Ambassador's remarks and public events

Ambassador Ross Wilson Interview With Zaman Newspaper

February 8, 2006

QUESTION:  What are your first impressions of Ankara, and of Turkey?

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  I have been to Ankara several times before in jobs that I had before I was assigned here.  So I had a little bit of a picture of what Ankara was like, what Turkey as a whole was like.  So nothing here has surprised me in a real big way.  This is a very big city.  It is a very interesting and mixed city with lots of different people doing lots of different things, although sometimes that is hard to see because it is also the government capital and people focus on that aspect of Ankara.  Washington is much the same.  For many years, it was regarded as a government town, and nothing but a government town.  But over the last thirty years or so, Washington has grown, and it is come to be appreciated as more than a government town.  It has interesting businesses, and it has an interesting cultural life.  So one of the most interesting things for me is going to be to explore that other side of Ankara -- not the government part, even though I deal with the government part every day -- but the other sides of life in this city.  So that’s the first thing.  The second thing is that people have been extremely friendly, extremely positive to me, to my wife, and to my family.  Wherever we go, a surprising number of people know who I am and react very favorably to us.  We have been invited to lots and lots of places.  Third, of course, I am fortunate enough to be here as the American ambassador, and fortunate to work with a large and very talented staff, and to live in the wonderful house that I have in Cankaya.  So we are very, very happy. 

QUESTION:  Have you had the chance to visit the Ankara Castle, or the Kocatepe and Haci Bayram mosques?

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  I have been by the Haci Bayram Mosque.  I have not been in it.  I still have a lot of exploring to do.  My wife and I have gone on very long walks throughout the city, and seen lots of different things.  And because it is a big city, there is a lot to see and do.  Of course, the weather has interfered a little bit recently.

QUESTION:  Let me bring the discussion to today’s agenda.  The US ambassadors who have preceded you have been rather unlucky.  Ambassador Pearson had to face the March 1 controversy, and Ambassador Edelman had to deal with tension over Iraq.  You have said that a new chapter has been opened.  You talk about a new atmosphere, which is good, but in the period since your arrival there have been a number of high level visits related to Iran.  And there are some plans – perhaps not an operation, but some kind of embargo.  So how do you view your tenure here?  Is it going to be another period of tension, or will it pass in a more relaxed way?  

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  Let me first begin by referring to something that I think you said about the large number of visits related to Iran.  We have had a large number of visits to Turkey – period.  We have not had a large number of visits to Turkey to discuss Iran.  We have worked very hard over the last five or six months, and we have worked hard since I arrived to increase the dialogue between the Turkish Government and the United States Government, to bring senior officials here to talk about international issues, and to bring senior Turkish officials to the United States to talk about many of the same issues.  And of course we have used that dialogue to talk about Iran, as we have used it to talk about Iraq, to talk about Syria, to talk about Cyprus, to talk about European Union accession, to talk about other issues of interest to the United States and Turkey.  It is not a campaign to talk about Iran.  It is a campaign to restore dialogue between the United States and Turkey, two close allies, two countries that need each other in this dangerous and difficult part of the world. 

QUESTION:  What is it exactly that is expected of Turkey regarding Iran?  There was a statement made in Washington yesterday about the need to convey a clearer message to Iran.  Are the statements made by Ankara to this point insufficient?  Are they not enough for the United States? 

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  Undersecretary Joseph was responding to a specific question about Turkey, and I think his comments need to be read in that light.  In other words, he wasn’t singling out Turkey as a problem.  He was asked about how we regard Turkey’s positions on Iran, and what we expected.  We think that there is a very large community of nations that think that it would be very bad for the world, dangerous for the world, for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.  And we believe that Turkey shares that view.  What the United States is now trying to do, working diplomatically with our friends and allies around world, is to speak with one voice that says to Iran it should abandon its nuclear weapons programs, it should cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it should carry out its activities in an open and transparent manner with respect to nuclear technology.  And so we work with the so-called EU-3 – Germany, France and the United Kingdom.  We work with the other members of the UN Security Council, and with the 35 members of the IAEA board to try to develop a common approach to deal with this problem that will convince Iran to change course.  I think the resolution of the IAEA passed 32 to 3.  Only three countries voted with Iran – Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela.  What will happen now is a new phase in the diplomatic effort to convince Iran to change its approach, a phase that will take place in the UN Security Council.  Turkey is not on the UN Secuirty Council, nor is it on the IAEA board.  What we would like to see from the Turkish Government, and what we have seen from the Turkish Government, are clear statements to the Iranians that they must abandon these nuclear weapons programs, cooperate with the IAEA, and resume dialogue with the international community on this issue. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Ambassador, there are several issues that I am curious about.  I want to put them together and ask them in a single context.  Turkey has some expectations from the US on Cyprus and Iraq.  On eliminating the PKK in Iraq, you have said many times that a military operation is not very likely, but Turkey has given the US a list of PKK leaders and asked that they be captured.  Is there any development on this?  Will there be new efforts to break the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots – for example, a direct flight to Ercan?  And then there will be a referendum on the situation in Kirkuk in 2007.  The head of Turkey’s National Security Council said during his trip to the United States that there could be significant changes made to the referendum procedures.  What kihnd of policy with the United States follow as we move toward the determination of Kirkuk’s status in 2007

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  Let me work backwards. On Kirkuk, Turkish officials have been very clear in expressing their concerns about Kirkuk, and about how the status of Kirkuk gets resolved in the future.  Our view is that the status of Kirkuk is, in the final analysis, for the Iraqi people to decide in accordance with the Iraqi Constitution.  Having said that, it is clear to us and I think it is clear to the Iraqi leaders, that this is a difficult, particularly sensitive issue that needs to be dealt with in a particularly sensitive way as Iraq proceeds toward a referendum or whatever other decision-making process they may agree upon. 

On Cyprus, we have been working hard to de-isolate the Turkish Cypriots.  We don’t think that the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots helps to promote a settlement or helps to promote a relaxation of tensions on the island.  So that line of thinking was among the reasons why we have initiated an assistance program to northern Cyprus, why Secretary Rice received Mr. Talat in her office in the State Department, and why we have done some other things to try to increase our dealings with the Turkish Cypriot authorities.  As I am sure you know, we have welcomed the proposal that Foreign Minister Gul put forward three or four weeks ago.  We think that that proposal can help to restart a negotiating process on Cyprus, the suspension of which is not really in anybody’s interest.  On the specific issue of direct flights, I am not really sure where this stands.  I am not sure that there is huge demand for direct flights.  There may be some commercial (inaudible). 

On the PKK, I think the most important thing to say is that the United States is determined to work, and places a high priority on working with Turkey and the Government of Turkey to defeat PKK terrorism.  There are a variety of activities that we have underway, initiatives that we talked about over the course of the last several weeks and months.  But I can say that we attach an enormous amount of importance to this.  It was a prominent subject when CIA Director Goss was here, and when FBI Director Mueller was here.  It is a prominent subject in almost all of the discussions that I have with Turkish Government officials. 

QUESTION:  Should we expect to see a concrete result?  When should we expect something tangible?

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  What I want to see is something effective.  That may mean that it is tangible in the way that you are thinking of it. 

QUESTION:  I mean something like the capture and handing over of PKK leaders.

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  I will repeat: I attach the greatest importance, and my government attaches the greatest importance, to taking effective measures.  I would much rather that we take measures that deal effectively with the problem of PKK terrorism and move us toward eliminating the problem of PKK terrorism than that we do something spectacular and visible that has no lasting impact and no lasting effect.  As I think we have discovered in our own fight against international terrorism, and as Turkey has discovered in twenty years of fighting this problem, it is very hard to be effective.  You just have to keep working at it. 

QUESTION:  There is also the issue of the cartoons (of the Prophet Mohammed).  What is the US approach on this issue?  Could the United States use its influence more effectively with Denmark to achieve some progress?  

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  We put out a statement a couple of days ago, and I am sure that you have seen.  I can speak a little bit about that.  It is clear to us that Muslims all over the world found these cartoons to be ugly and repugnant.  And we share that view.  Messages of hate and messages of intolerance and division -- whether it is anti-Islamic cartoons, or anti-Semitic messages, or anti-Christian messages or other things that foment hate and division among people -- are a bad idea.  And it is on that basis that we condemn these cartoons.  Of course, you all know the United States was founded on a number of principles, among which is a strong commitment to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.  The American Government does not tell its newspapers what to publish, does not tell them what they cannot publish.  We don’t advise other governments around the world what they should or should not do vis-à-vis the press.  Now we also believe that freedom of the press comes with some responsibilities.  Those responsibilities rest with newspapers, with editors, with editorial boards, and with journalists.  When newspapers choose to publish things that groups of people or individuals will find insulting or offensive, they should expect to be told: “What you have done is offensive and wrong.”  In our opinion, that’s where it should end.  These violent attacks that have taken place have no basis, and are unacceptable.  We strongly condemn the violence that has taken place against Danish embassies, against Norwegian embassies, against Europeans in the Middle East.  It is wrong.  I believe yesterday or the day before President Bush spoke with Prime Minister Rasmussen.  What I know that the President did was to express the solidarity of the United States with Denmark, an ally of the United States, at a time when its diplomatic missions and its personnel around the world are under physical attack.  We would do the same thing with any ally of ours that is under attack, as others have done with us after September 11, including Turkey. 

QUESTION:  Tayyip Erdogan has said that Turkey could act as a mediator on the Hamas issue.  Turkish officials are saying that Hamas should be given a chance.  These statements seem a bit different from what we have heard from the West.  How do you evaluate Turkey’s approach?  

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  My understanding is that when he was in Davos, Prime Minister Erdogan spoke a little bit about the election of Hamas a few days earlier.  He called on Hamas to renounce terrorism, to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and to disarm its militias.  Those are the right messages.  From our point of view, there is a fundamental problem of building a democratic state on the one hand – which is what Palestine needs, and what the Palestinian people want, and what the process of their voting was all about -- and terrorism and violence on the other hand.  The two don’t co-exist.  So Hamas has to make a choice.  Is it going to be a political organization that is dedicated to Palestine’s democratic development in peace with its neighbors, or is it going to be a terrorist organization?  If it chooses the latter, we are not going to deal with it.  Israel will not deal with it, and European countries will not deal with it.  Clearly there is an interval of time now while the Palestinians digest the results of their election and work on forming a new government in which Hamas has an opportunity to adjust its course.  If there are countries such as Turkey that can help to persuade Hamas to change its course, that is good.  That is good diplomacy.  For many, many years, Turkey has played a constructive role on issues related to the Middle East peace process.  Turkey has maintained good relations with Israel, with the Palestinians, and with many others.  That has been helpful, I think, in moving the peace process forward.  We hope that it will continue. 

QUESTION:  There are some tremors in Turkey’s internal politics from time to time.  What is the importance of political stability in Turkish-American relations?  How does political stability affect Turkish-US relations?

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  I don’t want to comment too much on matters related to Turkish domestic politics.  Turkey has been a close and important ally of the United States for 50 years.  We work closely with the democratically elected government in Turkey.  And Turkey’s democratic system itself ensures an important level of stability and continuity for our relations.  Of course this is important.  These shared democratic values are the basis for our relationship.