Reply to Mr Safire, NY Times 6-6-03 |
|||||
|
Dear Mr. Safire, Your articles in the Times are usually extremely educational and supply many of your readers with a valuable learning experience. Knowing this and having been educated by you on several occasions myself, I would like to share my feelings on the Turkish issue discussed by you in your recent article. A wise man has said “Friends come and go, enemies accumulate.” And I do not wish the relationship between Turkey and the United States to dwindle to this end on either side. “Forgive but don’t forget.” Could be applied by some in Turkey to the present state existing between our countries; but not only on the American side. 1- In 1918 the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres, if implemented, it would have been the end of Turkish sovereignty and territorial integrity. Wasn’t the treaty of Sevres’ a Wilsonian inspiration and US notions of national self determination ideas and encouragement for Kurdish, Armenian and Balkan nationalism at Turkey’s cost? 2- During the 50’s it became clear to the US that it was necessary to contain Soviet power in the Black Sea and other areas of the globe. It was this concept that was the organizing principle for American involvement in and around Turkey. Along these lines Turkey entered NATO and was expected to develop and supply almost a million man army, a respectable Air Force and a Navy to the alliance. The cost of such an undertaking was immeasurable to the Turkish economy and to the Turkish nation at that time. Turkey carried this burden almost for fifty years. Because of Turkey’s large involvement in NATO, Soviets also began deploying forces, almost 200 divisions, on and around the Turkish border. Largely due to this, Western Europe lived in peace for fifty years, and neither the US nor Europe had to match the 200 divisions of Soviet forces in the West. How much do you think it would have cost the West to supply, dress, feed and arm with all it’s necessities such a military force for 50 years? What did the West do for this huge undertaking and total commitment by the Turks to the alliance? “We will make you a member of the EU, if you do all the things that we request from you now, including giving Cyprus to the Greeks, making the Aegean sea a Greek lake and neutralizing the Turkish army. After ten, fifteen years from now, you might be the 27th candidate in line to become a member of EU. THANK YOU EU, WHAT A SHAME. I hope, in the light of this explanation, you understand why Turkish pockets are so empty and many Turks are suspicious of the west. 3- In 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis the US withdrew nuclear capable Jupiter missiles from Turkish soil in an exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba without extending the courtesy of consulting the Turkish government in advance. 4- In 1964 and 1974 during the Cyprus Crisis, an unbelievable low point reached in the bilateral relationship between the US and Turkey, the American Congress practically held Turkey hostage over Cyprus issue by placing an embargo on Turkish defense equipment to appease the Greek lobby. 5- Those empty pockets are also emptier as a result of the Gulf War. There were two losers in that war, Iraq and one of the allies, Turkey. The Turkish contribution and cooperation was considerable. It was costly both politically and monetarily and promises made by the coalition, as you know, were not kept. The Islamic factions rejoiced and made much of the fact that the Turkish government had been “had”. Turkish inflation has increased to a ridicules figure. “Forgive but don’t forget.” Should they? The following are your paragraphs with the addition of a Turkish view of the problem… A- The mistake of the Turkish generals was to conclude that America would never attack Saddam without Turkey’s willingness to provide the bases to lunch a northern front and their mistaken belief that Turkey’s longtime western ally would, this time, share and understand Turkey’s valid fears for Turkey’ position. B- The mistake of the newly elected Turkish Islamist government in Ankara was to believe this notion and think that it could charge the U.S. a whopping fee for transit of US soldiers and thereby aid Turkey in the monumental cost of closing Turkish ports, highways and rail roads to all but US military commerce for the amount of time the US found necessary. It would also have helped to pay the cost of clearing and relocating villagers from the area from which the US would be for staging. C- In the face of the brutal terrorist raids made by the Kurdish PKK all through the 1990’s. Turkey was loathe to lower its guard and suffer the fate it could expect in the post 911 climate. Additionally, even in American newspapers we have seen Kurdish maps of a “Kurdish Republic” which incorporated Turkish territory, including this writer’s home town! I t would be difficult to turn a blind eye to such damaging intelligence. D- You allude in your article to the internal suppression of the Kurdish culture and language. The Kurds are not only located in eastern Turkey. The Kurds, and other ethnic minorities, live in all parts of Turkey. They are not exclusively in any given areas. There have been generals, presidents, ministers, etc. of Kurdish origin. Kurds are serving in responsible positions throughout the country just as minorities are involved in the US. The majority of Turkish Kurds more or less at the mercy of their fanatic relatives living out side of Turkey in so far as being “Kurdish” is concerned. The majority of the non-Kurdish Turkish population realizes this. E- The Turks considered themselves to be more than allies and mistakenly assumed that the US had a clear understanding of Turkish needs and concerns, both political and economic, to the point that assurances addressing those needs and concerns would be forthcoming from the UNITED STATES. Respectfully,
CENGIZ SARIKCIOGLU |
|||||