Even though there are other tense conflict regions in the world, the Middle-East, the Caucasus and the Balkans are, without a doubt, the main areas of turmoil and war.
In these regions -which border Turkey from the south-east, north-east and north-west- contradictions between the nations have intensified. At the same time, the competition of the big powers to broaden their spheres of influence and seize strategic positions is increasing.
The history of this century and of the two World Wars has proved that these regions always have a great strategic importance for the inter-imperialist struggle for hegemony. For this reason the Middle-East, the Caucasus and Balkans have always been regions of tension, unrest and war.
The conflicts in these regions should not be considered temporary phenomenon. In the present period, where the contradictions between the imperialist powers are deepening, the economic, political and military importance of these regions is growing rapidly.
Consequently the conflicts embroiling these regions do not only consist of mutual animosity between the regional nations and peoples. They are actually provoked and supported by the imperialist countries. It is obvious that if the interference of the imperialist countries stopped, the national reactionary forces that provoke these conflicts and wars could not survive. Nor would there be any reason left for the nations and peoples of the region to become enemies and fight each other.
Following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc these regions have quickly become an arena for the struggle to redivide the world to reflect the new, unstable, balance of power. As a result they inevitably began to suffer national and social disintegration, degeneration and wars. Recent events have shown graphically the imperialist interests behind these conflicts and wars and the powers fighting for these interests.
For instance even the defenders of imperialism can not deny that those who incite and arm the Israeli Zionists, Arab reactionary forces and Saddam reaction against the Arab and Palestinian people and Iranian revolution are US imperialism and other imperialist states. Facts testify to this. For example, we can point to the strengthening of Israeli Zionism against the Arab-Islam peoples, the existence of pro-American kingdoms and reactionary Arab regimes despite the hatred of their peoples, the subjugation of the Arab, Palestinian and Kurdish movements to imperialism, etc.
Imperialist powers claimed "to establish peace" in the region. Yet it is they that have provoked the national friction in the Balkans and led socialist Albania, which was the element of stability and peace in the region, to collapse. They have also provoked disintegration in Yugoslavia and turmoil in Bulgaria and Romania. Essentially, they armed these countries and divide them into enemy camps. They also had made reactionary Titoism the bully of the Balkans.
However, the situation has changed in the last five-six years. New conflicting interests have emerged and new collaborator cliques have been organised. Despite the futile attempts to cover reality, obviously Russia, Britain and the US -despite their indecision- are supporting the armed Serbian reactionary forces, and on the other hand the Slovak, Croatian and Bosnian reactionary forces are being supported by Germany and France.
The Caucasus were controlled and dominated by Soviet social imperialism in the past. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union it is now embroiled in a new growing conflict between Russia, the US and other imperialist countries. The Western capitalist countries, mainly the US, are trying to preserve the collaborator classes that have been constituted on the basis of national animosities, in the Caucasus. Russia, on the other hand, is trying to strengthen its regional influence by both making these countries and nations fight each other and, at the same time, to "mediate" between them for "peace".
What is happening in the Middle-East, the Caucasus and Balkans is this: The contradictions between the regional nations, peoples and states, that have been continuously stoked up by the big powers, are now being further provoked and made antagonistic. The main reasons for the unrest and war in these areas are the hegemony of imperialism over the regional nations and peoples and the intense fight between the big capitalist states for markets and spheres of influence. The surface appearance of the conflict is one thing. However, the deeper reality is that those who have become enemies and waged war are actually not the regional nations and peoples, but the imperialist countries fighting for hegemony. The present period is one of redivision of the world among the big capitalist powers. Furthermore, each imperialist country is aware that if one establishes its hegemony and ensures its superiority in these regions, it will be better placed to influence other regions. These three areas are the most strategically important ones in the world as far as imperialist states aspiring for the world hegemony are concerned. Characteristically, imperialist interference in these regions is carried out under the pretext of "peace-keeping", "democracy", "justice" and "humanitarian assistance".
It is a well-known fact that Turkey is subcontracting for the imperialist states in interfering in the problems of these regions. Its formal policy has been to provoke competition and tension with the neighbouring countries for the last five-six years. It is trying to interfere in all problems in the Middle-East, the Caucasus and Balkans. Despite its economic crisis, it is pressing ahead with its armament policy.
What are the main features of Turkey's foreign policy? First, it supports the attacks of the imperialist coalition against the Iraqi and Arab peoples. It even attempted, for example, to occupy Iraq during the war. It constantly interferes in the internal affairs of the Caucasian republics and attempts to provoke the interference of the imperialist troops in the region. It promotes animosities in the Balkans and insists on Nato's occupation of the region. It is dangerously escalating tension with neighbouring countries such as Greece, Syria and Iran. Lastly, it is making special efforts to send troops to each region in crisis and to provide military bases to the Western imperialists.
This policy directly impinges on the daily life and interests of the Turkish and Kurdish workers and labourers as it can pull the country and people into the catastrophe of war.
The Turkish and Kurdish workers and labourers should be closely concerned with the foreign relations of Turkey, especially its policies and initiatives concerning the Balkans, Middle-East and Caucasus. They must make this a part of their daily struggle. Clearly, the aggressive attitude towards neighbouring peoples and interfering in conflicts driven by imperialist ambitions, finds reflection in Turkey's domestic policy. Namely, deception of the workers and labouring masses, fierce oppression and tyranny.
The working class and people of Turkey should not be indifferent to the foreign policy of the Turkish ruling classes. They want to create brotherhood with the neighbouring nations and the regional peoples and to defend their own national class interests. It is not possible for the workers to make any progress without carrying out a struggle on the political front. One aspect of the political struggle is to deal with foreign relations and the problems of foreign policy, while the other is to deal with domestic issues.
It should be kept in mind that one of the shortcomings of the workers' movement of Turkey is its indifference to Turkey's foreign policy and international relations.
As long as it goes on like this, it is not possible to prevent the ruling classes influencing some sections of the labouring classes by spreading illusions about external affairs, as the last few years have shown.
In the history of civilisations and of imperialism, the Balkans has been one of the most important regions of turmoil and war . The big powers, especially in the last century, have been the instigators of the conflicts among the Balkan countries. They have also been concerned to subjugate the regional nations and peoples to their interests.
The roots of the contradictions and problems among the Balkan countries originated in the frictions caused by this historical fight for hegemony. The contradictions that prevent stability and peace in the region and which produce conflicts and wars between the neighbouring nations and states are not intrinsically insoluble. However, the Balkan peoples and states keep falling into meaningless (reactionary) enmities and wars. Undoubtedly, the main reason for that is the hegemony of the imperialist countries over the regional peoples and in the frequent inter-imperialist fights to alter the power-balance in that domination.
In reality, the present violent national wars and frictions in the Balkans are not a settling of accounts among the regional nations and peoples. On the contrary, they are clashes between the imperialist states fighting for hegemony and influence, and between their collaborator national reactionary forces. This is true despite present appearances. The imperialist countries are presently carrying out their 'work' through their collaborators. As we know, the Balkans crises are dubbed "temporary", originating from "the resistance of the forces of the old regime to the transition to the free market and democracy". There is no doubt that such 'explanations' by the imperialist governments are designed to deceive the workers and labourers and to prove the external interventions to be "justified".
There is only one reason why the imperialist countries show special interest to Balkans and why the tense, turmoil and wars in the region come to the fore front: The profound deception of the Balkan peoples in order for the big capitalist countries to seize the Balkan countries completely. It is quite obvious that the imperialist states stand behind the conflagration in the Balkans.
There are two main reasons why the Balkans are important in the struggle of the big capitalist powers for hegemony: Firstly, the Balkans is the most advanced market among the backward dependent regions. Secondly, it is one of the few regions that have great military-strategic importance in the inter-imperialist struggle for domination.
Beside their economic importance for the capitalist monopolies and imperialist states, the Balkan countries have also great significance in terms of their political and military position. The Balkans is in a region where the world trade routes and energy transport lines intersect. It is, at the same time, a region overlooking these routes and lines (Suez-Gibraltar). Thus, when the re-division of the world is on the agenda, it becomes the most important foothold for and controlling three continents, enabling a dominant power to strike against, control and defend the Middle-East, the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Caucasus and even Europe.
For over 30 years, the Balkan peninsula, with the exception of Albania, was divided into the English-American and the Soviet Russian spheres of influence. The collapse of Soviet Russia has opened new spheres of influence to English-American imperialism. It has also led to the intervention of German imperialism, which was waiting in the wings, and to its emergence as an influential power in the Balkans. Germany has disturb the English-American "status-quo", become dominant in Slovenia and Croatia and a power in Albania, Romania, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. That inevitably led the Anglo-American governments, that together had constituted a barricade against Soviet Russia for thirty years, to step up their struggle. Using the same methods, these countries have covertly backed Serbian reaction, strengthened their relations with Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. They have also maintained international public opinion. Russia, in the meantime, has not been idle. It has attempted to make itself a focus in the conflict, increasing its pressure on Romania and announcing its brotherhood with Serbia.
As the facts have shown, in the conflicts in ex-Yugoslavia, the European countries including Germany -but with the exception of Britain- have taken position on one side and the Anglo-American and Russian imperialists, even though with contradictory plans, on the other. Undoubtedly, the conflicts in the Balkans have become chronic ones because of these groupings and attempts that constitute the corresponding form of imperialist intervention and wrangle to the existing "relations".
The fact that the big imperialist states act in accordance with the UN resolutions that suggest a "peaceful solution" to the warring sides and conduct joint military operations from time to time should fool no one. It is true that these states act in "alliance" in their intervention into the Balkans, as they generally do everywhere. However, this "alliance" contains within it conflicting interests and is characterised by aggressive demands against each other.
If the behind the scenes participants in the Balkans wars are the big powers, how can they intervene together? How can, for instance, US war planes bomb Serbian positions when they actually support them? On what basis can Germany threaten Croatia, its ally?
The answers to these questions are explained by the following two phenomena: Firstly, although there is development towards open international conflicts, inter-imperialist contradictions have not yet deepened or harshened to the point that will lead to a complete disintegration, an open confrontation against each other or to the consolidation of rival blocs. Economic and political phenomena compel the imperialist governments to be allies in their interventions against the oppressed nations and peoples. On the other hand, they are compelled to pursue their conflicting interests and struggle for redivision through their collaborators and policies cloaked in the diplomatic language of pseudo "peace" and "democracy".
Secondly, the attempts of the regional reactionary forces to expand and strengthen themselves have contradicted the general interests and policies of the imperialist powers backing them. Therefore, the necessity of bringing these reactionary forces 'into line' compels the interventionist powers to act under the banner of the "United Nations".
The fight of the imperialist states for hegemony in the Balkans is not prompted by immediate interests or by the possibilities of exploitation and profit. For a century, the chief imperialist countries have been implementing their Balkan policies according to the strategic needs of the redevision of the world. The policy pursued by the Anglo-American, German, French and Russian imperialists is designed to make them dominating power in the Balkans; to use their hegemony in the region as a base for their conflicts in other regions and to obtain a strategic foothold when the time comes for a definitive settling of accounts.

Turkey`s Balkan policy and imperialism
Turkey is one of those rare countries that does not have good relationships with any of its neighbouring countries. Especially since the World War II, it has been pursuing a policy of tension and war in the Balkans, as is the case with all its neighbours. Owing to this policy and attitude, reactionary forces in Turkey have got important and dangerous conflicts with the bordering Greece and Bulgaria. Its problems with Greece on the Aegean continental shelf, Cyprus, the Turkish and Greek minorities, and with Bulgaria on its Turkish minority have been, until recently, the most significant external problems in the western border of Turkey. The incidents which took place in the Balkans in the early 1990s and the imperialist intervention have led Turkey to exacerbate the contradictions and conflicts in the region and to create new problems.
The reactionary forces in Turkey have not only pursued a general policy of provoking war in the Balkans, but have also incited an international offensive, and sent troops to the region. At the same time, it has escalated its conflicts with Greece and continually threatens it with war.
Especially for the last five-six years, Turkey has been pursuing a line of intervention in all the problems and conflicts in the Balkans. It has become one of the diplomatic and military pawns of the Western countries, mainly of the US, as is shown by its role in the Middle-East and the Caucasus.
The Turkish bourgeoisie and reactionary forces want to create a certain public perception of their interventions and initiatives in the Balkans. They promote the idea that Turkey will become a political power in Bulgaria, ex-Yugoslavia and Albania. Hence, it will be able to restrict the influence of Russia in the region and to compete with it. It will lay siege to Greece by allying with Albania, Bosnia and Macedonia. Finally, through "the Economic Co-operation of the Black Sea" it will seize new and profitable markets in the Balkans. With such a strong position in the Balkans, Turkey will be taken into consideration by the big powers allies and have a say everywhere as a leading country that has guaranteed its security. That is the brief picture drawn by the Turkish government and its diplomacy to the people of Turkey regarding the situation of the country and its possibilities in the Balkans.
In fact however, the bourgeoisie and reactionary forces of Turkey know that reaching these aims, given the present pattern of relationships, is a hollow dream. This is because they also know that the Balkan countries are more developed than Turkey and that the imperialist states have not left any sphere of hegemony to Turkey.
Turkey has two main objectives in the Balkans. The first is to seize the initiative against the collaborator reactionaries in the region. This would enhance Turkey's world standing. The possibility would thus be opened to realise regional alliances against Greece and Russia and to get the support of imperialist countries for its actions. The second objective is to prevent the working class and the people from acting as a class and a people; to spread in their ranks nationalist and imperialist sentiments and animosity towards other nations. This would lead the people to accept bourgeois-imperialist interests as "national interests". This would enable the bourgeoisie to make repression and terror in the country continuous and efficient.
Inevitably, the workers and labourers will pay the price for the system's crisis, its aggressive foreign policy and its arms build-up.

The imperialist world system and the importance of the Middle-East
Throughout the history of imperialism, the Middle-East has been the most strategic and important region among the backward and dependent areas for the big capitalist countries. This importance stems from the following characteristics:
Firstly, it has significant oil reserves. Oil is the cheapest source of energy for capitalist industry. Thus, it is vital not only in terms of greater profits but also for the actual continuation of this industry. It is not possible for the capitalist economy and imperialist system to survive without having a stable and continuous source of oil.
Secondly, the Gulf and Suez Canal have a great strategic significance, connecting the west to the east. The Middle-East is one of the most significant regions of juncture for the world trade routes and the transportation of energy and raw materials. No other region constitutes a bridge from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean, from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean and the Pacific and the shortest route connecting the European, Asian and Africa continents. Undoubtedly, safe and exclusive trade routes are crucial for the survival of imperialist system.
Thirdly, all of this places a military significance on the region. The two World Wars have proved that the Middle-East is an important citadel, when the redevision of the world and open use of force come to the agenda. An imperialist country or bloc which does not bolster its struggle for hegemony and redivision of the world in the Middle-East is bound to face an impasse when confrontations come onto the agenda. This explains the intensity of the imperialist pressure and the struggle for hegemony.
What is important for revolutionary workers are the following questions: Has the struggle for hegemony ended? Has the Middle-East, which has always been one of the most important strategic region, lost its significance? Do developments such as the on-going diplomacy in the Middle-East, the "peace" between Palestine and Israel, the "rapprochement" between Syria and Israel, new channels of relations opening with Iran, the pressure on Iraq to tame it, the restoring of "order" in Lebanon, etc. indicate peace, stability or well being in the Middle-East?
It is true that the collapse of the USSR left US imperialism as the only super power in this region for the time being. The US has been presented with the opportunity to insist on a new status-quo favourable to it without leaving any possibility for an alternative.
However, it is obvious that the two main protagonists are not yet in the position to openly challenge each other face-to-face. These adversaries are the regional peoples who have been suppressed and bamboozled into illusions and the imperialist powers which have begun to articulate their demands and tensions in an increasingly open manner.
The status-quo enforced by US imperialism has not been able to solve the problems and conflicts. In fact, they remain in a more complicated form. Germany, France and Russia have already expressed their dissatisfaction with this status-quo through their initiatives and demands in the region. Moreover, the complex state of the relationships and contradictions among the main states and reactionary forces in the region presents more alternatives to the other imperialist countries.
US imperialism aims to gather the big collaborationist countries of the region around itself. For the US, countries like Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the main pillars of the US domination in the region. Israel is the main regional prop of the USA while Lebanon is its military arena where it can undertake anything it wants. The US does not operate in a vacuum, however. Neither the total subjugation of Palestine nor a US success -partial or otherwise- in grouping regional states around its strategic concerns in the area would prevent other imperialist countries from winning footholds. The coalescing of such a US centred alliance would, however, be a blow against Iran, increasing its isolation. Such a bloc would also potentially act as a shield against the anti-imperialist uprisings of the regional peoples.
However, while it is possible, such a strategy and power-balance can be realised only temporarily and in exceptional circumstances. There are problems without solution for the US. One of the most important factors that inhibit the attempts of the US to gather the regional states around a single strategy is the internal problems the Middle-East countries have and their contradictory external interests. This presents a great opportunity for the other imperialist countries to undermine the US-imposed status-quo.
Germany and France have already put forward their demands as the countries seeking hegemony. Despite the fact that Iran was labelled a "terrorist state" by the US, they have improved their relations with it. They intervene in the Kurdish question and the "peace" process in Palestine with a different angle to the US. Russia has declared that the Middle-East is in its sphere of influence. It pursues a policy of revitalising its relationship with the regional states, inhibiting the rapprochement between Syria and the US, easing the pressures on Iraq, improving its dialogue with Palestine and strengthening its relationship with Iran.
All of this give the regional countries more alternatives and represents an important weakness for the US-sponsored status-quo. On the other hand, under the circumstances where inter-imperialist conflicts become explicit, inevitably the regional peoples who are tired of oppression and poverty will wake up and start to mobilise. No matter how it seems today, it is undeniable that the supposed developing "peace process" is a deception and that the present uncertainty in the Middle-East heralds new conflicts, unrest and political alignments.

Turkey`s Middle-East policy and imperialism
Turkey is a Middle-East country even though it has different characteristics to most. Moreover, it is in conflict with the three main countries in this region, i.e. Iran, Syria and Iraq. The reactionary forces in Turkey are keen to participate in the conflicts among the regional states as well as between imperialist countries. This attitude manifested itself explicitly during the international attack on Iraq, when Turkey acted in a so blood-thirsty barbarian manner that no other reactionary force could risk.
Turkey's policy towards the Middle-East, like that towards the Balkans and the Caucasus, has been based for the last five-six years on the aim of "the Turkish Islam world from the Adriatic to the Chinese Wall". Undoubtedly, this policy takes into consideration the Kurdish question both in terms of its destructiveness and the possibilities presented by this issue. We can say that Turkey's Middle-East policy has special features in comparison with the other two regions. This is because for Turkey the Kurdish question, on the one hand, constitutes a great risk and, on the other, a "hope". The fear of "losing" Turkey Kurdistan and the "hope" of seizing Iraq Kurdistan and Musul are organically united. This is the unique feature of Turkey's Middle-East policy.
The bourgeoisie and government implements this policy hiding its attempts in the region behind the demagogy of "peace", "humanitarian considerations" and "national interests". In order for the people to identify with this policy, they attach a special importance to the propaganda of "the danger of the division of the country". The fact that the reactionary forces in Turkey have no peaceful intention is being illustrated by its oppression of the Kurdish people.
Competition with the neighbouring countries, weakening them and strengthening against them has been the traditional policy of the reactionary forces in Turkey. This policy became quite explicit during the imperialist attack in the Middle-East. Turkey's policy degenerated to the extent that it made the country a subcontractor of the US and European imperialists against the Arab and Islam peoples. The reactionary forces of Turkey manifested its animosity towards the Middle-Eastern peoples by taking part in the US military intervention in Lebanon in 1956. During the latest attack, the Gulf War, it proved this animosity by being a despicable tribune of war. The aim of this policy is to curry favour with the imperialist countries, to find international support for the reactionary fascist offensive that it carries out domestically and to market itself to the imperialist powers for a higher price.
The reactionary forces of Turkey are more explicitly orientating towards the orbit of US Middle-East policy which is based on the alliance of Egypt, Israel and Turkey. They are also stepping up their attempts to manipulate the deepening inter-imperialist contradictions and the present uncertainties. Obviously, these policies carry the risk of deepening the hostility with the neighbouring peoples. They also pose the threat of meaningless wars.
The working class and people of Turkey have to watch the Middle-East policy of the bourgeoisie and reaction closely. They must scrutinise their ploys in the region and react as necessary. Otherwise, the country will be dragged into catastrophe and destruction. Obviously, the burdens of all these policies and manoeuvres will be shifted onto the working class and the people. Everybody knows that the Zonguldak resistance and the Metal strikes were broken under the pretext of the war in the Middle-East and 300 thousand workers were sacked, again with the same justification. The working class and the people of Turkey have to understand that supporting the struggle of the Kurdish people and their right to freedom and actively opposing the policies of the bourgeoisie and reaction in the Middle-East mean defending their own interests. They must realise this and act accordingly.