Dr. James Zogby

Viewpoint Episode and Transcript: 07/26/2007

Posted on Wednesday August 1, 2007

James Zogby: I AM JIM ZOGBY, AND WELCOME TO “VIEWPOINT.” TONIGHT WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TURKEY AT A CROSSROADS, BUT WE’LL DO THAT LATER IN THE PROGRAM WITH FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY, MARK PARRIS. WE WILL TALK ABOUT TURKEY’S RECENT ELECTIONS AND WHAT THEY MEAN FOR THE COUNTRY’S FUTURE. BUT FIRST, A DISCUSSION OF PRESIDENT BUSH’S RECENT SPEECH ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR’S MISSION AS ENVOY TO THE QUARTET. JOINING US FOR THIS DISCUSSION IS ROBERT MALLEY. HE’S MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP. HE SERVED AS STAFF ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR ARAB-ISRAELI AFFAIRS. HE DID THAT DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND WAS AT CAMP DAVID FOR THOSE TALKS. THANKS FOR JOINING US, ROB.

Robert Malley, International Crisis Group: ALWAYS A PLEASURE.

J.Z.: I WANT TO START, IF WE CAN, WITH BUSH’S SPEECH. WE’RE GONNA HEAR A COMMENT LATER IN THE SHOW FROM THE SPEECH, BUT ON THE WHOLE THERE WERE THREE BASIC TOPICS. I MEAN, ON THE FRONT END THERE WERE THREE BASIC TOPICS. THERE WAS A STRONG SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT ABBAS AND SALAM FAYED. THERE WERE PLEDGES OF AID AND COMMITMENT TO HOLD AN INTERNATIONAL MEETING, NOT A CONFERENCE, BUT AN INTERNATIONAL MEETING. I WANT TO JUST GET YOUR TAKE FIRST OVERALL, THE ASSESSMENT YOU HAD OF THE SPEECH, IT’S TIMING, AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS PRESIDENT CAN HELP THE PROCESS AT THIS POINT.

Malley: WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE SPEECH LEAVES ME A BIT SPEECHLESS. I’M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT TO SAY. IT HAD SOME THE NEW THEMES THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS INTRODUCED NOW FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WHICH IS THAT THE PALESTINIANS HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY DESERVE THEIR RIGHTS, IN A WAY, THEY A STATE RATHER THAN LOOKING AT IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. AND THAT’S SORT OF SHAPED THE ADMINISTRATION’S VIEW. NOW, SINCE THE PRESIDENT’S SPEECH FIVE YEARS AGO IN WHICH HE SAID, “IF YOU WANT A STATE, YOU HAD BETTER ACT LIKE ONE BEFORE YOU GET IT,” WHICH MAY BE TAKING THINGS BACKWARDS. AND THEN THE OTHER POINT NOW IS EVEN THE ARABS ARE GONNA HAVE TO DO MORE. THE ARAB PEACE INITIATIVE IS GOOD, BUT YOU GOT TO DO MORE TO REACH OUT TO ISRAEL. THAT’S SORT OF IT ON THE TONALITY ISSUE, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO RESONATE WELL WITH AN ARAB AUDIENCE.
AND THEN THERE’S THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE DONE TO HELP PRESIDENT ABBAS. CAN IT DONE AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU’RE ISOLATING GAZA AND YOU’RE CUTTING OFF HAMAS. AND I THINK THAT’S THE POLITICAL ASPECT OF THE SPEECH WE’RE REQUIRED TO KNOW.

J.Z.: LET ME TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE BACK END OF THE SPEECH. AN UNDERCURRENT THERE WAS THIS WAS PRO-ABBAS, ANTI-HAMAS AND WAS CLEARLY DESIGNED TO NOT ONLY DRAW LINES BETWEEN THE TWO AND CREATE DISTINCTIONS, BUT ALSO TO STRENGTHEN THE ONE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER. MISTAKE, OR IS THAT THE ONLY APPROACH AVAILABLE?

Malley: WELL, YOU KNOW, I’VE BEEN ARGUING NOW FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, SINCE THE ELECTIONS IN 2006, THAT IT’S A MISTAKE. AND I THINK EVERY STEP OF THE WAY WE HAVE SEEN THE COST OF THE MISTAKE. WE’VE SEEN WHAT’S HAPPENED. FATAH HAS NOT BEEN STRENGTHENED. THE MODERATES HAVE NOT BEEN STRENGTHENED. THE RADICALS, IN FACT, MAY HAVE BEEN. AND THE ISOLATION OF HAMAS IS PREVENTING WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, WHICH IS ITS INTEGRATION INTO THE PALESTINIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM. TOO MANY PEOPLE, TOO MANY PALESTINIANS IDENTIFY WITH HAMAS FOR IT TO BE OTHERWISE. UNFORTUNATELY, WHERE WE ARE TODAY IS AN ATTEMPT, PART OF IT WELCOMED, TO BOOST, TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION IN THE WEST BANK TO ACCELERATE THE PEACE, BUT IT IS DONE IN A WAY THAT ALMOST GUARANTEES THAT IT’S GOING TO FAIL BECAUSE YOU ARE CUTTING OFF A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PALESTINIAN PUBLIC, AND THAT’S GONNA—ULTIMATELY IT’S GONNA EXPOSE PRESIDENT ABBAS HIMSELF BECAUSE HE WILL BE VIEWED AS PART OF A STRATEGY THAT IS AIMED AGAINST A PART OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE.

J.Z.: TALK TO ME ABOUT PRESIDENT BUSH AND HIS STANDING IN THE REGION. IT’S VERY LOW, CLEARLY. AMONG PALESTINIANS IT’S VERY LOW. CAN AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHOSE POPULARITY IS AS LOW AS HIS IS, IF HE DOES THE RIGHT THING, CAN HE STRENGTHEN THE PRESIDENT OF PALESTINE, ABBAS, OR DOES HE IN HIS EMBRACE, HURT HIM?

Malley: SO FAR EVERY TIME PRESIDENT BUSH HAS TRIED TO HELP THOSE HE WANTS TO HELP IN PALESTINE, HE HAS HURT THEM. AND TOO CLOSE AN EMBRACE SUFFOCATES. AND IN THIS CASE, I TRULY THINK EVERY TIME HE MENTIONS PRESIDENT ABBAS OR PRIME MINISTER FAYED BY NAME, HE IS HURTING THEM. AND I THINK HE SHOULD BE ADVISED TO STOP DOING THAT. IT’S HARD WHEN YOU HAVE THE KIND OF REPUTATION THE UNITED STATES NOW HAS TO DO ANYTHING RIGHT EVEN IT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT IDEAS. AND I THINK THAT’S GOING TO BE BIG CHALLENGE. OBVIOUSLY, THE FIRST ONE IS TO SEE WHETHER THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THE RIGHT IDEAS, AND WE DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT THOSE IDEAS ARE—WHETHER THEY ARE CAPABLE OF IMPLEMENTING THEM. BUT THEN EVEN SO, WHETHER THEY WILL HAVE THE CREDIBILITY IN PALESTINIAN EYES TO BE ACCEPTED.

J.Z.: ONE OF THE CONTROVERSIES THAT ERUPTED AFTER THE SPEECH, “JERUSALEM POST” DID, I THOUGHT, AN INTERESTING PIECE ON. IT WAS THE AID QUESTION. THE PRESIDENT PROMISED $190 MILLION IN AID. THEY TOOK THAT AID APART—COULDN’T FIGURE OUT WHERE IT CAME FROM, AND IN DISCUSSIONS WITH STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPEOPLE AND WHITE HOUSE SPOKESPEOPLE, IT WAS EITHER ALL OLD MONEY OR THE NUMBERS DIDN’T ADD UP. I MEAN IN SOME CASES YOU COME TO 194. IN SOME CASES YOU COME TO 180. NOBODY QUITE KNEW WHAT THE $190 MILLION WAS. BUT ISRAEL IS PUTTING CONDITIONS ON THE MONEY, AS IS THE PRESIDENT, THAT IS NOT BE USED, EVEN THE TAX REVENUES, NOT BE USED IN GAZA, ALTHOUGH IT CAN PAY FOR FATAH EMPLOYEES IN GAZA. BUT IT CAN’T BE USED IN GAZA IN ANY WAY. IS THAT A MISTAKE? WILL THAT HURT THE PALESTINIANS? AND IS THERE MORE MONEY FROM OTHER SOURCES FORTHCOMING THAT WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT YET?

Malley: WELL, THERE MAY WELL BE. I KNOW THERE’S GOING TO BE DONOR’S CONFERENCES AND TONY BLAIR’S SUPPOSED TO GET MORE MONEY. I THINK PRIME MINISTER FAYAD IS SMART ENOUGH AND WISE ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IF HE’S ONLY PAYING EMPLOYEES IN THE WEST BANK, NEITHER HE NOR BASRA WILL HAVE THE CREDIBILITY AND LEGITIMACY TO REMAIN. I THINK HE KNOWS BETTER. THEY’LL TRY TO FIND WAYS. I THINK THEY’RE TRYING TO EXCLUDE A PORTION OF EMPLOYEES IN GAZA, THOSE WHO WORK SPECIFICALLY FOR, OR WHO HAVE BEEN HIRED SPECIFICALLY BY HAMAS AND HAMAS’ AUTHORITY.

J.Z.: AFTER—

Malley: AFTER THE—

J.Z.: AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THAT CONTROVERSIAL FORCE THAT WHAT ESTABLISHED.

Malley: EXACTLY, THE EXECUTIVE SECURITY FORCE. I THINK, I MEAN I THINK PRESIDENT ABBAS IS GOING TO BE CONFRONTED WITH AT LEAST TWO CHALLENGES. ONE IS HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN LEGITIMACY IF YOU’RE REALLY JUST FOCUSED ON THE WEST BANK? AND THE OTHER IS HOW DO YOU DELIVER STABILITY? HOW DO YOU DELIVER A PEACE PROCESS IF HAMAS IS NOT ON BOARD BECAUSE THEY HAVE ONE INSTRUMENT ALWAYS AT THEIR DISPOSAL. WE MAY NOT LIKE IT, BUT THAT HAVE IT. THEY HAVE POPULAR SUPPORT, AND MORE THAN THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO INSTIGATE ACTS OF VIOLENCE. AND THEY COULD IMMEDIATELY CHANGE THE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION FROM IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK TO CHAOS IN THE WEST BANK IF THEY DON’T THINK THEY HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO MODERATE THEIR POSITION.

J.Z.: LISTEN TO ONE COMMENT BY THE PRESIDENT. AND THIS IS A QUOTE WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL MEETING THAT HE PROPOSED. AND I WANT TO LISTEN AND, VIEWERS, LISTEN TO WORDS CAREFULLY AS TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS.

President Bush: SO I WILL CALL TOGETHER AN INTERNATIONAL MEETING THIS FALL OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM NATIONS THAT SUPPORT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION, REJECT VIOLENCE, RECOGNIZE ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXIST, AND COMMIT TO ALL PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

J.Z.: A LOT OF CONDITIONS. IT’S A MEETING, NOT A CONFERENCE—IT IS NOT MADRID.
IT’S ALL THE STATES THAT RECOGNIZE ISRAEL, END VIOLENCE. SO SYRIA IS OUT CONCEIVABLY.

Malley: I’M NOT SURE. FRANKLY, I THINK WHAT IT IS, IT’S A COMPROMISE BETWEEN VARIOUS SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN THE ADMINISTRATION, SO THEY ANNOUNCE A CONFERENCE.
THEY DON’T KNOW WHEN IT WILL BE HELD, WHO WILL BE THERE, WHAT THE TERMS OF REFERENCE WILL BE OR WHAT THE OBJECTIVES ARE GOING TO BE, BUT THEY THINK THAT BY ANNOUNCING IT SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN AND THE CONFERENCE WILL BE DEFINED BY WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME IT TAKES PLACE.

J.Z.: ISN’T THERE A DANGER IN CREATING THESE EXPECTATIONS, THOUGH?

Malley: WELL, I MEAN, I’M NOT SURE WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS THERE ARE. IF I WERE SOME PALESTINIAN OR AN ARAB, I WOULD HAVE PRETTY LOW EXPECTATIONS AND MAYBE THEY’LL BE SURPASSED. BUT WHAT HE FOCUSED ON MAINLY WAS INSTITUTION BUILDING, ECONOMIC RECOVERY, ALL OF WHICH IS IMPORTANT, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH TO PROP UP PRESIDENT ABBAS OR OTHERS. THEY’RE GOING TO NEED THE POLITICAL DIMENSIONS.
JUST ONE COMMENT. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, RENOUNCE VIOLENCE. THERE PROBABLY WON’T BE ANYONE AT A CONFERENCE TABLE IF THEY’RE ASKED TO RENOUNCE VIOLENCE AS ONE OF THE MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL. SO I THINK THERE’S PROBABLY A LOT OF AMBIGUITY IN WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID.

J.Z.: LET ME GO TO, THOUGH, THE QUESTION OF EXPECTATIONS. CLEARLY SOME HAVE EXPECTATIONS. AND I WANT TO PUT UP A QUOTE FROM TODAY’S MAARIV, AN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS, THE PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT. AND HERE IS WHAT HE SAYS. LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THE SCREEN. HE SAYS, “THE AMERICANS ARE DETERMINED TO PUSH THE SIDES INTO A POLITICAL AGREEMENT DURING THE CURRENT TERM OF PRESIDENT BUSH.” AND THEN HE ADDS IN THE ELLIPSES, “I HEARD THIS WITH MY OWN EARS FROM THE PRESIDENT AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, CONDOLEEZZA RICE. THEY WANT TO BROKER AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS WITHIN A YEAR.” AND HE CONCLUDES, “I HAVE MET WITH PRIME MINISTER OLMERT, AND WE TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING. I AM OPTIMISTIC.”

Malley: TWO COMMENTS. FIRST, IT’S NOT THE FIRST TIME, IN FACT, THAT EITHER PRESIDENT BUSH OR SECRETARY RICE HAVE SAID THAT TO PRESIDENT ABBAS. HE MAY BE MORE CONVINCED NOW THAN HE’S BEEN IN THE PAST, BUT HE SHOULD REMEMBER WHAT HE’S HEARD IN THE PAST. BUT EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, I COME BACK TO THE POINT WHICH IS WE ARE REALLY DEALING WITH ONE HAND TIED BEHIND OUR BACK IF WE ARE SAYING HAMAS WILL BE EXCLUDED. AND FRANKLY, THAT’S THE WAY PRESIDENT ABBAS SEES IT TODAY. SO THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM DIRECTED AT THE AMERICANS. I’M JUST SAYING IF PRESIDENT
ABBAS AND HIS ADVISORS BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN HAVE A PEACE AGREEMENT, WHICH EVEN THE BEST PEACE AGREEMENT IS GOING TO REPRESENT VERY DIFFICULT COMPROMISES FOR THE PALESTINIANS.

J.Z.: BUT IT’S AWFULLY HARD TO BRING IN HAMAS AFTER THE BAD BLOOD THAT’S BEEN SPILLED.

Malley: LET ME JUST SAY, THESE WILL BE DIFFICULT COMPROMISES. HOW CAN YOU SELL IT TO YOUR PUBLIC IF YOU HAVE AN ACTIVE CONSTITUENCY THAT IS GOING TO TRY TO UNDERMINE IT? YOU NEED A MINIMAL PALESTINE CONSENSUS. YOU’RE RIGHT, IT’S GOING TO BE HARD TO BRING THEM TOGETHER AFTER THE BLOOD THAT WAS SPILLED AND EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID SINCE. BUT I BELIEVE THAT SOONER OR LATER IF YOU WANT STABILITY AND IF YOU WANT A PEACE PROCESS, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME TOGETHER. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO BROKER AN AGREEMENT BASED ON WHAT THEY’VE ALREADY DONE, BUT DEEPEN IT AND ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT IT THIS TIME.

J.Z.: TONY BLAIR GOT OUT OF ONE JOB AND INTO ANOTHER AND BROUGHT HIS SUNNY OPTIMISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST. THESE ARE SOME COMMENTS THAT HE MADE. I WANT TO PUT THEM UP ON THE SCREEN, AND WE’LL TAKE A LOOK AT TONY BLAIR SPEAKING AT THE END OF THE QUARTET MEETING IN PORTUGAL. HERE’S FORMER-PRIME MINISTER BLAIR.

Former-Prime Minister Tony Blair: IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE SUCCEED, AND I AM PREPARED TO TRY TO HELP IN WHATEVER WAY I CAN. AND I THINK THAT IN THE END, THAT IS THE MOST ATTITUDE FOR ME TO CARRY INTO THIS JOB. AND I ALSO THINK THAT THERE IS A REAL WILL AND DESIRE IF PEOPLE CAN FIND THE RIGHT WAY FORWARD TO GET TO THAT TWO-STATE SOLUTION THAT PEOPLE WANT.

J.Z.: WELL, BLAIR MADE A POINT WHILE HE WAS ON THIS TRIP THAT HE WOULD NOT ENTER –THIS IS NOT ABOUT NEGOTIATIONS. HE’S TALKING ABOUT BUILDING INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNANCE AND TALKING ABOUT GETTING THE ISRAELIS TO REMOVE THE OBSTACLES THAT WILL HELP GROW THE PALESTINIAN ECONOMY. WHAT DO YOU KNOW OF BLAIR’S MISSION, AND HOW DOES THE QUARTET SEE ITSELF AT THIS POINT PLAYING A ROLE?

Malley: WELL, I MEAN, THERE’S THE MISSION ON PAPER AND THERE’S THE MISSION IN TONY BLAIR’S HEAD. AND I ASSUME THAT THE ONE IN HIS HEAD IS MORE EXPANSIVE. IT TOUCHES ON POLITICS. HE SPOKE ABOUT A TWO-STATE SETTLEMENT. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THAT IN HIS TERMS OF REFERENCE AND THE MANDATE HE’S BEEN GIVEN. BUT HE IS THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER—CLOSE RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT BUSH, CLOSE RELATIONS WITH SECRETARY RICE. HE PROBABLY CAN EXTEND HIS MANDATE IN A WAY THAT JIM WOLFENSOHN, HIS PREDECESSOR, COULD NOT, AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS HE’S ALREADY TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO REACH A TWO-STATE SETTLEMENT.

J.Z.: THERE WAS ANOTHER MISSION THAT TOOK PLACE, ACTUALLY, AT THE SAME TIME AS BLAIR WAS LEAVING AND THE ARAB LEAGUE WAS COMING. THE FOREIGN MINISTERS OF JORDAN AND EGYPT WERE THERE. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT MEETING. IS IT OF CONSEQUENCE AS IS BEING MADE OUT TO BE? CERTAINLY IN ISRAEL THEY WERE QUITE PLEASE TO HOST THE ARAB LEAGUE DELEGATION. WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Malley: YOU KNOW, YOU COULD LOOK AT IT TWO WAYS. NUMBER ONE, IT IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE ARAB LEAGUE IS MEETING WITH ISRAEL. ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY CHOSE, AND BY DESIGN, THE 2 MEMBERS OF THE ARAB WHO HAVE NORMAL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH ISRAEL. SO I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH TO MAKE OF IT. I DO THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THIS WHOLE PICTURE—YOU HAVE PRESIDENT BUSH’S STATEMENT, YOU HAVE WHAT TONY BLAIR IS SAYING, YOU HAVE THIS VISIT, YOU HAVE OTHER THINGS, YOU HAVE WHAT PRESIDENT ABBAS IS SAYING—AND THERE IS A SENSE OF MOMENTUM THAT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. I KEEP COMING BACK TO THE POLITICS OF IT. THERE IS A MOMENT OF OPPORTUNITY, PERHAPS, BUT IF WE GET THE PALESTINIAN POLITICS WRONG—AND WE HAVE LEARNED FROM HISTORY TIME AND AGAIN THAT YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO MAKE UP FOR IT BY TRYING TO HAVE SOME KIND OF DIPLOMATIC INITIATIVE.

J.Z.: IF YOU WANT TO GIVE US A CALL, THE NUMBER IS GOING TO BE UP THE SCREEN. OVERSEAS IT’S 001-202-842-5056. IF YOU’RE CALLING FROM HERE IN THE U.S., IT’S 1-800-528-2090. THERE SEEMED TO BE A DIFFERENCE OF EMPHASIS IN THE TWO ARAB LEAGUE REPRESENTATIVES. WHILE THE JORDANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER SPOKE EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION IN THE FUTURE, ET CETERA, THE EGYPTIAN FOREIGN MINISTER SEEMED TO HINT PRETTY MUCH AT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT—THE NEED TO DEVELOP A COHERENT PALESTINIAN POSITION BRINGING THE SIDES TOGETHER. DO YOU—WHERE IN THE ARAB WORLD IS OPINION RIGHT NOW AMONG LEADERS, BOTH THOSE 2 AND ALSO THE SAUDIS, OTHER KEY PLAYERS, IN TERMS OF THIS ISSUE OF BRINGING PALESTINIANS TOGETHER? IT WAS TRIED IN MECCA. IT FAILED. HAVE THEY GIVEN UP ON IT? DO THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL ISSUE, OR ARE THEY FRANKLY INTERESTED IN STRENGTHENING PRESIDENT ABBAS, AND HAMAS BE DAMNED?

Malley: ALL OF THE ABOVE, JIM. I MEAN, I THINK WHAT YOU SEE IS ON THE ONE HAND THERE’S VERY LITTLE LOVE LOST FOR HAMAS. AND I THINK THAT’S PARTICULARLY TRUE OF
THE EGYPTIANS, THE JORDANIANS, BUT A FEW OTHERS AS WELL. AND A NUMBER OF THEM DIDN’T DO WHAT THEY COULD HAVE DONE TO SUPPORT AND BOLSTER THE NATIONAL UNITY GOVERNMENT ONCE IT WAS FORMED. SO, THEY MAY BE REGRETTING WHAT HAPPENED, BUT THEY ALSO DID NOT PLAY THAT POSITIVE A ROLE AFTER MECCA WAS AGREED. SO ON THE ONE HAND, I THINK, THEY WON’T MIND SEEING HAMAS STEW IN ITS OWN JUICES. ON THE OTHER HAND, REALISTICALLY, A NUMBER OF THEM—AND THE SAUDIS IN PARTICULAR, THE EGYPTIANS TO A LESSER DEGREE, BUT ALSO—I THINK RECOGNIZE AT THE END OF THE DAY PALESTINIANS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH A MINIMAL CONSENSUS, SOME MINIMAL FORM OF POWER SHARING AGREEMENT, IF YOU WANT THE PEACE PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD AND IF YOU WANT STABILITY TO REALLY BE SOLIDIFIED. I THINK THEY KNOW THAT INSTINCTIVELY, BUT RIGHT NOW MOST OF THEM ARE JOINING THIS BANDWAGON OF SAYING “LET’S SUPPORT ONE SIDE. LET’S ISOLATE THE OTHER.” I THINK IT’S SHORTSIGHTED, BUT I COULD UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET FATAH AND HAMAS TOGETHER AGAIN.

J.Z.: LET’S GET TEXAS IN ON THE CONVERSATION. CALLER, YOUR QUESTION.

Caller: YES.

J.Z.: YOUR QUESTION, PLEASE.

Caller: HOW IS TONY BLAIR GOING TO HAVE ANY ACCOMPLISHMENTS WHEN HE IS PREVENTED FROM TALKING TO HAMAS?

J.Z.: OK.

Malley: I MEAN, I THINK IT’S A FAIR QUESTION. I THINK HIS FOCUS IS GOING TO BE ON INSTITUTION-BUILDING ON THE WEST BANK AND ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION IN THE WEST BANK. WHETHER HE—AND WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT HE HAS THE EXPERIENCE OF DEALING WITH NORTHERN IRELAND AND HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE I.R.A., WHICH WAS ONCE BRANDED AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. HE WAS AT LEAST PART OF THE EFFORT TO BRING THEM IN. CAN HE BRING THAT EXPERIENCE TO THE PALESTINIAN THEATER? WHO KNOWS? AT THIS POINT—THE CALLER’S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT—HE’S BEEN TOLD DON’T TALK TO THEM.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO MICHIGAN FOR A CALL. CALLER?

Caller: YES, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WOULD IT HELP FOR TROOPS FROM TURKEY AND FROM JORDAN TO HELP STABILIZE THE SITUATION THERE IN PALESTINE?

Malley: YOU KNOW, IT’S A GOOD QUESTION. A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SENDING TROOPS WHETHER IT’S EUROPEAN TROOPS, TURKISH, ARAB, OR WHATEVER.
MY VIEW ON THIS—AND IT APPLIES NOT ONLY IN THE PALESTINIAN CASE—YOU SEND TROOPS ONLY IF THERE IS, AGAIN, A CONSENSUS ON THE GROUND THAT ACCEPTS THEM.
IF YOU SEND THEM IN GAZA, AND HAMAS IS REJECTING THEM AND REJECTING THEM FORCEFULLY, WHO IS GOING TO SEND THE TROOPS? NOBODY’S GOING TO WANT TO, AND IT WOULDN’T BE A GOOD IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE. IF YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN PALESTINIAN, AMONG PALESTINIANS AND THEN BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS, THEN BY ALL MEANS—TO BOLSTER IT, TO SHORE IT UP—LET’S GET TROOPS. BUT LET’S NOT THINK ABOUT IT NOW. IT REALLY DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO PENNSYLVANIA FOR A CALL. CALLER?

Caller: YES. YES, HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED THAT FOR ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, FOR A HUMAN BEING…

J.Z.: YEAH. YOUR QUESTION?

Caller: DO WHAT THEY DO TO INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN PALESTINE? HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED THAT THEY SIT BACK AND WATCH AN INNOCENT CIVILIANS BEING USED AS A COLLATERAL?

J.Z.: YEAH. A LOT OF DAMAGE DONE IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS IN TERMS OF PALESTINIAN SUFFERING AND ISRAELI INSECURITY AS WELL. ARE WE AT A POINT WHEN WE CAN OVERCOME THAT PAIN?

Malley: WELL, JIM, I MEAN, I THINK IF, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY FROM ISRAEL WERE CALLING, THEY’D SAY, “HOW COULD YOU SIT BACK WHEN YOU HAD BOMBS BLOWING UP IN PIZZERIAS AND CIVILIANS BEING KILLED?” I THINK THAT’S OBVIOUSLY THE REASON WHY THIS CONFLICT HAS TO COME TO AN END. AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN—AND FOR THAT AGAIN, YOU NEED HAMAS—IS TO GET A COMPREHENSIVE CEASE-FIRE BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE WEST BANK AND TO GAZA. WE’RE FAR FROM IT. AND IF YOU DON’T HAVE IT THEN YOU WILL HAVE WHAT IS BEING EUPHEMISTICALLY CALLED COLLATERAL DAMAGES ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.

J.Z.: YOU WEREN’T THERE AT MADRID, BUT YOU WERE THERE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TENURE OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, AND FRANKLY IT WAS A PERIOD OF VIOLENCE AS WELL. BUT HOW DID THEY OVERCOME THE INSECURITY AND THE HURT ON BOTH SIDES AND MOVE THIS PROCESS FORWARD?

Malley: DID THEY?

J.Z.: PARDON?

Malley: DID THEY?

J.Z.: THAT’S MY QUESTION. HOW DID THEY, DID THEY, OR DID IT STOP THE PROCESS DEAD AS IT HAS IN THE LAST 7 YEARS?

Malley: WELL, NO. YOU’RE RIGHT. I MEAN, THERE’S ONE THING THAT I THINK—WHEN PEOPLE SAY THE VIOLENCE HAS TO STOP BEFORE SERIOUS THINGS CAN BEGIN, THEY NEED TO SIT BACK AND THINK, IS THAT REALLY A SENSIBLE, RATIONAL, REASONABLE POSITION?
I MEAN, THE VIOLENCE IS AN OUTCOME OF THE CONFLICT, AND IT WILL END COMPLETELY ONCE THE CONFLICT HAS ENDED. IT WILL NOT END BEFORE BECAUSE IT’S A PRODUCT OF THE SITUATION THAT YOU HAVE NOW BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS. WHAT PRIME MINISTER RABIN HAD ALWAYS SAID IS THEY’RE GOING TO MOVE THE PEACE PROCESSES IF THERE WERE NO TERRORISM, AND WE’LL FIGHT TERRORISM AS IF THERE WERE NO PEACE PROCESS. THAT DID BREAK DOWN, AND YOU’VE HAD A SERIES OF CONDITIONS THAT A NUMBER OF ISRAELI PRIME MINISTERS HAVE PUT—SEVEN DAYS OF QUIET, A MONTH OF QUIET—BEFORE THEY’LL RESUME NEGOTIATIONS. IN MY VIEW IS IT NEED TO BE A POLITICAL PROCESS THAT MOVE DESPITE THE VIOLENCE. BUT THERE ALSO NEEDS TO BE GENUINE EFFORTS BY BOTH SIDES TO END THE CONFRONTATION.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO VIRGINIA FOR A CALL. CALLER?
Caller: HELLO. SHEIKH YASSIN, THE FOUNDER OF HAMAS, HAS PROPOSED A 40 TO 50-YEAR STAND-DOWN, AND NINE DAYS LATER HE WAS, YOU KNOW, HIT WITH A HELL-FIRE MISSILE.
SINCE THEN, HAMAS HAS TALKED ABOUT RATHER EXTENDED CEASEFIRES. AND JUST WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF A CEASEFIRE WAS NOT EMBRACED?

Malley: WELL THAT, I MEAN, IT’S AGAIN A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK HAMAS’ POSITION IS NOT WELL KNOWN. AND WE AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP HAVE TRIED TO—I MEAN, WE SPEAK TO THEM AND EVERYONE ELSE—AND WE TRY TO AT LEAST GIVE THEIR VIEW. BUT, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND WHY ISRAEL MIGHT REJECT THIS LONG-TERM TRUCE. IT’S THAT AS HAMAS DESCRIBES IT, THE TRUTH WILL COME INTO BEING ONCE ISRAEL HAS WITHDRAWN TO THE BORDER OF 1967 AND RELEASED ALL PRISONERS, RESOLVED THE REFUGEE ISSUE. FROM ISRAEL’S PERSPECTIVE THAT MEANS, “WE ARE GOING TO GIVE EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN GIVE AND IN EXCHANGE WE WON’T GET PEACE, WE’LL GET A TRUCE.” BUT THERE IS SOMETHING THERE, AND I THINK IT HAS TO BE EXPLORED, WHICH IS THAT THE LEADERS OF HAMAS ARE SAYING WE COULD GIVE YOU 30-40 YEARS OF QUIET IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING, AND THAT IS A BASIS FOR AT LEAST BEGINNING TALKS, BEGINNING NEGOTIATIONS. BUT, BY THE WAY, UNFORTUNATELY AT THIS POINT, NEITHER SIDE SEEMS WILLING TO SIT DOWN WITH THE OTHER—NEITHER HAMAS NOR ISRAEL.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO CALIFORNIA FOR A CALL. CALLER?

Caller: YES. INCREASINGLY, THE ONE-STATE SOLUTION IS BEING BANDIED ABOUT BECAUSE THE SETTLEMENTS HAVE ESSENTIALLY MADE A TWO-STATE SOLUTION A MOOT POINT. COULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT, PLEASE?

Malley: I AM NOT SURE THAT IT’S A MOOT POINT. I STILL CLING TO THE HOPE THAT, YOU KNOW, NOTHING IS IRREVERSIBLE. A ONE-STATE SOLUTION AT THIS POINT IS NOT A SOLUTION BECAUSE IT DOESN’T—I MEAN, FOR ANY SOLUTION TO BE VIABLE IT NEEDS TO MEET THE VITAL NEEDS OF BOTH SIDES. FROM AN ISRAELI PERSPECTIVE, A VITAL NEED IS TO PRESERVE THE JEWISH CHARACTER OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. A ONE-STATE SOLUTION DOES NOT DO THAT. SO I THINK IT’S ALMOST A SIGN OF DESPAIR WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IT, BUT IT IS NOT A PRACTICAL SOLUTION. IT’S JUST AN EXTENSION OF THE SOLUTION, IF YOU WILL. IT’S NOT A WAY TO RESOLVE IT.

J.Z.: LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT PRIME MINISTER OLMERT ANNOUNCING RECENTLY THAT HE WAS READY TO ENGAGE PRESIDENT ABBAS IN A DISCUSSION OF WHAT HE CALLED AN AGREEMENT ON PRINCIPLES. IS THAT A REDOING OF TABBA? IS THAT A RESTRUCTURING OF SORT OF A FINAL FRAMEWORK BEFORE YOU GET THERE?

Malley: I DON’T THINK THAT’S WHAT HE MEANS. WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN TABBA AND EVEN BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION BEFOREHAND WAS PRINCIPLES FOR RESOLVING THE CORE ISSUES—JERUSALEM, REFUGEES, SETTLEMENTS, ET CETERA. WHAT HE SEEMS TO BE TALKING ABOUT, BUT AGAIN THIS IS MORE PRESS LEAKS OR PRESS REPORTS RATHER THAN HIM SPEAKING ON THE RECORD. BUT WHAT PEOPLE ARE INTERPRETING IS THAT HE’S PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE LESS EMOTIONAL ISSUES—WHAT THE STATE WOULD LOOK LIKE, WHAT HIS SYSTEM WOULD BE, WHAT SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS THERE WOULD BE WITH ISRAEL, WHAT ITS ECONOMIC RELATIONS WOULD BE WITH ITS NEIGHBORS—THINGS THAT ARE EASIER TO DEAL WITH. AND HE ARGUES THAT ONCE YOU’VE DEALT WITH THOSE, WE COULD GET THE TOUGHER ONES. NUMBER ONE, PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THE STATE IS A CREDIBLE THING AND NUMBER TWO, YOU MAY HAVE ADDRESSED SOME OF THE SECURITY CONCERNS THAT ISRAEL HAS. BUT I THINK THAT IF OVER THE NEXT 18 MONTHS THAT’S ALL THEY TALK ABOUT, IT IS GOING TO BE VERY HARD FOR PRESIDENT ABBAS TO GO BACK TO HIS PEOPLE AND SAY, “WELL, WE KNOW THAT WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A FREE MARKET ECONOMY, NOW LET’S STOP THE FIGHTING.”

J.Z.: LISTEN, I KNOW IN YOUR TIME IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND IN THE TIME YOU’VE SERVED AT THE CRISIS GROUP, YOU HAVE FOCUSED ON THE PROBLEM THERE, BUT ROB MALLEY IS ALSO A POLITICAL BEING WHO HAS DEALT WITH THE POLITICS HERE.
HAS THE POLITICS HERE CHANGED AT ALL, AND CAN WE EXPECT A DIFFERENT KIND OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE WHOEVER WINS THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION? I MEAN, IS THERE A CHANGE IN THE WORKS HERE IN AMERICA, OR HAVE WE GONE BACKWARDS, OR ARE WE RIGHT WHERE WE WERE?

Malley: I DON’T THINK THERE IS MUCH CHANGE, AND I DON’T THINK THIS IS THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO REPRESENT A MAJOR BREAK. I THINK THEY’LL BE MORE ENGAGEMENT, BUT THAT’S A RETURN TO POLICIES THAT REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATS PURSUED BEFORE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME FUNDAMENTALS IN U.S. POLICY TOWARDS THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT, AND I THINK OUR LISTENERS SHOULD NOT
HAVE TOO MUCH OF A BELIEF THAT IT IS GOING TO CHANGE FUNDAMENTALLY. IT’S BECOME MORE DIFFICULT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS BECAUSE OF THE RISE OF THE NEOCONSERVATIVE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, BECAUSE OF THE STRONG HOLD OF EVANGELICALS IN THIS COUNTRY WHO HAVE A VERY HARD LINE TOWARDS THE PEACE PROCESS SO THAT IT’S COMPLICATED AND ALREADY DOMESTIC SITUATION. I THINK THE BEST WE COULD HOPE FOR IS AN ADMINISTRATION THAT GOES BACK TO THE HERITAGE OF THE FIRST—PRESIDENT BUSH’S FATHER, OF PRESIDENT CLINTON, WITH ALL THEIR FLAWS, SAID WE ARE GOING TO INVEST IN THE PEACE PROCESS. WE’RE GOING TO TRY TO REACH A FAIR SETTLEMENT EVEN THOUGH, OF COURSE, WE ARE STRATEGIC, HISTORIC, AND FAR CLOSER ALLIES TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

J.Z.: ONE LAST CALL FROM PENNSYLVANIA. CALLER?

Caller: YES. HI, JIM. I LOVE YOUR SHOW, BY THE WAY.

J.Z.: THANK YOU.

Caller: MY QUESTION IS HAMAS. I UNDERSTAND THEY WERE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. IF THAT IS THE CASE? I’M NOT SURE JUST HOW THEY CAN EXIST. AND THEY WERE THEY ELECTED THROUGH A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS? THAT’S MY QUESTION. IS THAT THE CASE?

Malley: ABSOLUTELY. AND I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE A MEMBER OF THE OBSERVER TEAM AND PRESIDENT CARTER CERTIFIED THAT THESE WERE FREE AND FAIR. I THINK MOST OBSERVERS WOULD SAY THEY’RE THE FREEST AND FAIREST ELECTIONS, MOST TRANSPARENT, THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE EVER IN AN ARAB COUNTRY, AN ARAB PLACE. THAT’S A FACT. I THINK, UNFORTUNATELY, ONE OF THE LESSONS THAT HAS COME OUT OF THIS EXPERIENCE, FOR THOSE POLITICAL ISLAMIC MOVEMENTS WHO ARE WATCHING THIS WITH SOME SKEPTICISM AND SOME INTEREST, THEY WILL SAY WELL THE LESSON IS IF WE RUN IN ELECTIONS, WE WIN THE ELECTIONS, THE WORLD WILL SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BUT WE WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. WE WILL SHUN YOU. WE WILL BOYCOTT YOU. I DON’T THINK THAT IS THE KIND OF LESSON THAT WE, THE UNITED STATES, OR OTHERS WANT TO—THE MESSAGE WE WANT TO SEND TO ISLAMISTS WHO ARE A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE ARAB POLITICAL CULTURE TODAY.

J.Z.: BUT ISN’T THERE ALSO A LESSON FOR HAMAS IN TERMS OF IT’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT SOME VERY BASIC ISSUES—PRIOR AGREEMENTS? THEY INHERIT A GOVERNMENT THAT HAD MADE AGREEMENTS. THEY HAVE PURSUED VIOLENCE IN THE NINETIES TO SABOTAGE THE AGREEMENT. IS IT NOT FAIR THAT NOT JUST ISRAELIS AND AMERICANS, BUT THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY ITSELF ASKED THEM TO HONOR THOSE AGREEMENTS AND BEHAVE IN A MANNER SUITABLE FOR A GOVERNMENT AND NOT A GROUP THAT IS ENGAGED IN TERRORISM?

Malley: I THINK THERE IS A PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN HAMAS.
I THINK EVERYTHING WE HAVE DONE SINCE THEIR ELECTION HAS DISCOURAGED THAT PROCESS RATHER THAN ENCOURAGED IT. I THINK THROUGH ENGAGEMENT—CAUTIOUS, CONSTRUCTIVE BUT CRITICAL ENGAGEMENT—WE MIGHT, WE MIGHT, AND THIS IS A QUESTION MARK, HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GRADUALLY BRING HAMAS INTO A MORE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER CONSTRUCT THAT YOU WANT TO BRING THEM INTO. BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE EASY.
THEY BELIEVE THAT THE LESSON OF THE NINETIES IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID, THAT THE LESSON OF THE NINETIES IS THAT IS FATAH GAVE AWAY EVERYTHING, MADE ALL THESE CONCESSIONS AND GOT NOTHING IN EXCHANGE. THEY DON’T WANT TO REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKE. SO IT’S GOING TO BE SLOW-GOING, BUT I THINK WE’VE ALREADY SEEN—IF YOU READ THE MECCA AGREEMENT, IF YOU READ THE PLATFORM OF THE NATIONAL CONCILIATION DOCUMENT THAT PRISONERS OF HAMAS AND FATAH AGREED TO. A LOT OF WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS IN THERE. IT’S HARD FOR HAMAS TO SAY IT LOUD, AND IT’S HARD TO SAY IT PUBLICLY. NOT EVERY MEMBER OF HAMAS AGREES. BUT IT’S IN A PROCESS OF ENGAGEMENT, I THINK, IS THE WAY YOU’RE GOING TO SEE WHETHER, IN FACT, THEY CAN BE CO-OPTED. THEY WILL NOT BUY INTO FATAH’S IDEOLOGY. THEY WILL NOT BUY INTO THE IDEOLOGY THAT THE UNITED STATES AND OTHERS WANT THEM TO, BUT PERHAPS YOU COULD BRING THEM SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY WOULD AT LEAST EMPOWER PRESIDENT ABBAS TO HAVE THE KIND OF NEGOTIATIONS FOR PERMANENT PEACE WITH ISRAEL, PUT IT TO REFERENDUM AND THEN LET THE PALESTINIANS DECIDE.

J.Z.: THANKS FOR JOINING US, ROB MALLEY. WHEN WE COME BACK, AN ANALYSIS ON THE TURKISH ELECTIONS WITH FORMER AMBASSADOR MARK PARRIS. STAY TUNED. THANKS.
WELCOME BACK TO “VIEWPOINT.” I’M JIM ZOGBY, AND MY NEXT GUEST IS AMBASSADOR MARK PARRIS WHO SERVED AS U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY FROM 1997 TO 2000. HE ALSO SERVED IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE BUREAU OF NEAR-EAST AFFAIRS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT. CURRENTLY HE IS VISITING FELLOW IN FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES
AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION WHERE HE IS HEADING A PROJECT, TURKEY 2007, FOCUSED ON THE LANDMARK POLITICAL EVENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN TURKEY THIS YEAR. MARK, THANKS FOR JOINING US.

Ambassador Mark Parris: PLEASURE TO BE HERE.

J.Z.: IT HAS BEEN A RATHER INCREDIBLE YEAR. THE JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT PARTY PRIME MINISTER NOMINATED HIS FOREIGN MINISTER FOR PRESIDENT. THE MILITARY SENT OUT SOME RATHER, FAIRLY DIRECT SIGNALS—
Parris: OF DISCOURAGEMENT.

J.Z.: IT WAS A CHOICE THEY DID NOT ACCEPT. THE COURTS SAID THAT A QUORUM WASN’T PRESENT IN THE PARLIAMENT, AND THAT CREATED A CRISIS CALLING FOR NEW ELECTIONS.
THE ELECTIONS JUST WERE COMPLETED, AND THE PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER WON RATHER HANDSOMELY. I WAS LOOKING AT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF AN EVENT YOU DID OVER AT BROOKING WHERE A QUESTIONER SAID, “WHAT IF THEY GET AS HIGH AS 46%?” AND MOST OF THE RESPONDENTS WERE, “NO WAY. 35% TO 40% POSSIBLY.” BUT THEY GOT EXACTLY 46%. AND NOT ENOUGH TO HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL MAJORITY NEEDED TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION, BUT CERTAINLY ENOUGH TO PASS WHATEVER LEGISLATION THEY WANT. AND A SURPRISE IS THAT GROUPS ALLIED WITH THE KURDISH PARTIES IN THE EAST WON, FOR THE FIRST TIME NOW IN A NUMBER OF YEARS, A NUMBER OF SEATS—23 I UNDERSTAND IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. TALK TO ME ABOUT THE ELECTION. THE FIRST QUESTION—I’D LIKE TO FRAME IT AROUND THIS IS THAT THERE WERE THOSE HERE WHO WERE CALLING THIS AN EXISTENTIAL ELECTION TO DEFINE THE IDENTITY OF TURKEY FOR THE FUTURE. WAS IT THAT? AND IF IT IS, WHAT DOES THE OUTCOME SAY ABOUT EXISTENTIAL ELECTION OF THE NEW TURKEY?

Parris: WELL, EXISTENTIAL IS PROBABLY AN EXAGGERATION AND PROBABLY ON THE WRONG TANGENT ANALYTICALLY. THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN TURKEY, AND THERE WERE A LOT OF THEIR FRIEND HERE WHO WERE SEEKING TO PUT THIS IN STARK TERMS OF, THIS IS ABOUT ISLAM VERSUS SECULARISM. AND THERE WAS SORT OF AN UNDERTONE WHENEVER THEY USED THE WORD ISLAM, THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE TALIBAN. THEY’VE BEHAVED DECENTLY FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS. THEY’VE LED THE COUNTRY TO SOME ECONOMIC SUCCESSES, BUT THEY’VE GOT A SECRET AGENDA. AND IF THESE PEOPLE WIN, AND PEOPLE WERE SAYING THIS QUITE OPENLY ON, YOU KNOW, TALK SHOWS HERE. TURKISH WOMEN ARE GOING TO BE FACED WITH HAVING TO WEAR HEAD SCARVES WHETHER THEY WANTED TO OR NOT. THEY’VE GOING TO CHANGE THE SCHOOL SYSTEM. THIS IS—YOU’RE GOING TO SEE AN ACCELERATION OF THE ISLAMICIZATION OF TURKISH SOCIETY. WELL, I THINK THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF RED HERRINGS IN THAT ANALYSIS AND ATTEMPTS TO SCARE BOTH PEOPLE HERE AND PEOPLE IN TURKEY INTO VOTING AGAINST A.K.P. AND CLEARLY, THE RESULTS OF THIS ELECTION SHOW THAT THAT KIND OF SCARE TACTIC, THAT KIND OF STEERING THEM TOWARDS A SPECIFIC NON-A.K.P. OUTCOME FAILED MISERABLY.

J.Z.: FOR VIEWER, A.K.P. IS THE ACRONYM IS THE TURKISH WORDS “JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT” PARTY.

Parris: THAT IS CORRECT. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME SENSE AS TO HOW BIG A WIN THIS WAS FOR A.K.P., THEY HAD IN THE 2002 ELECTIONS, THE LAST ELECTIONS BEFORE THESE, PULLED SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 34%—THIS TIME 46%. TELLS YOU THAT THEY ALMOST INCREASED BY 50% THEIR MARGIN OF VICTORY. BY COMPARISON, THE SO-CALLED SECULAR PARTY, THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE PEOPLE THAT HAD STOPPED THEM IN APRIL BY REFERRING TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS THIS QUORUM QUESTION THAT YOU MENTIONED, GOT ABOUT 21%. IT LOOKS LIKE A TWO PERCENT GAIN OVER THE 19% THAT THEY HAD IN 2002. BUT IF YOU ADD TOGETHER THEIR VOTE THEN WITH THE VOTE OF THE PARTY WITH WHICH THEY HAD ALLIED THEMSELVES THIS TIME AND OTHER VOTES FROM THE TRADITIONAL LEFT PARTIES THAT WEREN’T RUNNING THIS TIME, IT IS ALMOST EXACTLY FLAT. THEY DIDN’T PICK UP A SINGLE ADDITIONAL PERCENT IN A YEAR WHEN THEIR ISSUE, SECULARISM, WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ISSUE, WHEN THE MILITARY HAD PUT ITS THUMB ON THE SCALES OF THIS ELECTION IN A VERY SORT OF FLAGRANT WAY. IT TELLS YOU THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN THOSE WHO WERE TRYING TO MAKE THIS EXISTENTIAL, BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF JUST ABOUT 50% OF THE TURKISH ELECTORATE, THERE WAS NOTHING EXISTENTIAL ABOUT IT. THEY VOTED FOR CONTINUATION—CONTINUITY, STABILITY, CONTINUED GOVERNMENT.

J.Z.: I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE ABOUT THE A.K.P. VOTERS AND WHO THEY WERE.
ARE THEY ALL DEVOUT MUSLIMS AND THOSE WITH AN AGENDA OF CREATING A MORE VISIBLE PRESENCE FOR ISLAM IN THE SOCIETY? THERE WERE ALSO SOME LIBERALS AND SOME INDEPENDENTS WHO ALLIED WITH THE PARTY FOR OTHER REASONS. AND SOME OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FOUND THIS THE MORE ACCEPTABLE OUTCOME BECAUSE IT PROMISED GREATER PROSPERITY.

Parris: SURE.

J.Z.: BUT WAS THE DEBATE BETWEEN—IN THIS ELECTION, WERE THE VOTES ISLAMIC VERSUS SECULAR, OR WERE THERE OTHER AGENDAS AT PLAY HERE AS WELL? WAS IT MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT?

Parris: THE A.K.P. RAN A CAMPAIGN WHICH ESSENTIALLY SAID LOOK AT OUR RECORD.
DO YOU LIKE IT? IF YOU WANT MORE, VOTE FOR US. IT WAS A COMPELLING CAMPAIGN PHILOSOPHY. AND IT WAS A PHILOSOPHY THAT OBVIOUSLY APPEALED TO A CONSTITUENCY WELL BEYOND THE TRADITIONAL 12% OR 14% THAT HAS ALWAYS VOTED FOR ISLAMIC CANDIDATES IN TURKEY. IN 2002 THEY WENT FROM A 12% PARTY TO ABOUT A 34% PARTY.
A LOT OF THOSE VOTES CAME FROM PEOPLE WHO TOOK THEIR RELIGION SERIOUSLY, BUT WOULD PREVIOUSLY HAVE VOTED FOR TURKEY’S TRADITIONAL CENTER-RIGHT PARTIES. CENTER-RIGHT HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL CENTER OF GRAVITY OF TURKISH POLITICS FOR DECADES. IT PRODUCED DEMEROL, IT PRODUCED CILLER, IT PRODUCED YILMAZ, TURKISH PRIME MINISTERS WHO RULED THE COUNTRY IN THE EIGHTIES AND THE NINETIES.
THIS TIME THEY SIMPLY ATE THAT TRADITIONAL CENTER. THOSE PARTIES HAVE EVAPORATED AND WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE BACK. SO THE TURKS THAT HAVE BEEN VOTING FOR THE PAST SIX TURKISH GOVERNMENTS ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ELECTED A.K.P. THIS TIME.
IN ADDITION, WHAT WE WOULD CALL LIBERALS, THE LEADING LIGHTS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE THE COUNTRY WORK, HAD CONCLUDED, A, THAT THESE PEOPLE HAD PROVIDED VERY GOOD GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, AND B, THAT THE OTHER PARTIES DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING FRESH, POSITIVE, NEW TO OFFER. SO IT WAS A CHOICE BETWEEN A PARTY THAT HAD AN INCREDIBLE RECORD OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS AND WAS OFFERING MORE OF THE SAME, AND A SET OF PARTIES THAT WERE REALLY WERE PARTIES OF THE SEVENTIES OR EIGHTIES IN TERMS OF THE MESSAGE, IN TERMS OF THE PERSONALITIES, IN TERMS OF THE BASIC STYLE THAT THEY WERE BRINGING TO THE PUBLIC, AND IT JUST DIDN’T WASH.

J.Z.: TWO GROUPS HERE THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT. ONE IS THE MILITARY AND WHAT THEY MAY DO AND WHAT THEIR STRENGTH IS—HOW MUCH OF A BASE OF SUPPORT THEY HAVE IN SOCIETY—IF THE NOMINATION FOR THE PRESIDENT IS AGAIN FOREIGN MINISTER GUL.
AND SECONDLY THE E.U.—WHAT THIS MEANS ABOUT E.U. ENTRY FOR TURKEY. FIRST ABOUT THE MILITARY, HOW STRONG A FORCE ARE THEY AT THIS POINT IN THE SOCIETY? DO THEY HAVE THE MASS BASE OF SUPPORT THEY HAD YEARS AGO WHERE THEY WOULD BE ABLE ACTUALLY TO HAVE A COUP AND HAVE IT SUCCEED? AND SECONDLY, WOULD THEY BE INCLINED TO DO THAT?

Parris: WELL PEOPLE IN TURKEY WILL TELL YOU WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT, OR THEY WILL REMIND YOU THAT BEFORE THERE WAS A TURKISH REPUBLIC, THERE WAS A TURKISH ARMY. AND IT’S A REFERENCE, OF COURSE, TO THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE THAT MADE THE TURKISH REPUBLIC WERE OTTOMAN ARMY PERSONNEL, INCLUDING ATATURK HIMSELF. THEY WON THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. THEY ESTABLISHED THE FRAMEWORK OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CURRENT REPUBLIC, AND THEY HAVE INTERVENED PERIODICALLY—JUDICIOUSLY NOT FREQUENTLY—OVER THE YEARS. WHEN THE COUNTRY APPEARED TO BE ON THE EDGE OF CHAOS OR DISINTEGRATION, AND WHEN THEY PERCEIVED THAT THE POPULACE AS A WHOLE WIDELY PERCEIVED THE COUNTRY TO BE IN THOSE KINDS OF DIRE STRAIGHTS.
WHAT HAPPENED THIS SPRING WASN’T THAT. THIS CAME ON THE HEELS OF FIVE YEARS OF GOOD GOVERNMENT, ECONOMIC GROWTH, PEOPLE MAKING A LOT OF MONEY, AND GENERAL PROGRESS TOWARDS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.
SO THE CONDITIONS THAT CAUSED THEM TO INTERVENE IN THE PAST DIDN’T PERTAIN THIS SPRING. AND THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS, I THINK, THAT THE TURKISH ELECTORATE LARGELY IGNORED THE THRUST OF THE MESSAGE THAT THEY RELEASED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT ON THE EVENING OF APRIL 27. I SAID AT THE TIME THAT THEY RELEASED THIS SO-CALLED E-MEMORANDUM THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS UNFORTUNATE AND THAT I THOUGHT AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT THE CREDIBILITY AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE TURKISH MILITARY WOULD SUFFER AS A RESULT OF THIS. AND I TOOK SOME FLAK ON THAT. I THINK THERE’S NO QUESTION, THOUGH, THAT HAS BEEN THE RESULT. IF YOU LOOK AT TURKISH EDITORIAL OPINION, IF YOU LOOK AT INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL OPINION OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST 3 DAYS, THEY USE WORDS LIKE REBUKE, STINGING REBUKE, DEFEAT, REVERSAL. CLEARLY THIS WAS NOT A MOVE THAT WILL REDOUND TO THE BENEFIT OF THE TURKISH ARMED FORCES AND SOME INSTITUTION OVER THE LONG TERM, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT’S AN IMPORTANT INSTITUTION IN TURKISH SOCIETY, AND IT DOES HAVE A GOOD DEAL OF SUPPORT.

J.Z.: WHAT ABOUT THE E.U.? THERE WERE THOSE WHO SUGGESTED EVEN THAT WHILE THE E.U. WAS AMBIVALENT ABOUT A MUSLIM COUNTRY ENTERING, NEVERTHELESS THEY SAW THE A.K.P. AS THE PARTY THAT WOULD LEAD TO GREATER PROSPERITY AND THEREFORE A GREATER DEGREE OF INTEGRATION. PRESIDENT SARKOZY, THOUGH, IN FRANCE, HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT NOT WANTING TURKEY IN. WHERE IS THAT RIGHT NOW, AND WHAT IMPACT WILL THAT HAVE INTERNALLY IN TURKEY IF THEY ARE REJECTED?

Parris: WELL, TURKISH CANDIDACY TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE E.U. IS IN TROUBLE.
AND IT RAN INTO TROUBLE NOT BECAUSE OF THESE ELECTIONS. IT RAN INTO TROUBLE OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF AS A FUNCTION OF GENERATIONAL CHANGE AMONG EUROPEAN LEADERS. THE PEOPLE THAT WERE RUNNING EUROPE IN THE LATE-NINETIES, EARLY YEARS OF THIS DECADE, AND WHO HAD MADE THE BASIC DECISIONS TO LET TURKEY IN BECAUSE IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR EUROPE, HAVE ALMOST ALL BEEN REPLACED. AND AS A RESULT,
THE NEW BREED OF EUROPEAN LEADERS WHO HAVE COME IN DON’T HAVE THE SAME DEGREE
OF OWNERSHIP IN THE DECISION TO LET TURKEY IN. THEY HAVE COME OF POLITICAL AGE IN A DIFFERENT MILIEU, VIS-À-VIS, MUSLIMS, THEIR OWN AND THOSE WHO MIGHT BE TRYING TO COME INTO EUROPE, AND THE POLITICAL DYNAMICS THAT THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH AT HOME OVER THE LONG TERM ARE QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE THAT THEIR PREDECESSORS. SO THIS HAS CAUSED ON THE EUROPEAN SIDE AN INCREASING SORT OF TONE OF GRITTINESS EVEN BEFORE SARKOZY CAME ON THE SCENE, WHICH HAS BOGGED DOWN THE PROCESS OF THIS MOVING THIS CANDIDACY FORWARD. THE TURKS, BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN THIS YEAR, HAVE IN FACT SLOWED DOWN THE PROCESS FOR THEIR OWN REASONS AS WELL. I THINK THAT WHAT THIS ELECTION DOES IS IT ENABLES THE PRIME MINISTER ERDOGAN WITH A VERY STRONG NEW, FRESH MANDATE—AND SO IT’S SOME GOOD NEWS OUT OF TURKEY—TO GO TO THE NEW EUROPEAN LEADERSHIP AND SORT OF SEE IF IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE THAT HE HAS THIS KIND OF A MANDATE FROM THE TURKISH PEOPLE AND KNOWING THAT HE IS GOING TO BE AROUND FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS.

J.Z.: I’VE GOT LOTS MORE QUESTIONS TO ASK YOU, BUT I WANT TO GET CALLERS INTO THE CONVERSATION. IF YOU’RE CALLING FROM OVERSEAS: 001-202-842-5056. AND IF YOU’RE CALLING FROM THE U.S., 1-800-528-2090. JUST LOOKING AT SOME PUGH POLL NUMBERS—WE DO OUR OWN POLLING AT ZOGBY, AND THE NUMBERS ARE PRETTY STRIKING.
BUT PUGH ACTUALLY HAS A NUMBER EARLIER THAN OURS. THEY GO BACK TO 2000, THE LAST YEAR OF YOUR AMBASSADORSHIP. U.S. FAVORABLE RATINGS IN TURKEY WERE 52%.
THEY’RE DOWN FOR 9% NOW. OTHER THAN MARK PARRIS LEAVING TURKEY, WHAT DO WE ACCOUNT FOR THAT SIGNIFICANT DROP? THIS IS ONE OF OUR CLOSEST ALLIES IN THE REGION, AND A FAVORABLE RATING OF 9% IS LOWER THAN IT IS IN MANY OF THE ARAB COUNTRIES WHERE ONE EXPECTS EVEN GREATER HOSTILITY. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE INTERVENING PERIOD THAT CAUSED THAT KIND OF PRECIPITOUS DROP?

Parris: IT’S BEEN QUITE BREATHTAKING. AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS RELATIONSHIP—

J.Z.: AND I WILL ADD—I WILL ADD TO YOU, OUR NUMBERS ARE EVEN LOWER THAN THAT.
AND WE FIND WHEN WE COMPARE FAVORABLE RATINGS TOWARD IRAN AND THE U.S. IN TURKEY, THE NUMBERS TOWARDS IRAN ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER.

Parris: WELL, I MEAN, CLEARLY PART OF THE PROBLEM IS A GENERAL PROBLEM THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS UNIVERSALLY WHETHER IT’S IN EUROPE, WHETHER IT’S IN THE ARAB WORLD, WHETHER IT’S IN MUCH OF LATIN AMERICA. THIS IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATION THAT IS KNOWN FOR ITS GOOD RELATIONS, AND I WOULD GUESS THE POLL NUMBERS COMPARED TO IT’S PREDECESSORS WOULD BE UNFAVORABLE ALMOST EVERYWHERE. THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL FACTORS WITH RESPECT TO TURKEY, AND MOST OF THEM INVOLVE IRAQ, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. IRAQ IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO TURKEY.
THE TURKS APPROACHED PRESIDENT BUSH’S WAR IN IRAQ FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HAVING BEEN, IN THEIR MINDS, THE LOSERS, AMONG THE LOSERS OF THE LAST WAR BETWEEN IRAQ AND THE INTERNATIONAL COALITION—ECONOMICS, SECURITY, OTHER WAYS. THEY FELT THAT THEY HAD BEEN DISADVANTAGED BY THAT WAR, SO THEY WERE VERY SKEPTICAL AND FOUND AS OUR INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ CONTINUED AND AS THE RESULTS REGIONALLY WORSENED, THAT INDEED MOST OF THEIR FEARS WERE CONTACT. SO THERE IS A SENSE OF HAVING BEEN JUSTIFIED IN OPPOSING IT, WHICH IS COMING HOME TO ROOST. ADD TO THAT THE FACT THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ALMOST AT EVERY POINT OF THEIR INTERSECTION WITH TURKEY ON IRAQ AND A RANGE OF OTHER ISSUES HAS GOT IT WRONG. THE INITIAL PROPOSAL TO ALLOW U.S. FORCES TO INVADE IRAQ THROUGH TURKEY WAS PUT IN TERMS AND DONE IN A WAY WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BETTER CALCULATED TO PRODUCE THE WRONG REACTION. WHEN THAT HAD GONE AWRY, WE REPEATED THE PROBLEM. WE WENT BACK AND ASKED THEM AGAIN IF THEY WOULD SEND TROOPS TO HELP US PACIFY IRAQ. THEY ACTUALLY AGREED TO DO THAT, AND THEN WE TURNED AROUND AND SAID, “NO WE DON’T THINK THAT IS NECESSARY AFTER ALL.” WE HAVE FAILED FOR SIX YEARS TO ADDRESS WHAT IS PROBABLY THE MOST ACUTE CONCERN THAT THE TURKS HAVE IN IRAQ, WHICH IS THE PRESENCE IN NORTHERN IRAQ OF A TERRORIST GROUP, THE P.K.K., WHICH HAS KILLED THOUSANDS OF TURKS OVER THE YEARS AND HAS BEEN—ESSENTIALLY HAD SAFE HAVEN IN THAT PART OF IRAQ THROUGHOUT THE TIME THAT WE’VE BEEN THERE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE’VE CONSISTENTLY SAID THERE’S NO PLACE FOR THIS GROUP IN POST-SADDAM IRAQ. WE HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CONCRETE TO DEAL WITH THAT PROBLEM.
THE P.K.K. TWO YEARS AGO RESUMED VIOLENT ACTIVITY AGAINST TURKEY.
SEVERAL HUNDRED TURKS HAVE DIED DURING THAT PERIOD.
THERE HAS BEEN AN ONGOING DISCUSSION BETWEEN THIS ADMINISTRATION AND ANKARA ABOUT HOW TO DEAL WITH IT. THE TURKS WILL TELL YOU IT’S ALL BEEN TALK, IT’S ALL BEEN DESIGNED TO KEEP US OUT OF THERE. AND THEY DEEPLY RESENT IT. AND I THINK PROBABLY IF YOU HAD TO IDENTIFY ONE SINGLE THING THAT IS MOST SIGNIFICANTLY BEHIND THESE NUMBERS, IT’S THE SENSE THIS LONG-TIME ALLY, AS YOU SAID, THIS TRADITIONAL FRIEND, THESE PEOPLE THAT AS RECENTLY AS SIX YEARS AGO WE THOUGHT VERY HIGHLY OF, HAVE NOT ONLY COMPLICATED OUR SECURITY SITUATION, BUT HAVE FAILED TO RESPOND ON AN ISSUE OF TERRORISM WHICH IS, AFTER ALL, WHAT THIS IS ALL SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO ILLINOIS FOR A CALL. CALLER, YOUR QUESTION? HELLO?

Caller: >> HELLO?

J.Z.: YES, YOUR QUESTION.

Caller: YES. I’VE GOT A QUESTION ABOUT TURKEY. IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE—THEY’RE ONE WHOSE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING INTO THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC MARKET. BUT SO FAR IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS, IN TERMS OF CYPRESS, CONSTANTINOPLE, ISTANBUL, AND RECENTLY THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT BEING ON THE BETWEEN THE PATRIARCH AND THE JEWISH AND THE ARMENIAN PERSON, HE WAS TRYING AN ATTEMPT TO MURDER THEM.

J.Z.: OK. THANK YOU.

Caller: AND THIS NOT A COUNTRY—
J.Z.: I GET THE QUESTION, AND I’VE GOT SOME OTHERS HOLDING, BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT.

Parris: THE ISSUE IS ESSENTIALLY THE TURKISH HUMAN RIGHTS PERFORMANCE.

J.Z.: AND IN PARTICULAR, SOME OF THE MINORITY GROUPS THAT SEEM TO BE…

Parris: RIGHT. I REMEMBER—TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE.
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON DEALING WITH WHEN I WAS IN TURKEY AND PEOPLE HAVE, MY PREDECESSORS, HAD DONE FOR YEARS BEFORE. THE FACT IS THAT TO BECOME A CANDIDATE FOR E.U. MEMBERSHIP, TURKEY HAD TO PASS A WHOLE SET OF REFORMS TO COMPLY WITH THE SO-CALLED COPENHAGEN CRITERIA BEFORE THEY COULD EVEN GET IN THE DOOR OF CANDIDACY. UNDER THE STEWARDSHIP OF THIS GOVERNMENT AND IT’S IMMEDIATE PREDECESSOR, MANY OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF AND THE EUROPEAN UNION AND MY PREDECESSORS HAD BEEN URGING THEM TO DO IN TERMS OF RIGHTS FOR SOME OF THEIR ETHNIC GROUPS—KURDS, ARMENIANS, OTHERS—INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION IN MOTHER TONGUE, BROADCASTING, WERE PASSED. I MEAN, THEY DID IT.
ISSUES LIKE CYPRUS, THAT HAD BEEN FESTERING FOR 30 YEARS, THEY ACCEPTED THE ANNAN PLAN AND ENDORSED THE REFERENDUM WHICH TOOK PLACE, WHICH THE TURKISH SIDE OF THE ISLAND APPROVED, AND THE GREEK SIDE, UNFORTUNATELY DID NOT. THEY HAVE DONE THINGS LIKE ABOLISH THE MILITARY SECURITY COURTS. THEY HAVE REDUCED THE MILITARY’S INVOLVEMENT IN THEIR NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. SO THEY HAVE REALLY QUITE AN IMPRESSIVE RECORD OF PROGRESS IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. IF YOU LOOK AT IT AT ANY POINT IN THIS PROCESS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF A SNAPSHOT AS OPPOSED TO A FILM, THERE ARE THINGS THEY NEED TO IMPROVE. AND I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU’LL SEE IN THIS POST-ELECTION PERIOD IS THAT THE REFORM PROCESS WILL KICK IN AGAIN AS THEY TRY TO SEEK TO REVIVE THEIR E.U. CANDIDACY.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO CALIFORNIA FOR A CALL. CALLER?

Caller: HELLO?

J.Z.: YES, HI.

Caller: HOW DOES THE EURO-ZONE’S RELATIONSHIP WITH TURKEY RELATE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH VENEZUELA, KIND OF A BROADER DEFINITION IN EACH CASE FOR THE PHRASE “DEEP SOUTH”?

J.Z.: OK.

Parris: I’M NOT SURE I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. I MEAN, THEY’RE QUITE DIFFERENT STRUCTURALLY IN THE SENSE THAT TURKEY IS TRYING TO BECOME PART OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, VENEZUELA’S DEFINITELY NOT TRYING TO BECOME PART OF THE UNITED STATES.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO KURDISTAN FOR A CALL. CALLER? HELLO.

Caller: HELLO, SIR.

J.Z.: YES, HI. HOW ARE YOU?

Caller: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY QUESTION IS WILL MR. ERDOGAN WILL SUPPORT THE ARMY TO ATTACK NORTH OF IRAQ? THAT BECAUSE TO STOP THE ELECTION WILL HAPPEN OR IS JUST TO STOP THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN KURDISTAN.

J.Z.: OK. THANK YOU. AND LET ME JUST ADD TO THAT QUESTION IF I CAN. SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT NOW OF TURKS IN KURDISTAN—340 BUSINESSES, MOST OWNED BY TURKISH KURDS. BUT $2.7 BILLION IN TRADE BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES, AND YET THERE ARE THESE TENSIONS, AND THE CALLER—ARE YOU STILL WITH US, CALLER? NO. BUT THE CALLER POINTS TO A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN. THERE WERE REPORTS RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTIONS OF 100,000-PLUS TURKISH TROOPS ON THE BORDER. SOME THOUGHT IT RELATED TO CREATING A SHOW OF FORCE TO SHOW THAT THE A.K.P. WOULD DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE.
BUT THERE IS NOW CONCERN THAT BECAUSE OF KIRKUK AND THE TURKOMAN PRESENCE THERE, ET CETERA, THAT THERE STILL MAY BE SOME ACTIVITY. TALK ABOUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF BOTH—NOT JUST, RATHER, THE TURKISH NEED TO DEAL WITH ITS KURDISH PROBLEM, BUT TURKEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS TURKOMAN COMMUNITY AND WITH THE BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT THAT IT HAS IN KURDISTAN ITSELF.

Parris: WELL, ONE OF THE EFFECTS OF WASHINGTON’S INABILITY TO GIVE TURKISH LEADERS ANYTHING CONCRETE THEY COULD POINT TO IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH THE P.K.K. PRESENCE IN NORTHERN IRAQ IS THAT IT HAS PUT PRESSURE ON THOSE SAME TURKISH LEADER, BOTH MILITARY AND CIVILIAN TO DO SOMETHING THEMSELVES.

J.Z.: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MILITARY AND CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP IN THEIR ATTITUDE? WOULD THE MILITARY ACT INDEPENDENTLY?

Parris: MY BELIEF IS THAT IF THE MILITARY WERE TO TELL THE CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP, “WE HAVE TO DO THIS FOR MILITARY REASONS,” THE CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP WOULD NOT STAND IN THEIR WAY. THE CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP HAS ESSENTIALLY SAID THIS PUBLICLY.

J.Z.: BACK TO THE KIRKUK ISSUE.

Parris: THE KIRKUK ISSUE IS A LONGER-RANGE ISSUE. BUT FOR THE TURKS, A VERY IMPORTANT STRATEGIC BENCHMARK. THEY BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO PUT THE FATE OF SO COMPLICATED, ETHNICALLY AND OTHERWISE, A PIECE OF REAL ESTATE TO A REFERENDUM, THE PRE-CONDITIONS FOR WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CREATED WHETHER YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE LEGAL STANDPOINT OF THE IRAQI CONSTITUTION, OR THE BROADER SITUATION THAT THE UNITED STATES AND ITS PARTNERS IN IRAQ ARE TRYING TO DEAL WITH AS A MATTER OF EXPEDIENCY AND SECURITY. SO THEY THINK IT IS A BAD IDEA, AND THEY FEAR THAT THE RESULT COULD BE A BAD ENDING, WHICH COULD LED THE TURKOMAN COMMUNITY THERE, WHICH IS SIZABLE, WHICH AT TIMES HAS REPRESENTED A MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION THERE. WHETHER OR NOT THAT’S TRUE TODAY IS HARDER TO TELL. THE
TURKISH CONCERN IS, “WHAT DO WE DO IF THAT HAPPENS? WHAT DO WE DO IF TURKOMAN ARE BEING ASSASSINATED OR PERSECUTED? WHAT IF TURKOMAN VOTE WITH THEIR FEET AND START HEADING FOR OUR BORDER?”—ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WE SAW IN THE 1990s WITH THE KURDS. “WE WOULD HAVE TO INTERVENE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, WOULD WE NOT?” IS THE QUESTION THEY ASKED THEMSELVES. I THINK THAT YOU GOT TO BREAK THEE INTO TWO PIECES. I THINK THAT THERE IS A REAL POSSIBILITY THAT TURKEY COULD BE COMPELLED TO GO ACROSS THE BORDER TO HIT THE P.K.K. AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE UNLESS THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE UNITED STATES AND ITS ALLIES IN IRAQ ARE DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM. I DON’T THINK THEY WANT TO. I THINK THEY UNDERSTAND ALL THE RISKS INVOLVED, BUT I THINK THAT THEY COULD BE FORCED TO DO IT IF THERE’S ADDITIONAL KILLINGS IN TURKEY. KIRKUK IS A LONGER-RANGE PROBLEM. WE HAVE MORE TIME TO DEAL WITH IT, AND I THINK THE TURKS ARE WILLING TO GIVE US THE CHANCE TO DO THAT. BUT IF WE END UP ON DIFFERENT PAGES, THEY MAY CONCLUDE THAT THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LOOK OUT FOR THEIR OWN INTERESTS.

J.Z.: REAL QUICK CALL AND REAL QUICK ANSWER FROM CALIFORNIA. CALLER.

Caller: YES, MR. ZOGBY. HI. MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE NATURAL GAS DEAL WHICH RECENTLY WAS MADE BETWEEN TURKEY AND IRAN WITH A PIPELINE CARRYING IT FROM TURKMENISTAN TO IRAN, AND THEN YOUR REACTION ON THAT.

J.Z.: WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS, MARK. THANK YOU FOR THE CALL.

Parris: WELL, IT’S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT SUGGESTS THAT TURKEY, AFTER WORKING WITH THE UNITED STATES FOR YEARS ON A COMMON ENERGY TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY, HAS CONCLUDED THAT OUR STRATEGY IS NOT GOING TO WORK IS WHAT THIS TELLS ME AND THAT THEY’VE GOT TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. SINCE YOU ONLY GOT 30 SECONDS, I’LL STOP THERE, BUT MAYBE WE’LL COME BACK TO IT.

J.Z.: AND THERE’S AN AWFUL LOT NOW OF GAS AND OIL POSSIBILITIES.

Parris: IT’S A CRITICAL CROSSROADS FOR GETTING THIS STUFF OUT TO THE WORLD MARKET.

J.Z.: THANKS, MARK PARRIS, FOR JOINING US. THAT’S ALL THE TIME WE’VE GOT.
I WANT TO THANK ROB MALLEY AND AMBASSADOR MARK PARRIS. SEE YOU NEXT WEEK ON “VIEWPOINT.”