By Jürgen Gottschlich in Istanbul

US President George W. Bush worked to improve US-Europe relations this week, but meanwhile, America's once-strong partnership with Turkey continues to erode. The Turkish population is more anti-American than ever and the Kurdish question in Iraq threatens to lead to an open break.

The piece could not have been more provocative. Just the headline of the article by Senior Editor Robert L. Pollack published last week in the Wall Street Journal was enough to make Turkey's blood boil: "The Sick Man of Europe -- Again." The article then went on to detail the collapse of the once-close relationship between the United States and Turkey.

The headline was chosen deliberately -- a play on the label given to the pre-World War I Ottoman Empire as it slid toward collapse. Pollack's point: Old leftist dogmatism and a new tendency toward Islamism have erupted into an intense anti-Americanism that may even exceed the amount of hate for America seen in Arab countries. "Most of the heritage of Ataturk (the liberal-minded founder of modern Turkey) is at risk of being lost," Pollack wrote. Turkey is becoming narrow-minded and paranoiac and "it has no friendship for the US and is not accepted by the European Union (EU)."

Namit Tan, spokesman for the Turkish foreign ministry, tried in vain to calm the waters last Friday in a press conference. "It's not entirely fair what Mr. Pollack wrote in his article," he said. "He listed all of the problems, but he completely played down all of the good sides of the Turkish-American relationship." But despite Tan's attempts at damage control, Pollack's article struck an open nerve.

The article came out of a trip Pollack had made accompanying a Pentagon delegation to Turkey's capital, Ankara. While on the trip, he also met with the US Ambassador to Turkey Eric S. Edelman who, apparently, gave vent to his frustrations to Pollack. The commentary that resulted complained bitterly about the ingratitude of the Turks in the face of 50 years of US protection and aid to the country.

[...]

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,343611,00.html

By LOUIS MEIXLER

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

ISTANBUL, Turkey -- In one of Turkey's best-selling thrillers, U.S. troops in northern Iraq open fire on a group of Turkish commandos, setting off a war between the NATO allies.

The book is "Metal Storm," and although pure fiction set in the year 2007, it highlights the deep fears many Turks harbor that the U.S. invasion of Iraq will put the decades-long allies on a collision course.

The suspicion has become so serious that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a meeting with Turkish leaders earlier this month, raised concerns about the negative image of the United States in Turkey, American and Turkish diplomats said.

During the Cold War, Turkey and the United States saw their alliance as crucial to stopping Soviet expansion.

But now, the critical security issue to both countries is Iraq, where the two sides have vital interests that could conflict.

Washington sees Iraqi Kurds as key allies in bringing stability to the country. Turkey, however, is terrified that growing Iraqi Kurdish power could inspire Kurds in Turkey, where the army has battled autonomy-seeking Kurdish insurgents for decades.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Turkey%20Fearing%2
0America

*

Kurdish Demands Slow Iraq Search for New Govt

By Luke Baker

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Feb 24, 2005- Iraqi Kurds are insisting on control of oil-rich Kirkuk and other disputed northern areas as their price for agreeing to a deal on the formation of a new national government, a Kurdish leader said on Thursday.

Nechirvan Barzani, prime minister of the Kurdish regional government, outlined a tough negotiating position which, if backed by the Kurdish leadership, could greatly complicate the process of forging a unified government.

Barzani said in a telephone interview with Reuters from Arbil that the Kurds would support whoever backed their demands to take back disputed territories, including Kirkuk.

But he does not head either main Kurdish party and the extent of Kurdish support for his stand was not clear.

The Kurds came second in the Jan. 30 election, clinching 75 seats in the assembly, a margin that makes them kingmakers.

Since a two-thirds majority is effectively needed in the assembly to decide the top government positions, neither Jaafari's coalition nor Allawi's has enough backing. Both are bidding for the support of the Kurds and the nine other parties and coalitions that won seats.

The Kurds have not let on who they might ally with and are expected to use their deal-maker or breaker role to extract concessions from their future potential partners.

"There are certain principles we are focusing on ... (including) the right of the Kurdish people to recover areas which have been Arabised in the past," Barzani said. "Whoever is ready to agree with this, the Kurds are ready to make an alliance."

If the Kurds ally with the main Shi'ite alliance the pair would immediately secure two-thirds of the vote in the assembly.

If they ally with Allawi, they would also have to force the breakup of the Shi'ite alliance and draw nearly half their members over to their side if they are to build the needed two-thirds support in the assembly -- 182 seats.

As well as Kirkuk, the obstacles to a deal between the Kurds and the religious Shi'ite alliance include differences over Iraq's political structure and the role of religion.

*

The Kurdistan Observer has many, many stories similar to this one--they appear to have drawn their line in the sand regarding a Kurdish Kirkurk.  

http://www.kurdistanobserver.com/

The Turkish Governments' decision not to allow US troops to deploy in their country was a reflection of the opinions of the vast majority of the people of Turkey.

A democratic decision.

Remember Democracy?

Or is it only democracy if it suits the purposes of the US administration?

Apparently these guys have the attention span of a gnat (or the definitional capacity of I know not what).

"It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future."

Hmmm. Not within one's power to make peace unilaterally, but the Arabs are supposed to accept what's offered them unconditionally and shut up. Does unilateral mean something different in the policy wonk world?

It'd be funny, save for the fact that it's a potential basis for policy...

AKP is islamic populist party. During its time Turkey has moved much faster towards the EU than during the days of the 'secular' governments. Remember that Turkey has now been upgraded to the class B in the entrance hall of the EU.

Unlike Finland, Turkey can't serve two masters simultaneously, which explains the ranting in the US.

While the commentators above rant against the "anti-Americanism" and "leftist dogmatism" of the Turkish press, I find the doublespeak and ideological slavishness of the US press much more horrifying. There was scarcely a objection from the WSJ in the 1990s when a "secular" US-friendly Turkish government was conducting a compaign of near-ethnic cleansing against Kurds in east Turkey.

Now that a vaguely Islamic government - one with a comparably good human rights record, excellent when compared with US allies Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia - has been elected, Western editorial pages are furious that the government obeys the dictates of the residents of Turkey rather than the great imperial West. Its quite sickening if you ask me.

Mehmet Akbas | February 28

Turkish Weekly - Last week NATO summit took place in Brussels with attendance of 26 member countries' presidents. Turkey was represented by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullah Gül. The main topics of the summit were: NATO-Ukraine relations, Afghanistan, Middle-East, transatlantic relations, struggle against terrorism and Mediterranean dialog.

Following the summit closely European papers pressed interesting columns which were especially focused on Bush. For example Le Figaro "Although Bush and Chirac talked to each other, it is not possible to for us to believe that they understood each other." or The Guardian "Flattering speech of Bush wasn't enough to hide main conflicts between EU and US."

In the first day of the summit, Turkey's veto against EU-NATO relations depending on the problem of North Cyprus was the main point. The spokesman of NATO, James Appathurai criticized Turkey and mentioned that an EU member, it was of course South Cyprus he talked about, shouldn't be externalized. In his speech he gave to CNNTürk also expressed that Turkey's approach to impede the mechanism of EU-NATO military cooperation. Tayyip Erdogan, who has maintained a consistent policy about Cyprus since he was elected, in response to Mr. Appathurai's speech, said that Turkey's approach to problem has always been positive and it was so on then. he also added that Turkey insisted on a solution which they believed would be the most fair and long term one with support of UN.

First day's other grave point was Erdogan-Bush conversation. Despite having lasted

for only eight minutes, the conversation was watched by both sides carefully because of the increasing tension of US-Turkey relations depending on Pentagon's 3rd number executive Douglas Feith's words he gave after his visit to Ankara. He had then explained that they had been anxious about Anti-Americanism movements in Turkey and had carried this to Ankara.

Having a look at US-Turkey relations we see two close allies. This relation not only includes military cooperation but also international politic topics such as Iraq, Cyprus especially by the means of NATO and UN. Despite a few crises, for example the one we witnessed after TBMM decision about giving support to US for Iraqi war, relations has never reached such a critical point. Especially the recent events in Middle-East; Lebanon, Syria, Iran and the most important one Iraq, may be regarded as the main causes of the present situation. After the distrusting election results ignoring the Turkmen existence in North Iraq and successive statements of two Kurdish leaders Barzani and Talabani, Abdullah Gül spoke harshly in response to Kurdish leaders and expressed that an "Independent Kurdistan" was only a "dream". Witnessing all these there appeared an Anti-Americanism movement in Turkey, based on the idea that Kurdish leaders were supporter by US and increased with homicides of many truck drivers and at last five Turkish police officers by the members of tribes living in North Iraq. This was in fact the main point indicated by Douglas Feith. In his speech he had explained that relations should be regarded by not only governments but also public, otherwise it couldn't be maintained as it was supposed to be.

Under the lights of these recent events it is possible to say that Turkey-US relations has been on a critical point for a while despite the funny conversation between Erdogan and Bush about Erdogan's youngest son working in World Bank. The main impass of the relation is of course about North Iraq where many "red lines" of the Turkish government have been ignored and Turkey had nothing to compromise anymore. The most important point is the conflict consisting of opposite ideas about the future of North Iraq which is being examined under the headline of "Greater Middle East Project" by US and "red lines" by Turkey.

Or is it only democracy if it suits the purposes of the US administration?

That was a rhetorical question, right?

Or is it only democracy if it suits the purposes of the US administration?

The Spanish Disease?

Within the question of purpose is the larger playground of a democracy that 'suits' an elected leader of a sovereign nation.  It's always been that the freedoms and equalities perceived and cherished here in America are not so easily conferred upon other nations despite the valorous claims that freedom is on the march.

Nor is it true that we are as free as we are equal.  Any challenge to the notion of equality will be immediately and summarily attacked as a threat to one's own sense of democracy in the name of freedom.

Yet we currently have an aristocracy that knows very well men exalt equality over freedom, and are happy to supply one at the expense of the other.  Our leaders stand over us providing parental guidance, insuring the necessary minutia of daily living, reassuring us of our security, and taking care of all the little things we, in our wisdom, have elected them to do for us.  The power bestowed is absolute but the tyranny of it mild and sustainable, seeking not to promote maturity and growth but rather to stilt in the suggestion that they alone provide and are the sole source of contentment and happiness.  Glad to have the approval of the reassuring parent we go about our lives as separate, disconnected individuals, almost unaware of each other, our 'equality' so complete as to render us blind to fact of limited freedom being 'on the march'.

Now and then we momentarily exercise with a sudden burst of folly disguised as wisdom the freedom to elect, an exercise that combines freedom and equality in equal measure, and for a few moments the entire people hold within their hands the reigns of absolute power, the very same power they then return so easily and completely, content that any subjugation is to the whole rather than the man, equality being the basis for surrender.  That this is pure nonsense doesn't seem to matter or register.  It is a willingness to partake of this charade that allows despotism to pose as a complete, healthy democracy.

Freedom slips away in drips and drabs while equality is demanded and supped upon in a way that gratifies; the people now suborn to the will of the ruling class.  It is because of this dynamic that whole nations become willingly complicit in the destruction of innocent lives and support imperial conquests.

That all this squares with my experience of living and rings a sense of truth in undescribable ways is true. But honesty and fairness require that I admit that I did not connect the uncomfortable paradox of democracy with my own disquiet without the insight of another.  In my search for democracies, specifically those that are dysfunctional, I came across this essay entitled, Despotism--Democratic Nations, written by Alexis De Tocqueville. From this my reply was inspired.

But I don't think of democracy as a disease.

Not agreeing with American foreign policy is not being anti-american or un-democratic, whichever country you live in (apart from america)

I have the greatest respect for those countries that refused to join the 'coalition of the willing' because their people said 'no'.

And nothing but contempt for governments like my own who disregard the wishes of those who voted for them, and roll over whenever the big dog barks.

By the way, WSJ has been lately more active in promoting international political propaganda. They are of course paid on it.

It is a nice tool to pack in the same package propaganda and useful information for those who make decisions. And you must buy them together. Bloomberg is a similar package.

Americans are so used to propaganda everywhere that they do not even ask what does it do among economic news.

This is in my theme of content ranting in the liberal US. People have less reasons to buy liberal media products than conservative media products because the liberal media contains less useful elements.

what is current "neo-con-speak" has not been necessarily proven to have anything to do with reality now. For instance, we don't know that the Bush administration agrees with any of this, or whether anyone of current power or importance does. This is think tank stuff. (And BTW, it's also not always accurate to assume that the editorial board of any newspaper agrees with the view of a guest op-ed--it's just as often the opposite!)

On Turkey, here's what Condi Rice was saying probably around the same time that Pollock was sritinging the op-ed:

Rice Says There May Be Some Differences Of Opinion Between Friends

By Anadolu Agency

Published: 2/7/2005

TurkishPress.com

ANKARA - U.S. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice said on Sunday that there might be some differences of opinion between friends from time to time, but what was important was to remember that they were still friends, when answering a question that differences of opinion had increased between Turkey and her countries in recent days.

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul and Rice held a joint press conference after their meeting.

Turkey and the United States were planning to cooperate in matters concerning the two countries, Rice said when recalled about Turkey's expectations about Kirkuk and the terrorist organization PKK.

Rice stated that the United States included PKK in its list of terrorist networks, and stressed that Kirkuk was a city were all the Iraqis wanted to live together, respecting each other.

Turkey and the United States were giving common messages that all the Iraqis should be represented equally in Kirkuk, Rice said.

Rice underlined importance of holding talks on matters on which two countries had differences of opinion.

Recalling that Turkey and the United States had taken joint action during the cold war era and supported each other, Rice said, ''there may be some differences, but these don't affect our strong relations.''

Noting that a new period had started in Iraq after (last Sunday's) elections, Rice said that it would take some time to establish a free and democratic Iraq....

I think sometimes that everyone has gotten so used to studying the neo-cons about Iraq that they automatically think it is going to tell them something about current policy. Well, Bush stopped following their advice when he caved some to the U.N. on elections, etc. And I remember reading plenty of recent stories where they were mad at him.

So if you get angry here, all you've got is that you know you disagree with neo-con think tankers. You don't know much else, I couldn't find any evidence that Condi's State Dept. agrees with this.

I have, on the other hand, read suggestions in several places that Doug Feith is not resigning from the Pentagon for "personal and family reasons" but for

Plus, keep in mind, you help to spread their meme. How about in addition, giving their opponents a little play now and then, as well, thinking of being a little pro-active if you disagree with them?

While these guys are writing in the beltway or whatever, Brookings Institution had a very proactive event in Turkey with Strobe Talbott:

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=37330

But even though the AEI didn't do same, that doesn't get any play, what the neo-cons are doing and saying is what interests everyone. And if that ends up being the focus of the left again, while it just might be making a mistake in interpretation? Should deconstructing, dissing and fearing the neo-con arguments be the left's priority now? Or should it be promoting their own analysis and recommendations, after figuring out what Bush's are?

It's the reframing question I am raising, obviously. Offense, not defense. But also, figure out first what you're fighting against. It may not be neo-cons anymore.

I read both in WaPo and NYT intimations that he was being forced out. Was just anonymice, but it was said. Suggesting the whole AIPAC thing, the spy case et. al., that he's been too involved with supporting neo-con think tank and lobbyists while working for Pentagon.

the more you post and discuss a certain writer, and read his books, the more popular he becomes, and the more he gets published. It's really that simple. The problem for use in that is: we all do want to know what these guys are thinking and saying, because they had power in the past. But if we don't show any interest in what the left-side think tankers are doing, and don't discuss and support their ideas, well, they will, of course, get less play!

sarcasm.

The power of reframing is based on inaccurate thinking of the listener.

One thing though - in my hit and run haste, I neglected to make the point that the administration's core competencies are chiefly in marketing and message control. I view their use of the terms "freedom" and "democracy" solely in this light. I do believe that these issues are of interest to some in the administration (I'm not accusing them of cynicism beyond the political norm - I also think that there were Politburo members who believed they were working towards a Worker's Paradise): however, the powers guiding and manipulating their actions do not share their definitions.

"Freedom" as it is understood by those powers themselves is a different concept than we would acknowledge - it means "unchecked action of the interests of wealth", and "democracy" means "the imposition of a system of government that we have expertise in manipulating upon nations over which we feel we have insufficient influence - and that have resources we want".

don't you know that one must not simply utilize such information, but one must separate it from its context and then express moral outrage that it is being provided?

(That was my sarcastic comment. :-) )