Indian President Mukherjee’s State Visit to Turkey (Part II)

Indian President Mukherjee's State Visit to Turkey (Part II) 

 

Turkey is perhaps passing though its most critical period in the history since the establishment of the secular republic in 1920s by Kemal Ataturk, one of the greatest strategic thinkers and implementers of all times. It was he who created the Republic out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, united it and modernized it, when the victors of World War I were determined to reduce the present area of the republic to one fourth, confined to non-productive, difficult and barren North East. After centuries of contact with  European powers, the Ottoman empire had reached the gates of Vienna in 16 century .By WWI the empire was much reduced ( two dozen states have emerged out of it ). Ataturk realized that jettisoning the Sultanate and the Caliphate was the only way out to survive in the modern world. So he carried out westernization and modernization even when some of his colleagues were strongly opposed to it.

 

 Because of te conspiracies by the British (who else) who instigated revolts in Kurdish speaking areas of the republic, he decided to cut the Gordian Knot and made the world: Kurd itself non-existent. Kurds were called Mountain Turks. It has remained a major existential problem now facing the current government exacerbated because of an autonomous almost independent Kurdish state in north Iraq and likely emergence of an autonomous Kurdish controlled territory along Turkey's border with Syria in South.

 

"Peace at home and peace abroad ", Kemal Ataturk

 

Located at the conjunction of Europe, Caucasia, Central Asia, West Asia and Africa, while Turkey can influence events around it in the region, the outside forces can also have a deleterious effect on the country. Seeing the war clouds of World War II in 1938 before his death, Ataturk had advised his close collaborators and leaders that Turkey must keep out of the war, so that it is not first taken over by the Nazis and then liberated by the Soviets. This wise policy was followed and Turkey joined the war only when it was about to end.

 

But soon after the Second World War, Soviet Union, one of the victors, demanded that two Turkish provinces in north-east be given back to Moscow, which had been under Russian control for long periods in 19th-century. It may be remembered that the border between Turkish Republic and Iran has remained more or less the same as between Roman/Byzantine Empires and Persian empires, but Ottoman territories were rolled back around Caspian and in Crimea. Moscow also demanded changes in Monteux Convention which controls exit and entry of ships into the Black Sea. No wonder, Turkey joined NATO with East-West tensions increasing and the beginning of the Cold War.

 

Until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991, Ankara remained bedrock of Western alliances as a grand aircraft carrier against Communist states in West, North and North East .Turkey continues to have strained relations with Greece although both of them are members of NATO. But there is little chance of Turkey becoming a full member of the Christian fortress the EU .More so after the Customs agreement of 1996 .Not that it needs it except to use the Copenhagen criteria to first remove its military out of decision making process and keep it there .But humiliating and demoralizing the military is fraught with danger in the security domain and a possible blow back sooner or later with a colonel level coup.

 

Syria, part of the Ottoman Empire ,after its independence held a grudge against Ankara for grabbing the territory of Antioch now known as Hatay in Turkey and refusing to discuss the sharing of waters of Euphrates river which flows from Turkey into Syria. During the Cold War Syria had an alliance with USSR which came apart after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1999 , Ankara threatened Damascus with invasion if it did not expel Abdullah Ocalan, founder leader of Marxist Kurdish PKK fighting for autonomy and independence from Turkey .Ocalan was expelled and caught by Turkey in Kenya with help from CIA and Mossad , tried and imprisoned for life , now on an island Imrali near Istanbul .

 

With changes in the environment, external and internal, AKP leader Erdogan for national and personal reasons has opened a dialogue for PKK fighters to lay down its arms for a solid internal peace .As a result of Ocalan led rebellion nearly 45,000 Turks, mostly Kurds and 5000 troops have been killed and south and southeast of Turkey devastated since mid 1980s. Relations between Syria and Turkey improved and blossomed and flourished till 2011 after the so called 'Arab Spring'.

 

Meanwhile the alliance between Moscow and Damascus was renewed in 2005 when Pres Bashar Assad visited Moscow. Putin wrote off most of the $ 13 billion debt that Syria owed to Russia from the days of alliance with Bashar's father Hafez Al Assad.

 

While the situation in the greater Middle East was in a state of flux, U.S.-led illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 changed it entirely .While still a member of NATO there were serious differences between the new Islamist led government of Erdogan and USA. However people's revolt in North Africa and West Asia against US supported puppet regimes brought about a complete change with different capitals working in different directions and the petro monarchies of the Gulf becoming very active with their funds.

 

It was not a wise decision of the Ankara government to first openly support the bombardment of Kaddafi's Libya and then provide a base for rebels against Damascus including thousands of Jihadist including those allied with Al Qaeda. From a foreign policy of zero friction with neighbors, Ankara now has virtually tense relations with all of them including Israel which was a close ally during the Cold War years. It is difficult to see how Turkey will get out of self inflicted wounds in its foreign policy misadventures because of over weaning ambitions and love for applause by the ruling Islamist Justice and development party AKP's authoritarian and Islamizing conservative PM Recep Erdogan.

 

Internally, as suspected earlier by the secular establishment the AKP and Recep Erdogan have implemented the policy of rolling back secular institutions and ideas imposed and accepted by a large percentage of population for over 80 years. The secular judiciary and Armed Forces have been whittled down and even humiliated and destroyed. In case of a hot war it is difficult to see how Turkish Armed Forces will perform.

 

After a long wait Erdogan recently unveiled a package of internal reforms which has not been found satisfactory by Kurdish population which is around 20% of the population. Alexis who form 15% of the population and generally support the secular establishment consisting of opposition party Republican People's party established by Ataturk, judiciary, military ,academies ,arts and other institutions have come out completely dissatisfied with the package. Scores of ournalists remain in jails, highest number in the world . So much for press freedom.

 

Turkey is now on the horns of a dilemma both in its internal and external policies. One of the  rays of hope is a sober, suave and somewhat liberal Pres Abdullah Gul who has tried to soften the strident Islamist policies of the authoritarian conservative Prime Minister .He expressed unhappiness with Erdogan's harsh treatment of protests by people at Gezi Park in Istanbul's Taksim square and most of the provinces . Gul also met with the new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in New York.

 

President Gul has given enough of an indication that he wants to have another presidential term, whereas Erdogan is determined to change the Constitution to a more powerful presidential form, for which he has organized political reforms package and get himself elected. But he has created existential problems and wide array of opponents even within his party .He might not succeed. And if he does it will be a Pandora of problems facing Turkey .It is hoped he will not succeed for the sake of his party and the country itself.

 

Below is a URL of an article after the last election in Turkey, which was a pointer to PM Erdogan to restrain himself .And at the end an article written at the time of President Abdullah Gul's visit to India in 2010 .

 

Turkish Voter Reigns in Riyadh Supported Islamists

.

http://tarafits.blogspot.in/2011/06/turkish-voter-reigns-in-riyadh_14.html

 

Amb(retd)K.Gajendra Singh 5 October, 2013.Mayur Vihar ,Delhi-91

 

 

                                                       FOUNDATION FOR INDO-TURKIC STUDIES                     

Tel/Fax ; 43034706                                                          Amb (Rtd) K Gajendra Singh                                                      

Emails; Gajendrak@hotmail.com                                                   A-44 ,IFS Apartments

KGSingh@Yahoo.com                                                                     Mayur Vihar –Phase 1,

http://tarafits.blogspot.com/                                                                Delhi 91, India

                                                                                                           6 February, 2010.

                                                                                                                      

President Abdullah Gul ; a distinguished visitor from Turkey
by K. Gajendra Singh http://www.boloji.com/analysis2/0559.html , www.rebelnews.orgetc

"There was this young man, with 1960s Turkish matinee idol looks, smiling to attract my attention, in that throng of media and TV cameramen around us. Suddenly the penny dropped. Yes, a few weeks earlier while I had a few drinks at my First secretary's flat in Ankara, he sipped lemon water. He was very keen to meet with me. So, I now went over and shook his hands. That was in end 1992.

"And the young man was Abdullah Gul, recently home after a stint (7 years) at the Islamic Development Bank in Jeddah and put in charge of foreign affairs by Najmettin Erbakan, President of Islamist Welfare party. Most ambassadors in Ankara avoided looking up Erbakan, but I kept my promise. Hence the media attention.

"Our paths crossed more often after he became state minister in Erbakan's coalition government in 1996. Once when I enquired about his party's plans to convert a church in west Turkey into a mosque, he said it was not a priority issue. He shrugged off a statement on Kashmir when with Erbakan he visited Pakistan as sound bites under pressure."

From: Abdullah Gul – Turkey's Next President!

The author was posted as Indian ambassador to Turkey (1992-96) and had an earlier stint (1969-73). This piece was written when foreign minister, Abdullah Gul was declared the candidate of the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP), with Islamic roots, for Presidential elections on 27 April, 2007.

Gul studied economics in Turkey and UK and was born in a pious Muslim family of Kayseri. AKP's backers are upwardly mobile conservative trading and industrial classes from central Anatolian towns such as Kayseri, Konya and beyond away from Istanbul and Ankara. The inhabitants of these barren harsh lands have always been conservative .They resisted conversion to Christianity when the religion spread from Palestine to Syria to south east Turkey and to Europe. To avoid conversion they would disappear into labyrinth of caves in Cappadocia , also famous for its moon surface and chimneys. In spite of 80 years of Jacobin style secularism they remain conservative Muslims but are not fanatics.

Their wanting a share in the economic cake clashes with the vested interests of the supporters of the secular establishment which has ruled Turkey almost since the creation of the republic in 1923.

In April , 2007 AKP had 354 seats in the Parliament and needed a two-thirds majority vote in the House in the first or second rounds (367 of 550) or a simple majority in the third (276) or fourth. If four rounds fail, Parliament is dissolved for fresh elections. This Constitutional change was made after the 1980 military take over since prior to that the Parliament went through dozens of futile ballots to elect a president while left-right violence around the country killed many hundreds.

However , the 2002 November Parliamentary elections had stunned Turkey and the West , even AKP itself which obtained two-thirds majority (365 out of 550). But the first time majority by an Islamic party was achieved with only a third (35 percent) of the total votes cast, 10% being the cut off point. The only other left of the center Republican Peoples party (RPP) with 16% votes won a third of the seats. Over 45% votes were wasted, the outgoing ruling coalition partners winning no seats. High 10% threshold was reportedly agreed upon to keep Kurdish parties out, which polled around 8%.

Gul, moderate and soft spoken, became Prime Minister in November 2002 and his party's landslide victory allowed the Constitution to be amended for party chief Recep Tayipp Erdogan, who had been barred from elections, to enter Parliament in a bye election. He took over from Gul in March, 2003. Erdogan was tried for utterances like "Minarets are our bayonets, domes are our helmets, mosques are our barracks, believers are our soldiers," convicted and jailed for 4 months. He had also said "Thank God, I am for Shariah," "For us, democracy is a means to an end." (Shades of Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria) and, "One cannot be a secularist and a Muslim at the same time."

To allay Western fears Gul and Erdogan went on a charm offensive to Washington and European capitals saying that AKP was a moderate right of centre party. Its well educated leadership in western attire was a relief compared to Islamic leadership elsewhere. Their apparent fervor to join Europe Union established party's Western credentials.

Later the party would cleverly use EU's Copenhagen entry criteria to emasculate the military dominated policy making National Security Council by reducing it to an advisory body.

It has however become quite clear that Turkey's efforts for full EU membership after 9/11 are unlikely to be consummated but the game of endless negotiations would keep both Europe and AKP engaged. Turkey's best chance for entering EU was in 1986, when it declined the offer made along with Greece. Rebuffed by EU's rabid Christian leadership led by the likes of Valery Giscard d'Estaing who said that admitting Turkey "would be the end of the European Union" because Turkey has "a different culture, a different approach, a different way of life - it is not a European country", by now Turks, a proud people, are quite reconciled to not joining EU. In 1996 Turkey signed a Customs Union Agreement, so the trade with EU is flourishing.

Since 2002 Turkey's secular parties remain disunited and in disarray. Their rule is remembered for pervasive corruption and squabbling.

Before Gul's nomination, there was talk that Erdogan, taciturn, hard and conservative politician would offer himself for the presidency but there were vehement protests by the secular establishment against his occupying the highest post for 7 years, once held by Kemal Ataturk, who fashioned the secular republic in 1923 from the ashes of the Ottoman empire. Hence Gul's nomination.

But in spite of all AKP endeavors in April 2007 Gul failed to get the required 2/3rd votes in the first round. The opposition RPP with its one third of the seats, refused to enter the Parliament, thus 'even the quorum was not established'. Later it filed with the Constitutional Court that in the absence of quorum of 367, the proceedings were illegal and be declared invalid.

Apparently, it was a coordinated maneuver by the secular establishment and the Chief of General Staff (CGS) issued the statement that "It should not be forgotten that the Turkish armed forces is one of the sides in this debate and the absolute defender of secularism." It added, "When necessary, they will display its stance and attitudes very clearly. No one should doubt that."

The AKP government rebuked the military; it was "unthinkable" for the institution (military) to challenge its political leaders in a democracy. "It is out of the question to withdraw my candidacy," Gul insisted on 29 April.

The armed forces, which under Ataturk built up a secular unitary state are self styled custodians of Kemalism including secularism. The word used for secular is laic (la din; anti-religion), more Jacobin than secular. During a visit to Ankara in mid 1990s, an Indian state minister for external affairs proudly claimed that as a secular state the government provided subsidy to Muslims going on Hajj. The Turkish minister for foreign affairs, with his chest held high countered ,"We discourage them from doing Hajj" . Things since then have changed.

There are three centers of power in Turkey; the President, the Prime Minister and Chief of General Staff. With two going over to the Islamists, the secular establishment is really worried. There has been a fascinating struggle between secularists and those trying to inject Islam as a cultural, social or spiritual input in the political and daily life of Turkey which is 99% Muslim.

The Turkish president is no figure head. He has the power to veto legislation, appoint judges, university rectors and other posts. The last secular President Ahmet Sezer, used his powers to check and restrain the AKP government.

Many observers fear that the strict separation of state and religion would be eroded and Islam would creep further into all fields of life since the control of Presidency gives AKP a free hand to implement Islamist policies. The secular establishment and citizens still suspect AKP of harboring a secret Islamic agenda like National Salvation Front in 1992 in Algeria which had almost won but was banned. (US led West said nothing then).

AKP has attempted to criminalize adultery, restrict alcohol sales and lift a ban on Islamic headscarves in public places. It even tried to intervene in the autonomy of the military, which expels suspected Islamist officers each year.

The Turkish press was unanimous in calling on the Government and the army to resolve their differences democratically with early elections as the only way out. The armed forces have intervened twice directly; in 1961 and 1980 and twice changed regimes; in 1971 and 1997. But after cleaning up the mess created by the politicians and getting a new constitution in place, the self-styled custodians of Kemal Ataturk's legacy of secularism, as usual, returned to the barracks. The judiciary has regularly closed religious and extremist political parties and debarred its politicians.

Gul Elected President

AKP then went in for early elections on July 22nd and won 47% votes but not 2/3rd majority. Gul was renominated for the post. In the first two rounds on August 20th and 24th, Gul came out well ahead of the other two candidates, Sabahattin Cakmakoglu of the Nationalist Action Party and Huseyin Icli from the Democratic Left Party, but failed to gain the required two-thirds majority. He was elected president in the third ballot on August 28th with the support of 339 of the lawmakers in the 550-seat assembly-- well above the 276 votes he needed to get in that round of voting.
In his inauguration speech Gul again sought to dispel secularist opponents' fears that he and the AKP have a secret Islamist agenda.

"The Turkish Republic is a democratic, secular, social state, governed by the rule of law," he said. "I will always be determined and resolved to advocate, without discrimination, each of these principles and to further strengthen them at every opportunity."

Compared to Erdogan, Gul's elevation was palatable to Turkey's secular establishment. Deniz Baykal, leader of opposition RPP (established by Ataturk himself) acquiesced. He said "Gul has a chance to bring peace and stability," and added, "But, if he falls under dominion of a person and acts in AK Party partisanship both Turkey and himself would come to harm." Because of Guls' strong stand against activities of PKK (Turkish Marxist party) guerillas and on north Iraq even the Pashas aka generals also acquiesced. The business community welcomed Gul's election .

Most of Turkey's Presidents have been military officers beginning with Ataturk, who commanded the war of independence against the Greeks and the victorious allied troops of occupation from Great Britain, France and Italy, till his death in 1938 from the inception of the republic in 1923. The four civilians to occupy the post were Ahmet Necdet Sezer, a former head of the Supreme Court, elected in 2000, Demirel 1993-2000, Ozal 1989-93 and Celal Bayar, who was President in 1950-61 and was overthrown by the military. Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and his two other colleagues were hanged.

A fascinating struggle continues between secularists and those trying to inject Islam as a cultural, social or spiritual input in the political and daily life of Turkey which is 99% Muslim.

The importance of fights over Islamic symbols which can be used as a wedge in a society cannot be under estimated. And then during Erbakan's tenures and since 2002 posts in bureaucracy are going to party faithfuls or sympathizers. The concept of neutral bureaucracy is not strong in Turkey. Senior civil servants resign temporarily to fight elections and if defeated can get back to their old jobs.

Rise of Islamists in Turkish Republic

It was Erbakan who founded the very first Islamist National Order party (NOP) in 1969, when prime minister Suleyman Demirel, his class fellow in Istanbul's Engineering school, refused him an Assembly slot. When NOP was closed in 1971 after the regime change, Erbakan established National Salvation party (NSP) and was twice deputy prime minister in 1970s coalition governments. After the 1980 takeover, the military banned all parties. Later when restrictions were removed Erbakan established the Welfare party, in which Abdullah Gul and Erdogan were prominent young new comers.

Erdogan was elected Mayor of Istanbul in 1995 and was a great success. In the 1996 coalition headed by Erbakan, Gul became a State Minister .In 1997 the military forced Erbakan to resign for not curbing Muslim fundamentalism. Later Erbakan's party was closed and he was banned from political activity.

Erdogan's jail experience was traumatic and a turning point. He and others like Gul saw the futility of fighting against the secular establishment on an Islamic agenda. In 2001 they established AKP.

Turkey's Abiding Byzantine Heritage

Under the shadows of Istanbul 's slim minarets piercing its skyline lie monuments and ruins from Turkey's millennium and half-long Roman and Byzantine past. It was only in 1453 , that Constantinople, the Byzantine capital founded in 4th century AD by Emperor Constantine was transformed into the new Ottoman Capital Istanbul, by adding minarets to the magnificent 6th century St. Sophia Church .But the Ottoman architects could not get away from its conceptual construct even for their mosques.

Crucible of over 40 civilizations, Turkey, known as Anatolia and Asia Minor in history ,has more Greek sites than Greece and more Roman monuments than Italy. Cradle of early Christianity with the churches of revelation, Chalcedon, Nicomedea, Nicea, Turkish soil was the playground of Byzantine power and glory. With perhaps only 15% inhabitants of Turkic origin from central Asia, buried deep lies in Turkish psyche a more persistent tradition of Byzantine intrigue which seeps up from time to time, more so during Presidential elections so akin to choosing Popes, Patriarchs and Archbishops.

At the same time the simple Central Asian nomad conquerors of the Byzantine Empire , moving from east to west named villages, forts, mountains, rivers and seas; white, black, green or red. Leaders like Demirel would describe a dangerous political crisis as passing through a narrow pass (like Turcoman tribes and their herds). Or another leaders Mesut Yillmaz might use the phrase 'I have taken out my sword to fight 'a political battle'. Their sibling like political rivalries are more akin to tribal vendettas. The Republican Constitution and the electoral system endows political party chairmen with excessive arbitrary powers, so many group leaders behave like powerful tribal chiefs, branching off with their flocks and clans or persisting with their rigid positions instead of democratic give and take. But under pressure, the deeply engrained but dormant Byzantine proclivities are not far from the surface.

Presidential Elections

I remember well April 1973, when after many rounds the parliament did not elect a President, a frustrated columnist in Milliyet wrote that he might as well study Byzantine history to comprehend what was going on.

Following the 1971 memorandum by the Turkish military, which had forced prime minister Demirel to resign, a national Government under the military's shadow was in place to conduct the 1973 Presidential elections. The pugnacious and ambitious Gen Faruk Gurler, a major force behind the memorandum, first made Chief of General Staff (CGS) Gen Tamac hand over a day before the due date and took over as the new CGS. He then resigned and presented himself as the Military's candidate to replace President Cevdet Sunay, also a former CGS.

Demirel and Bulent Ecevit, leaders of the 2 major political formations along with other politicians, in spite of the Military brass occupying the parliament galleries, gave a stunning display of Byzantine intrigue at its best, with the Parliament going through the motions of voting round after another round. Inconclusively. The politicians tired out the now unsure and somewhat divided Military in a virtuoso performance, which would have made their Byzantine ancestors proud. Finally, a compromise was reached on a retired and innocuous Naval Commander Fahri Koruturk, who was installed the new President. A rejected and dejected Gurler died a few years later, forgotten and unsung.

At the end of bloody 1970s during which intra- religious, intra-ethnic and left right violence left tens of thousands dead in Turkey, leaving its polity scarred and divided, in April 1980 President Koruturk's term ended, but Demirel and Ecevit would not agree on a candidate. For five months hundreds of rounds of voting were conducted in the Parliament, without any result. This was a display of clannish obstinacy and total abdication of political responsibility.

Gen Kenan Evren then took over in September 1980 much to everyone's relief, banned political parties and debarred political leaders. As a measure of abundant caution, the 1983 Constitution prepared under the military regime provided dissolution of the Parliament if it fails to elect a new President after four rounds. Gen. Evren stayed head of state until 1989. In 1992, on my return to Ankara when I lauded some politicians for their defiance of the military in 1973, they complained that, yes, but the military had handled them roughly by jailing them in 1980.

It is as if the custodians of Ataturk's secular legacy, merit based Armed Forces since the days of Janissaries, modernized by the French and the Germans during late Ottoman era and since 1950s as part of NATO, are trying to guide Turkish society towards modernity and western contemporary values, a polity with tribal overlay over a Byzantine past and nature, from chaos and obduracy to conformity and order. Even by changing the Constitutions, thrice in the last 40 years; a liberal 1961 Constitution was replaced in 1983 by one restricting freedoms.

The Simmering Tensions in Turkish Polity :
Scarf, Turban and the Veil

After Gul's election the first problem arose with his wife, Hayrunisa, who insisted like other AKP wives to wear a head scarf or turban. Ottoman and Islamic dresses, including head scarves, have been forbidden in public places since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey by Kemal Ataturk in 1923. Ataturk abolished the caliphate, closed religious seminaries, converted the Mosque Aaya Sofya into a museum, banned Islamic dress, including the Turkish fez, veil or hijab, including the head scarf. Many an Islamist women has lost her job or place in university, and some women their seats in parliament, for defying this regulation.

Not only secularists vehemently oppose the idea of this Islamic attire in the presidential palace in Cankaya, it is legally banned in public places. On this point Gul had said, "Everyone should pay respect to this choice. Turkey is a democratic, secular and social law state. In democracy individuals have fundamental rights and freedoms. If you approach the issue from this viewpoint, you'll see that most of the problems faced in Turkey is solved."

However tensions had started building up between Turkey's secular elite, and the AKP ever since the latter's electoral triumph in end 2002 and continue to boil up from time to time. To begin with the Pashas were clearly unhappy with the election results. After waiting for some time, they declared, "We will continue to protect the republic against any threat, particularly the fundamentalist and separatist [Kurdish] ones."

In April 2003 president Sezer, and the top military brass led by CGS General Hilmi Ozkok, refused to attend a reception at parliament house hosted by the speaker, Bulent Arinc of the AKP, to mark National Sovereignty and Children's Day, as hostess Munnever Arinc planned to wear a Muslim head scarf. The opposition, left of the center People's Republican Party (RPP), also boycotted the reception. A last-minute announcement that Mrs Arinc would not attend the reception came too late.

In June 2004 a seven-judge panel of the European Court of Human Rights ruled against a petition by a Turkish medical student who was banned in 1998 from wearing a head scarf by Istanbul University. The student had claimed that the ban during classes violated her rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court found that the rules in medical classes were "necessary", primarily for hygienic reasons, and the students "were required to comply with the rules on dress". It "found no violation" under the convention, adding schools were entitled to set dress codes as long as they were fair. However, in a 46-page report, Human Rights Watch said the ban "inhibits academic freedom", adding the government exercised too much control over schools. (HRW, a western outfit ought to concentrate on violation of human and other rights by USA and UK).

In Turkey women are regularly killed by near relatives in so called honor killings, i.e. because of illicit relationships or infraction of social codes. The AKP government was thinking of making adultery a crime in law, which raised heckles all around the country and would likely jeopardize the Turkey's entry into the EU, now a charade, so the plan was shelved.

Although the custom of covering women with head scarves is now generally associated with Islamic societies, the practice predates Islamic culture by many millennia. Veiling and seclusion were marks of prestige and status symbols in the Assyrian, Greco-Roman and Byzantine empires, as well as in Sasanian Iran. The Muslim Umayyads copied it from the Byzantines in Damascus, which they took over lock stock and barrel. According to one tradition, the Prophet Mohammad's wife Aisha did not veil her face. Generally, there was greater freedom for women among nomadic Arabs, Turks and Mongols before Islam.

But in recent history, the veil or hijab has been used to make political statements, in Muslim countries like Algeria, Iran, Afghanistan and Turkey, and where Muslims are in a minority, as in France today. Brothers in Turkey and France shave sisters' head to coerce into wearing a scarf and organizations and individuals in Saudi Arabia etc send money for those who wear a veil, Chador or scarves. There is many times pure and simple coercion. It is far from voluntary.

On Indian corporate channels debates are conducted on the veil in France by the usual suspects, the gliterattis, disputatis and mostly ignorantis  aka socialites, actors, info-challenged media hacks and lawyer spokesmen of the political parties, who would not even spend five minutes to even google veils on the internet. They only expose their ignorance and misinform people.

See Lifting the Veil in France and Turkey - 16 September, 2004

Battle Joined For and Against the Scarf

AKP leadership , led by Erdogan in spite of strong apposition form the secular elite went ahead and with control of the parliament amended the Constitution and lifted the ban on scarves in February 2008. The AKP government claimed the lifting the ban in the name of human rights and civil liberties.

"Our main aim is to end the discrimination experienced by a section of society just because of their personal beliefs," said AKP parliamentarian Sadullah Ergin. Because of the ban, many covered women go abroad to study. This included the daughters of prime minister Erdogan who went to a US university. To overcome the law many women resort to wearing wigs over their head scarves in public places.

It is true that 60% of Turks would prefer ban on scarf lifted.

But it is a specious argument. France, a fiercely secular state also has ban on veils and other religious symbols. AKP government gives little attention to the discriminations against Alevis, almost 10 % of the population. Believers in a Shia form and more cosmopolitan; there is no sex segregation in their places of worship, which are different from the Sunni mosques. Use of wine is permitted. Ironically most of the Alevis are from central Asia, who founded the Ottoman empire, but they are now badly treated and massacred from time to time. They vote for left of centre parties and seek protection from the military.

Lifting of Ban Annulled

On 5 June 2008, Turkey's Constitutional Court annulled the parliament's proposed amendment to lift the headscarf ban, ruling that removing the ban was against the founding principles of the constitution. The highest court's decision to uphold the headscarf ban cannot be appealed.

It may have marked a historical moment in the ongoing struggle between religion and secularism in a predominantly Muslim country. But concerns remain in Turkey that the government's zeal for lifting the ban could undermine other reforms, particularly those relating to democratization and the country's ongoing European Union membership bid.

AKP Escapes Being Closed by One Vote by Turkey's Constitutional Court

On July 30, 2008, Turkey's Constitutional Court rejected the chief prosecutor's demand to close the ruling AKP and ban prime minister Erdogan, president Abdullah Gul and 70 other leading AKP members from political activity for a period of five years. But the Court ruled that the party had become "a focal point for anti-secular activity" and recommended the party be denied half the financial aid it receives from the state. Ten members voted for the charge while only one voted against.

Announcing the verdict the Court chairman Hasim Kilic, said 6 members of the court had voted in favor of closing the party, while the remaining four concluded that the party's "anti-secular activities" did not deserve a ban. At least seven votes are needed to impose a ban. Kilic's own vote against a ban of the AKP was crucial in the court's verdict.

Kilic said, "It is not a decision to close down the party, but it is a serious warning," emphasizing that the AKP should ponder very carefully and draw its own conclusions.

The case to ban the AKP was filed on March 14, by Turkey's chief prosecutor, Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, who accused the party of "anti-secular activities" and "trying to turn the country into an Islamic state."

In the tense atmosphere gripping Turkey the first indication of a possible compromise came from Mark Parris, former US ambassador to Ankara, who said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on July 16 that the "odds to find a way out are stronger than a month ago." Many senior officials of the Bush administration made it clear that Washington was opposed to a ban on the AKP. Leading European Union representatives had also made clear their opposition to a ban, which would constitute a further hurdle to Turkey's eventual admission into the EU.

More than at home and in the financial market European governments heaved a collective sigh of relief, while commentators were circumspect about the significance of the judgment .But after the tension and unease this was perhaps the least worst decision. Islamist political parties and those on the left have been banned many times in the past.

More than anything else it was the instability created around Turkey following the 2003 illegal invasion which might have weighed heavily in the Court's deliberations, which made it stop just short of sending the internal political situation in to a vortex of uncertainty and unpredictability.

The court issued a clear warning that the ruling party should refrain from any further measures which encroach on the secular fabric of the Republic and privileges or power of the country's long-standing secular Kemalist establishment.

But the decision is just another pause before the Islamists and the secularists eye each other for a political re-match .

 
London's Economist advised the AKP to make more concessions to the Kemalist old guard and advised: "Mr Erdogan's government should also turn more of its attention to the economy. The AKP's record on the economy is strong, but that has been due in part to a benign world economic situation. Times are more difficult now, and Turkey, with a gaping current account deficit and rising inflation, is again looking vulnerable. More liberalization would help keep the economy on an even keel."

The World Socialist Web Site commented." Against this background, the rivalry between the feuding factions of the Turkish bourgeoisie could explode into new conflict at any time. President Abdullah Gul is due to appoint three new members of the Constitutional Court in two years time, as well as 21 university rectors. Even the appointment of acknowledged Islamists as new rectors would be sufficient to re-ignite political tensions and precipitate a fresh crisis."

Commented Yusuf Kanli, a veteran Turkish journalist " the AKP now has to demonstrate that it indeed got the message the court issued and start moderating itself by giving up the post July 22 majority obsession, lending an ear to what the opposition says and try to understand sentiments of the secularists. Thus the AKP and the prime minister must try to soothe tensions rather than refusing to acknowledge his and the AKP`s share in the alarming level of polarization Turkey has been surfing in for some time.

"For example, the prime minister must swiftly act now to conform with the local and international court rulings regarding compulsory religious education in Turkish schools, realize the pain of non-Sunnis as well as non-Muslims because of compulsory Muslim Sunni indoctrination at our secondary schools.

"The AKP and Erdogan must understand that the Constitutional Court underlined in all clarity that the arrogant "What if turban is a political symbol" approach undermining secularist concerns and ignoring reform demands in all other areas except enhancing religious freedoms did no good to anyone."

Power to make Fundamental changes in the Constitution -Turkey and India

Apart from lifting the ban on the veil and other such measures, AKP's talk of major amendments in the Constitution was the main reason for the case. Commented political analyst Andrew Arato on the crisis;  "The Constitution of 1982 has unchangeable provisions that the parliament cannot alter even with 100% of the vote having to do with the republican, secular and unitary character of the state. (Articles 1, 2,3 made unchangeable by Art. 4). Moreover the Constitutional Court is given jurisdiction to review amendments (art 148/149). Though this jurisdiction is defined as procedural, logically the Court would be correct to argue that any procedure (i.e. any majority, even 100%) that changes the unchangeable is ultravires.

"Thus if Turkish Constitutional Court judged the amendments in question unconstitutional on the bases of the unchangeable articles it would have still not have gone as far stretching its jurisdiction as the great Indian Supreme Courts did, in defense of the unwritten "basic structure" of the Indian Constitution. Admittedly, the Indian Constitution was democratically made, and there the Court could arguably defend the work of the democratic pouvoir constituant, against mere governmental organs, including the qualified parliamentary majority. In Turkey the Constitution was an authoritarian product, and it may seem paradoxical to defend its unchangeable provisions against democratically elected parliaments." (This is strictly not true. The 1982 Constitution was approved in a referendum.)

The Republican state was created by a secular military after a long war of independence under Kemal Ataturk giving the nation its secular Constitution, so the Kemalist establishment is a major stakeholder. It would not allow what could have happened in Algeria, if the 2nd round of elections with assured victory to Islamic Salvation Front had been completed in Algeria in 1992.

It must be remembered that in the 'the Book' based polity of Islam, the lines between the Mir and the Pir, the temporal ruler and spiritual ruler still remain blurred, contested and changing. Look at what has happened in Pakistan, where the military has been Islamized and has killed the plant of democracy. Of course it suits Anglo Americans, but in Turkey the secular establishment of Judiciary, military, academician and others would not like the nation to be taken back to the religious Ottoman era.

'Ergenekon' Mystery and Trials

On July 15, 2008 Istanbul Chief Prosecutor Aykut Cengiz Engin submitted the indictment against the Ergenekon to Turkey's top criminal court. In a 2,455-page indictment he accused 86 suspects, 48 in custody, including retired—and even active—members of the armed forces, as well as academics, journalists, political activists, and organized crime figures. Those arrested included retired generals Hursit Tolon and Sener Eruygur as well as the head of the Ankara Chamber of Commerce, Sinan Aygun.

The charges were: "membership in an armed terrorist group"; "aiding and abetting an armed terrorist organization"; "attempting to destroy the government of the Republic of Turkey"; "inciting people to rebel against the Republic of Turkey"; "being in possession of explosives, using them, and inciting others to commit these crimes"; "encouraging soldiers to disobey superiors"; "openly provoking hatred and hostility"; and other similar crimes.

The specific crimes cover the 2006 armed attack on the Council of State High Courthouse, where one High Court judge was killed; and a shooting and hand-grenade attack at the Istanbul office of the newspaper Cumhuriyet. The Turkish media compared the Ergenekon to Italy's Gladio "stay behind" terrorist network, and identified it as part of the "deep state" apparatus. But Prof Dr. Mustafa Acar, wrote in July 2 the Turkish pro AKP daily Zaman. Entitled "'Ergenekon': An Opportunity for Peace Between State and People," He describes the group as the "Turkish branch of Gladio—designed as a semi-military organization in NATO," but also points to the deeper role of the Progress and Union Party, also known as the Committee of Union and Progress or CUP, which was the organization of the Young Turks in the early 1900s.

Basically it is an attempt to discredit Turkish armed forces , which had created the National Security Council (NSC) to channelize complaints and grievances from midlevel military officers. It avoided many Colonel led coups .NSC was constituted in Pakistan too on take over in 1999 by Gen Musharraf, who had spent his school years in Ankara.

Ergenekon is a mythical place located in the inaccessible valleys of the Altay mountains in Mongolia from where the Turkish people originated.  In one version of the myth a proto-historic Turkish tribe was ambushed and decimated with the exception of a single child who was nursed by a female wolf. His offsprings thrive and an iron-smith builds a huge bellow and smelters the mountain thus opening a passage out from the valley. A she-wolf Asena shows them the way out. Fascist and nationalist groups in Turkey call themselves 'Gray Wolves'.

Saudi 'Green Money' for AKP's Benefit

Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute wrote an article "Green Money, Islamist Politics in Turkey" for the Middle East Quarterly of 2005. He said -

"A decade ago, Turks discussed the influence of the "deep state," the shadowy network of generals, intelligence officials, and—among conspiracy theorists—organized crime bosses. Today, in private conversations in teahouses and in the National Assembly, many Turkish officials discuss green money and AKP financial opacity as the new threat. Money buys the short-term popularity necessary to initiate long-term changes, be they in Turkey's foreign or domestic policy. Under apparent Saudi influence, such changes will likely further erode Turkish secularism.
Is Erdoğan's party a threat to Turkish secularism, or the product of it? Does the AKP represent an Islamist Trojan horse, or the benign Islamic equivalent of Europe's numerous Christian Democrat political parties? Wonders Rubin

If the AKP is able to translate money into power and power into money, then the main loser will be Turkish secularism. As an executive with one of Istanbul's largest firms said, "The AKP is like a cancer. You feel fine, but then one day you start coughing blood. By the time you realize there's a problem, it's too far-gone."

AKP came to power on the strength of its image as fresh and honest party amid a sea of corrupt establishment parties, but AKP's own finances have become murky , blurring the distinction between business and politics. Turkish domestic and foreign policy is influenced by the influx of what is called Yesil Sermaye, "green money," from wealthy Islamist businessmen and Middle Eastern states.

Some Turkish professional bureaucrats, businessmen, journalists, and even politicians raised the question of Saudi money flowing into AKP coffers through green money business intermediaries. "The problem is Saudi Arabia. If you solve that, then our problem is solved," one independent parliamentarian told Rubin A former member of the AKP concurred: "Before the 2002 election, there were rumors that an AKP victory would lead to an infusion of $10-$20 billion, mostly from Saudi Arabia. It looks like the rumors came true."

While Turkish journalists and officials acknowledge that Saudi investment in Turkey and Turkish politics has increased since 2002, the exact nature of the investment is murky and circumstantial. Prior to the AKP's 2002 election victory, Abdullah Gül criticized state scrutiny of the Islamic enterprises, accusing the secular government of acting unfairly. Between 1983 and 1991, Gül worked as a specialist at the Islamic Development Bank in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The Islamic banks—and especially those sponsored by Saudi Arabia—regularly channel money to Islamist enterprises. On November 9, 2004, Deniz Baykal, leader of the parliamentary opposition Republican People's Party, accused the AKP of trying to create a religious-based economy. It is also affecting Turkey's foreign policy.

Riyadh wants to build up Turkey as a powerful Sunni state to counter Iran's influence, but Ankara has followed a rational policy so far.

While Erdoğan has been silent on the issue, in August 2001, Rahmi Koç, chairman of Koç Holding, Turkey's largest and oldest conglomerate commented on CNN Türk that Erdoğan has a US$1 billion fortune and asked the source of his wealth. Some Turkish economists suggest that after 11/9 Saudi and other Persian Gulf citizens' liquidated their U.S. holdings Some bankers estimate that individual Saudi investors withdrew between $100 and $200 billion. One Turkish economist suggested that, even if Saudi citizens moved $20 billion to France, $10 billion to Lebanon, and $6 billion to Switzerland, there would still be ample funds left to invest unofficially in Turkey. The money may support legitimate businesses. But, if both the investor and business fail to declare it, then such funds might remain immune to taxation and regulation. Various estimated of the green money infusion into the Turkish economy is between $6 billion and $12 billon.

Much of the money enters Turkey "in suitcases" with couriers and remains in the unofficial economy. Even when deposited, banks ask no questions about the origins of the cash. "Money laundering is one of the worst aspects of Turkish politics," a former state planning official said. Political parties across the political spectrum have illegal slush fund. Under the AKP, the unofficial economy has grown exponentially.

Official Turkish statistics provide some clue as to the scope of the problem. Between 2002 and 2003, the summary balance of payments for net error and omission category—basically unexplained income—increased from $149 million to almost $4 billion. This is an eighty-year record error. In the first six months of 2004, an additional $1.3 billion entered the system, its origins unaccounted. According to Kesici, an economist there could be as much as a $2 billion overestimation in tourism revenue.

Media like elsewhere has been corporatized . So while Turkey has a vibrant press and a number of national papers, there has been a tremendous consolidation of ownership to just a few companies. The Doğan Group, for example, owns not only well-known dailies like Hürriyet and Milliyet but also Radikal, Posta, and the Turkish Daily News among others. Together these capture perhaps 50 percent of total Turkish daily circulation. In addition, Doğan Group television stations like CNN Türk and Kanal D have perhaps a 20 percent market share. The problem is not that Doğan companies always tow the party line. Many Turkish journalists produce hard-hitting analysis. But a number of journalists complain of self-censorship. The same media barons who own a large portion of the press have branched into other sectors where they are more dependent on government largesse. "Everyone is vulnerable—economically and politically—if they oppose the government," a businessman explained. It is foolhardy to annoy the government. The Uzan group which opposed AKP was decimated.

K ajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Copy right with the author E-mail ; kgsingh@yahoo.com

February 6, 2010

 

 

 

 

 

Texan Poker Bluff and Persian Chess Moves

I have written a number of articles on Iran since 1997 and recently on how the Iranians have stood their ground and at the right time, thanks to overreach foolishness and destruction of others' treasure and military including their own by US led West, Iran with help from Russia has outmaneuvered the warmongers. A brought Washington to direct negotiations with Tehran.

 

An article written in January, 2007 from Bucharest is reproduced below it was copied by many scores websites/ blogs etc .  

                                          FOUNDATION FOR INDO-TURKIC STUDIES                          

Web site.                                                                                         Bucharest (Romania)

www.tarafits.com                                                                            22 January, 2007.

 

 

 

Texan Poker Bluff and Persian Chess Moves

By K Gajendra Singh                  ICF,AJInfo,Uruknet, Boloji ,Ziopedia etc      21 January, 2007

"The arrogance of military power has led to a grave crisis - and to a decline of the United States' role and influence." Mikhail Gorbachev.

"The president is living in a dream world,'' US Sen. Barbara Boxer.

On Iran, US Administration has reached the pre-Iraq invasion rhetoric level of 2003, when against the UN Charter and world opinion, President George Bush decided to invade Iraq after having assembled a naval armada and air and land forces in the region, cheerlead by a subservient US media. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are accusing Tehran of developing nuclear weapons and exporting terrorism, just as Saddam Hussein was allegedly doing. Iran is also not abiding by U N resolutions on its nuclear weapons program, which, like Iraq then, it denies it has. UN Nuclear Agency in Vienna has found no proof of a weapons program .Neither there was one in Iraq in 2003. Almost all accusations made by US President, his deputy and others, exaggerated by US corporate owned media proved to be false.

But after 4 years of blunders and stupidity, the situation is unlike March, 2003, with an isolated Bush administration now under siege having become unpopular and discredited at home and with ally's abroad .In Iran it faces a people with a long history of survival beginning with Alexander and his uncouth Macedonian hordes, Arabs, Turks, Mongols and others. And they succeeded in civilizing most of them.

Even the new Chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee , John D. Rockefeller (D) took umbrage at the Bush administration's increasingly hostile barrage against Iran .The efforts to portray it as a growing threat were uncomfortably reminiscent of the rhetoric about Iraq. "To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again," Senator Rockefeller said in an interview on 19 January. "This whole concept of moving against Iran is bizarre." "I don't think that policymakers in this administration particularly understand Iran," he added. Rockefeller, a moderate, with good access to most classified intelligence about the threat from Tehran felt that US agencies still knew little about either Iran's internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East.

On how President Bush has dealt with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism since 119 attacks, Rockefeller believed that the campaign against international terrorism was "still a mystery" to the President. "I don't think he understands the world," he said. "I don't think he's particularly curious about the world. I don't think he reads like he says he does." He added, "Every time he's read something he tells you about it, I think."

Over Bush's policy of 'Surge ' i.e. sending additional 21,500 troops to Iraq ,hot words are being exchanged between Democrat party ,resurgent after Bush's Republican party debacle in November elections and the White House. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats are backing a nonbinding Senate Democratic resolution declaring that "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the US military force presence in Iraq."

Pelosi warned that President Bush was wading too deeply into Iraq .It should not be "an obligation of the American people in perpetuity." She added that Bush "has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder." White House spokeswoman Dana Perino retorted that Pelosi's comments were "poisonous," stating that Bush feels that once additional troops reached Iraq and once they're in battle, the Congress won't cut off funds.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat front runner for party's Presidential nomination during her recent visit to Baghdad met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. She felt that Bush's strategy had little chance of success. "The Iraqi government is not committed to taking the steps both militarily and politically that would help them to gain control over Baghdad and other places in the country," Clinton told NBC."I do not think that this strategy has a very high level of success at all attached to it. In fact, I think that at best it's a holding pattern."But she supported "the beginning of a phased redeployment out of Baghdad and eventually out of Iraq completely." She backed placing an immediate cap on the number of US troops in the country, currently about 132, 000.

The arrival of new US reinforcements has met with increased attacks against occupation troops. On 20 January, at least 19 American troops were killed, the deadliest day for US forces in two years, including 12 brought down in a helicopter crash claimed by the resistance and 5 in an attack by militia fighters in Shia holy city of Karbala A British soldier was killed by a roadside bomb and 4 other soldiers were wounded in the attack in Basra and south Iraq.

Bush raises the stakes;

It was the prospect of "hot pursuit" raids into Iran, raised by Bush last week that fuelled fears that the Administration was preparing the public for attacks on Iran. Many analysts have been warning since 2004 against a planned US attack alone or in cahoots with Israel on Iran, one of the so called axis of evil, in the hoary Western tradition of demonizing those they want to invade, colonise and then loot.

US accusations of Tehran aiding militias and insurgents who attack US troops in Iraq, have been denied by Tehran. Yes, most of Iraq's Shia ruling elite and al-Badr militia were financed and trained by Iran when Saddam Hussein was a US darling in 1980s.Tehran also extended support to Kurds in north Iraq, whenever pressurized by the Saddam regime.

Having flouted most international rules, regulations , treaties and conventions since Bush was crowned by a judicial sleight of hand in 2000, tarnishing USA's electoral and legal credibility , Washington has now initiated clearly illegal and aggressive actions like the abduction of accredited Iranian personnel in Irbil in north Iraqi Kurdistan .Even the Kurdish leaders , beholden to Washington and thriving under US protection since the end of 1991 Gulf War ,have demurred and protested as have the Iraqi leaders and government 'elected' or selected by US Viceroys since the occupation.

Senior Iraqi Shia politicians , now in power, and beholden to Tehran since decades are now required to implement Bush's policy of 'Surge' ,by adding over 21,500 troops to help fight militias , provide security and reconstruction .They are naturally reluctant in striking against Shia militias and their leaders on whose support they survive , politically and militarily . In spite of public bon homie and some token measures .there are clear signs of a growing rift between the White House and the Iraqi leadership resident in Baghdad's Green Zone fortress , on policies at home or vis a vis Tehran.

A tour of the Middle East by the US Congress harassed Secretary of State Condi Rice, after her August trip last year when she described the destruction of civilian infrastructure and deaths in Lebanon by Israel as the birth pangs of a new Middle East, evoked little enthusiasm or real support from USA's Sunni allies in the region, who are in panic over Tehran's expanding influence in the region, Muslim Ummah and the world.

After the Lebanese Hezbollah gave a bloody nose to Israel's famed commandos in July-August war last year, its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, both Shias were voted the most popular Muslim leaders even in the Sunni bastion of Egypt and elsewhere much to the discomfiture of regional Sunni leaders, who had lambasted the Hezbollah after Tel Aviv used the abduction of its two soldiers to launch a full scale war it had prepared for. The continued ramification of Israeli defeat ended in the recent resignation of Israeli Military chief Lt.Gen Dan Halutz. "Since the end of the war we had been expecting Halutz to resign and [Defence Minister Amir] Perez and [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert to follow him," gloated Sheikh Nasrallah.

Iraq's other neighbor- Turkey's position;

There is little common ground on Iraq between USA and its NATO ally Turkey with a million armed men and a key regional player .Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a US TV channel last month that with the dead in sectarian violence having exceeded 650,000 ... it could only be explained as a civil war. He added that Iraq's neighbors have a huge stake in the Iraqi civil war not spreading outwards .In addition to Iran, Turkey, and Syria and US having bilateral or trilateral meetings, there should be an international consensus that includes all neighboring countries and the U.N. Security Council.

As for the 'Surge ' in US troops, Erdogan felt that it was time for a phased reduction of US military presence in Iraq. Erdogan had earlier opposed dispatch of more US troops to Iraqi Kurdistan .He declared recently that if faraway US could ferry troops to Iraq then Ankara had the right to enter north Iraq too, as the situation there impinged on Turkey directly and adversely.

Thousands of rebels from PKK (Turkish Workers Party) are now sheltered in north Iraq .Since 1984 over 37,000 have been killed in the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey's South East. Ankara has some times laid claims on the north Iraq city of Kirkuk, floating on oil like Kuwait, where its kinsman the Turcomen has a sizable presence. This region was occupied by the British after the First World War ceasefire following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, of which the region was a province.

Policy differences between Washington and Iraqi leaders;

The acrimonious exchanges between US Administration and Prime Minister, al-Maliki on implementation of Bush's policy of 'Surge "have become public. To counter US criticism of his failure to halt sectarian violence al Maliki said, "I wish that we could receive strong messages of support from the US so we don't give some boost to the terrorists and make them feel that they might have achieved success." To Condi Rice's statement of his government living on "borrowed time", he responded tartly, "Secretary Rice is expressing her own point of view if she thinks that the government is on borrowed time, whether it is borrowed time for the Iraqi government or American administration."

Al Maliki claimed if Iraqi security forces were given sufficient training and equipment, which were denied, Iraq could be stabilized and allows US troops to begin withdrawing."I think that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down." But "that's on the condition that there are real strong efforts to support our military forces." US officials are how ever worried that military equipment would end up in with the Shia militias, which has happened.

Regarding action to eliminate all militias, al Maliki announced that 400 members, including some commanders of the Mahdi Army loyal to the highly popular and powerful cleric Moqtada al-Sadr were arrested. One Mahdi commander told the AP, "Our top leadership has told us to lay low and not confront the Americans. But if Sadr City is attacked, if civilians are hurt, we will ignore those orders and take matters in our own hands. We won't need orders from Sheik Muqtada."

Mahdi street fighters have been told not to wear their black uniforms and hide their weapons and make their checkpoints less visible. It appears that instructions are being obeyed. With the US plans a public secret, Moqtda also reshuffled the Mahdi Army command structure, transferring many leaders to new districts and firing others of suspected loyalty.

The six-member Moqtda al-Sadr bloc who boycotted the Iraqi Parliament would rejoin on 21 January, in spite of the arrest of Sheikh Abdel Hadi Al-Diraji, a close aide of Moqtda, who has ordered his men to avoid armed confrontation with the government. The Parliament boycott was enforced when Al Maliki met with Bush in Amman in spite of Moqtda's demand. Al Maliki depends on Moqtda for political and military support .The other Shia Dawa militia is under Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim of Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

In an interview out on 19 January in Rome's La Republica, Moqtada stated that he never trusted Prime Minister al-Maliki or his predecessor Iyad Allawi. He accused them of being in cahoots with the US plans to destroy him and his militia. A crackdown on his movement "has already kicked off." "Last night they arrested over 400 of my people. But it is not us they want to destroy, it's Islam," he declared. Moqtda also denied that members of his militia have infiltrated the army and police. "The exact opposite has happened: it is our militia which is full of spies. It is actually very easy to infiltrate an army of the people." He also denied that those who chanted his name and insulted Saddam Hussein at his execution were his men. "Those were people paid to disparage me, to make me appear like the person responsible for the hanging," he declared.

Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a former Iraqi Prime Minister, when asked if an increase in US troops would be a threat to Iran, replied: "We don't want Iraq to pose a threat to any country. We also don't accept that any neighboring country poses a threat to Iraq."

The Iraqi Government and the Mahdi Army could employ the tactics used by Washington's major non-NAO strategic ally in the war against terrorism, Pakistan and its all purpose powerful tool ,Inter-Services Intelligence agency ( ISI ). When pressed by Washington, Islamabad produces a few Al Qaeda operatives, mostly low level, for Washington to garner some propaganda points. Five years on after 911 , the results of the war on terrorism are dismal , with most convinced it is but a charade , to keep US public frightened for Bush Administration to implement its partisan agenda .In return Pakistan has received billions worth of aid , mostly for defense, which has only strengthened the strangle hold of the military over civil society.

Iraq leaders criticize US action in Irbil;

Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim of SCIRI , leader of the 130-member Shia bloc in the Parliament and thus one of Iraq's most powerful politicians and who was hosted at the White House in early December criticised the US action in Irbil .He described the detention of the Iranians an attack on Iraq's sovereignty. "Regardless of the Iranian position, we consider these actions as incorrect," Hakim, told the BBC. "They represent a kind of attack on Iraq's sovereignty, and we hope such things are not repeated."

In a statement Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, expressed "disturbance and condemnation" of the predawn operation and urged the US military to release the arrested. Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, also a Kurd, said that Iraq needed good relations with Iran. "We can't change the geographical reality that Iran is our neighbor. This is a delicate balance and we are treading a very thin line," he said. "We fully respect the views, policies and strategy of the United States, which is Iraq's strongest ally, but the Iraqi government has national interests of its own."

US Iran hostilities would disrupt peace in the region and the growing affluence of Kurdish war lords. In that case Turkey might even intervene. To calm the situation President Talbani, who has been to Ankara a few times, went to Damascus, first such visit in 3 decades by an Iraqi Head of State. Of course he visited Damascus many times during the Saddam era .Post 2003 invasion, Of course Iraq's Shia leadership, with long close relations with Iran have visited Tehran many times. Even convicted embezzler but Minister, exile Ahmet Celebi, once a blue eyed boy of the Pentagon.

Iranians have played it cool and not made such a big issue of the raid .Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Husseini condemned the raid. "The activity of all those people at our office in Irbil was legal and was in cooperation with and had the approval of the Iraqi side," Husseini told Iran's state-owned Arabic language satellite channel Al-Alam.

In ratcheting up tensions beyond threats, Washington might try to implement the so called 'Khuzestan gambit' i.e. creating dissentions and even intervening across south Iraq in Iran's major oil producing region of Khuzestan , of ancient Elam and Cyrus's Persian empire's capital Susa. Now it is sparsely populated by preponderantly Arab Shias. During the 1980-99 Iraq-Iran war, Shia Arabs on the two sides of the border had fought loyally for their countries.

When the Shias in Basra were quiet watching disenfranchised Sunni elite take on the US troops and harm each other, British James Bonds were active across in Khuzestan .But Iraqi Shia militias would take on all occupation troops if Iran or they are attacked. A large majority of Shia population and leadership is now strongly opposed to the occupation. So the un-nerved British forces fled from Basra city to the airport and safe desert bases for easier Dunkirk like run for home, when necessary.

The British had even suggested that they would like to shift their troops to a more important mission in South Afghanistan, where along with reluctant NATO it is now confronted by a resurgent Taleban. With Pakistan having lost over 800 troops in its North West Frontier Province and forced into a peace agreement with the Taleban, attacks against NATO forces in Afghanistan have increased.

Muhammad Hanif, a Taliban spokesman captured by British and Afghan troops near the border with Pakistan, on being grilled, confessed that the Taleban Emir Mullah Omar lives in Quetta in Pakistan. "He is protected by ISI," Hanif said. Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, made similar allegations in the past .But Aftab Ahmad Sherpao, Pakistan's Interior Minister denied the reports, and "We have no information on the whereabouts of Mullah Omar. He is not living in Pakistan."

Following the old European and now US policy of divide and rule ,Washington is successfully igniting dissensions and perhaps succeeding in arousing the dormant historic hatred between Arab Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, who are now savagely killing each other , more so since the US reported that Al Qaeda damaged the Shia Golden Dome mosque in Samarrah early last year . US cracked the first Shia-Sunni fault line in Iraqi nationalism when then President George Bush Senior asked Shias and Kurds of Iraq to rise against Saddam Hussein at the end of 1991 Gulf War .And then did nothing when Saddam Hussein regime attacked by the rebels suppressed the uprising brutally . That would not inspire Shia trust in US words .The illegal trial and lynching of Saddam Hussein under US direction, control and occupation has deepened this sectarian chasm further.

Robert Gates- A strong and a long time US presence in Middle East;

It was quite apparent that the Iraq Study Group Report was just another red herring to mollify a disenchanted US public and keep the new Congress diverted .USA would not walk away from the region .Listen to what a major contributor to ISG report, the newly minted Defence Secretary Robert Gates said about the buildup of US forces in the region, involving the dispatch of an aircraft carrier and Patriot missile defence batteries , apart from US troops.

"We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future," said Gates on the first arrival of reinforcements in Baghdad as part of Bush's "surge" strategy. The US military buildup is intended to signal American determination to remain a dominant player in the region.

"The Iranians clearly believe we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in a position to press us in many ways," Gates told journalists in Brussels. "They are doing nothing to be constructive in Iraq at this point." He added that Tehran was seeking to foment conflict in Lebanon through Hezbollah.

But Gates did not rule out the possibility of talks in the future if Iran changed its behaviour. "When the Iranians are prepared to play a constructive role in dealing with some of these problems there might be opportunities for engagement," he said.

Bush 'Stays the Course' - in aggressive mode;

When asked if the alleged killing of Americans by Iranian agents in Iraq constituted an act of war , Bush said he was not a lawyer so could not define what constituted an act of war but "let me just say it's unacceptable". He warned if the US failed in Iraq it would lead to a wider regional crisis, "If the [Iraq] government falls apart and there is sectarian enclaves and violence it'll invite Iran into the Shia neighbourhoods."

On June 21, 2005, General John R Vines, then a senior US commander in Iraq, told reporters that the insurgents had probably drawn on bomb-making expertise from Saddam's battle hardened army. US media and the British keep on claiming Iranian hand in supplying and helping Iraqi militias, even to the Sunni resistance.

Baltimore Times reported that at the current spending rate on the Iraq War, being waged along with the fighting in Afghanistan, the cost of the Iraq invasion will reach $600 billion this year. Much of the funding for the war comes from outside the normal budgetary process, through emergency appropriation bills.

US Congress rallies against 'Surge';

the policy of the 'Surge 'was concocted to counter ISG Report by Neo-Cons of American Enterprise Institute and former Lt Gen Keane. But Democrat Congressman John Murtha, a former decorated Marine and vocal opponent of the Iraq war and the incoming chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee said, "If we have our way there will be substantial change and substantial pressure put on this administration… The allies don't want us over there. The Iraqis don't want us over there and we expect that even the Republicans will support us when we get our bill up."

He then added ominously, (we want a) "redeployment of troops out of Iraq" and (we will) "restrict funding until some of the problems are fixed at home." [Redeployment to new massive bases in Iraq which can house up to 70,000 soldiers!]

Murtha clarified, "You know they say that Al Qaeda is causing the divisions and sectarian violence? The invasion itself is what causes the sectarian violence –It's the occupation causes the violence. That's the problem we have and we have to change directions."

Murtha had raised the alarm in 2005 that the US army had done what it could do in Iraq .It was now broken. It was followed by the Generals revolt, when 8 senior retired generals went against Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and blamed him for defective Iraq war planning and its implementation. The two top Generals, Arabic knowing Gen. John Abizaid (of Lebanese extraction) Head of Centcom and Gen George Casey the man on the ground in Iraq who expressed themselves against increased US troops, are being eased out. Along with the naval build up in the Gulf, a Naval Admiral is being appointed apparently to carry out operations against Iran.

But the opposition to the war has seeped even into the ranks of the US forces. Some 1,000 active-duty soldiers and Marines urged US lawmakers to support a quick withdrawal. Although they're duty-bound to carry out the President's orders, they can legally express their views. The statement, carried on the Web site AppealforRedress.org, was signed by 1,080 troops by 16 January.

It urged the US Congress to support "the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq," adding, "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price." "Despite our best efforts, Iraq fell further into chaos," said Marine Corps Sgt. Liam Madden at a press conference .He believed that the war "benefits neither the United States nor Iraq, and especially not the American military".

Senate leaders have introduced a non-binding bipartisan resolution opposing the 'surge' policy .It has been drafted by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M.Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) "The whole thing could let Republicans off the hook with a meaningless, toothless vote," said Andrews, who has been meeting with senior Democrats on war issues. "It's a pressure valve that could work against us."

A Pew Research Center poll released on 16 January showed that 61 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq. Some 60 percent of Republicans support Bush's plan and 33 percent oppose it. Among Democrats, 12 percent support it and 82 percent oppose it.

The media is owned and manipulated by corporate interests who fund elections and employ lobbies with a US$ 2.4 billion treasure chest to get favourable laws enacted. Thus the interests of the poor and the middle classes remain neglected .But even the misinformed and info-challenged US electorate has deciphered the truth in Iraq and in November elections bashed up the Republican Party. Only an election deters these, some not so, honorable legislators, afraid of losing the power and the pelf they enjoy. Republicans slated for next elections are opposing the 'surge '.Hillary Clinton, who has announced her bid for the Presidency, a fervid supporter of Israel and a strong supporter of US war on Iraq is now singing a different tune .There would be lot of political maneuverings but US would not easily give up its addiction to cheap Middle East oil and enormous profits for the energy interests and the military industry complex, which promotes wars .They rule the roost in the USA.

Retired US Generals recommend political solution in the Senate;

A panel of retired generals told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 18 January that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq would do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country. "Too little and too late," said Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command. He added that American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. "The solution is political, not military," he said. Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War, described it as "A fool's errand." Other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, and "our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer." He said that Iraqis should try to make political deals domestically and negotiate for stability with neighboring nations, particularly Syria and Iran.

"The United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein," said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. The war benefited Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States. "There is no way to win a war that is not in your interests," he said. USA is in a 'No Win' situation. Even a plan to start withdrawing US troops carried the risk of the armed Iraqi population to step up the level of attacks. "We will be shot at as we are going out." said Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army.

Iran's counter moves;

After the ISG recommendation that US talk with Syria and Iran, Tehran was somewhat euphoric and so was Damascus. But that is now gone and Tehran is pondering over its moves carefully to counter political and military moves by Washington. Ali Larijani, Iran's chief negotiator on the nuclear question delivered a joint letter to the Saudi King Abdullah from the Iranian Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad requesting Saudi mediation with the US. The letter was delivered just before Rice's visit to Riyadh. Reuters quoted an unnamed Saudi official saying Iran wanted the Saudi King to relay a goodwill message to Washington to "help bring opinions together" between Iran and the US.

Ever green Expediency Council Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former President who lost to Ahmadinejad said that the US having failed to achieve its goals in the region, was now seeking to embark on a new adventure to cover up its defeat. He urged the need for vigilance.

To temper President Ahmadinejad's over blown rhetoric and consequent popularity with the public, but bad press in the West, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has allowed 150 parliamentarians to attack the President's economic policies. In a signed letter they blamed Ahmadinejad for the raging inflation, high unemployment and failure to even present the budget in time. They decried his going on a tour of Latin America at the time of a crisis. Western media hopefully suggested that the mounting criticism could mean Ahmadinejad's political doom and even impeachment. But on return from Latin America Ahmadinejad reiterated that Tehran's program on nuclear energy would continue.

Like (the Chess King) Ali Khamenei might remove from the centre (Knight) Ahmadinejad with his awkward moves. Iranians have shown Chess like long term planning and finesse to counter US moves in the region , even offering full cooperation in 2003 ( an honorable draw ) , if US normalized bilateral relations disrupted since 1979 . Always many moves ahead they nurtured SCIRI , Dawa and other Iraqi groups and Kurds .Since the invasion of Iraq , they now occupy and control the centre (as in Chess board) , with open and hidden threats to any US moves .

In Bishop like pincer moves across the region, Tehran has smartly moved with Hamas after its electoral victory in Palestine, taking it under its wings, with its top political leader Khaled Meshaal resident in Damascus. If Iraq President Talabani is visiting Damascus, so is Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to meet with President Bashar Assad but meeting with Meshaal did not materialize as no agreement could be reached on a unity government in Palestine. Perhaps both visitors have US acquiescence if not approval .They must also plan if US commitment in the region weakens or dwindles away.

Ahmed Yusuf, an adviser to Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, said Hamas ministers had received promises of donations amounting to £500m during recent visits in the Muslim world. But the largest pledge was from Iran, more than that of EU. Last year Tehran pledged £125 m to help Hamas survive the international boycott led by USA. After inroads in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Tehran's support to Hamas has created serious concern in US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states- at Iran's rapid expansion as a regional power.

Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel's secret service, Shin Bet, warned that international sanctions against the authority were forcing Hamas into a closer relationship with Iran. President Bush has asked Congress to approve $83 million for Abbas's security forces. Israeli officials transferred $100 million in withheld revenues 9 collected as Tax and Customs dues to the Authority.

Palestine has become an arena of Shia Iran and Sunni Arab rivalry. Apart from Fathah and other cadres, Abbas is raising a 3,500-strong Presidential Guard, as a bulwark against Hamas' militia of 5,000 gunmen. .If Iran is supplying funds and arms to Hamas then Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and USA are arming the now discredited and corrupt Palestine Authority .Hamas and Fathah militants are killing each other apart from the Israeli forces genocidal ways in Gaza in another example of divide and rule.

Apparently Hezbollah had abducted two Israeli soldiers last July to also ease intense Israeli pressure off Hamas in Gaza .Of course it did not expect a full blown savage destructive war by Israel as Nasrallah himself later admitted. But it turned out well for them and has altered the strategic power landscape in Lebanon and the region benefiting Iran. Israel must now watch over its shoulders before any reckless military venture.

In spite of blatant Western lies, nationalist Hezbollah movement has very wide support in Lebanon, where USA has now sent in its disruptive agents to counter Hezbollah's peaceful sit in for a role in decision making appropriate to its showing in the war and its popularity .In Syria with over 80% Sunni population, the ruling elite is dominated by Assad family led Shia Alawaites .But no where in the world such a minuscule minority rules as do the Jews and the Israel Lobby in USA. If the Holocaust can not be questioned neither can the influence of Israeli Lobby in USA. A recent book by former President and highly respected peacemaker Jimmy Carter, comparing Israel's apartheid system with that of former state of South Africa has brought the whole force of Israeli lobby on his head.

Condi Rice in the New Middle East after last years birth pangs;

Condi Rice began her safari of the Middle East from Israel and returned via friendly Angela Markel's Berlin and London with Tony Blair still clinging on despite failed policies and other scandals .As for Rice's attempt at rejuvenating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Arab media simply described it as an attempt to change the subject .US has little credibility as an honest broker.

The carefully worded support that Arab allies are offering for Bush's new Iraq strategy highlights the deep suspicion among Washington's few real friends and puppets in the region that Iraq might already be a lost cause. The Bush plan "encountered strong skepticism across the Mideast, where many believe that even with more soldiers, America will fail to break the cycle of violence."

Rice who discussed the 'Surge' plan in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, got only vague commitments and lukewarm response She and 8 Arab foreign ministers in a statement welcomed U.S. commitment to defend Iraq's "territorial integrity and guarantees of its stability ." The host, Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheik Mohammed Al Sabah, when asked if it was already too late to stop the rising cycle of Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq replied, "Nine foreign ministers are meeting in Kuwait today to try to prevent Iraq from sliding into a civil war." "I think that speaks volumes." Or rather the hopelessness of the situation.

Earlier key Sunni Arab allies while endorsing the goals of Bush's plan, and expressing hopes of success, almost in the same breath suggested that the Shia -led government in Baghdad cannot or would not implement the plan.

Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal was perhaps the most positive, who agreed "with the full objectives set by the new plan, the strategy." After talks with Rice earlier, he commented, "This has objectives that ... if it were applied, it will solve the problems facing Iraq." But he emphasized that it was the responsibility of the Iraq government alone. "We cannot be Iraqis more than Iraqis," Saud emphasized. "Other countries can help, but the burden, the whole burden and taking a decision will be the Iraqis'."

It was well put by the Saudi newspaper Al Josiah which noted, "The Americans are trying to get out of the Baghdad bottleneck and they are looking for agent players in managing their conflict with Tehran to make their new strategy in Iraq successful."

Of course the Sunni Arab world would not trust Prime Minister al-Maliki's government with close ties with Shia Iran. The Shias have become empowered after many centuries, courtesy Washington and would not let go .Rice did admit that" There are concerns about whether the Maliki government is prepared to take an evenhanded, nonsectarian path here. There's no doubt about that."

Bush's plan that al-Maliki use Iraqi troops to crack down on militants from both sides and meet a series of benchmarks to promote reconciliation between Sunnis and Shias is unlikely to succeed. Al-Maliki has resisted U.S. pressure in the past. Before Bush unveiled his plan al-Maliki was made to agree that he would go after his political ally Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

But he has already criticised US for not imparting proper training or providing weapons to Iraqi forces ( aka artillery , tanks and helicopter gun ships ), which US fears might be passed on to the militias and used against US forces .To begin with al-Maliki has appointed his own man as commander of the Iraqi forces in Baghdad against US choice.

Rice tried to exploit fear of Iran among US's Sunni allies, many with substantial Shia minorities, to support its plans, but have not they outsourced their security to USA since decades in return for free exploitation of the regions oil riches by US led west. The Arab states have amassed massive arms inventories, earn fat bribes and subsidies US-UK military industry complex. They can hardly use these arms, as was proved in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Scared and hoodwinked Saudi Arabia allowed US GIs including female troopers, a run of the Arabian Peninsula, sacred soil according to Muslims. The rest i.e. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda is history.

Yes, the statement in Kuwait did contain a coded signal to Iran, which was reportedly not part of the group's discussions. "Relations among all countries should be based on mutual respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states and on the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of other nations," [ Does Washington respect this principle and what did the group do when US invaded Iraq illegally].

Intimidated and nervous, Sunni Arab rulers in Cairo, Amman, Riyadh and the Gulf are egging US to stay put in the region, to stop and roll back Iranian influence. They had acted similarly when Saudis, Kuwaitis, Emirates, Egypt, West et al had encouraged and funded 'brother Saddam' and Iraq in its 1980-88 war against a rampant Iran after the Khomeini led Shia revolution of 1979 .Iraq's Shia Arabs had fought against Iran's Revolutionary Guards and young boys seeking martyrdom .And how did the Arabs repay that debt and react to the US controlled and Al Maliki executed Kangaroo Court trials and lynching of 'brother Saddam'? In 2003 many in the Arab world were unhappy that for Arab honor, Iraqi officers and soldiers did not sacrifice themselves futilely against absurd odds in Iraq against F-16, Cobra gun ships and massive artillery. (They melted to fight another day, as the Iraqi resistance now.)

But who among the Arabs would fight. Egypt initiated the 1973 war to recover its lands and oil fields lost to Israel after the 1967 debacle. The oil Sheikhs used the war to raise oil prices and its nouvo riche citizens went around lording over sophisticated Cairo and Beirut. After the 1979 peace treaty with Israel , Egypt , now on US pay roll retired .There can be no war with out Egypt in the Middle East( against Israel ) and no peace without Syria .During the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war millions of Egyptians worked on Iraqi farms and industries for Iraqis doing the fighting .

It was Pakistani Brigadier Zia-ul- Haq who organized the military operation against PLO guerillas in Jordan and expelled them to Lebanon in 1977. (With the ruler scripting a message for the Pakistani Military Chief for saving his Kingdom, so a retired Pakistani General told me). So who will fight the Iranians or even Iraqi Shia Arabs now in militias, army and police? They and Sunni Iraqi resistance now fought Iran's Shia revolutionary guards and young boys looking for martyrdom.

Western Policy of Divide and Rule;

USA and the perfidious Albion would only succeed in igniting a Shia-Sunni conflagration in the region except that oil prices would zoom and seriously affect the US and world economy. The US dilemma is how to expel Iran and keep control of Iraq, the region with its oil wealth for its use, as hitherto. It is a mission impossible. The British divided Hindustan into Pakistan and India, so that a weaker Muslim Pakistan (with its ruling military elite), would perforce ally with the West to protect from USSR, Middle East oil wells, for exclusive Western exploitation. This can be seen from the British records of the period quoted in a recent book by an Indian diplomat, who was ADC in 1947 to the last, British Viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten. Following the partition of India there was ethnic cleansing in West Pakistan, exchange of populations and millions of Hindus and Muslims butchered each other. The West is at its old game again in the Middle East.

One can not forget the most disruptive Joker in the pack; Israel .Now in a state of uncertainty and an existential threat in the wake of its defeat by Lebanon's Hezbollah. An Israeli Naval warship was disabled with Hassan Nasrallah giving a running commentary of the attack on Al Minar, its TV channel, which Tel Aviv could not disrupt during the war .Apparently Hezbollah succeeded in breaking into Israeli communications net work .Some reports suggest among other things, by providing drugs to bored Israeli border guards across south Lebanon.

West and USA are now flaunting its military prowess and would later rewrite history. Except that with online media , internet blogs and many honest and dedicated media persons even in the West , one can surf and ferry out the truth .For example ,in the Second World War , USA played a minor role compared to the Soviet Union in the destruction of the Nazi war machine in which USSR sacrificed tens of millions of its soldiers and citizens .Its economy was destroyed .Come lately US ( it has already spent more time in Iraq now than in that war ) and even UK tried to take all the credit . They produced 'The longest day ' and 'Gen Patton ' and UK dreams up James Bond victories in the battle field and the bed room .Even channels like 'Discovery Channel ' spew lies all the time and brain wash the ignorant . Germans and Russian soldiers were accused of mass rapes and killings. US soldiers raped many thousands women in West Europe and it faced a very high rate of desertion in its troops. But for instant communications now ,you would not have heard of or very little of Gulags like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib , Bagram , genocide in Fallujah ,Haditha and elsewhere , and rendition by CIA for torture of innocents , mostly Muslims in secret places all around the world . This has been the core of the Western mental make up though out the colonial era and even now.

Shias developed the first human bomber, the Assassins and evolved the system of takkyia ie not telling the truth under duress and occupation making them very secretive in their methods as shown in Lebanon. So US would be making a grave mistake in attacking Iran, exposed as it is and fully stretched on the ground .Iran's military build up has not been degraded by sanctions like in Iraq, which had no navy or air force or missiles and even WMDs. US and China and others have provided enough military hardware including sophisticated missiles to Iran and Syria.

As for US righteousness most of the military hard ware US gifted to Pakistan to fight communism was used against democratic India .US now grants Air and Naval aircraft and hardware to counter terrorism in Afghanistan ( and Pakistan ).Israel and USA should not forget the deep tunnels and other innovations employed brilliantly in south Lebanon against such heavy odds.

Conclusions;

Like Iraq, some fancy schemes are on the anvil in Pentagon. To ward off the threats to the world economy if Tehran curtailed oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the US has reportedly made contingency plans for the indefinite takeover of Iranian territory in Chah Bahar, which would deny Tehran its strategic leverage with Hormuz. Washington might even push for outright "regime change" in Tehran, never mind lack of troops necessary for even a limited war. Theoretically, would this not take the war and US troops to Iran (via Azerbaijan), which will then face Russia across and the Caspian Sea.

During the failed 1979 US hostages rescue operation in Iran ordered by President Jimmy Carter, it was said that USSR had tipped Tehran about Washington's plans. Both Russia and China have serious and log term stakes in a united and stable Iran.

"The administration does have Iran on the brain, and I think they are exaggerating the amount of Iranian activities in Iraq," commented Kenneth Pollack, the director of research at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, "There's a good chance that this is going to be counterproductive."

W Joseph Stroupe, editor of Global Events Magazine wrote recently that the Middle East was already 'like a sectarian tinderbox waiting for a spark to ignite its multiple civil wars-in-waiting. The United States' additional 21,500 new troops will be like a desperate roving band of flamethrowers let loose on the entire region, from Saudi Arabia to Iran. " Stroupe wondered if the current invasion plans were any better than of 2003 .Would it achieve only " an early but short-lived victory over Iran, only to massively lose the longer war, just as happened in Iraq? "

Iraq's sectarian and other militias will not lay down their arms and would fight the US led occupation forces to retain and further consolidate their hard-won power and prestige within their respective regions. Very importantly, the majority of Iraqis, who have come to rely on their respective militias for safety and security in the environment of the abject failure of Iraq's government and the US and British forces to provide such, would not wish to see their favored militias weakened or defanged.

Hence the population can be expected to deny all meaningful support to the US. Many will actively oppose the occupying powers through their respective militias, thereby dooming the entire effort to massive failure." If the US and Britain are perceived by Iraq's Shias as excessively targeting Shia militias while largely ignoring Sunni militias, then they risk mobilizing the entire body of Iraq's Shia population against the continued presence of foreign forces, resulting in a virtual Shia insurrection, with catastrophic results,' says Stroupe.

By unintentionally shoving the entire oil-and-gas-rich Middle East on to a fast track to chaos, the US will empower Russia as the immovable global energy kingpin. Already, Europe and Asia are being forced to reconsider placing too much reliance on the region for energy imports, opening the way for Russia." Africa and Latin America suffer from strategic instability and long distances haulage.

Iran would be helped in its recovery by Russia, China and other key energy exporting and consuming nations of the world. While signing another liquid gas contract with Tehran, Beijing brushed aside Washington's opposition in the spirit of recent UNSC resolution. Iran has excellent relations with Russia and China .The three powers could initiate a global energy consortium opposed to US power. It could be joined by others like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, with Iran even becoming a full member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is slowly morphing into a military alliance to counter a rapacious NATO, now getting ensnared in the Afghanistan morass.

"I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions… I do not see what political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and certainly I cannot believe that in any circumstances any large reinforcements would be sent from here…

There is scarcely a single newspaper… which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country. … Any alternative Government that might be formed here… would gain popularity by ordering instant evacuation. Moreover, in my own heart I do not see what we are getting out of it. …No progress has been made in developing the oil. Altogether I am getting to the end of my resources. --At present we are paying… millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having."

Extracts from a memorandum dated September 1, 1922, from Winston Churchill, Colonial Secretary to Prime Minister David Lloyd George, whose government was on its last legs.

Both Bush and Blair claim to be great admirers of Churchill, but never come round to read this chapter in Iraq's history or Churchill's naval debacle at Gallipoli. Now another naval misadventure is under planning.

K Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Copy right with the author. E-mail: