To the Editor:
Thomas Friedman joins the ranks of Richard Perle and other lobbyists for Turkey in his advocacy of Turkey as a route for Azerbaijani oil (Pipeline Politics, N.Y. Times, September 14, 1995).
Mr. Friedman seems intent on speaking on behalf of Turkey's interests even to the detriment of those American companies which are part of the consortium to develop pipeline networks to carry oil from Azerbaijani's Caspian Sea fields. The consortium was formed to develop the fields, refineries and pipelines and will benefit even if the pipelines pass only through Georgia and Russia. The only nation left out (excepting Armenia) would be Turkey, and it is this which seems to irk Mr. Friedman.
Firstly, Mr. Friedman should get his geography straight; it is Armenia that is due west of Baku, site of Azerbaijani's refineries and thus the natural route for the Turkish pipeline, not Georgia. Evidently, giving the blockaded and energy-starved Armenians a share of the pipeline revenues, despite Mr. Friedman's professed concern over a wider sharing of the pipeline's benefits, is more than the Turkic Azeris and their Turkish cousins across the border can stand.
Mr. Friedman also seeks to instruct your readers upon the causes for the war in Chechnya (an existing Russian pipeline, which can be used by the proposed pipeline, runs through it). It is curious that he fails to draw the same conclusion regarding the Turkish army's continuing assault against its own Kurdish citizens; the proposed Turkish "spur" pipeline to its port of Ceyhan would cut directly across the Kurdish heartland. Mr. Friedman is indeed correct in asserting that "[Azerbaijani] oil is worth killing for" but, giving credence to a baseless claim of a Russian conspiracy to kill Shevardnadze, is pointing his finger the wrong way. Attempting to wrest control of Turkish Kurdistan from Kurdish separatists in contemplation of securing safe passage for the proposed pipeline, Turkey has ethnically cleansed 2,654 Kurdish villages and hamlets under the familiar pretext of military necessity and has been criticized by the U.S. State Department, and condemned by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, for its routine imprisonment, torture and killings of Kurdish civilians.
Finally, to say, as Mr. Friedman does, that it is in the interest of the U.S. to have the world's next great oil stream flowing through Turkey, "a stable ally", would be comical, were it not so dangerous a proposition. In addition to the Turks' war in Kurdistan, their recent unilateral invasion of Iraq, their continuing military threats to fellow NATO-member Greece, and their ongoing occupation of the European, Christian island-nation of Cyprus, Turkey is subject to unremitting civil unrest stemming in part from the growing influence of fundamentalist elements. As The Times has aptly described on its pages, where the ballot box is inadequate the growing ranks of Turkish Islamic fundamentalists are not afraid of using physical intimidation to seize political control. The most recent municipal elections in Istanbul and Ankara, the country's two largest cities, brought to power a fundamentalist party which strongly favors curtailing relations with the West.
As far as being an ally goes: it should be borne in mind that during the Persian Gulf War, Turkey was adamant against turning off its two Iraq-sourced pipelines and refused NATO use of its eastern airbases for bombing runs. Only after the blockade rendered one pipeline completely useless and the other only able to unload 50% of its capacity _ and only after filling to capacity its storage tanks and all ships arriving at Ceyhan _ did Turkey completely shut of its pipelines in response to covert threats from the U.S. led coalition.
Very truly yours,
Paul J. Kutscera