Speeches

On-The-Record Press Roundtable With Ambassador Edelman Following The Visit Of Secretary Of State Condoleeza Rice

Ankara, February 8, 2005

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: Thank you all for coming this morning. I thought what I would do is just spend a little bit of time with all of you and I am happy to do it on-the-record, and talk about whatever is on your minds and the state of the relationship. We’ve obviously been through a very intense period of consultation between Turkey and the United States. I was asking my colleagues in the embassy if they could think of one other embassy around the world that over the last six weeks has had the Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, the Combatant Commander of the Central Command and the Supreme Allied Commander, not to mention the number of senior congressional visitors who have been here as well. I think the discussions have been beneficial to both sides in trying to have a better understanding of how we can put the relationship on the best possible footing because of its importance to both countries. And obviously I don’t want to, in any way, detract from what the Secretary and Minister said at their press conference at the airport, and I know some of you were there. But I think we have on both sides a strong recognition of the importance of this relationship for both countries and its broad, multi-variate complexity. And I think that is a good thing for both sides. I don’t have anything else really to say from my side but I will be happy to take any questions that anybody has.

QUESTION: Most probably we will talk about Iraq very long. That is why I want to start with Iran.

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: OK.

QUESTION: I am Osman Sertoglu from CNN-Turk. There was no question asked to Secretary Rice and Foreign Minister Gul during the press conference, but what about Iran? Was this issue on the table and what are we expecting now from Turkey’s side, and what is their reaction on Iran?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: Well, Iran really did not feature very much in the discussions that Dr. Rice had when she was here. We had a broad agenda of issues that we covered, but we did not specifically spend very much time on Iran. It has been a subject, of course, in some of the other discussions that we have had. There have been no specific requests in any of those discussions of Turkey. What we have discussed with various interlocutors is the concern that we have – shared by a lot of colleagues in Europe – and I believe shared by responsible people here in Turkey – that Iran’s progress on the nuclear front is potentially troubling because of its pattern of activity in the nuclear fuel cycle that creates at least the potential of proliferation and its admitted past of deception with regard to the IAEA and its uranium enrichment efforts. There is no real development there in the U.S.-Turkey front, other than to say that we regard what we have found troubling and worrisome. Our Turkish colleagues have spoken about how they see the situation, and in terms of how we intend to proceed, I think Secretary Rice spoke to that when she was asked directly about it when she was in the U.K. We think that there is a diplomatic process underway, and we support that process. We want to see it be successful. We certainly don’t believe that the diplomatic possibilities have been exhausted yet and we look for everybody’s assistance in trying to make sure that we can get such a result. We have had in the past very good cooperation with Turkey and the IAEA board governors on this subject and I don’t see any reason why that kind of cooperation cannot or should not continue. I would add, by the way, that if you go back and actually look at the transcript of what Vice President Cheney said on this subject a few days before – I think it was actually the day of the inauguration if you read the full transcript, actually he had said exactly the same thing. We think this is a process that needs to be handled diplomatically. But it is a matter of concern of course to everybody, certainly here in the region, certainly to Iran’s neighbors, notably including Turkey, who signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty with certain understandings about living in a non-nuclear neighborhood.

QUESTION: Mr. Feith proposed cooperation against proliferation of nuclear threats in the region, and Turkey can have a leadership role in the region if it wants. But unless Israel is included in this process, in this mechanism, do you think that such a mechanism can work in the region?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: What Secretary Feith was talking about was something very specific, which is the Proliferation Security Initiative, which is something that the President proposed a while back and which we have been working on in a multilateral framework with a number of countries, including Turkey. The Proliferation Security Initiative is meant to deal not per se with the issue of Iran, but with the broader problem of trafficking in weapons materials, either components, fissile material, or other elements. It was, for instance, a Proliferation Security Initiative type effort which intercepted a shipment of materials to Libya that helped Libya reach the ultimate decision to abandon its nuclear weapons program. We think that is a positive thing. Turkey has already been involved in the Proliferation Security Initiative. We’d like to see Turkey play more of a role, it certainly has the capability to do so, and I think we will have good cooperation on that again, as we have had in the past.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, I’m Ayhan Simsek of Cumhuriyet. As far as we know, some of the components of these nuclear efforts to Iran are transferred to Turkey. Do you have some concerns on that and did they raise the issues on some levels during the visit to Turkey?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: That has not been discussed in any of the discussions, certainly not at that level of detail. I think it ought to be a matter of concern for all countries as a part of their own efforts at what we call “homeland security.” But our homeland security effort has its own parallel here in Turkey, in terms of Turkish efforts to protect its homeland. We all ought to be sensitive to this kind of trafficking in material. First of all, some of us have obligations under the NPT as part of various groups – the London Suppliers Group, the Zangger Committee – there are all sorts of mechanisms under the NPT to try and deal with some this, but we found that, because of some very sophisticated networks like the A.Q. Khan network, that certainly appears to be involved in the Libya program, maybe was involved in the Iran program, that we have to develop new tools to deal with a sort of sophisticated trafficking in nuclear weapons components, and the Proliferation Security Initiative, specifically, is an effort to fill that gap and to try and deal with that aspect of a trafficking that we think is particularly dangerous, especially were it to lead to the dispersal of this kind of material, in particular to terrorist groups.

QUESTION: Conxita Isik from ANKA news agency. Ms. Rice here, I don’t remember (inaudible) the press conference said that you are considering taking some steps in order to reduce the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. I would like to know whether you could elaborate a little more on what those steps are and when they would come together.

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: Well, first of all we have taken a number of steps already to deal with the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community in Northern Cyprus and to go back and start with how we got there, of course, as part of the negotiations last spring, culminating in the involvement of the Secretary General of the United Nations personally in Burgenstock, the elaboration of the final version of the Annan Plan that was put to voters in the North and the South on April 24. We all said – we, the European Union, the U.N. and the other interested parties – we wanted to facilitate a settlement, and if the Turkish community voted to support the Annan Plan but the plan failed, we would all take steps to try to ease their isolation. That was the commitment we all made.

What we have done, since then, first of all, has been a series of steps. As you know, Secretary Powell met with Mr. Talat. I invited the Turkish Cypriot Ambassador here in Ankara in his personal capacity to our national day celebration. My colleague and counterpart in Nicosia, Mike Klosson, our Ambassador, traveled to the North to meet with Mr. Talat in his office. Those were of course important symbolic steps, but they were largely symbolic.

On the ground, we have taken some other steps. We have changed visa requirements to make them more user-friendly to the Turkish community in Northern Cyprus. We have changed our own rules about travel, how our officials can get to Northern Cyprus on personal travel. We have sent our agricultural attaché and our commercial attaché to visit Northern Cyprus. We now have our Commercial Attaché leading a group of American companies based here in Turkey to Northern Cyprus shortly to look at business opportunities there. We have tried to expand the availability of educational exchange programs in Northern Cyprus for the Turkish community there, and we have, most importantly, provided 30 million dollars – or we’re about to provide 30 million dollars – in direct assistance to the area of Northern Cyprus, and this is an addition to the 15 million that we already have as part of our assistance to the whole island that supports bi-communal, bi-zonal programs. So, the Turkish Cypriot community was already benefiting in part from that assistance but we now have 30 million dollars worth of assistance here. I don’t want to get ahead of ourselves. I have a colleague here, Thomas Mefford, from the U.S. Agency for International Development, who has been briefing our colleagues here in Turkey about this effort. He will be going to the island later this week, and on Friday he and Ambassador Klosson will be having a press conference, and they’ll be spelling out in more detail than I can do here, exactly how this assistance program is going to function. Now, I think that indicates that we already have taken steps, and it is those steps in fact that Minister Gul thanked the Secretary for when they had their discussion on Cyprus. We do understand that that are additional steps that can be taken, particularly with regard to trade and transportation. The one that people talk about most is the question of direct flights to Ercan Airport. There, as Secretary Rice has said, we have to, when it comes to direct flights, operate in a multilateral arena because air travel is regulated by the International Civil Aviation Agreement. There is a multilateral institution – the International Civil Aviation Organization – that has to be involved in this and there are a lot of legal steps that are required. We are looking at what we can do to try and facilitate that. In addition, we are looking at what we can do on the trade side to facilitate the entry of products, particularly agricultural products, from Northern Cyprus into the U.S. market. That requires certain legal regulatory steps in the United States that are quite lengthy, and we are looking into what we can do to accelerate those, but – I don’t want to mislead people – that is going to be a lengthy and difficult process. In any event, we believe that the most important thing that can be done for the Turkish Cypriots is to see the European Union pass its aid and trade regulation. We are not part of the E.U. but we will be talking with our European colleagues about this because the whole island’s future is in Europe. Whatever we do, either on the aid or trade side, is going to be dwarfed by what our European colleagues do, so we will continue to work with them as we did last spring during the Cyprus negotiations to try and facilitate an easing of the isolation of the community in Northern Cyprus.

QUESTION: Duygu Guvenc of Yeni Safak. During Secretary Rice’s visit, I guess one of the hottest issues was the negative or the anti-American views in the Turkish public opinion. It seems that the Turkish Government said OK to changing this perspective. But I wonder what will the U.S. do to convince Turkish opinion or to change the views?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: Public opinion is a complicated problem in any country. It is composed of a lot of different factors, and there is no doubt that I think the main component of some of the difficulties we have in public opinion here has to do with Iraq. I do think that the situation in Iraq is beginning to take a turn for the better. I don’t want to suggest that suddenly everything is going to be a bouquet of roses in Iraq, but you can already see as result of the election results a couple of important changes. One thing, I think, that is beginning to change is that in Iraq itself – and you can see this and I would commend to you some recent articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post by correspondents on the ground in Iraq – whereas before the election the focus was on the Americans and what the American military had or hadn’t done, subsequently the Iraqis, having taken their own future into their own hands by the act of voting, increasingly looked at what the Iraqi government is going to be doing and what the Iraqis themselves are going to be doing for their future. Today, the Washington Post reports that increasingly the Iraqis are turning against the insurgency and looking at it in a different light because it is attacking the things that they themselves now have gone forward to do, which is to create a democratic future for Iraq. There are indications, for instance, that the Iraqi security forces are getting more tips and information about the insurgency from normal Iraqis, so as the situation improves in Iraq if we can get through the period of the creation of a transitional assembly, the creation of a transitional presidency, and a cabinet of ministers, as we go through the process of writing a constitution, this is going to be a very, very important turning point for Iraq, for the region, and if the situation moves in a positive direction that will obviously help.

You see big signs in Europe that the position of Europeans towards the United States on this issue is changing. If you look at the article, for instance, by Jean Daniel, founder and editor of Nouvel Observateur in the International Herald Tribune, a couple of days ago he points out that democracy in Iraq changes everything in terms of Europe’s desire to work with the United States. I think there is some indication even in public opinion that in Europe some of the transatlantic divide is beginning to – the breach is beginning to – be repaired a little bit. I don’t, again, want to suggest that this is going to happen overnight or that it is going to be a very dramatic thing, but you already see signs. The German Marshall Fund just released a poll of public opinion in France and Germany. And if you look at the data in that poll, you see that first of all the re-election of President Bush is not – it is frequently attributed to him that we have all this anti-Americanism, but it is clear his re-election has not in French and German public opinion made things worse. On the contrary, if you look at public opinion, the steps that French and German respondents and American respondents say need to be taken to breach, the transatlantic divide, are very similar. The respect that both sides show for important institutions like NATO indicates the way ahead, and I think the response that Dr. Rice has already had in the UK, in Germany, and here in Turkey and that she will have I hope when she goes back to the European part of her trip, having been involved in very important work in Israel and the Palestinian territories, I think will also contribute to a different overall environment in which Turkish public opinion will be formed.

But the other thing I think that comes out of Dr. Rice’s visit is that there is an understanding that a lot gets said, a lot gets written or seen in the media, in both countries. That some of it is irresponsible, that some of it is trading in ugly stereotypes. We both operate in democracies and in free countries. Even in Turkey in the last few days court decisions are expanding the scope of free expression and free press. So we cannot, as Dr. Rice said to the Foreign Minister, in the United States control what appears in the theatres and on television. Certainly the administration would not have been happy to see Fahrenheit 9/11. But we can’t stop that. And we understand that people can’t stop things like that here. What we can do as government officials is explain to our respective publics that this is a relationship that is very, very broad. It is not just connected to one issue like Iraq. It is connected to a range of issues, including Cyprus, including Iran, which we have already talked about today, including support for Turkey’s economic reform with the IMF, including support for Turkey’s aspirations to be part of Europe and its European Union accession, including the developments in the Caucasus and in central Asia where we share important interests, including the Balkans where we have stood together as peacekeepers, and including, importantly, the positive work that both Turkey and the United States have been doing just in the last few weeks to support what looks to be a very optimistic moment, and a very constructive moment between Palestinians and Israelis.

This is a very, very broad relationship and that is what we mean when we talk about a strategic relationship, not a relationship that is defined by one issue or one sub-issue. As long as we, as government officials, are explaining that to our publics, that ought to have an impact on public opinion by making people understand how much is at stake for both countries in this relationship. I would just close out my comment on that by saying I think this is absolutely essential that both governments do this because relations between democracies can only be as good as the strength of the public opinion that underpins them. And of course we will go through ups and downs, and we have been through ups and downs in the past in the U.S.-Turkish relationship. No one should think that this moment is unique. We had problems in the 1960s at the time of the Johnson Letter; we had problems in the 1970s over Cyprus and over Vietnam. This is not new in that sense. What is important, though is that, there has to be sustained public support for the relationship because that is the only way two democratic countries can have a strong strategic relationship in the long run.

QUESTION: Osman Sert of Cumhuriyet. I have a question on Kirkuk. You know, Mr. Barzani’s new statements were in the headlines of the special Turkish websites and televisions. He is saying that no state or power can change his views on Kirkuk, and Kirkuk should be in the Kurdistan region. Don’t you think this is a fair judgment, whatever happens to Kurds trying to get Kirkuk. What are you expecting about this issue?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: I think Dr. Rice could not have been more explicit both in her private meetings with her Turkish interlocutors or in her pronouncements when she was here. That is to say, in her press conference statements with the Foreign Minister and also her interview on NTV and her interview on Kanal D. The United States believes that Iraq must remain politically united and that its territorial integrity should remain intact. That has always been our position, and it remains our position. It is a position we have conveyed repeatedly to all the parties in Iraq. They know what our position is, and I don’t want to either add or subtract from anything that she said, nor do I intend to get into a long a distance debate with other parties. People in Iraq know very clearly what our position is. I hope that, having taken the important step of voting for their own future as Iraqis in this election, having seen in the aftermath of the election the very positive steps, statements have been made by a variety of leaders who appear to be reaching out to one another in a spirit of reconciliation, in an effort to work together inclusively, certain Sunni leaders, certain Sh’ia leaders have made these statements and particularly the very important statement I think made by Prime Minister Allawi, which talked about all Iraqis whether they are Sunni Arab, whether they are Sh’ia Arab, whether they are Turkmen or Kurds or Asyrians or other minorities, all working together in an inclusive and conciliatory spirit and that’s what we hope all Iraqis will do and that’s what we think will lead to the best possible future for Iraq.

QUESTION: Deger Alkal of Vatan. Mr. Ambassador, does it worry you that the Kurdish leaders and Turkey are making several statements which are in each other’s position because it comes from both sides actually. Does it worry you and do you talk also about a probable intervention (inaudible)? Did you talk about human rights or anything else and that a probably intervention will not take place?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: We didn’t discuss that. We talked about this in terms of what the best future is for Iraq. Obviously all of Iraq’s neighbors have an interest in the outcome in Iraq. That is axiomatic. That is not a surprise to anybody. But I think in our discussions we had a very broad measure of agreement about what we see as the best future for Iraq, and that is an Iraq that is united, that has its territorial integrity intact, an Iraq where increasingly Iraqis see their primary identity as Iraqi nationals and not some other sub-identity, an Iraq in which the resources of the country are the national patrimony and don’t belong to any one group – that is already in enshrined in Transitional Administrative Law, an Iraq that won’t be a base for terrorism against any of its neighbors, notably including Turkey. That was the way we conducted discussions on both sides and there was a large measure of agreement on that.

QUESTION: So can you say that Ms. Rice had said that Kirkuk’s special status or whatever it is called is going to stay the way it is?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: What we said is this is an issue that the Iraqis are going to have to work out for themselves, and we are confident that Iraqis will find a solution to this that meets the desiderata that we all agree on, which is a unified nation state with its territorial integrity intact. They will have to find their way through all this, and the Transitional Administrative Law sets out a mechanism by which they can do it.

QUESTION: Didem Tuncay from NTV. Ms. Rice said here that you considered the PKK to be a terrorist group like Al Qaeda. However, the ways that the United States fights with these two groups seem quite different. How would you explain this difference?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: What Dr. Rice said was what has been our policy all along, which is that the PKK has always been on our list of foreign terrorist organizations, and we have been very quick to add various successor organizations as the PKK has tried to transmogrify itself first into KADEK and then into KONGRA-GEL. We’ve also worked very hard to get our European colleagues to add the PKK to their terrorist list because this is a fundamental way of trying to stop, as we have found in our dealings with Al Qaeda, a very important element is to stop the financing, stop the recruitment, and try also to stop the spread of propaganda through broadcasting. We have tried to work with European colleagues on all of those issues and with our Turkish colleagues as well on those issues. There has been, of course, cooperation in the past which I’ve talked about in previous meetings with you and with other media groups and which General Basbug, I was glad to see, acknowledged in his recent press conference. With regard to specifically military operations in Iraq against the PKK, it’s no secret that we have a very difficult security situation in Iraq, that right now our forces have many, many tasks in dealing with those who are actively targeting our forces and Iraqis in Iraq. We have our hands full with that, but that does not mean that we have forgotten, the undertaking we have, as Dr. Rice said, and I just repeated this morning, to keep Iraq from becoming a base or source for terrorism against any of its neighbors, including Iraq. And we will find ways to try and do that to degrade the ability of the PKK to threaten Turkey and threaten Turkish citizens as best we can with the appropriate means as we go along.

QUESTION: Serkan Demirtas of Radikal. A very important character in the U.S. Administration Cabinet, Mr. Rumsfeld, still blames Turkey for the insurgents, and Dr.Rice was here and tried to convince us that we still have strategic (inaudible) goals. How can we go on further in bilateral relations when Mr. Rumsfeld or persons like him still blaming Turkey for the situation in Iraq?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: I think what Secretary Rice said when she was here was that we need to be honest with ourselves and with each other about this relationship. I think, as she said, the fact we were not able ultimately to come to agreement in the spring of 2003 on the passage of U.S. troops through Turkey into Iraq was a disappointment for the United States. But as we have said all along, this is a very broad relationship. It is composed of many parts, and it would be wrong to think that because of a disappointment in one area somehow the rest of the relationship is invalidated or avoided or doesn’t progress. I know that, since I’ve been here, there has been this incessant chorus of people in Turkey who say the United States is intent on punishing Turkey. I find it hard to square that idea with in fact what our relations have been over the last two years. If the United States was interested in punishing Turkey, why would we have continued to encourage the IMF to work with Turkey on a successor program to the stand-by arrangement that just expired? Why would we have put a billion dollars into the supplemental legislation to try and cushion the Turkish economy against an exogenous shock because of the war in Iraq? Why would the United States have continued relentlessly, and I personally, to work with Government of Turkey to reach a Cyprus settlement in the spring of 2004? Why would we be working together, as we have in the broader Middle East Initiative, with Turkey as one of our valued partners in this effort to enlarge the sphere of democracy and freedom in the region that abuts Turkey and whose future is vital to Turkey’s future as a country and its future success? And why would we have supported, as we have for 40 years and continue to support, Turkey’s European vocation, European accession? I find this very hard to square with a notion of a policy based on revenge. So if you look at it as a very broad policy relationship that covers a broad array of areas, I think it makes it clear that we are beyond March 1 and are looking to the future and to what we can continue to do together to advance the interest of both countries.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador I am Evren Mesci from Sabah newspaper. The Armenian genocide issue will be coming to Congress in the spring, in March or April. I think Dr. Rice and Turkish officials have discussed this issue as well. What was the response of the Ambassador? Do you think the U.S. Government might have some difficulty to prevent (inaudible)?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: Our members of Congress of course have their own views. The Administration has its position, and we will work, as we have, with the leaders in Congress to accomplish what we think is in the best interest of not only the U.S-Turkish relationship but also the relationship that Turkey has with its neighbor Armenia. And I think we will find, as we have in the past, a way to both look back and recognize tragedies that have happened in the past, but in a way that doesn’t cloud the future of either the U.S.-Turkish relationship or Turkey’s future relations with Armenia, which are important to both countries.

QUESTION: Duygu Guvenc of Yeni Safak. Do you share the concerns of Turkey (inaudible) the return of Kurds to Kirkuk? As far as I remember, three or four months ago you – some U.S. officials – were concerned about the return of Kurds. Just after the election, Turkey still, as far as we know, Abdullah Gul had give a report about the return of numbers of the Kurds. So, (inaudible).

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: I think, again, our position has been very clear on this all along that the Transitional Administrative Law and articles 53 and 58 set out the parameters for how the question of Kirkuk ought to be handled, and on the question of returns, it sets forth a property restitution process for those who were disadvantaged by Saddam’s policies of forced demographic change. And that is available to all. It is an Iraqi Property Claims Commission. It’s been a little bit slow to get going, it needs to work through these issues as quickly as possible, although these are complicated issues, but it ought to be done in a transparent, law-based manner, and that’s available to all who were disadvantaged by Saddam, and that is a lot of people. Kurds were obviously, but so were Turkmen, so were others – Asyrians and in some sense even the people who were transplanted were disadvantaged too. So all those who were disadvantaged ought to have equal access to a transparent law and rule-based process, and that has been and that continues to be our position.

QUESTION: Do you have any numbers?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: I have seen a lot of numbers. I think these numbers are all very hard to, as General Basbug said in his press conference, very hard to pin down. So I don’t want to get into the numbers game because I think it is very hard to speak with any precision.

QUESTION: Zeynep Gurcanli of the New Anatolian. Ambassador, do you see any role that Turkey can play in the Middle East process after today’s meeting because there was also Mr. Abbas’s meeting in Turkey just before Ms. Rice’s meeting and also there were some Israeli high ranking officials visiting Turkey. So do you see what role Turkey can play?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: I think, undoubtedly, Turkey can play a positive role, and Secretary Rice and the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister talked about this in their meetings. We think it is a positive thing that the Foreign Minister went to Israel and territories after the elections, that he met with Prime Minister Sharon and had a very good and thorough meeting. He met as well, of course, with the Palestinian leadership, and, as you say, President Abbas has just been here briefly in Turkey, and Turkey remains engaged in terms of working together with the parties to provide some assistance. I don’t doubt that Turkey can do more to be constructive in supporting the parties as they take the steps that are required of them in the road map and as the Gaza withdrawal process continues. I don’t doubt that Turkey can play a role. It will have to work together with the parties to find that role, but I can see many constructive things that could be done, either in the area of training for security personnel or reconstruction. There are any number of things that Turkey can do. I think they can make a constructive contribution to the process given the fact that Turkey historically has had good relations with Israel as the only two democracies in the region. We hope that they will soon to be joined by a third democracy in the region, Iraq. I has been an important relationship but they also clearly have had ties of importance with the Palestinians as well. So I think Turkey can play an important and constructive role here.

QUESTION: Osman Sert of CNN Turk. Mr. Ambassador, I am sorry for repeating my question, but you, Ms. Rice and all American officials are saying that Iraqis should decide for the future of their own country, not only Kirkuk, but all the other issues.

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: Only if we were an occupying power, would we have a different view. Because if we were an occupying power, then we would be telling them what to do. But since we are a liberating power, what we want them to do is figure out the future for themselves.

QUESTION: But is it possible? Do you think the United States has such a right to pull back, because, OK, it is very legitimate that all the Iraqis should decide their own future, but there is an imbalance between the northern sides and the southern sides, because after the first Iraqi war, thanks to God there was a relative safe haven in the northern part, and the Kurds had the opportunity and it is very legitimate to organize themselves and to create that provisional authority. But neither the Turkmen nor the Shiite and the other Sunni, have such a right, such an opportunity, to organize themselves, and now, of course, everybody is trying to manipulate all kind of information coming from Iraq. I mean, the Turkmen have many concerns about the results of the election. They are insisting that such things happen and they are very important for us. And now you are saying that only Iraqis will decide. Don’t you think there is an imbalance between the different segments of Iraq and you are just pulling yourself back?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: First on the election returns, I think everyone ought to be a little bit careful about jumping to conclusions on the basis of preliminary and fragmentary returns. There are a lot of people who at four o’clock in the afternoon on the day of our election thought that the result was going to be quite different on the basis of fragmentary exit poll data. And I would hope that would teach people a lesson about jumping to conclusions about election results when we don’t have the final results. The votes are still being counted. We don’t have any final results from any part of Iraq yet. There have been complaints in different parts of Iraq about either inadequacies of the vote or other problems. Those complaints don’t only come from one side. We are aware that various groups either have already approached the Iraqi Independent Electoral Commission with their concerns or plan to do so. Some of those are in Kirkuk and Ninewa province. We are aware of some complaints from Turkmen. But there are also some complaints from Kurds and Arabs, Sunni Arab groups. So, there are many, many people with complaints and concerns. We’ll have to see how the Iraqi Independent Electoral Commission evaluates them and takes steps to remedy them, and I wouldn’t want to prejudge what they might do. The United States is now providing security and is training Iraqis to be able to able to increasingly provide their own security. And we will stay there. We are not pulling back. We are going to stay there as long as it takes to let the Iraqis create their own future. As I said, our objective is that Iraqis think of themselves as Iraqis and less and less as having some other identity. And, yes, there are differential elements to all of this, but one of the things that is pretty striking about democracy is how rapidly people learn to play the game. I saw this myself when I was in Central Europe after the end of Communism in Prague. I think it is actually testimony to something that the President has said repeatedly and reiterated in his inaugural address. He is fond of saying that democracy is not America’s gift to the world. It is God’s gift to mankind and all people are capable of responding to this. I think watching what has happened over the last few months in Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories and now in Iraq has got be a very heart-warming indication of peoples’ very rapid ability to respond to the opportunity, to have a say in their own destiny, and to shape their own future. Frankly, as an American, it was hard not to watch what happened in Iraq without reflecting on the fact that we Americans take our, and I think maybe people here in Turkey too, maybe take their right to vote for granted. Here were people who were risking their lives to cast their vote, and they turned out in extraordinary numbers, despite the fact that they had been threatened by all sorts of people. I think that is an indication that people are going to very rapidly learn how to play the game. We still don’t know who all has been elected. The election took place in more than one city; it took place all over the country. There are Turkmen in a lot of other places. There are Turkmen in a variety of different lists including the Sistani list, and so we will have to see what eventuates, and that is going to be a long process. It will be fascinating to watch. But I think, as the process proceeds, people will inevitably learn how to play the democratic game. And it is not like it is rocket science. It is not high physics. It is something people learn pretty quickly.

QUESTION: Deger Akal of Vatan. Mr. Ambassador, you have said that you wish Iraq (inaudible) its territorial integrity. But there is a wish to have a Kurdish state. Is thıs a legitimate wish? And if it goes through democratic ways and they stick to the rules that the U.S. and the Iraqis have pushed, what will Washington’s position be?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: As Dr. Rice said when she was here, it is for the Iraqis to decide on the future of their own country. They have a certain amount of obligations to one another. I mentioned statements that have been made by both Sh’ia leaders and Sunni leaders, and they have obligations internationally as well. And so I’m confident that the process is going to lead to a unified Iraq, which is going to be the best circumstance for all the people of Iraq, whatever their ethnic or sectarian background. And I think it will be an independent country, not subservient to any neighbor or any theory of government that is religiously based.

QUESTION: Ayhan Simsek of Cumhuriyet. General Abizaid stated the desire to have Incirlik as a center for transportation and logistics. It seems to take a long time for the Turkish side to decide on that. We don’t know at what stage is it at now. And do you have an idea to update the DECA agreement. Do you think that there is such a need now?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: Nobody that I’m aware of has proposed updating the DECA or renegotiating the DECA. The proposal for a cargo hub at Incirlik to support operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq has been put to our Turkish colleagues some months ago. We’ve said that we think this could be a useful element of cooperation between our two countries. And, I can’t really say where it is. You’d have to ask our Turkish colleagues exactly where it stands in the Turkish Government. But we are delighted that they are willing to consider it and we hope we’ll get an answer.

QUESTION: Deger Akal of Vatan. Mr. Ambassador didn’t you get any answer at all. I mean because as far as we know the Turkish Government looks positively on that but seeks a way to (inaudible).

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: We haven’t got any answer and actually it wasn’t discussed during Dr. Rice’s visit. So, we are still in the position of awaiting an answer. Incirlik is a Turkish base. Whatever we do there, we do cooperatively with the Government of Turkey. And so we just await their response to our request that they consider our proposal.

QUESTION: Ayhan Simsek of Cumhuriyet. (inaudible) Do you know at what stage (inaudible) DECA agreement (inaudible)?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: The Global Force Posture Review, I think, actually needs to be understood as a process, not an end point. And I think Secretary Feith, when he was here, addressed this in his press meeting. You are correct that one of the postulates of the Global Force Posture Review is that the kind of posture we inherited from the Cold War wasn’t consistent with the threats that we now face on a global basis, including in the global war on terror. And so we are looking for an array of different kinds of arrangements with friends and allies that would allow us to use facilities in a more flexible way. So far, we’ve had, I think, a good experience at Incirlik. We’ve cooperated there for a number of years and I don’t think at this point it is possible to say whether, in terms of what we need, the DECA is impediment or not. I certainly don’t see it that way at this point. I think in terms of what we’ve asked for, we believe those things are within the DECA.

QUESTION: Evren Mesci of Sabah. In general, how would you define Rice’s visit to Turkey? Do you think it was a step forward for both sides? Do you see a political (inaudible) when it comes to the Turkish-American relationship?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: Well, first let me just say that I think Dr. Rice was very pleased with her visit. I believe the Turkish hosts were pleased as well, and so I’m pleased. I think we had a good discussion, as I said, of a range of issues. It was done in a spirit of two allies talking about issues, including those where there have been problems, in a very honest and direct way with one and another. And with the both sides stressing that this is a broad relationship that’s important for both countries and that whatever things might divide us from time to time, the things that unite us are much broader and much more as important. As Foreign Minister Gul said, they go to the question of principles and values that we share and have shared for a long time as allies. So, the fact that the Secretary included Turkey on her itinerary for her very first trip as Secretary, within a day or so of being sworn in, I think in and of itself attests to the importance that we attribute to this relationship. I think the fact that it comes as a culmination, as I said at the outset, of six weeks of intensifying discussions, is also positive.

The test will be whether we can continue to treat one another that way and work through our problems together, and I’m very hopeful that that’s what will happen. I wouldn’t want to get into a discussion of what any political party in Turkey thinks. We deal with governments, government to government. We have had a historically strong relationship, and we deal with governments. We don’t deal with parties. And so the government has, I think, in hosting the visit and in the discussions we’ve had over the last six weeks been a constructive interlocutor and we’ve had a good discussion, and I don’t see any reason why our relations ought to be anything other than what I’ve described as broad based, forward looking, and concentrating on those things we can do to the benefit of both peoples, such as I did yesterday, when we were able to sign a grant with the Finance Ministry and the World Bank to help keep poor children in school. We’ve got a lot of work to do and you know that is just one example of many.

One last question?

QUESTION: Deger Akal of Vatan. You have been talking about the imbalance in Iraq. Can you tell us about your concrete initiatives in order to maintain equality between all these ethnic groups?

AMBASSADOR EDELMAN: You know, as I said, ultimately Iraqis have to work this out. They know what our position is, because we tell them what our view is and we are there to help and advise. That’s what my colleagues down in our Embassy there and in our regional offices are doing. And we will continue to do that. Thank you all.