Justus Leicht
In corso un acceso dibattito in Turchia sull’invio di truppe
per la missione ONU in Libano. La sua partecipazione è desiderato da USA ed Israele
per dare una copertura “islamica” all’operazione.
La Turchia è membro NATO e mantiene da anni strette relazioni
diplomatiche e militari con Israele.
Gli USA (che hanno favorito prestiti internazionali alla
Turchia, la quale è a sua volta un importante acquirente di armi americane) hanno
persino pensato ad un ruolo chiave della Turchia nelle forze ONU.
Israele respinge invece la partecipazione di paesi islamici
come Bangladesh, Indonesia e Malesia, che pure si sono detti disponibili all’invio
di truppe, ma che non riconoscono ufficialmente Israele.
Per la Turchia:
-
favorevole il governo di Recep Tayip Erdogan;
-
contrario il presidente Nectdet Sezer: «Finchè
la Turchi ha suoi problemi interni, non è compito suo risolvere i problemi di
sicurezza di altri paesi»; «perché l’esercito turco dovrebbe andare in Libano visto
che la Turchia non riesce ad ottenere l’appoggio nella lotta contro le
organizzazioni terroriste?» (La Turchia ha chiesto agli USA un’offensiva contro
il PKK nel Nord Irak, o di consentire all’esercito turco di condurre le proprie
operazioni punitive nell’Est. Gli USA non hanno interesse a combattere il PKK
che ha dato il proprio espresso appoggio all’occupazione americana dell’Irak). -
Contraria la maggioranza dell’opinione, che vede
la missione ONU come il completamento del lavoro non riuscito ad Israele. -
Il governo si è alienato la base tradizionale
dei partiti di destra, conservatori ed islamici, piccoli agricoltori e strati
poveri urbani con le riforme neo-liberiste del governo Erdogan sollecitate fa
FMI e UE, che hanno fatto diminuire i salari reali sono calati e portato sull’orlo
del fallimento i piccoli agricoltori. -
Lo stesso campo islamico è diviso al suo interno;
Erdogan avrebbe messo in guardia la dirigenza del suo
partito AKP dalla ripetizione del rifiuto alle truppe americane i basi in territorio
turco, che portò ad un deterioramento dei rapporti con gli USA e al
rafforzamento dell’influenza nazionalista curda nel Nord Irak. -
Oltre a diversi deputati dell’AKP, anche il
maggiore gruppo parlamentare di opposizione, il Kemalista CHP (Partito repubblicano
del popolo) si è dichiarato contrario all’invio di truppe assieme al SP (Partito
della Gioia) di Recai Kutan e Necmettin Erbakan, il fondatore del islamismo
politico in Turchia. -
Contrari anche i nazionalisti estremisti di
destra, come il fascista MHP, il cui leader ha dichiarato che le truppe turche
dovrebbero non essere inviate in Libano, ma sui monti Kandil nel Nord Irak,
dove si trovano migilaiai di mazionalisti curdi del PKK. -
Il ministro degli esteri turco, Gül, motiva la
partecipazione alle forze ONU con le tradizioni dell’impero ottomano (cosa che
non provoca favore tra i paesi arabi), o la rappresenta come sostegno ai
libanesi; in ogni caso l’intervento è presentato dal governo turco come
meramente umanitario. -
Gül ha assicurato Libano e Siria che la Turchia
non intende attaccare Hezbollah. -
Anche la Siria è favorevole alla partecipazione
turca, mettendo a disposizione per scopi logistici il proprio territorio.
Nel dibattito sui principali quotidiani liberisti e
conservatori: da una parte la speranza di utilizzare l’invio
di truppe in Libano per accrescere
la propria influenza internazionale e dall’altra timori di rimanere invischiati in un conflitto sanguinoso per gli
interessi israeliani e americani.
Wsws 06-09-01
Turkey: Conflicts over deployment of
troops to Lebanon
By Justus Leicht
While the international media has taken
Turkish participation in the UN force in Lebanon
for granted, the political
debate in Turkey
over this step has become more heated as the deadline has neared for a
decision. At issue is the dispatch of approximately 1,000 soldiers.
– The extent of the conflict is apparent from the fact that the government led by Prime Minister
Recep Tayip Erdogan of the Islamist AKP (Party for Justice and Development)
favours Turkish participation, while the Turkish president, Necdet Sezer, is
opposed.
– The majority of the population in Turkey
is opposed to sending troops to Lebanon.
Most Turks reacted to Israel’s
aggression against Lebanon
with abhorrence and anger. There is a widespread suspicion in Turkey
that the task of the planned international military operation is to finish the
job which Israel failed to
carry out—the disarmament of Hezbollah and the conversion of Lebanon into a Western protectorate.
The traditional bases of the right-wing, conservative and Islamist parties in
Turkey,
small farmers and the urban poor, are already bitter and alienated from the government.
– Following neo-liberal reforms carried out by Erdogan at the behest
of the International Monetary
Fund and the European Union, real wages have fallen and many small farmers
confront ruination. Recent weeks have witnessed large-scale protests by
hazelnut and wine producers, as well as other layers of agricultural workers.
The
Islamist camp, including the AKP itself, is split over the issue. Erdogan is said to have warned the leadership of his party against a repeat of March 2003, when
the AKP-dominated parliament refused to permit American troops to use Turkish
territory to invade Iraq
from the north. The result was a clear deterioration in relations between the
Turkish government and the US,
together with an increase in the influence of Kurdish nationalists in northern Iraq.
– Other proponents of
Turkish participation in the UN force, such as Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül, invoke the traditions
of the Ottoman
Empire—something that evokes little sympathy in Arab
countries—or depict a Turkish deployment as a means of assisting the Lebanese.
The government has stressed that the aim is an
exclusively humanitarian
intervention, and that Turkish troops will avoid engagement with
Hezbollah at all costs. During a recent trip to Lebanon,
Gül made very clear that Turkey
had no intention of taking on Hezbollah: “We will act only by taking
in consideration the wishes of the Lebanese government, people and Lebanese
groups.” His reference to Lebanese “groups” could only mean Hezbollah.
– The irony is that
the US and Israel are
vehemently in favour of a Turkish deployment in Lebanon, precisely to provide the
operation with an appropriate “Islamic” fig leaf.
– Other Muslim countries
such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia, which have also stated their readiness to send troops, do not officially recognize Israel. Jerusalem rejects any participation by such
countries and favours Turkey
instead, based on the latter’s membership in NATO and many years of close diplomatic
and military relations with Israel.
– The US, which has
repeatedly provided international loans to Turkey
and for whom Turkey is an
important customer for US armaments, has even toyed with the idea of Turkey playing a leading role in
the UN force.
– Syria has also declared its support for Turkish participation in the
international force, and has gone so far as to say it will make its territory
available for logistical purposes. The promise came during a visit by Gül to Damascus, which was officially aimed at urging Syria to exert
a moderating influence on Hezbollah. Gül no doubt reassured Syria that,
for its part, Turkey would not take action against Hezbollah.
Turkish participation in the Lebanon force is also hotly
disputed in the Turkish press, irrespective of ideological leanings. The commentaries in the largest
liberal and conservative secular dailies alternate between hopes that Turkey
can increase its foreign policy clout by sending troops and assertions that, in
any event, it is obliged to contribute to the stabilization of the region, and
fears that the country could become embroiled in a bloody conflict for the sake
of Israeli and American interests.
– A number of AKP deputies, including the former foreign minister,
Yasar Yakis, have rejected sending Turkish troops. The biggest opposition faction in parliament, the left
Kemalist CHP (Republican People’s Party), has also declared its opposition,
together with the SP (Happiness Party) of Recai Kutan and Necmettin Erbakan, the
founder of political Islamism in Turkey. The SP emerged as an Islamist
minority from the FP (Virtue Party), which was banned in 2001. The AKP represented
the majority faction to emerge from the ban.
– Right-wing extremist
nationalists are also vehemently opposed to a Turkish military presence in Lebanon.
The leader of the fascist MHP (Nationalist Movement Party), Devlet Bahceli,
declared that Turkish troops should be sent into the Kandil
Mountains in northern Iraq and not to Lebanon.
The Kandil Mountains
are home to several thousand fighters of the Kurdish nationalist PKK (Kurdish
Worker’s Party), following their withdrawal from Turkey. For the past two years, PKK
militants have carried out attacks on Turkish soldiers inside Turkey itself.
– Turkish President Sezer used similar arguments when, on August 25,
he declared: “As long as Turkey
has its own domestic problems, it is not the job of Turkey to resolve the security
problems of other countries.” He then rhetorically posed the question: “Why
should the Turkish army be in Lebanon
if Turkey
is unable to obtain support in the fight against terrorist organizations?”
For
some years Turkey has been
urging the US to conduct a
military offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq, or at east allow the Turkish
army to carry out its own punitive operations in the region.
Overstretched
already in Iraq, the US has little interest in deploying its troops
against the PKK, an organization which has expressly given its political
support to the US-led occupation of Iraq. The pro-American
puppet regime in Baghdad
is also unable to carry out such an offensive—it already has its hands full
suppressing the popular resistance to the occupation.
The Kurdish nationalist parties that control
northern Iraq are genuine
supporters of the US
occupation, but do not want to see the extensive autonomy they enjoy jeopardised
by an invasion of Turkish troops.
As gesture of goodwill towards Turkey, the US
appointed a special envoy a few weeks ago for the resolution of the PKK
problem, and called upon the organization to lay down its weapons and refrain
from the use of force. The PKK reacted with the offer of an armistice to Turkey up to September 1, provided that Ankara agrees to negotiate
autonomy for the Kurds and an amnesty for PKK fighters.
Representatives of the AKP welcomed the US
initiative. At the same time, however, the Turkish media reported that Turkish
combat aircraft and helicopters had attacked PKK camps in the north of Iraq.
It is unlikely that the attacks have
substantially impaired the organization, which has more than twenty years of
experience in guerrilla warfare. Military and nationalist circles in Turkey
are also unlikely to be satisfied with this step, as was clear from the stance
adopted by Sezer, who is known to be close to the military.
The
conflicts between the government and the military as well as disputes over how
to deal with the Kurds are bound to intensify. At the
end of August, the post of general chief of staff, filled currently by
the moderate Hilmi Oezkoek, will be taken over by the hard-liner Yasar
Büyükanit.
Büyükanit has developed close relations with
the US
in the course of his career, and made his own uncompromising position clear on
the Kurdish conflict. Last Friday, the Turkish Daily News, citing Büyükanit,
reported: “Those involved in anti-terrorism acted in accordance with the law,
he said, adding that anyone who wanted to attack the military and the police
would be punished eventually. The Republic
of Turkey and its
military are determined to eliminate these groups. No one can hide behind human
rights or democracy to attack this country or its regime.”
A few months ago, Büyükanit was implicated in
the so-called Semdinli affair, in which death squads with links to the Turkish
military were shown to have been active in the predominantly Kurdish area of
southeast Turkey.
The military blocked any investigation into his role. The investigating public
prosecutor was sacked, together with a high-ranking police official who had
testified against Büyükanit before a committee of inquiry.
The
aggressive course pursued by the US
in the Middle East has served to strengthen the most right-wing forces in Turkey, which are intervening with increasing vehemence in political life.
Copyright 1998-2006
World Socialist Web Site