Anything New On 'Kurdish Issue' On The Western Front?
Friday, January 11, 2008
Turkish Daily News
CENGİZ ÇANDAR
Whenever Turkish presidents and prime ministers pay a visit to the White House
in Washington, the trip naturally becomes the number one item on the agenda in
Turkey. This is the case in all other countries as well because the United
States is the only superpower and the strongest country in the world. So being
hosted by the president of such a country is influential for the future of the
guest countries.
The United States is like the “Roman Empire of the 21st century” and to visit
the White House is perceived as having a talk with Julius Caesar.
As a person who has followed the meetings at the White House and visited the
Oval Office, I know the characteristics of the Turkish press. Following talks,
reporters leave the room and rush to the main gate to take notes on the
statements leaders make and to comment on meanings between the lines because the
“Turkish guest” holds a press briefing after leaving the White House and then
goes to a think tank organization for a speech.
These two locations help reporters to turn inside out the issues leaders discuss
such as where Turkish-American relations are heading, how bilateral relations
are going and if the meeting went well. On the following day, newspapers cover
the remarks of the guest president or prime minister about the talks in detail,
in addition to statements leaked from officials who remain anonymous.
We are usually satisfied conveying the statements released by the Turkish party.
We don't pay much attention to what the “other party” says and comments on about
the same meeting. But some remain at the White House and listen to the relevant
briefing the U.S. side gives. This, in fact, is the right thing to do. And
usually due to the reasons stemming from the features of the American system,
the U.S. briefings are more informative.
The “punch lines” of the Bush-Gül talks were apparently about seeking solutions
to the Kurdish and the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) issues along with
the Kirkuk issue. And related information came from White House-based sources,
rather than the Turkish party.
A top-level “anonymous” White House official answered questions about the Bush-Gül
talks. A 12-page document covering the questions and answers was posted on the
White House's official Web site. In this document, we see that the PKK, the
Kurdish issue and Kirkuk weighed more in the meeting.
This senior official made opening remarks first:
“There was a lengthy discussion of the PKK and a whole bunch of different
solutions to the problem. The discussion was along the lines of having a
comprehensive solution to the PKK problem, which means not just military action,
but also political action, including things within Turkey – economic, political
development, social development in the southeast, which, as you know, this
Erdoğan government had done and the Gül government will continue. So there are –
you know, there was discussion, as there is when we deal with terrorists in
different parts of the world, that you have to provide an alternative so that
the terrorists are not as attractive to various groups of people. So there was
that discussion.”
At some point one of the reporters asked: “Were the two presidents in agreement
that it requires a comprehensive effort, and not only military methods?”
“I wouldn't want to characterize President Gül,” he answered, “I think there
will be plenty of opportunities for you to ask that question, but they certainly
had the discussion, and I think that President Gül has made comments in the past
about the Kurdish population in Turkey. As you know, he's done a lot with the
Kurdish population, so I think he recognizes that. But I would urge you to ask
him that question.”
There could be a very short and easy answer to this question, isn't it? The
remarks made could be read as showing that the two leaders failed to agree on a
“concrete solution plan” or a “road map” regarding the Kurdish issue.
This top-level official at some point said that only the outlines of the subject
were discussed, not the details. Besides, from Gül's rather “reactive” response
to relevant questions, we may presume for the moment that Turkey and the Justice
and Development Party (AKP) government have no “extensive plan,” not even a
draft, for a solution to the Kurdish issue.
During the meeting the U.S. party encouraged Turkey to have contact with the
Iraqi Kurdish leadership, we understood from the following question of a
reporter:
“I'm still unclear as to what this comprehensive/political solution concerning
the PKK would look like. Dana mentioned today a long-term political solution;
you've talked about a comprehensive solution. Can you give us the broad contours
of what the U.S. position is on that? And a more specific question: Do regional
Iraqi Kurdish leaders have a seat at the table?”
“We have been urging the Turks to deal with Iraqis, both at the central
government and regional. And there has been some outreach, and we will – we hope
and we expect that there will be more because, as the president said, this is an
issue that Turkey, the U.S. and Iraq have to work on together. But in terms of a
comprehensive or a long-term or however you want to call the solution to the
PKK, I think it just recognizes the fact that the military will only be one part
of dealing with this terrorist threat. And working politically and improving the
lives of the Kurds within Iraq – within Turkey, excuse me – to make sure that
there isn't a disaffected minority that would be a recruiting pool for the PKK
is also part of a long-term solution to that issue. So that's what we'll talk
about in terms of the long-term,” responded the official, clarifying that Gül
brought the Kirkuk issue to the agenda.
He was asked, “did the president agree on the future of Kirkuk and any specific
– and any detailed agreements?”
“No, they didn't really have a detailed agreement on it,” he answered, “It was
more talking about the United Nations process. And there is a U.N.
representative up there now who has the confidence of – certainly of our
government, and I believe the Turkish government. But again, I'd let them speak
on that.
And there's a process underway, but they didn't speak about what the solution
should be – just support for that process and watching the process develop.”
To the question, “did either of them talk about the role of each of their
countries over the next six months for the process?” the Senior White House
official said, “no. Not on Kirkuk, no.”
All right, how should we read the Bush-Gül meeting?
There is nothing new that we may refer to as a “new page” opened up in bilateral
relations and neither something concrete. That is to say, there has been nothing
new since Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's visit on Nov. 5 to the White
House; only the endorsement the two leaders reached then.
If the question is “what is there?” the answer would be an “endorsement by
Washington” for the performance in the July 22, 2007 elections and Gül's
presidency. This alone is critical and meaningful.
Bush was the first foreign leader who called Gül on the phone to congratulate
him on being elected president and invited Gül to Washington. The “endorsement”
made then was made official by the White House Tuesday.
Other than that there is no data being produced in this meeting to dream about
things and to write scenarios primarily about the Kurdish issue and even the
Kirkuk issue.
