Does the US Support the Solution Process?
Published in Milliyet Gazetesi
(Turkey) on 8 May 2013
by Fuat Keyman (link to original)
(Turkey) on 8 May 2013
by Fuat Keyman (link to original)
Translated from
by Vedat Şafak Yami.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
They say, “Go to Washington if you want to find out what the U.S. is thinking about any subject pertaining to world politics.” An important dimension of the current Kurdish solution process rests on this question: How is the U.S. approaching the solution process?
I've deferred touring the Aegean region with the committee of wise men for a while and headed to Washington, D.C. During my stay in Washington, I sought out an answer to this question in my interviews and in the meetings I attended.
The Erdogan-Obama Meeting
Let me quickly point out that there will be a meeting in Washington between Erdogan and Obama next week. It is seen and taken very seriously in Washington. Syria and Iraq (primarily), Iran, Israel-Palestine and the Middle East — Arab Spring issues — will be on the table and discussed.
Undoubtedly, the Kurdish solution process will be one of the main agenda items. The process is discussed in Washington within the context of change and transformation in the Middle East and the Arab Spring.
Turkey's domestic developments will seemingly not receive much attention; the real question being cogitated is how the solution process will affect the Middle East and Arab Spring. The other main topic of conversation is what the process — on the basis of the issues in Syria and Iraq — means
In Washington, the possibility of “normalization” in Turkey-Israel relations and of Israel's apology to Turkey seems likely positive, as Obama describes it. The Iranian issue, then, has dropped to third place after Israel's apology. In 2013, in Washington, D.C., Syria and Iraq are being discussed; that will continue in full swing.
America's Ambiguity
The question I would like to share with my readers on the topic today is: How does the U.S. approximate the solution process?
After the interviews I've done, I came to the following conclusion: America's support for the peace process is not clear; on the contrary, it contains serious ambiguity. Interestingly, the source of this ambiguity stems from the idea that Turkey will gain strength as a result of both the internal peace process and the Iraqi-Syrian axis in the Middle East.
To tell it like it is, the U.S. wants Turkey to establish peace and stability in its homeland, but cannot easily accept the thought of it becoming a regional power with "Turkish-Kurdish cooperation" that has begun with the solution process. The U.S. seems not so ready for Turkey's becoming a regional power acting in cooperation with both its own Kurds and those in Iraq and Syria.
The reactive, sudden raising of the Iraq issue in the discussion is an indication of this. Yesterday, the U.S. was positive about the possibility of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq, but today it is a little skeptical about the developing relations between Turkey and northern Iraq, and wants Turkey to defend the unity of Iraq.
"Turkey-Northern Iraq relations should not result in a divided Iraq," they say.
“Turkey already supports the integrity of Iraq, yesterday and today,” I say. But clearly, I see that support for the solution process becomes ambiguous at this point.
There is a similar response on the topic of Syria, too. The civil war in Syria is seen as a main security risk. It is emphasized that the solution process shouldn't mean the fragmentation of Syria. What scares me most is that Turkey will be hustled into taking a more active role to terminate the Assad regime.
“We deplore austerity and military power deployment, so in what sense can we be more active?” I am asking; I cannot get a clear answer.
These discussions will form the agenda of the Erdogan-Obama rendezvous, which will be a difficult meeting.
In my visit to Washington, I've become more aware that the risk of the solution process is not in the country (Turkey) but outside. The solution process, first and foremost, is a "humane" process, yet it also strengthens Turkey inside and outside. We are talking not about a divided and weakened Turkey but "a strengthening Turkey."
I wonder if the world will be able to embrace this idea. This is actually one fundamental question to be answered.
I've deferred touring the Aegean region with the committee of wise men for a while and headed to Washington, D.C. During my stay in Washington, I sought out an answer to this question in my interviews and in the meetings I attended.
The Erdogan-Obama Meeting
Let me quickly point out that there will be a meeting in Washington between Erdogan and Obama next week. It is seen and taken very seriously in Washington. Syria and Iraq (primarily), Iran, Israel-Palestine and the Middle East — Arab Spring issues — will be on the table and discussed.
Undoubtedly, the Kurdish solution process will be one of the main agenda items. The process is discussed in Washington within the context of change and transformation in the Middle East and the Arab Spring.
Turkey's domestic developments will seemingly not receive much attention; the real question being cogitated is how the solution process will affect the Middle East and Arab Spring. The other main topic of conversation is what the process — on the basis of the issues in Syria and Iraq — means
In Washington, the possibility of “normalization” in Turkey-Israel relations and of Israel's apology to Turkey seems likely positive, as Obama describes it. The Iranian issue, then, has dropped to third place after Israel's apology. In 2013, in Washington, D.C., Syria and Iraq are being discussed; that will continue in full swing.
America's Ambiguity
The question I would like to share with my readers on the topic today is: How does the U.S. approximate the solution process?
After the interviews I've done, I came to the following conclusion: America's support for the peace process is not clear; on the contrary, it contains serious ambiguity. Interestingly, the source of this ambiguity stems from the idea that Turkey will gain strength as a result of both the internal peace process and the Iraqi-Syrian axis in the Middle East.
To tell it like it is, the U.S. wants Turkey to establish peace and stability in its homeland, but cannot easily accept the thought of it becoming a regional power with "Turkish-Kurdish cooperation" that has begun with the solution process. The U.S. seems not so ready for Turkey's becoming a regional power acting in cooperation with both its own Kurds and those in Iraq and Syria.
The reactive, sudden raising of the Iraq issue in the discussion is an indication of this. Yesterday, the U.S. was positive about the possibility of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq, but today it is a little skeptical about the developing relations between Turkey and northern Iraq, and wants Turkey to defend the unity of Iraq.
"Turkey-Northern Iraq relations should not result in a divided Iraq," they say.
“Turkey already supports the integrity of Iraq, yesterday and today,” I say. But clearly, I see that support for the solution process becomes ambiguous at this point.
There is a similar response on the topic of Syria, too. The civil war in Syria is seen as a main security risk. It is emphasized that the solution process shouldn't mean the fragmentation of Syria. What scares me most is that Turkey will be hustled into taking a more active role to terminate the Assad regime.
“We deplore austerity and military power deployment, so in what sense can we be more active?” I am asking; I cannot get a clear answer.
These discussions will form the agenda of the Erdogan-Obama rendezvous, which will be a difficult meeting.
In my visit to Washington, I've become more aware that the risk of the solution process is not in the country (Turkey) but outside. The solution process, first and foremost, is a "humane" process, yet it also strengthens Turkey inside and outside. We are talking not about a divided and weakened Turkey but "a strengthening Turkey."
I wonder if the world will be able to embrace this idea. This is actually one fundamental question to be answered.