The News Behind The News
March 4, 2000
Turkey's Place in the Peace Process
by Paul Michael Wihbey, IASPS Strategic Fellow
The contentious issue of Israel's proposed withdrawal to the June 4, 1967, lines is not only a struggle between Israel and Syria over control of Golan water supplies, but also a risky tactical move to engage the Turks in the current round of negotiations by having Ankara compensate Syria with additional volume from Turkish rivers, either by diplomatic arrangement or purchase.
However, recent statements by high ranking Turkish officials have made it clear that Turkey "would not accept any peace deal between Israel and Syria reached over Turkish waters" (Turkish Daily News Feb.5/00). Turkish President Demirel reinforced this position when he said that the idea of selling water (to Syria) from the Seyhan and Ceyhan rivers was premature. He indicated that these water flows might be required for domestic consumption and as a part of a strategy to deal with Syria and terrorism (TDN, Feb. 21/00).
In a Jan 6, 2000, interview with the Turkish Daily News, IASPS Strategic Fellow PM WIHBEY outlined the regional implications of a water-driven Israel/Syrian Golan agreement and its impact on Turkish national security considerations. The article is reproduced below in its entirety.
US experts warn of Syrian attempts to bargain over water issue
Harun Kazaz
Washington - Turkish Daily News
While the U.S. State Department, on Tuesday, concurred with the statement from the Turkish Foreign Ministry, confirming that Turkey had not asked the United States to see that Syria stays on the list of countries supporting terrorism, American experts argue that Ankara should be vigilant about Syria's efforts to bring the Turkish water issue to the negotiating table. Stressing that the scope of negotiations should be broadened to include economic and political issues. Experts say that Syria should formally recognize Hatay as a part of Turkey, halt its support of the PKK and allow water experts to carry out research on Syrian soil in order to determine the amount of water Syria really needs before any bargaining on Turkey's assets takes place. Ankara had previously stated that it had not made any requests from the U.S. administration over Syria since the Adana Agreement which was signed with Damascus in October 1998.
Speaking to the Turkish Daily News, a State Department official said: "There has definitely been no request from Turkey to not remove Syria from the terror list. The Turkish Foreign Ministry has been accurate [in its statement], and we have had no requests for them concerning Syria."
The Foreign Ministry's statement was a refutation of allegations printed in a Jan. 3 article in the Jerusalem Post by David Makovsky, with the headline "Turkey to US: Don't take Syria off terror list."
Commenting on the current talks and its tie to Turkish issues Michael Wihbey of the Institute for Advance Strategic and Political Studies said: "The Syrian objective is, essentially, to secure a non-belligerency agreement with Israel which provides for security but denies normalization and trade. Getting all of the Golan Heights, getting some kind of security guarantee backed by the United States, legitimization of the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, and getting billions of dollars of U.S. aid to rebuild the Syrian armed forces and other infrastructure are the Syrian negotiator's goals." In this context, Wihbey explains, "If Syria can successfully draw the Turkish water issue into the talks, it would try to indirectly effect Turkish policies by using Israel and the United States"
According to Wihbey the clearly dominant parties, i.e. United States and Israel, should broaden the scope of the negotiations to take in economic and political issues, rather than just security.
Wihbey outlined the subjects that needed to be discussed to create a comprehensive framework that would bring stability to the region: "A verification process to insure that Syria dismantles all terrorist infrastructures operating under its auspices, including the PKK and Hizbollah; the elimination of the traditional Syrian claims of deniability for violations of security arrangements by having Damascus give diplomatic recognition to Lebanon. This would greatly facilitate a separate Lebanese agreement with Israel that would provide for normalization and trade; formal Syrian recognition of the Hatay region as an integral part of Turkey; Syrian acceptance of a recognized international technical scientific body to evaluate Syrian water management and irrigation capabilities prior to having Turkey make any concessions regarding water flow to Syria; U.S. financial assistance to Syria to be used for social and economic development rather the modernization and expansion of the Syrian armed forces; acceptance by Syria of essential market reforms that even the most remote countries of Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa have willingly incorporated into their economic policies."
Commenting on the aid issue Robert Satloff, the executive director of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said: "Unlike the other two participants, however, Washington has so far not indicated what it wants from these negotiations, or what it is willing to pay to get it. Although Washington dons the cap of the impartial mediator, it is disingenuous to suggest that the United States cares equally about advancing the interests of both Israel and Syria -- one an ally, the other a charter member of the list of states that sponsor terrorism."
"For Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, that is the real prize. Perhaps the most urgent objective for the 69-year-old Mr. Assad is to exploit peace with Israel in order to cultivate among the American political elite an interest in the survival of his brutal dictatorship. Even a small aid package would achieve this goal, an especially important one when reports of Mr. Assad's declining mental and physical capabilities and his family's violent internal feuding suggest profound vulnerability within his regime. What makes this issue especially complex is that Israel is usually the chief lobbyist on behalf of U.S. aid to the Arab side. That is because Israel believes that Arab clients of Washington are less likely to break the peace and risk losing American largesse," said Satloff.
Meanwhile Prime Minister Ehud Barak has asked Washington for a massive $17 billion security package in the case of a Golan Heights withdrawal, including cruise missile capability, something that the United States has granted only to Britain. It is also likely that any aid package would have to include economic incentives for Syria. Clinton and the U.S. Congress seem destined to confront one another over any Israeli-Syrian peace deal. With only a year left in his term, Clinton seemingly wants an agreement before he leaves office to cement his presidential legacy as a peacemaker.
The News Behind the News Archive