Ambassador's remarks and public events

Ambassador Ross Wilson Press Roundtable

Istanbul March 16, 2007

Ambassador Wilson: …There are actually a lot of things that we’re [unintelligible] with Turkey, a lot of things that we’re working on here. We’re watching, like everybody else, the political season in this country, the internal developments.  But most of our efforts, frankly, are focused on the range of problems around this country, where the most striking thing for me is the similarity of themes that the United States and Turkey have.  Whether it’s Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, Cyprus, energy issues, Caucuses, Black Sea, Turkey’s integration with the European Union, and the fight against terrorism, Afghanistan.  I’d be happy to answer questions on any of those things, and the floor is open to you.

Question:  I’m wondering what the position of the United States is regarding the relations between Ankara and the Kurdish leadership in Iraq.  It’s obvious that the two entities, Turkey and the [unintelligible] on several [unintelligible] grounds, and at the same time there are conflicts on various grounds.  Is the United States likely to mediate between these two actors to find a reasonable consensus on important issues like Kirkuk, like the removal of PKK from Northern Iraq, and like the Kurdish leadership trying to have a peaceful relationship with its northern neighbor.

Ambassador Wilson:  I think the point of departure for us is to work to promote dialogue and to promote good relations between Turkey and Iraq.  So for us, we put the Iraqi Kurdish leadership under the banner of Iraq – it’s one country.  Like Turkey, we support territorial integrity, we support unity, we want Iraq to succeed as a country within its currently existing boundaries.  Part of that dialogue between Turkey and Iraq, the Turkish and Iraqi governments, includes the Iraqi Kurdish authority. They’re obviously part of the political spectrum there, and because the Kurdistan Regional Government authority is in the northern part of the country and abuts against Turkey, it’s even more so an important part of the Iraqi landscape that we want to see Turkey engage with, directly.  I do not anticipate that we will get into any kind of mediation. That’s not really necessary, and I’m not sure it’s really appropriate.  Turkish and Iraqi authorities, including the Iraqi Kurdish authorities, should work on issues themselves, and do so directly.  We have looked, and specifically in the context of our efforts on the PKK, to use a long-standing three-way mechanism – the United States, Turkey and Iraq – to find more effective ways to counter PKK terrorism, especially as emanates from basically Northern Iraq.  But that, too, is not a mediation exercise.  It’s how do the three countries work most effectively together to deal with a problem that the leaders of all three countries look at more or less the same way.

Question:  Are there any concrete gains in this exercise of three countries trying to do something about the PKK threat to Turkey?  Do we have any concrete measures on the ground?

Ambassador Wilson:  It’s a fair question.  It’s a process that’s frustrated a number of us.  If you look back to early meetings of this trilateral mechanism, that I think started in 2004, it was not particularly productive.  We started a more energetic effort on this last fall following the appointment of General Ralston as our Envoy for Countering the PKK and his Turkish counterpart and an Iraqi counterpart.  I think we continue to be frustrated by the difficulty in making significant progress.  General Ralston, I think, gave an interview yesterday or the day before in Washington, and talked about our efforts to close the Mahmour Camp.  It’s not a huge step forward, but it is a step forward, and the fact that we’ve gotten as far as we have, reflects determined efforts on our part, determined efforts on Turkey’s part, and determined efforts on the Iraqis’ part, including Iraqi Kurdish authorities in the North, to deal with this.  I think we’re close to getting that accomplished.  And when it is accomplished, it will send an important signal that the PKK’s days in Northern Iraq are numbered. That the United Sates, Turkey and Iraq can work effectively together to shut something down.  And we can go on from that. I hope that this comes at some point soon.  There are still some very difficult issues that have to be worked out.

Question: Is there a direct relationship between the Mahmour Camp and the people in the Kandil mountains?

Ambassador Wilson: As I said, I think that closing that camp sends a powerful political signal that it’s no longer business as it has been.

Question: Just one small question. There are lots of speculations in the press that the United States intelligence is interested in using PEJAK or PKK’s Iranian counterpart, to destabilize Iran.  How do you respond to those speculations?

Ambassador Wilson: There’s no truth to those speculations.  Zero.  We do not deal with the PKK, we do not deal with PEJAK.

Question: Another conspiracy theory about the United States’ behavior vis-a-vis the PKK, and the theory states, the United States is going to catch some big people of the PKK and then deliver them to Turkey just before the elections.  In support of AKP.  The United States is always accused of catching Abdullah Ocalan to deliver him to Turkey. I don’t know why, but some Turkish nationalists accused the United States of this.

Ambassador Wilson:  Whatever we are able to do or accomplish with respect to the PKK, we will do and accomplish together with the government, the security forces, the intelligence forces, others, of Turkey, and whatever we’re able to accomplish will be a function of the success we’re able to achieve, and it will happen when we’re able to make something happen.  We’re not aiming to make something happen by some date or some time.  We’re aiming to do what we can in the extremely difficult environment of Iraq, to change the picture that the PKK faces there.  But I think the hypothesis you put forward is not what we’re thinking, it is not what the Turkish government is thinking, it is not what the Turkish military is thinking, or the others that we deal with on this problem.

Question:  Is the United States likely to do something about Cyprus? Many consider that if the United States were to do something in favor of Turkish Cypriots who have voted for resolutions supported by the United States, United Nations and EU, are left out of Europe and left out in the cold. There are quite a lot of expectations from the U.S. that maybe a move in favor of Turkish Cypriots would really help the –let’s say- anti-American mood in Turkey.  Are you considering to do something about their isolation?

Ambassador Wilson: What we’re working on for the most part with respect to Cyprus now, is to try to support the efforts of the UN, to get these technical committees established.  A process that was announced in July of last year by Under Secretary Gambari.  It should have already started.  This work should have already started.  It’s been delayed.  We’re not particularly happy about that.  We would like to see this move forward.  We viewed as positive steps the actions of the Turkish Cypriots to demolish the footbridge at Ledra Street, and the actions of the Greek Cypriots to demolish the wall on the other side.  We would like to see a crossing opened up there.  It’s not a huge step towards settlement, but it’s a little step that could head us in the direction of good support in getting these technical committees going, which then in turn helps to create some momentum toward a resumption of actual settlement talks.  But I’m not sure that the United States, although we would like to see progress this year toward a final settlement, it seems unlikely to happen this year.  In part because there are elections in Cyprus, there are elections here.  Greece is looking at elections in the not too distant future.  What we are aiming to do over the coming 12-14 months or so, is to create some momentum, so that as the three countries, and especially Cyprus, gets out of its election cycle, then the UN would find itself in a position to be engaged much more effectively, and in particular, the new Secretary General.

Question: Is the U.S. starting a dialogue with Syria and Iran in the context of these conferences?  Is there a substantial change of policy as some people argue?

Ambassador Wilson: I would not want to characterize the approach that we’re taking on the Iraq-related conferences as intended to signal a shift in our position with respect to [unintelligible] Iran and Syria.  However, I think that the President, in the speech that he did in January of this year, when he talked about his new Iraq strategy, very specifically referred to more effective engagement with Iraq’s neighbors, towards supporting the development of the kind of Iraq that we want to see: strong, unified, reasonably prosperous, reasonably democratic, headed in the right directions.  And I think that’s the kind, Secretary Rice’s embrace of this process that Iraq and Turkey and others are engaged in, the neighbors process and the expanded neighbors process that took place in Baghdad last weekend.  There will be a follow on meeting, hopefully here or somewhere in the region, soon.  But the purpose of that is to support Iraq, in the first instance.  It would be wrong to view this, in and of itself, as a great new opening or gesture toward the Iranians or the Syrians.

Question: Once upon a time, I remember the speaker for the White House [unintelligible], about 7-8 years ago, a speaker for the White House saying that they put a special emphasis on democracy in Turkey, and not so much on secularism. [Unintelligible] a silly distinction between secularism and democracy. Then, they changed their position they said, ‘oh yeah. We made a mistake, we think secularism is as important as democracy’.  And this is one thing that I would like to remind.  And the second thing is that the United States is being accused of supporting “mild Islam,” whatever it is.  Kind of an Islamization of the secular democratic regime of Turkey, and Fetullah Gulen is given asylum in the States, and the United States is backing AKP.  Remember in this accusation and the [unintelligible], how is the United States looking at Turkish democratization.  Do you still put democracy over secularism, or do you think that secularism is an integral part of democracy, and without it democracy cannot function in Turkey, and is there any choice regarding the choosing mild Islam against of course an Al-Qaeda type of political, radical Islam?  Because the main raison d'etre behind the U.S. backing mild Islam is that it’s using mild Islam against the radical political Islam of Al-Qaeda, which is a very dangerous thing of course.  You might not answer the question.

Ambassador Wilson: I’ll give you a short answer. The whole basis of our relationship, particularly as it has developed over the last 50 years, is Turkey’s commitment to democracy and to secularism.  Both.  Both of those things.  And other things.  Open market economy, mutually supportive policies and actions on a whole range of problems around Turkey. These things form the basis of a strategic partnership that is very important to us.  Democratic, secular, market-based, all these things go together.

Question: You called the relationship, openly, a strategic partnership.

Ambassador Wilson: We’ve used that term, and I’m perfectly happy with it now.

Question: Ambassador Wilson, to you have any knowledge about the Iranian Ali Reza Asgari?

Ambassador Wilson: Only what I see in the newspapers here.

Question: That’s it. Oh come on. [laughter]. Anyway. I think what… was asking, to put it bluntly, previously the United States has always supported the military here in Turkey [unintelligible].

Interceding Journalist: This wasn’t my question at all. His interpretation was completely wrong. [laughter]

Ambassador Wilson: I’m not going to comment too much on domestic Turkish politics here. We have a very close relationship with Turkey. We have a close and long-standing security relationship in which the military has the lead in this country, that’s important to us.  We attach great value to Turkish democratic institutions, democratically elected institutions and the democratic government.  I don’t think there’s a choice to make between them.  They go together, they’re the basis of a strong relationship.  As I’ve said, we have a lot of confidence in the ability of Turkey’s institutions to see their way forward in a sensible, sound and secure way, to take this country forward, and take our relationship forward.

Question: There are a lot of speculations about the United States allowing the Turkish military for a limited time, and a limited operation towards the Kandil mountain.  There have been lots of reports about this.  Can you see anything about this, is it a possibility?

Ambassador Wilson: Many different U.S. spokesmen have said essentially the same thing on this, going back to last summer, if not before that, the State Department spokesman addressed this a couple days ago, very recently.  We attach a lot of importance to not only the unity, but also the territorial integrity of Iraq.  Iraqis have the primary authority there.  We have attached a lot of importance to supporting the work in Baghdad among the different political and other groups in that country to try to deal with their problems.  And we’d be concerned about things that sort of take Iraq in a different direction.  Beyond that I don’t want to speculate too much.  I wouldn’t look for a lot of conspiracy theories.  What we’re trying to do with Turkey and with Iraq, is find some ways to deal effectively and put a stop to the PKK presence in Northern Iraq.

Question: Can I ask a question regarding the coming Presidential elections in the States and your position in Iraq?  Am I allowed to ask a question?  As a sociologist, very juicy subjects. Your President gave a speech that there would be a mild change in Iraq policy, like using the neighboring countries more, and so on and so forth.  And a kind of maybe, using the international arena to solve the problem to get backing of the United States policy in Iraq.  But then, we see kind of an escalation with regard to the number of the troops and so on and so forth. And the elections are coming and even the Republican candidates, at least (Senator) McCain, has changed his position regarding Iraq and the U.S. presence in Iraq. How do you see the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq?  Is it going towards some kind of working out kind of a pullout policy or kind of an escalation before pullout?  Escalation to solve the problems and then pullout? How do you see it?  If you see it.

Ambassador Wilson: First, there is intense debate in the United States about what should be the United States approach in Iraq, whether we can succeed in Iraq, how we can succeed in Iraq, whether more troops or fewer troops, more activity, less activity, is more or less likely to lead to the kind of Iraq that we would like to see. That’s a debate that is fundamental to the kind of democracy that we have and it’s a wonderful thing.  In our system, the President has primary responsibility for foreign policy, and the President is Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces.  And he has been very clear that the United States, as long as he is President, which is January 2009, does not intend to cut and run, that we intend to stay as long as the Iraqi authorities want us to stay, and to do all that we can to try to support the right security environment, the right political environment, the right economic environment for the country to be able to move forward.  Second, or maybe third, the essence of the policy that the President announced in January, the so-called, surge, is to try to significantly increase the forces that can be applied in Baghdad and in Anbar province, to get the violence much more under control that provides some space and time for the Iraqi leaders to deal effectively with some of their underlying problems and specifically to get passed the hydro-carbon law, to get passed a new de-Baathification law that will help in terms of reconciliation, to carry out municipal local elections, provincial elections, take some other steps, as well as actions on the economic side, to better deliver services to people that then lessens the anger and resentment that is presently perhaps more focused on the Iraqi government than is a healthy thing.  Provide some space and some time. He never indicated or suggested that we intend to keep that expanded number of forces in Iraq forever. A variety of U.S. spokesmen have made clear, we’re not looking to keep a large scale presence in Iraq forever.  And, in fact, the nature of the long-term presence in that country will be up to the Iraqi authorities to decide. The ultimate goal is to get our people out of there.  But this intermediate step to quell this terrible sectarian violence, led by Al-Qaeda, but it has other sources as well, to provide some time and space for the Iraqi people and a little bit of peace for the Iraqi people.

Ambassador Wilson: As I think you know, the Administration has strongly opposed this measure. And Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates sent letters some days ago to the Congressional leadership on this. There was a hearing yesterday in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Assistant Secretary Fried, and General Ralston, and perhaps some others, spoke.  It was a hearing on U.S.-Turkish relations.  But obviously the backdrop, or part of the backdrop, is this resolution in the House. It’s very hard to predict, it’s like Turkish politics, it’s very hard to predict, what specifically is going to happen.  And I would not characterize this as, to use your expression, it’s been shelved or anything.  I don’t know that that’s the case. Congress, right now, is very, very focused on these debates about Iraq that we referred to a minute ago.  We’ll have to see what transpires.

Question: Has Pelosi really promised to her Armenian electorate that she will get it passed? Does she have a real commitment?

Ambassador Wilson: My understanding is, Mrs. Pelosi is publicly on record from before the November elections last year in the United States, as saying that if she became speaker, she would bring this resolution to a vote. First. Second, she is a long time supporter and sponsor of this resolution, going back many, many years.

Question: So she has a real commitment.

Question: There is some speculation that if the Genocide resolution passes in the Congress, Ankara is likely to retaliate by stopping the American use of the Incirlik Airbase for operations. Do you see any likelihood?

Ambassador Wilson: It’s not for me to speculate on what the Turkish government might or might not choose to do.  Certainly we understand that the Turkish government looks at the possible passage of a resolution as very serious, and the Turkish people do as well.  And we attach immense importance, both for our own interest, and for the interest of things that the United States and Turkey, together, are trying to do, whether it’s Iraq, or Afghanistan, or other places, we attach a lot of importance, to what is made available to us, at Incirlik Airbase, and shipping goods and products by land across Turkish territory into Iraq, and our ability to acquire things in Turkey for our forces, and the Iraqis to acquire things for their own people (unintelligible).  All of those things are important.  It seems to me that U.S. – Turkish relations, the things that we do together, are not just to serve American interests, they’re to serve Turkish interests as well, otherwise the Turkish government wouldn’t have agreed to them.  Either the present government or previous governments going back 50 years.  We hope that this resolution will not come to pass, and that’s the focus of our efforts.

Question: We don’t see any likelihood of the United States attacking Iran?

Ambassador Wilson: That’s not what we’re working on.  What we’re working on very hard, right now, is the diplomatic process in trying to get the Iranians to change their minds. And it’s a very gradual, step by step process that started last year in the IAEA.  Several different progressive actions that were played out from about February or March or so, 2006, to the referral by the IAEA Board to the UN Security Council, was probably about September or so, then there was the resolution that the UN Security Council passed at the end of the year.  I believe it was a unanimous resolution.  There is now another resolution that’s going to the Council now.  It, too, is another gradual step.  Step by step by step, always trying to show both the dangers and the harm that Iran will be doing to itself in terms of its relations with the entire world, these resolutions are being passed unanimously by the Security Council.  It’s not something we’re imposing on anybody.  And, at the same time, show there’s a door that’s open, that’s still open. The offer we put on the table, that we and others put on the table in June of last year is still available to the Iranian authorities.  And all that is required is a suspension of these uranium enrichment activities.  That’s the key prerequisite.  We’d like to see the Iranians walk through that door.  And I believe, through its actions with the Iranian authorities, Turkey has been working hard to reinforce that lesson.  That there’s an alternative path and that the world would like to see the Iranians take it.

Question: A lot of people in the United States argue that it would be best for the Bush administration or any American administration to give guarantees to Iran that it would never attack Iran.  Security Guarantees, and in return, have their agreement for monitoring of their nuclear activities.  Isn’t that a very intelligent and sensible position?  What is the Ambassador’s personal point of view on this?

Ambassador Wilson: What we have said when we put the June 2006 package on the table, is that we are prepared, if Iran suspends, suspends, remember what that word means, suspends its uranium enrichment activities, that we, and the other permanent members of the Security Council and Germany (unintelligible), are prepared to talk about everything in our relationship with Iran.  That is a gigantic shift in the U.S. position. And it’s a big, big, big opportunity for the Iranians. We’d like to see them take it.

Question: These sanctions.  Are they [unintelligible] for closing down the pipeline? The natural gas pipeline?

Ambassador Wilson: The resolution that was passed in December is very specifically targeted at Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile [unintelligible]. The new resolution, all I know is what I saw in the press reports today, it too, is still very carefully targeted. It is not a sweeping embargo on trade with Iran.  Not by any means.  We may eventually come to that at some point, I suppose.  But I think that the intention here is gradual, step by step and continued efforts to try to reach out to Iranians. There’s a door you can walk through, we can all walk through, and it’s not going to lead in the direction. –and frankly, I think everybody knows the probability that the UN Security Council is unlikely to pass, at least for the foreseeable future, a resolution that has such sweeping sanctions.

Question: By the way, you have done a great job with North Korea.

Ambassador Wilson: Yes, we have.

Question: But still, all the world isn’t sure that they really have nuclear weapons.

Ambassador Wilson: I think we’re pretty sure about that.  But we can negotiate a way out of these things.  Implementing that agreement with North Korea will be very hard. We’ll see how this works. Fundamentally, the North Koreans have agreed to what they’ve agreed to before, and then failed to implement. We hope that they’ll implement it now and there’s a lot of work going on.  Especially, Northeast Asia is a long way away for Turkey.  It’s not a long way away for the United States.

Question: What is the U.S. likely to do about the Palestinian – Israeli issue?  The Hamas people said that they [unintelligible] to establish a Palestinian state on the ‘67 borders, which indirectly recognizes the existence of Israel.  Why is it so important that both Israel and the United States insist that Hamas recognizes Israel [unintelligible]?   But on the other hand, it’s quite clear to me that the Saudi mediation must have been encouraged by the United States.  So is it two-track diplomacy which the United States is conducting with Hamas?

Ambassador Wilson: We’ve attached importance to the Quartet position with respect to the Palestinian political system, in part because of Hamas’ long standing and continued public positions in favor of terrorism and Israel’s destruction.  It’s kind of hard to negotiate with someone that has publicly, and very clearly and explicitly, committed to your destruction.  And that has a long track record of throwing bombs, sending suicide bombers and doing other awful things.  The standard that’s been put out there is not such a high one that [unintelligible] cannot get there.  As of yesterday, the State Department spokesman reserved judgment on the new Palestinian government wanting to wait until it has been approved by the Palestinian parliament, and then publicly and more clearly articulated what its policies are going to be and started to act on those. There too, we continue to want to hold the door open, they’ve got to make a fundamental commitment.  Are they for peace and democracy?  It doesn’t mean they give up all their positions.  Or are they going to be on the side of throwing bombs and sending out suicide bombers?  On your question with respect to the Saudi initiative, I think the best thing to say is that we strongly support efforts that are designed to move the parties toward peaceful negotiations.  And while we may disagree with this or that specific initiative or this or that specific point in some of these efforts, the things that push them in the right direction are basically steps that we support.