AMBASSADOR'S REMARKS AND PUBLIC EVENTS

Remarks by Ambassador Ross Wilson Meeting at TED Ankara College

Ankara, March 13, 2006

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  Good afternoon.  It is a pleasure and honor to be here with you this afternoon.  This is my first visit in Turkey to a college like this one.  I have been to two other schools in the three months since I arrived in Turkey: the school where my own children go, the George Marshall School, a Department of Defense-run institution.  Many of our embassy children go there; and I was able to visit Bilkent University, not Bilkent Academy, but the university side. This is my first opportunity with people like you, and I am delighted and excited at the opportunity.  I don’t have a long speech to make.  I thought the most interesting thing for you would be to respond to your questions and hear your comments.  That would certainly be most interesting for me, I think, too.  What I’ll do is just make a couple of initial observations about what I am doing here and what the United States is trying to do with Turkey, and then turn the floor over to you. 

As was mentioned I arrived here about three months ago, after a wait of a number of weeks – months actually – to be formally nominated by President Bush for this position, and then confirmed by the United States Senate, which happened on November 18.  In the testimony that I gave before Congress, before the Senate, and in the statement that I made on the occasion of my swearing in for this position -- the formal ceremony that we have that was conducted by Secretary Rice -- I talked about the United States interests in Turkey and our relationship with Turkey as an extraordinarily important one. 

This is a country that finds itself in a complicated part of the world.  It is a region where we attach an enormous importance to supporting stability, security and prosperity whether it is here, in the countries that neighbor Turkey, in the region that you find yourselves in.  When Secretary Rice spoke after she completed my formal swearing in as Ambassador to Turkey, she described this as a strategic partnership of extreme importance -- the US-Turkey relationship, as a strategic partnership of extreme importance.  Those are big words in English.  They are not words that we use lightly.  They were not words that were scripted for her, that somebody wrote down as her prepared remarks.  They reflect the importance that she attaches to working effectively with Turkey on the many, many issues both here, and especially around Turkey’s periphery, that are important to the United States, that are important to Turkey, that are important to the future of peace and stability in the world. 

When you look in particular at Iraq, at Iran, at Syria, at the Caucasus, at the Middle East, Turkey is a country that finds itself, from our perspective, on the frontlines of peace and freedom in the world.  And for me, it puts a special premium on trying to strike the right tone with this country, and ensuring that Turkey strikes the right tone with the United States, that the two of us can work effectively, that we can cooperate whether it be in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, whether it be with regard to Iraq and the efforts of the Iraqi people to stand up a strong and independent, unified government, or whether it is in helping to promote and facilitate Turkey’s accession to the European Union, or any of the wide variety of areas and issues.  We attach a lot of importance to working together with this country. 

I could speak at more length and perhaps more eloquently about a variety of topics, but I think the most useful thing, and the most interesting thing, as I said to begin with, would be to hear your comments and respond to questions that you might have for me.  So without any further comments, I’d be happy take questions and hear comments you have to make.  Please.  Yes.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Your Excellency, when your personal opinions contradict policies of your country, how do you tackle the problems that may arise?

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  I think there are two ways to answer that question.  First, my responsibility here as the Ambassador is to represent the views of the United States Government -- to represent the views of the President and the elected officials of the country.  While I am sure there are many people here who would find my own personal observations interesting, my role here is not to provide my own personal observations.  My role here is to represent America.  That is why you have invited me here.  That is why most of the Turkish citizens that I deal with, and especially the Turkish government officials that I deal with, want to talk to me.  They want to know what the United States thinks.  That is the first point.

Second point, I have worked in government for 27 years, in our State Department, in our Foreign Service.  The skills that I bring here are a function of the work that I have done in previous posts whether it was in Moscow, where I spent five years, or Prague, where I spent a couple of years, Australia, or my service in Washington.  What that has left me with is a clear understanding of where our interests lie in the world, what it is that we want to try to accomplish, and the policies that every administration has carried out, or has articulated since then – since I joined Government – has basically been consistent with where I was.  It happens in Government that people disagree.  If you disagree strongly enough, and it is an important enough issue, you basically have the choice of resigning.  Especially if you are an Ambassador, if you disagree that strongly in the issue is so important, you can leave.  I happen to believe that in democracy, it is elected officials who decide what the policy is, it is the people who elect those officials.  The people of the United States elected a hundred senators, 435 members of Congress and the President of the United States.  They did not elect me.  My job is to represent and carry out the policies that the elected officials of my government choose to initiate. As I said, if I feel strongly enough about it, I could leave.  In 27 years that hasn’t happened.

QUESTION:  Your Excellency, the situation in Iran has turned out to be a conflict since the International Atomic Energy Agency has transferred the case to the Security Council.  Although the Iranian Head of Government, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that the nuclear program is for the benefit of humanity, there is some mistrust about it.  What is your opinion about the future of Iran and the role of Turkey in this case? 

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  Let me break the question into the two parts that you posed -- the substance of the matter, as far as Iran is concerned, and the role of Turkey second.  Iran has, for the last two decades or so, been carrying out a clandestine or secret program of working to develop nuclear weapons technology.  They have also, I might note, been carrying out similar secret or clandestine work to develop missiles that would take their nuclear weapons to points far outside of Iran’s borders.  In spite of the fact that these programs are clandestine, we know this in part because of the work that Iranian dissident groups have done to unveil these programs which have caused the Iranian Government to confirm that significant parts of what these Iranian dissidents have confirmed is true. 

That has created a situation in which the international community questions, and has a problem with trust about what Iran is really up to.  Iran maintains that its programs are peaceful in nature, that it is entitled to a peaceful nuclear power program just like any other country, any other signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that they should be allowed to go about their business.  What we have said, what the Europeans have said, what the International Atomic Energy Agency has said, and in particular Mohammad El-Baradei, the Director General of the IAEA has said is that Iran’s activities over a period of many, many years have created a climate of mistrust that lead many, including the IAEA itself, seriously to doubt Iran’s peaceful intentions with respect to its program.  In particular Iran is working to develop what is called “uranium enrichment capabilities.” In order to make a weapon, also in order to have a civilian nuclear power program, you have to take uranium ore and enrich it to a certain level of concentration to make it useful either in a nuclear reactor or enrich it much beyond that level – the level that’s required for the power industry -- to be usable in an atomic bomb. 

But there is an interesting thing about Iran’s uranium reprocessing or enrichment aspirations.  The most important interesting thing is Iran actually does not need this capability in order to have a nuclear power industry.  South Korea, which has 25 nuclear reactors, and is quite dependent on nuclear energy as an electricity source, has no uranium enrichment capabilities.  Many countries, indeed most countries that have nuclear power plants purchase their enriched uranium on the international market.  It is available from the United States, it is available from Russia, Kazakhstan, Australia – there are a number of other countries that produce this.  This picture of Iran trying to develop this capability for something that is not obviously necessary to do what they say they are trying to do -- to create a nuclear power industry -- looks odd. 

It looks particularly odd when you consider that Iran actually does not have very much uranium.  Known and speculated Iranian reserves of uranium would be completely consumed within a matter of I think about ten years of the development of only about five or six nuclear power plants.  And then they would have to go out and buy uranium from somebody else just in the same manner that they could buy enriched uranium right now.  We believe that this enrichment capability is specifically designed in order to enable Iran to develop the very, very highly enriched uranium that is necessary to fuel a nuclear weapons program.  We think that that would be bad for the region; we think that would be bad for Turkey; we think that would be bad for the entire world.  

We believe that, not just because of this long term track record of deception of the IAEA about its true nuclear interests, but because of the other things that Iran does.  Iran is a known exporter of terrorism.  It is a state sponsor of terrorism.  It provides funding to Hizbollah in Lebanon, it provides funding to terrorist groups in the Middle East; it provides funding to terrorist groups that operate in lots and lots of other parts of the world.  It is a known proliferator.  It has acquired its nuclear technology illegally on the international black market, and we believe that it has exported some of that technology to other parts of the world.  It is a country that has invaded its neighbors.  It is a country that seems not to be constrained by the standards of international behavior that are common in the world. 

And so for that reason we have concluded, the Europeans have concluded, 28 members of the International Atomic Energy Agency have concluded that Iran must take action to restore international trust, that it must resume its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that it must cease these uranium enrichment and related re-processing activities.  I noted 28 members of the IAEA. This is not just the United States. This includes Russia; it includes China, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil, quite a number of countries.  The only countries in the IAEA that voted against the measure to report Iran’s activities to the UN Security Council were I believe Cuba, Venezuela, and I think there is one other.  Cuba and Venezuela -- you can draw your own conclusions about what those countries want, what they represent in international politics. 

What we are looking for from Turkey is that it be a part of this broad international consensus that says to Iran “the nuclear weapons programs that you appear to be pursuing are wrong.  They are a bad idea.  They are not good for Iran.  They are not good for the region and we would like to see Iran cooperate fully with the IAEA in fulfillment of Iran’s obligations as a signatory in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.”  That in essence is what the Turkish Government is doing.  The Foreign Ministry put out a statement I think about three weeks ago that called upon Iran to resume its cooperation with the IAEA.  The Government Spokesman, Mr. Cicek, put out a statement that said more or less the same thing a week or ten days ago.  In saw in the papers Foreign Minister Gul made a similar statement publicly to some of the newspapers I believe on his most recent trip to Europe.  We think this is an extremely important issue.  It is extremely important for Turkey.  We are glad that we are working cooperatively with Turkey to try to deal with it.

QUESTION:  Your Excellency, bearing in mind Turkey’s role in the reconstruction of Iraq, could you explain the Kirkuk issue between the Turkmen and Kurdish groups related with population in this area?  And could you enlighten us about so-called Kurdistan according to Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani?

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  I can speak a little bit to the issues that you raised.  I am not ambassador to Iraq, so we quickly get to a level of detail with respect to internal Iraqi political and ethnic dynamics that is probably beyond my ability to address.  There is a significant Turkmen minority in Iraq.  I don’t think it is as large or on the same scale as the Sunni population or the Shiite population, or the Kurdish population, but it is not an insignificant number.  They have been involved in various clashes and disagreements going back many, many years -- probably hundreds of years – with Kurdish populations, and with other Arab populations in Iraq.  The issue I think comes to the fore – at least for Turkey it comes to the fore – with respect to Kirkuk and the status of Kirkuk.  How those issues will be resolved, in our opinion, is first and foremost for the Iraqi people to decide and to figure out.  There are provisions in the Iraqi Constitution that describe how the status – the long term status – of Kirkuk should be decided and resolved.

Our view is whatever specific measures should take place with respect to Kirkuk should be those that are in accordance with the Constitution or other arrangements that the Iraqi people come to.  It is not, in short, something for the United States or probably for that matter any other outside power to decide.  It is for the Iraqis to decide.

QUESTION:  Thank you Your Excellency.  You served during the presidency of Bill Clinton and Bush.  Apart from them being Republican or Democratic, what would you say is the major difference in the foreign policy?

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  I think historians will look back on the two of them and probably see fewer differences than perhaps it appears on a day-to-day basis as one looks at the behavior of our respective countries.  President Clinton came into office with a strong belief that the United States needed to take firmer action – much firmer action – on the problems in the Balkans that were then very much in the news.  He and his administration, I think, were particularly outraged at what was going on particularly in Bosnia, and to some extent even at that point in Kosovo.  They thought that the slaughter of Bosnian civilian populations at the hands of the Serbs was wrong, and that it needed to stop, and that the United States needed to take action to deal with that.  That administration did work to try to deal with that problem.  It fairly quickly came around to the view that we need to work not just unilaterally, but that we needed to work effectively with our friends and our partners, in particular with the European Union and other allies in NATO.  That multilateralism became one of the signature themes of the Clinton Administration.

The Bush Administration came into office to some extent also thinking multilateral, but (inaudible) became significantly accentuated.  People have called it unilateralism.  I think that is a misnomer.  It was never unilateral.  We worked hard, and the Bush Administration worked hard to try to find friends and allies that we can work with.  And we did work with our friends and allies.  But nevertheless it is often referred to as unilateral.  In fact if you look more carefully at what the Bush Administration did in the first term, and especially if you look at what the Administration is now doing in the second term, you will find a lot more similarities and a lot more continuity in US policy than might otherwise be the case.

QUESTION:  Where do you see Turkey in ten years?

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  That’s a hard question.  I should probably make you answer it.  I think that Turkey is currently undergoing a number of very important transitions and, from my point of view, is dealing quite effectively with a number of challenges and a number of changes that in most societies are difficult.  To some extent they are difficult here, too.  One example of this is the large scale migration of people from the countryside and rural areas and towns into the big cities.  It has been going on for 10,15, 20 years.  But it is still going on in a very, very large scale.  When I was in southeast Turkey last week, this was really topic number one in all of my meetings in both Adana and Gaziantep.  This large scale migration of people which involves societies is difficult and challenging.  And I think that will continue – Turkey will become a more urbanized society.  The large cities will face the challenge of having to integrate these basically rural populations into urban life.  And that always is complicated both socially and also politically including in terms of the old political elite. 

A second change that I think is noteworthy and will have a lot of bearing in the next ten years is globalization.  Beginning about 10 or 15 years ago Turkey began to open its markets more to foreign investment and foreign trade.  Turkey will have to further open its markets to foreign investment and trade with its accession into the European Union.  That will have implications for Turkish industry.  It will have implications for Turkish voters including these large numbers of workers that come from rural areas and look for jobs.  It also provides a tremendous opportunity for Turkey to tap into much larger global markets for goods and services including in areas where Turkey is very competitive.  So I think that on that economic side there are some extremely interesting things that will happen that, if handled properly, can enormously enrich this country and its people. 

A third set of issues that I will refer to is the EU accession.  Theoretically, the time frame that is provided for in the accession agreements to date calls for the talks to take place over a period of about ten years.  A number of the other reason entrants to the European Union have seen that timeframe be a little bit longer than was originally envisaged.  I don’t know if this will be finished in ten years.  But whenever it is finished, it will have a very dramatic impact both on Turkey’s economy and its political system because of the political changes that will be required here. 

The fourth thing I would point to -- and this is as much a hope or an aspiration as a prediction -- is that the region around Turkey or the region in which Turkey finds itself will become more stable, will become more prosperous, will become more predictable.  If we are successful in Iraq, there will be a very, very large, peaceful and stable market to the south of Turkey that for a long time was not anything like the market for Turkish goods and services that it was in the past.  It was not a friendly, reliable, and stable partner of Turkey anymore than it was a friendly, reliable partner of others around the world.  And I think that can help bolster Turkey’s prospects, because there will be a strong and secure neighbor or a stronger and more secure neighbor on its southern border. 

You can say the same thing about the Caucasus, to Turkey’s east.  The leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan got together last month. I gather they weren’t entirely successful at coming to agreement on what might be a settlement of the conflict of Nagorno Karabakh.  But I think if there can be a peaceful settlement, if there can be progress on some of the issues and challenges that face Georgia, there can be a lot of stability to Turkey’s east as well that can open up new interesting economic opportunities in the eastern part of this country that is presently in a lot of respects cut off from what have been its traditional markets if you go back in the history. 

So those are a few things.  I think the future for Turkey is quite bright.  It requires a lot of statesmanship and wise decisions by the leaders.

QUESTION:  UNESCO has a project called “Education for All.”  And there are also other organizations which are working for the same aim.  So we wonder what the honorable Ambassador thinks about the ways of improving education and enhancing the communication and cooperation between all those organizations.  Thanks.

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  I am not an educator, as you can tell.  So I am probably not the best person to answer this question.  We support the work that UNESCO is carrying out.  The United States is a member of UNESCO, although for a number of years we weren’t.  We rejoined I think two or three years ago after some differences were worked out on issues related to funding and the purposes for which UNESCO was spending some of its funds.  We definitely support that kind of work by UNESCO that is aimed at education and increasing international understanding. 

But the second thing I’d say is I am a great believer of exchange programs, and the United States Government is a great believer of exchange programs.  When I served in Azerbaijan, a very, very poor country, maybe some of you have been there, or know something about it, we had a very large scale exchange programs to bring young people including high school and especially university students to the United States for study because we think that those programs help to improve the future economic and political prospects of Azerbaijan and countries like it.  And maybe more importantly, it helps to deal with issues of international understanding both helping Azeris understand America, and frankly, and maybe in a more valuable way helping Americans understand Azerbaijan. 

In Turkey we support a variety of exchange programs.  I went to one that we have funded when I visited Bilkent University.  It brings a number of teachers in training -- teacher interns -- to the United States to live in American communities and work and teach in American schools for a little while.  I hope that that program is helpful in giving them a little bit better understanding of the United States that they could factor into their work as teachers once they actually started teaching.  At least as important was what it was they were teaching Americans about Turkey and what Turkey represents, the problems that Turkey faces and so forth. 

One of my regrets is that in all my years in high school and college and graduate school, I never had the opportunity to be in one of these exchange programs.  I think they are life changing experiences.  I hope some of you will be able to participate in them.  Anybody else that hasn’t asked a question?

QUESTION:  In terms of peace and stability, do you believe in the United Nations’ efficiency and perpetuality?

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  I think that the United States believes that the United Nations is an extremely helpful institution that plays a role, that really no other organization can play in bringing countries together to have regular discussions about topics of common interest.  It is particularly important that the United Nations is not just the Security Council.  It is not just the General Assembly of the UN – groups that kind of have the character of talk-fests with people that talk and talk and talk, but maybe don’t do very much.  But the United Nations also consists of UNICEF you referred to earlier where there is practical work on education. The International Monetary Fund is part of the UN’s system of the agencies that provides crucial economic advice to countries that need it.  The World Bank is part of the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency we referred to earlier, is part of the United Nations.  There is a family of institutions that deal both with very general political topics but also very specific and practical ones that we need to work through in this complicated global environment where problems cross borders without respect to politics and where we need to work together.  Is the UN the only way that the world can or should deal with its problems?  No.  We don’t think so.  In that respect I think the United States has a different perspective from some other countries.  We are prepared to defend our interests in other ways.  We are prepared to pursue our interest in other ways.  But certainly we regard the UN as a bedrock of the international system, one that we are committed to, and I think will be around for a very long time.

QUESTION:  Thank you Mr. Ambassador.