International Viewpoint #192 • October 15, 1990
TURKEY side in the Palestinian conflict.
On July 14, 1958, Iraq's King Faisal was overthrown by a military coup, on his way to a meeting of the Baghdad Pact, an event that upset the existing structure of the Middle East. The following day, the United States sent the marines into Lebanon and the British intervened militarily in Jordan - both at the "request of their legitimate governments."
Turkey unconditionally took the imperialist side, allowing the US to use the Incilik air base at Adana, close to the Syrian frontier. For a period Turkey refused to recognize the new Iraqi government and supported the federation of the two Hashemite kingdoms, Jordan and Iraq, formed in reaction to the United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria, which lasted from February 1958 to September 1961.
A founding member of CENTO
After the Iraqi coup and Iraq's departure from the Baghdad pact, the remaining countries founded a new pro-imperialist alliance, CENTO, (the Central Treaty Organization).
Turkey's pro-imperialist activities were by no means confined to the Middle East. In the 1963 debate at the United Nations concerning Algeria, Turkey took the Western side. It was the first state to apply the embargo on Cuba and it was Jupiter rockets in Turkey which were withdrawn in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet rockets from Cuba.
However Turkey's relations with the US suffered a crisis in 1963, over Cyprus, when the West tended to support the Greek position. After this Turko-Soviet relations improved. Turkish policy in the Middle East also became more
Arab affairs was adopted, although with a tendency to look more favourably on the pro-Western Arab regimes than on the radicals. At the same time Turkey took the Arab side on the Palestinian question.
This more independent attitude began to erode after Khomeini's victory in Iran in 1979, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the return of the military to power in Turkey itself.
Rise of Kurdish and
Palestinian movements
At this time two new factors entered the picture: the rise of the Kurdish - and indirectly the Palestinian national movements; and the radical variant of Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Khomeini's Iran, which has become as important a factor as Arab nationalism in the region. Even before 1979, the Islamic party had been an important factor in Turkish political increasing its strength through participation in various coalition governments in
At the moment Turkey plays a complex role on the international scene. It remains a member of NATO and wants to join the EC. Compared to the East it is a Western country, compared to the West an Eastern country. The official ideology and institutions are Western, but social mores and the popular mentality reveal the East. Turkey has limited options: it can be pro-Western or neutral but never radical. The Kuwait crisis has been a golden opportunity for Özal to make a change of line.
Starting from the supposition that this crisis is going to radically alter the map of the Middle East, Özal has decided to abandon non-intervention in Arab affairs and to lead an active pro-American intervictors at the negotiating table and there gaining some choice morsels in the shareout.
Differences in ruling party over Gulf
However Özal's hawkish policy is far from drawing unanimous support within his own party. Furthermore, Turkey has neither the economic nor military means to play a key role in the region, despite being the most industrialized country in the Middle East. The crisis could cost Turkey $10b in the space of a year.
Özal has based his entire policy on the immediate fall of the Iraqi regime and the removal of Saddam Hussein. But the US has not yet attacked and this aim seems still some way off. The only tangible gain for Turkey so far has been a payment of $3b in hard currency, provided by sources in the Middle East. On the other hand, the oil bill is continuing to mount, threatening the stability of the Turkish economy, especially given that a third of Turkey's exports are to the Middle East.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait has revived all the chronic problems of the evenhanded. A policy of non-intervention in
The heritage of imperialism
THE current crisis in the Gulf cannot be understood without remembering the recent history of the region. The present map of the Middle
East is in large part the result of the break up and carve up - of the
Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, Starting in May
1916 with the Sykes-Picot Accords, French and British Imperialism showed their desire to partition the Arab lands previously under Ottoman control. Even during the war, the Balfour declaration from Britain laid the basis for the creation of the State of Israel. This process took
La further step forward in 1919 with the signing of an agreement between the World Zionist Organization and the Hashemite dynasty, the main ally of the British against the Ottoman Empire. In 1916 the Kingdom of Hedjaz was founded around Mecca. The
Emir of Mecca, pursuing the chimera of a pan-Arab empire, opposed
British Interests, In 1920, the San Remo Accords put Lebanon and
Syria under French mandate, while Jordan, Palestine and Iraq were 22 vention in the hope of being among the region: the partition of the Ottoman colonies after the First World War; the Palestinian question; the Kurdish question; the demagogic nationalism of the bureaucratic castes in some Arab countries, which the USSR designated, in the 1950s, as "pioneers of the non-capitalist third way for development"; the reinforcement of Islamism, whether in its Saudi pro-Western, or its radical forms; the contradictions between the oil mini states living in luxury and the Arab masses... and finally, the presence of a bellicose imperialism wishing to ensure secure cheap oil sup-
Such a line up of forces cannot produce any fair and democratic solution. There is a bad tradition amongst the progressive forces of the region of waiting for a saviour from outside — and supporting various dubious candidates for the post. No doubt some will succeed in finding hitherto unnoticed virtues in Saddam Hussein. But without real, organized and independent progressive forces inside the Middle Eastern countries, the wind can change at any moment, leading to new disillusion-
The Kashmir question
INDIA inflamed communal atmosphere in India, genuine grievances can take on fanatical proportions. More than 65,000 Hindus have left the Kashmir Valley and many of them have camped in Jammu.
No genocide of Hindus has taken place, nor are there any significant instances of Hindus being killed
THE CRISIS in the Gulf has drawn international attention away from the dramatic increase in tension in the state of Kashmir, on the Indo-Pakistani border. Since last December, the movement for Kashmiri secession from India (Kashmir is India's only majority Muslim state) has gathered pace and has been met with increasing violence by the New Delhi government.
In August, the crisis led to the most heavy shelling since 1971 between Indian and Pakistani troops on the disputed Kashmiri border - India accuses Pakistan of backing the Kashmiri rebels.
The following statement, received from the Inquilabi Communist
Sangathan (ICS), Indian section of the Fourth International, examines the background to the Kashmiri national question. It has been shortened for space reasons.
DOCUMENT
B
EFORE the British-engineered of India in 1947, partition
"Kashmir" as a political unit included the Kashmir Valley, the Jammu area, Azad Kashmir - known as Pakistani Kashmir — and Ladakh. The
Kashmir Valley and Pakistani-occupied
Kashmir are predominantly Muslim areas, whilst Jammu overwhelming has an majority of Hindus and Ladakh is Buddhist. They are geographically distinct and the languages of Jammu and Kashmir are different.
In 1947 various princely states were or India, incorporated into
Pakistan depending on the decision of their heads of state. Kashmir (in the wider sense described above had a predominantly
Muslim population, but the King,
Hari
Singh, was a Hindu. Initially he chose neither India nor Pakistan, seeming to be in favour of an independent state.
However, in 1947, Pakistan attacked
Kashmir and took over a proportion of the territory. Hari Singh sought help from
India, which forced him to sign the Instrument of Accession of October 10, 1947, stipulating that "the question of the state's accession [to India] should be settled by reference to the people of Kashmir". The
Kashmir Constituent Assembly created by
Sheikh Abdullah's National Conference, which had won all the seats unopposed in the elections of September 1951, was supposed therefore to take the decision on taking Kashmir into India.
Subsequently it was agreed by the United Nations that a referendum should be held to decide Kashmir's future. Furthermore, article 370 of the Annexation Document was included in the state's Constitution, giving Kashmir complete autonomy on all subjects including Foreign Affairs, Defence, Communications and Finance. It also lays down that non-Kashmiris cannot buy land in Kashmir.
However, the Indian state never had any intention of letting the Kashmiris decide their own fate. When in 1953 Sheikh Abdullah tried to give vent to Kashmiri feelings he was jailed and held for about 15 years.
Pakistan and India bargain over Kashmir
Most elections in Kashmir have been rigged and Article 370 completely undermined. In 1972, after the Bangladesh War, Indira Gandhi and Pakistan's President Bhutto signed an agreement which took the fate of Kashmir out of the hands of its people and converted it into an issue to be resolved by the two governments. The situation has been the same in the Pakistani controlled part of Kashmir as on the Indian side.
Extreme corruption, electoral malpractices, economic neglect and historic factors have all led to massive support in Kashmir for secession from India, this support coming almost exclusively from the Muslim population. One trend has called for joining Pakistan, another supports an independent Kashmir.
Not surprisingly — if unfortunately -religion is an increasingly crucial factor. In the Kashmir Valley, Hindu pandits (4% of the population) occupy 90% of government jobs. In the context of an because they are Hindus. On the other hand, in predominantly Hindu Jammu, no demand for secession or any other form of self-determination has been heard, and the same is true of Buddhist
Ladakh. It is highly probable that with increasing repression by the Indian state, coupled with communalist propaganda from organizations such as the
BJP and VHP (two Hindu chauvinist organizations), the communalist aspect may acquire more and more importance.
Against such a background, socialists and democrats must recognize the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future. At the same time we cannot support the right of the Kashmir
Valley to impose its decisions on the people of Jammu or Ladakh, especially when the demand for Kashmiri self-determination is likely to take on the form for a Muslim state. The fact that historically Jammu and Ladakh have been part of Kashmir cannot override the fact that self-determination also applies to the peoples of these two predominantly non-Muslim regions.
Kashmiris have genuine grievances
At the same time, we cannot forget that the overwhelming majority of the population of the Kashmir Valley have taken to the streets demanding secession. Whatever the religious overtones, the demand has been raised by an oppressed with genuine grievances. In the present national situation which is characterized by a strong and aggressive Hindu communalism throughout India, and when hundreds of Muslims have been butchered at places like Bhagalpur, the communal reaction of the oppressed minority is inev-
We have to fight against communalization, not by denying the right to self-determination but by strongly stressing secularism and class. Nonetheless we have to respect the right to self-determination and call upon the Indian state to take immediate measures to grant it. We have to fight for the right to self-determination while at the same time struggling against its communalization. To give an analogy, if freedom of speech is misused, we have to mobilize against the misuse, not against freedom of speech. There are reports that even in Pakistanoccupied Kashmir there are groups calling for self-determination, and if a significant number of people in this area do support
International Viewpoint #192 • October 15, 1990
INDIA / YUGOSLAVIA such a movement, the demand for self-determination too must be supported.
Another aspect which needs serious attention is the extreme repression carried out in the valley by the Indian security forces. Repression has been taking the form of detentions, molestations, torture and even killings. We condemn all forms of repression carried out by the Indian state in the Kashmir valley and resolve to work towards strengthening the secular and class struggle aspect of the ongoing
We call upon the Indian state to immediately withdraw its army and other coercive forces from the Kashmir valley and similarly call upon the Pakistani state to stop interfering with the genuine aspirations of the Kashmiri people. We also condemn the rightist parties for trying to communalize the whole issue and the othrepression under the guise of unity and the integrity of the country.
unknown destination. Before the strike, 170 miners were asked to go down into the pit on September 3, a strike day, to show that the mine was functioning. They refused. Moreover, the pit is no longer safe. "Who will guarantee me that the mine is not mined, who will guarantee me that the Albanian miners will come out of the pit alive if they go down into it."
If more repressive measures are imposed, the Goles miners are ready for further protests. They do not think that they have anything to lose. The worst off families of Independent Union members are being given flour, cooking oil, sugar