would not likely be endangered
by Iraq (and need the equipment and troops) unless the U.S. attacked
the Arab country. They pointed out that to approve the U.S. request
would be tantamount to approving a U.S. attack, which (to date,
anyway) they have rejected. Such a deployment, declared Belgium's
foreign minister, Louis Michel, "would signify that we have
already entered into the logic of war."
In response, U.S. officials harshly criticized
their longtime imperialist allies. "Shameful," chided
U.S. Defense [sic] Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "For me it's
truly shameful. Turkey is an ally. An ally that is risking everything
... How can you refuse it help?" "I am disappointed,"
complained President Bush, "that France would block NATO
from helping a country like Turkey prepare. I don't understand
that decision. It affects the alliance in a negative way."
U.S. ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns, said the failure of
the organization to back Washington's plans constituted a "crisis
of credibility." ("NATO credibility" in the current
State Department lexicon can be defined as "belief in the
enduring willingness of Europe to unquestioningly obey U.S. diktat,
and thus abet Good against Evil.")
The Turkish government (in all probability
pressured by Washington) immediately invoked Article 4 of the
NATO Charter that states that alliance members will consult when
"in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity,
political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened."
On February 19, in a manoeuvre excluding France from the discussion,
NATO nations (including Germany and Belgium) agreed to an "unofficial"
deployment of the equipment and personnel to Turkey. "Alliance
solidarity has prevailed," gloated Burns.
Delivery began immediately. Meanwhile
the U.S. rushed 20 to 30 cargo ships from Texas ports, and ten
from Northern Europe, to Turkey's Mediterranean coast, carrying
tanks, trucks, and other heavy equipment for a 16,000-strong
division. The latter, according to U.S. plans, will be part of
the projected 62,000-strong force. But according to an article
in Turkey's constitution, the Turkish parliament must approve
any basing of a foreign power's military on Turkish soil. Not
a problem, for the Rumsfeld crowd. The defense secretary, after
all, had already belittled as an issue of mere "definitions
and semantics" the Filipino constitution's provision against
the deployment of foreign combat troops in the Philippines, as
the U.S. determined to "assist" Manila with such troops.
No doubt he feels the same way about Turkey's Article 92. Thus
Global Vision News reported on February 26, "The
U.S. isn't waiting for Turkey's parliament to authorize use of
its territory to prepare for an Iraq war. For the past week it
has been unloading armaments, including Patriot missiles, at
the port of Iskenderun---an apparently illegal move sanctioned
by the [Turkish] military dependent on the U.S." (If you
were an ordinary Turk, wouldn't that piss you off a little bit?)
Mainstream news sources reported that
95% of Turks opposed the attack, that the vice-president had
taken part in anti-war rallies, and that the Turkish government
faced major difficulties in complying with U.S. "requests."
(I'm not aware that any of the reports drew attention to the
irony of the U.S.'s Chicken Little demand for urgent NATO military
aid to Turkey, even as U.S. officials were arm-twisting a wary,
unenthusiastic Ankara to accept that "aid.") As resistance
to acceptance of U.S. troops mounted, within the Turkish political
establishment and among the populace generally, Rumsfeld downplayed
the problem, boasting that the U.S. could wage war on Iraq even
without Turkish assistance: "It's doable, and there are
work-arounds," he revealed. (The Christian Science Monitor,
however, reported that to shift U.S. forces to Kuwait
from the Mediterranean would take 18-21 days, substantially delaying
the planned war. And to establish a northern front within Iraq
without Turkish compliance will be very tricky.) "We continue
to work with Turkey as a friend," stated Fleischer, implying
that the friendship is under duress. "But it is decision
time. We will find out what the ultimate outcome is."
It might be relevant to note here that
during a press briefing on February 25, a reporter asked Fleischer
if the U.S. was exchanging favors for political support for the
planned war. "You're saying that the leaders of other nations
are buyable," the spokesman indignantly retorted. "And
that is not an acceptable proposition." (The normally staid
press corps could not suppress their laugher.) In fact, of course,
the U.S. has sought to buy Turkish cooperation the way it did
before the last Persian Gulf War. But as BBC reported February
21, Turkey never received the tens of billions of dollars in
aid promised it by the U.S. in 1990, is wary of Washington's
promises and demanding a much larger aid package than the $6
billion in grants and $20 billion in loans the Bush administration
has offered. Washington doesn't understand, somehow, why the
Turks are so demanding: "U.S. officials," according
to the report, "tend to roll their eyes when talking about
the compensation that Turkey is looking for."
The U.S. media, meanwhile, noted that
on February 25 the Turkish parliament was "scheduled to
approve" the U.S. troop deployment. It did not so much as
raise the possibility that the vote might be negative, or that
the ubiquitous antiwar sentiment in Turkey would somehow affect
the handling of this issue in what is supposed to be a "democratic"
allied nation. But the vote was postponed, somewhat ominously,
to the 27th, and then further delayed to March 1, as nervous
Turkish political leaders continued to negotiate with the U.S.
for a (Faustian) aid package to sell their peers. On the latter
date, as hundreds of thousands of antiwar protestors rallied
in the streets of Ankara, Parliament voted, behind closed doors,
on the resolution authorizing U.S. troop deployment. Result?
264 votes for, and 251 against, with 19 abstentions. The government
needed to win 267 votes to acquire a majority of the 534 lawmakers,
so the speaker of the Parliament announced that the bill had
not passed. Thousands of Turks, learning of the vote, celebrated
in the streets well into the night.
It was a big fat monkey wrench thrown
into the U.S. war plans, and the supercilious Bushite master
operators didn't know what had hit them. "A stunning political
blow," pronounced the New York Times. (That's been
the most widely used term. It's stunning. They're stunned.
As though they've been knocked upside the head for no reason
while hanging out in a perfectly safe neighborhood.) "Turkish
lawmakers had faced overwhelming public opposition to basing
U.S. troops on Turkish soil," observed the London Guardian.
"Yet Washington had been so sure of winning approval from
close ally and NATO member Turkey, that ships carrying U.S. tanks
are waiting off Turkey's coast for deployment and the U.S. military
has thousands of tons of military equipment ready to unload at
the southern Turkish port of Iskenderun." "It's a huge
setback for our purposes. It stunned me," whined
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), ranking Democrat on the
Senate's intelligence committee, on CNN. "We spent the
last 50 years defending them in NATO. And along comes this opportunity,
and by three votes they decline the opportunity to allow us to
come in through the north." (Translation: "Countries
we protected against the other big superpower during the Cold
War now owe us their cooperation in our efforts to refashion
Southwest Asia and the whole world as we see fit.")
How excellent to see Washington receive
its comeuppance, and who better to deliver it than the Turkish
parliament? Aside from being a close ally and NATO member, Turkey
is on the official U.S. roster of "democracies." Practically
speaking, that means Turks can vote for any political party that
isn't banned, and publish any thoughts that aren't forbidden.
Whether or not the parliament really represents the Turkish people,
the U.S. government wants us to believe it does (just
as it wants us to believe that all Latin American countries except
for Cuba are "democracies"). Now over half the parliament
says, "No. We don't want your troops, we don't need them
for our defense. And by the way, we really resent your bullying
attitude." U.S. officials are obliged to mouth respect for
Turkey's democratic process and to concede the possibility that
Ankara won't be on board this time. "We respect this as
a democratic result," embassy spokesman Joseph Pennington
said. "We will live with that. US ties with Turkey are not
threatened in any way" (AFP, March 2).
Even so, they don't want to take no for an answer. Following
the vote on Saturday, U.S. officials immediately sought "clarification"
of the result (i.e., clarification as to how to reverse it).
"Go back and do it again," is their message, "and
dammit, do it right this time. We don't have all the time in
the world." Colin Powell's been on the phone, conferring
with Prime Minister Abdullah Gul (a deployment advocate), about
how to force through the vote the U.S. wants. Meanwhile war proponents
like former NATO commander, Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston,
are telling TV news audiences that "we've got to make sure
that Turkey understands that this [war from their soil] is more
in their interest than it is [in] the U.S. [interest]."
(He notes that Turkey has "a very inexperienced government,"
implying it's a bit naïve when it comes to understanding
geopolitical hardball. So let's turn the screws and educate.)
More good news. On March 2, the Bushites
received "a second harsh blow" (AP) when a senior Justice
and Development Party leader said there would be no "quick
new vote" on the deployment issue, and "no proposal
for the foreseeable future." Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis
said his government would decide its course of action only after
a "process of evaluation" of indeterminate length.
Latest word is that the parliament won't revisit the issue until
after March 9. Such statements, of course, may be designed to
pressure Washington into increasing its bribe. "I suppose
there will have to be a few more noughts added to the cheque,"
said a British government source quoted in the Guardian.
"Every man has his price." Indeed, I will not be surprised
if Washington gets its agreement within a couple weeks, to the
enduring shame of the Turkish politicians willing to betray their
country for 30 pieces of silver.
The next week, in any case, is the historic
moment of the Turkish people, who clearly stand with the great
majority of humankind in rejecting the impending imperialist
war. Should it be launched from Turkish soil, in defiance of
their will, it will dishonor the nation of Kemal Ataturk. Whatever
stance the parliament adopts, one must salute the Turkish antiwar
movement that is only beginning to find its voice and flex its
muscles. If war starts soon---still a distinct possibility, indeed
likelihood---one can only hope that resistance intensifies, in
this nation on the front line of imperialist aggression.
Gary Leupp
is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts University
and coordinator, Asian Studies Program.
He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu
Yesterday's
Features
Dr. Richard Lichtman
Psychologists
and War
John Stanton
Life
in a Barrel of Oil
Carol Norris
George Bush's War on Himself: the World is His Battlefield
Wayne Madsen
The
First Shots of the War
Pablo Mukherjee
Orwell's
Bastards: Lies and Shameless Pretence
Larry Mosqueda
A Duty to Obey All Unlawful Orders
Behzad Yaghmaian
Scarf and Make-Up: the Modern Face of Islam
Jason Leopold
Hell-Bent for War: the Six Year Campaign by Right Wing Think
Tanks to Promote Takeover of Iraq
Anthony Gancarski
Bush's Divine Inspiration:
What If Jesus Were a Gunslinger?
Ellen Cantarow
The
Day of the Barricades: New York City Against the People
Sam Bahour & Michael Dahan
Snow Covered Rubble
Website of the Day
Bush
and Blair: the Duet
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
February 28,
2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Meet
the New Yorker's Chief Hack: Jeffrey Goldberg
Saul Landau
Now
It's Personal
Michael Neumann
A Plea for Hysteria
Karima Bennoume
The UN: Tool for Peace or War?
The Black
Commentator
The Rev. Sharpton and the Soul of the Democrats
Jennifer Loewenstein
Don't Turn Off the War
Richard Levins
Cuba's Biological Weapons: Why the World Needs More of Them
M. Shahid Alam
Is This a Clash of Civilizations?
Clay Conrad
Juries
and Judges: What's Relevant?
Ben Tripp
Speaking in Tongues: a Guide to Gibberish in the Age of Bush
Eliot Katz
To Declare Preemptive War is to Declare a Bankrupt Imagination
Kurt Nimmo
Paying Through the Nose to Kill Iraqi Kids
Matt Vidal
George W. Bonaparte
Mark Zepezauer
Why the Right Hates America
Mickey Z.
The Anti-War Talk I Never Gave
Jerry Kroth
Jung and the Space Shuttle Revisited
Shyam Oberoi
Chronicle of a War Foretold
Ron Jacobs
What If the Firebombing of Baghdad Were a Nightclub Fire?
Poets' Basement
Eliot Katz and Jim Cohn
Website of
the Weekend
Defense
Tech
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|