With the PM in Britain: Joint operation with the US; alone against the PKK
After a long government meeting, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took a four-hour flight to England to deliver a speech at Oxford University. I joined him, and although we had a simple yet sincere hour-long conversation, 90 percent of it was ‘’off the record.'’ That said, I can only write my ‘’impressions'’ about the prime minister’s answers to my questions concerning the nature of one of the most critical issues on the agenda these days.
Will Turkey launch a military operation in northern Iraq? When, how? I mean, what will the scope and who will be the“targets” of this operation? A Turkish military operation in northern Iraq will be the case of the Erdoğan-Bush meeting scheduled for Nov. 5 in Washington. I think an operation before Nov. 5 is less likely and one after Nov. 5 is most likely. This is my “impression.”
Don’t ask me why and how because like I said, the conversation we held with Erdoğan was 90 percent “off the record.” When I added up the pieces of that puzzle, I came up with “my impression.” After Nov. 5 (I don’t know how much after), a military operation will be organized against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) as the target in northern Iraq.
Why is a cross-border operation in north of Iraq before Nov. 5 less likely? There are two main reasons: One is hidden in the conversation between Erdoğan and the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the night of the PKK’s bloody attack in the Dağlıca district, Hakkari. She requested Erdoğan to wait for “a few days.” “A few days” could be translated as “couple days” or “a little.”
Erdoğan’s impression about this phone call is this: “I have never seen Americans this frenetic.”
Why should the Turkish obey this “American request” now? Because, in fact, the U.S. makes the following suggestion: “Wait a few days and let’s move together.”
And in this “wait a few days” period, intelligence about the PKK that the U.S. is willing to share with Turkey must have been coming. Because just a few hours before the Erdoğan-Rice talk in Kiev, Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gönül and his U.S. counterpart Robert Gates, former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, met and Gates conveyed a similar request: “Wait a few days for a joint action.”
Erdoğan seems reactive to the mentality and remarks of the nationalist-leftist groups. “Some with a nationalist-leftist mentality will mention that this is waiting permission from the U.S. and imperialist circles. We will take care of it ourselves,” he said. As Erdoğan utters these words, his posture reflects “self-confidence” and that he was not affected by such remarks.
It’s been long since I’ve had a face-to-face conversation with Erdoğan. I see a man clearly relaxed by winning 47 percent of votes in the July 22 general elections and an almost 70 percent “Yes” in the constitutional amendments package referendum held last Sunday with 67 percent turnover. Erdoğan nowadays feels much like a leader whose authority is continuously ratified, therefore “powerful politically.” He will meet Bush with this peace and quiet on Nov. 5. and Erdoğan seems confident he will get the green light for a joint operation against the PKK.Let’s take up where we left off. A “joint operation” with the U.S. will not target, as some people wish to see in Turkey, Massaud Barzani and the Iraqi Kurdish administration. Erdoğan underlined this in our meeting and specified the operation as “targeting the PKK only with the least number of loses.” Therefore, he says a military operation in northern Iraq will target the PKK only.Of course the organization will not be looking forward to seeing troops, banners or posters in hand out there. Just for this very reason, the U.S. should leave the Iraqi Kurdish administration and the PKK alone, for “intelligence” cooperation.This is how we can obtain clues about the operation; an operation to serve a heavy blow to the PKK presence in northern Iraq and to catch some of its leaders. That is to say, it will not be barging into northern Iraq with the company of large-scale land force units or tanks or armored vehicles and give the impression of an “occupier.” It will definitely not be the one Israel did in south Lebanon in 1982.
Erdoğan’s Oxford message
Dr. Philip Robins is an Oxford University lecturer in politics, with special reference to the Middle East, and a Fellow of St. Anthony’s College at the same University. We are following Erdoğan’s speech side by side at the Oxford Union. He whispers to my ear: “Upon the developments on Sunday, was not coming here the issue?” I replied: “I don’t think this is on Erdoğan’s mind. His coming here is a message to the PKK. A message of ‘You cannot determine my agenda’. I carry my own agenda.’…”
“It is good to have him here. This is a message of ‘I am in control.’ He seems very self-confident anyways,” said Robins.I scan through the place in the hall where many great men have delivered speeches since 1870. British prime ministers are there in the Oxford Union. There are five of them. Robins picks one and shows me Gladstone.Established by students in 1823, the Oxford Union exists for about 200 years as the most prestigious debating society in Britain as the cradle of “free thought,” democracy and “freedom of expression.”I lent an ear to a foreign ministry official who is delighted by Erdoğan’s speech because he talked about “almost every aspect of Turkish foreign policy,” But I don’t ask Robins if he was pleased with the speech, perhaps I don’t want to hear any negative comments.
“He could have delivered this speech in a Justice and Development Party (AKP) members meeting or in a fast-breaking dinner with the TOBB or in the Gazi University. I think cassette number three was on again. Since it was a country kind of speech, it didn’t suit here; a waste of time. A speech at the Oxford Union went down the drain,” is was what I said to a journalist about Erdoğan’s speech.The Oxford Union is home to historic speeches, of “vision “speeches. It was so nice to be there. Erdoğan’s conversation with us in the air was much more critical than his speech at the Oxford Union because the latter is prepared by state officials but the former genuinely belongs to him…