Tweet
PHILLIPS: EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY WILL UNFETTER ERDOGAN'S AMBITIONS
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Feb 25 2015
February 25, 2015, Wednesday/ 17:59:07/ AYDOÄ~^AN VATANDAÅ~^ / NEW YORK
If the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) succeeds in
securing enough votes to change the Constitution in the upcoming
general election slated for June, it will lead to the unfettering
of the ambitions of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, according to
Professor David L. Phillips, who underlined that it is crucial for
opposition parties to pass the election threshold if Turkey is to
see genuine political reform.
"Democracy needs checks and balances. The AK Party and Mr. Erdogan
have systematically degraded the system of checks and balances in
Turkey. If he wins enough votes in the national elections to change
the Constitution and establish an executive presidency, then Erdogan's
ambitions will be unfettered," said Phillips, the director of the
Program on Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University's
Institute for the Study of Human Rights, adding, "It is important that
opposition parties pass the threshold, so they are seated in Parliament
and can participate in the process of genuine political reform."
Elected as president in August by popular vote after years in power
as prime minister, Erdogan has been voicing his desire for a switch
to a presidential system in Turkey ahead of the general election and
indicated that he wants the ruling AK Party to obtain the parliamentary
majority necessary to amend the Constitution and clear the way to
replace the current system with a presidential one.
The president supports the formation of a "Turkish-style" presidential
system -- a strong unicameral system rather than a bicameral one,
which he says will help the country's development by eliminating
"multi-headedness" in state governance and thus pave the way for a
more effective decision-making system. However, debates over the
presidential system have fanned growing concerns over Erdogan's
monopoly on power and Turkey's slide toward authoritarianism.
After the rise of the AK Party in 2002, many scholars in the United
States believed Turkey was on the path to democratization, which
they considered an important indicator of the compatibility of Islam
and democracy. Many also believed that with its commitment to the
European Union process and booming economy, Turkey could be a model
for the Middle East and play a historic role in connecting the East
and the West.
Phillips is one of those scholars, who now feel disappointed about
recent developments in Turkey.
"I am among the scholars who count themselves as a friend of Turks
and of Turkey but who were deeply disappointed in the AK Party,"
the professor said, stressing the AK Party has adopted policies that
are not in the interests of Turkey, Turks or its allies, like the
United States.
On Turkey's cross-border operation to Syria last weekend to rescue
troops at an Ottoman tomb, Professor Phillips believes that the
recent removal of the remains of Suleyman Å~^ah from the tomb in
Syria by the Turkish government was carried out in cooperation with
the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
"They seem to have done that in cooperation with ISIS [another acronym
to refer to ISIL], whose forces surround the tomb. There was no combat,
no live-fire exchanges. There was obviously a negotiation about the
deployment of Turkish troops and the removal of corporeal remains,"
Phillips said.
Phillips also believes Erdogan's government chose to support radical
jihadist groups in Syria, including ISIL, when it misjudged the extent
of US commitment to regime change in Syria.
"When the US rejected military action, when it refused to enforce
its red lines, Mr. Erdogan became increasingly frustrated with the US
policy and he expanded support to Islamist and jihadist groups. This
was an expression of his frustration with the West. That support
backfired. Jihadi groups are fundamentally unfriendly to Turkey.
Ultimately they will attack Turkey, just as they did in Reyhanlı in
2012," he said, adding that the decision in 2012 to provide logistical
support to jihadists transiting through Turkey to Syria was based on
a goal to get rid of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but it was a
strategic blunder by Turkey.
On the AK Party government's seizure of the management of Islamic
lender Bank Asya -- known to be close to the Gulen movement, which
the AK Party government has vowed to destroy -- Phillips said the
move is contrary to the principles of democracy and undermines a
free-market system in a country whose economy is already a bubble.
Professor Phillips is the author of a number of important books,
including "From Bullets to Ballots: Violent Muslim Movements in
Transition" (Transaction Press, 2008), "Losing Iraq: Inside the
Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco" (Perseus Books, 2005) and "Unsilencing
the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation"
(Berghahn Books, 2005).
In Phillips' new book, titled "The Kurdish Spring: A New Map of the
Middle East," he argues that US strategic and security interests are
advanced through cooperation with Kurds as a bulwark against ISIL
and Islamic extremism.
Today's Zaman spoke with Professor Phillips about the recent
developments in Turkey and the region as well as his new book.
After the rise of the AK Party, many scholars in the US thought
Turkey would be a good model for the Muslim world in terms of
the compatibility of Islam and democracy. However, in the last
several years, some scholars have become disappointed. Are you also
disappointed about the authoritarian tendencies of Erdogan? Where do
you think they failed?
I want to acknowledge the positive contribution the AK Party made.
When it came to power in 2002 Turkey's economy was in a free fall.
Inflation was brought under control, the economy was stabilized, and
foreign direct investment was increased. The initial contribution
of the AK Party was very positive. US-Turkish relations started to
deteriorate in 2003 as a result of the invasion and occupation of
Iraq. Relations have worsened steadily since then. I am among the
scholars who count themselves as a friend of Turks and of Turkey but
who were deeply disappointed in the AK Party. It has taken actions
which are not in the interests of Turkey, Turks, or its allies like
the US.
After 2007, do you think the AK Party started to remove itself from
the European Union process and to turn into a more authoritarian state?
After the elections of July 22, 2007, the AK Party had a historic
opportunity to consolidate progress and to improve human rights
conditions in Turkey. Instead of focusing on minority rights and
human rights, it focused on the headscarf issue. That was a clear
statement of AK Party's Islamist tendencies.
Do you think the AK Party miscalculated the geopolitical realities
regarding the Arab Spring when it claimed a leadership role in the
region through its alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood?
The "zero problems with neighbors" policy was based on a belief that
Turkey could become a leader of the Muslim world. In order to achieve
that goal, it needed to establish better relations with its neighbors.
The shared values between the AK Party and the Muslim Brotherhood are
apparent. From the West, however, Turkey looks like a Middle Eastern
country. But from the Middle East, Turkey looks decidedly Western.
There was never a realistic prospect for Turkey to become a leader
of the Sunni-Arab Muslim world.
Do you also think they miscalculated the situation in Syria?
Turkey was correct in pursuing a policy of regime change in Syria. The
US also adopted a policy of regime change. President Barack Obama
clearly stated that the US wanted Assad to leave power and vacate the
presidency in Syria. Turkey didn't miscalculate. It just misunderstood
the depth of America's commitment to regime change in Syria. When
the US rejected military action, when it refused to enforce its red
lines, Mr. Erdogan became increasingly frustrated with the US policy
and he expanded support to Islamist and jihadist groups. This was an
expression of his frustration with the West. That support backfired.
Jihadi groups are fundamentally unfriendly to Turkey. Ultimately they
will attack Turkey, just as they did in Reyhanlı in 2012.
Is this why Erdogan's government went a little bit soft about ISIL?
They didn't go a little bit soft. They supported jihadists who were
fighting in Syria.
Including ISIL?
ISIS is one of many jihadi groups. It is now the strongest and the
most prevalent. The 2012 decision to provide logistical support to
jihadists transiting through Turkey to Syria was based on a goal to
get rid of Assad.
Has that been a problem between the US and Erdogan's government?
Of course it is. The US is leading a multinational coalition. Turkey
signed up for the multinational coalition but it has done very little
to seal its border. It has failed to allow the use of Ä°ncirlik air
force base for air strikes. It delayed agreement on a train-and-equip
program assisting the moderate Syrian opposition. Last week's
agreement to train 1,200 fighters was overdue. Given the urgency of
the situation, Turkey should have moved faster.
What are your thoughts on the recent developments on the removal of
the remains of Suleyman Å~^ah from Syria?
They [Turkey] seem to have done that in cooperation with ISIL, which
controls that territory. There was no combat, no live fire exchanges.
There appears to have been a negotiation about the deployment of
Turkish troops and the removal of corporeal remains.
Do you think the UN will do anything about the allegations suggesting
that Erdogan's government sent arms to ISIL?
No, I don't think the United Nations would do anything about that. But
it is illegal to provide weapons to terrorist organizations.
Do you think Turkey will be challenged for that?
If there was a credible international body to challenge Turkey, then
Turkey deserves to be challenged. The UN doesn't have the capacity
or credibility to challenge Turkey and the US would prefer to work
out its disagreements with Turkey quietly.
Do you think Americans are adequately discussing how best to target
ISIL's financial resources rather than whether or not ISIL promotes
Islam?
I use the term "Islamic extremism" even though the Obama administration
is reluctant to use the term. Using the term Islamic extremism does
not imply that Islam condones violence. Nor does it mean that countries
whose population majority is Islamic are violent.
But it is a fact that violent extremism in Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria and
Somalia are perpetrated by groups whose members are Muslim. Muslims
face a choice. Do they support the peace-loving tenets of Islam or
do they subscribe to violent extremism of jihadi groups?
Why do you think the United States is reluctant to challenge Turkey
about it sending arms or supporting ISIL?
The US has demanded that Turkey seal its border. There are plenty
of media reports about Turkey purchasing oil from facilities in
Raqqa and elsewhere with proceeds supporting ISIL. The US has asked
Turkey to discontinue its oil business with ISIL. At the same time,
the coalition has launched air strikes against oil facilities and
refineries. I understand that 14 out of 18 oil-producing facilities
under ISIL control have now been rendered inoperable as result of
the air strikes. Turkey has been halfhearted in its efforts to cut
off the revenue streams to ISIL. It has been very weak in sealing its
border and depriving ISIL of the logistical support and manpower it
needs to sustain its operations.
Do you think ISIL and the AK Party leadership have anything in common
ideologically?
The deputy prime minister of Turkey [Bulent Arınc] had said women
shouldn't laugh or smile in public because it draws attention to them.
That's the kind of comment you would expect to come from someone like
[ISIL leader] Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Baghdadi just claimed leadership in the Islamic world by announcing
a caliphate. Why do you think he did that? Do you think a caliphate
is very central in the Islamic tradition?
Declaring a caliphate serves recruitment goals and political
objectives. Baghdadi has succeeded in establishing himself and ISIL
as the leading jihadi group. He differs from al-Qaeda because of
his declaration of a caliphate. ISIL is determined to destroy the
boundaries that were agreed to in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916
and institutionalized in the post-Paris peace conference treaties
and mandates.
Now Erdogan wants to be the executive president of Turkey. Do
you believe he can achieve that and that Turkey can turn into a
dictatorship?
Democracy needs checks and balances. The AK Party and Mr. Erdogan have
systematically degraded the system of checks and balances in Turkey.
If he wins enough votes in the national elections to change the
Constitution and establish an executive presidency, then Erdogan's
ambitions will be unfettered. It is important that opposition parties
pass the threshold so they are seated in Parliament and can participate
in the process of genuine political reform.
Why do you think Erdogan wants to terminate the Hizmet movement? Do
you think he is doing that to consolidate his power?
The Hizmet movement represents a challenge to Mr. Erdogan. The
independent posture of the judiciary, police and prosecutors threatens
the AK Party. Erdogan has systematically targeted the Hizmet movement
and persons he believes are loyal to it as a way of consolidating his
power. Even more than [the Kurdistan Workers' Party] PKK, the Hizmet
movement is now labeled as the primary adversary of the Turkish state.
Do you think the military is totally sidelined in Turkish politics?
Erdogan has systematically taken steps to sideline the Turkish
military. Many of them were in jail. Many of the old guard have been
silenced. In the past, the Turkish military may have been a reliable
partner of the United States, but it was not a reliable partner of
democracy. Subordinating the security structures to civilian control is
a necessary part of Turkey's path towards the European Union. But doing
so without the promotion of human rights undermines democratization
and further removes Turkey from realizing EU aspirations.
Many believe that Erdogan had the opportunity to solve the Kurdish
issue in Turkey because they had the majority in Parliament but they
didn't do many things that they could have. Do you think Erdogan used
the PKK leadership for a short-term political gain?
It is too soon to tell. We do know, however, that Erdogan announced
a democracy opening and pledged reforms but he did not deliver on
his promises. After the events in Kobani, the Kurds in Turkey were
incensed and launched demonstrations against the Turkish government.
If Erdogan doesn't implement greater political and cultural rights
for Kurds, there is a real risk that the Kurds in Turkey could be
radicalized, leading to a resurgence of violence similar to what we
saw in the 1980s and the 1990s.
Do you think this is likely in the near future?
It is for Mr. Erdogan to decide whether he is serious about a
democracy opening and a peace process or if he's using it for
short-term political gain. It is in Turkey's interest to uphold the
rights of all Turkish citizens, including those of Kurdish origin.
Erdogan can still establish his legacy through a peace agreement
with the PKK that culminates in the disarmament, demobilization and
reintegration of PKK fighters.
Do you think Kurdish autonomy is likely in the near future?
The Kurds have proposed a democratic autonomy. Decentralization is
always a good remedy to aggrieved minority groups. However, Turkey
is deeply concerned about its disintegration. It views democratic
autonomy as a step on the path towards fragmentation. Turkey can
provide rights and remain a unitary state but it cannot ignore the
legitimate grievances of 20 million Kurds for greater political and
cultural autonomy. Denying the legitimate democratic aspirations of
Kurds in Turkey risks increased violence.
What do you think about Turkey's approach to Kobani?
Turkey's approach to Kobani was a strategic and public relations
disaster. Parking the tanks on the hill overlooking Kobani and
watching the Kurdish defenders of Kobani face off against ISIS actually
discredited Turkey. Equating ISIS and the People's Protection Units
of the PYD was also a mistake. The world rallied behind the Kurdish
defenders of Kobani. ISIS succeeded in bringing the PYD, the PKK, PJAK
and the peshmerga together. There is now a discussion about whether
Kurds are better allies of the United States than the Turkish state
under Erdogan.
Tell us about your upcoming book titled "The Kurdish Spring.
My new book, "The Kurdish Spring," is a diplomatic history of the
betrayal and abuse of the Kurds during the 20th century. It describes
historical injustice and division of Kurds in four countries and
assesses current conditions, concluding that Iraq and Syria are failed
states. Iraq will fragment and fall apart. In this event, Iraqi
Kurdistan will emerge as the world's next newest country. Instead
of resisting those developments, Turkey should embrace them and
consolidate its strategic partnership with Iraqi Kurds so that
Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey can continue to work closely together in
commercial fields.
Are you also discussing the British Empire's responsibility for the
displacement of Kurds in the region?
Sure. When I speak of betrayal I'm thinking of betrayal by great
powers, not only the betrayal of Kurds but also the betrayal of other
peoples in the region after World War I.
What is noteworthy is the promise made to Kurds in the Treaty of
Sèvres. They were told a referendum could be held on their political
status and that this status could be determined by Kurdistan as a
whole. However, the War of Independence undermined the Treaty of
Sèvres and led to the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. There was no
mention of Kurds or use of the term "Kurdish" in the Lausanne Treaty.
Great powers were tired of fighting after World War I and they wanted
to establish an alliance with Turkey rather than act as its adversary.
As a result, Kurds and Armenians were denied their national
aspirations.
Do you think an independent Kurdish state is possible in today's
geopolitical climate?
Iraqi Kurdistan is already a de facto independent state. There is no
contiguous border between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraq, only a border
between Iraqi Kurdistan and lands held ISIL. Iraqi Kurdistan has
proven to be progressive, pro-democratic and fundamentally secular. It
has 45 billion barrels of oil and an increasing ability to provide
security to its citizens. Those are the elements necessary for state
building. Instead of undermining this progress, Turkey should embrace
it. Ultimately stability and democracy in the region will be enhanced
by the creation of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan.
How do you think the American government, this year, will position
itself on the Armenian resolution issue?
Let's define "genocide." It has four elements: more than one person
must have died and these people must have been members of the same
ethnic, religious or racial group. The perpetrator must have intended
them to die and their killing must have been systemic. What happened to
the Armenians clearly meets these criteria. The United States should
recognize the events in Armenia as genocide. President Obama has made
his personal views well known. When you become the president of the
United States you don't have personal views -- your views are those
of the US government. It would be helpful if he was to use the term
"Armenian genocide" and then the US and Turkey can move on and set this
issue aside. The Genocide Convention cannot be applied retroactively
for reparations or territorial claims.
Erdogan has tried to seize Bank Asya and is now trying to seize Ä°Å~_
Bankası, in which the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP)
holds shares. Do you have any remarks about how these political
manipulations of the banking system can affect the Turkish economy?
You can't seize assets simply because you oppose the asset holders.
This is contrary to the principles of democracy and undermines a
free-market system. Turkey's economy is already a bubble which is
highly leveraged. Foreign direct investment (FDI) is greatly reduced.
If you remove real state investments the FDI will be way down from
where it was a few years ago. Erdogan should be careful not to further
erode confidence among Turks and among foreign investors.
What about the nuclear talks between the United States and Iran?
They are at a crucial stage. It is important to work towards a deal
that is verifiable. If those talks fail, other states in the region
are likely to enter into an arms race by seeking nuclear weapons. If
Turkey becomes a nuclear arms state and continues on its current path
of Islamicization, that would represent a serious threat to the US,
NATO and other countries in the region.
Profile
David L. Phillips is currently director of the Program on
Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University's Institute
for the Study of Human Rights. Phillips has worked as a senior
advisor to the United Nations Secretariat and as a foreign affairs
expert and senior adviser to the US Department of State. He has
held positions as a visiting scholar at Harvard University's Center
for Middle East Studies, executive director of Columbia University's
International Conflict Resolution Program, director of the Program on
Conflict Prevention and Peace-building at American University and as
a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna. He has also been a
senior fellow and deputy director of the Council on Foreign Relations'
Center for Preventive Action, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council
of the United States, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, director of the European Centre for Common
Ground, project director at the International Peace Research Institute
of Oslo, president of the Congressional Human Rights Foundation and
executive director of the Elie Wiesel Foundation. Mr. Phillips is
author of "Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and US Intervention"
(Harvard's Kennedy School 2012), "From Bullets to Ballots: Violent
Muslim Movements in Transition" (Transaction Press, 2008), "Losing
Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco" (Perseus Books, 2005),
"Unsilencing the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation" (Berghahn Books, 2005). He has also authored
many policy reports, as well as more than 100 articles in leading
publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal,
Financial Times, International Herald Tribune and Foreign Affairs.
http://www.todayszaman.com/interviews_phillips-executive-presidency-will-unfetter-erdogans-ambitions_373628.html
From: A. Papazian
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Feb 25 2015
February 25, 2015, Wednesday/ 17:59:07/ AYDOÄ~^AN VATANDAÅ~^ / NEW YORK
If the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) succeeds in
securing enough votes to change the Constitution in the upcoming
general election slated for June, it will lead to the unfettering
of the ambitions of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, according to
Professor David L. Phillips, who underlined that it is crucial for
opposition parties to pass the election threshold if Turkey is to
see genuine political reform.
"Democracy needs checks and balances. The AK Party and Mr. Erdogan
have systematically degraded the system of checks and balances in
Turkey. If he wins enough votes in the national elections to change
the Constitution and establish an executive presidency, then Erdogan's
ambitions will be unfettered," said Phillips, the director of the
Program on Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University's
Institute for the Study of Human Rights, adding, "It is important that
opposition parties pass the threshold, so they are seated in Parliament
and can participate in the process of genuine political reform."
Elected as president in August by popular vote after years in power
as prime minister, Erdogan has been voicing his desire for a switch
to a presidential system in Turkey ahead of the general election and
indicated that he wants the ruling AK Party to obtain the parliamentary
majority necessary to amend the Constitution and clear the way to
replace the current system with a presidential one.
The president supports the formation of a "Turkish-style" presidential
system -- a strong unicameral system rather than a bicameral one,
which he says will help the country's development by eliminating
"multi-headedness" in state governance and thus pave the way for a
more effective decision-making system. However, debates over the
presidential system have fanned growing concerns over Erdogan's
monopoly on power and Turkey's slide toward authoritarianism.
After the rise of the AK Party in 2002, many scholars in the United
States believed Turkey was on the path to democratization, which
they considered an important indicator of the compatibility of Islam
and democracy. Many also believed that with its commitment to the
European Union process and booming economy, Turkey could be a model
for the Middle East and play a historic role in connecting the East
and the West.
Phillips is one of those scholars, who now feel disappointed about
recent developments in Turkey.
"I am among the scholars who count themselves as a friend of Turks
and of Turkey but who were deeply disappointed in the AK Party,"
the professor said, stressing the AK Party has adopted policies that
are not in the interests of Turkey, Turks or its allies, like the
United States.
On Turkey's cross-border operation to Syria last weekend to rescue
troops at an Ottoman tomb, Professor Phillips believes that the
recent removal of the remains of Suleyman Å~^ah from the tomb in
Syria by the Turkish government was carried out in cooperation with
the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
"They seem to have done that in cooperation with ISIS [another acronym
to refer to ISIL], whose forces surround the tomb. There was no combat,
no live-fire exchanges. There was obviously a negotiation about the
deployment of Turkish troops and the removal of corporeal remains,"
Phillips said.
Phillips also believes Erdogan's government chose to support radical
jihadist groups in Syria, including ISIL, when it misjudged the extent
of US commitment to regime change in Syria.
"When the US rejected military action, when it refused to enforce
its red lines, Mr. Erdogan became increasingly frustrated with the US
policy and he expanded support to Islamist and jihadist groups. This
was an expression of his frustration with the West. That support
backfired. Jihadi groups are fundamentally unfriendly to Turkey.
Ultimately they will attack Turkey, just as they did in Reyhanlı in
2012," he said, adding that the decision in 2012 to provide logistical
support to jihadists transiting through Turkey to Syria was based on
a goal to get rid of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but it was a
strategic blunder by Turkey.
On the AK Party government's seizure of the management of Islamic
lender Bank Asya -- known to be close to the Gulen movement, which
the AK Party government has vowed to destroy -- Phillips said the
move is contrary to the principles of democracy and undermines a
free-market system in a country whose economy is already a bubble.
Professor Phillips is the author of a number of important books,
including "From Bullets to Ballots: Violent Muslim Movements in
Transition" (Transaction Press, 2008), "Losing Iraq: Inside the
Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco" (Perseus Books, 2005) and "Unsilencing
the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation"
(Berghahn Books, 2005).
In Phillips' new book, titled "The Kurdish Spring: A New Map of the
Middle East," he argues that US strategic and security interests are
advanced through cooperation with Kurds as a bulwark against ISIL
and Islamic extremism.
Today's Zaman spoke with Professor Phillips about the recent
developments in Turkey and the region as well as his new book.
After the rise of the AK Party, many scholars in the US thought
Turkey would be a good model for the Muslim world in terms of
the compatibility of Islam and democracy. However, in the last
several years, some scholars have become disappointed. Are you also
disappointed about the authoritarian tendencies of Erdogan? Where do
you think they failed?
I want to acknowledge the positive contribution the AK Party made.
When it came to power in 2002 Turkey's economy was in a free fall.
Inflation was brought under control, the economy was stabilized, and
foreign direct investment was increased. The initial contribution
of the AK Party was very positive. US-Turkish relations started to
deteriorate in 2003 as a result of the invasion and occupation of
Iraq. Relations have worsened steadily since then. I am among the
scholars who count themselves as a friend of Turks and of Turkey but
who were deeply disappointed in the AK Party. It has taken actions
which are not in the interests of Turkey, Turks, or its allies like
the US.
After 2007, do you think the AK Party started to remove itself from
the European Union process and to turn into a more authoritarian state?
After the elections of July 22, 2007, the AK Party had a historic
opportunity to consolidate progress and to improve human rights
conditions in Turkey. Instead of focusing on minority rights and
human rights, it focused on the headscarf issue. That was a clear
statement of AK Party's Islamist tendencies.
Do you think the AK Party miscalculated the geopolitical realities
regarding the Arab Spring when it claimed a leadership role in the
region through its alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood?
The "zero problems with neighbors" policy was based on a belief that
Turkey could become a leader of the Muslim world. In order to achieve
that goal, it needed to establish better relations with its neighbors.
The shared values between the AK Party and the Muslim Brotherhood are
apparent. From the West, however, Turkey looks like a Middle Eastern
country. But from the Middle East, Turkey looks decidedly Western.
There was never a realistic prospect for Turkey to become a leader
of the Sunni-Arab Muslim world.
Do you also think they miscalculated the situation in Syria?
Turkey was correct in pursuing a policy of regime change in Syria. The
US also adopted a policy of regime change. President Barack Obama
clearly stated that the US wanted Assad to leave power and vacate the
presidency in Syria. Turkey didn't miscalculate. It just misunderstood
the depth of America's commitment to regime change in Syria. When
the US rejected military action, when it refused to enforce its red
lines, Mr. Erdogan became increasingly frustrated with the US policy
and he expanded support to Islamist and jihadist groups. This was an
expression of his frustration with the West. That support backfired.
Jihadi groups are fundamentally unfriendly to Turkey. Ultimately they
will attack Turkey, just as they did in Reyhanlı in 2012.
Is this why Erdogan's government went a little bit soft about ISIL?
They didn't go a little bit soft. They supported jihadists who were
fighting in Syria.
Including ISIL?
ISIS is one of many jihadi groups. It is now the strongest and the
most prevalent. The 2012 decision to provide logistical support to
jihadists transiting through Turkey to Syria was based on a goal to
get rid of Assad.
Has that been a problem between the US and Erdogan's government?
Of course it is. The US is leading a multinational coalition. Turkey
signed up for the multinational coalition but it has done very little
to seal its border. It has failed to allow the use of Ä°ncirlik air
force base for air strikes. It delayed agreement on a train-and-equip
program assisting the moderate Syrian opposition. Last week's
agreement to train 1,200 fighters was overdue. Given the urgency of
the situation, Turkey should have moved faster.
What are your thoughts on the recent developments on the removal of
the remains of Suleyman Å~^ah from Syria?
They [Turkey] seem to have done that in cooperation with ISIL, which
controls that territory. There was no combat, no live fire exchanges.
There appears to have been a negotiation about the deployment of
Turkish troops and the removal of corporeal remains.
Do you think the UN will do anything about the allegations suggesting
that Erdogan's government sent arms to ISIL?
No, I don't think the United Nations would do anything about that. But
it is illegal to provide weapons to terrorist organizations.
Do you think Turkey will be challenged for that?
If there was a credible international body to challenge Turkey, then
Turkey deserves to be challenged. The UN doesn't have the capacity
or credibility to challenge Turkey and the US would prefer to work
out its disagreements with Turkey quietly.
Do you think Americans are adequately discussing how best to target
ISIL's financial resources rather than whether or not ISIL promotes
Islam?
I use the term "Islamic extremism" even though the Obama administration
is reluctant to use the term. Using the term Islamic extremism does
not imply that Islam condones violence. Nor does it mean that countries
whose population majority is Islamic are violent.
But it is a fact that violent extremism in Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria and
Somalia are perpetrated by groups whose members are Muslim. Muslims
face a choice. Do they support the peace-loving tenets of Islam or
do they subscribe to violent extremism of jihadi groups?
Why do you think the United States is reluctant to challenge Turkey
about it sending arms or supporting ISIL?
The US has demanded that Turkey seal its border. There are plenty
of media reports about Turkey purchasing oil from facilities in
Raqqa and elsewhere with proceeds supporting ISIL. The US has asked
Turkey to discontinue its oil business with ISIL. At the same time,
the coalition has launched air strikes against oil facilities and
refineries. I understand that 14 out of 18 oil-producing facilities
under ISIL control have now been rendered inoperable as result of
the air strikes. Turkey has been halfhearted in its efforts to cut
off the revenue streams to ISIL. It has been very weak in sealing its
border and depriving ISIL of the logistical support and manpower it
needs to sustain its operations.
Do you think ISIL and the AK Party leadership have anything in common
ideologically?
The deputy prime minister of Turkey [Bulent Arınc] had said women
shouldn't laugh or smile in public because it draws attention to them.
That's the kind of comment you would expect to come from someone like
[ISIL leader] Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Baghdadi just claimed leadership in the Islamic world by announcing
a caliphate. Why do you think he did that? Do you think a caliphate
is very central in the Islamic tradition?
Declaring a caliphate serves recruitment goals and political
objectives. Baghdadi has succeeded in establishing himself and ISIL
as the leading jihadi group. He differs from al-Qaeda because of
his declaration of a caliphate. ISIL is determined to destroy the
boundaries that were agreed to in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916
and institutionalized in the post-Paris peace conference treaties
and mandates.
Now Erdogan wants to be the executive president of Turkey. Do
you believe he can achieve that and that Turkey can turn into a
dictatorship?
Democracy needs checks and balances. The AK Party and Mr. Erdogan have
systematically degraded the system of checks and balances in Turkey.
If he wins enough votes in the national elections to change the
Constitution and establish an executive presidency, then Erdogan's
ambitions will be unfettered. It is important that opposition parties
pass the threshold so they are seated in Parliament and can participate
in the process of genuine political reform.
Why do you think Erdogan wants to terminate the Hizmet movement? Do
you think he is doing that to consolidate his power?
The Hizmet movement represents a challenge to Mr. Erdogan. The
independent posture of the judiciary, police and prosecutors threatens
the AK Party. Erdogan has systematically targeted the Hizmet movement
and persons he believes are loyal to it as a way of consolidating his
power. Even more than [the Kurdistan Workers' Party] PKK, the Hizmet
movement is now labeled as the primary adversary of the Turkish state.
Do you think the military is totally sidelined in Turkish politics?
Erdogan has systematically taken steps to sideline the Turkish
military. Many of them were in jail. Many of the old guard have been
silenced. In the past, the Turkish military may have been a reliable
partner of the United States, but it was not a reliable partner of
democracy. Subordinating the security structures to civilian control is
a necessary part of Turkey's path towards the European Union. But doing
so without the promotion of human rights undermines democratization
and further removes Turkey from realizing EU aspirations.
Many believe that Erdogan had the opportunity to solve the Kurdish
issue in Turkey because they had the majority in Parliament but they
didn't do many things that they could have. Do you think Erdogan used
the PKK leadership for a short-term political gain?
It is too soon to tell. We do know, however, that Erdogan announced
a democracy opening and pledged reforms but he did not deliver on
his promises. After the events in Kobani, the Kurds in Turkey were
incensed and launched demonstrations against the Turkish government.
If Erdogan doesn't implement greater political and cultural rights
for Kurds, there is a real risk that the Kurds in Turkey could be
radicalized, leading to a resurgence of violence similar to what we
saw in the 1980s and the 1990s.
Do you think this is likely in the near future?
It is for Mr. Erdogan to decide whether he is serious about a
democracy opening and a peace process or if he's using it for
short-term political gain. It is in Turkey's interest to uphold the
rights of all Turkish citizens, including those of Kurdish origin.
Erdogan can still establish his legacy through a peace agreement
with the PKK that culminates in the disarmament, demobilization and
reintegration of PKK fighters.
Do you think Kurdish autonomy is likely in the near future?
The Kurds have proposed a democratic autonomy. Decentralization is
always a good remedy to aggrieved minority groups. However, Turkey
is deeply concerned about its disintegration. It views democratic
autonomy as a step on the path towards fragmentation. Turkey can
provide rights and remain a unitary state but it cannot ignore the
legitimate grievances of 20 million Kurds for greater political and
cultural autonomy. Denying the legitimate democratic aspirations of
Kurds in Turkey risks increased violence.
What do you think about Turkey's approach to Kobani?
Turkey's approach to Kobani was a strategic and public relations
disaster. Parking the tanks on the hill overlooking Kobani and
watching the Kurdish defenders of Kobani face off against ISIS actually
discredited Turkey. Equating ISIS and the People's Protection Units
of the PYD was also a mistake. The world rallied behind the Kurdish
defenders of Kobani. ISIS succeeded in bringing the PYD, the PKK, PJAK
and the peshmerga together. There is now a discussion about whether
Kurds are better allies of the United States than the Turkish state
under Erdogan.
Tell us about your upcoming book titled "The Kurdish Spring.
My new book, "The Kurdish Spring," is a diplomatic history of the
betrayal and abuse of the Kurds during the 20th century. It describes
historical injustice and division of Kurds in four countries and
assesses current conditions, concluding that Iraq and Syria are failed
states. Iraq will fragment and fall apart. In this event, Iraqi
Kurdistan will emerge as the world's next newest country. Instead
of resisting those developments, Turkey should embrace them and
consolidate its strategic partnership with Iraqi Kurds so that
Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey can continue to work closely together in
commercial fields.
Are you also discussing the British Empire's responsibility for the
displacement of Kurds in the region?
Sure. When I speak of betrayal I'm thinking of betrayal by great
powers, not only the betrayal of Kurds but also the betrayal of other
peoples in the region after World War I.
What is noteworthy is the promise made to Kurds in the Treaty of
Sèvres. They were told a referendum could be held on their political
status and that this status could be determined by Kurdistan as a
whole. However, the War of Independence undermined the Treaty of
Sèvres and led to the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. There was no
mention of Kurds or use of the term "Kurdish" in the Lausanne Treaty.
Great powers were tired of fighting after World War I and they wanted
to establish an alliance with Turkey rather than act as its adversary.
As a result, Kurds and Armenians were denied their national
aspirations.
Do you think an independent Kurdish state is possible in today's
geopolitical climate?
Iraqi Kurdistan is already a de facto independent state. There is no
contiguous border between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraq, only a border
between Iraqi Kurdistan and lands held ISIL. Iraqi Kurdistan has
proven to be progressive, pro-democratic and fundamentally secular. It
has 45 billion barrels of oil and an increasing ability to provide
security to its citizens. Those are the elements necessary for state
building. Instead of undermining this progress, Turkey should embrace
it. Ultimately stability and democracy in the region will be enhanced
by the creation of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan.
How do you think the American government, this year, will position
itself on the Armenian resolution issue?
Let's define "genocide." It has four elements: more than one person
must have died and these people must have been members of the same
ethnic, religious or racial group. The perpetrator must have intended
them to die and their killing must have been systemic. What happened to
the Armenians clearly meets these criteria. The United States should
recognize the events in Armenia as genocide. President Obama has made
his personal views well known. When you become the president of the
United States you don't have personal views -- your views are those
of the US government. It would be helpful if he was to use the term
"Armenian genocide" and then the US and Turkey can move on and set this
issue aside. The Genocide Convention cannot be applied retroactively
for reparations or territorial claims.
Erdogan has tried to seize Bank Asya and is now trying to seize Ä°Å~_
Bankası, in which the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP)
holds shares. Do you have any remarks about how these political
manipulations of the banking system can affect the Turkish economy?
You can't seize assets simply because you oppose the asset holders.
This is contrary to the principles of democracy and undermines a
free-market system. Turkey's economy is already a bubble which is
highly leveraged. Foreign direct investment (FDI) is greatly reduced.
If you remove real state investments the FDI will be way down from
where it was a few years ago. Erdogan should be careful not to further
erode confidence among Turks and among foreign investors.
What about the nuclear talks between the United States and Iran?
They are at a crucial stage. It is important to work towards a deal
that is verifiable. If those talks fail, other states in the region
are likely to enter into an arms race by seeking nuclear weapons. If
Turkey becomes a nuclear arms state and continues on its current path
of Islamicization, that would represent a serious threat to the US,
NATO and other countries in the region.
Profile
David L. Phillips is currently director of the Program on
Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University's Institute
for the Study of Human Rights. Phillips has worked as a senior
advisor to the United Nations Secretariat and as a foreign affairs
expert and senior adviser to the US Department of State. He has
held positions as a visiting scholar at Harvard University's Center
for Middle East Studies, executive director of Columbia University's
International Conflict Resolution Program, director of the Program on
Conflict Prevention and Peace-building at American University and as
a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna. He has also been a
senior fellow and deputy director of the Council on Foreign Relations'
Center for Preventive Action, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council
of the United States, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, director of the European Centre for Common
Ground, project director at the International Peace Research Institute
of Oslo, president of the Congressional Human Rights Foundation and
executive director of the Elie Wiesel Foundation. Mr. Phillips is
author of "Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and US Intervention"
(Harvard's Kennedy School 2012), "From Bullets to Ballots: Violent
Muslim Movements in Transition" (Transaction Press, 2008), "Losing
Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco" (Perseus Books, 2005),
"Unsilencing the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation" (Berghahn Books, 2005). He has also authored
many policy reports, as well as more than 100 articles in leading
publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal,
Financial Times, International Herald Tribune and Foreign Affairs.
http://www.todayszaman.com/interviews_phillips-executive-presidency-will-unfetter-erdogans-ambitions_373628.html
From: A. Papazian