TRANSCRIPT

Under Secretary for Political Affairs Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns Interview with Show TV Anchor woman Defne Samyeli

Istanbul, September 18, 2007

D.S.: Mr. Ambassador, welcome to Turkey.

N.B: Thank you very, very much, pleased to be here.

D.S.: Could you please tell us the purpose and the objective of this trip, and who you are planning to meet with?

N.B.: Well thank you. I am here to meet the new Turkish government, having just been elected. We are a great friend of Turkey. We want to have a strong relationship. President Bush and Secretary of State Rice already have very good personal relations with President Gül and Prime Minister Erdoğan. We have great respect for them. But there is no question that both of our countries are facing a lot of challenges, particularly in this part of the world. We want to be friends to Turkey and a strong partner in trying to help resolve the problems of Iraq. We certainly want to see Turkey take its place in the European Union. We’re very strong advocates that the EU should bring Turkey in as a full member in the future. And of course we are allies in NATO. Our troops are together in Afghanistan. So there is a lot that binds us to Turkey. It has been a difficult period these last few years in some respects, and it is a good opportunity your just having had elections for us to come here to have talks. I will be seeing the President and Prime Minister tomorrow and many other Turkish leaders. I’m here in Istanbul, of course, also to visit Suleymaniye Mosque and to meet Turkish intellectuals and to visit Robert College and to visit the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. So it is a full schedule. And a very beautiful day in Istanbul

D.S.: Now that the new government is in power, in what particular ways or aspects do you think the U.S.–Turkish relationship is going to improve?

N.B.: Well I hope that Turks feel that we are standing with Turkey against the PKK. We think of the PKK as a terrorist group. We have branded PKK a terrorist group. We have put pressure on the Europeans to shut down the political front organizations of the PKK in Europe itself, in Western Europe. And we fully understand why most Turks are very concerned to see so many Turkish soldiers and civilians having been killed and to see the continued attacks of the PKK. Because we have been a victim of terrorism recently, we have sympathy, great sympathy for the Turks.

D.S: What is the latest development on the joint efforts for stopping the PKK.

N.B.: Well, we do have a joint U.S.–Turkish effort underway to make sure that we are helping each other. The United States is helping Turkey to cope with the PKK threat militarily. We also have an effort on the way to try to – and we can I think help on this – try to help the Kurdish leadership in Iraq to be able to talk to the Turkish government about this. And we think that is necessary.

D.S.: There’s not much progress in that field.

N.B.: Not yet, and there needs to be more. And I think that the Iraqi leadership needs to help Turkey to resolve this problem. The Iraqi leadership can do this. And we’d like to make an attempt to see that happen.

D.S.: What kind of an attempt are you talking about?

N.B: Well there has been very little, as you said, there has been very little contact between the leadership in Baghdad and even some of the Kurdish regional leaders in the northern part of Iraq. With the Turkish government we’d like to see more of that. And we certainly would like to see efforts made on the Iraqi side of the border by the Iraqi government, by the United States. We want to work towards this, to try to stand and prevent the cross border attacks that have been such a problem for the Turkish government.

D.S.: When should we anticipate some concrete results?

N.B.: Well it is very hard, as you know, to predict ahead of time. But I can just tell you that from the highest level, from President Bush down, we have made a commitment to the Turkish government to help with its problem. We intend to do that.

D.S.: The main reason of the rise in anti-Americanism here in Turkey is the belief that the U.S. is not intervening with the activities of the PKK and this is perceived to be an indirect support for the PKK. Just because of this, my question is, Why is it taking so long for the United States to put an end to this? I’m talking about the PKK terrorism. Is it a lack of resources, power of authority on that territory?

N.B.: Well, I can tell you something, there is no indirect support whatsoever from our government to the PKK terrorists. We are Turkey’s strongest supporter. Beyond Turkey itself, there is not a single country in the world that has done more to speak against the PKK and to try to argue that action should be taken than us. So in no way shape or form should anyone believe in Turkey that somehow we are sympathetic or giving indirect support, we are not doing that. In fact, you know we have spent most of the last ten years trying to convince the European governments not to allow but political organizations that speak up on behalf of the PKK to be in Amsterdam or to be in Germany or to be in France. And I think now you see a much greater consensus by the NATO countries that we have got to help Turkey. So I don’t, I would never want Turks to think that we are in the least bit supportive or sympathetic. You know, we have been a victim of terrorism in our country. Quite unfortunately, many times you have been a victim too. And so I think as an ally of Turkey, we have an obligation on the part of the United States to help Turkey, just as you have an obligation to help us. That is what allies do for each other. So I hope we can have concrete progress, but it is also going to be necessary to have political dialogue. Not with the PKK, but with the Iraqi leadership and the Turkish government leadership. And that is what we hope to be able to bring about in a much more advanced way than we have seen so far.

D.S.: You will be talking about this issue with our Prime Minister Erdoğan tomorrow?

N.B.: Well, I think it is always an issue, it is a prominent issue whenever Turks and Americans get together. We understand that. Even from my short stay in Istanbul today, I have been at a research institute and I met Turkish students. And they brought it up with me. So I am not surprised.

D.S.: It is always brought up to you in interviews as well.

N.B.: And I am not surprised that you brought it up as well.

D.S.: What is the U.S. strategy in Iraq for the next year?

N.B.: President Bush talked about that last week. Our strategy is to stay, is to help the democratically elected Iraqi government. It’s to not walk away from a friend when the problem is tough. It is very, very tough. It is to try to help reduce the level of violence against the Iraqi population as well as against our own soldiers. There have been some positive developments in a very tragic situation in Anbar province. You have seen a reduction of violence, because the Iraqis themselves – the Shi’a and Sunni leaders there – excuse me – the Sunni leaders there have taken control of the province. And that has been a positive development. We’d like to see the same thing happen, we’d like to see a reduction of support for some of the Shi’a militant groups in the South. But we’d like to also get the international community more involved. We’d like to see Arab countries giving political support. More countries to give economic and financial support to Iraq. I think for Turkey there is no question from our perspective this is critical for you, given your border, given the economic ties, given the ramifications of the Kurdish problem, the PKK problem. We understand that what happens in Iraq has a direct impact here, as it did during the first Gulf War, when we worked with President Turgut Özal. So there is no higher priority for us than Iraq. We have 160,000 American troops there. We have faced extraordinary problems. But we are not going to give up. I don’t think any surrounding country wants us to get out. Certainly not Turkey. It is not an option just to leave from Iraq. It is not an option just to leave, because that would be ignoble, it wouldn’t be us meeting our responsibilities.

D.S.: Iran, the latest claims by the British press that the U.S. has determined 2000 bombing targets in Iran and that combined with the French Foreign Minister’s implication of an upcoming war – potential war involving Iran. That has raised eyebrows. So is the United States going to attack Iran?

N.B.: We are in a diplomatic path and we have been for several years. I, in fact, am very much involved in our diplomacy with China and Russia and Turkey and the European countries. And while we have never taken the military option off the table, we have very clearly – and even in recent days – stressed that a diplomatic solution can be arrived at and that we ought to exhaust the opportunities for diplomacy when it comes to Iran. Now what does that mean? We are talking to the Iranians in Baghdad. There is a channel between our Ambassador in Iraq and the Iranian Ambassador. We’d like to see the Iranians do a lot more to shut down the support for the Shi’a militant fighters. On the nuclear question, we have offered negotiations. Secretary Rice has said she will sit down with the Iranians. We are with the Chinese, Russians, Germans, French and British. We are in a group. And we have made it clear to them. We’d much prefer to have negotiations, but the Iranians have refused these negotiations and they have accelerated their nuclear research. So I think diplomacy needs to become more vigorous. And hopefully we’ll have support from countries like Turkey for that diplomacy. And by no means have we given up on diplomacy. So I wouldn’t believe all these stories that you read in newspapers that somehow the United States is embarking on a military policy. Our policy is right now diplomacy and trying to achieve negotiations.

D.S.: But military action is never off the table? We are not talking about an imminent attack, as far as I am concerned. But how about the future? If Iran never complies with the demands

N.B.: Well we are going to focus on diplomacy and hope that the combination of the United Nations sanctions that have been passed against Iran and the combination of European banks now stopping lending, many of them, to Iran itself is going to be a signal to the Iranian leadership. They cannot live in isolation in the world. They are going to have to make some steps to compromise. What would be a compromise? Agreeing to sit down. To negotiate the nuclear issue. It has been 27 years since any American Secretary of State has had a meaningful discussion with any Iranian leader. And Condoleezza Rice, our Secretary of State, has now offered that negotiation. So we hope the Iranians will, it is a turning point, and we hope the Iranians will reconsider this offer. It has been curious to us – and I think curious to the Russians and Chinese and Europeans – that the Iranians have completely swept aside this talk of negotiations, but we are serious about it. I’ll be hosting a meeting in Washington on Friday. In fact, while I leave Turkey I am going back to Washington of the P-5 countries to once again see if we can find our way towards negotiations as well as a third sanctions resolution. And then Secretary Rice will host a meeting a week later of all the ministers of these governments to once again make it clear that we want to have a negotiation but we are prepared to sanction Iran should it not agree to a negotiation – sanction economically.

D.S.: Talking about isolation of Iran and sanctions. Let’s discuss Turkey’s role in this relationship. In a recent speech, and I quote, you said, “The U.S. and Turkey need to work some tactical differences in handling Iran.” Could you clarify this for us?

N.B.: Well first of all we understand that Turkey is a neighbor of Iran. We understand that there has been a long history between the two countries. And like most of the European allies, West European allies, Turkey has diplomatic relations and commercial relations, but now is not the time for any of us to be building up those economic relations, particular on oil and gas, because the United Nations has voted sanctions against Iran. These are Chapter 7 sanctions. That means that they are obligatory, that all countries have to enforce them. And what the Iranians need to hear is that if they are not willing to negotiate in a civilized way – and there have not been so far – that we have to put sanctions on them. Not just to be punitive, not to punish them, but to make it clear to them that there is a price for their trying to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. So the advice that we give to Turkey is not just for Turkey alone. It is the same advice we give France and Germany and Britain and Japan. And that is, if you send a signal to the Iranians, that we are all willing to do business with you and we are all willing to increase our investments, it doesn’t contribute to the United Nations effort to try to signal to them that without negotiation there will be sanctions. So I don’t mean to imply that somehow we are singling Turkey out. We are not. It is the same advice that we give to all of the allies and we hope to see a broad international response. And that is the best way to deal with Iran.

D.S.: And you have mentioned, as I recall, there will be sanctions against any company that would invest in Iran’s oil and gas sector as well. What does that mean? As advice or is that a warning?

N.B.: It is not just the view of the Bush administration. It is the view of the United States Congress since 1999. There is a law in the United States passed by our Congress when President Clinton was in office that says there shall be U.S. sanctions against any company that would invest in the oil and gas industry of Iran. The idea here is to convince the Iranians that they have to come to negotiations. And that we won’t tolerate business as usual practices if they do not. And so that law is on the books. It is part of our law, we must obey it. And Congress is in the – our U.S. Congress – is debating now, whether or not even to strengthen that law. So we were simply trying to alert our friends around the world – Japan, South Korea, the Gulf Arab states, the European allies, Turkey – that this law exists. And it maybe strengthened by our Congress. And therefore it is an important part of our own discussions on Iran.

D.S.: Turkey has just signed a preliminary agreement on gas cooperation with Iran. And how do you suggest Turkey compensate financial losses, potential financial losses, if this relationship with Iran is bruised?

N.B.: Well we know that Turkey, like many other countries, is a net importer of energy. And so therefore finding gas, finding oil is vital for your country. So there is no mistake about that. We would hope to see an expansion of Turkey’s energy ties with Central Asia – they already exist – with Turkmenistan, with Kazakhstan, with countries in the Caucasus like Azerbaijan. In fact, one of the major priorities for us with the Turkish government is to support Turkey in the southern gas pipe line that will bring gas from the Caucasus through Turkey, to Greece and Italy and up into Western Europe. It is very important I think it is Turkey and the United States share an interest with Western Europe. We don’t want to see one country, Russia, dominate and have a monopoly on the supply and transit of oil and gas from Russia and Central Asia to Western Europe and to Turkey. And so the southern corridor pipeline is a very important project, we believe that we Americans can help to realize this project. And it is a major priority for our relationship to be supportive of Turkey itself.

D.S.: What is Turkey proceeds to honor the measures of this, the terms of this agreement with Iran. What will the consequences be?

N.B.: Well, you know I learned long ago never to answer a hypothetical question. So I won’t start now. But I will say this.

D.S.: You’re a diplomat.

N.B.: I am a diplomat. But I think Turkey is in the same position that many countries are in. Japan is in this position, South Korea, almost all of the West European countries. And the fact is that energy is important. We think there are alternatives. I just named some: from Azerbaijan, from Central Asia. Let’s focus on building up those alternatives for longer-lasting supply of oil and gas into Turkey and into the countries of Europe. We have seen in oil the success of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. Now the Nabucco pipeline, the southern transit pipeline, I think it is one of the largest and most important issues of our time. It is a big structural issue, how to – for the next generation or two – get gas coming to Turkey and through Turkey and to Western Europe. And we are entirely supportive of Turkey in that respect and want to be a good ally with Turkey.

D.S.: Mr. Ambassador, what is the latest on the House Resolution 106, on Armenian claims?

N.B.: Well the latest is that there are a number of Members of Congress who want to pass a resolution on Armenia, so-called Armenian genocide. It is the very clear and firm position of our government that this law should not be passed. And we are making very strenuous efforts to try to convince the Congress not to pass the law. We understand the sensitivity of this question. We think it is far better to adopt, do what Prime Minister Erdoğan had said before, And that is, is it possible to set up Armenian and Turkish commissions of historians to open some archives. Let the historians look at this. We understand the complexity, and frankly the sensitivity. The events occurred nearly a century ago during the Ottoman time, not even after Attar created modern Turkey itself. And so it would be presumptuous of the United States to cast a judgment about such a complicated historical issue. We’d much rather see Armenians and Turks resolve that peacefully together in the universities, in an academic setting. We have called for a normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia itself. But I think the problem can best be resolved by the peoples of Turkey and Armenia rather than having a resolution. So we have been very clear about this.

D.S.: Despite your efforts, what if the resolution passes?

N.B.: You know there has been a resolution nearly every year for the last twenty years or so. And President Bush and all of his predecessors – President Clinton, President Bush’s father – have all always spoken out against this resolution. And this year is no different. Secretary Rice has taken the lead for the Administration. She has spoken to the leadership of the Congress. We have all, I have been up speaking to Congressional leaders, advising them that this is not the best way to proceed. And I hope that is understood here in Turkey that we are making that effort.

D.S.: In your recent speech when you told a gathering of the Atlantic Council , I couldn’t help but notice that you said, and I quote, “The U.S. and Turkey share a deep appreciation for the importance of separating civic and religious life.” I am sure you are aware that there has been an ongoing controversy about this separation of civic and religious life here in Turkey. There are some people who believe that this separation is under threat and Turkey is headed to a more conservative and a mild Islamic country. And whereas other people, they believe that wearing a headscarf in a public institution or getting more conservative every day does not pose a threat at all and this is a democratic right. Where do you stand on this?

N.B.: On the issue of Turkey itself this is for Turks to decide, not Americans. You just had an election. And the great thing about your country is that you are so unique in the Moslem world. You are a democracy. And you are secular, but you are also a Moslem country. And I think that foreigners like Americans should not try to impress their views upon Turks. I think Turks can decide these issues for themselves. I really do. But I do think we share similar societies in this sense: the United States has a very large Moslem population. And we are in fact a multiethnic, multireligious country. We try to preach tolerance. And so there are many women in our society who are Moslem, who are covering – who are wearing the headscarves. And we think that is their right. We don’t try to impose values on them. And we think it is also the right of women not to wear, not to be covered. Let the individual decide. In our society, in American society. When it comes to Turkey, I think you are a unique society. I think that the Turkish people are handling this well. You are making your own decisions, as you should. And I would just say this about the current government: we have an excellent relationship with AK Party and with the leadership of AK Party. The personal relations between President Gül, Prime Minister Erdoğan, with our President, and our Secretary of State are excellent. We have great respect for both men. And we think that U.S.-Turkish relations are going to prosper because these are intelligent, educated men who understand the importance of this relationship. But I do think America should stay out of internal debate in other countries. I really think that Turks can handle this debate themselves and make the right decisions.

D.S.: Ambassador Burns, you said earlier that this relationship needs to be revitalized.

N.B.: Yes.

D.S.: What went wrong?

N.B.: You know, I suppose you could look back, there may be many things that went wrong. But the important thing is that we understand that a relationship that was once so strong experienced some significant problems in 2002 and 2003 and 2004. We had an argument over Iraq. Obviously. A difference of opinion. We are friends. And it is so important to us to be close to Turkey. We see Turkey as an indispensable country in Europe and a country that can have profoundly positive influence in the Middle East as well as in the Balkans, in Central Asia. Turkey has a very important role to play in the world. So I think concerning the fact that we have had misunderstandings, that the relationship has not been as positive in the past. And I look at the public opinion polls and see that many Turks feel disaffected from the United States. I hope that you are at a point now you just had an election, we Americans can come and say, lets put those problems behind us. Let us look to the future. I hope Turks feel that they have a friend in America, that we understand the important role this country is playing. And I came – Secretary Rice asked me to come – to have initial discussions with the government. She will be coming to Istanbul for the Iraq conference that the Turkish government will be hosting in October, in late October. I think you are going to see a lot of high-level exchanges and meetings between the two countries. And I hope that Turks are hearing American say, “We respect Turkey. We understand how important Turkey is. And we want to make the next few years productive and better than some of the years we have just experienced.”

D.S.: Ambassador Burns, thank you so much for sharing your views with us.

N.B.: It is a pleasure. Thank you very, very much.