|
All
eyes are on Iraq these days, but conventional wisdom holds it's just
the first step of the Bush administration's larger push to gain hegemony
over the international oil and gas industry. Two factors could stand
in the way of the US grand plan though: Central Asia and Europe. A
microcosm of this battle is quietly being fought now in Turkey, and
in many ways the outcome could determine the future of the entire
region.
Turkey enjoys a uniquely strategic geographical position, smack at
the crossroads of Asia, Africa and Europe; more importantly for the
Bush administration, Turkey borders Iraq. Speaking in Ankara recently,
US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, "Obviously if we
are going to have significant ground forces in the north (of Iraq),
this is the country they have to come through. There is no other option."
And it's clear the US aims for more than simply carrying out air-strikes
from Turkish bases, as it did during the 1991 Gulf War. This time,
the Pentagon wants to dig in deeper, using Turkey as a staging area
for ground attacks into Iraq, and potentially beyond.
Turkey's central role in an attack on Iraq goes a long way in explaining
the massive US military build-up currently taking place
in southern Turkey. It also explains the Bush administration's
about-face in dealing with Turkish AK Party leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan:
after being unceremoniously snubbed on his first visit to Washington
last year, Erdogan was suddenly given the White House star treatment
a few weeks ago, complete with a presidential press conference and
exclusive meetings with top government brass, not to mention a pledge
for billions more dollars in military and financial aid, and US backing
for a new multibillion dollar International Monetary Fund bailout.
Ironically, this flurry of cash-for-cooperation activity from the
States coincides with the European Union's historic first steps to
invite Turkey into its fold. At a recent EU summit in Copenhagen,
the fifteen EU countries agreed to open membership talks with Turkey
in 2005, on the condition that it clean up its human rights and economic
acts in the meantime. At that point, Turkey would have to begin the
mammoth task of adopting roughly 80,000 pages of EU law, a process
that could take at least a decade and transform every aspect of Turkish
society in its wake.
But there's a more urgent change Turkey will have to make. According
to EU High Representative, Javier Solana, "If it is to take its place
in Europe, Turkey must also play a role in the European defense project."
And that's where things get tricky. The Western military industrial
complex is basically split in two distinct groups: the Franco-German
dominated European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co (EADS), and the
US-dominated "Big Six" (including Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, among
others). This distinction is important given that the sides tend to
compete in important global conflicts (the US pumping weapons into
Pakistan while the French arm India, for example). So if the US decides
to attack Iraq (let alone additional countries after that) against
the wishes of other NATO partners, for example, could the ensuing
rift place Turkey literally between Iraq and a hard place?
Another crucial factor is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) project, a pipeline which
would partially run through Turkey, thereby providing Ankara with
revenue from millions in annual transit fees. Critical to the Bush
administration, BTC would help a handful of US companies seize control
over the massive Caspian oil reserves, sidestepping the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on the way. Energy analysts
say the BTC project is unworkable, and environmentalists warn of potential
catastrophic risks. Not surprisingly, Russia, Armenia, and Iran are
rattling sabers and pushing for a different route, enraged at the
prospect of losing control over Caspian oil to the US. Significantly
though, US companies tied to the Bush administration are poised to reap huge profits from BTC (among others,
Vice President Cheney's Halliburton is a finalist for the Turkish
segment of BTC, while National Security Advisor Rice's Chevron is
at the center of the BTC consortium).
The quagmire is further exacerbated by matters internal to Turkey.
Even though Erdogan's AK party swept to power in this November's elections,
a past conviction for "inciting religious hatred" forbids him from
assuming the role of prime minister. To make matters worse, the Islamist
image of Erdogan's party is at odds with the more secular stance of
Turkey's military (leading to noisy disagreements about matters such
as the right for women to wear headscarves in public), a significant
conflict given that Turkish generals are an independent lot and have
staged three coups since 1960. And then there are opinion polls showing
most Turks strongly opposed to helping the US in any attack against
Iraq, despite the Bush administration's financial incentives and friendship
offensive.
The trans-Atlantic battle over Turkey came to a head at this month's
EU summit in Copenhagen. Buoyed by Erdogan's flashy visit to Washington,
Turkish representatives at the Copenhagen summit threatened to boycott
European products, or even dump the EU and join NAFTA, if they did
not receive their preferred date for membership talks. Meanwhile,
high-profile US pressure on the EU to create a special fast-track
for Turkey may have scored PR points with Ankara, but cut little ice
with EU members. European External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten,
for example, laughed off the Bush administration move as a cheap stunt,
akin to EU members trying to score Latin American bonus points by
pressuring the US to make Mexico its 51st state. The upshot was that
Erdogan's attempt to play the States against Europe backfired: Turkey
received a 2005 date for conditional membership talks even though
it had pushed for one far earlier, and even worse, while the Greek
part of Cyprus was asked to join the EU, the Turkish part got left
behind.
The crucial question now is what path Turkey chooses to take. Erdogan
can gain personal status and billions in monetary injections for the
Turkish military and government by allowing the US full access to
Turkish soil in its attack on Iraq; the danger is that he could anger
both the Turkish people and the EU in the process, not to mention
see Turkey flooded with refugees, as happened during the first Gulf
War. Erdogan can support the Bush administration in its fight to secure
the Caspians for US oil interests, thereby earning oil transit income,
but also risking environmental devastation and the wrath of neighbors
such as Russia and Iran. The other option is to bite the bullet and
begin the long-term, painstaking process of bringing Turkey into line
with EU standards. The first option is profitable in the short-term,
and the second offers societal integration in the long-term. The first
option requires war, and the second pursues community-based peace.
But of course, Turkey is in good company – the US has quietly
stepped up its military support of Georgia, Azerbaijan and other countries
in the region crucial to its desired control over Caspian reserves.
One thing is clear: the support these countries give, or don't give,
the Bush administration in its oil-based pursuits/terror war will
be critical in determining the stability of Central Asia and beyond.
|
comments
on this article?
|
|
|
Heather
Wokusch is a free lance writer. She can be reached via her web
site.
|
