Al-Arab Blog - مدونة العرب

Catch-22
Supporting the United States

By Erich Marquardt
Political Analyst - United States
29/02/2004



Kurdish fighters celebrate the overthrow of Saddam’s regime

Since the start of Washington's "war on terrorism," Muslims throughout the world have noted with peculiar irony that most of Washington's military attention has been focused on Muslim-majority countries, making the "war on terrorism" eerily resemble a war on Islam. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to the backlash against Islamic culture in the United States, has tainted America's image in the minds of many Muslims. This reality became clear during the massive protests and civil confrontations that rocked Muslim-majority countries in the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq.

Before the invasion of Iraq, Muslims throughout the world joined together to protest the proposed US attack. From Indonesia to Jordan, Muslims marched through the streets, demanding an end to what they deemed as US aggression toward adherents of Islam. Many Muslims found the pattern of Washington attacking Muslim-majority countries simply too distinctive to ignore.

Beginning as peaceful, these demonstrations quickly radicalized into violence as Washington came closer to embarking on the path of war. More importantly, because the governments in many Muslim-majority countries are pro-Western and have extensive political, economic and military ties with the United States, it was only natural that these protests would quickly turn from anger directed at the United States to anger directed at their own governments.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Throughout history, states have made ideological sacrifices to achieve their national interests.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This anger manifested itself in violent protests in countries such as Jordan and Pakistan, where protestors and riot police clashed. The diverging interests of the populations and their governments in Muslim-majority countries created fear throughout the West that the possibility of revolution in these countries had increased. In an effort to prevent looking too out of line with the demands of its people, the governments in many of these countries struggled to moderate their generally pro-US overtures. The most noticeable example of this was Turkey.

Before the March invasion, the Turkish population was strongly against any notion of US military intervention in Iraq. Massive street protests made it clear that the Turkish people were opposed to their government's assisting Washington in its effort to open up a northern front in the upcoming battle. The raging protests in this democracy made it difficult for Ankara to support the US in this endeavor; indeed, in the end the Turkish parliament sided with the people and voted against allowing Washington use of its territory for the invasion of Iraq.

This decision highlights the difficulty that Muslim leaders face in supporting the United States. Indeed, from an analytical and strategic point of view, if Turkey were interested in securing its national interests, it should have assisted in the US invasion. Northern Iraq is home to a large Kurdish population that Washington has sheltered politically from Turkey and militarily from Iraq. Many Kurds in northern Iraq, like many Kurds in southern Turkey, have a powerful desire for autonomy and are seeking statehood. Turkey, along with other governments in the region, fears such a development, since it might mean a loss of territorial integrity. For example, if Turkey's Kurds were to declare their own state, theoretically Turkey could lose some of its territory in the southeast, such as the cities of Batman and Silvan. It is this prospect that explains why the Turkish government always reacts harshly when its Kurdish population revolts, as do other governments in the region.


Demonstrations in Turkey against the invasion of Iraq

This national security concern explains why, had Ankara been following its national interests, Turkey would have played a military role in the US invasion of Iraq. Certainly, Turkey's interests would have been better served had no invasion ever occurred. But once it became clear that Washington would not be deterred from its path, Ankara would have benefited had it supplied troops to the invasion force, as it would have been able to advance its troops into northern Iraq, preventing any Kurdish moves towards independence.

By failing to support the US invasion, Turkey now finds itself in a much different position. Instead of relying on the Turks for its northern front, Washington decided to use Kurdish military factions. The use of the Kurds was one of the worst possible outcomes for the Turkish government, as it strengthened rather than weakened Kurdish aspirations for statehood.

Since Washington relies on the Kurds to keep northern Iraq stable, Turkey has been pushed to the sidelines and has been forced to sit idly by while the Kurds continue to strengthen their hand in northern Iraq. While Washington is far from endorsing Kurdish statehood, the simple fact that the Kurds are operating in northern Iraq free from Turkish and Iraqi oversight means that they are able to enhance and strengthen their political, economic and military cohesion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raging protests in Turkey made it difficult for Ankara to support the US war on Iraq.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turkey's failure to protect its interests was predicted by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of Turkey's majority Justice and Development Party. Before the invasion, he warned, "If one is left out of the equation at the start of the operation, it may not be possible to be in a position to control developments at the end of the operation… Turkey's long-term interests and even security could be in jeopardy."

Therefore, this example highlights the difficulty that leaders in Muslim-majority countries have in securing their national interests when those interests require supporting the United States. Throughout history, states have made ideological sacrifices in order to achieve their national interests. Now, due to the virulent hatred of the United States held by many Muslims upset over the implications of Washington's "war on terrorism," leaders in Muslim-majority countries are finding that they must sacrifice their national interests in order to preserve their state “ideology.”

Erich Marquardt is an analyst with the Power and Interest News Report, located on the web at www.pinr.com