In the very middle of an economic crisis and with a political structure which itself is hit by a crisis, we are heading for an election with an uncertain end. In the meantime, both the 50-year Cyprus crisis and 40-year European Union adventure of Turkey have come to such a critical stage that could determine the fate of the country. And just at the same time, the United States is about to launch a military operation on Iraq, as a first step to change the global order in a radical and dangerous manner for the decades to come.
And under all these extraordinary circumstances, even a stable political regime, a solid economy, a government with majority support, and a far-sighted leadership may well be expected to fail. Conversely Turkey is led by a government comprising parties that will probably be eliminated after elections and a prime minister, who challenges laws of the nature to continue to remain in charge, heading this government.
Recent remarks of Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit on Iraq have been revealing two grave facts: The Premier cannot follow developments in the United States properly enough.
Turkey appears to be totally left out of developments in this country.
If Turkey, as Premier says, is drifted into a war it does not want , if the United States does not only encourage Iraqi Kurds but steer them (against our interests) and if this war will be fought in the name of oil , the government should do more than merely declaring that Turkey would be outside the war. It would also seal off its land and air space and tell the United States that it will not allow its military bases to be used in the upcoming war.
It would not solely aim at taking measures against the possibility of being drifted into war but it would also do its best to make the war a difficult option.
Is there any point in the prime minister reminding that he cannot speak any more clearly, after saying everything that he should not have said to the public in the first place?
Those who were listening to anti-Iraqi operation remarks of the prime minister over the last one year thought that he was also having very intense, behind-the-doors contacts with U.
S. officials, trying to protect Turkey's interests. But it is now becoming clear that Mr.
Ecevit has been obtaining much of his information on a possible Iraqi operation from the press. What, for God's sake, does it mean that we will talk with the Americans about Kurds' recent efforts aimed at forming an independent state ? Haven't you been already talking about this issue?
Does the contact between the prime minister of Turkey and U.S. officials take place through the public and the press?
Couldn't Mr. Ecevit, while saying he fears drifting into a war that could result in death of many of our young people, have possibly seen in the foreign press that the United States did not invite any country to take part in the war? Wouldn't it be another problem if the United States does this on its own?
Is it possible to reduce the whole problem to oil in Iraq? Hasn't the Prime Minister been informed on the new strategy document of the United States? Isn't he aware of the transition from the defensive war, defined in Article 51 of the U.
N. Charter which constituted the very basis of the post-World War II world order, to pre-emptive war, prompted by a juxtaposition of the phenomena of mass destructive weapons and terrorism?
Given that this government is a coalition, what are other partners doing?
Is Mr. Ecevit pursuing this policy (if this is a policy, of course) on behalf of the government, consulting with partners and getting their consent?
How can President Sezer let a government, which will be a part of history in less than a month time, and its leader affect the fate of the country like this?
Why doesn't he work to form a national stance by convening a summit of all parties in Parliament?
We have an extraordinarily serious problem at hand. The United States has decided that Islamic countries not ruled by democracy have been generating terrorism and that regimes of these countries should be democratized, through force of arms if necessary, in order to stop this.
Iraq is the first step in this strategy. It will be occupied, just like Japan or Germany after II WW. Does such a strategy have the chance of success?
Which countries are next in the implementation of this strategy? What is the role of Turkey in this equation? Answers to these questions will make up the history.
In such a situation, Turkey's interests cannot be protected by an attitude based on rejecting everything, but, let alone producing alternatives, failing even to understand existing ones.
The greatest misfortune is that risks originate not only from the outside world but also from our own prime minister.
News RSS