Galery

3

2

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

The revelations of former Turkish Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz of the presence of Turkish participation in forest fires in Greece, when his predecessor Tansu Chiller was in power in the 1990s, did not surprise anyone in Greece. In an interview with the Turkish newspaper BirGün he said that only she of all Turkish Prime Ministers gave no information about where and how the secret state funds were used during her term.

According to the newspaper, Mesut Yilmaz said that money was given at that time to induce instability through a coup in Azerbaijan and for forest fires in Greece. The revelations prompted a sharp response among the political forces in Greece, and the Foreign Ministry demanded explanations from Ankara.
 
 A day later, the former Prime Minister said that the reporter misinterpreted his statements. He told the Turkish news Anadolu Agency that he had meant fires in Turkey. "There was some information and thoughts that forest fires in Turkey in the 1990s were related to the Greek secret services. I expressed the opinion that it would harm our relations with Greece to publish these data before investigating them." Mesut Yilmaz added that the case was completely misrepresented in order to create a fuss.

 GRReporter sought the opinion of the expert on Greek-Turkish relations and Assistant Professor of International Law and Foreign Policy at the Pandion University of Athens Aggelos Surigos. He explained why the findings are not surprising for Greece as well as his views on this outburst of "sincerity" by the forgotten until yesterday former Prime Minister of Turkey.

Mr. Sirigos, how could we believe that the statements by the former Turkish Prime Minister are grounded? Were there any doubts in the past that agents of Turkey could have caused the fires?

 At various times, especially when there were large fires on border islands such as Samos, there were strong doubts that not everything was under control. Fires were frequent and broke out near military installations. Of course, all these islands have in fact a large military installation. Therefore, there were doubts that Turkish agents had set the fires intentionally. Moreover, there were various penitent Turkish agents in the past who said they had set fires on Greek islands. The last such case happened three-four years ago.

 In addition, when the existence of the military Ergenekon and the parallel state behind it was revealed, it became known that among other tasks, Turkish agents were charged with creating diversions to the detriment of Greece. We cannot know what exactly these diversions were and whether they were just fires. But it has always been suspected that the fires, especially in border regions, were the result of arson by Turkish agents.

 Here we should point out that the parallel state in Turkey was in its heyday especially during the mandate of Tansu Chiller. We should not forget that the tensions around the desert island Imia escalated at that time. Then, Turkey started its actions despite the opposing position of the military and much of the political leadership of the country. It was an extreme action and Tansu Chiller worked with the parallel state then. This should not make any impression, because during the terms of Tansu Chiller and Bülent Ecevit there were periods in which the parallel state in Turkey acted as a state actually.

According to publications, the fires were set in response to the Greek foreign policy towards Turkey and in particular, in relation to the Kurdish problem. What is your comment?

 Since 1992, Turkey has been accusing Greece of helping the Kurds. I remember that the President at that time Konstantinos Karamanlis had sent an official letter to Turkey, which pointed out that nothing like this was happening. Most often, the Turkish state referred to the military unit in Lavrio, believing that the Greek military were training Kurdish guerrillas  there to use weapons, bombs and in the conduct of unconventional warfare. From time to time, there were attacks that Greece had three or four units, where Kurdish guerrillas were trained. None of these allegations has been proven in practice. When the Greek response was, "come let's go and find them," things stopped there. Surely, there was other moral support.

It is a fact that in this way the Turkish parallel state was trying to blackmail. I remember how in 1999 when I worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Turkish delegations came with lists of people who, according to them, were creating problems in the Greek-Turkish relations. The checks we made subsequently made it clear that these people were Kurds. They did not create any problems for Greece, but just irritated Turkey. Nevertheless, Turkey demanded their expulsion and the closure of their organizations. The Greek state did not accept these requests.

Do you think that setting the fires could be the result of other expressions of Greek foreign policy?

 Look, they are strictly related to how Turkey acts. There has been a parallel state in Turkey ever since 1909, when the Young Turks tookpower. Then it was called Teshkilat-i Mahsusa, then Caracol, and then the National Intelligence Organization MIT was established. They all had their branches, which did not mind about committing murder, extortion, arson. This continued for decades and the parallel state remained an official and fully accepted separate part of the Turkish state. 
 
 Its existence is not related to Greek-Turkish relations but to the mode of action of the Turkish state. I would like to recall the bomb explosion in a Kurdish bookstore some time ago. It became apparent that the army itself had placed the bomb. Furthermore, there were accusations that parallel state functionaries killed a senior magistrate in order to lay the murder on the Kurds. This is the way the Turkish state acts.

Why do you think Mesut Yilmaz chose this particular moment to make this statement?

 I cannot know for sure, I can only make assumptions. Mesut Yilmaz has been out of politics for many years. Currently in Turkey, there is a significant lack of the forces against Erdogan. The Republican People's Party still cannot mend its ways and its development is not positive. In these conditions, it is quite normal for Mesut Yilmaz to seek a "place in the sun." His statements are a kind of "revenge" on his political opponent. Do not forget that after the death of Turgut Ozal, the fight was between Mesut Yilmaz and Tansu Chiller. Figuratively speaking, Ozal had given the ring to Chiller. The parallel state and military leadership preferred her because she did not resist. Mesut Yilmaz was somehow pushed aside and perhaps now, he has found the opportunity to express his discontent for that period. 

What is your comment on the dispute between Turkey and France in connection with the already voted law for imposing sanctions against those who deny the Armenian genocide?

To be honest, I agree with the Turkish position in this case. I think it is inappropriate to impose a law and say that those who deny a historical milestone through historical data would be sued. It is a matter of principle and what we must address is the prohibition to express a different opinion.
 
From there, the response of Turkey is the usual one in such cases. Turks cry out as they did when Abdullah Ocalan went to Italy. Then they burned Italian cars and neckties and boycotted Italian products and goods in general.

 This reaction of Turkey shows that even after 100 years, the issue is not closed. It remains open. I.e. the Turkish state feels responsible for the Armenian genocide and it is trying to hide it in any way it can. The wound has not healed and Turkey is not able to accept this reality, although it is right in this case. These things are within the competence of historians and cannot be solved by laws.

Do you think that this dispute could affect the already suspended negotiations for Turkish membership in the European Union?
 
Yes, negotiations are suspended in fact. They will probably be frozen in the coming months because of the rotating Presidency of the Republic of Cyprus and they will start again in a spectacular way later.

 Anyway, Turkey has no European orientation now. Erdogan took what he wanted from the European Union, i.e. the patina of European. He established himself on the Turkish political scene and now, he is turning to other regions. The Turkish Prime Minister is interested in the Iraq crisis now. The lack of government there is much more dangerous for Turkey. Vice President Nouri al-Maliki, who recently visited the Kurdish-populated areas, is related to the power game between Iran and Turkey, which is taking place in Iraq today.