Page 2 of
2 Who's bluffing on the Turkish-Iraqi
border? By Sami Moubayed
international Kurdish community and
endear them to millions. They would be able to cry
"foul play" or even fabricate stories of genocide
to win supporters in the international community.
But if we are to believe that the
Americans want cordial relations with Turkey, why
then has the historical issue of Armenian
suffering under the Ottoman Empire suddenly
surfaced in the US Congress? That non-binding
resolution, which labeled what the
mass
killings of Armenians during World War I as
"genocide", was championed by Democrats and
lobbied for by the sizeable and influential
Armenian community in the US.
Two of its
main supporters are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and
California Democrat Adam Schiff. President George
W Bush has pressured congressmen to withdraw their
support for the resolution, which originally had
225 co-sponsors. He fears that if it passes, the
Turks would retaliate by invading Iraq through
Kurdistan and revoking permission for the US to
use a vital Turkish air base that supplies US
troops in Iraq. Turkey also has other cards up its
sleeve, like obstructing a regional conference (to
be held in November in Turkey) to discuss the
future of Iraq and its neighbors, or canceling an
upcoming visit by Erdogan to Washington.
Congressman Edward J Markey, a Massachusetts
Democrat, noted, "I don't think we should let
Turkey bully the United States Congress."
But whether American lawmakers like it or
not, if Turkey wishes to make trouble for the US
in retaliation for PKK terrorism, it can. One card
that it can play is manipulating America's allies
within Iraq, in addition to attacking the PKK
across the Iraq border.
And the Turks are
friends with Iran, since both share a similar
concern about Kurdish fundamentalism. The more the
US does nothing about the PKK, the stronger
Turkey's friendship will grow with the Islamic
Republic. Last year, in discussing ways to combat
the PKK, Ankara welcomed Ali Larijani, the chief
negotiator of Iran's nuclear portfolio, weeks
after Erdogan had met President Mahmud Ahmadinejad
in Azerbaijan in May 2006. One reason for the
honeymoon was because it was in Iran's interest as
well to root out Kurdish fundamentalism. At the
same time, Iran was searching for regional
heavyweight friends in its confrontation with the
US. While in Ankara, Larijani further upset the
Americans by revealing that he had documents
detailing US meetings with the "terrorist" PKK in
Mosul and Kirkuk. Larijani asked, "If the US is
fighting terrorism, why then is it meeting with
the PKK?"
There is an unspoken tension
between Ankara and Washington due to the fact
that, whether it is unable or unwilling, the US
has tolerated and ignored PKK activity against
Turkey since 2003. Kurdish rebels are permitted to
roam the streets freely and have access to
stockpiles of ammunition in Iraq. Relations had
actually deteriorated back in March 2003 when the
Turkish Parliament refused to let the Americans
use their territory to launch war against Saddam
Hussein's Iraq.
Two years later, on March
21, 2005, then US Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld spoke to Fox News and bitterly
complained, "Clearly, if we had been able to get
the 4th Infantry Division in from the north, in
through Turkey, more of the Hussein-Ba'athist
regime would have been captured or killed." He
added that had Turkey been more cooperative, "the
insurgency today [in Iraq] would be less".
In 2005, the Turks broke their
estrangement with Syria when President Ahmad
Nejdet Sezar visited Damascus to meet President
Bashar al-Assad. The Americans had loudly asked
him not to make the visit, but Sezar insisted. In
February 2006, Ankara again defied the US by
receiving Khalid Meshaal, the head of the
political bureau of Hamas. Erdogan had declined an
invitation from former Israeli prime minister
Ariel Sharon to visit Israel in 2004, much to the
pleasure of the Arabs but arousing US ire. He also
did not meet with the then-Israeli minister of
labor and trade, Ehud Olmert, who visited Turkey
in July 2004.
Rather than face its
problems with Turkey and Iran and seek solutions,
the international community headed by the US has
buried its head in the sand. Both Washington and
the EU have called on Turkey to practice
self-restraint. President Bush has said, to the
amazement of Turkish observers: "There's a better
way to deal with the issue than having the Turks
send massive additional troops into the country."
Turkey has been warning since early 2007 that if
the Americans and Iraqis don't do anything about
the KK, then the Turks would. One wonders what
"better ways" there are to deal with a terrorist
group that is shelling one's border and wants to
annex 55% of one's territory to create a nation
that historically never existed.
The
Americans have the ears of Iraqi Kurdish leaders
Masoud al-Barazani and President Jalal Talibani,
who in turn protect, shelter, and assist the PKK.
Had the US been serious about wanting to help the
Turks, it could have maintained stronger security
on the border. It could have arrested Kurdish
leaders calling for violence against Turkey - or
at least, placed them under house arrest to send a
symbolic message to Ankara. They did none of the
above.
Before matters escalated, the Turks
called on al-Maliki to find a solution to the PKK.
At the time, Maliki was facing a domestic crisis
due to the walk-out of Sunni and Shi'ite parties
(the Iraqi Accordance Front and Sadrists) from his
government. He needed Kurdish support to maintain
his shaky coalition. As a result, he snubbed the
Turks and cuddled up to both Barazani and Talbani.
He traveled to Iraqi Kurdistan, met with Barazani,
and promised that Article 140, which calls for a
referendum to decide on the future of Kirkuk, is
"obligatory".
Article 104 had aroused a
storm of controversy. The Kurds support it,
claiming that Kirkuk is Kurdish and that its
Kurdish population was driven out by Saddam
Hussein. Others, however, strongly oppose giving
oil-rich Kirkuk to the Kurds. By voicing his
position on the subject (after having orchestrated
a demographic restructuring of the city) Maliki
placed himself at odds with the Turks and Arab
Sunni states surrounding Iraq, all of which abhor
the idea of Kurdish separatism.
The more
the Kurds get carrots in Iraq, the more this will
inspire their brothers in neighboring Turkey,
Syria, and Iran to demand similar treatment. That
explains why, speaking from Ankara, Syria's
President al-Assad strongly supported Erdogan's
measures as "self-defense". Assad noted, "We
support the decisions the Turkish government has
put on its agenda against terrorism and terrorist
activities," noting that "We see this as Turkey's
legitimate right."
The Iraqis seemingly
don't want war, but every action they are taking,
thanks to al-Maliki, is leading towards war with
Turkey. Many believe that the Turks also don't
want war and are not serious in their military
escalation. Many believe that the Turks are
bluffing. That is incorrect, although the Turks
certainly do not want war for the mere sake of
war; they want self-defense. There is a conviction
in the Turkish political establishment that only
war will bring the PKK to heel and the Turks would
do anything - even cross the world's only
superpower - if that is what is needed to protect
their own national security.
Sami
Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
