[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12106-12108]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             CALLING FOR THE RESIGNATION OF PAUL WOLFOWITZ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was appalled 2 weeks ago 
to read that Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the key 
policymakers in this administration, had publicly criticized, for 
Turkish consumption, the Turkish military for abiding by democracy. In 
an interview, which I will put into the Record, with CNN Turk, Deputy 
Secretary Wolfowitz repeatedly criticized the Turkish military because 
it had allowed democracy to function in Turkey. And he ought to resign. 
We have much too much at stake in our effort to bring stable democracy 
to the world in general, and particularly the Middle East, to allow a 
man to stay in that high office who has allowed himself to say that the 
military did too little, was not strong enough in pressing a 
democratically elected government. Indeed, it is especially disturbing 
to have that said with regard to the government of Turkey.
  Trying to encourage Islamist movements that are genuinely democratic 
is one of our highest goals. The clash that some have argued exists 
between Islamic fundamentalism and democracy is a terrible threat to 
the world. We have in Turkey now a government that has Islamist groups, 
the political majority, and is also committed to democracy. And that 
parliament made a decision, not the government but the parliament, that 
we did not like. It failed to get a sufficient majority to join us in 
the war effort.
  And here is what Paul Wolfowitz has to say: `` . . . many of the 
institutions in Turkey that we think of as the traditional strong 
support is the alliance were not as forceful in leading in that 
direction.''
  Question: ``Which traditional alliance are you talking about?''
  `` . . . I think particularly the military.'' This is Mr. Wolfowitz: 
``I think for whatever reason they did not play the strong leadership 
role on that issue that we would have expected.'' And the questioners 
were somewhat puzzled. Here is a high American official. We have said 
we are going to war in Iraq in part to bring about democracy, and he is 
criticizing a military in Turkey because it had not strongly tried to 
influence the elected officials? So they say what kind of a role the 
military might have because after all the military is not in 
parliament. And another interviewer says: ``And they have been 
criticized by getting involved in politics.''
  Mr. Wolfowitz seems to realize he said something that he should not 
have, but he cannot help himself. His contempt for the democratic 
process, if it comes out with results he does not like, was too strong. 
His partisanship on this issue was too strong. So here is what Mr. 
Wolfowitz says: ``I'm not suggesting you get involved in politics at 
all. I mean, I think, all I'm saying is that when you had an issue of 
Turkey's national interest . . . I think it's perfectly appropriate, 
especially in your system,'' my emphasis, ``for the military to say it 
was in Turkey's interest to support the United States in that effort.''
  The interviewer says: ``Didn't they say that?''
  Mr. Wolfowitz's response: ``I don't know. My impression is they 
didn't say it with the kind of strength that would have made a 
difference.''
  In other words, they did not muscle the government. They did not use 
armed force, the threat of armed force, as unfortunately the Turkish 
military has in the past, to force the Turkish Parliament to take an 
action which we wanted them to take.
  Mr. Wolfowitz is the Deputy Secretary of Defense. As David Greenway 
pointed out in the Boston Globe last week, ``The Turks are perfectly 
aware of the Pentagon's creeping takeover of U.S. foreign policy. There 
will be some who consider Wolfowitz's remarks as encouragement to boot 
out Erdogan,'' the Turkish prime minister.
  Let me stress again how important it is for the experiment we are 
seeing in Turkey to succeed, a democratic Islamist government, and they 
had a tough issue that we dropped in their laps; and the parliament 
voted and the government tried and could not get a majority. And the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense says the military was not strong enough, 
the military did not intervene forcefully enough the way that they 
traditionally have? This is appalling to have such a high-ranking 
American official say this, and we have already got problems in post-
war Iraq.
  The administration's policy is a shambles there. Mr. Wolfowitz can 
take some of the responsibility for that. He is one of those who 
scoffed when Army Chief of Staff Shinseki said we are going to need 
several hundred thousand troops, and now of course we are being told 
150,000 troops is not enough. But we have this terrible problem in Iraq 
clearly now since there have not been found the kinds of weapons that 
the administration said there would be, certainly not in the quantity 
they predicted.
  The justification for Iraq is the impact it will have on governments 
in Iraq and in the rest of the Middle East. How does it help to have 
our Deputy Secretary of Defense, one of the shapers of that policy, now 
say, by the way, when we say democracy, we mean a democracy where the 
military intervenes strongly, not just gives its viewpoint but 
intervenes strongly to make sure things come out? Things in Iraq and 
our credibility are in enough trouble without Paul Wolfowitz 
compounding it, and he ought to resign.

                 [From the Boston Globe, May 16, 2003]

                        Democracy, Neocon Style

                          (By H.D.S. Greenway)

       Neoconservatives, who have risen to great power and 
     influence within the Bush administration, have told us of 
     their sweeping design to transform the Middle East into a 
     model of democracy. Skeptics have demurred, but the neocons 
     have countered that the doubters lack vision. There have been 
     recent events, however, that bring into question the 
     sincerity of these grand visionaries.
       Take, for example, the recent remarks of Deputy Secretary 
     of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, perhaps the most influential of 
     the right-wing conservatives in government. Although the 
     State Department got most of the blame for the diplomatic 
     debacle over Turkey's failure to allow US troops to transit 
     en route to Iraq, it was Wolfowitz who conducted much of the 
     negotiations.
       As it was, Turkey's new, democratically elected Parliament 
     said no, much to Washington's chagrin and to the 
     embarrassment of the Turkish government, which had urged a 
     ``yes'' vote. Turkey was not the first government in a 
     democratic state to be rebuffed by legislators. It happens in 
     the United States all the time.
       But last week, in an interview with CNN, Wolfowitz lashed 
     out at the Turkish military for the failure to fall into 
     line. ``I think for whatever reason, they did not play the 
     strong leadership role that we would have expected,'' he 
     said.
       Consider the ramifications of this statement in the Turkish 
     context. Democracy in Turkey is alive but fragile. Open 
     elections began only in the 1950s. Traditionally the Turkish 
     military has seen itself as the guardian of the secular state 
     that Kemal Ataturk put into place following the end of the 
     Ottoman Empire after World War I.
       The Turkish generals have made it a habit to step in from 
     time to time to dismiss governments they do not like, 
     returning rule to civilians only when it suits them. The last 
     time this happened was in the late 1990s, when Prime Minister 
     Necmettin Erbakan was chucked out of power by the military 
     for being too anti-Western and too Islamic.
       Islam is a growing force in Turkey, especially among the 
     rural poor now flooding into cities. Turkey's armed forces 
     and the elites are determined to keep the country secular. 
     Recent Turkish elections swept all the establishment parties 
     away and brought to power a new Parliament with a decided 
     Islamic bent. Its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a former 
     mayor of Istanbul, was at first banned from becoming prime 
     minister because of a nationalistic poem with Islamic imagery 
     that he had once read aloud.
       But Erdogan and his party had gone out of their way to be 
     pro-West and moderate, and the military kept to its barracks. 
     Eventually, Erdogan was allowed to assume the prime ministry, 
     which he deserved, but not before he had been received by 
     President Bush in the White House.
       Bush rightly decided that, far from being a threat 
     Erdogan's clean government ticket could serve as an example 
     of how a Middle Eastern government could be Islamic, 
     democratic, moderate, and pro-Western all at the same time.
       Erdogan and his government wanted to allow US troops to use 
     Turkish soil to attack Iraq, and not just because of the huge 
     bribe the United States had offered. But the

[[Page 12107]]

     government couldn't persuade enough legislators. Many Turks 
     felt the Parliament had made a mistake, that Turkish 
     interests had been hurt, but the Parliament didn't agree, and 
     that was that. End of story; or so it should have been.
       One might have thought that anyone interested in true 
     democracy would have been impressed and delighted. Here was 
     Parliament defying the government, and the military didn't 
     intervene. An American foreign policy goal is to get the 
     European Union to accept Turkey. One of the EU's legitimate 
     complaints is that the EU is a grouping of democracies and 
     that the banana republic-like actions of the Turkish military 
     over the years indicate that Turkey's democracy is only a 
     sometime thing. But this time around, the Turkish military 
     was not interfering.
       Then up steps Paul Wolfowitz, saying that the Turkish 
     military had not played ``the strong leadership role that we 
     would have expected.'' Does that mean that, in Wolfowitz's 
     view, there should have been a military coup? Or that the 
     Turkish generals should have threatened the Parliament? In 
     the Turkish context there is every reason to interpret the 
     deputy secretary of defense's remarks in that way.
       The Turks are perfectly aware of the Pentagon's creeping 
     takeover of US foreign policy. There will be some who 
     consider Wolfowitz's remarks as encouragement to boot out 
     Erdogan as they did Erbakan. Americans have a right to ask: 
     Do the neocons really want democracy, or do they simply want 
     to bully the Middle East into a semblance of democracy that 
     will toe the American line and further neoconservative 
     imperial fantasies?
                                  ____

                                                      May 6, 2003.

     Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz Interview With CNN Turk

        (Interview Cengiz Candar and M. Ali Birand of CNN Turk)

        On the web: http://dod.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030506-
depsecdef0156.html

       CNN Turk. Welcome Mr. Secretary with Cengiz it's been a bit 
     tight you can imagine to come over to Washington you know to 
     see for 36 hours so if jetlag I think we can manage that but 
     thank you for giving your time.
       Wolfowitz. Thank you to have the two distinguished 
     journalists like you here it's a great privilege for us.
       CNN Turk. That's great but let me fire the first shot. 
     We've had, we know how keen you are around Turkish American 
     relations. We've had a wonderful relationship starting Korea 
     and the Cold War, Afghanistan whatever you name it. But 
     something went wrong, dreadfully went wrong. We started with 
     strategic alliance with strategic relationship. Strategy is 
     gone the relationship I don't know how it's going, and in the 
     meantime we are having two different versions, one version 
     from Pentagon and one version from State Department, but yeah 
     we've had a bit of trouble but it's no problem. We want to 
     have your view on those relations. Where are we standing? Is 
     it the crisis or what happened?
       Wolfowitz. I think we had a big disappointment. But it 
     remains the case that this has been a strong alliance over 
     many years. I think it will continue to be a strong alliance 
     and it remains the case that Turkey is a very important 
     country in this era because it's a country with a Muslim 
     majority that has a strong democratic tradition and I think 
     it remains the case that Turkey can be an important model for 
     that part of the world that we are trying to move in a more 
     positive direction. But I don't think if we want to sustain 
     this strong alliance and indeed strengthen it in the future 
     then we ought to understand what went wrong, we ought to 
     understand the nature of that disappointment and some of it 
     has to do with, if you like, the United States-Turkish 
     bilateral piece of it. But I think it's more helpful to think 
     of the disappointment in terms of the failure to understand 
     what was going on in Iraq. From a United States Turkish point 
     of view there is good news and bad news. The good news is 
     that a majority of the parliament did vote to support us in 
     the things that we asked for. The bad news is that because of 
     the procedural issues that wasn't a big enough majority to 
     get it done and that many of the institutions in Turkey that 
     we think of as the traditional strong support is the alliance 
     were not as forceful in leading in that direction.
       CNN Turk. Which traditional alliance are you talking about?
       Wolfowitz. Well I think you know which ones I mean but I 
     think particularly the military. I think for whatever reason 
     they did not play the strong leadership role on that issue 
     that we would have expected.
       But I think the bigger disappointment has to do with the 
     general failure of the Turkish public reflected also in the 
     government, about what the stakes were in Iraq and that here 
     you have a neighbor with an overwhelmingly Muslim population 
     where the people were suffering under the worst dictator in 
     the world. And one would have thought that Muslim solidarity 
     would have led people to say let's help the Americans 
     liberate these people and that isn't what happened.
       Okay, that's past. We are now in the present and future. 
     The present and future is there's a spectacular opportunity 
     in Iraq to help these newly liberated people achieve their 
     real potential and I think that's what we need to work on 
     together, Turkey and United States and I think what Turkey 
     needs to do is look into its democratic soul and say, yes we 
     believe in democracy, we believe in democracy for Muslims and 
     Arabs. There's an opportunity now, whatever happened in the 
     last few months, there's an opportunity now to work with the 
     Americans to build that in Iraq. Let's seize that opportunity 
     and do everything we can as Turks to support it.
       CNN Turk. But if you make a prognosis of what went wrong 
     earlier, since you mentioned for example the military the 
     traditional institution which had strong connections to the 
     United States did not play a leadership role, so for the 
     future to repair the relationship and bring it back to its 
     original level that means that you have to need a leadership 
     role to be played by those who haven't played it. What kind 
     of a role the military might have because after all the 
     military is not working in Turkey's parliament political 
     parties (inaudible)?
       CNN Turk. And they have been criticized by getting involved 
     in politics.
       Wolfowitz: I'm not suggesting you get involved in politics 
     at all. I mean, I think, all I'm saying is that when you had 
     an issue of Turkey's national interest and national strategy 
     I think it's perfectly appropriate, especially in your 
     system, for the military to say it was in Turkey's interest 
     to support the United States in that effort.
       CNN Turk. Didn't they say that?
       Wolfowitz: I don't know. My impression is they didn't say 
     it with the kind of strength that would have made a 
     difference. But look let's not dwell too much on the past.
       CNN Turk. Let's stick to the past.
       (Laughter)
       Wolfowitz: No.
       Voice. Were you surprised that when you heard that the 
     Turkish Parliament rejected it?
       Wolfowitz. They didn't reject.
       CNN Turk. Passed through?
       Wolfowitz: They didn't pass through. In fact lets, I don't 
     know many Americans are going to watch this program but let's 
     not keep mis-educating people that Turkey's parliament 
     rejected it. They did not get the majority that was needed 
     and it's true we did not get the full support that was 
     needed.
       CNN Turk. Thanks to the Turkish constitution.
       Wolfowitz. And I think at the end of the day, I think 
     Turkey has paid a bigger price for that than we have. I think 
     for one thing the whole economic package could have been 
     something much more substantial. But I also believe we 
     would've achieved more rapidly the kind of stability in 
     Northern Iraq that is as much in Turkey's interest as it is 
     in ours. But we are where we are today and achieving 
     stability in Northern Iraq remains in Turkey's interest, it's 
     very much in our interest, we need to work together to make 
     sure that that's achieved. I think it can be achieved. We've 
     been saying repeatedly and very emphatically, starting with 
     my trip in Ankara back in July, that we oppose an independent 
     Kurdish state in Northern Iraq, that we strongly support 
     maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq. I think it's 
     very interesting and positive that today both of the key 
     Kurdish Barzani and Talabani are in Baghdad trying to become 
     major forces in a future integrated Iraq. That's a positive 
     development, which we all ought to welcome. We need to work 
     together to make that happen. We need to work together, 
     although it's mainly going to be our responsibility, but to 
     make sure that the very difficult property claims that people 
     are making in the north get resolved peacefully and not 
     through force. There are going to be a lot of difficult 
     problems in the period going forward. And I just, you know 
     every so often I hear some people suggesting, well the right 
     reaction for Turkey to this bump in our relationship is, well 
     we should make more friends with Iran and more friends with 
     Syria. Excuse me, that's absolutely the wrong way to go. The 
     right way to go, as I say, is to think about where the real 
     democrats, where does democracy need to be supported. It's 
     going to be a huge boon to Turkey when the sanctions are 
     lifted from Iraq when trade can move easily across the 
     borders and when Iraq begins to realize it's real potential 
     as a democratic neighbor of Turkey.
       CNN Turk. This is also a matter of debate within Turkey 
     itself but whenever an argument is brought it is not the time 
     to have a close relations with Iran and with Syria at 
     juncture of history. Some come up and say that they are our 
     neighbors, when I mean some, they are officials following 
     Islam, they are our neighbors it's very natural that we would 
     have these kinds of relationships. And look the American 
     Secretary of State goes to visit Syria and historically the 
     American Secretary of States like they are one of them, 
     Warren Christopher visited 22 times, never stepping his foot 
     in Turkey. So if this kind of an argument comes, we and 
     Turkey feel that there are different signals coming from 
     Washington. Which kind of signal we have to be the recipient 
     more than the other?
       Wolfowitz. I'm sorry I think there's one signal with 
     respect to Syria. This Secretary

[[Page 12108]]

     of State--I'm not going to talk about previous ones--this 
     Secretary of State went to Syria and delivered a very tough 
     message about how Syria needs to shape up and stop supporting 
     terrorism and stop interfering with Iraq. That's the message 
     that ought to come through and I think anything, that Turkey 
     does what Syria or does with Iran should fit into an overall 
     policy with us, of getting those countries to change their 
     bad behavior. In the meantime, it seems to me, I know this an 
     American view but, if I were Turk I'd believe I would say in 
     spite of whatever has gone wrong in the last year, Turkey's 
     strongest friend in the world is the United States. Turkey's 
     real interests lie with the United States and when we look at 
     our neighbor to the south this newly liberated country called 
     Iraq, we have the same interest the Americans do in keeping 
     it a unified country and making it a democratic country and 
     helping to change the economy from this sort of Stalinist 
     structure that the Iraqis have lived under for 30 years, into 
     the kind of free enterprise economy that's going to be a huge 
     boon to Turkey and all the neighbors.
       CNN Turk. So in a way, you are not against Turkey's having 
     relations with Syria and Iran but you want the same message 
     to go to those (inaudible).
       Wolfowitz. Absolutely, I mean of course they are your 
     neighbors. But you want them to behave as neighbors. You 
     don't want to suggest that well they can ignore the message 
     of the Secretary of State of the United States because our 
     powerful Turkish friend is ignoring it also. I think it's 
     very important that we be coordinated.
       CNN Turk. We need to discuss some misunderstanding as well 
     for the time being and for the future of Iraq between two 
     countries, two allies, Turkey and the United States and they 
     are recently. We have two different interpretations about an 
     incident that took place in Northern Iraq near Kirkuk between 
     the American forces and the Turkish Special Forces. According 
     to the American media the Turkish Special Forces were trying 
     to bring weapons into (inaudible) Kirkuk they were 
     intercepted by the American military there and then escorted 
     back to Turkish frontier. Why would Turkish Foreign Minister 
     say it was an humanitarian aid convoy which was assisted by 
     some security personnel so they were there to secure the free 
     travel of the Humanitarian aid convey. So what's the 
     interpretation since we are speaking here in the Pentagon? 
     What happened?
       Wolfowitz. Well I don't think I want to get into it. You 
     want to do history I want do the future. What happened 
     shouldn't have happened. And it was clearly something that 
     was done ignoring everything that we have said. But it was 
     fixed. I don't think it'll happen again, I think Secretary 
     Powell and Foreign Minister Gul had a very good clear 
     discussion about it and hopefully we are on a better track 
     now. But that's a good example I think, of where, whatever 
     Turkey does in the north, and we understand Turkey has 
     important interest in the north. It's got to be coordinated 
     now through the coalition, through General Franks. We can't 
     any longer have unilateral action in Northern Iraq.
       CNN Turk. Why the question for the future then? On the same 
     issue there is a small Turkish military presence in Northern 
     Iraq.
       They had to record it with the coalition forces you are 
     saying right?
       Wolfowitz. Well as long as they are there, yes.
       CNN Turk. And the short coming future?
       Wolfowitz. The goal ought to be, they shouldn't be needed 
     in the long run. But let's in the meantime . . .
       CNN Turk. That's what I'm after, I mean now there's a 
     Kurdish authority--kind of a self-rule in Northern Iraq. Who 
     happened to become America's close allies in the last war 
     effort there? So in the coming future if they come up and say 
     that we don't need anymore, the Turkish military presence 
     despite it's small (inaudible) military personnel. In such a 
     case, by being the real leader to the element in the area, in 
     Northern Iraq what (inaudible)?
       Wolfowitz. The real military elements in Northern Iraq are 
     the coalition forces. We now have very substantial heavy 
     American forces up north and that is the real military 
     element and everybody better listen to the instructions of 
     General Franks including any armed groups, any Kurdish 
     groups. But I think the goal has got to be a free and 
     democratic Iraq where Northern Iraq is never again a 
     sanctuary for terrorists to be attacking Turkey. We've got to 
     find a way to make sure that doesn't happen again. When we 
     are confident about it then there is absolutely no reason for 
     any Turkish presence. But if there's going to be a presence 
     as long as it's there it clearly has got to be under the 
     direction and control of the coalition. . . .

                          ____________________