The relations between Turkey and Syria gained a new dimension last week as a result of the continuing negotiations of the High Level Strategic Cooperation signed by the Turkish and Syrian leaders. Many commenders interpreted the meeting very positively and on the day after the meetings Syrian newspapers covered the issue on their front pages. The main emphasis has been on the revised economic and social relations between the cuntries.
Turkish-Syrian relations have gained strength since the beginning of the 2000s. Despite criticisms, the visit of ex Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer to Syria for the funeral of Hafez Al-Asad was perceived as an olive branch and the initiative is still recalled by Syrians. Turkey has followed a stable policy towards Syria, which has been isolated by the West, subjected to economic sanctions particularly after September 11, and has faced international pressure following the assassination of Rafiq Hariri in 2005. Regarding Syria’s relations with the US we see that Syria was added to the list of terrorism-supporting countries in 1979 as it hosted Palestinian groups, and Washington’s withdrawal of its ambassador from the country also strained the relations between the two sides..........http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2559/-regional-improvements-and-turkish-syrian-relations.html
Middle East etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
Middle East etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
12 Ekim 2009 Pazartesi
9 Nisan 2009 Perşembe
After Gaza Attacks: Does Arab Initiative Possible for the Middle East?
After the cease fire on 18 January, three weeks after Israeli assaults, we have enough data for an evaluation of the events. In 2006 (Israel's War on Hezbollah in Lebanon), we saw that Hezbollah was more successful than today’s Hamas –if we measure the success with the number of dead people-. Hezbollah killed 120 Israeli soldiers and 40 civilians. Apart from the ideological and deeper relationship with Iran, Hezbollah won the right of veto in Parliament after its long resistance which resulted in postponement of presidential elections for 19 times. On the side of Hezbollah there were more than 1200 dead and a big damage of infrastructure in the country. To gain the veto right also shows that Hezbollah was the winner after the war. Hezbollah provided electricity to the places where even government was not able to provide electricity and big amounts of money were transferred to affected families in the war. The positive atmosphere reflected to Israel in a opposite way. Increased criticism, demonstrations against Olmert government and Winograd reports were all disclosed bad balance sheet of Lebanon war for Israel. Olmert has been waiting the February elections to leave his office as a result of Tzipi Livni’s failure to establish the government after his resignation.
When we focus today’s situation in Gaza, according to UN, the numbers of dead people is 1314 (at least three fourths are civilians) and on the Israeli side there are 9 soldiers and 4 civilians who were killed. For the war Avigdor Lieberman, chair of the far-right Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home), said that “it returned our national pride to us”. Here both parties are claiming that they reached to victory. Our minds are confused with the statements of Olmert and Hamas, both said they reached to victory. At the beginning, the rockets were shown as one of the main reasons of the assault by Olmert, but when the ceasefire was announced, the rockets were still being launched. Thus we know that the reason of the ceasefire was not to stop of rockets. Besides that Israel couldn’t get Gilad Schalid back.
Before the ceasefire, Hamas announced its demands for ceasefire: 6 months of ceasefire, the opening of borders, transfer of the coastal and air space control to Hamas. There were some missing points in the Saturday’s cease fire : Although Olmert said that they reached to their goal in the attacks, there is no concrete condition for the ceasefire. Although the troops completed their pulling out from Gaza, there is no statement about borders or any international negotiations. The fundamental question here is that “shouldn’t be the ceasefire between two parties?” (the same way of the peace negotiations or the last tacit ceasefire for six months). After the assault Israel believes in that it gained its dissuasiveness power again. When Israel was announcing ceasefire expectation was the convincement of Hamas by Egypt. Apart from a partner for a ceasefire, another point is the lack of an observer for the continuation of the ceasefire. In the first ceasefire both of the parties blamed each other to break the ceasefire. Another point is that a ceasefire without specific conditions will be broken by rockets or air strikes.
After all, at the end of the assaults one of the main losers is the United Nations. Its respectability has already deteriorated for years. As a cold war body, UN is not seen as an important actor in international conflicts because it proved its failure in Somalia, Ruanda, Bosnia and Palestine. The visit of the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon to the region after more than two weeks of the assaults, was perceived more as an indication of good faith. Today international bodies are the ineffectiveness in the region. The US, active in the region since 1970s, has not been mediating in the region after Clinton. All these conditions enforced Israeli to wage assault when it feels insecure. In the context of human rights and law of war there has not been any deterrent decision by international bodies for any future Israeli assault.
Considering Arab countries, the approach of the countries not to participate to meeting on Palestinian issue in Qatar and to participate Kuwait meeting after two days proves the polarization among the Arab countries. Although some of the countries in Qatar called for suspension of Arab Peace Initiative except Lebanon. In the Kuwait meeting, Saudi King Abdullah said that even one drop of Palestinians’ blood is more valuable than whole money in the world. This kind of speeches was given by the Arab leaders after the announcement of the cease fire. They donated 2 billion dollar for Gaza. Israel is trying to prevent the money to go Hamas. Besides that Israeli officials are calling for refraining from accepting Hamas as a legitimate power and it wants to cut the any link with Hamas.
Saudi King accused Israel of using disproportionate power against Gaza and called for the application of Arab Initiative. Arab Initiative, which was brought into agenda in 2002 by Saudi Arabia and approved by the members of Arab League –except Jordan and Egypt as they didn’t participate to meeting-, is the first general agreement made by Arab countries against Israel. There were some conditions in exchange for the recognition of Israel and for normalization of relations with Israel. According to this decision the conditions were: withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories after June 4 1967, reach a common solution for Palestinian refugees (UN Resolution 194), establishment of an independent Palestine with its capital, East Jerusalem (Security Council Resolution 1397). The Plan is based on the land for peace principle instead of war with Israel. The Plan is coming up in each Arab League meeting and it was renewed by Saudi Arabia in 2007. Apart from the discussions on whether the Plan is dead now or not, the Plan seems as the only way for a common Arab decision on the topic since it is comprehensive and has the potential to provide solutions.
After a month of the issue of the Plan in March 2002 we witnessed Jenin massacre in Palestine. But importance of the Plan is that it was argued by most of the Arab leaders in an atmosphere of the increasing antagonism against Israel in 2002. If the leaders insist on the application of the Plan by the new Obama government it will prove that Arabs can come together to reach a common ground and they can find solutions to maintain peace in the region.
Serpil ACIKALIN
Middle East Desk – USAK
sacikalin@usak.org.tr
Monday, 26 January 2009
.........http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2470/after-gaza-attacks-does-arab-initiative-possible-for-the-middle-east.html
When we focus today’s situation in Gaza, according to UN, the numbers of dead people is 1314 (at least three fourths are civilians) and on the Israeli side there are 9 soldiers and 4 civilians who were killed. For the war Avigdor Lieberman, chair of the far-right Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home), said that “it returned our national pride to us”. Here both parties are claiming that they reached to victory. Our minds are confused with the statements of Olmert and Hamas, both said they reached to victory. At the beginning, the rockets were shown as one of the main reasons of the assault by Olmert, but when the ceasefire was announced, the rockets were still being launched. Thus we know that the reason of the ceasefire was not to stop of rockets. Besides that Israel couldn’t get Gilad Schalid back.
Before the ceasefire, Hamas announced its demands for ceasefire: 6 months of ceasefire, the opening of borders, transfer of the coastal and air space control to Hamas. There were some missing points in the Saturday’s cease fire : Although Olmert said that they reached to their goal in the attacks, there is no concrete condition for the ceasefire. Although the troops completed their pulling out from Gaza, there is no statement about borders or any international negotiations. The fundamental question here is that “shouldn’t be the ceasefire between two parties?” (the same way of the peace negotiations or the last tacit ceasefire for six months). After the assault Israel believes in that it gained its dissuasiveness power again. When Israel was announcing ceasefire expectation was the convincement of Hamas by Egypt. Apart from a partner for a ceasefire, another point is the lack of an observer for the continuation of the ceasefire. In the first ceasefire both of the parties blamed each other to break the ceasefire. Another point is that a ceasefire without specific conditions will be broken by rockets or air strikes.
After all, at the end of the assaults one of the main losers is the United Nations. Its respectability has already deteriorated for years. As a cold war body, UN is not seen as an important actor in international conflicts because it proved its failure in Somalia, Ruanda, Bosnia and Palestine. The visit of the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon to the region after more than two weeks of the assaults, was perceived more as an indication of good faith. Today international bodies are the ineffectiveness in the region. The US, active in the region since 1970s, has not been mediating in the region after Clinton. All these conditions enforced Israeli to wage assault when it feels insecure. In the context of human rights and law of war there has not been any deterrent decision by international bodies for any future Israeli assault.
Considering Arab countries, the approach of the countries not to participate to meeting on Palestinian issue in Qatar and to participate Kuwait meeting after two days proves the polarization among the Arab countries. Although some of the countries in Qatar called for suspension of Arab Peace Initiative except Lebanon. In the Kuwait meeting, Saudi King Abdullah said that even one drop of Palestinians’ blood is more valuable than whole money in the world. This kind of speeches was given by the Arab leaders after the announcement of the cease fire. They donated 2 billion dollar for Gaza. Israel is trying to prevent the money to go Hamas. Besides that Israeli officials are calling for refraining from accepting Hamas as a legitimate power and it wants to cut the any link with Hamas.
Saudi King accused Israel of using disproportionate power against Gaza and called for the application of Arab Initiative. Arab Initiative, which was brought into agenda in 2002 by Saudi Arabia and approved by the members of Arab League –except Jordan and Egypt as they didn’t participate to meeting-, is the first general agreement made by Arab countries against Israel. There were some conditions in exchange for the recognition of Israel and for normalization of relations with Israel. According to this decision the conditions were: withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories after June 4 1967, reach a common solution for Palestinian refugees (UN Resolution 194), establishment of an independent Palestine with its capital, East Jerusalem (Security Council Resolution 1397). The Plan is based on the land for peace principle instead of war with Israel. The Plan is coming up in each Arab League meeting and it was renewed by Saudi Arabia in 2007. Apart from the discussions on whether the Plan is dead now or not, the Plan seems as the only way for a common Arab decision on the topic since it is comprehensive and has the potential to provide solutions.
After a month of the issue of the Plan in March 2002 we witnessed Jenin massacre in Palestine. But importance of the Plan is that it was argued by most of the Arab leaders in an atmosphere of the increasing antagonism against Israel in 2002. If the leaders insist on the application of the Plan by the new Obama government it will prove that Arabs can come together to reach a common ground and they can find solutions to maintain peace in the region.
Serpil ACIKALIN
Middle East Desk – USAK
sacikalin@usak.org.tr
Monday, 26 January 2009
.........http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2470/after-gaza-attacks-does-arab-initiative-possible-for-the-middle-east.html
9 Ocak 2009 Cuma
Gaza Attacks: The US, Its Arab Allies, and Turkey
Israel continues its offensives in Gaza that it began on December 27. The death toll reached 770 at the end of thirteenth day, with civilians accounting for one quarter of the deaths. Although many Arab columnists had interpreted the election of Obama as a new era for the region and had high expectations for him, the last events caused pessimism, particularly on the basis of his long silence.
In spite of Hamas’ preference for the ground operation against Israel, the number of dead and injured people continues to increase. Apart from the violence in the offensive, another striking situation is the reactions of the other Arab countries and Turkey on the matter.
We are aware of the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance against that of Egypt-Saudi Arabia-Jordan in the region. Needless to say, the encouraging factor for the offensives is the US and the allies of the US and Israel.
Arab countries, not representing their people because of unfair elections, perceive Hamas and other religious-based organizations as a threat to their regimes. The reason for such a perception is the rising popularity of Islamic groups in these countries after the 1980s because of improvements in the international arena, weak secular opposition in these countries, and – whether they are legal or not – the Islamic opposition’s grassroots networks which provide a good ground for their popularity. After the operations thousands took the streets to protest Israel and unreactive governments. Although the president of Israel, Shimon Peres, said that they are not making ‘public relations’ they are fighting against terrorism, it is not wrong to say that these latest attacks contributed to rising of Hamas’ popularity – like other Islamic groups – in Cairo, San’a, Beirut, Damascus, Ankara, Istanbul, and many of other cities in the world.
Referring to the statements of Arab leaders, famous Egyptian columnist Fahmi Huwaidi argues that today Arab regimes are “playing the game openly”. [1] For example Hosni Mubarak and Mahmud Abbas explicitly condemned and called attention to Hamas’ responsibility for the attacks, saying they had already warned Hamas about what would happen in the future. Although there are many casualties, the moderate (mu’tedil) countries’ discourse is very soft and, after the ground operation, the leaders are criticizing Israel very carefully........http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2461/gaza-attacks-the-us-its-arab-allies-and-turkey.html
In spite of Hamas’ preference for the ground operation against Israel, the number of dead and injured people continues to increase. Apart from the violence in the offensive, another striking situation is the reactions of the other Arab countries and Turkey on the matter.
We are aware of the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance against that of Egypt-Saudi Arabia-Jordan in the region. Needless to say, the encouraging factor for the offensives is the US and the allies of the US and Israel.
Arab countries, not representing their people because of unfair elections, perceive Hamas and other religious-based organizations as a threat to their regimes. The reason for such a perception is the rising popularity of Islamic groups in these countries after the 1980s because of improvements in the international arena, weak secular opposition in these countries, and – whether they are legal or not – the Islamic opposition’s grassroots networks which provide a good ground for their popularity. After the operations thousands took the streets to protest Israel and unreactive governments. Although the president of Israel, Shimon Peres, said that they are not making ‘public relations’ they are fighting against terrorism, it is not wrong to say that these latest attacks contributed to rising of Hamas’ popularity – like other Islamic groups – in Cairo, San’a, Beirut, Damascus, Ankara, Istanbul, and many of other cities in the world.
Referring to the statements of Arab leaders, famous Egyptian columnist Fahmi Huwaidi argues that today Arab regimes are “playing the game openly”. [1] For example Hosni Mubarak and Mahmud Abbas explicitly condemned and called attention to Hamas’ responsibility for the attacks, saying they had already warned Hamas about what would happen in the future. Although there are many casualties, the moderate (mu’tedil) countries’ discourse is very soft and, after the ground operation, the leaders are criticizing Israel very carefully........http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2461/gaza-attacks-the-us-its-arab-allies-and-turkey.html
5 Aralık 2007 Çarşamba
After the Annapolis: Peace is Really Difficult in the Middle East
After the Annapolis: Peace is Really Difficult in the Middle East
Serpil ACIKALIN
USAK
Wednesday , 05 December 2007
A week after the Annapolis Summit, Palestinians, Israelis and more than 40 state’delegations are pleased to announce its end without a fiasco. As there were no strong expectations, it was not difficult to satisfy the delegates. If one reviews today’s news he/she will see political landscape’s changing as the 2008 presidential elections for the U.S. approach and as the Iranian nuclear program worries Israel.
In last week’s Summit, President Bush was tired of Iraq; Israeli PM Olmert was the loser in the eyes of his public for failures in Lebanon and corruption; and Palestinian President Abbas was talking to ‘the ghost of Hamas’. Three ‘weak’ leaders were in front of the public without touching the core issues of the conflict and the deadline of 2008 looming. The result is biweekly meetings between Olmert and Abbas and a relaunch of the road map.
The first road map was announced by President George W. Bush in 2002 June. The Middle East Quartet issued the document one year later in 2003 May following the Iraq War. According to the document, the final date was 2005 for signing the final status agreement after the transitional process to manage the normalization following the establishment of institutions. The emphasis was to end violation and terror in the region to solve the conflict. Because of the unforeseen developments all the plans had to change direction and we came to today.
The parties came to a decision for a Joint Declaration only minutes before the Summit began. Among the participants the Arabs were particularly concerned about its fate and they asked the question, “Why are we here?”. It was a success for Israel to gain the attendance of almost all Arab countries. The aim of isolating Iran is accomplished by the participation of Syria and secret negotiations to be conducted with Syria after the Summit.
After sixty years from 29 November 1947 (the date of recommendation of UN Resolution 181 to divide Mandate Palestine) Bush reaffirmed his support for a two state solution but he didn’t provide adequate details. And after fourteen years from the official peace agreements we again witnessed that peace is ellusive in the Middle East.
When the leaders returned to their homes they began expecting great effort to persuade their people. Abbas called the Annapolis Summit a historical event, the aim being on end to the occupation of Israel in the territories (including East Jerusalem) and to find a solution for refugees based on UN Resolution 194. On Sunday, Olmert submitted a document to the cabinet and said that there is no timetable and the security of Israel is the core precondition for future meetings.
Radicals in Israel and Palestine protested the Summit and claimed that noone has the right to provide concessions on their behalf. There is no doubt about the immediate needs to improve conditions in the West Bank, economic issues, and checkpoints.However, we are most concerned about the possible humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Cutting of fuel continuous and a possibile intervention to the Gaza Strip is not in the distant future.
In the Annapolis Summit, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, Ali Babacan, also stressed four needs for both nations: the continuation of the existing political dialog, providing security for both nations, the improvement of economic relations and the acceptance of differences between the two nations as a source of richness. These points are important to carry out sustainable development beteew any nations and the most for Palestinians and Israelis.
At the end of the day, we understand that Bush supports Road Map and we should accept that the last week’s Summit is not a result but the beginning of a thorny ‘peace process’. Secondly, we have learned from our previous experiences that if there are any radical developments in Palestinian politics, like the death of Arafat in 2004 or 2006 election results, the fate of the second Road Map will not be different from the first....http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2304/after-the-annapolis-peace-is-really-difficult-in-the-middle-east.html
Wednesday , 05 December 2007
Serpil ACIKALIN
USAK
30 Kasım 2007 Cuma
Captured U.S Origin Weapons Increased the Tensions Between Turkey, Iraq and US
Friday , 13 July 2007
By Serpil ACIKALIN (USAK)
On Wednesday the Turkish Ambassador in Washington, Nabi Sensoy, stated that the PKK terrorist organization has weapons of U.S. origin, but he suggested that he does not believe the weapons were given to the PKK militias directly by the U.S.. Mr. Sensoy added that the weapons may be coming from the supplies provided by the U.S. military to the Iraqi government.
Mr. Sensoy also emphasized that Turkey had demanded that Washington use its influence on the Iraqi Kurds to end their support to for PKK activities in the region and to force Barzani and his supporters to recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization and lay the legal groundwork for measures to be taken against the PKK in the North of Iraq. Turkish Ambassador Sensoy said that the Turkish nation does not have any more patience on this issue and the weapons found on the captured PKK terrorists indicate that the US and Iraqi officials are “not doing enough” to prevent PKK attacks . As a result, Turkey reserves the right to carry out military action against the PKK. “Those who help the PKK terrorists share their goals,” Nabi Sensoy said. Turkey has been fighting against PKK terrorist organization since 1980s and up until today more than 40.000 people have been killed by PKK terrorism. The PKK is considered a terrorist organization by the US and EU. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ihsan Bal from USAK, an Ankara based Turkish think tank, said that confessions of previously captured terrorists and equipment captured in terrorist operations proved that there are some U.S supplied weapons passed to the PKK and were used by this terrorist organization against Turkish civilian and military targets. Turkey is trying to get the support of the U.S to put pressure on Iraq. Dr. Bal emphasized that the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq was to stop the alleged production of “chemical and other weapons” and that the situation of today is very similar. Thus he said the U.S. must restrict terrorist’s use of these weapons because it is impossible to bargain with the kind of organizations who attack civilians. Dr. Bal argued that the Turkish people are disappointed because the US has not fulfilled its responsibilities in Iraq. Speaking about the possible Turkish operation, Dr. Bal said that Turkey must demonstrate that all the diplomatic approaches have been tried to legitimize it and that the effect and role of the U.S. would be very significant. In speeches Turkish diplomats are explicitly and implicitly stating that there are no alternatives beside a cross border operation. As an ally of Turkey, he U.S. must cooperate with Turkey to solve the problem. A very important point emphasized by Dr. Bal was that Barzani must choose whether he prefers to cooperate with a terrorist organization which kills civilians every day or prefers to work with the Turkish people who are contributing to Iraq’s development by investing in the country. He added that the U.S. must take into consideration the Turkish Ambassador’s speech and that if the U.S. adopts the measures contained in it, relations between the U.S. and Turkey may improve in the future.All these improvements and speeches demonstrate that a new process is beginning between the U.S. and Turkey and mutual measures and actions will define the future of the relationship. The tension between Turkey and Iraq is being exacerbated by the news and the existence of PKK in the North of Iraq. Turkey hopes to see a concrete step from U.S. and the adoption of measures to address the problem. Although Barzani knows of the terrorist camps in the region, he has made no attempt to close them, or to prevent the establishment of new ones, while simultaneously refusing to accept any possible Turkish intervention. The Turkish Ambassador’s speech looms large in this new and sensitive process . The following days will show its effects.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/46832/captured-u-s-origin-weapons-increased-the-tensions-between-turkey-iraq-and-us.html
Serpil AÇIKALIN
13.07.2007
By Serpil ACIKALIN (USAK)
On Wednesday the Turkish Ambassador in Washington, Nabi Sensoy, stated that the PKK terrorist organization has weapons of U.S. origin, but he suggested that he does not believe the weapons were given to the PKK militias directly by the U.S.. Mr. Sensoy added that the weapons may be coming from the supplies provided by the U.S. military to the Iraqi government.
Mr. Sensoy also emphasized that Turkey had demanded that Washington use its influence on the Iraqi Kurds to end their support to for PKK activities in the region and to force Barzani and his supporters to recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization and lay the legal groundwork for measures to be taken against the PKK in the North of Iraq. Turkish Ambassador Sensoy said that the Turkish nation does not have any more patience on this issue and the weapons found on the captured PKK terrorists indicate that the US and Iraqi officials are “not doing enough” to prevent PKK attacks . As a result, Turkey reserves the right to carry out military action against the PKK. “Those who help the PKK terrorists share their goals,” Nabi Sensoy said. Turkey has been fighting against PKK terrorist organization since 1980s and up until today more than 40.000 people have been killed by PKK terrorism. The PKK is considered a terrorist organization by the US and EU. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ihsan Bal from USAK, an Ankara based Turkish think tank, said that confessions of previously captured terrorists and equipment captured in terrorist operations proved that there are some U.S supplied weapons passed to the PKK and were used by this terrorist organization against Turkish civilian and military targets. Turkey is trying to get the support of the U.S to put pressure on Iraq. Dr. Bal emphasized that the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq was to stop the alleged production of “chemical and other weapons” and that the situation of today is very similar. Thus he said the U.S. must restrict terrorist’s use of these weapons because it is impossible to bargain with the kind of organizations who attack civilians. Dr. Bal argued that the Turkish people are disappointed because the US has not fulfilled its responsibilities in Iraq. Speaking about the possible Turkish operation, Dr. Bal said that Turkey must demonstrate that all the diplomatic approaches have been tried to legitimize it and that the effect and role of the U.S. would be very significant. In speeches Turkish diplomats are explicitly and implicitly stating that there are no alternatives beside a cross border operation. As an ally of Turkey, he U.S. must cooperate with Turkey to solve the problem. A very important point emphasized by Dr. Bal was that Barzani must choose whether he prefers to cooperate with a terrorist organization which kills civilians every day or prefers to work with the Turkish people who are contributing to Iraq’s development by investing in the country. He added that the U.S. must take into consideration the Turkish Ambassador’s speech and that if the U.S. adopts the measures contained in it, relations between the U.S. and Turkey may improve in the future.All these improvements and speeches demonstrate that a new process is beginning between the U.S. and Turkey and mutual measures and actions will define the future of the relationship. The tension between Turkey and Iraq is being exacerbated by the news and the existence of PKK in the North of Iraq. Turkey hopes to see a concrete step from U.S. and the adoption of measures to address the problem. Although Barzani knows of the terrorist camps in the region, he has made no attempt to close them, or to prevent the establishment of new ones, while simultaneously refusing to accept any possible Turkish intervention. The Turkish Ambassador’s speech looms large in this new and sensitive process . The following days will show its effects.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/46832/captured-u-s-origin-weapons-increased-the-tensions-between-turkey-iraq-and-us.html
Serpil AÇIKALIN
13.07.2007
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)