Interview with Recep Tayyip Erdogan in full
The Prime MInister of Turkey discusses the Kurdish separatist crisis with Martin Fletcher and Suna Erdem of The Times
The Times: Are you really serious about launching a military operation against the PKK in northern Iraq, or just trying to put pressure on the American and Iraqi governments?
Erdogan: I am the Prime Minister of the Turkish Republic and if you notice the motion we presented to parliament has the support of 507 MPs. There were 19 no votes. An administration that takes upon itself this kind of responsibility does not do this as a bluff. We are at the limits of patience and tolerance. We have lost thousands, tens of thousands of people. Britain lived through this with a small number of losses (he later clarifies this as referring to 'these latest terror attacks' rather than the IRA) and I cannot forget the response the British administration gave at the time. This business is very sensitive. We are using and will continue to use to the full all our authority on a national and international basis against this separatist terrorist organisation that is flouting international laws to base itself in a neighbouring country. Civilians are definitely not the target of this operation. The target of this operation is definitely not Iraq's territorial integrity or its political unity. The target of this operation is the terror organisation based in the north of Iraq.
The Times: In the case of northern Iraq are you talking about bombing or about ground troops going in?
Erdogan: Of course we cannot talk about these things now. The technical side is the responsibility of the relevant institutions. Undoubtedly they are better able to appraise the priorities of the case.
The Times: Would your rule out ground troops?
Erdogan: It would not be right to make any kind of distinction here. As I said, whatever is necessary will be done. So far we have acted by taking into account three dimensions: the political, diplomatic and military aspects. It is now time for some results.
The Times: You have previously mentioned that technology had developed and people have taken from that the idea that you will have a more technological, precision-based operation…
Erdogan: Of course in this case advanced technology is being and will be used in the most ideal way. But if you are talking about weapons of mass destruction of course there is no question of anything like that.
The Times: You are talking not about if the operation will happen but when the operation happens…
Erdogan: I am speaking with reference to the motion we presented (to parliament). This is a framework – if you notice the contents have not yet been spelled out. The Turkish parliament has given this authority to the government. Within this framework, when it will happen, how it will happen and in what geographic area it will happen – all this will be fleshed out after discussions and negotiations with the relevant institutions. We hope that this business can be resolved without any need for such an operation. But for this to finish the terrorist organisation must be driven out of northern Iraq, its training camps must be dismantled and its leaders must be handed over.
The Times: If you proceed with this operation it will cause a major breech in your relationship with the United States. President Bush has appealed to you not to use military action. Does that concern you?
Erdogan: We have told President Bush numerous times how sensitive we are about this issue but up till now we have not had a single positive result. America is our strategic partner. But in northern Iraq we feel that both the terrorist organisation and the administration there are sheltering behind America. They (the US and Iraqi governments) wanted to set up a trilateral mechanism, we said okay. We set up a trilateral mechanism. But this trilateral mechanism yielded absolutely no results.
How much more patient can we be? We have always given international support in the fight against terror. We were asked to help in Afghanistan and we took our place next to the United States in Afghanistan. We have commanded ISAF twice. At the moment the central administration in Afghanistan is also under our command. In the same way we took on similar duties in various regions. When Turkey has been behaving with such sensitivity it makes us sad to see American weapons being found in the possession of the terror organisation acting against Turkey. In our country a serious wave of anti-Americanism is fast gaining a momentum all of its own. This did not happen overnight for no reason. The developments in Iraq are very important here. In this case the American administration should think about why there are such developments in Turkey.
The Times: A military operation would also harm your efforts for EU membership because the EU has also urged restraint…
Erdogan: Until now we have not received such a request. Yet here we are using and will continue to use the rights given to us by international law. If there is a question of terror being used against you from a neighbouring country you have legitimate rights under international law and you will use them. When we use this right we do not need to ask permission from anyone.
The Times: You have by your own admission mounted 24 previous incursions into northern Iraq. Why would this one be any more successful than any of the previous ones?
Erdogan: It would be wrong to speak before we have done anything. Of course every operation aims to be successful. You may or may not achieve this – that is a different issue. The United States came to Iraq from tens of thousands of kilometres away. Why and for what purpose it came I cannot say. Whether it has so far been successful I cannot say. But if you ask me my personal opinion – there's no success that I can see. There is just the death of ten of thousands of people. There is just an Iraq whose entire infrastructure and superstructure has collapsed. These need to be correctly evaluated.
The Times: Are we talking in this case of an operation of a totally different scale to any previous attacks?
Erdogan: It would not be right to discuss this at the moment.
The Times: To what extent did the house foreign affairs committee's approval of the Armenian resolution make it more likely that you would take action against the PKK? Has it inflamed nationalist sentiment here, has it made you less willing to heed the appeals of president Bush?
Erdogan: For a start let me say with all sincerity that the American administration has taken all the steps it can with regards the measures taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee. I would like to thank President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and all other representatives of the senior administration who have made efforts in this direction.
But I look at this as a whole. The so-called Armenian genocide has its own dimension, the presence of the separatist terror organisation in northern Iraq has its own dimension. The developments with regards the so-called Armenian genocide have an ugly aspect of domestic politics about them. Because those who sign up to a campaign against Turkey in relation to the so-called Armenian genocide are really the ones firing a bullet at the friendship between America and Turkey.
I speak with great self-confidence when I say we have opened up our archives – let the Armenians open theirs if they have them. If any third countries have them let them open them up as well. Let Historians work, let art historians, legal experts, political scientists, archaeologists work. Let us make a joint decision based on the results of their findings. We have not run away from this. I wrote a letter to (Armenian President Robert) Kocharyan in 2005 and I have still not had an answer. The diaspora is working under a different premise. It is not possible for us to accept the taking of such steps with no basis on documents or research. Our history is not the history of genocides. Our religion would never allow this. Therefore we do not accept this.
The Times: If the house does approve this resolution how would you retaliate?
Erdogan: Would it be right for me to tell you now?
The Times: Yes…
Erdogan: There is a saying in Turkey – you do not measure a nappy for an unborn child.
The Times: Would American use of Incirlik (air base) be jeopardised?
Erdogan: (Laughing, shrugs) I don't know…
The Times: Quite apart from genocide the US and Turkey seem to be at odds on a whole range of issues from Iran to Hamas to Syria…and you yourself said in your article in the Wall Street journal: the relationship was like a spider's web. It could disintegrate. You said it was becoming increasingly hard to defend the relationship..How do ordinary Turks view the relationship with America now? Are ordinary Turks now questioning the value of that relationship?
Erdogan: I am not speaking about the American administration but let me speak about a way of thinking in America. I went to the opening of a 75,000 capacity stadium in Aleppo in Syria on the invitation of President Bashar Assad. A lot of things were written to the effect that my previous visit was not right. But when I went to the opening of this stadium I observed something interesting – I was told that Mr Lantos and Ms Pelosi were also in Damascus. So how do those who dislike my going to Syria square this with the fact that the leaders of the House of Representatives and the Foreign Affairs committee are visiting Syria?
The Times: Would you like to characterise the state of US-Turkish relations? Do you think they are in a state of crisis?
Erdogan: I do not think so. I do not want to think so. Because both we as the Turkish administration and the American administration are making efforts to continue our relations in a positive manner. But let me say this clearly: If a law relating to the so-called Armenian resolution passes through the US Congress then America might lose a very important friend.
The Times: You said earlier that you were very open to discussions of the whole issue of genocide? Why not let the Turkish people discuss it? Why not repeal article 301?
Erdogan: 301 is not an article that has anything to do with this. The contents of 301 are very different. 301 is actually an article that mainly relates to insults to the state administration of the Turkish republic. This is why it is about insulting Turkishness. But this is not about ethnicity. It includes insulting the head of state, insulting the Parliament speaker, I believe the Prime Minister is also included. Nevertheless we are working on 301. In the law of most European Union countries there are articles similar to this. Although we have yet to reach a conclusion we are looking at explaining the expression "Turkishness" with a separate paragraph. This would be to the effect that by Turkishness we do not mean any ethnic quality but an expression defining constitutional citizenship. Another area of change is related to whether the crime is committed at home or abroad. There was a 50 percent increase in the sentence if it was committed abroad, but we are planning to decrease this to the same sentence whether committed at home or abroad.
The Times: Isn't the problem with 301 has been the way it has been interpreted…Therefore don't you think these nuances will be ignored by gunmen who decide to shoot people based on conviction under this law. Isn't the problem that it symbolises too much now for any subtle changes to make much difference?
Erdogan: But the current article does not create the basis for anything like this. For one thing it has absolutely nothing to do with Armenians – it is not an article targeted at our Armenian citizens. It would be very wrong to come to this conclusion based on the Hrant Dink incident. At the moment there are 40,000 Armenians who have fled Armenia and come to live in Turkey. They are illegal in Turkey and we know about this.
The Times: Under the amended law would Mr Pamuk (a Turkish author) be allowed to use the word genocide?
Erdogan: Was he sentenced before any changes were introduced?
The Times: He was prosecuted….
Erdogan: There can be prosecutions. Any citizen can apply to the prosecutors' office and the prosecutor must open a case. But the court can then dismiss the case.
The Times: But in the real world you know and I know that EU countries that do not want Turkey to be a member will use article 301 against Turkey?
Erdogan: So far we have not come across anything like this, but as I said, there are similar articles to 301 in all European Union countries.
The Times: The Prime Minister's government has introduced a whole range of judicial and economic reforms, it has relaxed restrictions on the Kurds, diminished the power of the military. Do you ever feel frustrated that EU membership seems to come no closer whatever you do? Does you feel the EU is reneging on its promises?
Erdogan: Apart from feeling like this, of course EU countries are not completely standing by the promises they made to Turkey. We know this process is difficult. At the moment Turkey is far more advanced the latest 10 or 12 countries to join the EU, both in terms of the political Copenhagen criteria and the economic Maastricht criteria.
The Times: Does there come a point at which Turkey says enough is enough and walks away from the process?
Erdogan: Don't you think it is too early for such a question (laughs).
The Times: What will you say to Gordon Brown on the subject of Turkey and the EU given that the leaders of the EU's two other big countries, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, are both openly opposed to Turkish membership…?
Erdogan: Above all Britain has been at our side right from the beginning. Until December 17th (2005, when accession talks started), indeed on December 17th Germany and France also acted with us. They gave us their support. I cannot say that the period after December 17th has been free of trouble. But as you know we have just had Germany's Presidency and under Germany's Presidency we were able to open three chapters. Our current relations with Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy have reached a good point. I believe that as we grow to understand each other this process will speed up. There will always be difficulties. There can be problems between friends but we can overcome these in a friendly manner.
The Times: But you are also saying that European countries are not standing by their word?
Erdogan: Yes I say this to them as well.
The Times: Which countries are not standing by their word?
Erdogan: This depends on the subject. The main political imposition at the moment is Cyprus. This is the main issue that is brought before us. But in the end our friends will realise that we are in the right. Because a big injustice was done to us and to northern Cyprus. The EU wanted our support for the 24th June referendum. They wanted the Annan plan to pass. Northern Cyprus said yes and southern Cyprus said no. Northern Cyprus was punished and southern Cyprus was rewarded. That was published afterwards and this is very important as well. But despite everything our European friends unfortunately included southern Cyprus in the EU. If I am not mistaken I have read in the newspapers that Mrs Merkel considers the awarding of EU membership for southern Cyprus a mistake.
The Times: Turkey badly wants to be part of the West but sometimes Europe treats Turkey with contempt …? How do you square those two attitudes…?
Erdogan: You cannot have grudges and hatred between nations. In general we answer them in a similar tone – sometimes this is loud and sometimes this is softer. Sometimes it has to be a case of "God give me patience". For instance my relations with Britain have always been good. Our relations with Tony (Blair) were very good. We have started well with Mr Brown and things are going well. I believe that it will be even better from now.
The Times: There was a headline in Newsweek a year ago asking 'Who lost Turkey?'. Is there any danger of Turkey turning towards Russia or Iran or the East?
Erdogan: We have no such aim. This has been decided and now we have a Turkey that has set up its institutions and rules according to this (Turkey's Western vocation). But I would like to particularly stress one point: We are saddened that The Times has allowed itself to be used for the PKK separatist terror group's propaganda. Because in Britain you have also paid heavily the price of terror. It is imperative that we develop a concept for the media based on a common stand against terror and a common sense of responsibility. We need a strategy that involves of course not just the British media but also Turkey's media.
__._,_.___
