Loss of sovereignty

Contents

When a state agrees to the presence of US bases
on its soil it effectively agrees to act as a starting
point for military actions, which can include invasions,
bombing raids and covert operations.

Iraq, for example, was bombed for over a decade
from places as far apart as Okinawa, Diego Garcia,
Turkey, Italy and Germany. Colombian coca-farmers
have their crops sprayed by planes taking off from
Ecuador. Somalia was recently bombed from
Djibouti and, in all likelihood, Diego Garcia.
Germany was officially opposed to the 2003 Iraq
war, but that did not prevent the country from
being used as a base for the transfer of large numbers
of US troops, military materials and equipment.
In 1986, Britain saw protests against the
bombing of Libya from UK bases – not only
because of the bombing itself, but because British
politicians were nor warned of the action in
advance. And the US, which maintains a secret
nuclear arsenal in six European bases, nevertheless
retains the right to launch these weapons without
consulting the host governments.

Opponents of US bases argue that using other
countries’ land as a launch-pad for military operations
makes them vulnerable to attack for actions
that they are not directly responsible for, and about
which their populations have little say. Al Queda
began life as a campaign against the stationing of
US troops at bases in Saudi Arabia. And anti-base
activists on Okinawa have argued that, despite the
opposition of much of the population to US policies
on nuclear arms and the “war on terror”, the presence
of huge bases there makes them a potential
target for nuclear or terrorist strikes.

On US colonies such as Vieques and Guam, the
military's decision to use their land has lead to
clashes between ideas of local versus national sovereignty.
Local politicians and citizens oppose the
bases for bringing about the destruction of local
resources and cultures, but the US federal government
and military are able to overrule them. At
sites such as Okinawa, the Japanese national government
has used political pressure and economic
threats to prevent locally elected representatives
from upholding local opposition to the US military
presence.

Turkey

Turkey hosts one of the most “active” US military
bases. Incirlik was crucial in maintaining the Iraq no-fly
zones in Iraq in the 1990s, in bombing Afghanistan
and in occasional military covert operations in Central
Asia and the Caucasus. Incirlik is also a nuclear base
and spy station. As Nilufer Ugur-Dalay, a Turkish
activist against US military operations in Turkey,
explains:

NATO was established in 1949 after the 2nd World
War, but the inclusion of Turkey in NATO showed that
the US had wider interests than the North Atlantic. It is
not a North Atlantic country, but it bordered the
Soviet Union. Turkey was also critically important for
NATO's control over the Mediterranean, Aegean and
Black Sea.

The inclusion of Turkey in NATO allowed the US the
opportunity to settle on its soil. Military agreements,
military bases, weapon depots followed, turning
Turkey into imperialism’s military post and a base for
attacks.

A number of military agreements were signed
between the two countries as precursors to the establishment
of bases. A 1980 treaty openly declared that
the bases in Turkey would be used for attacks. On the
date of the treaty the Ministerial Council of NATO
passed a resolution stating that if NATO's authoritative
organs considered a development in the Arabian
Peninsula, Iran or the Gulf of Basra as being dubious,
Turkey must abide by this decision. This was the heaviest
obligation of the treaty. During the First Gulf War,
this treaty allowed the bombardment of Iraq by US jets
using the Incirlik base. In this sense the bases are
means for the US to make threats against Turkey's
neighbours.

The Global Peace and Justice Coalition (BAK), the
national anti-war campaign, achieved worldwide
prominence when, on 1 March 2003, it succeeded in
forcing the Turkish parliament to vote against the government’s
attempt to allow US forces to use Turkish
soil for the attack on Iraq. This was achieved as a
result of a six-month long, country-wide campaign
which mobilised hundreds of thousands and included
countless meetings, press conferences, TV ads, delegations
to parliament, local demonstrations and, finally,
a mass demonstration in Ankara on the day of the
historic vote in parliament. But the government did
allow Turkish airspace to be used by the US when it
dropped troops in Northern Iraq and, in 2005, the
Turkish government passed a secret Cabinet Decree
to allow the Incirlik military base to be used by ‘friendly
and allied nations’ for ‘logistical purposes’, including
the ‘transport of military materials and personnel’.
‘’BAK brought lawsuits against this use and authorisation
as a violation of article 92 of the Turkish
Constitution – which states that permission is required
from the Grand National Assembly for foreign forces
to be allowed onto Turkish soil. Moreover, the ‘foreign
forces’ in question are in a state of war with one of
Turkey’s neighbours.

The Coalition has remained vigilant against any government
attempt to get Turkey involved in the disaster
in Iraq or to provide any help to the forces of
occupation. It brings together an unprecedented variety
of trade unions, NGOs, political parties and organisations
and individuals of all shades of political opinion
from across the country. The campaign will continue
until the occupation is ended, the Incirlik base is
closed down and the full contents of all secret military
agreements with the USA have been made public.