STRADIGMA: What are the obvious and expected main effects of the Iraqi War on global and regional balances? Especially when we consider Afghanistan and Caucasia, what would be the future prospects of Eurasian and the Middle Eastern geopolitics, which Turkey is also a part?

C. TAŞKIRAN: It is necessary to correctly evaluate the American attack to Iraq. It must be understood that the aim of the attack was not for eliminating the mass destruction weapons, or for saving Iraqi people from the oppression of Saddam regime, or for the democratization of the Iraqi regime. This is an imperialistic attack. This attack is the war of accessing and controlling the energy resources like natural gas and oil and their transportation and transshipping routes in Eurasia and the Middle East. If we recall, 80 % of the world natural gas and oil reserves are in Eurasia and the Middle East region. The most important energy resource of the 21st century will still be oil and the calculated oil reserve of the world is 135 billion tons. It is known that 90 billion tons of this reserve is in the Middle East. If we take into account that 25 % of the total oil production is consumed by the USA who is the world's biggest oil consumer and whose oil will be exhausted soon, than it will be much easier to understand the reasons of this attack. With this imperial attack, USA has given an end to the world order, which was established after the Second World War with great efforts and under the leadership of USA and in which a certain balance is secured with respect to rights and law in a certain degree. Who might talk about the international law anymore? Who might talk about the Charter of the United Nations or the self-determination rights of the nations? Unfortunately, for the time being, there is no other power to balance the USA's military, economic and political power. And this fact, led USA to shape the international system unilaterally.

The military attack towards Afghanistan must also be evaluated on the same grounds. By this attack, USA located in the center of the region. Surrounded Iran from the east, obtained military bases in some of the Central Asian Republics and gained a strategic position to control and intervene, if required, to China, Russia and India. Most important than those, had an advantage to control Eurasia's natural gas. USA is the only determining power in this region.

As a historian, I should tell you this: These two regions are our own regions. There exists people and countries with which we have historic ties, religious and cultural ties. In the re-shaping of these regions, Turkey might be voiceless due to its present insufficiency in economic and political power, but it does not mean it will be so in the future. The new shape that is given or will be given to this region by the only super power USA might contradict with the long run national policies of Turkey. Actually this contradiction is very obvious in the Northern Iraq. Turkey, definitely, should not make sudden changes in its politics and of course not do that. But must develop its national policies towards this region and not prevent their implementations in proper times and grounds.

USA seems presently as the main shaper of Middle East and Eurasia, but there is not a shape already. Though slow, its signs and attempts are observed. But these two regions do not resemble neither to European, nor other countries of western culture because of their cultural, social and geographical structures. You cannot guess the dimension of enforcements and pressures. Of course everything ends with the people. Military power and political power are not eternal or unchangeable. Two world wars showed us new shapes that are given by only the power are not permanent. The important thing is rightness and law that are ever lasting. It is necessary not to undermine them, ever.

STRADIGMA: By thinking that the new political formation started under the shadow of the military force demonstrated at Iraq, must be in the framework of re-shaping plan of the whole of the Middle East, we want to ask your opinion that the requested changes in countries, specifically in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, would be possible without the use of the USA's military power? What are your anticipations related to the process of interactions and tensions?

C. TAŞKIRAN: USA is in the search of finding ways to effect and control the countries that might be a threat to another country which was established at the region during 1948s, while giving a new shape to Middle East. In that case Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia come to agenda. Now, could the proposed changes or political changes realize without USA uses power? Actually that depends completely on whether USA wants to realize these changes by not using military force. So, the question must be; does USA want or not want to use her military force for the other countries of the region? In my opinion, USA wants to use her military force. Because, in any restructuring without the use of force, might not have much effect or very limited effect. But after a military intervention, USA rules those regions with her staff and like a colony, a province of her. USA might alter the Saddam regime at Iraq without using military force with its present military, political and economic power. USA could do that. As a matter of fact, why Republican Guards did not resist to USA soldiers or why they did not show up is still unclear. USA seems to have a role in this event. USA might do that before and might change Saddam regime without attacking to Iraq, but did not chose this way. The same is true for the other countries of the region. USA seems to have the power to alter political regimes by trying other ways. But I do not think that USA wants this way. For USA, to rule and control by direct military intervention, seems to be more satisfactory.

STRADIGMA: As often emphasized recently, following USA's acting like an empire which has been felt after 1960's, what will be the future of the obvious contradictions between USA and Europe in the short-term and near future and how it will effect the international system?

C. TAŞKIRAN: Between the countries of European Union and USA there exists a competition especially towards Middle Eastern countries. Though it is not very clear, this competition came into the picture clearly by Germany and France's approach. But as we said earlier, none of the members of the European Union as themselves or as the Union as a whole can cope with the political, military and economic power of the USA. Since they are aware of this fact, could not be effective on Iraqi event. European countries begin to find ways to form better their relations with USA, because most of them are not very effective in their relations with the Eurasian and Middle Eastern countries. European Union is rather in an effort to include Eastern European countries and the Balkan states and integrate with them. On the other hand, USA shows not much interest to these regions. Though a power struggle is obvious between EU and USA, their fields of interests are different for the time being. USA is present in the Middle East and Eurasia, while EU is in Europe and the Balkans. How long this sharing will continue? How long parties can perpetuate in this condition? Which of the parties are in a favorable condition? Is it a compulsory sharing? Or do they have an agreement? We do not have clear answers to these questions. It is not correct to think on the possibility of struggle of the parties for any region in the near or far future. To struggle with EU might damage USA and the vice versa is also correct. Parties are conscious of that. Besides, a country like England is a political and military partner of USA and at the same time is an important member of EU. In my opinion, even though parties come to a point of conflict due to their interests, England and the like countries will not permit that and parties may come to an agreement immediately. As said before, when we think that the 67 % of the world oil reserves are in the Middle East region, the amounts that can be transferred to parties sure will satisfy them and non of the parties will be faced with a loss. It should not be forgotten that the common culture between the parties, enforces peace rather than conflict. As you know, it is difficult to talk about a conflict situation among the European countries and in my opinion it is also difficult to predict a struggle between USA and EU in the middle or long run. For the present situation; in a Christian culture centered management style, a powerful European system is adopted which accepts USA as the super power and to be in tune with USA.

STRADIGMA: USA's intervention to Iraq without United Nation's approval and United Nation's decision to seize the embargo were interpreted in some circles as the relativity of legitimacy concept in the international law platform and as the powerful one determines the concepts of legitimacy and ethics. What do you think about that?

C. TAŞKIRAN: It is not possible not to agree with that comment when you observe what is happening all over the world. Today we are living in a world in which the legitimacy and ethics concepts are disregarded in their real meanings and these concepts are defined by the ones who hold political, military and economic powers. This approach is "Powerful has the rights" understanding. But we were calling it "Law of the jungle". You would have no justifications; you would disregard international law, UN agreements and resolutions; almost the whole world would oppose it; but having and using the advantages of being powerful, and daring the death of hundreds of civilians; for the sake of your economic and political interests, you arrange a military attack to a sovereign country and settle there. How such a thing can be accepted? How can you defend it? How one guarantees that it will not be repeated? It is one of the most important and negative conclusions of USA attack to Iraq. "Rights" and "Law" concepts have been damaged. These concepts are necessary for everyone and anytime. These can easily be damaged. But their re-domination of the world is very difficult. There is tyranny, oppression and compulsion when these concepts are not available. There are attitudes that injure human dignity. This should not be permitted. To act together is always important and unity is an important power. To approve, or seem as approving or to act indifferent to any actions that are damaging "rights" and "law" is very wrong. Countries must be very sensitive for these concepts. In a unified attitude, objection and reaction must be demonstrated. The point that should be kept in mind is that: "Today for your neighbors, tomorrow is to you".

STRADIGMA: Would you evaluate Turkey's foreign policy towards Iraq before and during the war? What is the place of Turkey in this complex Middle East equation? Will Turkey has a privileged place as asserted or will be a target of threat like other countries in the region?

C. TAŞKIRAN: We may evaluate Turkey's pre-attack Iraq policies generally right. Turkey, from the first instance of USA's intention towards Iraq, set and announced its policies clearly and decidedly. Since the end of 2001, Turkey established its basic policies towards Iraq and declared them in all platforms decidedly.
Turkey's four basic polices were the following:

1- Turkey is against a military operation to Iraq.
2- Turkey favors integrity of Iraqi territory.
3- Turkey shall not permit the establishment of a new state in northern Iraq.
4- The life and property security of Iraqi Turkmen's is very important for Turkey.

By considering its own security, Turkey further declared that a new state in Northern Iraq should be a cause of war. It was a correct policy. Turkey was announcing to the world that she is against the fragmentation attempts of Iraq by using some groups; shall not permit the establishment of a Kurdish state in Iraq; and shall defend Iraqi Turk's rights by all means and in a way was warning the ones who have such intentions. In my opinion, the clear and determined Turkish policy was very effective and prevented a much earlier intervention. Nevertheless, Turkey's determination did not last long. Following November 3 elections, the newly established government, may be not with its words but by its course of conduct, demonstrated different behaviors not consistent with the previous determination. Turkey, while declaring that it is against a military attack against Iraq, permitted USA, who accelerated attack arrangements and requested from Turkey, in this framework, to fortify and modernize certain air and naval bases and ports of Turkey, to use for military purposes. When got that permission, USA began to fortify and modernize bases and ports, and though, deservedly, that Turkey would help in the military operation and changed the previous policy. In my opinion this was a wrong policy and had contradictions with the announced basic policies. Though the Government was saying that "the modernization of bases and ports does not mean to support USA military operation", the USA, the whole world and Turkey knew that "it is to participate in the war". Unfortunately, the Government could not pursue a proper policy under political and economical pressures. It should not be forgotten that, although in foreign policy making of course everything that the public wants cannot be done, but in a war decision, which directly effects the general public, it is not right to disregard the sensitivity of the public. As a matter of fact, the government proposal to hold foreign soldiers in Turkey to open a new front in Northern Iraq was objected in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. This led to new tensions in Turkey-USA relations.

The mistakes in Turkish foreign policy, unfortunately, continued following the USA's military operation to Iraq. As known, Peshmerga groups, by benefiting from the lack of authority, entered in Kirkuk and then Mousul cities. This action has been one of the conditions that Turkey declared to Turkish and world public opinions, for Turkish armed forces entrance to Iraq. Peshmerga's entrance in the two Turk's cities which was objected by Turkey since the beginning, delaying tactics like "we will leave, we are leaving…", settlement there, disregarding Turkmen's in the administration of these cities and giving Peshmerga's responsibility, are the events contradicting with Turkey's long run interests. What must Turkey do, was to remind its commitments in the beginning of events and do what have to be done when disregarded. In order to demonstrate and maintain its persuasiveness to the region and the world, Turkey must back its basic commitments. Peshmerga's who acted in coordination with USA, first examined Turkey's determination, and when realized the indetermination, they accomplished the new shape of the region in favor of their interests with USA. It seems that this uncertain politics is still continuing. Turkey must understand this: Turkey is not a strategic partner of USA in the Middle East, and cannot be. Because, Middle Eastern policies of the parties are in conflict. Turkey must formulate its policies not by considering USA, but according to its own interests.

STRADIGMA: Would you explain, in order to reach a detailed solution and a permanent peace process in Cyprus, what should Turkey do, by evaluating the present alternatives?

C. TAŞKIRAN: Turkey is right on Cyprus matter. In the course of the collapse of 1960 Cyprus Republic unilaterally and annexation of the island to Greece, Turkey used its legal rights based on agreements and in due time, today's system of two structures emerged in order to prevent struggles between the parties. Returning from this system will never be a solution for Cyprus for any time and for anyhow. In the contrary, will be the cause of new disputes and problems. For the permanent solution in Cyprus, two societies must live separately in known boundaries, equal in political sovereignty and law, and also with the guaranties of Turkey and Greece for the parties. Actually the whole world has seen and understood this requirement. Anyone, except who has not seen, understood the island, knows very well that there is and will be no other formula for a solution. But just in that point European Union broke the bargain. With the initiative of Greece, EU decided to accept the island to its membership, though it is even far away from Turkey geographically, small and problematic. And with this decision, the Cyprus dispute is directed to a new unknown future. As a matter of fact, legally, Cyprus cannot be a member of an establishment in which Turkey and Greece are both members. Though Turkey and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus gave voice to that fact in everywhere, unfortunately EU accepted Cyprus as a member. When Turkey becomes a member of EU, there will be no problem. But there are many indications that EU will not accept Turkey as a member. If Cyprus becomes a member before Turkey (actually the known date is 2004), then that situation must be evaluated as another way of Greece's annexation of Cyprus. Under these circumstances, Turkey must tighten up its relations with Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in every field and accelerate the recognition process and efforts of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which has been neglected for along period. As known, Cyprus dispute is used like a criteria and almost a concession is expected.

Turkey has achieved a lot of improvements in Cyprus dispute. Going back from those will not solve the problem. Turkey must support Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Mr. Denktas in a determined and persistent manner and continue to defend Turkish Cypriots' rights and interests. At that point, European Union has also serious and legal responsibilities. Though EU is not expected to carry these responsibilities, EU must be respectful to international law and international agreements. Acting contrary, like now, means the violation of international law and international agreements. Taking into consideration only the Greek side and taking unilateral decisions in Cyprus dispute and forcing Turkey to approve them, is not under the authority of EU and also will not help nothing more than temporary solutions.

STRADIGMA: How the Turkey's membership process to EU is influenced by the membership of Cyprus to EU while Turkey stands outside of EU? What are the new problems that may arise? After Cyprus, would EU be insistent for the solution of Aegean dispute?

C. TAŞKIRAN: I have to make it clear at once that Turkey's membership process to EU has nothing to do with the solution of Cyprus dispute. In the Copenhagen criteria, there is no such a condition. This is a new obstacle raised by EU. Why solutions of the Cyprus dispute and Aegean problem with Greece are related only to Turkey's concession and lay off its just requests? There are other parties in these disputes. Why they are not subjected to pressure for solution? Recently, the ones, who are favoring solution, act in a mind of "give and save yourself". They can even tell the degree of compensation that the European Court of Human Rights will decide against Turkey, but no one is questioning how legally Cyprus is going to be a member? I believe in that: EU does not want Turkey's membership in the short or middle run. And they are declaring it openly. But we hear only the things we like to and comment on them as we wish. So, the membership of Cyprus on May 2004 will not affect Turkey's membership process. In fact, the process is not in a positive condition. If Turkey sincerely believes that it will integrate to EU and with that purpose gives concessions to Cyprus as requested by EU and Greece, we have to be sure that, EU will bring the Aegean problem to the agenda and will request from Turkey to give concessions. If you make sacrifices in those matters, then it will bring the Armenian problem and will ask Turkey to accept the so-called Armenian genocide for the membership. We should not forget that any concession will bring others and these will become "rights" in time. Turkey, with its own will and wish, should not take any decisions about Cyprus, Aegean, and anywhere that will be against Turkey in the long run.

Everybody must see that clearly: EU's decision to approve the membership of Cyprus, will eliminate all possible solution alternatives based on two society structure, which helped them to live happily and securely up to now. This is a big responsibility and this responsibility will belong to the European Union.

STRADIGMA: In the framework of EU's new security understanding, how Turkey's security objectives and interests can be harmonized with the European Common Security and Defense Policies? In order to reach a common security understanding, what kind of policies Turkey should follow?

C. TAŞKIRAN: As known, EU started as economical union. And it turned into a political unity in time. Turkey has been in these two processes since the beginning. In fact, to have an effective political power, EU must also have a military power. Evaluating this case very well EU has wanted to use the military capacity of NATO, members of which also EU members in majority, in the military power that is going to be organized. And for this purpose "European Army Corps" is established at first. Following that use of NATO capabilities by this army is brought to the agenda. NATO countries accepted this request. But there is an important issue for Turkey. In the decision making process of European Army Corps, EU asked the views and comments of its members. Turkey was kept outside of this phase. And this was not accepted by Turkey in considering that it will not be very important to be in this army for which was not asked for its establishment and exercised veto for the use of NATO capabilities by European Army Corps. As known, after long periods of negotiations and discussions and with the intervention of USA, suspended its veto with an intermediary formula; Turkey's view be taken in the circumstances related to Turkey's regional countries and this army will not be used in cases of Turkey-Greek disputes. Here, EU is faulty. EU followed this approach, because EU did not want to integrate with Turkey. From military point view, Turkey is not in need of this army. Powerful and capable enough, Turkish armed forces can prevent any threat to our country.

STRADIGMA: When we think about the current changes in the international political system, can we say that the affectivity of UN in peaceful resolution of disputes is, in a way, in a process of examination and was unsuccessful? Parallel to Iraqi War and the final point reached at Cyprus are considered, can it be interpreted that the present international organizations lost their reliability and insufficient in performing their functions?

C. TAŞKIRAN: Certainly we can say that. UN was very unsuccessful in the last USA attack to Iraq. It was not only an unsuccessful examination but also UN lost its reputation. From then on, no one can say that UN is an organization that solves disputes among the countries by peaceful means. UN could prevent the aggression to Iraq with its legal and political power and the authority; of course we say it theoretically. UN hesitated to use this power against USA. Did not and could not use it. While USA's attack was obvious, while military buildup of USA was known, the Secretary General of UN, unaware of those like everything was normal in Iraq, was dealing with Cyprus dispute and instead of Iraq or Washington, was paying visits to Cyprus. Again, UN did not condemn a military attack to one of its independent members for a long time. It has been observed that UN organization can make decisions only under the control of USA and EU or economically and/or politically powerful countries. We must remember that how UN meetings are processing in days, meaningless and even against political ethic, and without a solid decision.

UN was damaged greatly in Iraqi attack. UN lost its reliability anyhow. UN must regain its reliability and legitimacy. Though with its present status, it is impossible. A restructuring is a must for UN. How this restructuring will be, must be thought deeply and should be build on "rights and law" concepts. Re-shaping of UN Security Council and elimination of permanent members are to be done. All members must have equal votes and majority voting are some of the matters to be proposed at first instance. "UN is inessential" is a wrong way of thinking. UN is necessary. Besides its essentiality, it is the only organization to be trusted by economically and militarily weak countries. But lost its respect and function with its present structure. Its establishment and organization should be reviewed.

The same saying is also true for Cyprus. The solution proposals that are prepared by Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the UN, are one sided, backing Greek Cypriots. In the preparation of these proposals, the views of EU countries, Greece and Greek Cypriots were taken into consideration, and solution proposals were prepared accordingly. This is wrong. This is wrong and unjust at the same time. UN must not bring solutions only for one of the parties, must propose permanent and just solutions. UN's Cyprus proposals are not right and they cannot reach a permanent solution. As a matter of fact, they cannot reach a positive solution. And certainly, this is not a successful attempt for UN.

STRADIGMA: Where do you envisage the future of Turkey? In the 21st century planning, in such geography, what should be the place of Turkey?

C. TAŞKIRAN: Before its place, we have to mention this: Despite of many of its imperfections and errors, Turkey has become a developed country. Our economic troubles are mostly due to weak administrations. Turkey is in a level to cooperate with all developed countries in sports, arts, science, etc. Turkey must have more trust in herself. Its young, well-trained, nationalistic people with initiative people must be trusted more than ever. And with this trust, must develop its national policies. Turkey has to develop multi dimensional policies.

As Napoleon said, a country's geography determines its foreign policy. Actually our geography has determined our politics. Turkey is in Europe. Turkey is the door of the Middle East. Turkey is the door of the Central Asia. Turkey has traditional relations with these countries going back to centuries; has common cultures and a unity of language that cannot be undermined. With the majority of them we share certain common values. Turkey must establish new political, economic and military relations with the countries of three regions. And must also set its politics in accordance with these relations. To put only the EU and USA alternatives in front of Turkey is not correct. Being in the middle of Balkan, Caucasia, Middle East and Central Asian countries, Turkey should never set its policies for only one country. And when setting its policies, Turkey should not act to respond the pressures of other countries. Turkey must prioritize its own interests, and develop its policies by considering neighboring and regional countries. We are in this geography. We are living in here. And we will live in here. We have to develop stabile and firm neighborhood policies. Imperialism is not permanent, and will not be. Yesterday, there was Great Britain in the region. Today there is not. Today, who is there, will not be there tomorrow. But we are here. So, it is not correct to be a "sub-contractor" in this area and live with the policies parallel to other countries.

Our country is in the need of developing new politics in the direction of our national interests. Europe will certainly include the Europe. But Europe excludes Turkey willingly and consciously. In that cases, what must Turkey do, is to produce Middle Eastern and Central Asian policies seriously and to make them realized. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new arena is opened to Turkey in the Central Asia at which we have cultural, religious and racial unities. Turkey must consciously enter into this region for implementing its own national policies. In the new world order, Turkey must leave aside heavily centralized politics. What must be done is the determination of new active and multi dimensional national policies, which are keen on our own and regional interests, for Caucasia, Middle East and the Central Asia and to find ways to implement them. It is obvious that it is not necessary to evaluate these as anti- EU or anti-US policies or alternatives to them. What we should not forget is the necessity for determining real foreign policy on the basis of the national interests of nations.

STRADIGMA: Thank you.

C. TAŞKIRAN: I also thank you.