Category: Middle East & Africa

  • Iraq Demands “Clear Timeline” for US Withdrawal

    Iraq Demands “Clear Timeline” for US Withdrawal

    by: Robert H. Reid, The Associated Press

        Iraq’s foreign minister insisted Sunday that any security deal with the United States must contain a “very clear timeline” for the departure of U.S. troops. A suicide bomber struck north of Baghdad, killing at least five people including an American soldier.

        Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters that American and Iraqi negotiators were “very close” to reaching a long-term security agreement that will set the rules for U.S. troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

        Zebari said the Iraqis were insisting that the agreement include a “very clear timeline” for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces, but he refused to talk about specific dates.

        “We have said that this is a condition-driven process,” he added, suggesting that the departure schedule could be modified if the security situation changed.

        But Zebari made clear that the Iraqis would not accept a deal that lacks a timeline for the end of the U.S. military presence.

        “No, no definitely there has to be a very clear timeline,” Zebari replied when asked if the Iraqis would accept an agreement that did not mention dates.

        Differences over a withdrawal timetable have become one of the most contentious issues remaining in the talks, which began early this year. U.S. and Iraqi negotiators missed a July 31 target date for completing the deal, which must be approved by Iraq’s parliament.

        President Bush has steadfastly refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. Last month, however, Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed to set a “general time horizon” for a U.S. departure.

        Last week, two senior Iraqi officials told The Associated Press that American negotiators had agreement to a formula which would remove U.S. forces from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, with all combat troops out of the country by October 2010.

        The last American support troops would leave about three years later, the Iraqis said.

        But U.S. officials insist there is no agreement on specific dates. Both the American and Iraqi officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks are ongoing. Iraq’s Shiite-led government believes a withdrawal schedule is essential to win parliamentary approval.

        American officials have been less optimistic because of major differences on key issues including who can authorize U.S. military operations and immunity for U.S. troops from prosecution under Iraqi law.

        The White House said discussions continued on a bilateral agreement and said any timeframe discussed was due to major improvements in security over the past year.

        “We are only now able to discuss conditions-based time horizons because security has improved so much. This would not have been possible 18 months ago,” White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Sunday. “We all look forward to the day when Iraqi security forces take the lead on more combat missions, allowing U.S. troops to serve in an overwatch role, and more importantly return home.”

        Iraq’s position in the U.S. talks hardened after a series of Iraqi military successes against Shiite and Sunni extremists in Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and other major cities.

        Violence in Iraq has declined sharply over the past year following a U.S. troop buildup, a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and a Shiite militia cease-fire.

        But attacks continue, raising concern that the militants are trying to regroup.

        The suicide bomber struck Sunday afternoon as U.S. and Iraqi troops were responding to a roadside bombing that wounded an Iraqi in Tarmiyah, 30 miles (50 kilometers) north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

        Four Iraqi civilians were killed along with the American soldier, military spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Stover said. Two American soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter were among 24 people wounded.

        No group claimed responsibility for the blast but suicide bombings are the signature attack of al-Qaida in Iraq.

        “This was a heinous attack by al-Qaida in Iraq against an Iraqi family, followed by a cowardly attack against innocent civilians, their security forces and U.S. soldiers,” Stover said.

        Elsewhere, a car bomb exploded outside the Kurdish security department in Khanaqin, 90 miles northeast of Baghdad. At least two people were killed and 25 wounded, including the commander of local Kurdish forces, Lt. Col. Majid Ahmed, police said.

        First reports indicated it was a suicide attack. But the U.S. military later said the bomb was in a white truck filled with watermelons and that witnesses saw the occupants leave the vehicle just before the blast.

        Ethnic tensions have been rising in northern Iraq amid disputes between Kurds, Turkomen and mostly Sunni Arabs over Kurdish demands to annex the oil-rich city of Kirkuk into their self-ruled region.

        Sawarah Ghalib, 25, who was wounded in the blast, said he believed military operations under way south of the city in Diyala province had pushed insurgents into the Khanaqin area.

        “I did not expect that a terrorist attack to take place in our secure town,” Ghalib said from his bed in the Khanaqin hospital. “Al-Qaida is to blame for this attack. Operations in Diyala have pushed them here.”

        In Baghdad, six people were killed in a series of bombings on the first day of the Iraqi work week.

        The deadliest blast occurred about 8:15 a.m. in a crowded area where people wait for buses in the capital’s mainly Shiite southeastern district of Kamaliya. Four people were killed, including a woman and her brother, and 11 others wounded, according to police.

        A car bomb later exploded as an Iraqi army patrol transporting money to a state-run bank passed by in Baghdad’s central Khillani square, killing two people including an Iraqi soldier and wounding nine other people, a police officer said.

        Another Iraqi soldier was killed and five were wounded by a car bomb in Salman Pak, about 15 miles south of Baghdad, police said.

        ——–

        Associated Press writers Hamza Hendawi, Kim Gamel and Sameer N. Yacoub in Baghdad and Yahya Barzanji in Sulaimaniyah contributed to this report.

  • Turkey walks tightrope over Iran ties

    Turkey walks tightrope over Iran ties


    By Paul de Bendern
    Reuters
    Tuesday, August 12, 2008; 9:13 AM

     

    ISTANBUL (Reuters) – A visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Turkey on Thursday reflects a desire by the NATO member to remain on good terms with an unpredictable neighbor and secure future energy needs.

    President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan have come under criticism at home and abroad for inviting Ahmadinejad, a visit that marks a diplomatic coup for the firebrand leader who has been shunned by European countries.

    Ankara has said his visit was necessary given the standoff between Iran and the West over Tehran’s disputed nuclear enrichment program, and offered to help resolve the dispute.

    But analysts said the trip was more about ensuring centuries-old ties during a period of global tensions.

    “Although Turkey doesn’t like the present regime it has always tried to keep Iranians both at bay and collaborate with them. It is an extremely delicate balancing act and it will continue to be so,” said Cengiz Aktar, a political scientist at Istanbul’s Bahcesehir University.

    “The visit is all about controlled risks and the most important aspect is a gas deal with Iran, not the nuclear program because Turkey has little influence on that,” he said.

    Turkey and Iran share a border dating to a 1639 peace treaty.

    Ahmadinejad has been courting Turkey in the past few years as the United States has stepped up efforts to isolate Iran for failing to halt its disputed nuclear enrichment program. Washington sees the president’s visit as undermining such moves. Israel, another ally of Turkey, has also criticized the visit.

    Gul and Erdogan — both founders of the Islamist-rooted ruling AK Party — have pushed to boost Turkey’s position in the Middle East region, building greater ties with neighboring countries than previous governments.

    TRADE TIES

    Though Iran and Turkey are close geographically, historically and culturally, they have remained distant in policy and direction since the Iranian revolution in 1979.

    Turkey, which is seeking European Union membership, is also concerned at the repercussions were the United States or Israel to strike the Islamic Republic.

    “Ankara definitely does not sympathize with the ‘theodemocracy’ (theocracy-partial democracy) of Iran. … But not having a hostile attitude against Iran is important for Turkey’s domestic stability as well as its energy needs,” said Sahin Alpay, a columnist for conservative daily Zaman.

    Turkey is entirely dependent on energy imports to quench its increasing thirst for oil and gas as its industry expands. Iran is currently its second biggest supplier of gas after Russia.

    Bilateral trade reached $5 billion in the first half of 2008 and Turkey has pledged to invest $3.5 billion in Iranian gas production. Ankara and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding but are yet to sign a comprehensive agreement to invest in Iran’s South Pars gas field project.

    Part of that deal agreement may be signed on Thursday.

    Turkey is also a major transit route for goods between the European Union and Iran.

    Turkey, an officially secular but predominantly Sunni Muslim country, has long been wary over Shi’ite Tehran’s effort to export its style of Islamic Republic, its meddling in the region and its true intentions regarding its nuclear program.

    Iran has on the other hand resented Turkey’s Western orientation and reluctance to back Tehran against U.S. and EU pressure, now in the form of economic sanctions.

    News reports that Ahmadinejad did not wish to visit the tomb of Turkey’s revered founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Ankara have caused a stir. Protocol requires foreign leaders to visit the mausoleum and Turkish media said Gul had subsequently moved the trip to Istanbul to avoid a potential embarrassing moment.

    While tensions have simmered from time to time each country clearly recognizes they have mutual interests.

    Tehran’s help in tackling Kurdish separatists based in northern Iraq has also boosted bilateral ties with Turkey, to the dismay of Washington, which until recently offered little help in moving against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) bases.

    “Will the visit really help Turkey? I doubt it. It’s more beneficial for Ahmadinejad. He’ll get another 15 minutes in the spotlight when he unleashes his trademark attacks against Israel and the United States,” said a senior EU diplomat.

    (Editing by Mary Gabriel)

  • Iraq and Turkey: Regional cooperation will change the region

    Iraq and Turkey: Regional cooperation will change the region

     

    Agustos 12, 2008 tarihli bir TDN makalesi: Ilginize

     

    Tuesday, August 12, 2008

    While Iraq is in great pain because our eastern neighbor has decided to follow Saddam’s path to nihilism, our northern neighbor extends a hopeful hand of friendship, trust and promising prosperity

    Hussain SINJARI
      The last visit by a Turkish PM to our country was in 1990. Eighteen years later, a different Turkish PM comes to Baghdad. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is Islamic yet secular, a modern and open-minded leader who considers the sacred texts to be good for worshipping, more of cultural or spiritual values rather than to do with strategy, economics or the administration of the state. Moreover, he and his party do not interfere in the lifestyle of the people or their choices of belief. He and his party respect the individual freedoms of women and men.
      The government of our country did very well when it received our guest and his delegation in the most welcoming way Baghdad has ever seen so far. This visit made history when both sides signed “The Iraqi-Turkish High Strategic Cooperation Counci,” which is due to meet three times a year chaired by both PMs. The sectors of the cooperation are vitally important and include energy, military industry, security and politics.

    A historic visit:

      We know this historic visit was the fruit of good efforts of both President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nori al Maliki. It came after the obvious success on the ground of the latest military/security operations in different places in Basrah, Baghdad, Ramadi, Mosul and elsewhere where criminal gangs used to terrorize the civilians.

      The visit of Erdoğan could not possibly take place without this security success. The writer of this article is a witness to this improvement through a number of tours and walks during the day and night in Baghdad. In Abu Nawas, the famous Baghdadi avenue with cafes and restaurants on the bank of the River Tigris, universally known for its “mesguf,” or grilled fish, I was very surprised to see hundreds of families out there. A private security company, The Sandi Group, is in charge of the security of the place, checking cars, watching for terrorists and keeping order.

      Turkey is a semi-European country with its democratically elected parliament; free, independent and critical media; active and genuine civil society organizations; and the progress it has made in the fields of agriculture, industry, education, tourism or services. All of this and more shall help to create a unique regional cooperation between Turkey and our country, which has the largest oil reserve in the world and the best human resources in the Middle East. Yet, due to the long decades of dictatorship under which we wasted our national wealth on armaments, the liberation of Palestine, lies of propaganda and other destructive practices, our country is almost a wasteland. This is a sad reality but must be changed. To change it we need this kind of strategic regional cooperation to put energies together to rebuild and reconstruct.

      The Kurdish element:

      Along the Iraqi-Turkish border, the Kurdish people live. This existence could be of a great help and serve as “the bridge” between Turkey and Iraq. The armed insurgency must come to an end and people must follow civilized practices and methods to express themselves, demand rights and demonstrate grievances.  The “State” is not innocent and policies must be revised. And people listened to and cared for. 

      The Turkomen in Iraq and Arabs in Turkey are other examples that diversity could and should be an element for strength and wealth.

      While Iraq is in great pain because our eastern neighbor has decided to follow Saddam’s path to nihilism, our northern neighbor extends a hopeful hand of friendship, trust and promising prosperity.

    Basrah-Istanbul railway system:

      Here I come up with my proposal to both governments of Iraq and Turkey: Put as a top priority to run a most technologically modern and monumental railway between Basrah and Istanbul. And then a very modern highway for transport trucks and personal cars to connect Basrah to Istanbul. These two giant projects will attract large companies to invest while small businesses will flourish along the rail and the highway.

      In this way, Iraq will be linked to Europe via Istanbul and Turkey will be linked to the Gulf via Basrah.

      One does not need more than a glance to realize what a creation of wealth this should bring to the people of the two countries and for beyond — the Gulf and Europe.

      In our globalized world we need more “tolerancy diplomacy.” This new approach and concept means to find out common grounds according to mutual benefits regardless of differences in faiths, ideologies, ethnic or linguistic backgrounds. Iraq and Turkey and other states should explore the benefits of the acceptance of each other and recognition of each other’s rights. This is an application of the “The Turkish-Iraqi High Strategic Cooperation” to set an example for many others who are crippled by the evils of ideology.  

      ………

      Hussain Sinjari is an Iraqi commentator based in Baghdad and the president of Tolerancy International. (www.tolerancy.org)

       

    © 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr

     

  • DALOGLU: Turkey’s regional influence

    DALOGLU: Turkey’s regional influence

    Perhaps too much to handle

    Tulin Daloglu
    Tuesday, August 12, 2008

     
    OP-ED:
     
    Nearly two weeks after Iran refused to yield to the demand by Germany, France, Britain, Russia, China and the United States that it stop developing nuclear technology that can lead to a nuclear weapon, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will travel to a NATO country for the first time. Turkish President Abdullah Gul will meet the Iranian leader on Thursday in Istanbul. While Iran’s influence as a regional power has undeniably been enhanced by standing against the threats of new sanctions and continuing its nuclear program, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s visit to Turkey will further that image.
     
    But what will Turks gain from it? At best, nothing. Furthermore, this visit is likely to cause trouble for Turkey.
     
    Technically, the U.N. Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany unanimously agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. They differ in their tactics, but they agree that it is absolutely vital that Iran sees no positive side to trying to further its nuclear aims. Turkey’s political leaders, however, have chosen to see these high-level “talks” as a show of “good will” in the name of peace. Mr. Gul has also hosted Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who ordered genocide in Darfur, for the same reason. But a Turkish proverb suggests that talking is not always a virtue. Knowing when and how to stay “silent” is.
     
    It’s one thing for Turkey to nurture relationships with its neighbors. No one, be they friend or foe of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) or any other Turkish political party, would deny that, at minimum, a civil relationship with other countries in the region can only be good for Turkey. But this current situation with Iran and the threat of it obtaining nuclear weapons is serious. And Turkey’s leaders, simply, may well be in over their heads.
     
    Curiously, though, AKP is strongly supported by the Bush administration. The U.S. certainly did not remain silent about a Constitutional Court case that decided the future of the AKP. Now that the court has decided not to shutter the AKP, the Bush administration has complimented the strength of Turkish democracy. In fact, there is speculation in Turkey that the AKP must have been in contact with Washington about Mr. Ahmadinejad’s visit – though no evidence of such a communication exists. Turkey seems to be acting completely independent. While the White House is likely unhappy about the visit, U.S. officials continue to praise AKP leadership for its pro-active engagement with its neighbors.
     
    In another scenario, it’s also possible that Turkey could sign a natural gas deal with Iran, violating America’s Iran Sanctions Act. If that happens, one can only wonder how Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would react. Alas, she has been an exceptionally strong defender of AKP policies. Yet if Turkey signs that energy deal with Iran, the U.S. could end the November 2007 agreement that opened a new chapter of cooperation and intelligence sharing in the fight against PKK terrorism.
     
    Furthermore, Mr. Gul often boasts that Turkey and Iran have not fought a war since the early 17th century. The facts of the Turkish history, however, suggest differently, like Turkey’s invasion of Tabriz during World War I. Yet Mr. Ahmadinejad has made it clear that unlike every other visiting dignitary, he will not visit the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey’s founder, who created a secular republic in a Muslim nation. So Mr. Gul capitulated and instead invited him to Istanbul. So while these two leaders represent different forms of governments, they in fact seem to have much in common.
     
    Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan says that Turkey cannot stay silent on matters related to Iran, especially when fighting could be possible. Turkey refused to be used as a way into Iraq for the United States, and it certainly won’t be used to attack Iran either, Mr. Babacan says. However, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan may be indicating a different circumstance. Mr. Erdogan admitted during a visit to Washington that he wished Turkey had cooperated with the U.S., because it would have made it easier for Turkey to defend its national security interests.Also, he blamed the opposition Republican People’s Party, CHP, for defeating the measure that proposed cooperation with the United States.
     
    Surely, politicians tend to gravitate toward populist demagogy. We cannot know whether Mr. Erdogan really meant that Turkey should have cooperated on the invasion of Iraq. It is unclear whether he really opposes Iran having nuclear weapons. Those same leaders who argue against the West pressuring Iran say that it’s no different than Israel or Pakistan having nuclear weapons.
     
    Turkey is blundering its way in this complicated relationship, unsure which side it wants to take or how big a threat it sees Iran to be. Turkey’s political leadership believes they can dance with Iran and simultaneously become a major regional player. Let’s hope they’re right. Otherwise, the Turkish people will be merely a casualty of a reckless policy.
     
    Tulin Daloglu is a free-lance writer.
  • Dispatches From the Other Iraq

    Dispatches From the Other Iraq

    By Joshua Partlow,

    a Washington Post foreign correspondent who reported from Iraq from 2006-08
    Tuesday, August 12, 2008; Page C02

    INVISIBLE NATION

    How the Kurds’ Quest for Statehood Is Shaping Iraq and the Middle East

    By Quil Lawrence

    Walker. 366 pp. $25.95

    In journalistic accounts of the Iraq war, the Kurds, if they are mentioned at all, tend to be used as a counterexample. Kurdistan [sic.] is a place of relative calm amid chaotic violence. Its construction boom highlights the economic wasteland elsewhere. Its politicians are stalwart partners of the United States in a country bristling under U.S. occupation. A Kurdish public relations campaign describes the region simply as “the other Iraq.”

    In “Invisible Nation,” the first thorough, book-length chronicle of the Kurds’ recent history and their role in the war, BBC reporter Quil Lawrence doesn’t deny these differences. But his brisk and engaging narrative makes clear just how tenuous — and anomalous — is this period of relative peace and prosperity for the Kurds of Iraq. They endured a genocidal campaign by Saddam Hussein and have been pushed to the corners of the four nations they primarily inhabit: Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. With a population of about 25 million, Lawrence notes, the Kurds may be the largest ethnic group in the world without an independent homeland.

    “So in a dearth of good news, why isn’t the United States crowing about this one great achievement in Iraq?” Lawrence writes. “Because Kurdistan’s [sic.] success could be cataclysmic. Like no event since the 1948 creation of Israel, a declared Kurdish state within the borders of Iraq will unite the entire region in opposition, from the Black Sea to the Persian Gulf.”

    Facing such a hostile neighborhood, the Kurds who live in Iraq’s three northern provinces have tried to carve out a niche of near-autonomy just on the safe side of independence. Lawrence, who writes a sympathetic but balanced portrait of the Kurds, describes their leaders’ gradual transition from guerrilla fighters to statesmen, including how they were betrayed by their ostensible allies (such as Henry Kissinger and the shah of Iran, who effectively handed over the Kurds to Hussein in 1975) and how they often squandered their best opportunities. For example, the belated U.S. creation of a no-fly zone over Kurdistan [sic.] after the Gulf War helped protect the Kurds from Hussein — “Washington unwittingly had become the midwife to a de facto Kurdish state,” Lawrence writes — only to have the two leading Kurdish parties slug it out for years in sporadic civil war.

    “Invisible Nation” briefly traces the ancient history of the Kurds but really begins in earnest with their struggle for survival during Hussein’s vicious campaign against them in the late 1980s. The book continues through the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and into the time of the subsequent occupation, trailing off in 2006. The now-familiar themes of the Iraq war echo in the Kurds’ story as well. The intelligence, for one thing, rarely panned out.

    Before the invasion, the Bush administration claimed that al-Qaeda-linked Islamist militants were operating in Kurdish territory inside Iraq. But Lawrence shows those claims were riddled with errors and mostly wrong. While the militant group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdistan, [sic.] for example, no links to Hussein or al-Qaeda were proved. And the opening airstrike of the war, a failed attempt to kill Hussein in southern Baghdad, was the result of an elaborate but often ineffectual intelligence-gathering operation based in Kurdistan [sic.] and led by CIA informant Sheikh Muhammad Abdul Karim al-Kasnazani, a Kurd and Sufi leader who was paid millions for his followers’ work as spies.

    In Kurdistan, [sic.] as elsewhere in Iraq, faulty U.S. planning had unintended consequences. Sometimes this benefited the Kurds. The Bush administration’s inability to persuade Turkey to allow a ground invasion of Iraq from the north prevented thousands of Turkish troops from accompanying U.S. troops and may have averted guerrilla war between the Turks and Kurds — something that “may go down in history as the luckiest thing that happened to America regarding Iraq,” Lawrence writes.

    The partnership between Americans and Kurds was far from easy, and many Kurdish officials have expressed exasperation over the years. Lawrence recounts how Iraq’s current foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, couldn’t even walk through the State Department doors as a Kurdish emissary during the Gulf War. On a visit to Washington in 1991, the best he got was a cup of coffee with junior staffers at a cafe around the corner from the State Department’s C Street headquarters. After the 2003 invasion, Lawrence says, there was considerable Kurdish frustration with Gen. David Petraeus, then a division commander in northern Iraq. Many Kurds were upset because Petraeus was working with their Sunni Arab enemies in Mosul and not giving Kurdish soldiers more control in what they saw as their territory.

    Lawrence, who has reported extensively in Kurdistan [sic.] over the past eight years, dwells less on how the Kurds have governed their territory in the later years of the war. He only alludes to the darker side of Kurdish rule: the seemingly unlimited power of the rival Barzani and Talabani clans over the population, the allegations of corruption among government officials, the mistreatment of Arabs living in Kurdistan. [sic.]

    But he succeeds in drawing lively portraits of the Kurds who have worked against terrible odds for the rights of their people. Their stories remind us how many of Iraq’s top politicians — President Jalal Talabani, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, Foreign Minister Zebari, to name just a few — endured prison torture, assassination attempts and long years of war on behalf of Kurdistan [sic.] and against the country they are now helping to govern. “There are short- and there are long-term deals,” Talabani says at one point in the book. And it is not entirely clear which kind the Kurds have entered into with Iraq.

  • Iraqi-Kurd MP lashes out at ‘Turkish interference’

    Iraqi-Kurd MP lashes out at ‘Turkish interference’

    A petroleum well at an oil refinery near Kirkuk

    SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq (AFP) — An influential Kurdish member of the Iraqi parliament on Saturday accused Turkey of undermining the influence Kurds have gained since the fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

    “Turkey has manoeuvred to create an anti-Kurdish (Iraqi) parliament,” Mahmoud Othman told a press conference in Sulaimaniyah, one of the main cities of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.

    “It is behind the adoption of article 24 of the electoral law as it is trying by all means to reduce the gains made by the Kurds after the fall of Saddam Hussein,” he said.

    Iraq’s parliament proposed under article 24 of the election bill a deal that will share power equally between Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen in the oil-rich Kirkuk region, a move bitterly opposed by the Kurds, given their numerical superiority.

    Othman did not elaborate on how he thought Ankara had managed to influence Iraqi MPs to write a clause in the electoral bill, though Kurds have long complained of Turkish efforts to undermine them through alliance with ethnic Turkmen and Sunni Arabs.

    Saddam placed Kirkuk outside the Kurdish region, which has behaved essentially as an independent entity since 1991.

    But Iraqi Kurds, many of whom see Kirkuk’s oil wealth as vital to the future viability of their region, have called for the city to be placed within the autonomous region.

    Kirkuk has a large population of Sunni and Shiite Arabs, as well as Turkmen, making for a fragile ethnic mix.

    The failure to find a solution to Kirkuk has forced the postponement of local elections in Iraq initially scheduled for October 1.

    Othman also singled out the United States and Britain, claiming they had played negative roles.

    He said the US had “not reacted” to Turkish attempts to push the bill through parliament while Britain had pressured the Kurds to accept the demands of the Arabs and Turkmen.

    Turkey, which once ruled Iraq for 400 years, sees itself as the traditional protector of the Turkmen community who, together with the Arabs, complain of being bullied by the Kurds.

    With its own large Kurdish minority in the south, Turkey has viewed the increasing independence of the Iraqi Kurdish autonomous region with deep misgivings.

    Source: AFP, 10.08.2008