Following recent terrorist attacks in Istanbul, the International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) from Ljubljana has analysed the events in Turkey and the region specially for the »Revija Obramba« (Defence magazine).
The November terrorist attacks in Istanbul were not an example of classical attacks aimed at collapsing the political and economic conditions in a state. The Istanbul attacks were so to say multipurpose and struck several targets at the same time. In other words: the terrorists sent several bloodstained messages to several addresses in Istanbul - the USA, Great Britain, Israel, NATO, EU and Turkey as the scene of dreadful acts.
The use of four truck bombs and suicidal attacks prove that the assaults in Istanbul were not another example of domestic terrorism which has been present in Turkey for several decades, but a case of international terrorism. It incorporated internal and external elements in all the phases from the planning to the realisation. After the attacks two organisations made themselves known simultaneously and admitted the act: al Qaeda as the sponsor and a Turkish organisation called the Islamic Front of Raiders of the Great Orient (IBDA/C).
The official Ankara has interpreted the attacks as the result of events going on outside the Turkish borders - it probably refers to the occupation of Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the economic crisis in the region. Turkish terrorist organisations had namely never in their history used such tactics nor such methods.
The IFIMES International Institute is of the opinion that Turkey is about to take a test in which the government will have to answer bravely, precisely and consistently the questions of vital importance for the stability and existence of the secular Ataturk republic of Turkey in its present form.
Terrorism has chosen new targets and used new methods. Turkey was not chosen by chance as the place of recent assaults. The terrorists used this target for political, geopolitical and security reasons. The Turkish religious fanaticism, which was born and grew in the secular Turkish regime under violent conditions characteristic of the states trying to do away with such religious organisations, certainly treats the pro-Islamic AKP government as the enemy number one since it strives to bring together the Islamic world and the West and to link Islamism and secularism which is of course not in the interest of the extremists who prefer constant confrontation and see the West in the light of dialectical materialism leading to their self-destruction.
The Islamic Front of Raiders of the Great Orient counting about 600 militants was established by Saleh Mirza Bayoglu (now in Turkish prison) ten years ago during the bloody conflicts of the army and the terrorist PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) in the turbulent south east Turkey. Some analysts compare their role with the role of the Turkish Hezbolah. The Turkish army supported the Front during the 15 years of fighting against the Kurds (PKK).
On the other hand, some other analysts connect the Islamistic attacks with the Turkish Intelligence Agency which is subordinate to the army, but opposes some of the AKP moves. This theory is supported by the statements of Prime Minister Erdogan following the attacks who criticised the Turkish Intelligence Agency for having in possession the information on the attacks but not forwarding it to the government prior to the attack on the synagogues. On the day of the attacks several security and information meetings were held on demand of Prime Minister.
On the other hand, the Arab analysts offer a completely different explanation for the attacks connecting them with the Israeli Mosad which is apparently interested in the destabilisation of the Turkish government which has become too close with Syria and the Arabs.
The IFIMES International Institute believes that terrorism is not a new phenomenon in the Turkish political folklore. During the first half of the 1970s the streets of Istanbul and Ankara were the scene of sanguinary clashes of the left and the right. The Turkish school of terrorism and violence was known also beyond the national borders. The fact is that Turkish leftists were regular visitors and instructors at the training grounds of Palestinian extremist left-wing organisations such as the Geroge Habash's Palestine Liberation Front (PFL).
The Armenian terrorist organisations were also active during this period carrying out assassinations of Turkish diplomats around the world. Furthermore, the Kurdish Marxist Party PKK can be marked as the product of left-wing terrorism; its founder, Abdulah Oçalan, was a member of those organisations in the early 1970s. Unlike the Iraqi and Iranian Kurds who decided to take other ways, PKK chose the ruthless sanguinary terrorism to achieve the national goals of the 12 million Kurds in Turkey.
Many analysts relate the violence in Turkey to the Turkish secularism enforced by the founder of the modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk. This is evident from the role and the behaviour of the Turkish army in the political and cultural life of the state which has left the traces in the Turkish society. Although modern and secular, the Turkish school system, based on Ataturk's heritage which recognises violence, revenge and glorification of the Turkish history, contributed to such social guidelines.
However, such ideology of violence is not related only to the situation in Turkey but also to the foreign policy of the state. Let us recall the Turkish conflicts with Europe, Greece, Cyprus, Russia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Iraq, Iran and Syria. The economic problems are also the generators of extremist ideas which find their way to those who are desperate and who see the solution to the problem in the religious and salvation belief.
THE ROLE OF AL QAEDA
The al Quaeda terrorist network assumed the responsibility right after the attacks and thus confirmed the assumption of security experts that al Qaeda no longer carries out the operations itself but rather advises others on terrorism.
Al Qaeda decided do take this role after the defeat of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and after suffering severe strokes against its infrastructure and financing. Its tasks are now realised by minor terrorist groups in individual countries operating autonomously and deciding freely on the time and the targets.
Al Qaeda, formerly the »University of Terrorism«, has become a universal international umbrella organisation covering at least 30 large organisations. They communicate most likely through the Internet and in this was receive advice, instructions and exchange experience for the preparation of attacks. The greatest problem for the security bodies is the fact that those groups are not located within certain geographic area.
THE ISTANBUL ATTACKS AND EUROPE
After the Istanbul attacks Europe raised the alarm fearing that the Turkish situation could affect the European security. After all, Turkey is a NATO member and therefore all the NATO states were assaulted. Greatest alarm was raised in Germany where the terrorism alert was heightened. The German fear is the product of a strong Turkish economic-political migration group of over 2 million workers or German citizens of Turkish origin among which Turkish extremist organisations most probably have their members or followers.
The alarming report of the criminal office in Wiesbaden further supports the reasons for concern. The office has confirmed the assumptions that the Islamic Front of Raiders of the Great Orient has its members and followers among the Turks in Germany and that (since the attacks) they have been under strict control.
The report is based on the information from which it is evident that the Front has been operating in Europe since 1995 and that one of its bases is located in Germany. The organisation carried out the first attack in 1996 when the Turkish demonstrators burnt the Turkish cultural centre in Hanover as a sign of disapproval of the pro-European politics of the government in Ankara. This was followed by an attack at the Turkish consulate in Dusseldorf in 2001.
Yilmaz Zafir, member of the organisation, confirmed for the German television that the organisation has 8 independent units in Germany and that in case of German military participation in Iraq they would attack the targets in the state, adding that Istanbul was only a small test for the future greater action. In the interview Zafir confirmed that the organisation regularly sends 500 of its bulletins from Turkey to Germany.
The analysts believe that the organisation has several hundred sympathisers and about 40 members in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden. In such atmosphere of alarm the German politicians started the discussion on one hand in favour of and on the other hand against the fast association of Turkey with the EU. The leading coalition of SPD and the Green Party is in favour of the fast accession of Turkey while the right-wing conservative CDU-CSU opposition warns that the accession of Turkey would mean opening the European door wide to terrorism.
According to the opinion of the IFIMES International Institute Turkey stands at the crossroads and should take prompt action in order to resolve its internal problems and carry out its political and economic reforms according to the EU criteria. Turkey will have to revise its security policy and modernise its security services in line with the European standards so that the intelligence agency would no longer be subordinate to the army general staff but to the president of the state and to prime minister.
In its antiterrorist strategy, Turkey will have to differentiate between its internal terrorism and the terrorism aimed at the USA, Great Britain and Israel. These countries are facing no national, economic, political, cultural and social problems so that the possibility of their internal terrorism is so to speak ruled out.
IFIMES believes that the intentions of Syria in the relations with Turkey are not of serious nature. The handing over of 22 alleged terrorists responsible for the attack in Istanbul at the end of November 2003 represents only a political move of Damask in the framework of its foreign policy and does not comply with the spirit of the Syrian-Turkish Security Agreement which was signed in Adana in 1998.
The immediate handing over of the alleged terrorists by Syria is in contradiction with the bases it offers in its territory to various terrorist groups (Hamas, Jihad, Usud, Ansar alIslam, al-Faruk Brigades, the Army of Mohamed), and to the members of the overthrown Iraqi regime. Turkish co-operation with Syria and Iran, which support terrorism, should not only be aimed at resolving the so called Kurdish issue in Iraq, but rather to find the model for regional co-operation to combat terrorism which actually operates from Syria and Iran. Any other solution can inflame and bring up the Kurdish issue in Turkey (12 million Kurds), Iran (8 million) and Syria (1.5 million), the Armenian issue, the Cyprus issue and the issue of Kurds, Arabs and Azers in Iran.
In the future Turkey will have to define clearly its viewpoints on the regional co-operation and accession to the EU. Following from the above it is certainly not in the interest of Turkey to request for the observer status in the Arab league as has been requested by Iran although the two states are not Arab at all.
