13.03.2003
'Peace-loving' parliament
The grand national assembly has voted against the deployment of US troops on Turkish territory. But things are not always as they seem, explains Aziz Demir. If we are not to be dragged into war, we need our own, working class approach
Once more Turkey has done the unexpected. The grand national assembly (GNA - Turkish parliament) has declined to accept an enabling bill that would allow "deployment of foreign troops on Turkish territory" and "sending Turkish troops abroad", and by doing so seemingly derailed US plans to invade Iraq from the north as well as the south. This brought Turkey suddenly into focus for all those who stand against the impending war. Many genuine anti-war activists sent messages of thanks to the GNA or referred to it as an example to be followed in their public speeches. This caused confusion on the left. What happened to the 'US lackey', 'the army-led, Kurd-bashing, Cyprus-occupying' country that it suddenly acted apparently against the interest of the US-led coalition just as it was preparing its nice, cosy war against Iraq? To understand the real process going on in Turkey with regards to the accelerated war preparations, which now seem to have entered their final phase, we must step back a little and try to see things in perspective. Almost all the left agrees that the war preparations are nothing but a step towards the imperialist redivision of the Middle East. However, apart from this basic consensus, there is very little else they share in common. Those who view imperialism as simply the policies of the USA and other advanced countries in respect to the underdeveloped world fail to understand the intricate relations and contradictions within the hierarchy of global capitalism. Middle East redivision One of the reasons for the intensified competition between the imperialist forces leading to the redivision of global markets is the vacuum left behind after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of 'existing socialism' in other countries. Once imperialism's main rival had vanished, the subsequent decade set the scene for the redivision of central and eastern Europe, central Asia and the Caucasian countries. The undermining of Yugoslavia through a civil war was conducted with the covert but evident support of imperialism, and dismemberment was achieved through the overt intervention of the Nato armies. The predicament of Yugoslavia more or less completed the redivision of all the Balkan countries for the time being. Now almost all central and eastern European and Balkan countries are drawn towards the orbit of Nato and the European Union. It is well known that at present some of these states are providing the US with supply and transit bases in preparation for the approaching war, and safe bases for the US to train clandestine Iraqi forces. Bulgaria, because it happens to be a member of the UN security council, has become a key country. The redivision of central Asia reached a new stage after the September 11 attacks on the US mainland. Using the pretext of forming a coalition against 'islamic terrorists', the USA gained a military foothold in the region for the first time. It now has bases in five central Asian countries. It also occupied Afghanistan with the support of ethnic groups closely related to those central Asian countries, and formed a puppet regime which would not have existed more than five minutes had the US withdrawn. The redivision of this massive land mass with its huge population and resources - the greatest since World War II - took some time. It seems that it will take a good few more years to consolidate the gains of imperialism and reorganise the economy and politics of those countries. However, imperialism is willing and able to undertake the half finished job that was deferred due to the huge undertaking of redividing the Soviet sphere of influence. In the early 1990s, after the invasion of Kuwait, the war aims of the imperialists were limited in regards to Iraq. Even though they called on the population, especially the national and religious minorities, to rise against the regime, they were not prepared to maintain a long drawn out campaign in the region. They thought they would not be able to keep a dismembered Iraq under control while the redivision of the Soviet sphere was not fully complete. They realised that any hasty moves in Iraq would see Iran and Turkey looking for a share of the spoils, and the likely ensuing conflict would be difficult to manage. So they abandoned the Shia Arabs and Kurds, who rose against the Saddam regime in anticipation of the promised armed support, to their fate at the hands of the Iraqi regime and its ruthless army. And they deferred the redivision of Iraq until a more opportune time. Since then they have kept the Iraqi forces under control by the flight restrictions imposed over southern and northern Iraq and through depleting its defences by intermittent air strikes. They have maintained a tight grip through the policy of economic sanctions. They have taken steps to disarm Iraq through the inspection regime. Unfinished business From the point of view of the main imperialist power, the time has now come to complete the half finished business of dividing Iraq. Despite the opposition of other imperialists, the USA and UK have taken the lead in the drive to forcibly redivide Iraq, and to redraw the borders in the Middle East. They want to establish unchallenged domination in the region, to maintain undisputed control over the crude oil and natural gas reserves, as well as the pipelines and sea lanes used for transporting them across the world. This is a very substantial undertaking and it may be one of the defining moments in the history of Middle East. This war will act as a powerful deterrent to Iran and Syria, curbing their expansionist aims, their hostile stance against the USA and their dismal attempts at exporting their kind of 'revolution' to other countries of the region. It will give a powerful warning to Egypt and Jordan, whose disharmonious voices have occasionally been heard. It will also provide a strong reminder to Saudi Arabia and other oil sheikdoms that their control over the oil wells came about through imperialist intervention, and has been maintained through imperialism's military might. Now they are open to regime change at the whim of imperialism, if they fail to deliver the goods. The winds cooling the relationship between the USA and Saudi Arabia drove the US army to seek out new bases in the Gulf states for their operations against Iraq. These cooling winds also chill the hearts of the sheiks, and make them tremble at the thought that their days may be numbered. In the meantime, US imperialism is prepared to give Israel every support and allow it a free hand, while through its ever increasing paramilitary activity and military pressure it has taken back all the concessions given to the Palestinians. Pitiful pretexts The USA has calculated that it exercises sufficient domination in the region and in the world to undertake such a big step as the redivision of the Middle East despite the fierce opposition of other imperialists. However, it is apparent that there are still strong challenges to fend off. The US-UK coalition intends to fight a war on Iraqi territory, crushing its army, changing its regime and maintaining an occupation for quite a long time in the face of the opposition of their rivals. For them the United Nations - established to keep the inter-imperialist rivalry under control - has become irrelevant. Brute force is now the order of the day. They seem to have no regard for world public opinion. They barely veil their aggressive plans and attempt to justify them using the most pitiful of pretexts. "Saddam's regime is a dictatorship" - as if they themselves have never dealt with this dictator or bolstered him and his regime when he fought his war against 'revolutionary' Iran. They try to present themselves as campaigners for democracy, while their recent history is littered with blatant support for military dictatorships that have breached human rights and crushed democracy. "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated" - although they themselves have assembled the most destructive arsenal the world has ever known. They try to pretend that their aggressive war is nothing but a peace-loving disarmament campaign, while they cannot even prove that Iraq has such weapons. "Saddam's regime tramples over the rights of the Kurds and Shia Arabs" - they attempt to wrap themselves in the mantle of the oppressed nations' friend, as if they themselves were not responsible for killing, maiming, oppressing, enslaving and exterminating people of many oppressed nations. They provide yet another historical example of how the imperialists can use the struggle of oppressed nations for self-determination in their own interests. At the same time as these pretexts have been circulating among the monopoly media across the globe, the US has been striking up bilateral deals with many countries in preparation for war. Northern front During the period between the abandonment of the Kurds after the last Gulf War and the new phase of preparing for war, Kurdish territory began to be seen as an important asset for imperialism in its schemes to topple the Saddam regime. The recent experience of successfully utilising the Northern Alliance against the Taliban in Afghanistan served to embolden such plans. According to the scenario, the Kurdish territory of northern Iraq would be used as a protected forward base for US troops from their staging posts in Turkey. This would provide a secure line of communication to supply the forces attacking northern centres such as Kirkuk and Mosul, tying up Iraqi forces and facilitating operations in the south. This territory has at least eight military airfields, and they have been under the control of the Turkish armed forces since 1997 or 1998. They could rapidly be enlarged to act as forward operational bases. One of them has already reached that state of preparedness. There are also at least five strategic strongholds in Iraqi Kurdistan under the permanent control of the Turkish army. The land routes could be secured thanks to the peshmerga (Kurdish tribal militia) trained by US special forces operating in the region, together with the Turkish army. Slight problem The plan seems fine on paper but there is a slight problem. Turkish finance capital and its armed forces regard an independent Kurdistan as an anathema. They believe that any Kurdish state-like entity in northern Iraq would constitute a threat to the territorial integrity of Turkey, as it would inevitably lead to independence and provide an example for the aspirations of the Kurds of Turkey. Turkish finance capital is acutely aware of the fact that the sanctions regime and military protection have created an embryonic Kurdish state. Furthermore they know that the UN oil-for-food deal created income for this proto-state. An oil pipeline - with an outlet at a Turkish port - runs through Kurdish territory and generates a healthy revenue. Smuggling diesel into Turkey, using huge underbelly tanks, and a thriving cross-border trade provide other income streams. Similar activities take place over the Iranian border. When Turkey's relationship with Talabani and Barzani (leaders of the two main Kurdish forces in Iraq) went sour, diesel smuggling and border trading were immediately cut off in order to prevent the nascent Kurdish state accruing more substantial financial strength. While Talabani and Barzani were useful in the dirty war against the PKK fighters led by Abdullah Ocalan, they were wined and dined at official functions and provided with Turkish diplomatic passports for international travel. However, as soon as they started demanding a kind of autonomous state, all such privileges were abruptly rescinded. Consequently Turkey has insisted on the territorial integrity of Iraq in any post-war solution, and has hoped to find support for this in international law. It is yet another irony of the situation that those who have most blatantly breached international law themselves seek solace from it in desperate times. No Kurdish state The Turkish army is quite keen to allow the USA access to bases where vehicles, arms, material and ammunition may be deployed for the war effort. However, they are not so keen to allow the deployment of a large number of US troops. They have proposed to do the job for the Americans through the use of Turkish troops. Both parties know what is at stake. The Kurds have made it very plain to the US that a Turkish-run show in the north would mean Kurdish forces being sidelined. It would end up with the Turkish army occupying the best parts of Iraqi Kurdistan in the shape of the Kirkuk and Mosul oilfields and the land communication routes. The nascent Kurdish state would be confined to the inhospitable mountains bordering Iran, if it ever came into existence. For their part the Americans are trying to prevent a substantial number of Turkish forces from playing any active part in the war and want to restrict them to providing security and logistical support services for the US military. They favour giving a more prominent role to the peshmerga - at present being trained in bases in Romania, Hungary, etc - by arming a larger number of their units and providing them with heavier weaponry. Turkey has insisted that the peshmerga must be disarmed after military operations have ended. They fear that despite all the promises the weapons issued to them would not be returned and would be used against Turkish forces in a bid for Kurdish independence. Turkey's expansionism The thorny issue of how to handle US allies in Kurdistan has become a stumbling block disrupting harmonious relations between the marauders: that is, the USA and Turkey. However, there are other issues giving rise to conflict with American interests. Turkish finance capital has long been striving to become imperialist. Since the military takeover of 1980, finance capital has taken major strides to open up the Turkish economy for global capitalism by intensifying its links with international finance capital and strengthening its role in the international division of labour. It has achieved a major leap in exports, and has managed to gain a foothold in the overseeing of construction contracting, service provision and manufacturing investments abroad - mainly in the countries of the former Soviet Union and in the Middle East. It has also made inroads into European and American markets. Turkey is becoming an important production centre in the automobile industry, manufacturing components for export. The earnings from this sector are higher than those of the traditional lead and textiles industries. Durable consumer goods are also booming. The lack of oil or gas reserves has driven finance capital to cooperate more closely with the Turkic states of the Caucasus and central Asia. Taking advantage of the competition between the US and Russia, it has laid plans for an important pipeline carrying output from the Azerbaijani, and possibly Turkmen, oilfields to one of Turkey's Mediterranean ports. Despite American opposition, Turkey has laid an underwater gas pipeline from Russia via the Black Sea. It also acquired gas from Iran through a recently built pipeline - again despite US opposition. Hence it is on its way to resolving the constant problem of secure energy supplies. So economic relations with the east have become quite important for Turkish finance capital, even though its main industrial base and banking activity has always oriented to the west. Foreign investment in the east has become ever more important, albeit usually as the minor partner or agent of the US in the region. Therefore, while Turkey is very keen to take part in the US-led war in Iraq, it is very careful not to endanger any of its relations with these countries. As their regimes, in the absence of any democratic legitimacy, are for the most part heavily dependent on maintaining their muslim identity, taking part in a US-led attack of the 'christian coalition forces' against an islamic country would be highly problematic for their relations with Turkey. It would also be a major cause for concern as regards the internal politics of Turkey, since the same issue affects the islamist politicians and their popular base. Agents of USA The rush to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union has opened up new levels of cooperation between Turkey and the US. Units from the Turkish armed forces have served as part of Nato or UN peacekeeping troops in many countries, from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan. The Turkish army has provided training for a substantial number of young officers of the armies of the newly independent Turkic states. Turkish universities have educated a growing number of the new generation of state officials and entrepreneurs of those countries. When backed by the US, Turkish finance capital has proved able to achieve or make substantial progress with some of its key foreign policy aims. For example, with US backing it put pressure on Syria to have the leadership of the PKK expelled from that country, and this led to the capture of Ocalan with the assistance of US intelligence. In addition the most important supporter of Turkey's bid to join the European Union has been the US. Through its Trojan horses the USA wishes to strengthen its hand vis-à -vis the EU in the face of increasingly stubborn competition from Germany and France, and it engaged in a good deal of arm-twisting during the recent negotiations. Even though this did not achieve everything, it allowed Turkey to take a major step in the right direction. The stage Turkey has reached in the development of its finance capital makes it very keen to join the wolf pack squabbling over the redivision of the Middle East. But the Americans do not want to allow Turkey a free hand to operate in northern Iraq. Therefore Turkish capital must act very gingerly in furthering its aims, making allies from among the various rival forces. However, so far finance capital has failed to get its sectional interest accepted as the national interest by the population at large. Hence what appear to be policy blunders when subtlety is most needed. Burning chestnuts Running the show in Turkey is a newly formed government of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has an islamist background and gains popular support in the main from moderate muslims. Although it recently acquired the approval of Turkish finance capital and its American and European allies, the AKP has been in an awkward position. Actually it had to handle three hot chestnuts pulled from the embers within a short space of time. In the first days of the new administration, it was obliged to take over the final stages of the European enlargement negotiations. Secondly it has had to deal with the increasing pressure of finding a solution in relation to Cyprus. Finally it is faced with the task of getting the population to accept direct involvement with the US-led war against Iraq. Each of these issues has required a substantial push against the grain in order to secure acceptance from the public. It is in the nature of imperialism, for example, to drive to war, even against a predominantly islamic country. As avowed islamists AKP leaders would have voted against war with Iraq if they had been in opposition. So from the very start the hot chestnuts began to burn AKP fingers. First they declared that they "do not want to see Iraqi children burning in their sleep" and therefore they would "seek a peaceful solution". They undertook a whistle-stop tour of Middle Eastern countries, while top ministers visited US and European allies. These efforts led to the convening of the Istanbul conference of foreign ministers of several regional countries. It came to nothing, as expected. While this hopeless sham was played out in public, the AKP government signed several secret memoranda with the USA, and an enabling bill providing "supply and logistic bases to the US for a limited period" was quickly forced through the GNA. It became apparent that the AKP government is pro-war and in harmony with the spokesmen of finance capital. The deployment of a US troops, officers and engineers started immediately. Ports, railroads (the infamous Baghdad railroad of World War I, laid and used by the Germans despite stiff opposition from Britain, which eventually became a main artery during the hostilities), airports and airfields were quickly inspected, and enlargement, rebuilding and restocking started. The logistics and construction companies of finance capital happily obliged. Simultaneously the Turkish army's own preparation started. They began to transport armoured units from western Turkey and deploy them on the border or in Iraq itself. AKP lies Finance capital and the AKP government resorted to American-style false pretexts in the attempt to get the support of the population for the next stage of their warmongering. "We cannot stay out of an inevitable conflict" is used the most to hide their expansionist, aggressive aims. It is reinforced with: "We must be at the table deciding the fate of Iraq in the aftermath of the war" - implying that if Turkey were to take an active part, it would end up with a bigger share of the spoils. "We must intervene to stop the expected wave of Kurdish refugees in northern Iraq" is used with reference to the events experienced during the previous Gulf conflict. By doing so, they display their reactionary and racist contempt for the Kurds. "We must prevent the formation of a state in Iraqi Kurdistan" is an attempt to capitalise on the nationalism prevailing among the population after the prolonged war in Turkish Kurdistan. "The Arabs stabbed us in the back during the World War I" is used with reference to the Lawrence-led revolt against Ottoman rule, in order to sow the seeds of enmity against Arabs and prepare the public for war. "We have to defend the national rights of our Turkmen minority kinsmen living in northern Iraq" provides another excuse for intervening in post-war developments in northern Iraq. In this way the government also winks in the direction of the nationalist-fascist-chauvinist-expansionist tendencies that lurk within the armed forces, the civil service and the security forces. "We shall demand the Ottoman share of the Mosul and Kirkuk oilfields" is used with reference to a long-forgotten agreement with Britain during the establishment of the border between Turkey and Iraq. The dividends of these shares were paid to the Turkish treasury up until the late 1950s when Iraqi oil was nationalised. They hope that this will put a glint in the eyes of Turkish workers, who have been badly hit by the severe economic crisis of recent years. "If we join the war, it would open the taps of US credit" is the other carrot dangled before the petty bourgeois, small capitalists, minor civil servants and public sector workers, who have all borne the brunt of the economic crisis. Slaughterhouse negotiations With the media monopolies' propaganda machine in full swing, the AKP government entered into further negotiations with the USA. The issues were financial grants and credit facilities to be provided to Turkey, and the extent to which Turkey would be given a long leash after the war. While attempts were made to disguise these negotiations under the pretext of "defending the national interest and minimising financial losses", the ploy failed dismally. What was negotiated became apparent. It was the blood, limbs and life of the young conscripts - sons of the working class and toiling people. Opposition to the war surged. Public opinion polls show up to 95 % against. The American and European press began to carry cartoons mocking the cash-hungry prostitution of the Turkish government before the US administration. Shock-horror indignation was expressed in the media, as if such negotiations had never happened before. The US timetable to war meant the horse-trading could only go on for so long. The demands of the AKP government were not met. Nor were the required written guarantees given. Moreover the determination of the US administration to proceed urgently did not allow the niceties of international law to be observed. The 'legitimacy' of the war became a contentious issue. All these facts combined to make the AKP government's task in the GNA a very difficult one. Government beaten The government tried to sneak in its proposals through the back door. There had been a consensus across the assembly that the Turkish army should be given a free hand to enter Iraq in order to prevent or suppress any attempt at establishing an independent Kurdish state. The government tried to make use of that consensus. It attached a rider clause to the draft enabling bill allowing "Turkish armed forces to operate abroad" which also permitted the "presence of foreign troops on Turkish territory". The government hoped that it would pass without much trouble, apart from the 'usual suspects': that is, the out and out islamists who would never vote for such a measure. However, the government failed to persuade its own deputies. The party leaders did not dare apply its version of a three-line whip. They realised that the AKP was in serious danger of splitting, since its hard-core islamist wing, which would not vote for the draft bill even if it were under discipline to do so, was more influential then anticipated. The assembly's speaker and some ministers openly declared their opposition to the bill. This division occurred at a very delicate moment. AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan was due to be elected to the assembly and take over the post of prime minister. At the same time the high court-imposed ban on the former undisputed leader of the islamist movement, Necmettin Erbakan, preventing him from participating in politics, had just ended. Therefore to avoid a public rift the leadership opted to let everybody vote according to individual conscience. They calculated that only about 30 from amongst their ranks would oppose the draft bill. Such calculations were shown to be completely wrong. About 100 AKP members refused to back it. The opposition Republican People's Party adopted a binding group resolution and voted as a bloc against the draft bill. In total there were 250 votes against and in addition several members took part in the assembly session but abstained. Although the majority of AKP members supported the draft bill, it got only 264 votes. However, the article in the constitution regulating the adoption of resolutions sending troops to war or allowing foreign troops on Turkish territory requires a majority of all members taking part in the session of the assembly. As the 'yes' votes did not reach the magic 267, the draft bill was declared not carried. If those who declined to vote had been persuaded not to participate in the session at all, the 'yes' votes would have been enough to carry the bill. Government adamant A hullabaloo ensued. Government spokesmen tried to play down the importance of the defeat in a very terse and nervous press conference. Some tried to claim that this was democracy in action and that the assembly's voice was paramount. The spokesmen of finance capital thought otherwise. It was pointed out that, far from democracy in action, the vote constituted a dismal failure which would do all manner of harm to the national interest - despite its clear majority in the assembly the government could not enter into any serious negotiations, as nobody would take them seriously. Some elements were very open in their demands. They wanted a second draft presented to the assembly for adoption at once. In the event of failure the government should resign. Next day the government adopted a 'business as usual' approach. It proposed a last-minute increase in taxation on the grounds that US financial aid would no longer be forthcoming and the undertakings given to the IMF and World Bank could not be met without increased revenue. So the only casualty of the government's defeat were the working people who pay taxes! Representatives of the US administration appeared quite sanguine. War preparations continued without any regard for the defeat of the bill. Supply ships have continued to bring in regular cargoes of vehicles, machinery and logistical equipment, which are loaded onto civilian trucks and transported to bases in the border region. As yet armaments and solders have been disembarked in very limited numbers. But the construction and preparation of bases is going ahead at full speed. In a week or so they will be ready for troops, heavy armour and ammunition. And a new enabling bill will be in place. Finance capital in uniform says yes Just a day before the voting there was a scheduled meeting of the national security council (NSC), where the inner cabinet meets the top generals under the chairmanship of the president of the republic. Some expected a declaration from the NSC supporting the draft enabling bill. It did not come and the top brass were subject to criticism. However, a few days after the government's defeat, the armed forces' chief of staff stated that the army was in full agreement with the government's approach. He said that the NSC is constitutionally charged with advising the government, not the GNA. Therefore it would have been inappropriate if it had made a declaration in support of the draft. What a democratic institution this NSC is! Finance capital does not fully trust the AKP, as its leaders were prominent islamists up to a few months ago. But it had been willing to give them a chance to prove themselves loyal servants of finance capital. They had, however, failed to deliver. Now finance capital in uniform has spoken and the required enabling bill would be passed by the obliging assembly within a couple of days. Everybody would know where real power lay. To save their political skins the loyal servants would willingly do the bidding of uniformed finance capital and would not dare act against their interests at least in the short term. Duty of the working class Turkish finance capital is determined to follow the US into the imperialist war for the redivision of Iraq and the Middle East. But bourgeois politics offers nothing for workers and the working class should refuse to be tied to finance capital's chariot of war. It cannot support any section of the warring parties. The working class cannot support the aims of the Iraqi, Turkish or US bourgeoisie. Communists say that in this war to stand against US imperialism is not enough. The working class must oppose the imperialist war of redivision by supporting the international unity and organisation of the workers of all countries, and by raising the struggle to topple the bourgeoisie in each and every country. Communists say that in this imperialist war taking a stand for peace is not enough. If you want peace, you should raise the struggle to overthrow bourgeois power in your own country. The struggle for peace cannot be separated from the struggle for the power of the working class. The enemy of the working class is not outside but within the country. As with all countries, the enemy of the working class of Turkey is the bourgeoisie of Turkey. Unless we topple them, the danger of a slide into war remains. Therefore the Communist Party of Turkey has issued the following call: * If you wish to prevent war, raise the struggle for democracy, freedom and socialism in your own country and everywhere in the world! * If you oppose the war, struggle for working class power in your own country and everywhere in the world! * If you oppose the ever increasing expansionism of imperialism, strive for worldwide unity and raise the joint struggle of the working class! * If you are for the right of nations oppressed by military-fascist dictatorships to self-determination, struggle for democracy without limits, for the power of the working class! * If you want to get rid of war, in a word, raise the workers' voice!
Worker