Ambassador's remarks and public events

Ambassador Ross Wilson Interview with Mehmet Barlas and Ekrem Dumanli

Istanbul, April 9, 2007

Question: (inaudible)  Mr. Erdogan as president.  What do you think about the latest developments in the southeast?  Terrorism is climbing up.  There were seven deaths this morning.

Ambassasor Wilson: This is seven more additional to what happened over the weekend? Or that is reflecting the week before?

Question:  Extra seven.

Ambassador Wilson: Over Saturday, Sunday. I’ve heard nine too.

Ambassador Wilson: On Turkish domestic politics, I am not going to comment on those issues.  Clearly, this is a big and important political year for Turkey.  The process gets started now, in one week’s time.

Question:  As a diplomat do you feel any turmoil, signs of turmoil, political turmoil, in Turkey, as a diplomat, not an American diplomat?

Ambassador:  Clearly, there is a very lively conversation going on here about a range of political topics and, in particular, the presidential election that is coming up shortly and a parliamentary election soon to follow.  That’s normal and is appropriate in a democracy that is especially vigorous here. 

Question:  It doesn’t seem as a turmoil sign?

Ambassador Wilson:  Look, I don’t want to get too far in characterizing the Turkish domestic political scene.  There’s a very, very vigorous and lively debate going on in this country.  That’s important.  It is important for this country’s future.  It is healthy in democracies to talk about the issues that confront them.

Question: What about (inaudible).   Is there a new development?

Ambassador Wilson:  On which?  On the Armenian resolution?  I had a number of discussions about this when I was in Washington at the end of March.  Obviously, coming after the defense minister, the foreign minister, the chief of the Turkish General staff, at least two groups of Turkish parliamentarians, a delegation of TUSIAD, and probably some others that I’m not thinking of.  All those conversations, plus representations with Secretary Rice, and Secretary Gates with the Congress, and work that people like Assistant Secretary Fried have been involved in over the course of February and March.  I think it had a good and hopeful effect.  I don’t want to predict what the Congress may or may not do or when the House or the Senate may or may not act.  I know that a lot of people listened to the arguments that Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates put forward as well as the points made by Turkish visitors.

Question: And the visit of Ms. Pelosi to Syria and our Prime Minster’s visit to Syria.  Does it mean that your position in the United States (inaudible) power in Turkey in the same parallel towards the Middle East?

Ambassador Wilson: Just as it can be risky to talk too much about the domestic politics of Turkey, so it can be risky for me to talk too much about the domestic politics in the United States.  Speaker Pelosi’s visit has generated a lot of commentary in the United States, including from the White House, including from many political observers.  My understanding is that she did deliver there a strong message about the need to work cooperatively toward peace in the region, stop supporting terrorism; those are, I think, are good messages.  I think at least in general terms as I understand it those are the kinds of messages that Turkey has been conveying; we appreciate that.

Question:  Is there a change of the United States policy towards the Middle East?  For instance I read some articles in the New York Times that Rice is changing her views towards Israel, towards Palestinian (inaudible).  Do you feel it?

Ambassador Wilson:  When I was back in the United States in January I met with Secretary Rice, and she talked then about her priorities for 2007, and if not number one, certainly one of the top two or three issues on her agenda was making real progress this year on Israeli-Palestinian peace.  That is reflected in two trips that she has made to the region now; she has got another one coming up I think some time in April.  She is working very, very hard on this.  I think if there is a change, it is this increased activism to try to see what we can put together -- an architecture or shape of what might be progress toward two democratic states living side by side in peace and security that has been this Administration’s objective since 2001.

Question:  Does it mean that it is going to be a kind of Kissinger-Baker diplomacy

Ambassador Wilson:  History doesn’t always repeat itself exactly.  What is the right and appropriate method for her to engage with the parties, she is going to have to determine.  What Baker did, what Secretary Kissinger did were quite different eras; the challenges were different, the problems were different.  I think she’ll proceed in the way she feels is most appropriate.

Question:  What do you think about the speech of Barzani, his latest speech yesterday.  There is a big reaction from the Turkish side.  What do you think about it?

Ambassador Wilson:  First, I would say that these kinds of remarks are unhelpful.  Turkey and Iraq have a very important relationship.  Turkey has provided a lot of support and assistance to Iraq, to the government of Iraq, to the people of Iraq.  That has made an immense difference to that country to where it finds itself today.  A second point, there are many really crucial issues that are ahead of the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi leaders, there are many crucial issues for Turkey and Iraq as they work together most effectively.  And it seems to me, it seems to us, that the right thing is to move away from rhetoric and work on those practical problems, and I would include among those problems working on the problem of the PKK and northern Iraq.

Question:  We call them rhetorical remarks?

Ambassador Wilson:  What I think I said was that this kind of rhetoric is not useful, is not helpful, what we need is to lower the temperature, to lower the rhetoric and work on these practical problems and practical issues.  I should add a third point for you: of course the United States, as always, supports the territorial integrity of Turkey.  We support the existing boundaries in this area, in this region.  Any inference that we can be moving toward changes in that respect is, again, not helpful and not something that we support.

Question:  What about PKK, there have been many discussions about the PKK.  What is the last (inaudible)?

Ambassador Wilson:  First, obviously I want to extend our condolences for the lives that were apparently lost over the weekend.  I saw the press reports about this today.  Apparently, it involved military actions within Turkey, I believe against PKK elements or PKK-related elements.  General Ralston and General Baser have met twice in the last five weeks or so.  I believe certainly what we intended to convey to General Baser when he was in Washington the week before last was a very, very strong and a very high level statement of the United States’ resolve and commitment to work with Turkey in taking actions that will make a significant difference with respect to PKK presence in northern Iraq.  He met with General Pace; he met with Steve Hadley; he met with Undersecretary Burns at the State Department; he met with some other people as well, as well as several hours in sessions with General Ralston, some of which I took part in as well.  There is still work to do and we recognize that, inaudible.

Question:  You know the policy change, not only on diplomacy but also in the Pentagon.  Since Rumsfeld left, (inaudible) the general staff is going to change, and the Ambassador of Iraq was changed.  What will change? In main lines?

Ambassador Wilson:  Well, I think I’ll point you mostly to the words that the President used in his speech that he gave in January and the new Iraq strategies in his speech.  A lot of attention focused on the so called “surge” in increased forces, but in reality he talked about a whole range of things:  on the security side, on the political side, and on the economic side.  The  appointment of General Petraeus as the Multinational Force Commander in Iraq, I think, both reflects that new strategy and is the way we are going to implement it.  With more concerted counterinsurgency techniques and operations that we think and certainly hope will be more successful.  I think that the replacement of Ambassador Khalilzad by Ryan Crocker is a little bit more coincidental, but Crocker is an extremely experienced diplomat, who served previously in Baghdad earlier in his career.  He is one of our finest Arabic speakers.  Any time you bring in a new set of eyes, you bring a new perspective and have chance to start fresh with inaudible, and I think that is what Crocker will be trying to do. 

Question:  Then the change in Washington is going to come?  I mean the President?

Ambassador Wilson:  Well, in November 2008 we will have a presidential election and the victor in that election will not be George W. Bush by definition. 

Question: Sounds like it is going to be a Democrat.

Ambassador Wilson  Again, it is highly risky for an Ambassador to speculate about the politics in his own country.  It will be a very interesting race.  I think it will be very hard fought.  It is the first election in a very long time in which we did not have either a president or a sitting vice-president, or ex-vice-president running in the elections.  And so, in a certain sense, it’s wide open. 

Question:  What are (inaudible) to the bureaucracy in Washington with the coming election (inaudible)?

Ambassador Wilson:  I guess I’d caution you from thinking there is too much direct impact there, particularly in the field of foreign affairs.  Our Constitution puts the primary responsibility for foreign affairs on the President.  He remains President until January 21, in this case 2009.  I served in the last Clinton Administration in late 2000.  In a sense you can see the clock running out, but the responsibilities go right up to the very end.  I worked in a fairly senior position at the end of the Bush 41 Administration in 1993, and, again, you go right up to the edge and there isn’t a change. 

Question: President Bush’s policies are quiet different than Clinton’s.

Ambassador Wilson: That is true.  But the change takes place with the inauguration of the new president, not prior.

Question:  What are the differences between the two parties, just your impressions, just to get an idea from an American.

Ambassador:  I don’t want to go too far in this line of questions, to be honest.  One of the things that I was struck by when I was back in the States in late March are these very intense arguments, the discussions going on that you see reflected in the press over Iraq.  The new Democratic leadership, especially in the House, to some extent in the Senate, is very aggressively pushing for a timetable for withdrawal, and for clear progress in the withdrawal of forces from Iraq.  Not all Democrats take that position.  Frankly, not all Republicans are opposed.  It is a little bit more bipartisan than that and I think that is likely to play out as one of the critical fault lines as we move to the November 2008 elections of my country.

Question:  There will be a referendum in Iraq but sometimes there is some news that says the referendum is postponed.  What do you think about this?  Is it a good idea

Ambassador Wilson:  The Iraqi constitution, as you know -- I think it is article 140 -- sets out a procedure with respect to Kirkuk, I assume that’s what you are referring to, and says that a referendum is supposed to take place by the end of 2007.  I don’t know if that’ll take place in time or not.  There are lots of target dates and time frames both in the constitution and in Iraqi legislation and in Iraqi political decisions that have slipped.  And in some cases slipped quite significantly.  Whether that is going to be the fate of this particular provision or not, I don’t know.  I do know that there is a lively conversation going on in Iraq about Kirkuk, about the wisdom of going forward with this referendum.  What should be the timing, what will be the effect if it goes ahead, either on schedule or more or less on schedule?  There is a lively political debate going on in Iraq (inaudible

Question:  Do you feel is it the right time for a referendum in Iraq?

Ambassador Wilson: I think the United States view is that, at the end of the day, it is an issue for the Iraqis to decide themselves.  When or how to arrive at that solution it is not something for us or for outsiders to dictate and especially not to dictate it publicly.

Question: You are not giving us any scoops.  Washington is against Erdogan’s presidency or something like that (laughter).

Question:  It was a pleasure being with you.

Question: How about military action from Turkish army?  Sometimes there are rumors they say Turkish military will have a military action.  As far as I understand, there is debate between Turkish government and the United States for PKK, for some leaders of PKK will be, I don’t know, will captured and given to Turkey, what do you think about this?

Ambassador Wilson: I don’t want to speculate about what specific action we are going to take with Turkey with respect to the PKK.  There is a different conversation and we will make those kinds of steps, knowing the right place and the right time.  One thing that is fairly obvious is -- just look at what we are doing in Iraq -- it is really hard.  And I would assume that people of any country sort of looking at the possibility of military actions in Iraq will kind of think about that.  Think about how difficult it is, how risky it is.  You don’t know where a given set of steps is going to lead, what will come of that.  We are not having a very successful time, and I would assume that that would lead to some conservatism on the part of others as Turkey is probably conservative on the issue of using military force to try to address its concerns there.  That is among many reasons why specifically on the PKK issue, Turkey is working closely with us through General Ralston, through General Baser, and we hope also with the Iraqis to deal with this in a cooperative and collaborative manner, that avoids some of the risks and the pitfalls of trying to do (inaudible)

Question:  Do you know something about the relationship between United States and Iran?

Question:  Especially after the British soldiers affair.   It was a diplomatic victory (inaudible)

Ambassador Wilson:  I am not sure that I see any great changes in our approach to Iran.  All of the concerns we had are still there.  Our offer put forward in June last year to negotiate directly with the Iranians on all aspects of our relationship, if and as they will suspend the nuclear uranium enrichment activities, that offer remains on the table.  We have never taken it off the table. The Secretary fairly recently has reiterated that we are committed to that offer.  There were a little bit of conversation during the Neighbors of Iraq conference that took place in Baghdad in March.  I assume when we get to this meeting now that the Iraqis and Egyptians announced for early May in Sharm El-Sheikh, there could on the margins of that be an opportunity for further discussions with the Iranians, and with the Syrians and among the other players who are there, and that is probably a good thing.  Where that will lead, I don’t know.

Question:  Thank you. 

Ambassador Wilson:  Thank you.