Ambassador's remarks
Ambassador Ross Wilson Interview with Margaret Warner, PBS Newshour
Ankara, November 21, 2006
QUESTION: How worried did the Turks seem to be to you about what’s happening in Iraq, and what may happen?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I think the Turks are very concerned by the same pictures that concern a lot of Americans, a lot of people elsewhere in the world -- the difficulty that the Iraqis have had standing up the strong and effective national unity government, difficulty they have had in getting a handle on insurgent violence, the difficulty in restoring a measure of prosperity there. They live here. They neighbor Iraq. They share a long border with Iraq. They have a common history with Iraq and with the Iraqi people that goes way back. They are very concerned. They are generally supportive of what we are trying to do, and want very much for it to succeed.
QUESTION: But they also feel that their security interests are being threatened by the situation.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well they certainly feel that the problem of terrorism that Turkey has faced over the last 22 years from the so-called Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, in northern Iraq has been a very, very serious problem for them. And it is frankly the number one most immediate national security issue that Turkey faces. The other issues in Iraq, I think they view as a longer term…somewhat longer term problem, but again, they live here, they are going to be neighbors of Iraq forever and ever. To the extent that the country descends into widespread violence or the civil war that some people have feared might be coming, it is a very immediate and pressing concern for Iraq in a way that’s different I think for those of us who live farther away.
QUESTION: People in the Turkish Government have said to us that they want to be consulted heavily by the United States about the future of Iraq, and they want to work with the United States about it, and particularly involving northern Iraq and the Kurdish region and that perhaps they are not being consulted as much as they would like. How fully are the Turks being brought into the plans for the future in that area?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well I think we have tried to work closely with the Turks, Turkish authorities over the last year, year and a half. Ambassador Khalilzad has particularly relied on them in his efforts to expand Sunni participation in the government and stand up the national unity government there. He has been here several times over the last year and a half, consulted and taken opportunities to consult with Turks here, also in New York last September. Secretary Rice has certainly made Iraq a big issue for her. I have, our Iraq coordinators at the State Department have, talked with Turkey, too. You can almost never do enough consulting. I attach immense an importance to it, because Turkey is here, we need its help and support.
QUESTION: Why hasn’t the US done more – this is their other complaint – to stop the PKK raids or to go and clean them out? I mean they say, here is northern Iraq being essentially occupied by one of our allies, and yet our allies are not keeping the PKK from using it as a haven to come in and attack us.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I think the best answer is the one you get from US Central Command rather than from me. From the optic here in Turkey it has appeared to me that they have attached immense importance to Baghdad as the center of gravity in Iraq and their view that they had to give absolute priority and primacy to standing up a strong national unity government, and anything that diverted from that was not going to help accomplish the central mission. And if you didn’t accomplish the central mission, the PKK and a variety of other problems will just grow and become worse. We have over the last couple of months in response to rising PKK casualties, the casualties from PKK violence this year, significantly stepped up our efforts. Secretary Rice named retired General Joe Ralston to head up an effort on the PKK. We are very serious about it and we want to try to accomplish something.
QUESTION: So in other words, the need to have the Kurds on board and cooperative in Baghdad, in forming the government, in sustaining this government has taken precedence essentially for the United States over going after the PKK in northern Iraq.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well I think that that may have been one element. But there is also an additional and more practical element, which is US forces are rather busy. They face a number of terrorist problems, a number of insurgent problems. They have focused their primary energies on those insurgent issues that directly challenge the center of gravity in Baghdad, and that challenge our forces.
QUESTION: In other words maybe over-stretched. Now the Turks also say, you know, they look at Israel going into Lebanon after their soldiers were kidnapped. And the US supported that. Yet the US would not support Turkey on its own going into northern Iraq and cleaning out the PKK. Why not?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well obviously we recognize the right of any country to defend itself, including Turkey which has been ally of the United States for almost 50 years. We have felt for a long time that foreign intervention and foreign actions in Iraq would probably be more destabilizing than they would do good, first. Second we thought that if we have a cooperative effort with Turkey and with the Iraqi authorities, we can accomplish the same objective of insuring that northern Iraq is not a base from which PKK attacks are launched on Turkey.
QUESTION: Has the Turkish army been on the verge of going in though?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Certainly a number of us were concerned about the prospects for possible cross-border activity in the summer. The context was the rapid increase in PKK violence this year that claimed over 600 lives through the end of September. That’s a big number for any democratically elected government to bear.
QUESTION: So do you think it is still a possibility?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: What General Ralston has said is we don’t rule out any particular options. We don’t rule out the use of military force to deal with the PKK. We want in the first instance certainly to try to work more constructively and more effectively with Turkey and with the Iraqi authorities and that’s what we are trying to do.
QUESTION: The impact of the Iraq war on Turkish public opinion about the United States -- several people said they have never seen anti-Americanism as intense in Turkey as it is today. Why is that?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well I think you already identified one of the main factors. This problem of rising PKK violence that springs out of bases and effective sanctuaries in northern Iraq where, for better or worse, we are seen as the major power. An additional incident that is not well known in the United States -- in July 2003 US forces in Iraq ran across a group of what we subsequently learned were Turkish special forces there. They looked to the Americans like insurgents. They were treated…before they were identified, they were treated like insurgents, that is to say not very nicely. This was seen as humiliating to Turks. It was front-page news, and has continued to be front-page news in this country every several months when the story has resurfaced. We’ve apologized several times. It doesn’t mean that it didn’t rankle public opinion here. And then they see the other pictures of violence that has taken place in Iraq, the pictures from Abu Ghraib. These are not good images. They have not helped us here.
QUESTION: Are you also detecting a rise of nationalism in general, a sort of response both the United States and also kind of rising maybe anti-EU feel?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I think that most people here do believe and do sense a rise in Turkish nationalism. It, I think, springs from a number of different factors: the complicated situations around the periphery of this country, in the Middle East, in Iraq, in Iran, in the Caucasus, the unresolved conflict in Cyprus. They see a lot of problems as they look around. There are also problems with the United States, Iraq and the PKK being among the most obvious. They have problems with the European Union, and feel that demands are being placed on them to make a lot of changes in a very short period of time. The process of EU accession has been difficult for most countries. It has given rise to nationalist sentiments in a lot of the countries that have gone through the process and Turkey is no exception.
QUESTION: What would be the consequences or…let me first ask do you think that Turkey is either rethinking its face toward the west, or is contemplating turning to the east, where do you think that – and sometimes people use the bridge metaphor -- but where do you think that stands right now?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: It is difficult to generalize about the issue. The government and the authorities in this country still retain a very strong attachment to NATO, and to the alliance with the United States in particular. The Government attaches great importance to the effort to get into the European Union despite problems and despite difficulties that may arise. The present government has also given a lot of attention to improving Turkey’s relations with its other neighbors, relations that had become very strained in the late 1990s with Syria, with Iran, Iraq is sort of a separate, different case for obvious reasons. Some believe that that represents, or is the opening of, a fundamental shift in Turkish policy. I’m not so sure that that’s true. And in particular I’m struck by the continuing attachment to a close relationship with us, with NATO, and to pursuing a strong relationship with the EU.
QUESTION: Do you think that Turkey is going through a period of reflection on what its role is and how it defines itself?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I think all these challenges around Turkey, the difficulties with the EU and the difficulties with us and with others, sure they do lead to some reflection particularly among political figures, among columnists, other influential people here on where Turkey’s long-term interests lie. As I say I think the commitment of the government and the authorities here is pretty clear.
QUESTION: How would you describe what the debate is for them?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: The debate has a number of elements. Is Turkey going to be allowed into the European Union? Even if it does…it goes through all the changes and implements every aspect of the EU acquis that new members have to adhere to. It may still not get in because of anti-Turkish or anti-Islamic sentiment in Europe. That’s one example. Or they find themselves troubled in their relationship with us. They believed that they are strong allies that they do…that Turkey has worked hard to have a good relationship with us. And yet, on their most immediate national security problem if they are not getting the support that they would like to see. And I think that leads to a certain natural reflection about where its long-term interest may be. It certainly has been a factor I think that has led Turkey to want to improve its relations with a variety of other countries as a way to open up some other options. I’m not sure it’s a zero sum game.
QUESTION: What about the debate about secularism and about the legacy of Ataturk? Do you think that is also being re-thought?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I think the debate here over what some regard as creeping fundamentalism on the one hand, secularism and Ataturk’s principals on the other is one of the fundamental divides in Turkish politics today. There are a lot of symbols that get attached to this. It becomes very emotional. There is a strong and widespread commitment to what Ataturk did for this country and the kind of secular democracy that he established. But there are a lot of questions on the margins that then give rise to a lot of anxieties of what long term goals may be, what long term aims or secret hidden agendas could be looking on a future and that plays out in this debate.
QUESTION: So those symbols would include?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: The most prominent is the headscarf. The status of Islamic schools here and what graduates of those schools can go on to do. On the other side, status of the Greek Orthodox Church, to some extent other Christian churches that have long had a protected status in Ottoman times and also in Turkish times, but nevertheless questions arise.
QUESTION: Do you think in terms of (inaudible), the headscarf issue, why has it become, why are the two sides at such loggerheads? Americans might say why shouldn’t a young woman be able to wear a headscarf in university if she can wear a mini skirt? Are the secularists also being very absolute as well as the other side being absolute?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: That may be part of what’s going on. I think it’s a very hard issue for people that are not Turkish and don’t live here to try to deal with. We look at it as a personal liberty issue. There are also issues of personal responsibility of tradition of the symbols that take on a political importance that may be divorced from tradition and divorced from attitudes of our personal liberty and personal freedom. Our approach has been this is a matter for the Turks to sort through. We obviously support freedom of expression. We don’t really get too much into the manner in which people or in this case women may choose to express themselves.
QUESTION: So you said that it leaves a lot of anxieties about whether someone might have a secret agenda. Can you just explain that a little more?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Not really. You know, you can see some of these discussions in the Turkish press about where Turkey may be headed at some point in the future. The backdrop is that 2007 is a complicated electoral year for Turkey. The Parliament will elect a new President in the April-May timeframe. By November 2007 there must be parliamentary elections. They could be called somewhat before that. So a lot of the political forces here maneuvering with one another ahead of those elections to try to find arguments that will win them supporters, win them votes, position themselves effectively for the elections and then if there is coalition bargaining that comes after that.
QUESTION: How do you interpret what General Buyukanit said in particular about the secular nature of Turkey is under threat, that part of the job of the military is to preserve and defend and sustain, and the Turkish military will do that, that is defend the secular nature of Turkey?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I think I would say two things about this. One is the role of the military in Turkish society and in Turkish history is a complicated one. General Buyukanit is a friend of the United States. We work closely with him and, I think, effectively with him. And we were certainly pleased to see him and his current position as the Chief of the Turkish General Staff. On the specifics of the issues that he raised, this gets very quickly into a lot of very complicated issues in Turkish internal affairs that, frankly speaking, I and most of the foreign diplomats here want to be very careful in how we discuss those, certainly in public discourse. Fundamentally the issues are the ones that Turkey needs to work out. There is a very loud and very lively, very vibrant debate going on among leaders of this country, among commentators, other political and public figures. That’s a good thing. That’s what democracies do. I think we have, certainly I have, a lot of confidence in the ability of Turkey’s citizens and its institutions and its leaders to sort through these in what’s going to be a very interesting political year.
QUESTION: Do you think that the AK Party and this current government is trying to Islamicize Turkish society?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I think I’ll leave it at what I said a moment ago.
QUESTION: Do you interpret General Buyukanit’s comments -- and there were also demonstrations at Ecevit’s funeral -- that there may be a threat to take some kind of action outside the electoral system to make sure that the Islamic party doesn’t, let’s say Erdogan doesn’t, become President?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I’m not sure I want to speculate too much about potential threats. Again there is a very, very lively debate going on. People are looking for arguments that will succeed for them politically. It’ll be an interesting challenge to watch for Turkey.
QUESTION: So what would be the consequences? This is my sum up here of why this matters. Why does it matter to the United States where this period of reflection on Turkey’s part leads them?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Turkey for 50 years, 50 plus years, has been an ally of the United States. It was important during the Cold War because of where it was, on the borders of the Soviet Union. It’s still important because of where it is, on the borders of Iraq, Iran, the Middle East. It’s also important because of what it is. A democracy in a part of the world that doesn’t have too much of that, a stable and successful country in a region that doesn’t have a lot of stable and successful countries, it’s a majority Muslim country that has embraced democratic values, that has widespread free speech, widespread public debate. It has honestly held elections in a regular change of power and authority. All those are very, very good things. Second I think we very much need Turkey in terms of our diplomacy and to ensure the success of what we are trying to do in Iraq. We most certainly need Turkey’s support with respect to Iran. I think Turkey can be helpful in the Middle East. And as we look at the broader future of Europe, this country is the fastest growing large economy in Europe. It has the largest young population. It’s very dynamic. It can be an important supporter and asset to the western world. That’s why it’s important to us.
QUESTION: And so if in fact there were to be a rupture, say in the EU negotiations, what would be the negative consequences of that? What’s the risk here?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I think a number of us here would be concerned that the wrong kind of signals get sent to Turkey if there is a big break in the way that the EU and Turkey deal with one another. A break that really is seen here as fitting in with this trend that many Turks find disconcerting of inadequate support on the PKK, inadequate embrace of Turkey by the European Union, problems surround its periphery. We want to draw Turkey further into the west, further into Euro-Atlantic institutions. That’s been Turkey’s aspiration since Ataturk founded the republic 83 or so years ago. That’s in our interest.
QUESTION: I know, but, you still didn’t tell me the negative consequences. What if – and I’m not going to sit here predicting this would happen but what’s at risk here? What would happen if this rupture were to occur and Turkey were to feel pushed away perhaps, I mean that seems to be what you are describing, by the US or by Europe?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I think the best answer I can give you is that there would likely be an increase in anti-western, anti-American sentiment in this country; that is already a significant problem and an issue for us that we need to try to counteract.
QUESTION: Thank you.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Thank you.