Tweet
MOSUL AND ADVENTURE
By Ergun Babahan
Anatolian Times, Turkey
Jan 16 2007
I met with Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul this weekend and we discussed
developments in Iraq. Ankara is obviously following these developments
closely but it has absolutely no intention of plunging the country into
an adventure whose outcome is unclear. It was said that if they try to
act by ignoring Turkey, we would remind them that we're here. Actually,
Turkey's importance has always been underlined during the process
starting from last year's Baker report to the recent remarks made by US
President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Yes,
if Turkey makes an initiative on northern Iraq, it might be come at
odds with the US, and this might cause serious problems. However,
such a development would be a failure for the US, whose Iraq policy
has fallen flat. So, it can be said that more attention will be paid
to Ankara's remarks in the weeks and months to come. As for regional
leader Massoud Barzani, his remarks are seen as being directed towards
domestic concerns, and it is underlined that he might have problem
staying in power. Ankara is constantly following the northern Iraq
issue. However, how right is it to relate Iraq policy just with the
issue of a possible independent Kurdish state?
According to the book 'Musul Sorunu' (The Mosul Issue) by Dr. Ihsan
Serif Kaymaz, this is the basis of the problem. In his book, Kaynar
wrote that during the Turkish War of Independence most of the Kurdish
people living in Anatolia supported the national movement. However,
this support, which was ensured thanks to such effective rallying cries
as Islamic unity and the Armenian danger, was neither problem free
nor unconditional. It was problematic, because the Kocgiri rebellion,
which was during the most critical stage of the war and started at
a time when Greek forces launched an attack and came as far as the
Sakarya River, put the national forces in a difficult position. It was
conditional, because throughout the War of Independence, Kurds have
always had certain wishes and expectations, meaning autonomy. Mustafa
Kemal Pasha (later Ataturk) was obliged to act more tolerantly in
an atmosphere in which the general situation was very serious. Under
these circumstances, was it correct to include the new mass of half
a million Kurds within the country's borders?
Kaynar also wrote that this evaluation was the reason for not
taking in the province of Mosul and listed two conditions which
were unacceptable for the young Turkey of that era: Firstly, Mosul
shouldn't have been taken under the control of imperialist forces
from outside the region. Secondly, an independent Kurdish formation
shouldn't have emerged in the province. It seems that in the 80 years
since the situation hasn't changed.
By Ergun Babahan
Anatolian Times, Turkey
Jan 16 2007
I met with Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul this weekend and we discussed
developments in Iraq. Ankara is obviously following these developments
closely but it has absolutely no intention of plunging the country into
an adventure whose outcome is unclear. It was said that if they try to
act by ignoring Turkey, we would remind them that we're here. Actually,
Turkey's importance has always been underlined during the process
starting from last year's Baker report to the recent remarks made by US
President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Yes,
if Turkey makes an initiative on northern Iraq, it might be come at
odds with the US, and this might cause serious problems. However,
such a development would be a failure for the US, whose Iraq policy
has fallen flat. So, it can be said that more attention will be paid
to Ankara's remarks in the weeks and months to come. As for regional
leader Massoud Barzani, his remarks are seen as being directed towards
domestic concerns, and it is underlined that he might have problem
staying in power. Ankara is constantly following the northern Iraq
issue. However, how right is it to relate Iraq policy just with the
issue of a possible independent Kurdish state?
According to the book 'Musul Sorunu' (The Mosul Issue) by Dr. Ihsan
Serif Kaymaz, this is the basis of the problem. In his book, Kaynar
wrote that during the Turkish War of Independence most of the Kurdish
people living in Anatolia supported the national movement. However,
this support, which was ensured thanks to such effective rallying cries
as Islamic unity and the Armenian danger, was neither problem free
nor unconditional. It was problematic, because the Kocgiri rebellion,
which was during the most critical stage of the war and started at
a time when Greek forces launched an attack and came as far as the
Sakarya River, put the national forces in a difficult position. It was
conditional, because throughout the War of Independence, Kurds have
always had certain wishes and expectations, meaning autonomy. Mustafa
Kemal Pasha (later Ataturk) was obliged to act more tolerantly in
an atmosphere in which the general situation was very serious. Under
these circumstances, was it correct to include the new mass of half
a million Kurds within the country's borders?
Kaynar also wrote that this evaluation was the reason for not
taking in the province of Mosul and listed two conditions which
were unacceptable for the young Turkey of that era: Firstly, Mosul
shouldn't have been taken under the control of imperialist forces
from outside the region. Secondly, an independent Kurdish formation
shouldn't have emerged in the province. It seems that in the 80 years
since the situation hasn't changed.