TAT-ANKARA
In brief, the current situation over US demand to use Incirlik base is this;
1- The US wants to use Incirlik base as a transfer point in rotating troops and equipment into and out of Iraq and the parties reach a deal at the end of confidential meetings.

2- Ignoring the related news for 11 months after the Turkish parliament, on March 1, 2003, rejected the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government's proposal to send Turkish troops abroad and allow US military deployment on Turkish soil, the Turkish media started to discuss the status of Incirlik base once again after the Associated Press announced the news to the whole world.

Naturally, there are two parties over this issue: The ones who say "No need for motion" are mostly the ministers and the ruling AKP deputies utter this view, and those who say, "There is need for motion" are the ones who refer to the law since March 1 parliamentary motion.

As I, myself, is closer to the idea of the necessity for a motion, I will first take up the arguments of those who say 'No need for a motion.' Then, I will question the validity of these arguments one by one, however, I have to underline first that my reference is law. It's better to answer the ones, who say 'No need for motion' by relying on law, as they want to find a legal ground for what they do. On the other hand, although I do not agree the people who say, 'No need for motion', I have full respect to the ones who clearly express their views as, "I want to be in peace with the US. Besides, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will have a significant visit to Washington as of end-January. Turkey needs the US support for economic balance. Don't mention law. The US asked and we opened the base."

Those who do not find a troop bill necessary rely on two reasons:

1- The United Nations Security Council resolution 1483, which was approved on May 22, 2003, foresees 'any kind of contribution to the occupying powers in Iraq.' (I quoted this expression because it was defined as in one of the Turkish newspapers yesterday.)

When an ordinary Turkish citizen reads these lines, he would say, 'Ok.' However, the ones who ponder these issues would not believe everything they read and they would look at resolution 1483.

I should say that the resolution 1483 does not involve any sentence like, "Make any kind of contribution to the occupying powers in Iraq." This compromised resolution formed by 27 articles, is a text that chiefly recognizes the Iraqi Governing Council and lifts the economic sanctions on Iraq. The first clause of the resolution, "appeals to Member States and concerned organizations to assist the people of Iraq in their efforts to reform their institutions and rebuild their country, and to contribute to conditions of stability and security in Iraq in accordance with this resolution." The second clause, "calls upon all Member States in a position to do so to respond immediately to the humanitarian appeals of the United Nations and other international organizations for Iraq and to help meet the humanitarian and other needs of the Iraqi people by providing food, medical supplies, and resources necessary for reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq's economic infrastructure."

If the ones who say 'no need for a troop bill' rely on these two, I recommend them to find and read the UN text. Those who consider only this article due to their ignorance could have reached another UN resolution if they had made a research. It is the UN Security Council resolution 1511 (September 16, 2003).

Under the article 13 of the Resolution 1511, the UN Security Council, "authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq," and at the same time "urges all Member States to contribute assistance under this UN mandate, including military forces," under article 14.

I suggest for those who say, "1483 was mistakenly said. We actually have meant 1511," to read the entire text. Turkey has already decided to send troops to Iraq through the motion approved by Parliament on October 7. The government had not decided whether to sent troops to Iraq when the related motion was sent to parliament. Hence, from the legitimation standpoint of the Constitution's article no.92, it was not the right time to send such a motion to the parliament. However, this uneasiness was overcome through the UN Security Council's resolution although it was late.

Would the government need a motion to send troops even after the resolution 1511 was ratified? Absolutely, yes, because, the expression in the article 92 of the Turkish Constitution as, "only if there's the backing of the international law," is a precondition and not a sufficient condition. Not satisfied with the UN Security Council resolution, the government had passed a motion at parliament during the Gulf War and then prior to the deployment of the Combined Task Force-Poised Hammer on Turkish soil. In short, "the Turkish parliament is authorized with the approval of sending troops abroad and deployment of foreign forces on Turkish soil under the international law."

The ones who say 'no need for a motion' may utter, "Article 92 has an exception in terms of the liabilities stem from the international agreements. Turkey, as a UN member, must abide the UN Security Council's call. Then, the assistance, mentioned in the resolution 1511 must be discussed. Would the contribution to the security and stability in Iraq necessitate the opening of a base for transit passage of the occupying powers? I should confess this condition could be interpreted in various ways.

2- The second basis the ones who say, "no need for motion" rely on the 1980-dated Turkish-US Defense and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SEIA). The people, who place importance to this agreement, tell that Incirlik base is a Turco-American joint facility and the parties, if agreed, can use as they want under this agreement.

In order to answer this argument, I will quote from my article titled 'Legal Status of Incirlik.' (This article was published on Haberanaliz on March 26, 2003) "I quote from SEIA article V, "The scope of the defense cooperation foreseen in this agreement will be limited with the liabilities stem from the North Atlantic Agreement." "The Third Supplementary Agreement between the Turkish Republic and the US government over the plants" regulates the conditions for the establishment and operation of the Turco-American military facilities. Just the very first article of this protocol refers to the article V of SEIA. In other words, under this agreement, which regulates the current condition of Incirlik, the base can only be used through the "operations in the scope of NATO."

Naturally, Turkey can use this base as it wants in case of self-defense. This is out of discussion.

If NATO decided to make things easier for the NATO-member countries' troops and in this scope lets the usage of NATO facilities, then there would be no problem in using Incirlik by foreign forces. Even a new motion would not be needed since Turkey is a signer of an agreement.

As a result, at the current situation, I am closer to the idea backing the necessity of a new motion. Besides, the government, capable of changing even the Constitution, must not worry about submitting a motion to the parliament. Or is it not so???