Category: Middle East & Africa

  • Turkey, Germany arrest Iranians in nuclear smuggling scheme

    Turkey, Germany arrest Iranians in nuclear smuggling scheme

    Germany and Turkish security officials have caught smugglers suspected of transporting nuclear materials from India to the Iranian city of Arak, overseas media reports.

    Ynet News says the security officials conducted a simultaneous raid in Germany and in Istanbul. The raid led to several arrests: A Turkish citizen who was born in Iranian was found with documents that detailed the smuggling and was arrested in Istanbul. And another Iranian suspect was detained and arrested at Ataturk Airport. German police, meanwhile, are holding five Iranian suspects, Ynet says.

    Two other suspects are at-large. Ynet reports that Turkish customs officials raided the home of an Iranian couple suspected of involvement in the smuggling operation. But the two weren’t at the house, and police are still seeking their whereabouts, Ynet says.

    via Turkey, Germany arrest Iranians in nuclear smuggling scheme – Washington Times.

  • Turkey Links Syria to Deadly Car Bombing at Border

    Turkey Links Syria to Deadly Car Bombing at Border

    Turkey’s interior minister blamed Syria’s intelligence agencies and its army for involvement in a car bombing at a border crossing last month that killed 14 people, after he announced Monday that police detained five suspects.

    Four Syrians and a Turk are in custody in connection with the Feb. 11 attack at the Bab al-Hawa frontier post. No one has claimed responsibility, but a Syrian opposition faction accused the Syrian government of the bombing, saying it narrowly missed 13 leaders of the group.

    Interior Minister Muammer Guler told reporters two of the detained, including a woman, are suspected of having carried out the attack, while a third is believed to have organized the bombing. The other suspects are thought to have “aided and abetted” the bombers. One other suspect is still at large, Guler said.

    Guler said the suspects were linked to Syria’s intelligence agencies and its army.

    “We have determined that they were in contact with the Syrian intelligence and army,” Guler said. “But of course, this will come to light during the trial.”

    The detained were to be questioned by a court to face formal arrest and charges. Guler said three other people were also quizzed by police but released after questioning.

    Guler said two of the suspects had escaped to Syria and were “brought” to Turkey. He did not say if Syrian rebels, backed by Turkey, were involved in their return.

    The frontier area has seen heavy fighting between Syrian rebels and government forces during the nearly two-year-old civil war.

    via Turkey Links Syria to Deadly Car Bombing at Border – ABC News.

  • Davutoglu Invokes Ottomanism  As a New Order for Mideast

    Davutoglu Invokes Ottomanism As a New Order for Mideast

    U.S. Secretary of State Kerry shakes hands with Turkish FM Davutoglu at Ankara Palas in Ankara

     

    US Secretary of State John Kerry (L) shakes hands with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu after their news conference at Ankara Palas in Ankara, March 1, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Umit Bektas)

    Speaking of the international order or lack thereof has always been controversial. For Turkey to challenge the international order, however, carries some real risks — simply because it’s a NATO member country, and its objections raise questions as to whether it’s proposing an alternative foreign policy to this military bloc’s generally perceived worldview, and if so, whether it is diverging in its perception of security issues from the rest. NATO is also the most significant alliance Turkey has, anchoring it in the West.

    About This Article

    Summary :

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s suggestion of an Ottoman model for a new Middle East order is likely a misreading of regional politics that could prove hard for Turkey to back away from, writes Tulin Daloglu.

    Author: Tulin Daloglu
    Posted on : March 10 2013

    The ongoing criticism that comes out of Ankara to the international order is not news. The Erdogan government has been vocally asking for the enlargement of the UN Security Council, especially since the Russian and Chinese veto power has been presented as the main stumbling block before the international community to establish no-fly zones in the war-torn Syrian battlefield for the past two years.

    As setting a no-fly zone literally means for the international community to decide to go to war against Syria — since they need to knock down all the radar systems to do that, Ankara therefore has also been rallying for war against the Assad regime. While Turkey’s initiatives on that were not realized, NATO responded positively to Turkey’s request to install Patriot missiles on its territory as a precaution against an escalation of the Syrian fighting into Turkey. Yet Ankara has been tirelessly complaining about the lack of the international community’s moral obligation to Syrians, while being dreadfully dependent on it, maybe more than ever, for the protection of its eastern borders — not only with the Assad regime, but potentially with Iraq and Iran as well. And not that all this cooperation has to be about military engagement, but Ankara needs the political support of the countries that it criticizes to keep things under control and to its benefit.

    The reason for this entire introduction is simply this: It’s more than likely now than ever that Ankara has been misreading the current developments in its neighborhood, and the making of the new world order.

    Like Henry Kissenger, Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Foreign Minister, is also coming from academia — but it’s very likely that he is finding it way too difficult to admit that his academic theories actually has not been practically working on the ground — yet he keeps on dwelling in the same direction without any hope.  Kissinger, a former secretary of state, was more practical in that sense.

    Take Davutoglu’s recent remarks on two consecutive days, March 3 and 4 — as an example. First he claims that Turkey for the first time has finally been back to the lands that were lost during the Ottoman times, and he suggests that it’s time for Turkey to take the lead to set an order for these lands and re-connect them once again — “Without going to war, we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum and to Batumi.”

    Before continuing with his following remarks though, two quick observations need to be made. First, there is nothing against these cities or countries to feel against being connected to one another. The world is a village, and who ever likes to join hands and work together may do that. Therefore, his remarks as such invite questions as to whether he is proposing an alternative foreign policy, and what that means exactly. Second of all, it may not be the place of Turkey’s foreign minister to suggest that Sarajevo to be tied to Damascus — especially at a time like this, when Syria is drowning in an unfortunate civil war, one needs to wonder as to what the people of Sarajevo think about such a proposal!

    But, let’s not linger on that point and get lost in the conversation. After all, Davutoglu is wondering why people use an accusatory rhetoric, as if his policy suggestions mean to suggest the refurbishment of Ottoman era.

    Here is why in his own words: “Last century was only a parenthesis for us. We will close that parenthesis. We will do so without going to war, or calling anyone an enemy, without being disrespectful to any border, we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum to Batumi. This is the core of our power,” he said. “These may look like all different countries to you, but Yemen and Skopje were part of the same country 110 years ago, or Erzurum and Benghazi. When we say this, they call it ‘new Ottomanism.’ The ones who united the whole Europe don’t become new Romans, but the ones who unite the Middle East geography are called as new Ottomanists. It’s an honor to be reminded with the names of Ottomans, Seljuks, Artuklu or Eyyubi, but we have never or will ever have our eye on anyone’s land based on a historic background.”

    On March 4, Davutoglu continued with his remarks: “The people who lived together throughout the history in this region were torn apart from each other in the last century; they grew distant from each other. Turkey was the central country at the time when borders were diminished, geography was divided, and economic spheres were separated. As if these are not enough, a new seed of division started to be planted in our country.”

    This new seed Davutoglu is referring to is the Kurdish nationalism that seeks some form of autonomy or recognition. He calls on everyone to grasp the importance of the moment, and be alert for those who might attempt to prevent Turkey from growing stronger as a country that has solved its Kurdish problem.

    “This current labor pain is the pain of gaining back that old historical nature. We have to get our act together both domestically and abroad. Surely, we have to first cure our own problem,” he says. “It’s time to think big. When I was an academician, I used to observe this country feeling scared of communism during winter, and division [of its land] during summer [i.e., creation of a Turkish Kurdistan]. It’s now time to solve our own problem. If this gets delayed, the traumas from the outside will inevitably play a negative impact on us, and that it will be likely that the opposite may also happen.”

    “What I have observed in foreign policy practice is that if you have a right reading, and presented a firm position, you may receive criticism in the first place, but you will get results in the mid- and long-term. What is important is to stand firm there. If you are confident of your policy, you should not give any concessions. What is important is not to be indecisive at a critical, decision-making moment.”

    Fair enough, but Turkey has not accomplished anything solid with Davutoglu’s policy except strengthening its trade ties with the Arab Muslim countries. That said, Europe still remains Turkey’s major trading partner. Yet for things where Turkey has put its political capital on the line in the region — whether siding with Hamas against Israel, or rallying the international community to use military force to end the Assad regime in Syria, it has not scored anything concrete to show as a Turkish victory. In that perspective, one has to ask — what happens if Davutoglu’s policies are actually wrong, and that his insistence on wrong policies exposes Turkey to new and unprecedented threats? Who would actually bear the responsibility for that?

    May he be humble enough to understand that he, or anyone else for that matter, won’t be able to bear the responsibility for it all when things get rough.

    It’s time for the Erdogan government to listen to the critics of its policies, and at the very least begin toning down these arrogant suggestions that Turkey be the core country for setting a new order for those once-Ottoman lands.

    That said, it may already be too late for Turkey to take a new direction.

    Tulin Daloglu is a columnist for Al-Monitor’s Turkey Pulse. She has written extensively for various Turkish and American publications, including The New York Times, International Herald Tribune, The Middle East Times, Foreign Policy, The Daily Star (Lebanon) and the SAIS Turkey Analyst Report. She also had a regular column at The Washington Times for almost four years. In the 2002 general election, Daloglu ran for a seat in the Turkish parliament as a member of the New Turkey Party. 

    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/turkey-davutologu-ottoman-new-order-mideast.html#ixzz2NDrCWEvk

  • Pitfalls in Turkey’s involvement in the Middle East

    Pitfalls in Turkey’s involvement in the Middle East

    VIEW : Pitfalls in Turkey’s involvement in the Middle East — Mohammad Ahmad

    Turkey needs to ensure that all its actions are towards safeguarding the fruits of the Ataturk revolution and preservation of its image as a free and modern democracy

    The war for Syria has a
    hidden dimension. The extremists make it appear as if the fight is for Syria but the strategic goal is Turkey. Unfortunately, the west in its zeal to ultimately take away from Russia its only naval base outside of the former Soviet Union on the Mediterranean at Tartus (Syria) is falling into the trap laid down by extremists by making Turkey the conduit to route arms to the Syrian rebels. Despite its deplorable human rights violations against the ethnic Kurds, the Turkey of today is the flag bearer of human rights in the region and its social values are in total conflict with the Saudi values that are led by Salafi theologians who dream of political victory in Turkey one day. They have very intelligently been able to make Turkey feel threatened by the strife in Syria and made it believe that it is helping the west by helping the resistance in Syria fight a government that is friends with Iran and Hezbollah.

    In reality though, it is involuntarily helping the Saudis and Turkey to fall into the same trap that Pakistan fell into when its radical President Ziaul Haq fought a proxy war for the west in Afghanistan. That war was led by mercenaries mostly under Salafi influence from around the globe. To support the proxy war seminaries that advocated extremism were promoted. After the Soviet withdrawal these mercenaries who had come with a grander purpose stayed back in Pakistan paying back their hosts with sectarianism and interfaith strife as the reward. Shiites, Ahmadis, Christians, and to a lesser extent, the majority Barelvis remain at the receiving end of the onslaught by this group and their local allies, the extremists from amongst the Deobandis. Does Turkey want its Alavis, who constitute 18 percent of its population, and the around three percent Asna Ash’ari Shiites, Christians and Jews, to start living a life of fear? Remaining mindful of this consequence, Turkey needs to ensure that all its actions are towards safeguarding the fruits of the Ataturk revolution and preservation of its image as a free and modern democracy for a long time. It must realise that all its economic progress could soon be lost if violence spills across its borders and it loses the image of a secure region to which business and money can flow.

    Modern Syria has a history of moderate Islamic practice and has long prided itself on peaceful inter-faith relations since its citizens have seen the repercussions of sectarian strife as civil war destroyed two of its neighbours, Lebanon and Iraq. It is unfortunate that continuous antagonism by the west made the Alavi-dominated government align itself with Iran and Hezbollah in this situation. This has made the Salafis lead the uprising, which they see as their chance of getting political control of Syria. It is true Hezbollah was a Syrian ally in Lebanon even prior to this civil war but this relationship seems to be based on the desire to find support in a hostile environment and is not based on ideology. It should be realised that around Syria were hostile governments allied to the United States, which the former perceived as the backer of its worst enemy Israel that had made peace with Egypt but was not prepared to make peace with Syria and give it back the occupied Golan Heights. In this backdrop, the whole civil war can be seen as an attempt to weaken any Syrian threat to Israel in the medium and long term. This complex issue requires more space and may be dealt with in another column.

    Turkey has the right to be concerned if there is trouble in its neighbourhood. However, if it really means to help its neighbour it is imperative for it to learn from the mistakes Pakistan made, engage Syria positively and provide its regime the relationship that can bring it out of isolation and allow it to reform from within. The Ba’athist ideology has the capacity to change and recognise the basic ability of all individuals to contribute and does not discriminate on the basis of faith. As long as a society does not discriminate on the basis of faith and at least in letter believes in responsibility commensurate with ability, it has the potential of evolving peacefully.

    These positives needs to be built upon rather than putting the Syrian people into the hands of a new regime that would usher into Syria religious extremism that has the potential to subsequently also consume Turkey. Turkey being part of Europe, a member of NATO, close to the United States and having a working relationship with Israel could use its energies positively towards resolution of the Golan Heights dispute between Syria and Israel. Using its influence in making Israel give up the Golan in return for peace with Syria and Lebanon where Syria has considerable influence will do the region real good. Turkey in the early part of the 19th century was the leader of the Muslim world and it would be appropriate for it to try to assert itself positively, not in the Ottoman style but as a responsible and powerful contributor. If somehow it can use its influence with the United States and Israel to make the latter realise that making peace with its neighbours by giving up occupied lands is in its interests and that life in perpetual fear of war is not, it would be fulfilling its true potential. The next Middle East peace initiative should therefore come from Turkey and not Saudi Arabia.

    The economic turnaround Turkey has achieved and its geo-political positioning combined with its progressive Muslim population makes it the best suited to bridge the gap between the west and the Muslim world. It is time it realises its true potential. With a 2011 GDP of $ 773 billion against Saudi Arabia’s GDP of $ 575 billion, it is not less fortunately placed when it has to offer trade to other Muslim countries. Turkey is a neutral trading partner whereas Saudi cooperation with countries has the tag of doctrinal influence attached. Growth of extremism is the bitter fruit of Saudi cooperation. It only needs to make others aware of this. The world would be a better place if Turkey were to play its true role.

    The writer can be reached at [email protected]

  • Turkey Supports Funding to Syrian Jihadist Rebels?

    Turkey Supports Funding to Syrian Jihadist Rebels?

    Report: Turkey Supports Funding to Syrian Jihadist Rebels?

    Turkey, a member of NATO and an ally of the United States, reportedly has supported funding to Syrian jihadist rebels by Arab nations, NGOs.

    By Chana Ya’ar

    img409427

    US Secy of State John Kerry, Qatari Foreign Minister.

    Reuters

    Turkey, a member of NATO and an ally of the United States, is reportedly supporting an effort by Arab nations and NGOs to fund radical Islamist rebel forces in Syria.

    The report, published last week in Foreign Policy magazine, quoted Iraqi National Security Adviser Faleh al-Fayyad who warned that Qatar and other Arab nations, as well as nongovernmental agencies were funding the Syrian Jabhat al-Nusra – the Al Nusra Front terrorist organization.

    Fayyad told columnist Blake Hounshell through a translator that Turkey was aware of the financing to Al Nusra Front – which appears on the U.S. government’s official list of banned terror groups — and had agreed to it. “These are the same sources that finance Al Qaeda,” Hounshell quoted Fayyad as saying. “In times of crisis, some countries use Al Qaeda; some countries make peace with Al Qaeda.”

    Al-Nusra Front is among the 13-member rebel Islamic Front for the Liberation of Syria, many of whose members are terrorist organizations linked to Al Qaeda and global jihad. They are dedicated to installing a government led by Shari’a (Islamic law), in much the same style as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    “Very frankly, elements of Al Qaeda are very active in certain parts of Syria,” Hounshell quoted Fayyad as saying, comparing Turkey’s role of hosting and facilitating armed groups to that of Syria at the height of the insurgency in Iraq. The Iraqi leader claimed that Turkey, Qatar and other Arab nations had pushed the uprising in Syria.

    However, Fayyad made it clear his nation felt no major compulsion to offer support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, either. “Bashar al-Assad has hurt Iraq the same as Saddam Hussein,” commented Iraqi parliamentarian Yassin Maijid, a member of Fayyad’s delegation to Washington.

    However, both lawmakers – who were in Washington for talks with U.S. officials — expressed concern about the rise of Jabhat al-Nusra, which they noted has ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told at a news conference on March 5 in Doha with Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin al-Thani that Washington was increasingly confident that weapons sent by others to the Syrian opposition were going to moderate forces — rather than to Islamic extremists.

    Fayyad’s visit to Washington last week was specifically aimed at contradicting that belief, and raising Washington’s awareness of the apparent two-way street that Qatar and other regional players appear to be traveling — including America’s ally, Turkey — and to warn the Obama administration that not everything in the Middle East appears as it might seem.

    Kerry announced at a meeting in Rome two weeks ago that the United States will provide $60 million in “immediate” non-lethal aid to hand-picked Syrian rebel groups, making it clear the assistance would go to mainstream opposition groups, not to radical jihadists. At the same event, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague announced that Britain would join the United States in training and equipping opposition forces in their fight to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power.

    Both nations, members of NATO, also supported NATO’s recent deployment of Patriot missiles along Turkey’s border with Syria, at Turkey’s request. Ankara asked NATO for the weaponry, and military personnel to operate the anti-missile defense system as protection against the escalating spillover from the savage civil war raging across the border in Syria. A number mortar shells and several missiles had landed in Turkish territory in recent months, prompting the request late last year. The Patriot system was deployed in January 2013.

    Tags: Turkey ,Iraq ,Al Qaeda ,NATO ,SNC ,Syrian civil war ,Al Nusra Front ,Islamic Front for the Liberation of Syria ,Faleh al-Fayyad

    via Turkey Supports Funding to Syrian Jihadist Rebels? – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

  • A decade after US-led invasion, Kurds look to Turkey, the West, mull future without Iraq

    A decade after US-led invasion, Kurds look to Turkey, the West, mull future without Iraq

    IRBIL, Iraq –  At an elite private school in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region, children learn Turkish and English before Arabic. University students dream of jobs in Europe, not Baghdad. And a local entrepreneur says he doesn’t like doing business elsewhere because the rest of the country is too unstable.

    In the decade since U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq, Kurds have trained their sights toward Turkey and the West, at the expense of ties with the still largely dysfunctional rest of the country.

    Aided by an oil-fueled economic boom, Kurds have consolidated their autonomy, increased their leverage against the central government in Baghdad and are pursuing an independent foreign policy often at odds with that of Iraq.

    Kurdish leaders say they want to remain part of Iraq for now, but increasingly acrimonious disputes with Baghdad over oil and territory might just push them toward separation.

    “This is not a holy marriage that has to remain together,” Falah Bakir, the top foreign policy official in the Kurdistan Regional Government, said of the Kurdish region’s link to Iraq.

    A direct oil export pipeline to Turkey, which officials here say could be built by next year, would lay the economic base for independence. For now, the Kurds can’t survive without Baghdad; their region is eligible for 17 percent of the national budget of more than $100 billion, overwhelmingly funded by oil exports controlled by the central government.

    Since the war, the Kurds mostly benefited from being part of Iraq. At U.S. prodding, majority Shiites made major concessions in the 2005 constitution, recognizing Kurdish autonomy and allowing the Kurds to keep their own security force when other militias were dismantled. Shiites also accepted a Kurd as president of predominantly Arab Iraq.

    Still, for younger Kurds, who never experienced direct rule by Baghdad, cutting ties cannot come soon enough.

    More than half the region’s 5.3 million people were born after 1991 when a Western-enforced no-fly zone made Kurdish self-rule possible for the first time by shielding the region against Saddam Hussein. In the preceding years, Saddam’s forces had destroyed most Kurdish villages, killing tens of thousands and displacing many more.

    Students at Irbil’s private Cihan University say they feel Kurdish, not Iraqi, and that Iraq’s widespread corruption, sectarian violence and political deadlock are holding their region back.

    “I want to see an independent Kurdistan, and I don’t want to be part of Iraq,” said Bilend Azad, 20, an architectural engineering student walking with a group of friends along the landscaped campus. “Kurdistan is better than other parts of Iraq. If we stay with them, we will be bad like them and we won’t be free.”

    Kurds are among the main beneficiaries of the March 20, 2003 U.S.-led invasion that ousted Saddam, and sympathy for America still runs strong here.

    Rebaz Zedbagi, a partner in the Senk Group, a road construction and real estate investment company with an annual turnover of $100 million, said his own success would have been unthinkable without the war.

    The 28-year-old said he won’t do business in the rest of Iraq, citing bureaucracy and frequent attacks by insurgents, but said opportunities in the relatively stable Kurdish region are boundless.

    “I believe Kurdistan is like a baby tiger,” said Zedbagi, sipping a latte in a Western-style espresso bar in the Family Mall, Irbil’s largest shopping center. “I believe it will be very powerful in the Middle East.”

    The Kurdish region has undergone a dramatic transformation in the past decade.

    Its capital, Irbil, once had the ambiance of a large village. It has grown into a city of 1.3 million people, with the beginnings of a skyline, several five-star hotels and construction cranes dotting the horizon.

    The SUV-driving elites have moved into townhouses in new gated communities with grand names like “The English Village.” Irbil’s shiny glass-and-steel airport puts Baghdad’s to shame.

    The number of cars registered in the province of Irbil — one of three in the Kurdish region — jumped from 4,000 in 2003 to half a million today and the number of hotels from a handful to 234, said provincial governor Nawzad Mawlood.

    Planning Minister Ali Sindi took pride in a sharp drop in illiteracy, poverty and unemployment in recent years.

    But the Kurds have a lot more work cut out for them. The region needs to spend more than $30 billion on highways, schools and other basic infrastructure in the next decade, Sindi said. A housing shortage and a high annual population growth rate of almost 4 percent have created demand for 70,000 new apartments a year.

    There’s also a strong undercurrent of discontent, amid concerns about the concentration of power in the hands of a few. Opposition activists complain of official corruption, and the international group Human Rights Watch said security forces arbitrarily detained 50 journalists, activists and opposition figures in 2012.

    The region’s parliament “is weak and cannot effectively question the (Kurdish) government,” said Abdullah Mala-Nouri of the opposition Gorran party.

    Iraq’s central government strongly opposes the Kurds’ quest for full-blown independence.

    Iraqi leaders bristle at Kurdish efforts to forge an independent foreign policy, and the two sides disagree over control of disputed areas along their shared internal border. In November, Kurdish fighters and the Iraqi army were engaged in a military standoff, and tensions remain high.

    Oil is at the root of those disputes.

    Iraq sits atop the world’s fourth largest reserves of conventional crude, or about 143 billion barrels, and oil revenues make up 95 percent of the state budget. Kurdish officials claim their region holds 45 billion barrels, though that figure cannot be confirmed independently.

    The central government claims sole decision-making rights over oil and demands that all exports go through state-run pipelines. The Kurds say they have the right to develop their own energy policy and accuse the government of stalling on negotiating a new deal on sharing oil revenues.

    The Kurds have also passed their own energy law and signed more than 50 deals with foreign oil companies, offering more generous terms than Baghdad.

    An oil company doing business in the region, Genel Energy, began shipping Kurdish oil by truck to Turkey in January.

    The planned direct export pipeline is of strategic importance, said Ali Balo, a senior Kurdish oil official. “Why are we building it? Because we always have problems with Baghdad.”

    The project also highlights Turkey’s growing involvement in the region, a marked change from just a few years ago when ties were strained over Ankara’s battle against Kurdish insurgents seeking self-rule in Turkey.

    Mutual need forged the new relationship.

    Turkey, part of the region’s Sunni Muslim camp, needs more oil to fuel its expanding economy. It prefers to buy from the Kurds rather than the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, seen as a member of the region’s rival Iranian-influenced axis. The Kurds, also predominantly Sunni, need Turkey not just as a gateway for oil exports but also as a business partner.

    Almost half of nearly 1,900 foreign companies operating here are Turkish, government officials say. Seventy percent of Turkey’s annual $15 billion Iraq trade is with the Kurdish region.

    In a sign of the times, Turkish and English are the languages of instruction at a top private school in Irbil. During music class at the Bilkent school, third-graders sitting cross-legged on a large carpet sang “Twinkle, twinkle, little star” in Turkish, followed by “London Bridge” in English.

    The 351 students start studying Kurdish, the native language of most, in third grade. Arabic is introduced last, in fourth grade.

    The curriculum reflects the priorities of the school’s founder, a member of Iraq’s ethnic Turkmen minority. But it also suits Kurdish parents who believe their children’s future is tied to Turkey.

    Oddly, Turkish-Kurdish ties are flourishing at a time of continued cross-border violence.

    Turkish warplanes routinely strike bases of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, a Turkish rebel group operating from the Qandil mountains of Iraq’s Kurdish region. The PKK launches raids into Turkey from its mountain hideouts.

    Both sides are simply keeping the two issues separate.

    Turkey has stopped linking improved ties with Irbil to resolving Turkey’s conflict with the PKK, a fight which has claimed thousands of lives since 1984. The Kurds keep quiet about Turkish airstrikes on their territory.

    As problems with Baghdad fester, Kurdish officials say their region’s departure from Iraq is inevitable. Many here dream of an independent Kurdistan, made up of parts of Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq, home to more than 25 million Kurds.

    “As a people, we deserve that,” said Bakir, the foreign policy official. “We want to see that in our lifetime.”

    But with key allies such as the U.S. and Turkey opposed to splitting up Iraq, the Kurds say they won’t act with haste or force.

    Asked if the Kurdish region would declare independence once it can export oil directly, Bakir said: “We will cross that bridge when we get there. At this time, we are still committed to a democratic, federal, pluralistic Iraq.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/10/decade-after-us-led-invasion-kurds-look-to-turkey-west-mull-future-without-iraq/#ixzz2NDU9esgq