Tag: Kurdish Separatism

  • An endless war

    An endless war

    Turkey’s long-running battle with Kurdish separatists is intensifying, again

    SHOULD the Turks and Kurds live together? The answer from many of Turkey’s restive Kurds has long been no. A vicious separatist campaign launched by rebels of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) has been raging since 1984. In recent months the PKK has stepped up its attacks, killing dozens of Turkish soldiers in and beyond the predominantly Kurdish south-east. Most recently, on July 20th, a Kurdish raid near the town of Cukurca killed six Turkish troops and injured at least 15.

    But now a growing number of Turks are questioning the merits of cohabiting with the country’s estimated 14m Kurds. Never mind that Istanbul is the world’s largest Kurdish city, or that few of the provinces claimed by the Kurds are ethnically homogenous. In television debates and across the blogosphere support for the idea that the Kurds should go their own way is growing. Onur Sahin, who heads the Chamber of Agriculture in the Black Sea province of Ordu, says his fellow producers no longer want seasonal migrant Kurds to harvest their hazelnut crops.

    Meanwhile, the military campaign against the PKK is intensifying. The mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) party, which has governed Turkey since 2002, plans to deploy a new professional army along the border with Iraq, where the PKK has havens. Some fear a return to the excesses of the 1990s, when over 3,000 Kurdish villages were forcibly evacuated and thousands of Kurds were imprisoned, murdered or disappeared.

    Over the border, Turkish air raids on the PKK’s mountain bases in northern Iraq are increasing. America is helping by providing intelligence and broadening the air corridor used by Turkish fighter jets. Yet the Americans are worried by Turkey’s increasingly strident calls for the Iraqi Kurds to hand over some 200 rebels, including their own leaders. The last thing the Americans want to see, as they pull out of Iraq, is a war between Turkey and Iraqi Kurds.

    All of this is a far cry from last year when AK heralded its so-called Kurdish “opening”. It made peace with the Iraqi Kurds and opened a consulate in Erbil, their capital. At home, a set of political and cultural reforms was meant to coax the PKK into laying down its arms, in the wake of a unilateral PKK ceasefire that was declared in April but that never took full effect. But the opening ground to a halt following the return last October of 34 PKK fighters to Turkey from Iraq. More were meant to follow. But the group prompted a public outcry by touring the south-east in guerrilla outfits, declaring victory. In response the government stepped up its arrests of members of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), accusing them of PKK membership. Half of the returnees have been put on trial for refusing to repent; ten are in prison. Last month the PKK hit back by calling off its truce.

    map kurdish populationSome voices plead for a return to peace. A group of Turkish intellectuals has petitioned the government to change a controversial article of the constitution that deems all Turkish citizens to be Turks. One AK mayor has suggested that Turkish men take Kurdish women as second wives. Others say that AK must talk to the PKK’s imprisoned leader, Abdullah Ocalan. Despite 11 years of solitary confinement in an island prison off Istanbul, Mr Ocalan retains the loyalty of his fighters and the affection of millions of Kurds.

    In fact, secret talks with Mr Ocalan, supposedly conducted by security and intelligence operatives, have reportedly been going on for some time. Murat Karayilan, the PKK’s commander in northern Iraq, says his group wants to talk to politicians, not spooks, and this week proposed a bilateral ceasefire. But as next July’s parliamentary elections draw nearer, Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is unlikely to risk nationalist ire by openly talking to a group deemed by Turkey and its Western allies to be terrorists. On the other hand, as Mr Erdogan knows, abandoning reform in favour of war will only strengthen the hand of his opponents within the army. He is, as an old Turkish saying goes, holding a stick with shit at both ends.

    Source: Economist

  • Obama’s Iraq Crisis

    Obama’s Iraq Crisis

    Editorial Commentary

    Scott Sullivan: Obama’s Iraq Crisis

    In addition to the financial crisis, Obama faces an emerging crisis in Iraq. The temporary stability of Iraq brought about by Operation Surge is vanishing. Iraq is moving towards partition and civil war, thanks to the Kurds. If Bush and Obama do not stop the Kurds in this coming week, the US occupation of Iraq will become a fiasco.

    Today’s Washington Post (23 Nov 08) carries a front page story about Kurdish imports of a large quantity of small arms directly from Bulgaria, bypassing the Baghdad ministries of Defense and Interior, which are the only government entities under Iraq’s constitution authorized to import weapons.

    Kurdish efforts to import weapons follow illegal Kurdish efforts to sign separate energy agreements with the international oil companies. Moreover, the Kurds are illegally expanding the size of the Iraqi Kurdish state. The Iraqi Kurds are sending units of the Kurdish peshmerga militia into Kirkuk, which the Kurds claim as part of their new independent state.

    In other words, the embryonic Kurdish state created by the US occupation of Iraq has become a “runaway train” that threatens to bring down Iraq as a whole via civil war. The Kurds will derail all of Obama’s careful planning for a 16 month strategy for leaving Iraq.

    Due to Kurdish aggression, Obama’s second most important task, after dealing with the financial crisis, is to deal with the Iraq crisis. Obama’s policy review should begin by rejecting the conventional wisdom of Obama’s transition team on Iraq that US forces play a positive role in Iraq and by rethinking Obama’s likely decision to retain Robert Gates as Defense Secretary.

    Obama’s transition team shares the conventional view with Gates that US forces play a constructive role in Iraq. Gates is convinced that US troops are essential to Iraqi stability and cannot be withdrawn under Obama’s 16 month timeframe, much less Governor Richardson’s six month exit timeframe,

    In contrast, Richardson’s view is that US forces in Iraq, by supporting Kurdish separatism, are destabilizing Iraq. Under Richardson’s view, Iraqi stabilization will be possible only if US forces are withdrawn from Iraq as quickly as possible, most likely on Richardson’s six month exit timeframe. Gates is wrong, while Richardson is right.

    In sum, Obama faces two immediate tasks to deal with Iraq’s emerging crisis. First, Obama must call President Bush and remind Bush of his responsibility to deter the Kurds. Second, if Bush refuses to deter the Kurds, Obama should contact Biden, Clinton, Richardson and Jones so as to prepare for a six month timeframe for exiting Iraq.

    Of course, Obama could decide to take no action on Iraq until January 20. However, doing nothing is not an option for Obama. An Obama decision to do nothing to deter the Kurds would be seen by the Kurdish leadership as Obama’s approval for Kurdish imperialism and extremism. Does Obama want to go down in history, along with Bush, as the father to the new Kurdish superpower in the Middle East?

    Scott Sullivan is a former Washington government employee and was the Senior Advisor for International Economics at the Crisis Management Center of the National Security Council, 1984 -1986. Petroleumworld not necessarily share these views.

    Petroleumworld welcomes your feedback and comments: editor@petroleumworld.com. By using this link, you agree to allow E&P to publish your comments on our letters page.

    Petroleumworld News 24.11.08

    Copyright© 2008 respective author or news agency. All rights reserved.