Even though there are
other tense conflict regions in the world, the Middle-East, the
Caucasus and the Balkans are, without a doubt, the main areas of
turmoil and war.
In these regions -which border
Turkey from the south-east, north-east and north-west-
contradictions between nations have intensified. At the same
time, the competition of the big powers to broaden their spheres
of influence and seize strategic positions is increasing.
The history of this century
and of the two World Wars has proved that these regions always
have a great strategic importance for the inter-imperialist
struggle for hegemony. For this reason, they have always been
regions of tension, unrest and war.
The conflicts in these regions
should not be considered as temporary phenomenon. In the present
period, where the contradictions between the imperialist powers
are deepening, the economic, political and military importance of
these regions is growing rapidly.
Consequently, the conflicts embroiling these regions do not only
consist of mutual animosity between the regional nations and
peoples. They are actually provoked and supported by the
imperialist countries. It is obvious that if the interference of
the imperialist countries stopped, the national reactionary
forces that provoke these conflicts and wars could not survive.
Nor would there be any reason left for the nations and peoples of
the region to become enemies and fight each other.
Following the collapse of the
Eastern Bloc these regions have quickly become an arena of the
struggle for the re-division of the world, to reflect the new and
unstable balance of power. As a result they inevitably began to
suffer national and social disintegration, degeneration and wars.
Recent events have shown graphically the imperialist interests
behind these conflicts and wars and the powers fighting for these
interests.
Even the defenders of
imperialism cannot deny that those who incite and arm the Israeli
Zionists, Arab reactionary forces and Saddam reaction against the
Arab and Palestinian people and Iranian revolution are US
imperialism and other imperialist states. Examples of this are
the strengthening of Israeli Zionism against the Arabic-Islamist
peoples, the existence of pro-American kingdoms and reactionary
Arab regimes despite the hatred of their peoples, and the
subjugation of the Arab, Palestinian and Kurdish movements to
imperialism, etc.
Imperialist powers claimed
"to establish peace" in the region. Yet it is they who
have provoked the national friction in the Balkans and led
socialist Albania, which was an element of stability and peace in
the region, to collapse. They have also provoked the
disintegration of Yugoslavia and the turmoil in Bulgaria and
Romania. They armed these countries and divided them into enemy
camps. They also made the reactionary Titoism the bully of the
Balkans.
However, the situation has
changed in the last five-six years. New conflicting interests
have emerged and new collaborator cliques have been organised.
Despite the futile attempts to cover the reality, obviously
Russia, Britain and the US -despite their indecision- are
supporting the armed Serbian reactionary forces, and on the other
hand the Slovak, Croatian and Bosnian reactionary forces are
being supported by Germany and France.
The Caucasus were under the
control of the Soviet social imperialism in the past. Following
the disintegration of the Soviet Union it is now embroiled in a
new and growing conflict between Russia, the US and other
imperialist countries. The Western capitalist countries, mainly
the US, are trying to preserve the collaborator classes generated
on the basis of national animosities in the Caucasus. Russia, on
the other hand, is trying to strengthen its regional influence by
both making these countries and nations fight each other and, at
the same time, "mediating" between them for
"peace".
What is happening in the
Middle-East, the Caucasus and the Balkans is this: The
contradictions between the regional nations, peoples and states,
which have been continuously inflamed by the big powers, are now
being further provoked and made antagonistic. The main reasons
for the unrest and war in these areas are the hegemony of
imperialism over the regional nations and peoples, and the
intense fight between the big capitalist states for new markets
and spheres of influence. Although the surface appearance of the
conflict is different, the deeper reality is that those who have
become enemies and who waged war against each other are actually
not the regional nations and peoples, but the imperialist
countries themselves fighting for hegemony. The present period is
one of redivision of the world among the big capitalist powers.
Furthermore, each imperialist country is aware that if one
establishes its hegemony and ensures its superiority in these
regions, it will be better placed to influence other regions.
These three areas are strategically the most important areas in
the world as far as imperialist states aspiring for the world
hegemony are concerned. Characteristically, imperialist
interference in these regions is carried out under the pretext of
"peace-keeping", "democracy",
"justice" and "humanitarian aid".
It is a well-known fact that
Turkey is playing the role of a subcontractor of the imperialist
states in their interference in the problems in these regions.
For the last five-six years, its official policy has been to
provoke rivalry and tension with the neighbouring countries. It
is trying to interfere in all problems in the Middle-East, the
Caucasus and Balkans. Despite its economic crisis, it is pressing
ahead with its armament policy.
What are the main features of
Turkey's foreign policy? First, it supports the attacks of the
imperialist coalition against the Iraqi and Arab peoples. It even
attempted, for example, to occupy Iraq during the war. It
constantly interferes in the internal affairs of the Caucasian
republics and encourages the interference of the imperialist
troops in the region. It promotes enmity in the Balkans and
insists on Nato's occupation of the region. It is dangerously
escalating tension with neighbouring countries such as Greece,
Syria and Iran. Finally, it is making special efforts to send
troops to each region in crisis and to provide military bases to
the Western imperialists.
This policy directly impinges
on the daily life and interests of the Turkish and Kurdish
workers and labourers as it can push the country and people into
the catastrophe of war.
Turkish and Kurdish workers
and labourers should closely watch Turkey's foreign policy
towards the Balkans, Middle-East and Caucasus. They must make
this practice a part of their daily struggle. Clearly, the
aggressive attitude towards neighbouring peoples and interference
in the conflicts driven by imperialist ambitions finds its
reflection in Turkey's domestic policy. This manifests itself in
the deception of the workers and labouring masses, fierce
oppression and tyranny.
The working class and people
of Turkey should not be indifferent to the foreign policy of the
Turkish ruling classes. They should promote brotherhood with the
neighbouring nations and the regional peoples and defend their
own national class interests. It is not possible for the workers
to make any progress without carrying out a struggle on the
political front. One aspect of the political struggle is to take
up foreign relations and the problems of foreign policy, while
the other is to tackle with domestic issues.
It should be born in mind that
one of the shortcomings of the workers' movement of Turkey is its
indifference to Turkey's foreign policy and its international
relations.
As the last few years have
shown, without overcoming this weakness, it is not possible to
prevent the ruling classes influencing some sections of the
labouring classes by spreading illusions about external affairs.
In the history of
civilisations and of imperialism, the Balkans has been one of the
most important regions of turmoil and war. Big powers, especially
in the last century, have been the instigators of conflicts
between the Balkan countries. They have also wanted to subjugate
the regional nations and peoples to their interests.
The roots of the
contradictions and problems among the Balkan countries have
originated in the frictions caused by this historical fight for
hegemony. The contradictions which prevent stability and peace in
the region and which produce conflicts and wars between the
neighbouring nations and states are not intrinsically insoluble.
However, the Balkan peoples and states keep falling into
meaningless and reactionary enmities and wars. Undoubtedly, the
main reason lies in the hegemony of the imperialist countries
over the regional peoples and in the frequent inter-imperialist
fights to alter the power-balance.
The present violent national wars and conflicts in the Balkans
are not a settling of accounts among the regional nations and
peoples. On the contrary, despite their present appearances, they
are clashes between the imperialist states fighting for hegemony
and influence, and between their collaborator national
reactionary forces. The imperialist countries are presently
carrying out their 'work' through their collaborators. As we
know, the Balkans crises are dubbed "temporary",
originating from "the resistance of the forces of the old
regime to the transition to the free market and democracy".
There is no doubt that such 'explanations' by the imperialist
governments are designed to deceive the workers and labourers and
to justify their external interventions.
There is only one reason why the imperialist countries show
special interest to the Balkans and why the turmoil, tensions and
wars in the region come to the fore front: The profound deception
of the Balkan peoples in order for the big capitalist countries
to seize the Balkan countries completely. It is obvious that the
imperialist states are behind the conflagration in the Balkans.
There are two main reasons why the Balkans is important in the
struggle of the big capitalist powers for hegemony: Firstly, the
Balkans is a relatively more advanced market among the
underdeveloped dependent regions. Secondly, it is one of the few
regions which is of great military-strategic importance in the
inter-imperialist struggle for hegemony.
Besides their economic importance for the capitalist monopolies
and imperialist states, the Balkan countries also have a great
significance in terms of their political and military position.
The Balkans is in a region where the world trade routes and
energy transport lines intersect. It is, at the same time, a
region overlooking these routes and lines (Suez-Gibraltar). Thus,
when the re-division of the world is on the agenda, it becomes
the most important foothold controlling three continents, and
enabling a dominant power to strike against, control and defend
the Middle-East, the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Caucasus
and even Europe.
For over 30 years, the Balkan Peninsula, with the exception of
Albania, was divided into the English-American and the Soviet
Russian spheres of influence. The collapse of Soviet Russia has
opened new spheres of influence to English-American imperialism.
It has also led to the intervention of German imperialism, which
was waiting in the wings, and to its emergence as an influential
power in the Balkans. Germany has disturbed the English-American
"status-quo", become dominant in Slovenia and Croatia
and relatively in Albania, Romania, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. This
has inevitably led the Anglo-American governments, which together
constituted a barricade against the Soviet Russia for thirty
years, to step up their struggle. Using the same methods, these
countries have covertly backed Serbian reaction, and consolidated
their relations with Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
They have also maintained international public opinion. Russia,
in the meantime, has not been idle. It has attempted to make
itself a focus in the conflict, increasing its pressure on
Romania and announcing its brotherhood with Serbia.
In the conflicts in former-Yugoslavia, the European countries,
including Germany, but with the exception of Britain, have taken
position on one side, and the Anglo-American and Russian
imperialists, even though with contradictory plans, on the other.
Undoubtedly, the conflicts in the Balkans have become chronic
because of these groupings and attempts which constitute the
corresponding form of imperialist intervention and wrangle to the
existing "relations".
The fact that the big imperialist states act in accordance with
the UN resolutions that suggest a "peaceful solution"
to the warring sides and conduct joint military operations from
time to time should not fool anyone. It is true that these states
act in "alliance" in their intervention into the
Balkans, as they generally do everywhere. However, this
"alliance" contains within it conflicting interests and
is characterised by aggressive demands against each other.
If the behind the scene participants in the wars in the Balkans
are the big powers, how can they intervene together? How can, for
instance, US war planes bomb Serbian positions when they actually
support them? On what basis can Germany threaten Croatia, its
ally?
The answers to these questions are hidden in the following two
phenomena: Firstly, although there is development towards open
international conflicts, inter-imperialist contradictions have
not yet deepened enough to the point which will lead to a
complete disintegration, an open confrontation against each other
or to the consolidation of rival blocs. Economic and political
phenomena compel the imperialist governments to act as allies in
their interventions against the oppressed nations and peoples. On
the other hand, they are compelled to pursue their conflicting
interests and struggle for re-division through their
collaborators and policies cloaked in the diplomatic language of
pseudo "peace" and "democracy".
Secondly, the attempts of the regional reactionary forces to
expand and strengthen themselves have contradicted the general
interests and policies of the imperialist powers backing them.
Therefore, the necessity of bringing these reactionary forces
'into line' compels the interventionist powers to act under the
banner of the "United Nations".
The fight of the imperialist states for hegemony in the Balkans
is not prompted by immediate interests or by the possibilities of
exploitation and profit. For a century, the chief imperialist
countries have been implementing their Balkan policies according
to the strategic needs of the re-division of the world. The
policy pursued by the Anglo-American, German, French and Russian
imperialists is designed to make them the dominant power in the
Balkans, to use their hegemony in the region as a base for their
conflicts in other regions, and to obtain a strategic foothold
when the time comes for a definitive settling of accounts.
TURKEY'S BALKAN POLICY
AND IMPERIALISM
Turkey is one of those rare countries which does not have good
relationships with any of its neighbouring countries. Especially
since the World War II, it has been pursuing a policy of tension
and war in the Balkans, as is the case with all its neighbours.
Due to this policy and attitude, the reactionary forces in Turkey
have got into important and dangerous conflicts with the
bordering Greece and Bulgaria. Its problems with Greece over the
Aegean continental shelf, Cyprus, the Turkish and Greek
minorities, and with Bulgaria on its Turkish minority have been,
until recently, the most significant external problems in the
western border of Turkey. The incidents which took place in the
Balkans in the early 1990s and the imperialist intervention have
led Turkey to exacerbate the contradictions and conflicts in the
region and to create new problems.
The reactionary forces in Turkey have not only pursued a general
policy of provoking war in the Balkans, but have also incited an
international offensive, and sent troops to the region. At the
same time, it has escalated its conflicts with Greece and
continually threatens it with war.
Especially for the last five-six years, Turkey has been pursuing
a policy of intervention in all the problems and conflicts in the
Balkans. It has become one of the diplomatic and military pawns
of the Western countries, mainly of the US, as is shown by its
role in the Middle-East and the Caucasus.
The Turkish bourgeoisie and reactionary forces want to create a
certain public perception of their interventions and initiatives
in the Balkans. They promote the idea that Turkey will become a
political power in Bulgaria, former-Yugoslavia and Albania.
Hence, it will be able to restrict the influence of Russia in the
region and to compete with it. It will lay siege to Greece by
allying with Albania, Bosnia and Macedonia. Finally, through the
"Black Sea Economic Co-operation" it will seize new and
profitable markets in the Balkans. With such a strong position in
the Balkans, Turkey will be taken into consideration by the big
powers allies and have a say everywhere as a leading country
which has guaranteed its security. That is the brief picture
drawn by the Turkish government and its diplomacy to the people
of Turkey regarding the situation of the country and its
prospects in the Balkans.
In fact, however, the bourgeoisie and reactionary forces of
Turkey know that reaching these aims, given the present pattern
of relationships, is a hollow dream. This is because they also
know that the Balkan countries are more developed than Turkey and
that the imperialist states have not left any sphere of hegemony
to Turkey.
Turkey has two main objectives in the Balkans. The first is to
seize the initiative against the collaborator reactionaries in
the region. This would enhance Turkey's world standing. The
possibility would thus be opened to realise regional alliances
against Greece and Russia and to get the support of imperialist
countries for its actions. The second objective is to prevent the
working class and the people from acting as a class and a people;
to spread in their ranks nationalist and imperialist sentiments
and animosity towards other nations. This would lead the people
to accept bourgeois-imperialist interests as "national
interests". This would enable the bourgeoisie to make
repression and terror in the country continuous and efficient.
Inevitably, the workers and labourers will, of course, pay the
price for the system's crisis, its aggressive foreign policy and
its arms build-up.
THE IMPERIALIST WORLD
SYSTEM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MIDDLE-EAST
Throughout the history of imperialism, the Middle-East has been
the most strategic and important region among the underdeveloped
and dependent areas for the big capitalist countries. This
importance stems from the following characteristics:
Firstly, it has significant oil reserves. Oil is the cheapest
source of energy for capitalist industry. Thus, it is vital not
only in terms of greater profits but also for the actual
continuation of this industry. It is not possible for the
capitalist economy and imperialist system to survive without
having a stable and continuous source of oil.
Secondly, the Gulf and the Suez Canal are of great strategic
significance, connecting the west to the east. The Middle-East is
one of the most significant regions of juncture for the world
trade routes and the transportation of energy and raw materials.
No other region constitutes a bridge from the Atlantic to the
Mediterranean, from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean and the
Pacific, and the shortest route connecting the European, Asian
and Africa continents. Undoubtedly, safe and exclusive trade
routes are crucial for the survival of imperialist system.
Thirdly, all of this places a military significance on the
region. The two World Wars have proved that the Middle-East is an
important citadel, when the re-division of the world and open use
of force come onto the agenda. An imperialist country or bloc
which does not bolster its struggle for hegemony and re-division
of the world in the Middle-East is bound to face an impasse when
confrontations come onto the agenda. This explains the intensity
of the imperialist pressure and the struggle for hegemony.
What is important for revolutionary workers are the following
questions: Has the struggle for hegemony ended? Has the
Middle-East, which has always been one of the most important
strategic region, lost its significance? Do developments such as
the on-going diplomacy in the Middle-East, the "peace"
between Palestine and Israel, the "rapprochement"
between Syria and Israel, new channels of relations opening with
Iran, the pressure on Iraq to tame it, the restoring of
"order" in Lebanon, etc. indicate peace, stability or
well being in the Middle-East?
It is true that the collapse of the USSR left US imperialism as
the only super power in this region for the time being. The US
has been presented with the opportunity to insist on a new
status-quo favourable to it without leaving any possibility for
an alternative.
However, it is obvious that the two main protagonists are not yet
in the position to openly challenge each other face-to-face.
These adversaries are the regional peoples who have been
suppressed and bamboozled into illusions and the imperialist
powers which have begun to articulate their demands and tensions
in an increasingly open manner.
\tab The status-quo enforced by US imperialism has not been able
to solve the problems and conflicts. In fact, they remain in a
more complicated form. Germany, France and Russia have already
expressed their dissatisfaction with this status-quo through
their initiatives and demands in the region. Moreover, the
complex state of the relationships and contradictions among the
main states and reactionary forces in the region presents more
alternatives to the other imperialist countries.
US imperialism aims to gather the big collaborationist countries
of the region around itself. For the US, countries like Israel,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the main pillars of the US
domination in the region. Israel is the main regional prop of the
USA while Lebanon is its military arena where it can undertake
anything it wants. The US does not operate in a vacuum, however.
Neither the total subjugation of Palestine nor a US success
-partial or otherwise- in grouping regional states around its
strategic concerns in the area would prevent other imperialist
countries from winning footholds. The coalescing of such a US
centred alliance would, however, be a blow against Iran,
increasing its isolation. Such a bloc would also potentially act
as a shield against the anti-imperialist uprisings of the
regional peoples.
However, while it is possible, such a strategy and power-balance
can be realised only temporarily and in exceptional
circumstances. There are problems without solution for the US.
One of the most important factors that inhibit the attempts of
the US to gather the regional states around a single strategy is
the internal problems the Middle-East countries have and their
contradictory external interests. This presents a great
opportunity for the other imperialist countries to undermine the
US-imposed status-quo.
Germany and France have already put forward their demands as the
countries seeking hegemony. Despite the fact that Iran was
labelled a "terrorist state" by the US, they have
improved their relations with it. They intervene in the Kurdish
question and the "peace" process in Palestine with a
different angle to the US. Russia has declared that the
Middle-East is in its sphere of influence. It pursues a policy of
revitalising its relationship with the regional states,
inhibiting the rapprochement between Syria and the US, easing the
pressures on Iraq, improving its dialogue with Palestine and
strengthening its relationship with Iran.
All of this give the regional countries more alternatives and
represents an important weakness for the US-sponsored status-quo.
On the other hand, under the circumstances where
inter-imperialist conflicts become explicit, inevitably the
regional peoples who are tired of oppression and poverty will
wake up and start to mobilise. No matter how it seems today, it
is undeniable that the supposed developing "peace
process" is a deception and that the present uncertainty in
the Middle-East heralds new conflicts, unrest and political
alignments.
TURKEY'S MIDDLE-EAST
POLICY AND IMPERIALISM
Turkey is a Middle-East country even though it has different
characteristics to most. Moreover, it is in conflict with the
three main countries in this region, i.e. Iran, Syria and Iraq.
The reactionary forces in Turkey are keen to participate in the
conflicts among the regional states as well as between
imperialist countries. This attitude manifested itself explicitly
during the international attack on Iraq, when Turkey acted in a
so blood-thirsty barbarian manner that no other reactionary force
could risk.
Turkey's policy towards the Middle-East, like that towards the
Balkans and the Caucasus, has been based for the last five-six
years on the aim of "the Turkish Islam world from the
Adriatic to the Chinese Wall". Undoubtedly, this policy
takes into consideration the Kurdish question both in terms of
its destructiveness and the possibilities presented by this
issue. We can say that Turkey's Middle-East policy has special
features in comparison with the other two regions. This is
because for Turkey the Kurdish question, on the one hand,
constitutes a great risk and, on the other, a "hope".
The fear of "losing" Turkey Kurdistan and the
"hope" of seizing Iraq Kurdistan and Musul are
organically united. This is the unique feature of Turkey's
Middle-East policy.
The bourgeoisie and government implements this policy hiding its
attempts in the region behind the demagogy of "peace",
"humanitarian considerations" and "national
interests". In order for the people to identify with this
policy, they attach a special importance to the propaganda of
"the danger of the division of the country". The fact
that the reactionary forces in Turkey have no peaceful intention
is being illustrated by its oppression of the Kurdish people.
Competition with the neighbouring countries, weakening them and
strengthening against them has been the traditional policy of the
reactionary forces in Turkey. This policy became quite explicit
during the imperialist attack in the Middle-East. Turkey's policy
degenerated to the extent that it made the country a
subcontractor of the US and European imperialists against the
Arab and Islam peoples. The reactionary forces of Turkey
manifested its animosity towards the Middle-Eastern peoples by
taking part in the US military intervention in Lebanon in 1956.
During the latest attack, the Gulf War, it proved this animosity
by being a despicable tribune of war. The aim of this policy is
to curry favour with the imperialist countries, to find
international support for the reactionary fascist offensive that
it carries out domestically and to market itself to the
imperialist powers for a higher price.
The reactionary forces of Turkey are more explicitly orientating
towards the orbit of US Middle-East policy which is based on the
alliance of Egypt, Israel and Turkey. They are also stepping up
their attempts to manipulate the deepening inter-imperialist
contradictions and the present uncertainties. Obviously, these
policies carry the risk of deepening the hostility with the
neighbouring peoples. They also pose the threat of meaningless
wars.
The working class and people of Turkey have to watch the
Middle-East policy of the bourgeoisie and reaction closely. They
must scrutinise their ploys in the region and react as necessary.
Otherwise, the country will be dragged into catastrophe and
destruction. Obviously, the burdens of all these policies and
manoeuvres will be shifted onto the working class and the people.
Everybody knows that the Zonguldak resistance and the Metal
strikes were broken under the pretext of the war in the
Middle-East and 300 thousand workers were sacked, again with the
same justification. The working class and the people of Turkey
have to understand that supporting the struggle of the Kurdish
people and their right to freedom and actively opposing the
policies of the bourgeoisie and reaction in the Middle-East mean
defending their own interests. They must realise this and act
accordingly.
Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP)