AMBASSADOR'S REMARKS & PUBLIC EVENTS

Ambassador Ross Wilson
Interview with Fikret Bila, Milliyet

May 8, 2008, Ankara

Question: My first question will be about moderate Islam. There is this wide spread notion in Turkey that the United States is supporting moderate Islam. I would like to have your comments about moderate Islam, if you support such a notion or not.

Amb. Wilson:  The term moderate Islam is not one that I use. I think the way I would characterize our policy or our approach is the following: we support and we like to work with countries that share our values and that share our goals in the world. Turkey is one of those countries. There are other countries in the world where we share some things in common, sometimes we are able to work with. There are some countries in the world that fundamentality want to change in revolutionary and destructive ways the societies that exist among some of their neighbors. And then there are non-state actors - radical movements they want to create revolution. We are not interested in those people and we consider them radical extremists. And especially to the extent that they carry out terrorism like al Qaeda, we fight them. The only other thing I would say is the term is sometimes used as short hand by people in the United States and people in the West. They are trying to distinguish some thing that they like from something like al Qaeda that they don’t like.

Question: I meant to ask you about that. This term was recently used in the Washington Post. They termed the AKP a moderate Islam party. And they say that the success of the AKP is in the interest of the United States. And Al Brooks says also used that term in discussing Turkey and Malaysia and I see that you and they use this term to make a distinction with radical Islam and regular Islam.

Amb. Wilson: I’ll repeat, I think the use of the term here - I don’t want to interpret the Washington Post, but I think they are using a kind of short phrase to describe something that is more complicated than the words they use imply; and it needs to be dealt with more carefully in the manner than it is used there.

Question: But can I say that as the official standpoint of the United States, does the United States support a secular Turkey?

Amb. Wilson:  Secretary Rice was very clear on this point in the remarks that she made on April 14th or 15th in Washington. The United States strongly supports democracy, democratic values in this country, and we support and respect Turkey’s democratic values and secular principles.

Question:  My second question is about the Fettullah Guven movement. The fact that he is living in the United States, that he holds an American visa makes Turkish people think that the United States is supporting the Gulen movement, and the secularist section of the society especially think so. So can I have your comments about that? How do you see the Gulen movement and what is the U.S’ stance on that?

Amb. Wilson: Well, you know in our system we have a very strict separation of matters of religion and matters of state. I think the right way to understand it is the United States neither supports nor opposes Mr. Gulen, his beliefs or what he represents. We don’t apply ideological or religious tests in deciding who to give visas to. We provide visas to all kinds of people who are very critical to us, very supportive of us, very different from us, very similar to us.

Question: And about the PKK. Does the United States make a distinction between the PKK and PJAK? Because there is again wide-spread belief in Turkey that the United States may want to use the PJAK group against Iran. So, they could be more tolerant of its actions so to speak to use it against Iran. What is your opinion about that?

Amb. Wilson: Well, the United States has no relationship with PJAK. We are not supporting or working with PJAK in any way. I’ve heard different descriptions of exactly how tightly connected PJAK and the PKK may be. I don’t have a lot of direct knowledge of exactly how close they are. My assumption is that they are more or less one in the same thing. And so, in part for that reason we do not have any thing to do with them.

Question: Recently we are observing a rise in operations in northern Iraq by Turkish Armed Forces. There has recently been an air operation. Is U.S. intelligence still involved in these operations? Is the United States still providing intelligence like it did in December?

Amb. Wilson: The intelligence sharing arrangements that were agreed upon when the Prime Minister visited Washington in November continue. And, I think, will continue.

Question: And there is a political side to this issue as well. Recently, we noticed a softening of the rhetoric between the Northern Iraq Administration and Turkey. And the statements by Barzani and Chief of Staff Buyuk Anit yesterday, their tone has some what softened.  So, has the United States played a role in softening of this discourse?

Amb. Wilson: The United States has certainly encouraged Turkey and Iraq, and Turkey and the authorities in Northern Iraq to have a dialogue on a range of subjects, including and particular to the PKK. We have also urged the Iraqi authorities and especially the authorities in the north to take effective steps to curb the freedom of action and movement and supply that the PKK has enjoyed in these remote areas of northern Iraq. We are pleased about the meeting that took place, I think, last week between Murat Ozcelik and Ambassador Davutoglu and with Prime Minister Nachevan Barzani of the Kurdistan Regional Government. We hope that that can lead to further cooperation between this country and its neighbors in Iraq and to more effective steps by the Iraqi authorities, including the authorities in the north against the PKK.

Question: In addition to military steps and the fight against the PKK to eradicate the PKK threat, there is some talk about taking cultural, social as well as political steps to fight against this threat to fully eradicate terrorism. So, what does the United States exactly mean? What are its expectations when it refers to cultural, social and political steps? What do they really entail and where is the limit to those steps?

Amb. Wilson: The specifics are really up to Turkey and Turkish authorities to define. But let me describe to you what our approach is. One of the things that we and others, I think, try to do in confronting terrorism is to as effectively as possible separate populations from terrorists. In Afghanistan, we and many others, including Turkey, through these Provincial Reconstruction Teams, try to channel economic development assistance, education, ongoing security and other support for the people so that there is no fertile ground for Taliban or al Qaeda to exploit among those people and drag them back into the tyranny that existed before 2002. Southeast Turkey is not Afghanistan, but it is economically very underdeveloped. Many Turks have told me that it is, that some elements of society in Southeast Turkey are effectively marginalized from the country’s politics. You can decide how true that is. But it seems to us that there are circumstances in Turkey and in northern Iraq and in parts of Iran and in Syria that the PKK has exploited for twenty years. So, while Turkey tries to destroy the PKK with military means, perhaps pry some of the disaffected elements away from violence and deal with these, with circumstances that the organization has exploited, this problem perhaps can be dealt with once and for all. But I’ll repeat, we don’t have a blueprint, we do not have a magic plan to the extent that there are going to be plans, they’re for the authorities of this country to develop.

Question: And about relations between Turkey and Armenia. What are your expectations or suggestions for the normalization of our relations with Armenia because this issue comes up every year?

Amb. Wilson: I have thought for some time that a key mechanism for helping to avoid the annual resolution that comes up in the United States Congress is progress in the normalization of relations between Turkey and the Republic of Armenia. I think Turkey was among the first countries to recognize Armenia when it became independent, after the collapse of Soviet Union. The proposal that the Prime Minister put forward maybe two or two and a half years ago to establish a historians commission to take a look at the past that may well be part of a broader process of normalization. At the end of the day, what we think is important is for Turks and Armenians to get on with the future and maybe deal with the past in some manner but especially get on with the future and the world that we have live in today and tomorrow.

Question: I also meant to ask about the March 1st Petition in Turkish Parliament and the hood incident in Suleymaniye. What do you think the relations between Turkey and the United States are right now in comparison with those events in the past?

Amb. Wilson: When I arrived here in December 2005, one of the first things that I said to people that I met with was that those incidents in the past were in the past and no longer are relevant to the really, directly relevant to the approach that the United States brings to its work with this country. Since 2005, I think we have achieved a lot of progress in our relations through the shared vision document that Secretary Rice and Foreign Minister Gul issued in 2006, through our collaboration on a lot of different matters, especially through our work together on the PKK since November. So, I am very pleased with the progress we have made. Obviously, it will be a challenge to try to continue that.

Question: Thank you very much Mr. Ambassador.