HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
[Hour by hour news & analysis... http://www.egroups.com/group/Communist-Internet ] [Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] . . ----- Original Message ----- From: SolidNet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:40 AM Subject: CP of Turkey, What will be the "Alternative" For this Country? http://www.solidnet.org News, documents and calls for action from communist and workers' parties. The items are the responsibility of the authors. Join the mailing list: info/subscribe/unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] . ===================================================================================== CP of Turkey, What will be the "Alternative" For this Country? ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Communist Party of Turkey, Thu, 21 Mar 2002 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.tkp.org.tr ===================================================================================== >From the TKP (Communist Party of Turkey) WHAT WILL BE THE "ALTERNATIVE" FOR THIS COUNTRY? ****Ecevit's curiosity and insistence**** Probably all Gelenek (the monthly theoretical of TKP) readers have watched the speech of Kilinc (a high rank army general who said that Turkey should seek for a new alternative to EU, pointing an alliance with Russia and even Iran with the help of Unites States) on TV. In a meeting arranged in the War Academy, the few sentences he uttered from his seat has been aired around ten times in each channel. Another news, which I believe was not aired as frequently, involved a remark by Ecevit on CNN: "I heard it as USA, Russia and Iran." The General Secretary of the National Security Organization Kilinc had stated the necessity to commence a new search in relations "with Russia and Iran, and without overlooking the USA." When asked what his thoughts were on this subject, the Prime Minister stubbornly replied, "USA is included"! Obviously he was stuck there and kept repeating: "If I heard correctly, the USA was also included!" The warning: "the speech was conducted taking it (USA) into account as well" was insignificant. The USA was mentioned, that was important. It was quite apparent that Kilinc was talking about the USA; he even clearly stated to the EU, entering these few critical weeks, that "the USA will carry us forth towards the east" However, the state into which the Prime Minister of Turkey had fallen, clarified another point: Turkish foreign policy was starting to tire from its many-sided image which it had utilized quite efficiently in the wake of September 11, and consequently has started using the USA as a wild card more frequently. The problem, however, does not only lie with Ecevit. In a manner that leaves no trace of doubt, Kilinc's speech points out to the necessity of lending importance to the USA's territorial expansion. The timing is perfect. Turkey is stressing its "prior position" via a very authorized voice before the arrival of USA's number two (Dick Cheney). Kilinc's speech should be understood in a different manner than those previously made by the upper cadres of the General Staff. No one should imagine that a speech of this sort could have been given without the conformity of the high-ranking generals. Nevertheless, a strategic alternative is not put forth every day. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that soldiers would choose their words meticulously and even perhaps opt to read from a written text in a statement of this sort, the effort to leave the "alternative" vague can easily be understood. In any case, Kilinc's speech has been the least obtrusive to the positions of political actors among those given by any high-ranking general since 1996. President Sezer, Prime Minister Ecevit, Mesut Yılmaz, management of TUSIAD and many others have emphasized that "there is no alternative to the EU, we will not stray from our path" following Kilinc's speech. Leaving out any differences coming out of honorable or dishonorable membership to the EU, those who would like to understand Kilinc's "new alternative" which centers around a Russia which is "increasingly improving its relations with the US," should observe the few "journalists" who have been made to write on the subject of Turkey's relationship with the EU and USA, right before the meeting at the War Academy. To be brief, the pro-Europe Tuncay Ozkan has written about the possibility of a detachment in Ankara from the USA as a result of increasing pressures applied to the former by the latter, and a backlash against the continuous "diet" the US has been trying to impose. Another pro-European, Hadi Uluengin, has lamented over Turkey's impending future in what he believes to be a move away from the EU and towards the USA, as he states; "The USA will bring prosperity but never democracy." While Yasemin Congar, who has been reporting from the USA, has felt the need to emphasize the fact that Washington has increased the pressure on its allies, and that this situation has started creating serious problems. The articles mentioned are obviously about the US ambassador's brazen statement; "A portion of the taxes of US citizens are flowing into Turkey." However, it is equally obvious that there has been a change in the priorities of the USA, which had seemed to be spending quite a lot of effort in the last few years into pushing Turkey closer to the EU. Furthermore, one has to have a child's mind not to understand that the army, which takes up every issue under the category of the "security concept," is considering the US's priorities in order to gain an upper hand in talks with the EU. True, it is not easy to classify a military operation against Iraq in this "security concept." It is certain, however, that when the "experts" on this subject view the EU, they cannot see any angle in which Turkey's growing appetite and needs could be fulfilled. That is why we keep returning to the USA. ******The truth behind "We will not get involved in anything else"****** It would be appropriate now to talk about this "security" issue, which seems to be the only parameter in the army's analysis of Turkish foreign policy. As we know, at about the same time Kilinc was pointing out to an "alternative" in his speech, the President of the General Staff Kıvrıkoglu was stressing the point that EU membership should be considered a "geopolitical obligation" for Turkey. There is a limit to creating policies by looking at international dynamics solely through the subject of "security." Therefore the importance of proposals such as "let's face this way" or "let's open up to this" in fixing a solid place for Turkish capitalism in the system should not be exaggerated. Moreover, while compatibility is not necessary between the military and the economic-political reality of any given country, it is also impossible for these spheres to act independently of each other. Perhaps under this heading, one can speak of a serious career deformation that the soldiers have fallen into. For an institution which takes on the responsibility of missions in the field of "security," it may not be considered odd to evaluate every subject with reference to "security." However the TSK (Turkish Armed Forces) is the country's most authoritative actor, and since 1997 (when it made its authority widely felt), it has not gone beyond lending support for or getting "expert" briefing on economic programs. We are not only up against a "pro-privatization" or to use the loathsome term "pro-globalization" institution. The unassertiveness towards the economic sphere points out to a very pragmatic stance. This is the stance of an institution which does not get involved in the "dirty" business, and still finds the possibility to maneuver with ease in geopolitical issues. An institution which is very "vigilant" against one of the most fundamental rights of a society, the right to protect and develop its native language, however one which is able to preserve its character against the pillage of the country by imperialistic monopolies! That is why those who exclaim surprise and disbelief towards General Kilinc 's alternative are quite sincere. The Turkish bourgeoisie has matured enough to understand that once it detaches itself from European capital and opens up towards Iran and Russia, its path will inevitably cross with it again. This is exemplified in the fact that although Israel is of central importance to Turkey's "security" concerns, the significance of economic trade between the two countries has never been equal to that of cooperation in the arms industry. However, if one takes the situation in hand only through the criterion of "strategic cooperation," it can easily be said that the USA-Israel-Turkey triangle is a plausible alternative to the EU. Moreover, another model, that of USA-Russia-Turkey can also be added to the previous one (if possible Iran can also be included!). Only, we cannot say nor add to our thoughts. The words of Soros, "your best export is your army" should be considered important, should invoke hatred, but should, on no account, be exaggerated. Turkish capitalism will not allow the army, which already has a monopoly over the politics of the country to have one in the economic sphere as well, and will stand against any sort of a extreme and sole militarist restructuring. In other words, although geopolitical concerns belong not only to the soldiers but also to the capitalists, it is not possible to define bourgeoisie dominance as reduced to these concerns. *******The futility of opposing the EU without aiming for socialism****** You have not read incorrectly. There is an element of futility. Or if we look at it in another way, a serious shift in its meaning can be observed. For Turkey to oppose the EU without stating socialism as its goal is an action built upon a weak foundation theoretically, politically hollow, and in the same sense susceptible to whimsical substitution. We can continue by stating the conclusive point: The communists in Turkey will not support an "alliance" which could only be shaped by "a resistance to the EU." While putting in effort to strengthen the "no to EU membership" side in a referendum, you may not, and should not, be worried about political actors which you have no connection to or no interest in, having divergent views from your own. However, while opposing EU membership, it is not possible to classify other actors by saying "this is an utterly important subject, the stance taken in this subject determines the political scale" and therefore molding them into this criteria. This is because our criterion is anti-imperialism. Any partnership with USA and NATO lackey forces and fascists on the subject of the EU is out of the question. We will never take a step back from our fastidious stance, which we have kept until now in case a misunderstanding of this sort should emerge. I am not mentioning all of this because I somehow accept that the pro-USA and pro-NATO forces and fascists are against EU membership, but I do so only to convey our position more effectively. This is essential, since we cannot act on indiscriminate concepts whilst trying to both explain the subject of EU to Turkish and Kurdish workers, and calling out to them to form an attitude and plan for action. Evidently, the working classes do not have to take up positions by comparing today's capitalist Turkey with the EU. Let us assume that General Kilinc has decided to convey a short message (although he definitely does not have any such ambition) as a person who is viewed by the masses with interest: "No alternatives?.. well here you have Russia, and Iran..." What good would that do? What the current guardians of the system see when they regard Russia and Iran is clear. Their vision does not include the working masses, or the sufferings of the people. Nor the laws of imperialism, which has been deciphered by Marxism. True, it is difficult, even impossible, to describe to the whole of the working class and public every dimension of what the European Union stands for. However, difficulties exist in order to be overcome, or at least be reduced to ineffectiveness. Under no circumstances should communists be viewed as doomed to desperation as brought about by the view; "we would rather die in poverty than sell our honor," or through the imposition of this view to the masses. In this sense I would like to remind you that Kilinc's statement considerably empowered the pro-EU forces. Proof of the fact that alternatives cannot be produced with geopolitical obsessions can be seen in Mesut Yilmaz's (the leader of ANAP, one of the coalition parties) relaxed attitude (enough to make him say "this can at worst be a nightmare"), the same person who use to run around frustrated after every statement made by the army. The steps taken and the attacks fabricated by those not opposing the EU, but instead trying to strengthen its bargaining terms or questioning the EU without a socialism perspective, have only helped the pro-EU lobby. Therefore we should never forget that what makes our stance against the EU and Turkey's membership in the EU notable, is our socialism program. Yes, we accept any alliance with those who look friendly upon this program and wish for an anti-EU partnership! We decline any type of proposal which demands flexibility by foregoing our goal of socialism or one which aims to push us towards the same front as the racists, militarists and even reactionaries! To the latter we shout a loud NO! ******Trouble is coming...****** "Open the door if you sense trouble..." If I remember correctly, this is a Russian saying. Nicely put. However, as with all proverbs, they have trusted other proverbs and collective thinking to make sense of the different meanings that could be placed upon it. Namely our ancestors!.. After having said "keep your feet warm and your head cool," to talk about "to catch cold in head" should be due to the talent of our people in placing the right meaning and finding the right path. And trouble? Will it always work to open up the doors when trouble arrives? As far as we know, Dick Cheney's arrival (unfortunately trouble will have arrived several days ago) has even caused anxiety among his friends. He arrives for "trade." Furthermore, he will be representing a power deriving from being located on top of the imperialist system. He will dictate action. In other words, trouble... However, those who direct Turkey's policies and the capitalist class are determined to push the door wide open for this trouble. At any rate, they have developed an interesting way of opening the doors in the past period. They act this way in NATO also. The "open door policy" has experienced an observable invigoration after the September 11 attacks. Turkey has immersed itself in intense activity with its ministers, army and president all in order to expand NATO. What can be the meaning of this? This is bare proof of the special mission given to Turkey by the USA in promoting NATO expansion to the east. Then what kind of concrete meaning does NATO's expansion hold? While the European Union cannot carry its "army" project from the debating platform to practical life for many years now, a brutal organization still dominated by the USA is expanding its area of activity and institutional status. Numerous countries which have sided with NATO under the Partnership for Peace agreement are one by one signing up as subcontractors to USA's territorial expansion. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Baltic Republics, Azerbaijan, Georgia...the old Soviet republics in Central Asia...Russia's pull towards NATO step by step, or an encirclement by it... Uzbekistan is displaying its flag in NATO military exercises. One of the most important military power in the region, the Hanabad air base located in this country's desert has been a "critical" strategic point for a long time now. Nowadays the US has not only heaped its warplanes to this base, but has also piled more than one thousand of its troops there. This example is especially interesting, since Turkey's involvement after September 11 in preparing military supplies and training officers for a country which stands out among the old Soviet republics, Uzbekistan, is increasing with every passing day. Turkey has also taken on the task of training the most organized anti-terror teams in the region. In spite of the US? Of course not! I try to be a Marxist and put increasing effort into distancing myself from conspiracy theories. True, there are interesting occurrences in the Central Asian Republics. The situation is no different in the Caucasians. Objections to USA's calculations of moving into Georgia have been effectively silenced by Putin' s remark: "the USA's military presence in the region is not a tragedy." The geopolitical obsession would never be able to explain these issues. The exaggeration of the maneuvering ability of the "decision makers" would be typical at this point. Moreover, false conclusions are arrived at when those who serve the "national interest" in the decision-making organs are taken into consideration one by one. So what is the national interest? Could it be defined over and above class dominance? Could it change the fact that the Putin administration's moves towards propping up Russian capitalism, and that Russia's vital economic organs are under the inspection of the USA, Germany and Israel? Yes, what are Russia's interests? Why was it that Yeltsin was able to be on the side of the US, but such treason cannot be spoken of where Putin is concerned? Why is it that among the various factors affecting his decisions, that only his ideal of "making Russia a great country once again" is emphasized? Why should Pakistan's Musherref or anyone else for that matter, not possess the same ideal? Why should the fact that Russia holds extensive resources change the other fact that these resources have been looted for more than ten years by the Russian bourgeoisie and especially the imperialists? Were the people who allowed this pillage not Russian? Where did the national interest start, and where did it end? The answer to all these questions is the same, and very clear. Capitalist restoration in Russia has been, right from the start, cosmopolitan. There is no reason for it to become anti-imperialist in the Putin stage. At any rate, the developments are unraveling differently. After September 11, Russia and India have become central to the strategy USA's been following. If those who believed that Turkey's cooperation with Russia in the military, economic and political spheres could be posed as an alternative to USA expansion, had for once taken off their "geopolitical" glasses and put on their class lenses, they would easily be able to understand that developments are proceeding quite differently. All of Turkey's relations in the military field (except for certain journalists) depend on NATO. I am aware that after a certain point, all this is insignificant. In the end, a geopolitical obsession can still make people claim that Turkey could be an "independent" power if it increases its population in NATO. However, NATO is becoming a more dangerous organization by the minute. A counter-revolutionary alliance which knows no bounds, heeds no rules and only acts on balance of power policies. Yet President Sezer, without losing his composure, states "we are doing our best to expand NATO." It's as though he is speaking of UNESCO, or an organization fighting AIDS. They are opening the door for trouble. Wide open. The economy is bound to Europe anyhow. They will demand a few more exclusive favors from the US, and that will be that. In the security issue, their only worry is that they will be left out of the "security" mechanisms. I repeat, I have read or heard Kıvrıkoglu's statement; "The EU is a geopolitical obligation for us" from different people hundreds of times. An economic agenda does not even exist, while in issues of strategy it is the soldiers who claim that we are "condemned." Kilinc's words about "searching for an alternative" should be assessed as an element for bargain. They may also think that Turkey is gaining higher ground against the EU due to the current tasks laid upon Turkey by the US. However, the outline of the situation is quite clear. First of all, Turkey will be included in every component of the military composition of the EU and the US. Secondly, NATO membership will be increased among neighboring states as much as possible. Thirdly, Turkey will be given special missions in the countries which will be made NATO members. Fourthly, cooperation with allies will be sought to stabilize countries which may cause problems in the region (namely Armenia and Iraq). Trouble is coming. It is true that the Turkish bourgeoisie is quailing over the prospect of a divided Iraq. A greater fear, however, is of becoming excluded. Turkey, which would rather see war as the last option, is gradually being pulled into it due to its inseparable connection with imperialism. With an economy in shambles, incurring debts of a couple of billion dollars every month to the IMF, and having surrendered its agriculture without a sound to the Americans, Japanese and Israelis, one has to put on those very geopolitical glasses in order to even think that the country will be left out of any projects of imperialism. Yet we are very pleased with our Marxist glasses. 05.03.2002 Kemal Okuyan (A part form an article in Gelenek, the monthly organ of the Communist Party of Turkey) *End* --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
