"The situation would not be any different if the country was under occupation. I believe that it would be better if we were trying to solve such problems in our own country rather than focusing on the Kurds in Northern Iraq, " Azrak argues.
On Mar. 1 Turkish parliament had rejected a motion allowing "the presence and deployment of foreign military troops". That is, the parliament voted against giving U.S. forces a foothold on Turkish soil. Discussions around issuing a second motion followed immediately, because of the fact that an attack on Iraq by U.S. would not be feasible without the Northern front.
In terms of these discussions, a public statement by Turkey's chief of staff Gen Hilmi Ozkok has been interpreted as inviting a second motion.
Last Wednesday Ozkok had spoken of the "inevitability" of Turkish military involvement in a war on Iraq, despite the parliament's vote.
"Unfortunately we are left to choose between worse and worst, not between good and bad. If we remain completely uninvolved in the war we will be faced with the same losses should we have been involved," he said.
"But we would remain without any say in the post-war situation or in any compensation for our losses from the war," he added.
According to Azrak, Ozkok's statement is an "ultimatum to the parliament".
The embarkment of U.S. military equipment from the Mediterranean port of Iskenderun had been cancelled after the vote. However, following Ozkok's remarks heavy U.S. military mobilization was reported.
U.S. military convoys are reported to have resumed transportation of personnel, vehicles and supplies after a week's break. U.S. is preparing to set up coordination headquarters in Mardin.
"The U.S. trusts the ruling AKP (Justice and Development Party) leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the chief of military staff to such an extent that they are set to work without bothering to wait for a resolution to be accepted in the parliament," Azrak argues.
"In spite of the verdict of the parliament, Turkey is becoming a de facto side in the war" and "The government is committing a constitutional crime by not taking action against those who run counter to the parliament's decision" he adds.
Prof. Dr. Azrak, an academician in Maltepe University's Faculty of Law has commented on the recent developments for "bianet":
Ozkok's Statement is a Ultimatum for the Parliament
Can Turkey be seen as taking part in the war as one of the sides, even though the Parliament has voted otherwise by rejecting the resolution?
The U.S. believes that a second resolution will be issued. They trust Tayyip Erdoğan and the chief of military staff.
The decision of the Parliament has been a shock for the military officers who had chosen not to express their opinion in the National Security Council before the vote, thinking "The resolution will be accepted anyway, the parliament will sort it out, let us not get involved in this." And now, immediately, the chief of military staff has intervened.
Is the current U.S. attitude legal?
Of course not. If the U.S. waits for the resolution to be issued, the Northern Iraq operation will be delayed. To avoid such a delay, they act as if the resolution will be issued anyway, and as if therefore they can do what they want.
This brings about a legal question. In fact, according to the U.S. the decision of the Turkish parliament has no effect.
They do not take notice of the verdict of the parliament and yet authorities are not warning them, the government does not say anything. And the military is collaborating with U.S. troops, instead of voicing their opposition to this situation.
What is the significance of this?
This is very dangerous in terms of Turkey's rights as a sovereign state. The situation would not be any different if there was an occupation. An occupation is when a state acts on its own will without consulting you and in spite of you. Where have Turkey's sovereignty rights gone?
I believe that it would be better if we were trying to solve such problems in our own country, rather than focusing on the Kurds of Northern Iraq...
What should be done about this?
The government has to tell the US military authorities how they should be acting. They should say "Stay away and wait until the motion is accepted in the parliament".
According to the previous deals, U.S. troops are only allowed to be located in Incirlik, Adana in Mediterranean region. Beyond this, they do not have the right to military deployment and operation from the ports such actions should be stopped. And the authorities tasked with this are the Ministry of Domestic Affairs, the government, the chief of military staff. Turkish armed forces' collaboration with the U.S. troops should be ended immediately.
In the current situation Turkey is de facto preparing for the war as a side in the war. And it is so even though the verdict of the parliament runs counter to this. They are not practicing the verdict of the parliament. The government, by remaining passive in this process, is undermining the force of the parliament decision, and thus committing a constitutional crime. (BB/BE)
