Mideast News Digest
U.S. Troops Raid Turkish Military Post In Iraq
U.S. troops arrested 11 Turkish soldiers in northern Iraq, in a military raid last Friday night, July 4, on the Turkish barracks, near Kirkuk, Iraq, triggering angry outbursts from the government in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan called it "an extremely distressing incident" and said, "Such a development should not have occurred. This attitude of an ally country against its ally cannot be explained with any political style." Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul called Secretary of State Colin Powell to discuss the incident, and said afterwards, "I told him that it was unacceptable. It is an inappropriate incident. Such incidents between the two allied armies cannot be accepted."
Turkish newspapers were claiming that the U.S. raid was carried out on the basis of intelligence reports that some Turks were planning to assassinate the Kurdish governor of Kirkuk, a story which Erdogan angrily denied, calling the reports "nonsense." The Turkish deputy chief of staff issued a statement slamming the incident as a mistake that would affect U.S.-Turkish relations, which date back half a century. The Turkish Foreign Ministry called in the Undersecretary of the U.S. Ambassador in Ankara, and released a statement, reading: "In our contacts with Washington, we emphasized many times the immediate release of the Turkish soldiers, that the necessary measures be taken.... Any developments regarding the incident, that would have a possible impact on U.S.-Turkish relations will be followed very closely."
The Turkish military is said to be considering retaliatory actions to include closing Turkish airspace to U.S. military aircraft, denying the U.S. access to the Incirlik airbase, and sending more troops into Northern Iraq. The statement also asserted that the 11 arrested soldiers were in Iraq in coordination with the U.S. to monitor the situation in the north. The U.S. and Turkey agreed on April 10 on the deployment of Turkish monitors in Northern Iraq. The U.S. has issued no official statement, thus far, beyond a State Department acknowledgment of the Gul phone call to Powell, and a U.S. embassy official in Ankara telling reporters there, that the embassy was working on the release of the 11 soldiers.
In Break With Chickenhawks, Powell Says Stay Out of Iran
Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Washington should stay out of the "family fight" in Iran, in a July 3 interview with WMAL Radio in Washington, widely publicized by IRNA, the state news agency of Iran. Powell had the following to say about U.S. policy on Iran: "The best thing we can do right now is not get in the middle of this family fight too deeply. Remember that the President of Iran is freely elected. President Khatami was elected by his people, not in an American kind of election, but an election that essentially tapped into the desires of the people."
According to IRNA, "His remarks echoed a comment by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who told the Los Angeles Times that Iran was different because it was a democracy."
Reuters' coverage of Powell's remarks included the following statement: "A group of hawks close to the Bush Administration favors intervention to change the government in Tehran," which statement was followed by a further statement from Powell to the effect that the internal conflict in Iran should be allowed to play itself out. Powell: "I think it's best for us to see if this movement that is under way with people marching and expressing their views is enough to put pressure on the political part of the Iranian government, President Khatami, and then the religious part under [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamanei, to see whether this causes them to realize that they are going down a loser path."
The Iranian press agency also adds that Iran's UN Ambassador Mohammed Javad Zarif told CNN from Tehran, that his country wanted to reduce tensions with the U.S., but that any intervention into Iranian affairs would trigger a radical response from Iran.
Gen. Wesley Clark Demands U.S. Devise Iraq Exit Strategy
In a long op-ed published July 1 in the London Times, Gen. Wesley Clark went through the catalogue of problems in postwar Iraq, and posed the question of whether the war is winnable, and if so, at what cost? "Let's be realistic," he said: "measured against the objectives, we haven't done so well yet. Weapons of mass destruction have not yet been found.... We must continue the search....
"As for regime change, Saddam and his sons no longer occupy their palaces or control the government. Yet their survival feeds fears of a Baathist return, sparks continued resistance, and undercuts efforts to establish new institutions.... Each unsuccessful week of effort reveals the limits of U.S. intelligence and influence, and each week is likely to see the Baathist resistance grow.
"Meanwhile a deeper, private struggle is ongoing between various factions in the Shia community.... The Shia issue is potentially the most explosive. If they are able to move together, they will dominate Iraq. But in the press here, we see only the barest surface ripples from the major movements underneath."
Clark says the Shi'ites could choose among several options, of working with or against the Baathists, or sit it out and wait for the U.S.-U.K. to leave. "Regardless of the twists and turns of internal Islamic activities, the outcome seems clear; the U.S. and the British will ultimately be invited to leave; how soon depends upon our effectiveness in the occupation. The manner of our departure may follow from a quiet series of meetings with Iraqi clerics, it may be in massive street protests that shut down commerce and traffic; or it may be punctuated by violence on a scale far greater than yet seen against Americans and the Iraqis who have cooperated with the coalition."
Then, Clark discusses the Kurds, who, if they try for independence, would trigger an Iranian and Turkish crisis.
"As for all those other grandiose dreamstransforming Arab society, inspiring democracy, finding the key to peace in the Middle Eastwell, it comes down first to whether we can handle the challenges of dealing with the here and now in Iraq. Success is not impossible, but it will be difficult, and it grows more so with each passing day." Clark says force strength is not the decisive factor: "It is simply not possible to maintain this occupation by force, even if we doubled the forces committed there. The actions against the Baathiststhe sweeps, strikes and searchesrisk the kind of popular ire that resulted in six British soldiers being killed near al-Amarah."
What is needed, is "to solve the mystery of the WMD, suppress the Baathist resurgence and hold Iraq together, leaving it self-governing in some semblance of secular democracy, secured by its own armed forces, free from domination by other regional powers or terrorists."
This means working with Iraqi forces, building viable institutions, even including Baath Party elements, but maintaining control: "The art will be to govern fairly, to create common interests, and to lay in these early institutions the seeds for democratic, tolerant and limited government. There should be no democratic elections until much later."
Clark says tens of thousands of Iraqis must be recruited and trained for security, etc., and communications with the population must be improved.
"Do we have the staying power for what we're facing in Iraq? First, let's be honest with ourselves. We went into this mission with a myopic focus on the Iraqi threatwe underestimated the strength of the Baathists, inadequately anticipated the resistance during the fighting, underresourced the force required to deal with military 'success' and failed to plan fully how to create 'regime change.' The American and British public need to hear it from their leaders; they need to understand why these mistakes were made and see that those responsible are held accountable. And then we've got to persuade others to help us to shoulder these burdensthe mission is simply bigger than the U.S. and U.K. can handle. We should be asking the UN and other international institutions to take a greater role."
Battle of Al-Majar Under British Investigation
The recent battle in Al-Majar in southern Iraq, in which British soldiers died, was a much larger fight, and a British investigation of the incident has been initiated. The June 24 incident in Al-Majar, in which six British soldiers were killed and 12 injuredthe worst single incident since the May 1 "end of major combat" declared by President Bushis now under investigation by the British Army, reports the Observer June 29.
One major question is why the heavily armed and supplied Parachute Regiment, which was reportedly just outside the city, did not come to the aid of the besieged British Royal Military Police. "Why Were Six Britons Left to Die in an Iraqi Marketplace?" asks the headline of the Observer (the Guardian's Sunday edition). The report also says that five Iraq citizens were killed, and a dozen injured, including women and children, by the "Paras" who were in the town, but then escaped by helicopter, which came under heavy fire, injuring eight soldiers.
This incident has heaped more hatred on Tony Blair, who is already under intense criticism for his role in spreading false intelligence about the threat level from Iraq.
Abu Mazen Invited To Meet Bush at the White House
Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen/Mahmoud Abbas has been invited to visit Washington in the coming days, a senior Palestinian official said. Abbas received the invitation on June 28 during a meeting with United States National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Abbas accepted the invitation, which includes a meeting with President George W. Bush, the Palestinian official said in Jerusalem. On Sunday, in a meeting with Sharon, Rice also invited the Israeli Prime Minister to Washington for consultations.
Israelis Continue To Seize West Bank Land
On July 2, the same day that Israel turned over control of Bethlehem to Palestinian security services as stipulated in the Road Map for a Middle East peace, Israeli officials were seizing Palestinian land at the West Bank villages of Beit Eksa and Beit Souriq.
Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was using the withdrawals from the Gaza Strip and Bethlehem as a cover to seize more land. "It's robbery. What they are doing is trying to practice ethnic cleansing on the outskirts of Jerusalem. When they steal the land of villagers, they tell them they have no future with nothing to live on. The Road Map says they should stop the confiscation of land, they should stop the demolition of homes, but all the Israelis do is talk of the difficult decisions they have to make."
The land being seized is near Jerusalem and is part of a land grab to expand the borders of the city deep into the West Bank. "There is a master plan, that doesn't have official status but is widely accepted, to create a Jerusalem metropolis," said Yehezkel Lein of the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem. "Palestinians have been restricted from moving to Jerusalem since the 1990s, but they are bringing in more and more Jews with settlements."
New Party To Form in Israel To Promote Peace
A new Israeli social democratic party could be formed as early as mid-July. The party would be organized by the Meretz Party, which would then take on the name Tikva L'Yisrael or Hope for Israel. It would then invite other parties to join. The move could split the Labor Party, members of which are growing more and resentful of the rightwing leadership that has taken over the party since Amram Mitnza resigned the chairmanship.
Yossi Beilin, who left the Labor Party and joined the Meretz Party in the last election, will contest the election for chairman of the new party. He will bring his Sahar movement into the new party. The other contender for party chairman is Ran Cohen, who is a veteran member of the Meretz Party.
Beilin is pushing for the new party very hard as an attempt to revive the opposition to the Likud and other rightwing parties that have come to dominate the political scene.
|