Tweet
TURKEY'S IRAQ DILEMMA POSES HARD QUESTIONS
By Yevgeny Primakov
Moscow News
Oct 25 2007
Russia
The Turkish parliament sanctioned a cross border military operation
in northern Iraq by an overwhelming majority of votes.
Since the authorization to conduct such an operation is valid for one
year, there is good reason to believe that the Turkish armed forces
were given the green light, and now an armed attack is inevitable -
moreover, there may be a series of attacks [Turkish army units crossed
the Iraqi border in a special operation against Kurdish militants,
local newspapers said on Wednesday. The Yeni Safak newspaper reported
that Turkish commandos supported by helicopters were chasing Kurdish
fighters, and F-16 Falcon fighter-bombers and artillery were delivering
pinpoint strikes on militant bases about 50 kilometers (30 miles)
deep into Iraqi territory. - Ed.]
Meanwhile, the prospect of Turkish intervention has provoked a negative
reaction in the world. This is hardly surprising for many reasons. A
military strike will ratchet up hostilities, which would seriously
threaten the situation in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is relatively calmer
than in other parts of the country. Such a move could also destabilize
the neighboring section of Turkey, where an estimated 10 million Kurds
live. Furthermore, the global community is tired of methods based on
the use of force, especially after the launch of the U.S. military
operation in Iraq.
There are also a number of questions connected with Turkey's military
operation.
First, military action, whose consequences will be clearly negative,
is aimed at suppressing the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has
been outlawed in Turkey. PKK fighters, based in the north of Iraq,
carry out continuous hit-and-run attacks on Turkish territory, which
result in casualties not only among Turkish military and police
officers, but also among civilians. Speaking about an operation
against Kurdish insurgents, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said that
his country would not be deterred by any possible consequences of
an invasion in Iraq. "Whatever price is necessary, we will pay it,"
he said. "Although Turkey respects Iraq's territorial integrity,
it will not tolerate the aiding and abetting of terrorism, and it
will not be deterred from paying the price to protect its rights,
indivisible integrity and citizens." Does Turkey, in this situation,
have a right to use military force outside its sovereign territory
against forces using terrorist methods?
Second, for many years, Ankara has followed a course aimed at
assimilating the Kurdish population. The Kurds were even called
"Mountain Turks," presumably in an effort to destroy their ethnic
identity. Today, some changes have occurred in the policy toward
the Turkish Kurds, but as recent events show, that does nothing
to weaken their striving for self-determination. At the same time,
while opposing any form of autonomy for the Kurds, Ankara upholds
not only the principle of the country's territorial integrity but
also the universal character of the Turkish state. One of its basic
arguments here is that granting autonomy to the Kurds would encourage
their secession. Should, in these contradictory conditions, Ankara's
stance on the Kurdish issue be supported? Or maybe it should, together
with the Turkish Kurds' right to self-determination? It is difficult
to provide an unequivocal answer to these questions.
Third, Iraq's territorial integrity has been put on the line - now,
not in some distant future. The majority of its population and all
neighboring countries, as well as other countries, favor a single,
unified state. It is well known that the Iraqi Kurds have for many
decades been fighting for national self-determination. But prior
to the U.S. intervention, the prevailing formula was: strengthening
Kurdish autonomy as part of Iraq. Now the situation is changing in
favor of an independent Kurdish state that could comprise not only
Iraqi Kurds, but also Kurds from Turkey, Iran, and Syria. According to
various estimates, there are between 20 million and 30 million Kurds
in these four countries. So, for all the importance of preserving
Iraq's territorial integrity, should the aspiration of millions of
Kurds to create their own state be endorsed?
Fourth, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, just passed a
resolution labeling the [1915] massacre of Armenians at the end of
the Ottoman period as genocide. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the House not to put the
resolution to the vote. President George Bush also cautioned against
its adoption. But the Representatives refused to budge. From every
indication, the resolution, which provoked strong indignation among the
Turks, has eliminated an impediment that prevented Erdogan from making
good on his threats to invade Iraq. It is an open secret that the
debate around the resolution in the U.S. fit neatly into the context
of the election struggle between the Democrats and the Republicans.
While understanding the feelings of the Armenians, who embraced the
resolution, one cannot ignore the fact that in passing it, the U.S.
was less concerned about the future of the Armenian people than it
was about partisan interests at home. What line should one take on
this resolution, which has so seriously affected the feelings of
both the Armenians and the Turks? Generally speaking, how should
one treat parliamentary resolutions that pass judgment on the past,
on history, and do not aim to search for ways of reconciling nations,
now or in the future?
Fifth, 70 percent of essential supplies, including 30 percent of fuel
and lubricants, goes to the U.S. occupation force via Turkey. That,
without a doubt, is one of the causes for the U.S.'s serious concern
about the current situation. High level U.S. envoys have visited
Ankara, but the problem of Turkish invasion in Iraq has not been
resolved. That might prompt Washington to make public the long awaited
time table for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. But is that
reason enough to support Turkey's actions?
To be frank, I, for one, remain perplexed by these questions.
By Yevgeny Primakov
Moscow News
Oct 25 2007
Russia
The Turkish parliament sanctioned a cross border military operation
in northern Iraq by an overwhelming majority of votes.
Since the authorization to conduct such an operation is valid for one
year, there is good reason to believe that the Turkish armed forces
were given the green light, and now an armed attack is inevitable -
moreover, there may be a series of attacks [Turkish army units crossed
the Iraqi border in a special operation against Kurdish militants,
local newspapers said on Wednesday. The Yeni Safak newspaper reported
that Turkish commandos supported by helicopters were chasing Kurdish
fighters, and F-16 Falcon fighter-bombers and artillery were delivering
pinpoint strikes on militant bases about 50 kilometers (30 miles)
deep into Iraqi territory. - Ed.]
Meanwhile, the prospect of Turkish intervention has provoked a negative
reaction in the world. This is hardly surprising for many reasons. A
military strike will ratchet up hostilities, which would seriously
threaten the situation in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is relatively calmer
than in other parts of the country. Such a move could also destabilize
the neighboring section of Turkey, where an estimated 10 million Kurds
live. Furthermore, the global community is tired of methods based on
the use of force, especially after the launch of the U.S. military
operation in Iraq.
There are also a number of questions connected with Turkey's military
operation.
First, military action, whose consequences will be clearly negative,
is aimed at suppressing the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has
been outlawed in Turkey. PKK fighters, based in the north of Iraq,
carry out continuous hit-and-run attacks on Turkish territory, which
result in casualties not only among Turkish military and police
officers, but also among civilians. Speaking about an operation
against Kurdish insurgents, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said that
his country would not be deterred by any possible consequences of
an invasion in Iraq. "Whatever price is necessary, we will pay it,"
he said. "Although Turkey respects Iraq's territorial integrity,
it will not tolerate the aiding and abetting of terrorism, and it
will not be deterred from paying the price to protect its rights,
indivisible integrity and citizens." Does Turkey, in this situation,
have a right to use military force outside its sovereign territory
against forces using terrorist methods?
Second, for many years, Ankara has followed a course aimed at
assimilating the Kurdish population. The Kurds were even called
"Mountain Turks," presumably in an effort to destroy their ethnic
identity. Today, some changes have occurred in the policy toward
the Turkish Kurds, but as recent events show, that does nothing
to weaken their striving for self-determination. At the same time,
while opposing any form of autonomy for the Kurds, Ankara upholds
not only the principle of the country's territorial integrity but
also the universal character of the Turkish state. One of its basic
arguments here is that granting autonomy to the Kurds would encourage
their secession. Should, in these contradictory conditions, Ankara's
stance on the Kurdish issue be supported? Or maybe it should, together
with the Turkish Kurds' right to self-determination? It is difficult
to provide an unequivocal answer to these questions.
Third, Iraq's territorial integrity has been put on the line - now,
not in some distant future. The majority of its population and all
neighboring countries, as well as other countries, favor a single,
unified state. It is well known that the Iraqi Kurds have for many
decades been fighting for national self-determination. But prior
to the U.S. intervention, the prevailing formula was: strengthening
Kurdish autonomy as part of Iraq. Now the situation is changing in
favor of an independent Kurdish state that could comprise not only
Iraqi Kurds, but also Kurds from Turkey, Iran, and Syria. According to
various estimates, there are between 20 million and 30 million Kurds
in these four countries. So, for all the importance of preserving
Iraq's territorial integrity, should the aspiration of millions of
Kurds to create their own state be endorsed?
Fourth, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, just passed a
resolution labeling the [1915] massacre of Armenians at the end of
the Ottoman period as genocide. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the House not to put the
resolution to the vote. President George Bush also cautioned against
its adoption. But the Representatives refused to budge. From every
indication, the resolution, which provoked strong indignation among the
Turks, has eliminated an impediment that prevented Erdogan from making
good on his threats to invade Iraq. It is an open secret that the
debate around the resolution in the U.S. fit neatly into the context
of the election struggle between the Democrats and the Republicans.
While understanding the feelings of the Armenians, who embraced the
resolution, one cannot ignore the fact that in passing it, the U.S.
was less concerned about the future of the Armenian people than it
was about partisan interests at home. What line should one take on
this resolution, which has so seriously affected the feelings of
both the Armenians and the Turks? Generally speaking, how should
one treat parliamentary resolutions that pass judgment on the past,
on history, and do not aim to search for ways of reconciling nations,
now or in the future?
Fifth, 70 percent of essential supplies, including 30 percent of fuel
and lubricants, goes to the U.S. occupation force via Turkey. That,
without a doubt, is one of the causes for the U.S.'s serious concern
about the current situation. High level U.S. envoys have visited
Ankara, but the problem of Turkish invasion in Iraq has not been
resolved. That might prompt Washington to make public the long awaited
time table for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. But is that
reason enough to support Turkey's actions?
To be frank, I, for one, remain perplexed by these questions.