The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Turkish Arms Embargo

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The Greeks and the Turks are at each other`s throats again. This time it`s a cold war for the votes of the U.S. Congress over the administration`s desire to lift a four-year embargo on arms sales to Turkey. A subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee got a taste of the fight today. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown and other administration big guns said NATO security interests in the Mediterranean, among other things, require that the embargo be removed, while the other side countered that the U.S. interests are best served by continuing the embargo. It`s a complicated issue that involves ancient hatreds as well as modern-day political realities such as a settlement of the long-simmering dispute over the island of Cyprus. And while it may appear to be another seemingly obscure foreign policy debate, it definitely isn`t. It`s a hot emotional fight that has domestic political ramifications here, as well as security and political ones abroad. So tonight, the argument over whether the embargo should be lifted, emotions and all. Robert MacNeil is off; Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The hostilities go way back, Jim, as you said, but the current tug of war started in 1974, when Turkish troops invaded the island of Cyprus. When the fighting stopped, Turkey left an occupying army that far outnumbered its own minority population there, and it has control over thirty-eight percent of the tiny island. Angry over Turkey`s violation of their arms agreement, Congress placed an embargo on arms and military credits in 1975.Its aim was to force Turkey to withdraw and return control to the Greek Cypriots, who make up about eighty percent of the population. But Turkey retaliated instead, closing down America`s strategic military bases in Turkey, taking command of the NATO installations there, and refusing to deal with Cyprus. In 1976 the Ford administration attempted to end the embargo but never got Congressional approval. Now President Carter has picked up the same ball.

LEHRER: A State Department official who has played a leading role in formulating the Carter administration`s new policy on the arms embargo specifically and the Greece-Turkey-Cyprus situation generally is Matthew Nimetz. Mr. Nimetz is the State Department`s counselor; he`s made four trips to the area in the last sixteen months. Mr. Nimetz, back before they became President and Secretary of State, respectively, Jimmy Carter and Cyrus Vance each said that he thought the embargo was a good thing because it upheld the rule of law, and so on. Well, what`s happened in the last year to change their positions?

MATTHEW NIMETZ: We believe the embargo was a fair response by the Congress to what happened in 1974. There was a misuse of U.S. weapons, and the Congress imposed an embargo. That happened four years ago, and now the time has come to look forward rather than backwards.

LEHRER: In other words, the message was gotten over, is that it?

NIMETZ: The message has gotten over to Turkey, it`s gotten over to the whole world, and I think we believe the time has come to look forward to a solution to the problem. The United States has some important goals in the region; we want good relations with Turkey. They`re one of the largest NATO allies. We want a strong NATO in the area. The Middle East is a very tense region of the world. We want a solution to Cyprus, and the fact of the matter is, in all three of those areas -- good relations with Turkey, the standing of NATO in the region, the Cyprus solution -things are looking down rather than up. The time has come to change our orientation.

LEHRER: Do you feel that by lifting the embargo it would be a step toward resolving the Cyprus situation, and in what way?

NIMETZ: We believe so. The Turks, like any people, resent pressure, especially public pressure. And they have felt that they can`t negotiate with an American gun at their head. And so we believe that without an embargo the leadership of Turkey will be in a much better position to be forthcoming. And it`s interesting to note that as soon as we announced that the administration wanted to lift the embargo, within two weeks the Turks gave new proposals on Cyprus -- the first time they`ve ever done that -- to Secretary General Waldheim.

LEHRER: In other words, the original strategy did not work. By imposing the embargo the idea was that this would force Turkey to get the troops off Cyprus and to have a resolution; that did not work, is that right?

NIMETZ: Well, I think the embargo had two purposes. One was a legal moral purpose; that is, the Turks violated the agreement on use of U.S. weapons, and therefore I think it is legitimate that we imposed an embargo. Secretary Vance has said he thinks the embargo was a proper thing in 1974- 75; now the time is to look differently. It has not helped us with Cyprus at all, that`s clear.

LEHRER: It`s been reported that Turkey`s relations with the Soviet Union have been improving. Was that another reason for wanting to lift the embargo at this time?

NIMETZ: We would like to keep very good relations with Turkey. As I said, they have the second largest commitment of forces to NATO, they have a very strategic role to play in NATO, in the Mediterranean and the Middle East area, and anything that would lead them to reassess their relationships with the West causes us concern. Obviously, they get ninety percent of their weapons from the United States. If your major supplier has an embargo against you, you obviously have to look elsewhere.

LEHRER: You made several trips, as I said, to Turkey -- to this whole area -- during the last several months. Let me ask you point-blank: did the Turks tell you that if you did not lift the embargo they would cozy up even more to the Soviet Union?

NIMETZ: No, they did not say that. They made no threats of that type, and I don`t think that`s in the cards, certainly in the next short run period. But what they did say was that they have to reassess their place in the world. And if their oldest ally, their biggest friend, has an embargo against them, then obviously they have to reassess where they stand.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: The administration`s proposal to end the Turkish arms embargo has generated strong opposition on Capitol Hill. One of the leaders of that opposition is Congressman Benjamin Rosenthal, Democrat from New York and a senior member of the House International Relations Committee. Mr. Rosenthal, you don`t agree with Mr. Nimetz` position. Why not?

Rep. BENJAMIN ROSENTHAL: Well, I don`t agree with it for a number of reasons. First of all, the embargo has been far from airtight. In the past four years we have transferred to Turkey over $600 million worth of arms and war materiel so that there would be some inducement for them to cooperate. The Congress, by the passage of the law forcing the imposition of the embargo, linked a solution or resolution of the problem on Cyprus with removal of the embargo. We had hoped -- we expected, at that time -- that Turkey would cooperate and withdraw from the forty percent of the island that they occupied.

The reason the embargo hasn`t worked is because the American administration -- both the Ford-Kissinger administration and now, regrettably, the Carter- Mondale-Vance administration -have always given signals to the Turks, "Sit tight, and we`ll turn the Congress around." The Ford-Kissinger administration did that dozens of times. Now we have General Haig and our ambassador in Ankara, Ambassador Spiers, and others telling the Turks, "Look, this hasn`t worked; we`ll try and get rid of the embargo." So for four years the Turks haven`t felt any reason to be cooperative on Cyprus because they always were expecting the American administration to convince the Congress to turn around.

The tragic thing is that if by any chance -- I don`t expect this to happen -- but if the Congress lifted the embargo, the Cyprus problem would never be resolved. There`d be no further pressure on Turkey; the Cyprus problem would lose interest in NATO and the world community. Cyprus would go to the very back burner, and it would be a bad scene in addition to that: no one would have further respect for American law which caused the imposition of the embargo in the first place.

HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman Rosenthal, what about the move that the Turks have made since this whole debate has started, to try and deal with the Cyprus issue? I think Secretary General Waldheim called the reaction from the Turks -- their proposals -- concrete and substantial. You don`t agree with that?

ROSENTHAL: Mr. Waldheim didn`t agree with that. Mr. Waldheim had it within his power to reconvene the conference, and he has failed to do that because he felt that the proposals were not forthcoming. The Turkish proposals were virtually meaningless. Mr. Nimetz suggested that after the administration indicated they would recommend to Congress a recision of the embargo, the Turks came forward. Well, the fact is they sent over a piece of paper, but the piece of paper didn`t even recommend a change of one percent in the total land occupation that they`ve been involved in. It was not even worthy of Secretary General Waldheim reconvening the conference.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. If the embargo is lifted, what kind of leverage would you use to get the Turks to resolve the issue?

ROSENTHAL: There will be no leverage; none. The United States will have no leverage. Mr. Nimetz` argument and the administration`s argument is they won`t negotiate under pressure, take off the embargo and they will be very forthcoming. Well, that`s a good, traditional, fair argument. But the fact is that governments respond to world public opinion and indeed to pressure. Turkey has never responded because the pressure was never really applied, and they were always promised that the pressure would be removed. If by any chance the embargo is lifted, there will be no pressure and there will be no world community of interest. The embargo has kept interest focused on the Cyprus problem.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, thank you. On the other side of this issue, as might be expected, are the representatives of the 100,000 Turkish Americans in this country. One of their leaders also testified at the Senate committee hearing today. He is Hasan B. Ali, editor of DATA, the digest of the American-Turkish Association of Washington, D.C. Mr. Ali, why do you want the embargo lifted?

HASAN ALI: Well, before I answer in detail I might just add for the record that actually the problem did not begin with the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, but actually began with the Greek coup d`etat against the elected government of Archbishop Makarios. So the Turkish...

HUNTER-GAULT: In other words, that sparked the whole...

ALI: Exactly. Turkey`s intervention was a reaction, it was not the cause of the whole event. Now, as far as why I think it should be lifted, of course there are a number of reasons, but just very briefly, probably the most persuasive one seems to me, simple logic dictates, that since it did not work you try another solution. On the other hand, there are other reasons. I think it is in the interest of the U.S. national security -it has been testified and pointed out by many responsible individuals that is in the U.S. national interest and NATO`s interest to remove this embargo. Another point is that the question of the adherence to law I think does not apply in this case because there are numerous examples, which have just been given last week in front of the International Relations Committee, where there have been many violators of the law; moreover, most relevant is the Greek Cypriots themselves and the Greek armed forces who, in creating this entire problem, used American arms.

HUNTER-GAULT: So you`re saying that no one`s obeying the law so why should you be held to it.

ALI: Well, I`m saying we either all obey the law or none of us obey the law. Turks should not be singled out. Moreover, as far as this so called concern for human rights, it should be pointed out that for eleven years the Turkish Cypriots had no human rights in Cyprus, and it was as a final reaction on the Turkish part to redress the situation; so we should naturally be concerned with human rights, but however, either we must conclude that the Turks are not human or that their rights don`t count.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what about the argument that nothing will change if the embargo is lifted, that the Cyprus question will not be resolved?

ALI: Well, I think it has been pointed that should that happen -and I think it would be highly unlikely -- that the U.S. does have certain options it can take in that event. I think it has pointed out that the original DCA, the Defense Cooperation Agreement which Turkey was asking to be signed, a four-year agreement, is now not being asked for, and this certainly would be an inducement to Turkey, that if they did -- in other words, not come forth with what their side considers more productive solutions, then we could point out that we`re not going to sign this treaty with the Turks.

Moreover, I might point out that to me the best argument is that there-are two possibilities: either we lift the embargo or we sustain it. Sustaining it for four years has not worked, so it seems to me if we continue to sustain it it will still not work. So why not try the other possibility?

HUNTER-GAULT: What about your reaction to an article that was in The New Republic by Morton Kondracke that says that there`s no countervailing influence to the active Greek-American lobby among the Turks, that there is no Turkish-American community to speak of, that there is no one to give a Turkish defense, if there is one, and given their record it`s very hard to love the Turks. You were testifying today in Congress; how do you plan to make the Congress love the Turks?

ALI: Okay, well, I don`t really want the Congress to love the Turks; I just want the Congress to be fair. And as far as the statement that it`s difficult to love the Turks, I think what that really means, in essence, is that you cannot count that many Turkish votes. As a matter of fact, in that very same article there was a quotation by Representative Rosenthal; in the last paragraph when he was asked as to the prognosis of this entire issue, he pointed out very clearly -- and very perceptively, and very honestly, I might add -- that we will lose in the committees but we will win overall. Why? Because it`s an election year. Now, I would thank Representative Rosenthal for summarizing the entire crux of the matter. There are three million Greek-Americans in this country, and probably not as many as 100,000 Turkish votes. And this seems to be rather cynical, but there`s no other way of looking at it, really.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, we`ll ask Congressman Rosenthal about that in a few minutes. Jim?

LEHRER: Another witness before that Senate subcommittee today was Eugene Rossides, a key lay leader of the so-called Greek lobby which represents, as Mr. Ali said, some three million Greek-Americans in this country. He heads the American Hellenic Institute Public Affairs Committee. He was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Nixon administration and now practices law here in Washington. First, Mr. Rossides, going back to the New Republic article of Morton Kondracke, he says that your position is that a vote for lifting the embargo is a vote against Greece. Is that how you see it?

EUGENE ROSSIDES: No. I look at it affirmatively from the point of view of what is best for the United States. And it`s best for the United States to adhere to the rule of law. This is the key issue in this case. And this is a very basic and fundamental law of the United States, that our weapons, to whomever they go, can only be used for defensive purposes. The impact of lifting this embargo and saying that aggression pays -- Turkey has received over $600 million since the embargo was put on; there`s been no real embargo, it`s been a partial embargo. It`s been sieves and holes throughout--and the impact on Greece -- this is the practical aspect; there`s two aspects of the problem: one is the rule of law, majority ruling human rights. But. then you have the practical aspect. The administration argues that to lift it is necessary for national security. I say nonsense, and I quote the New York Times, that says the embargo should have been put on and it should not e lifted now because we should not "appease Turkey at the expense of turmoil in Greece."

LEHRER: You heard Mr. Nimetz` argument, though, that it was proper to be put on at that time but even people who are convicted of crimes eventually get out unless it`s a capital offense. Is this a capital offense, in diplomatic terms, that the embargo should continue forever?

ROSSIDES: It`s a capital offense because they`ve never been punished in the sense of using the term someone convicted of a crime, and so on.

LEHRER: Because the embargo had holes in it, you`re saying.

ROSSIDES: Well, they`ve been given $600 million; they have forty percent of a land grab in Cyprus; and the administration is offering not only military aid this time but an additional $50 million to make up their budget deficit.

LEHRER: All right. Let me come back to my original question, though. How does this lifting the embargo jeopardize Greece?

ROSSIDES: You have in Greece a really serious problem now of anti Americanism. When the junta was there in a criminal coup on July 15, and the Samson government came in and our nation, our State Department, Kissinger, was tilting toward the Samson government, incredibly -- the only government in the world -- that government fell. It would have fallen on its own face; if we had only said something those first few days we wouldn`t have this problem. Karamanlis came in the next week, democracy returned to Greece, and Kissinger just slapped it in the face by refusing to implement the exiting law. It`s not a new law. The embargo, the 620X, was implemented because Kissinger failed to apply the existing law. Now you have a situation where the anti-Americanism was directed at Mr. Kissinger - - Metternich and his machinations. Suddenly along comes the presidential elections and the President and the Secretary of State both say we would be negligent of the moral issues and long-term interests of the United States if we don`t link normalization of relations with Turkey and progress on Cyprus. So now further he comes by and he switches that. Now what`s happened, the anti-Americanism, the feeling there already with the switch of position, is now below the surface; they`re saying the United States is anti-Greek. They refuse to adhere to the law, they refuse to adhere to human rights. So that`s where the danger is; it`s getting below the surface now, and the opposition parties are making use of it and the opposition parties have called for pulling out of NATO and pulling out of the EEC and going non-aligned.

LEHRER: Mr. Nimetz, are you concerned about the reaction to this in Greece as Mr. Rossides has laid out?

NIMETZ: We`re of course concerned about Greece because our goal was to have good relations with both Turkey and Greece; they`re both valuable friends, both valuable allies. We believe, though, that certainly Greece -- we don`t keep our friendship with Greece by having an embargo on their neighbor. Lifting the embargo is no threat to Greece; in fact, the most important thing for Greece is to have a Turkey that`s pro-Western, in NATO, friendly to the United States. Listening to this dialogue one sees such attention to history. And I got a letter from someone who said the whole problem started in 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Turks, and that`s when the human rights problem started. We have a history of disputes in the region, and somehow we have to put aside the past and start looking forward to what`s important for American security interests.

LEHRER: All right, let`s go to some of the points that the Congressman raised a moment ago, and that goes back to the impact of the embargo itself. He says we`re move the embargo, then we have no pressure at all to exercise on Turkey to resolve the Cyprus issue in any way.

NIMETZ: Let me answer that in two ways. First of all, why should the United States be the only one pressuring Turkey? That`s an unhealthy situation. The situation on Cyprus should be resolved in the talks between the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots under Secretary General Waldheim. That`s what the United Nations set up. The United States shouldn`t be in the middle of this dispute. Now, we do have a role to play, and it should be a behind-the-scene role, talking to both sides, cajoling both sides, using our diplomatic leverage. But not an embargo; an embargo is the grossest type of action one country can take against another country short of war. And Turkey is a democracy, it`s a developing country, it`s a strategically located country, and it`s an ally. And therefore the embargo is not the type of weapon that should be used in this case.

LEHRER: Congressman?

ROSENTHAL: Well, one thing I want to follow up that Mr. Rossides said: I think Turkey is important for NATO and Turkey is an ally, and we all want to have, would be very desirous of having a good relationship with Turkey. I think what can happen, what`s a very real possibility, is that we`ll lose Greece in the NATO role. There is this underlying anti-American feeling...

LEHRER: If the embargo is lifted?

ROSENTHAL: If the embargo is lifted, there`s a high potential of political risk in Greece that great pressure would be brought on Karamanlis to withdraw from NATO. They`ve already had some indications of that, and so that we would wind up with an unhappy Turkey, an unresolved Cyprus, and a Greece pulling out of NATO. That is a very, very likely scenario.

One of the things I think should be mentioned: there have been eighteen United Nations resolutions directing Turkey to withdraw her forces and to remove herself from the occupied territory and return the 200,000 refugees that were moved from the appropriated land; Turkey has not responded to that. So long as the violation -- I wish we could take off the embargo; I don`t like it -- so long as the violation hasn`t been cured, then there`s nothing we can do.

LEHRER: Mr. Ali, why has the violation not been cured?

ALI: Well, I would say, very briefly, because the embargo is still in effect.

LEHRER: You mean that`s the reason the Turkish troops are still on Cyprus, is because the embargo is still there?

ALI: I would say that`s ninety-five percent of the reason.

LEHRER: What`s the other five?

ALI: The other five is that the possible withdrawal of Turkish troops should be a part of the final solution in Cyprus; it should not precede the negotiations, it should be the consequence of the negotiations.

LEHRER: Is it your feeling, then, that as long as the embargo remains in effect the Turkish troops will stay on Cyprus as is?

ALI:I have no question at all they will stay on Cyprus. Now, you say "as is;" well, in fact the number has already been reduced from 40,000 to approximately 25,000. So in fact, even with the embargo not being lifted, Turkey has already made some goodwill gestures in reducing its troops. But will it ever withdraw all its troops? Definitely not. Not while the embargo is in effect.

LEHRER: Mr. Nimetz, obviously Mr. Ali is not a representative of the Turkish government, but is that the same message that`s been delivered officially by the Turkish government to the United States government?

NIMETZ: Not quite. The position of the Turkish government is that all the troops will be withdrawn when there is a solution to the Cyprus problem, and that Cyprus problem will be solved in these intercommunal talks. They need a new constitution, they need a territorial division between the two zones of a new federal state; in the context of that type of solution they`ll withdraw their forces. I should say, the U.S. government would like those forces withdrawn. We do not support the Turkish presence of forces on Cyprus, but in order to reach a solution we think the negotiations have to go forward.

LEHRER: All right, let`s go back to the domestic political thing for a moment -- yes.

ROSSIDES: Jim, I`d like to pop in -- when Matt says why should be the U.S. be pressuring Turkey, it`s U.S. arms that were used for the aggression. No one else`s arms. And they`re still being used for the occupation, which is a violation of the human rights provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act also. When we talk about movement on the embargo, after the partial lifting of embargo in October`75, when Secretary Kissinger assured the Congress that Turkey would be forthcoming, Turkey was forthcoming by increasing the aggression. Since then there have been 50,000 Turks from the mainland colonizing Cyprus in Greek Cypriot homes. And we talk about this thing about, oh, well, just give them something and they`ll be forthcoming. When Mr. Ecevit invaded Cyprus, he said, "We`re doing it to restore Makarios." And then the next thing they did was take forty percent of the island and they forgot about restoring the previous government.

LEHRER: Obviously there`s a big dispute over events up till now, but let`s go to the political thing. Mr. Ali quoted you from that now-famous New Republic article...

ROSENTHAL: I haven`t read it.

LEHRER: Well, your quote here is at the end, I have it here; it says, "What`s the prognosis?" meaning, how`s this thing going to land in Congress. It says -- this is a quote from you -- "The prognosis is that we lose in committee but we win on the floor. Why? Because it`s an election year." Is that your reading of it?

ROSENTHAL: I think I may be wrong on both counts. I`m not sure we are going to lose in committee. The vote is tomorrow; I think we stand a fair chance of winning by one vote or losing by one vote. If I were betting a nickel I`d bet that we were going to win by one vote. The reason I thought we`d lose in committee and win on the floor is that the committee members are much more sensitive to the importuning of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. All of us on the committee think we`re kind of ambassadors-at-large or amateur Secretaries of State, so we are more enthralled with national security arguments. The people on the floor are not, and they will be more available to hear the full weight of the argument.

LEHRER: What is the political reality of the three million Greek Americans versus the 100,000 Turkish-Americans?

ROSENTHAL: You know, that goes to the whole heart of the question, how effective are political lobbies on Congressional institutions. What they can do is bring a problem to the attention of a Congressperson. I mean, if there were not three million Greeks nobody would ever hear of Cyprus; we just wouldn`t be interested in Cyprus. The fact that there are people who are concerned about Cyprus, they have relatives, brings it to our attention and thus we pay heed.

LEHRER: All right. We have to leave it there. Mr. Ali in New York, thank you; gentlemen here. Good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: We`ll be back tomorrow night. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.