Chaos, civil war, insurgency. Withdraw, stay the course, phased out withdrawl? It seems that underneath the mountains of rhetoric, debate and news only one thing remains constant: Kurdistan works. Kurdistan is all the things we wanted Iraq to be and everything the rest of Iraq isn’t. It’s safe. It’s democratic. It’s western oriented. It’s modern and it’s developing quickly. Iraqi Kurdistan is a success and the longer the rest of the country remains in chaos, the more real the internal division between them will become. And one day, that border will become real.
American intervention has been one third successful. In fact, according to journalists who’ve recently visited, most Kurds don’t even consider themselves as living in Iraq. It’s the other side of the moon. With victory in the rest of Iraq in question, America has to seriously consider its next move. Should we withdraw, it shouldn’t be to America but to Kurdistan. After all, were we to desert the Kurds again (such as after the Gulf War), they would again be left to a terrible fate.
Independence
What would an independent Kurdistan look like? Most observers say a major war, probably with Iran and Turkey pitted against the Kurds. Yet, America has a golden opportunity to turn the tables in the Middle East. Were America to withdraw to Kurdistan, all fears of a regional war would disappear. A US security guarantee would deter Turkey, a fellow NATO member, and Iran a well. In exchange for that guarantee, the Kurds would have to renounce all claim to parts of Turkey. As for Syria and Iran, however, we should ask for no such thing. In addition, they would have to help root out any PKK elements in the North and considering many Iraqi Kurds never supported them, this would likely be a non-issue.
A New Regional Alliance
Democratic, modern and liberal, Kurdistan is a natural ally of not only the United States, but of Israel too. Considering both the US and Israel are allied with Turkey, and the Kurds with America, further regional stability would be created and a serious geopolitical shift would occur. With solid guarantees from America and Kurdistan, Turkey could be coopted into a powerful new Turkish-Israeli-Kurdish axis. On top of that, the Middle East would gain another democracy. If all that isn’t a big bang, then what is?
The ramifications of such a new alliance are exciting and with Iran increasingly causing trouble in the region, a friendly Kurdistan with fancy new US military bases a stone’s throw away doesn’t look too shabby. It would also counterbalance increased Iranian infuence in southern Iraq.
Complications
Yet, there are serious complications: war and oil. With the aforementioned plan, war could almost certainly be averted but oil, or more specifically Kirkuk, is the major sticking point. This could be resolved in creative ways such the Kurds sharing oil revenue with the leftovers of Iraq for a fixed period of time, say 25 or 50 years until they get on their feet, or even permanently such as the Kurds passing along a smaller percentage for good. Enforcement would have to be via some international organization. As for the city itself, that remains to be seen. But whatever happens, the US will have to look the other way as the Kurds expel non-Kurds and make no mistake, it will happen and must be done. They could even be given relocation money from oil revenue.
The fate of the rest of the country remains unclear though. As Kirk has noted, the Kurds are part of a delicate balance between the Shia and Sunni Arabs and without them, the question as to whether they can stay together is anyone’s guess. It could indeed destabilize its neighbors or invite foreign intervention. But if withdrawl becomes the only politically viable option or the situation continues to deteriorate, a Kurdish backup plan is the best possible outcome. There’s a reason there are only 200 American soldiers in Iraqi Kurdistan and over 100,000 everwhere else.
Facing up to the inevitable
At some point we have to start thinking about inevitabilities, not possibilities. 98% of Kurds favor independence. Do we want another fragile state with bizarre ethnic quotas for government positions always one step away from civil war? Do we want another Lebanon or Bosnia? All the elements are in place for creating a stable, democratic and liberal country in the region, it’s just not the one we originally intended.
I’ll continue to follow Kurdish events and report more next March when I visit Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistan.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Lexington Green
November 1, 2006
2:30 am
If the Kurds would forego any further claims to Turkish territory in exchange for a US guarantee, that would be an excellent deal for Turkey, as well.
Unfortunately the Bush administration is still committed to a unitary Iraq. I hope that the next administration can make this happen.
Curzon
November 1, 2006
2:57 am
(200-196 BCE Second Macedonian War)
2003: Operation Iraqi Freedom
(175-155 BCE Relative peace in Spain, where Rome had occupied Carthage's former territories. )
2017-2037: Latin America fairly calm
(172-167 BCE Third Freaking Macedonian War. The Romans are getting mighty sick of having to fight the Macs every few years, so Macedonia is directly annexed by Rome. The rest of Greece is reorganized into client states.)
2020-2025: Third Iraqi War: The whole Mideast is reorganized. New states include Kurdistan and Farsistan. Lebanon, Yemen and Kuwait disappear. All oil producing regions are administered directly by the USA.
... so perhaps independent Kurdistan now would save us the trouble...
Mutantfrog
November 1, 2006
7:30 am
Rommel
November 1, 2006
9:29 am
Mutantfrog, I don't think that is valid at all.
Turkey is not China, nor will it ever be. There are very real, and dangerous implications for recognizing Taiwan as independent.
Turkey, even directly aligned against us, is not a grave and looming threat.
Mutantfrog
November 1, 2006
10:30 am
Lexington Green
November 1, 2006
1:26 pm
Rommel
November 1, 2006
3:02 pm
My point is that I understand US (and others) reluctance to recognize Taiwan but I don't understand what's stopping us from recognizing Kurdistan, especially if we declare Kurdish Turkey out of bounds in a new Kurdish state. I also think we have the leverage with Turkey to possibly make it happen, whereas with China never will.
ElamBend
November 1, 2006
3:54 pm
J.Kende
November 1, 2006
5:02 pm
Would that be such a bad thing?
kevin
November 1, 2006
6:16 pm
"Unfortunately the Bush administration is still committed to a unitary Iraq."
Of course. It must seem unavoidable. The Bush lunacy is a cloak
subadei
November 1, 2006
11:53 pm
Rommel
November 2, 2006
12:53 am
Indeed. In fact, even the PKK's methodology seems to be out of tune with mainstream Kurdish values. They commit horrific suicide attacks on civilian (including tourist) populations - the same kind many Kurds in Iraq view with disgust when discussion turns to the Arab fighting in the south. In light of this, perhaps it would be possible to alienate the PKK from the rest of Kurdish society. Certainly this would be difficult, because even though the PKK subscribes loosely to an unappealing Marxist-Leninist ideology and oft-counterproductive tactical strategy they are almost certainly still a respected force if only for the sheer amount of blood they have spilled for the cause.
Ah, the Near East in all of its migraine-inducing complexity...
elambend
November 2, 2006
1:57 am
I don't see the Turks buying this. We'd have to sell it to them by saying the Kurdistan would be the escape valve for Kurds. They don't like it in Turkey, they can leave.
The problem is, that Turkey, Iran, and Syria would probably take a more coercive policy toward Kurdistan in-migration, in order to aliviate any irredentist claims. Such a refugee crisis (along with the Iranian and Syrian agents it would bring), might just start the whole mess over, maybe.
Given our choices, I think we should persue it.
Mutantfrog
November 2, 2006
2:02 am
Rommel
November 2, 2006
2:24 am
An important point that I meant to bring up. Europe does hold signifigant comparative advantage in its leverage with Erdogan & co.
However, looking at how that relationship appears to be slightly deteriorating and Turkey's chances of joining the Union are slipping from modest to bad to very doubtful - the opportunity for the US to work with the EU to solve this issue is fading with it.
Which is sad, because despite the cons (mostly petty but a couple very serious IMO) of Turkey's entry into the Union, a very nice pro would be serious pressure to ensure Kurdish civil rights and probably eventual autonomy (along the lines of Catalonia more than Iraqi Kurdistan). This might mitigate the urge by the Kurds to liberate every inch of their claimed homeland and settle for less - for at least a while. After all, w/o being part of Turkey they would never be accepted into the Union.
Lex
November 2, 2006
2:57 am
If the US proposed this, the EU would use opposition to it as a way to gain some good will with Turkey, which they are otherwise losing by their infinitely protracted process which will never allow Turkey into the EU. The EU can be counted on to oppose the establishment of a pro-US entity in the region. Opposing the US is what the European voting publics want, that is what the leadership wants. Moreover, the EU leadership is not going to want to promote more regional disintegration of nation states. The ideal thing for the Europeans would be a reestablishment of a Iraqi dictatorship, hostile to the US and willing to do business with European governments, especially bribes to politicians, and one of the necessary corollaries of that would be the massacre of the Kurds. Basically, the ideal scenario for the Europeans would be a restoration of a regime as much like Saddam's as possible. There is no positive role for Europe to play in any scenario like the one proposed here.
Rommel
November 2, 2006
3:59 am
That was one of the most outrageously cynical analyses I've read in a while.
Unfortunately, I think you are probably 90% right (or more).
a517dogg
November 2, 2006
5:00 am
Whole lot of blood left to spill.
ElamBend
November 2, 2006
5:01 am
bahadir
November 2, 2006
9:36 am
TurcoPundit http://turcopundit.blogspot.com
Chirol
November 2, 2006
10:58 am
Ishtar
November 2, 2006
1:46 pm
As a Turk myself, I wouldn't like my country to take part in this divide and rule kind of American design. Already 650 000 people died in Iraq, for nothing. It seems Americans do not know what they are doing, and with wishful designs and promises nothing works in that part of the world.
As long as the others suffer (a divided Iraq, sunnis and shias continue to fight against each other, Syria and Iran are more destabilized, an independent Kurdistan with American backing as a land locked state) nothing becomes better. Kurdish major of Diyarbakir ( in Turkey) has already talked about taking control of the water resources in Eastern part of Turkey. US is not in a position of giving reassurances to any country in the region. It lost its credibility. This plan altogether is a recipe for more bloodshed and instability in the region and every Kurd, Turk, Arab and Iranian would tell you this.
bahadir
November 2, 2006
3:14 pm
The arguments/sentiments like "Kurds helped us, so we should favor them", "We should not sell them once more" "They are the only friends we have in Iraq so we cannot afford to alienate them" are weak/wrong. First, Kurds helped the US not out of charity but because they had no other option. Second, I understand that the emotional price of selling them one more time is a little more than doing it the first time in 1975, but if you want to be adults and really rule the world you should get used to things like that. Third, Kurds are not in position to choose their masters, or have the luxury to disobey the US. Maybe Barzani would say a few things but then what? (The same by the way is true regarding PKK. If the US used some sembolic force against them, or at least threatened credÅŸbly that they are about if they do not leave Iraq, do you think PKK will dare to attack US soldiers. US did practically nothing against PKK in more than 40 months in Iraq. Even a few aerial warning shots a few miles away from PKK camps, arresting a few of their leaders, cutting their logistics and finance could achieve a lot. It wont cost the US more than a few thousand dollars but in return you would have the Turkish goodwill. Maybe I'm not impartial enough but I think Turkish goodwill is an important commodity the US needs in the Middle East starting from Iraq to Iran to Caucasus to Afghanistan. And of the parenthesis)
If the U.S. could and can say to the Kurds, look, 1) we need to give the Sunnis a little more than their numbers normally warrant, 2) if you declare independence, it will be much more dificult to keep the Shiites in Iraq, 3) A Sunnistan will be nightmare for among others Jordan and thus Israel, 4) I cannot afford to lose the Turks just because of you.
I think Turkish government is also to be blamed in this. Because it failed to show its displeasure of what is happening and what the US doing and not doing with Kurds with enough force, authority and clarity. Thus I understand but not agree or approve the Americans when they think that even after having the Kurdish state cake, eat it and it may still be possible to have Turks on their side. But it will probably not happen. You will have a landlocked Kurdish state, Turkey refusing to provide an opening to the sea. Turkey will have relations with the US but will never trust Washington, maybe continue to buy its aircraft from Washington but keep its distance when it comes to Iran etc.
TurcoPundit
http://turcopundit.blogspot.com
unluhsn
November 2, 2006
3:28 pm
The Us is not strong enough to overcome all the countries in the region. Because its imperialistic efforts only work to unify Turkey, Iran, and Syria. The US, whatever clever politics it employs in Iraq, cannot be permanent in the region despite the will of those countries, especially Turkey's. And do not forget that the US has not a good image in the eyes of Turks nowadays since the policy it employs against the terror organization PKK.
elambend
November 2, 2006
8:35 pm
Rommel
November 2, 2006
9:44 pm
That said, to say that Iraq is failing mainly because we obviously support the Kurds (who have proven they can develop a stable society - not just the fact they are not laying IEDs out like welcome mats)...
That is looking at the issue entirely from one angle, one of (understandeable) Turkish self-interest. Do you honestly believe the Arab factions slugging it out right now in places like Balad are doing so because we recognize Kurdish autonomy? Kirkuk, perhaps - but Kirkuk is just one element among many. Kurdish autonomy complicates things but then again, could they have ever been easy?
bahadir
November 2, 2006
10:22 pm
And in my second message I wrote: "Americans gave more to the Kurds than their numbers is one of the reasons why the rest of the Iraqis are so suspicious of the invasion from the beginning. This in turn is perhaps the single most important factor why Iraq thing is failing. " To put it shorter, the almost unconditional and complete support for the Kurds is one of the reasons that made Iraqis suspicious. There are other sources, - some legitimate some less so - of Arab suspicions (permanent bases, oil, recognition of Israel, division of the country).
to elambend's question, would turkey accept a kurdish state in return for elimination/pacification of PKK, my answer is it shouldn't. Because the fact that iraqi kurds are dependent on turkey on many things do not make them behave turkey well even now. when they have their state they would be even less controllable. barzani dares to says things like, if turkey talks alot he will interfere in turkish domestic politics. another thing, even if iraqi kurds act responsibly the fact that there is a kurdish state over there will make the kurdish problem in turkey unmanageable.
Again maybe I'm not objective enough but I think US should see that Kurds will be, in the words of Anthony Cordesman, a strategic irritant and even a strategic liability for the US. Th earlier they see this and act on it by restraining Kurdish maximalist demands including in Kirkuk, the better it will be for both its own interests, Turkish interests, the region and Kurds themselves. I cannot see any signs in this direction.
TurcoPundit - http://turcopundit.blogspot.com
subadei
November 3, 2006
12:29 am
However, allow me a rather crass question: Have you given thought to the possibility that Kurdistan will be an independent state without regard to US or Turkish wants?
The viewpoints I've read here seem to assume that the fate of a Kurdistan lies wholly in the hands of US strategists and/or the inclination of states that oppose Kurdish sovereignty. I guess my point is, as far as the Iraqi Kurds are concerned sovereignty is a foregone conclusion (visit a few Kurd blogs sometime.) What remains is not whether Turkey will "allow" or US will "create," rather how will each _deal_ with the situation.
Lex
November 3, 2006
1:09 am
If the Kurds declared independence, and the USA did not defend them, the Turks could and probably would crush them. The Iranians might join in that effort. Kurdistan cannot exist and will not exist without a powerful patron.
Mutantfrog
November 3, 2006
1:26 am
Anyway, would the Kurdish minority in Turkey be so keen on independence if the Turkish government gave them total freedom in cultural and political activity? You know, like they should have in a democracy.
subadei
November 3, 2006
1:39 am
I don't think it's that cut and dry. I don't see Turkey invading another sovereignty (officially, Iraq) without direct provocation, especially given the aspects of EU membership and US political support (I'm still hypothesizing US troops have vacated) in light of the sectarian disaster to the south. I _can_ see Turkey simply landlocking (as was mentioned above) Kurdistan. Given this scenario, however, aren't we looking at (principally) a rerun of the Israeli/Palestinian conundrum?
Mutantfrog
November 3, 2006
1:55 am
subadei
November 3, 2006
2:03 am
Mutantfrog
November 3, 2006
2:39 am
Lexington Green
November 3, 2006
5:37 am
subadei
November 3, 2006
10:02 pm
Sounds a bit like Israel back in '48. Viable or not, I don't see any evidence to the contrary of the Kurds (Iraqi Kurds) at least attempting independence. I suppose we'll have to just wait and see.
Shwani
November 6, 2006
10:52 am
First of all, let's all admit Iraq is in chaos. Most of that is caused by differences among the various different sects and tribes. However, the neighboring countries (that is Iran, Syria, and Turkey) are not helping. They are making the situation worse.
Kurds, after decades and centuries fighting for the right to rule our own land, are finally in a turning point in our history. Sorry my Turkish friends but if you think a blockade is going to simply ruin those accomplishments you're in for a rude awakening.
Iraq is an artificial state, a Frankenstein state stitched together by the allied powers. It was done to benefit those countries imperial visions. Iraq should have never existed to begin with. How can you have a country when none of it's sects and ethnic groups get along with each other? or even like eachother?
The Kurds were never a "factor" in turning Iraq to what it is today. A patched up country created against their own will. Sunni's don't like shiet's, Sunni's don't like Kurds. Sheits don't like us, we don't like them, and we sure as heck don't like the sunni's. We have our reasons no need to go into detail.
The U.S. tried to help all of Iraq. Kurds were the only one that came forward and went along with the original U.S. plan. The Sheit's are Iranian puppets so they don't listen to the U.S. Sunni's never liked the U.S., it was the U.S. that over threw their dictator and their government. So it's only natural for the U.S. to help the Kurdish people. We will do, and continue to do so, to be a true American ally. Turkey's biggest mistake was not to let U.S. open it's northern front. You low-balled the United States and paying the price for it now. By making that choice, Turkey literally helped the Kurdish cause.
Kurdistan will be an independence country whether Turkey/Iran/Syria likes it or not. We've fought for centuries, regime after regime, for that very purpose. And I tell you what, we will fight for another century if we have to. Kurdistan belongs to the Kurdish people, we have the right to rule our land as much as any country in the world. We are not Turks, we are not Persians or Arabs. We have our own culture, language and history that no one can erase.
Turkey, Syria and Iran are afraid of a independent Kurdish state for a couple reasons (and they should be). Here's a couple:
1. Unlike Turkey, Syria, and Iran to some extend, Kurdistan is a rich land. Lots of oil that would elevate it's economy way past Turkey, Syria and Iran.
2. Kurdistan would be a huge player in Middle East politics. There are almost (could be over) 40 million Kurds. The countries wealth and strategic place in the Middle East far exceeds Turkey, Syria and Iran's potential in the future.
3. A Kurdish state is a threat to those above mentioned countries because it's more democratic, it's land is a vital strategic place in the Middle East. Is very rich, not to mention Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria would all lose parts of their country, that wasn't theirs to begin with.
A Turkish invasion of Kurdistan (North Iraq) will be a historic blunder in Turkey's history. Not only will Turkey be ridiculed internationally, and jeopardize any relations they have left with the US, but they can forget about joining the E.U.
I know the Kurdish Peshmarga is not a good foe for the Turkish Army, but the Peshmarga never battled Saddam's Army in a all out battle. Gorilla, insurgency tactics were used and the Iraqi army was harassed to the point where it made Saddam to lash out and use a chemical weapon. The Peshmarga would turn Kurdistan into hell for the Turkish Army. It's in Turkey's best interest to finally let the past go. Kurds will have their state.
If even one Turk sits down and thinks rationally and positively, one can see all the great benefits for both sides. Economic benefits, Military Benefits for Turkey. Most likely E.U. membership for Turkey. Oh ya, not to mention having a great ally next to you that is loyal. A great buffer between Turkey and Islamic extremes that worries not only the Kurds but Turkey as well.
Oh and by the way, I am from Kirkuk. In 1993 the Iraqi Mukhabarat came to our house and simply gave my father two choices:
1. Change your identity to Arab from Kurdish
OR
2. Pack your bags and leave within 2 days.
That is only one family out of 90 to 100 thousand people. It's hilarious reading the Turkish news papers say there are 2 million Turkmen's live in Kirkuk, what a joke.
I swear to you on the Koran, the bible or whatever you believe in, there isn't even a million Turkmen living in Kirkuk. I am from there, I know my city. The cities population is not even a million...
I would love to hear some responses from Turkish fella's on this blog about what they think of Kirkuk. Turkey is itching and grasping because Kirkuk will be returned to it's rightful owner, Kurdistan.
Chirol
November 6, 2006
11:16 am
bahadir
November 6, 2006
1:27 pm
I can understand that young/immature kind of nationalism tends to forget what is not appropriate but you should at least try to be a little grateful. I will be the first to admit that these were not done solely for philantrophic reasons, and sometimes they were imposed on Turkey, but still you should try to be more objective.
If there there were no separatist Kurds in Turkey, if Iraqi Kurds were more reasonable, grateful, careful, cooperative in their relations with Turkey, a Kurdish state might have been in Turkish interest. We Turks prefer rich neighbors who like to trade with us than poor, angry and nasty ones. But unfortunately it is not the case. Iraqi Kurds forfeited part of their legitimacy when they were less than fair in their treatment of Turcomans in Iraq, the way they tried a fait accompli in Kirkuk, in their rhetoric against Turkey, in their unwillingness to act against PKK. It may be crude to put it but we will always be here, whereas the US will leave some day or the other.
I have no problem with Kurds in Turkey and in Iraq as Kurds. I think they are right to ask for more cultural space as individuals in Turkey. Kurds should be free to learn and speak his/her language, live their culture fully. Even the Turkish state should acknowledge that it made many unnecessary mistakes in the past and even some sort of apology may be thinkable. But all these should be done on an individual basis, not in group terms. And this truw for all the other ethnic groups in Turkey.
My nationalism is not racial. I'm a color-blind national interest nationalist from Turkey. I understand the urge of Kurds to have a state of their own. I may even say that I have sympathy for them. If they were living in another part of the world I might have signed a petition for their independence and even protest in the street on their behalf. That's why I understand when people in the US and Europe from their comfortable homes tempt to think that a Kurdish state may be a nice thing morally. (But even then probably I wouldn't think that their number is somewhere near 40 million.)
But the problem is that they are dispersed in four-five states, they missed the train for independence early in the last century. To remedy the situation on their behalf will create to much trouble, blood, time, money and political capital.
Not all but most Kurds decided to be part of the new Turkish Republic. Some later regretted it perhaps but sometimes history plays such cruel jokes on people. There are perhaps millions of intermarriages. There are Kurdish presidents, prime ministers, ministers in Turkey. Their number in today's Turkish Parliament is probably much more than their share of the population. They can choose to live anywhere in Turkey. If you really think that Iraqi Kurdistan is some kind of paradise someday you should come to see Bosphorus, Antalya, Bodrum, Bursa (these are all places in Western Turkey where millions of Kurds live now.)
I believe the status quo begins the competition with a new bright plan at least one step ahead just because it is status quo. If you don't know what will come after you destroy the status quo you should not do it. Trying to make it nicer here and there in piecemeal fashion ok, but you should not just do what the U.S. did in Iraq. It is not responsible, it is not ethical. Ralph Peteresque intellectual exercises are acceptable only if they remain as intellectual exercises (and it should be done in a more honest way by asking what is the direct and opportunity cost? What are the unknowables?)
However, I live in the Middle East which has recently had more than its share of violence, instability, chaos. There is no need to deny that as a Turkish national I dread the possibility of a Kurdish state. I think, I may be wrong, but a Kurdish state will make the Kurdish problem unmanageable. It will create a precedent. Most Kurds are happy to be part of Turkey. As the cliche goes, Istanbul is the biggest Kurdish city in the world. Of course we have our problems with Kurds in Turkey. Unlike many other ethnic groups in Turkey a considerable part of them have not been integrated into the Turkish fabric. There are some structural, historical reasons. Until recently most of the Kurds in Turkey lived in an isolated part of the Turkey. They enjoyed some kind of autonomy even in Ottoman times. State penetration of these areas in terms education, services, security is wanting. The feudal structures continued to predominate. Admittedly Kurds are many more than other groups who integrated to Turkish fabric easily (Circassians, Bosniacs, and all the other groups from which poured to Anatolia in the last century and half when Ottomans retreated). Unlike those groups Kurds are concentrated in one area. Admittedly Kurdish areas are poor. But they are not the only poor parts of Turkey. And I don't really believe that they were kept deliberately poor by the Turks or the state. Geography is formidable, it is a landlocked area away from the sea. Land is not good generally. Despite all the incentive packages private companies do not go there. Economy and social structure was and in some respects still is premodern. Turkish state poured a lot of money to the in the last two decades or so. Still the tax collected from the entire region is much less that the one from a single district of Istanbul. Apart from all these obstacles PKK terrorism make the region a no go area for about two decades.
US should not try the option of the Kurdish state. What is more it should make clear that it will harm its relations with 70 million Turkey, all the Arabs in the region. If Turkey and other Iraqi neighbors are determined to isolate Kurds a kind Berlin airlift will be needed. Is it possible, feaible and desirable. Don't you see it means Northern Iraqi oil will remain outside the global markets for some time. Also Turkey need not invade Northern Iraq. Punitive raids, air bombing, denial to outside world, leaving you the mercy of Sunni Arabs who will one day be more powerful militarily and politically. These are Turkey's options. It is not the possible world. We prefer Iraqi Kurds content to live as part of Iraq (though I agree that nothing much common remained), do not incite pan-Kurdic ambitions, act against PKK, act responsibly in Kirkuk where almost half of the population do not want to live under Kurdish flag, be nice to Turkey, be nice to Turcomans. If it is not the case, nobody should complain when we get nasty.
I am aware what I've said does not sound nice. Certainly it is not ethical in the liberal sense. If I were a Kurd I would be revolted by it. But I think it is ethical in the realist sense. It will create less pain, blood and uncertainty than the option of forcing a Kurdish state.
shwani
November 6, 2006
2:17 pm
Glad to be here. Your proposal is very reasonable. I, personally, would have no problem with it. I think it's the best solution presently. However, and i'm not going to lie, I just highly doubt the Kurds would give up 15 million of it's population along a vast part of Kurdish homeland.
They could/might agree to your proposal (which by the way is brilliant, you should definetly get into politics) but after many years have passed by and the Kurdish state establishes it'self and get on it's feet, they might knock on Turkey's door and re-think that "promise".
Let me ask you this Chirol, what would you really think about your proposal if it were for United States to give almost half of it's land and 15+ million of it's people?
Would you truely agree to that? even if so, how would the future generation say about it?
Chirol
November 6, 2006
2:37 pm
As to your last point, I don't think the US is a valid comparison. We've been a country for quite some time and don't have any kind of similar situation, but I understand your overall point, it would be a very hard thing to do. Again, the question is how much is an independent Kurdistan worth?
Besides, the Kurds from Turkey could move if they wanted. I'm sure some would.
Ishtar
November 6, 2006
3:05 pm
"I just highly doubt the Kurds would give up 15 million of it's population along a vast part of Kurdish homeland"
to my opinion words like that might receive a lot of reaction from the Turks. This vast part of Kurdish homeland is also home for many Turks working and living there. What are you planning to do with them?
No Turk is willing to give up an inch of Turkish territory. The Kurds who would like to live in an independent Kurdistan is free to leave Turkey and live in Northern Iraq, if an independent state is established there.
Besides, nobody is interested in stopping the honour killings, forced marriages, blood feuds or the aga system that one person rules several villages (up to 50 000 people) and whose words are accepted as law above everything in the Kurdish areas which keeps those areas backward and far away from individual freedoms and human rights. Even the Turkish state can not stop brother killing his sister for the honour of the family in the Southeastern part of Turkey.
shwani
November 6, 2006
3:23 pm
I maybe young, I am 23, but trust me I read the news everyday from all different prespectives. I read Turkey's newspaper all the time. So excuse my nationalism towards my kidnapped country but I have a pretty good grasp of what is going on.
First of all, Turkey did not want the U.S. and Britain to protect the Kurds of North Iraq. Do I have to give you some links of how the Kurdish refugee's were treated when they amassed at the Turkish border in the 1st gulf war?
Turkey let U.S. and British use Incirlik airbase because, and you know i'm right on this, Turkey depends heavily on United States help for economic purposes. The U.S. gives Turkey billions of dollars in aid and assistance. I also know U.S. is Turkey's biggest military supplier. So Turkey did not come forward and wanting to help the Kurdish people, rather she was pressured into it by United States.
Yes Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani were at eachother's throats in the 1990's. It was a civil war. Turkey were supplying the Kurdistan Democratic Party with weapons and intelligence assistance because they did not want the Kurds to be united. Outside powers have used the Kurdish struggle for their own agenda for years. Iran did it, United States did it in '75 (Thanks Kissinger...) and Turkey did it too. Turkey and Iran have always tried to pit the Kurdish factions against eachother becaues they did not want a unified Kurdish administration. They meddled in our internal affairs to keep the Kurdish struggle weak and under control.
It's not like we have done nothing for Turkey either. The KDP and the PUK both sent their peshmarga's and actually fought the PKK near Zakho and chased 'em as far as they could. Barzani came out and said we know they are Kurdish, but they cannot come into our side of the country and try to ruin what we have.
Turkey never tried to make peace between KDP and PUK. That was just a pretex used to meddle in our internal affairs to keep the Kurdish parties under control.
I love the fact how you point out my "immature" nationalism and that I should be more grateful, yet you go on to say "I'm a color-blind national interest nationalist from Turkey". Hey man, i'm just doing the same thing.
Also, what exactly are you reffering to when you said Kurdish treatment of Turkman's in Iraq are "less than fair"?
I am from the Kirkuk. I was born there. There is no denying that Turkmans live in Kirkuk. There weren't many Arabs that lived in Kirkuk however. Driving back with my dad after he picked me up from school I never saw more than 3 Arabs in the streets. I would've been shocked. Now half the city is Arabs.
You are not being fair about Kirkuk. You do realize the Ottoman Empire labled the city as a "Kurdish" city? They have historical Ottoman maps in Turkey, I suggest you go check the facts out for yourself. There is no denying the identity of Kirkuk. It always has been a Kurdish city. The only reason Turkey and the Neighboring countries do not want to give it back to is because of the OIL. Kirkuk sits on 6% of world's oil.
No one is tortoring the Turkmans in Kirkuk. The only information you have is through the Iraqi Turkmon Front. The Kurdish administration have tried to reach out to them but they do not want to have anything to do with us. There are many other Turkman parties in Kirkuk and in North Iraq and they all want to side with us and straight up say Kirkuk should be handed back to Kurdistan.
I've read it in the newspaper and seen it with my own eyes on TV. The ONLY Turkman group that is trying to create problem in Kirkuk is the Iraqi Turkmon Front. That is very very interesting because I know why that is.
Iraqi Turkmon Front was created AND funded by the Turkish government in 1995. They do not care about the Turkman's in Kirkuk, or even Turkman's in Kurdistan in generall. That party was created by Turkey in 1995 to be an obstacle to the Kurdish administration's aspirations of getting Kirkuk back.
Both the PUK and the KDP have countless times tried to reason, sit and talk with ITF but they do not want any dialogue with us. They are paid by the Turkish Government. Most Turkman's in Kirkuk are very close with Kurds. There are many families who have intermarriages. No that is not a lie because my cousin just met this Turkman guy in Kirkuk University and they got married two months ago. Iraqi Turkmon Front was soley created by Turkey to oppose Kirkuk falling back into Kurdish hands and nothing more.
Right after the Iraq liberation, Turkish secret agents were arrested by the United States Military in co-operation with Patriot Union of Kurdistan. They were sent to assasinate high level Kurdish politicians in the city of Kirkuk. They were captured and were held prisoners in Sulaymani. The Turkish soldiers confessed to the whole situation. That is why United States does not fully trust the Turkish Government when it comes to Iraq/Kurdistan's internal affairs.
Mr. bahadir, there is a few things Turkish people should realize and understand. We've been fighting a bloody and costly Independence fight for decades and even centuries. Just like Turkey, we are human beings who have our own distinct culture, heritage, language and way of life. We've been ruled by aggressive regimes and been manupilated by nieghboring countries for centuries. Our women have been raped in front of their children and husbands. Their babies were fed to dogs right in front of them. We have lived through so many horrific memories and been victimized by your country and all the neighbors surrounding us.
We have pride, we are human beings just like you. We have our own land. There are over 40 million Kurds living across the world without a state of our own. We've been tortured, gased and been played out by all of you. Our land is occupied and we want it back. It is necessary for you, and the rest of the citizens of Turkey needs to realize we will not give up untill that dream is full filled. It might be tommorrow, it might be a 100 years from now. But at the end, we will prevail.
Why can you have a country and not us? We were promised a country but thanks to your radical leader Mustafa Kemal aka "Ataturk" that dream was crushed. The fact is the Kurds in Turkey are not happy being a part of a Turkish nation.
Kurds in Turkey are not allowed to speak Kurdish. There are Kurdish TV stations, there are no Kurdish schools. Kurds are not allowed to give their children Kurdish names. They are not even allowed to speak their native tongue. During the 1990's your army blazed more than 3000 villages to the ground. Children, mothers, old folks were all killed. Kurdish woman are raped daily in Turkish Kurdistan.
Why do you think Turkey is having such a hard time entering the E.U.? because the European countries know all the crimes the Turkish Army have done against it's Kurdish population. WIth all his brutality and aggression, the Kurdish in Iraq were in much better shape. We could speak our language, there were Kurdish Radios. Kurdish programs on Iraqi TV. Turkey have failed it's Kurdish citizens mightly and you know it.
Kurds in Turkey are/were raped, beheaded, dragged behind tanks and their villages burned to the ground and that still was not enough.
Your country went as far as to even deny the existance of "Kurds" living in your country.....changing their identity to "Mountain Turks".
I am not the only one who has these views of Turkey. Turkey's history is filled with crimes against humanity and aggression. Turkey, to this day, still refuses the Armanian Genocide when it's accepted everywhere else on the planet.
And regarding the PKK, while I "sympathize" with their struggle and I know why they are picking up arms and fighting back. I do not approve of their methods. Terrorizing the civilian population, blowing bombs and killing innocent Turkish civilians is the wrong thing to do. For that reason, the PKK needs to be dismantled.
Speaking from the heart, if I lived in Turkey and had to deal with all the atrocities the Turkish Army have done to the Kurds, I would pick up arms and join the PKK too.
Mr. bahadir it's time for Turkey to change it's ways and deal with issues on the political table. We are not trying to steal a part of your country. In fact, and this might be a little hard for any Turk to understand, it is your country that is occupying ours and still are the biggest threat/obstacle in our way that is preventing us from god's gift to humanity. That would be liberty mr. bahadir. You have enjoyed it for centuries. Why can't we have liberty and hope and a state of our own, on our OWN LAND.
You give me a good reason why a population of 40+ million people that has been tortored, betrayed, denied, gassed and abused for centuries can't live on it's own land?
Since I went to high school here in the States, one patriot fella summs up how every Kurd feels.....to quote one of the most influential advocates of the American Revolution Mr. Patrick Henry:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
shwani
November 6, 2006
3:35 pm
Personally, i would be all for it. If the Kurds get it's land back from Iran and Syria along with Kirkuk, Turkish Kurdistan is expendable.
I try to be a realist. I know your solution is, in all honesty, the best compromise for both Kurds and Turks. However, i'm not in a position to make that scenario happen.
Yes it is hard to give that part of the country up but if you combine Kurdistan's part from iraq, Iran and Syria you would have a pretty sizable country.
If that scenario were to play out and the Turkish government accepts it, I hope the Kurdish leadership doesn't even blink and sign the charter.
Ishtar,
You stated:
"Besides, nobody is interested in stopping the honour killings, forced marriages, blood feuds or the aga system that one person rules several villages (up to 50 000 people) and whose words are accepted as law above everything in the Kurdish areas which keeps those areas backward and far away from individual freedoms and human rights. Even the Turkish state can not stop brother killing his sister for the honour of the family in the Southeastern part of Turkey."
I do not know if you're talking about Turkish Kurdistan or Iraqi Kurdistan but in case you haven't noticed the Kurds in Iraq have evolved and continuely progressing what you just mentioned.
However if you're talking about Turkish Kurdistan then how on earth the Turkish government let so many uneducated and uncivlized people be Presidents and Parlimant members of the Turkish state?
you're way over-exaggerating.
Shwani
November 8, 2006
5:47 pm
"An undiplomatic conflict of interest
By Kevin McKiernan | November 1, 2006
MOST PEOPLE would agree that it's bad ethics for government officials to invest in companies that they regulate. But what about a US special envoy to a Middle East trouble spot who happens to be a director of an arms company selling weapons to one of the parties in the conflict?
That's the case of retired Air Force General Joseph Ralston, who was appointed by the Bush administration in August to help US ally Turkey counter the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK , the Kurdish rebels who are seeking autonomy from Turkey and have bases in northern Iraq. Ralston, a former NATO supreme allied commander, has been negotiating with Turkish generals and Iraqi leaders since his appointment to develop measures to eliminate the bases.
The problem is that General Ralston is on the board of Lockheed Martin, the world's largest arms maker, which just last month finalized a $2.9 billion sale for advanced F-16 fighters that may well be used in the Kurdish region (the State Department acknowledges that F-16 s were involved in human rights abuses in Turkey in the 1990s). This gives the ex-general the appearance of holding a financial interest in his shuttle diplomacy.
The administration hopes the Ralston appointment will boost US-Turkish ties, which soured on the eve of the Iraq war after Turkey refused to allow American troops to deploy from Turkish soil. But the issue of PKK guerrillas, who have been battling the US-equipped Turkish army for 22 years, is complicated, and efforts to impose a military solution without causing more regional instability may backfire.
The Kurdish uprising in the 1990s in Turkey accounted for approximately 37,000 deaths, most of them ethnic Kurds. Whatever happens next will be closely watched by the restive population of 25 million stateless Kurds who spill across the borders of Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria.
Both the United States and the European Union regard the PKK as terrorists, but the group finds support among Turkey's long-abused Kurds. At the same time, Kurds who hoped the Turkish government would grant educational and broadcasting rights were disappointed in 2004 when the PKK ended its unilateral, five-year cease-fire and went back to war.
Now Turkey and the Kurds appear to be on a new collision course, and Lockheed Martin, General Ralston's company, may play a pivotal role. Last spring, Turkey moved 200,000 troops to its southern border, and its generals have been pressing Washington for a green light to enter Iraq to attack the rebel sanctuaries. Iraq's government opposes the threatened incursion, arguing it would only add to existing chaos in the country.
Iraqi Kurdish leaders fear local Kurds would join Turkish Kurds to fight the Turkish army -- the largest NATO power (after the United States) -- and the result would be a Kurdish bloodbath. Privately, Iraqi Kurdish leaders complain that the issue of PKK bases is only a pretext. They claim that Ankara's real target is Kirkuk, the multiethnic, oil-rich city that Iraqi Kurds vow to incorporate into their semi-autonomous zone by 2007.
Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, who is a Kurd, recently played a key role in behind-the-scenes negotiations to disarm the guerrillas. The result was a cease-fire announcement on Oct. 1 by the rebels, who also declared they might hand over weapons to US forces in Iraq in exchange for Turkish concessions that include human rights reforms and amnesty for rebels. In a speech in Istanbul last month Ralston opposed amnesty and dismissed the cease-fire, declaring he would never "negotiate with terrorists."
General Ralston is on the board of the American Turkish Council, the powerful Capitol Hill lobby, and he is vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a corporation founded by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, with close ties to the Turkish military. Unfortunately, Ralston carries too much baggage to be special envoy, and he should step down before he alienates the Kurds of Iraq, the best -- and perhaps only -- friend the US government has in the country.
With the looming threat of civil or even wider war in the region, the United States needs a skilled, disinterested negotiator to resolve the PKK issue, while finding a peaceful solution to legitimate Kurdish grievances.
Our new man in Ankara will be seen as an arms merchant in diplomat's clothing. He should be replaced.
Chirol
November 8, 2006
6:00 pm
Michael
November 8, 2006
9:59 pm
A: Turkey agrees to return to allowing freedom of language and speech among their Kurdish population; in return, the Iraqi Kurds grant the same to their Turkomen minority.
B: Turkey agrees to recognize the rights of the Iraqi Kurds to full self-determination IN THEIR OWN LANDS; in return, the Iraqi Kurds give up all rights to Turkish territory.
C: All support, either to the PKK or to the ITF, ceases.
D: Turkey agrees to develop economic ties with the Iraqi Kurds; in return, the Iraqi Kurds agree not to seek full independence from Iraq.
It's not a perfect solution, but it seems to address most of the complaints on both sides and keeps the peace for a while. It also leaves the door open for other solutions down the road. For example, suppose Iraq's central government collapsed; a united, prosperous Kurdish area would be well placed to protect the northern oil fields, shelter refugees, and ultimately take control of the whole country.
Shwani
November 9, 2006
5:41 am
Interesting proposal....
just to clear a few things however...
"A: Turkey agrees to return to allowing freedom of language and speech among their Kurdish population; in return, the Iraqi Kurds grant the same to their Turkomen minority."
I don't know where you heard the Turkmen minority in Iraq and especially in Kurdish terrority not having basic human rights.
Most of the Turkmen's live around Kirkuk area. They are free to talk. They oppose Kirkik being given back to Kurdistan openly in Iraq. They have their own satellite channel that airs from Kurdistan/Iraq. Yet many Kurdish Satellite channels have been banned by European countries due to Turkish pressure.
The general Turkmen population want to be part of Kurdistan. The Ba'ath regime target it the Turkmen, the Kurds, the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, the Christians and even the Sheit's the same way.
If the Kurds in Turkey had only 50% of the rights the Turkmon's in Iraq had........PKK probably wouldn't even exist.
Michael
November 10, 2006
7:51 pm
To be honest, I was a bit indifferent to the truth of matters when I wrote that. I didn't know who was telling the truth, so I hoped for a plan that would work regardless of the truth.
Specifically, I figured that if the stories of Turkmen persecution were true, then a mutual agreement on minority rights would be a necessary part of any deal, both for humanitarian reasons and as a means of buying Turkish progress on their treatment of Kurds. But if you're right, then the Kurdish side of the agreement should be easy to implement-- it's something you're already doing!
I hope I've not given offence; I saw nothing to suggest that you were lying, or incapable of knowing the truth. But I'm not necessarily a good judge of these things, and I felt it better to give credence to the stories told about both sides to get both sides to listen. Thank you.
Shwani
November 10, 2006
10:41 pm
Hey my apologies as well. Reading my own response to your first comment I sounded like an ignorant prick. So my apologies Michael. I totally understand where you're coming from. The situation you touched on is very complex because there are a lot of players in the situation.
Kurds have historical rights to the city long before the oil factor came into the picture. The Kurdish people have proof and historical documents from various sources that back up their claim of Kirkuk being a Kurdish city. However, ask the Sunni's or the Turkmen/Turkey for any proof linking their claim to the city based on factual documents. They can't provide any because they do not have it.
Here are some links to articles that no Turkish people would like you to read/see. Or anyone in the world for that matter.
**Senior Turkmen: Turkmen Front's decisions are made in Ankara**
_italics_London (KurdishMedia.com) 16 October 2003: A former senior member of the Iraqi Turkmen Front (ITF) governing council announced in an interview with the Free Iraq Radio, IraqHurr, that most of the decisions and plans of the Iraqi Turkmen Front Party are made in Ankara.
Sami Shabak and some other former senior Turkmen Front members have established a new Turkmen party called "Liberal Turkmen Association."
Shabak said that reasons of his separation from the Iraqi Turkmen Front were because most of Turkmen Front's decisions were made by Turkey. "Throughout our work in the ITF for several years we have realised that the decision of the ITF are made by foreign parties and in particular Turkey which plays a major role in decision-making. These Turkish made decisions are being imposed on the Iraqi Turkmen Front members. The wrong policies of the ITF don't suite the Turkmen nation in Iraq and in Kurdistan."Â?
Shabak continuted "The policy of ITF contradicts the policy of the Turkmen nation in Iraq and in Kurdistan and with the policy of Kurds as well. Shabak said that what they are demanding is justice and equality for the Turkmens.
Documents recovered from the former Iraqi secret services revealed that the ex-president of the Iraqi Turkmen Front, Qassab Agha, was working with Saddam Hussein to destroy the Kurdish self-rule experiment in south Kurdistan. Also earlier this year, American forces arrested several Turkish special forces in Sulemani, south Kurdistan, who in cooperation with the Turkman Front planned to assassinate the Kurdish governor of Kirkuk. _italics_
"Senior Turkmen: Turkmen Front's decisions are made in Ankara":http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=4348
**Turkish army moves freely in south Kurdistan**
_italics_Sulemani (KurdishMedia.com) 10 January 2003: The Turkish army is moving freely in south Kurdistan and none of the two main Kurdish political parties, the PUK and the KDP, have commented on its precense.
**People in the area are worried about the precense of the Turkish army and its intentions. Turkey also uses the Turkmen Front, a Turkmen para-military and mercenary group created and maintained by the Turkish State, which has bought and continues to buy land and property in areas that has never seen Turkmens at any time in history, such as Sulemani and Kifri.
In Kifri the Turkmen Front pays youth of the town handsome salaries to register as Turkmens.**
This process Turkmenification of Kurdistan, which may have serious consequences in future, does not seem to concern the Kurdish authorities. _italics_
"Turkish army moves freely in south Kurdistan"http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=3322
**Jamawar: Turkey pays Arabs in Kirkuk to change ethnicity to Turkmen**
London (KurdishMedia.com) 12 March 2004: The Turkish government has started paying Arabs in Kirkuk in exchange for changing their ethnicity to Turkmen, the independent Kurdish weekly of Jamawar has reported on Monday week.
According to the newspaper, the Turkish government and through the Turkmen Front party has started a campaign in order to change the demographic status of Kirkuk. The paper says that salaries and rewards have been made available for the Arabs in the villages of "Zanjila and Pir Ahmed and Sayad" around Kirkuk in return for changing their ethnicity to Turkmen in any upcoming census in the area.
Through an Arab source, the paper has managed to gather some of the names of the Arabs who have agreed to change their ethnicity to Turkmen. They are "Wassam Shahab, Khalaf Salih, Jabar Zaydan, and Adnan Ahmed".
"Jamawar: Turkey pays Arabs in Kirkuk to change ethnicity to Turkmen"http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=4762
Michael
November 11, 2006
4:37 am
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » The Butcher, the Baker and Candlestick Maker
November 14, 2006
10:30 pm
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Reality Check
November 15, 2006
5:29 pm
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » History Hour Continued: The Accidental Kurdistan II
December 26, 2006
11:09 pm
What should we do in Iraq? « Fabius Maximus
May 26, 2008
7:39 pm