Forget Iraq: The Real Battle Is In Turkey
by Heather Wokusch
Dissident Voice
December 27, 2002
All eyes are on
Iraq these days, but conventional wisdom holds it's just the first step of the
Bush administration's larger push to gain hegemony over the international oil
and gas industry. Two factors could stand in the way of the US grand plan
though: Central Asia and Europe. A microcosm of this battle is quietly being
fought now in Turkey, and in many ways the outcome could determine the future
of the entire region.
Turkey enjoys a
uniquely strategic geographical position, smack at the crossroads of Asia,
Africa and Europe; more importantly for the Bush administration, Turkey borders
Iraq. Speaking in Ankara recently, US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
said, "Obviously if we are going to have significant ground forces in the
north (of Iraq), this is the country they have to come through. There is no
other option." And it's clear the US aims for more than simply carrying
out air-strikes from Turkish bases, as it did during the 1991 Gulf War. This
time, the Pentagon wants to dig in deeper, using Turkey as a staging area for
ground attacks into Iraq, and potentially beyond.
Turkey's central
role in an attack on Iraq goes a long way in explaining the
massive US military build-up currently taking place in southern Turkey. It also
explains the Bush administration's about-face in dealing with Turkish AK Party
leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan: after being unceremoniously snubbed on his first
visit to Washington last year, Erdogan was suddenly given the White House star
treatment a few weeks ago, complete with a presidential press conference and
exclusive meetings with top government brass, not to mention a pledge for
billions more dollars in military and financial aid, and US backing for a new
multibillion dollar International Monetary Fund bailout.
Ironically, this
flurry of cash-for-cooperation activity from the States coincides with the
European Union's historic first steps to invite Turkey into its fold. At a
recent EU summit in Copenhagen, the fifteen EU countries agreed to open
membership talks with Turkey in 2005, on the condition that it clean up its
human rights and economic acts in the meantime. At that point, Turkey would
have to begin the mammoth task of adopting roughly 80,000 pages of EU law, a
process that could take at least a decade and transform every aspect of Turkish
society in its wake.
But there's a
more urgent change Turkey will have to make. According to EU High
Representative, Javier Solana, "If it is to take its place in Europe,
Turkey must also play a role in the European defense project." And that's
where things get tricky. The Western military industrial complex is basically
split in two distinct groups: the Franco-German dominated European Aeronautic
Defense and Space Co (EADS), and the US-dominated "Big Six" (including
Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, among others). This distinction is important
given that the sides tend to compete in important global conflicts (the US
pumping weapons into Pakistan while the French arm India, for example). So if
the US decides to attack Iraq (let alone additional countries after that)
against the wishes of other NATO partners, for example, could the ensuing rift
place Turkey literally between Iraq and a hard place?
Another crucial
factor is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) project, a pipeline
which would partially run through Turkey, thereby providing Ankara with revenue
from millions in annual transit fees. Critical to the Bush administration, BTC
would help a handful of US companies seize control over the massive Caspian oil
reserves, sidestepping the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
on the way. Energy analysts say the BTC project is unworkable, and
environmentalists warn of potential catastrophic risks. Not surprisingly,
Russia, Armenia, and Iran are rattling sabers and pushing for a different
route, enraged at the prospect of losing control over Caspian oil to the US.
Significantly though, US companies tied to the Bush administration are poised to reap huge profits from BTC (among others,
Vice President Cheney's Halliburton is a finalist for the Turkish segment of
BTC, while National Security Advisor Rice's Chevron is at the center of the BTC
consortium).
The quagmire is
further exacerbated by matters internal to Turkey. Even though Erdogan's AK
party swept to power in this November's elections, a past conviction for
"inciting religious hatred" forbids him from assuming the role of
prime minister. To make matters worse, the Islamist image of Erdogan's party is
at odds with the more secular stance of Turkey's military (leading to noisy
disagreements about matters such as the right for women to wear headscarves in
public), a significant conflict given that Turkish generals are an independent
lot and have staged three coups since 1960. And then there are opinion polls
showing most Turks strongly opposed to helping the US in any attack against
Iraq, despite the Bush administration's financial incentives and friendship
offensive.
The
trans-Atlantic battle over Turkey came to a head at this month's EU summit in
Copenhagen. Buoyed by Erdogan's flashy visit to Washington, Turkish
representatives at the Copenhagen summit threatened to boycott European
products, or even dump the EU and join NAFTA, if they did not receive their
preferred date for membership talks. Meanwhile, high-profile US pressure on the
EU to create a special fast-track for Turkey may have scored PR points with
Ankara, but cut little ice with EU members. European External Affairs
Commissioner Chris Patten, for example, laughed off the Bush administration
move as a cheap stunt, akin to EU members trying to score Latin American bonus
points by pressuring the US to make Mexico its 51st state. The upshot was that
Erdogan's attempt to play the States against Europe backfired: Turkey received
a 2005 date for conditional membership talks even though it had pushed for one
far earlier, and even worse, while the Greek part of Cyprus was asked to join
the EU, the Turkish part got left behind.
The crucial
question now is what path Turkey chooses to take. Erdogan can gain personal status
and billions in monetary injections for the Turkish military and government by
allowing the US full access to Turkish soil in its attack on Iraq; the danger
is that he could anger both the Turkish people and the EU in the process, not
to mention see Turkey flooded with refugees, as happened during the first Gulf
War. Erdogan can support the Bush administration in its fight to secure the
Caspians for US oil interests, thereby earning oil transit income, but also
risking environmental devastation and the wrath of neighbors such as Russia and
Iran. The other option is to bite the bullet and begin the long-term,
painstaking process of bringing Turkey into line with EU standards. The first
option is profitable in the short-term, and the second offers societal
integration in the long-term. The first option requires war, and the second
pursues community-based peace.
But of course, Turkey is in good company - the US has quietly stepped up its military support of Georgia, Azerbaijan and other countries in the region crucial to its desired control over Caspian reserves. One thing is clear: the support these countries give, or don't give, the Bush administration in its oil-based pursuits/terror war will be critical in determining the stability of Central Asia and beyond.
Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer with a background in clinical psychology. Her
work as been featured in publications and websites internationally. Heather can
be contacted via her website: http://www.heatherwokusch.com