Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.
| Identifier: | 03ISTANBUL1427 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 03ISTANBUL1427 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Consulate Istanbul |
| Created: | 2003-09-26 08:31:00 |
| Classification: | CONFIDENTIAL |
| Tags: | PREL PGOV TU Istanbul |
| Redacted: | This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks. |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ISTANBUL 001427 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/15/2013 TAGS: PREL, PGOV, TU, Istanbul SUBJECT: ISTANBUL VIEWS ON SENDING TURKISH TROOPS TO IRAQ Classified By: Consul General David Arnett for Reasons 1.5 (b&d) 1. (C) Summary: Istanbul residents from all walks of life continue to worry about the situation in Iraq and the prospect of sending troops to Iraq. Whomever we meet with, and whatever the subject, the conversation inevitably turns to Iraq. Despite the widespread opposition before the U.S. intervention, Turks here are now split on the issue of whether to send troops to Iraq. Many see the March 1 decision and the preceding negotiations as having been "disastrous" for U.S.-Turkish relations. Nevertheless, several of our interlocutors insist on the need for a U.N. Security Council (or at least NATO) mandate. With the notable exception of the Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association (TUSIAD), the business community has largely come out in support of Turkish participation in Iraq on the grounds that it would help secure a foothold for Turkish companies in that market and would ensure the continuation of good U.S.-Turkish relations. End Summary. 2. (C) The following sample of comments on Iraq provide a general snapshot of the views that we have been hearing: -- Istanbul Health Director (and close acquaintance of PM Erdogan) Erman Tuncer waxed eloquently on the importance of U.S.-Turkish relations, lamented how difficult (but democratic and correct) the March 1 decision had been, and insisted that a UNSCR would be critical to securing the participation of Turkish peacekeepers (Note: Tuncer somewhat disingenuously sought to blame this prerequisite on President Sezer's position. End Note). -- Former Istanbul CHP Chairman (and recent challenger) Mehmet Boluk also emphasized the need to maintain the U.S.-Turkish relationship and said that he would have supported closer cooperation with the U.S. from the beginning, including in the March 1 vote. Boluk criticized the CHP for not behaving like a "real" opposition and for ignoring Turkey's interests, noting that the British opposition had provided critical support to British PM Blair. (Note: Boluk has an axe to grind with CHP Chairman Baykal. End Note). -- Istanbul AKP Vice Chairman Murat Yalcintas told us that the AKP rank and file are opposed to sending Turkish peacekeepers, seeing it as an American effort to minimize U.S. casualties. They are suspicious, moreover, as to why the U.S. has not acted against the PKK terrorists in northern Iraq. Without some developments on that front, Yalcintas thinks it will be difficult to persuade the general public and even AKP parliamentarians to support sending Turkish troops. -- CHP parliamentarian Damla Gurel defended her decision to vote against the March 1 resolution on the grounds that "inside AKP sources" had told them that the vote would pass in any case and to do otherwise would have been personal "political suicide." Both Gurel and fellow CHP parliamentarian Onur Oymen separately told poloff that CHP is in close consultation with President Sezer and that the party remains opposed to any deployment of Turkish forces without a U.N. (or at least NATO) mandate. -- The managing director of AK Sigorta (one of the top three Turkish insurance companies) Ragip Yergin told poloff that Turkey had made a mistake not approving the March 1 resolution and that PM Erdogan "could not afford" to have another resolution fail (with or without a UNSCR). If there is a UNSCR, approval of a Turkish resolution is a "non-issue." -- MUSIAD Vice Chairman and Albayrak General Coordinator Omer Bolat said that he (and most MUSIAD members) supported the March 1 decision to deny U.S. troops access to Turkey, but that "now the situation is different." Bolat told us that the U.S. should move quickly to multilateralize the foreign presence in Iraq and Turkey should participate (providing there is a new UNSCR). -- TUSIAD's position shifted in the other direction, however, with an equivocal September 19th statement by Chairman Tuncay Ozilhan. While the press widely reported that Ozilhan called for a UN resolution as a precondition for any decision to send troops to Iraq, and argued that it did not appear likely that Turkish troops could contribute to stability there, TUSIAD sources stress that his actual statement (which they concede was "unfortunately worded") simply argued that because of increasing uncertainty in Iraq, "Turkey must think more deeply" about whether sending troops will contribute to stability there. -- Ulker (food processing giant) CEO Murat Ulker, while professing ignorance on political issues, said that "Saddam had to go and only the U.S. could do it." Ulker expressed regret about the March 1 decision and support for a possible future deployment of Turkish troops. 3. (C) Comment: The impression we get here is that a decision to send troops remains deeply unpopular. At the same time, many of those who supported the March 1 decision acknowledge that the situation has changed. Most are responsive to the argument that contributing to a stable, democratic, secular, and prosperous Iraq is very much in Turkey's own interests, but, at a minimum, they are looking for a UNSCR to provide "international legitimacy" and a cover to disassociate a Turkish troop presence from the unpopular U.S. "occupation." The most perplexing shift is that of TUSIAD, for despite arguments by Deputy Chairman Mustafa Koc and others that the September 19 statement did not represent a change in the organization's policy, it clearly marks a step back from TUSIAD's much more unequivocal position in favor of the March 1 resolution. Some argue that TUSIAD sensed the way the wind was blowing in the government, but former Ambassador and TUSIAD board member Cem Duna told us on September 24 that in his view the odds of Turkey's ultimately providing troops are still "well above 50 percent." He himself noted, however, that he had felt similarly in March. In any case, though TUSIAD represents Turkey's largest companies, it is not part of the AK government's constituency, and so is largely irrelevant to this government's decision making process. ARNETT
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04