Turkey - Kurdistan (Superthread)

[GAP]

The US is backing away from the region ASAP.....

Kurdistan Regional Security Passes to Iraqi Control
By Tim Kilbride Special to American Forces Press Service
Article Link

WASHINGTON, June 1, 2007 – Day-to-day security concerns in the three provinces making up Iraq’s Kurdistan region are now the direct responsibility of Iraqi representatives, a Multinational Force Iraq official said yesterday.
The provinces of Sulaymaniyah, Erbil and Dahuk transferred as a bloc to regional Iraqi control during a May 30 ceremony, said Air Force Maj. Gen. Kurt Cichowski, deputy chief of staff for strategy, plans and assessment, during a call with “bloggers” and online journalists.

The transfer means the Kurdistan regional government, as an element of the government of Iraq, will oversee the Iraqi army and police, as well as ancillary security forces working in the area, Cichowski said. Such supplementary forces include the officially sanctioned “peshmerga,” now known as the Kurdish Regional Guards, he explained.

The region has been administered by the Kurdistan regional government since 2003, the general said, and provinces transferred all at once instead of individually at that government’s request.

The transfers were conditioned on the achievement of four key standards, graded by U.S. and Iraqi officials, Cichowski said. These were: security in the region; the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces in the area, with a focus on the police; local governance capability; and the status of the relationship between coalition forces and the local government.

Basically, Cichowski said, the key questions on readiness are, “What is happening in the provinces and can a local government take care of it, primarily with the domestic police?”
More on link

 

[Greymatters]

As noted elsewhere - maybe it is just a peculiarity of the Turkish constitution - I find it fascinating that the civilian authority apparently doesn't initiate military action.  The initiative lies with the military to decide when and if military action is necessary.  The civilians only get to acquiesce or oppose.

The military and the elected officials tend to act as two independent systems, with netiher allowing itself to be commanded by the either (although they certainly do influence each other).  Yes, its dysfunctional, but hey, thats Turkey...

 

[Bigmac]

      Complaining to both the UN and NATO......interesting!??

Turkey taking PKK complaints to UN, NATO 

Ankara's efforts on the diplomatic front to cement a firm stance among the international community -- which already condemns armed attacks by the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) but has not yet taken firm action against it -- have recently gained a new momentum with a Foreign Ministry initiative to carry the issue to the agenda of international bodies such as the UN and NATO.

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=112940&bolum=102

 

[Bigmac]

A voice of reason amongst the Turkish population?

At The Brink of a Chaos: Kurds, EU, Army and Poor Intellectuals of this Country

Friday, June 1, 2007

Orhan Kemal Cengiz

  Are we cursed? Why do we always have to live in conflict, in tension, in fear, and in terror? What is wrong in this country? What is wrong with us? Why we cannot solve any problems of this country? Why do we always repeat everything we have lived through before? Why do we, on the one hand, boast that we have such a strong army and why, on the other hand, we are so afraid of “our enemies”? Why is everything defined in this country as a security matter? Why is the army being glorified while civilians and politicians are underestimated and humiliated?

  There is an election in two months and we are not sure if there will be any election at all! Nothing is sure, anything can happen!

  Now, we have “suicide bombers” once again. It is evidently clear that some elements in the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) are desperately trying to drag Turkey into Northern Iraq to accelerate the already existing alienation of Turkey's Kurds from Turkey; to get Turkey to confront Iraqi Kurds; to weaken Turkey's ties with the Western world and worst of all to trigger a bloody slaughter between civilian Kurds and Turks in Turkey

Remainder of opinion article: http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=74667

My favorite quote from the article:

There is a saying, sir, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything appears to you as a nail!

 

[KevinB]

Well the Pesh are always crossing the border though so the Turks pound Dahuk with arty a fair amount...

For those who have not been to Kurdistan - it is for all intensive purposes a seperate country from iraq -- to the point if you fly in to Arbil/Erbil - you get greated with a Kurdish flag, and Welcome to Erbil International Airport, Republic of Kurdistan.

  I spent a week in Kirkuk as well - it is a pretty stable area -- but 15km outside going West it gets bad.

The amount of reconstruction is amazing and as one of my buddies who is positioned in Erbil say "London has way more gun crime that Kurdistan". 

Everyone working the circut in Iraq wants to retire on the job in Erbil/Kirkuk.

 

[Kirkhill]

PKK = KWP =  Kurdish Workers Party  - communist roots (apparently abandoned with the collapse of the USSR)
Current Problem Children in Turkey - Strength believed to be about 5000 (3000 in Iraq, 2000 in Turkey)
Long time rivals of both the PPK (KDP) and the PUK - a lot of violence between factions in both Turkey and Iraq prior to the fall of Saddam.

PPK = KDP = Kurdish Democratic Party - led by Massoud Barsani, President of Autonomous Region of Kurdistan in Iraq, one time member of Iraqi Governing Council
                                                        - allied with PUK

PUK = Patriotic Union of Kurdistan - led by Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq

"There are 30 million Kurds in Turkey and we don't interfere there. If they (the Turks) interfere in Kirkuk over just thousands of Turkmen then we will take action for the 30 million Kurds in Turkey."

"I hope we don't reach this point, but if the Turks insist on intervening in Kirkuk matter I am ready to take responsible for our response," Barzani said.

AP/IHT April 7,2007

Kurdistan and Iraq, Talabani and Barsani all have a lot to lose in a border skirmish with the Turks.  The Turks have a lot at risk as well. 

I believe that Talabani and Barsani believe they have enough "legitimate" leverage based on their position within Iraq.  They would not be willing to jeopardize the stabiliity that Infidel alludes to.

On the other hand the PKK, claiming suicide bombings and with old USSR connections seems a highly suspect organization.  As noted elsewhere there are external players interested in creating instability in the area - both Islamic and old line Russian, amongst others (There are negotiations for a trans-Turkey pipeline to take Iraqi hydrocarbons to the European Market.  That would give Europe an alternative fuel supply and relieve the chokehold that Russia currently has on them - it might also change some of the G8/Kyoto dynamics - in promoting conservation Europe makes a costly virtue of necessity and at the same time tries to hinder its competitors by inflicting the same energy costs on them - digression)

The PKK is an old, and deadly foe of the PPK and the PUK.  I don't think the Peshmerga with PPK and PUK affiliations will have any problem dealing with the PKK members.  The only problem will come if the Peshmergas split on party lines.

Afghanistan became a pariah state when it no longered controlled the people within its own borders and they became problems to the neighbours (everybody in that case).  The leadership of the Autonomous Region of Kurdistan is being given an opportunity to demonstrate that it can control its own people.  If they can do that, if they can prove to the Turks that they are interested in maintaining the status quo on borders, then the Turks will have no need or excuse to intervene.  Failing the Kurds being able to control their people then Turkey, like NATO in Afghanistan, will have little reason not to intervene.  No state can tolerate instability within its territory or on its borders.

The true test of leadership is whether or not you can punish your "followers" as easily as you do your enemies and reward your "enemies" as easily as you do your friends.

If the Kurds can control their fellow Kurds, and also treat the Turkmen of Kirkuk (not to mention the Arabs) the same way they treat Kurds then tensions in the area might be reduced: to the mutual advantage of Turkey, Iraq, Kurds and Europe.  And to the discomfiture of Moscow, Putin and Gazprom.

 

[exspy]

Let me see if I have this straight, just so it's clear to me.

The Canadian Army is in Afghanistan under NATO auspices in partnership with other NATO forces in the role of nation building.  This involves getting the local leaders, including the Afghan Kurd leaders in the Western provinces, to agree to take part in a federal state government centred in Kabul.  If the Kurdish leaders agree, then they will be asked to assist NATO in fighting the Pushtu forces in the Southern and Eastern provinces.  So then, Kurdish cooperation with NATO in Afghanistan would seem to be a political objective.

On the other hand (and further west) if the Iraqi Kurds conduct any sort of raid or invasion into Turkey for whatever reason than Canada and the other NATO partners would have to, under the agreement that an attack on one NATO ally is to be considered an attack upon all, have to assist Turkey in fighting the Kurdish invasion.

Have I got this right or have the subtleties of Mid-East / SW Asian politics confused me.  Are we, or rather the west, really going to be caught in a 'some Kurds are good, some are bad' quagmire?

Who would have thought there would have come a time when the simplicity of the Cold War would be missed.

 

[Kirkhill]

'some Kurds are good, some are bad'

I think that is a given regardless of "Nation" and of Woodrow Wilson's strange notions.

I think that, like E.R. and Arthur Majoor, and the Liberal Party of Canada that it ultimately does come down to "a question of values".  Even George Bush, with his succinctly stated "with us or agin us", sees it in the same light.

It isn't a matter of who you are and where you live.  It isn't really a matter of belief, except insofar as beliefs influence actions.  It is all a matter of "let the deed shaw".

As far as the Kurds (self-defined) are concerned, they exist in isolated pockets all through the mountains of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Lebanon, and possibly beyond.  This is characteristic of an ancient occupancy that has seen many tides of invaders over the millenia.  Unfortunately those ancient, and modern, tides have also left their pockets of separate cultures.    Unfortunately/fortunately, because of their geographic isolation in individual valleys even the Kurds, as unitary as they may seem are each ultimately separate cultures. 

The situation through the Kush-Elburz-Zagros-Caucasus-Balkans connectors reminds me of a bunch of rocks at low tide.  Each hollow contains related species but in different concentrations and with different balances.  Depending on how often the tides rise and connect the pools then each pool trades species and changes balances.  Sometimes the tides keep the pools separated for years - if not milllenia.  Sometimes the pools die out and die.  Sometimes they become permanently separated.

At the top of Johnson Canyon, between Calgary and Banff, there is a phenomenon known as the paint pots.  They are a sequence of shallow pools of water.  Each one is different in colour because of mineral and algal content - and some include discrete sub-species of higher life forms like snails.  Those ponds sprang from a common origin, survive in the same external environment but have different internal environments.  They are all the same but different.

I think that there is some merit to Osama's desire for a re-establishment of the Caliphate because the Caliphate recognised that that range of mountains were essentially one interconnected culture with many individual idiosyncracies (at least the later Ottoman-Turkic Calphacy did).  What Europeans and Arabs interpreted as a "sick" empire because of a lack of central control might in fact have been the only way that that area can be governed.

Of course in the modern era we don't support "Great Men" any more - but perhaps the solution to stability lies in something akin to a European Union - perhaps the Sunni and Marsh tribes and the Kurds of Iraq might be finding a their way to a more generalized model.  A similar "tribal" stability seems to be the key to Afghanistan as well.

 

[MarkOttawa]

exspy: You write  of

...the Afghan Kurd leaders in the Western provinces...

I am afraid they are few and far between.  As far as I can determine the largest estimate for Kurds in Afstan is this:
http://www.institutkurde.org/en/language/

This language is also spoken by 200,000 Kurdophones settled around Kabul, in Afghanistan.

This ethnolinguistic map of the country does not show Kurds:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/afghanistan_ethnoling_97.jpg

I suspect the 200,000 figure is an exaggeration by the Kurds--this specialized site does not even mention Kurdish amongst the many languages of Afstan:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=AF

No mention of Kurds or Kurdish in these either:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-21424/Afghanistan
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-226122/Afghanistan
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kurdish_86.jpg

This link shows a good distribution of Kurds - From Anatolia to Afghan border and from the Caucasus to Baluchistan.

The Kurds apparently believe they have relatives in Afghanistan.

This group also apparently agrees with them.
http://www.global12project.com/2004/profiles/p_code4/1016.html

In the matter of nationality it matters less what others believe than what the believers believe.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill: With respect the map shows no Kurds in Afstan.  I earlier looked at the Christian site on Afghan Kurds that you found and honestly cannot assess what credibility to give it.  In any event even the pro-Kurdish site I posted
http://www.institutkurde.org/en/language/

claims only 200,000 Kurds (less than 1% of the population), mainly in the Kabul area.  So it remains the case that exspy was incorrect in giving any importance to "...the Afghan Kurd leaders in the Western provinces..."

Meanwhile back at the main front:

Gates warns Turkey not to invade Iraq
AP, June 3
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070603/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates

SINGAPORE - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday cautioned Turkey against sending troops into northern Iraq, as it has threatened, to hunt down Kurdish rebels it accuses of carrying out terrorist raids inside Turkey.

"We hope there would not be a unilateral military action across the border into Iraq," Gates told a news conference after meetings here with Asian government officials. Turkey and Iraq were not represented.

Gates said he sympathized with the Turks' concern about cross-border raids by Kurdish rebels.

"The Turks have a genuine concern with Kurdish terrorism that takes place on Turkish soil," he said. "So one can understand their frustration and unhappiness over this. Several hundred Turks lose their lives each year, and we have been working with the Turks to try to help them get control of this problem on Turkish soil."

Tensions have heightened in recent weeks in northern Iraq as Turkey has built up its military forces on Iraq's border, a move clearly meant to pressure Iraq to rein in the rebels of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, separatists who launch raids into southeast Turkey's Kurdish region from hideouts in Iraq.

Turkey's political and military leaders have been debating whether to try to root out those bases, and perhaps set up a buffer zone across the frontier as the Turkish army has done in the past. Turkey's military chief said Thursday the army was ready and only awaiting orders for a cross-border offensive...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[exspy]

MarkOttawa,

Thanks for the clarification.  For some reason after finishing the article I had the impression that there was a substantial number of Kurds in western Afghanistan.  Which is why I asked for someone to clear it up for me.  Glad it was you.

Back to the Turkish - Kurdish border, would a Kurdish incursion necessarily trigger a NATO response?  My opinion, and it is only my opinion mind you, is that while technically the precept of a common defence could very well be invoked, I cannot see any European nation not already involved in the Mid-East quagmire wanting to be.  Those that already are I do not see wanting to become involved on a second front or, in the case of the UK, a third front.  The US, with their base at Incirlik, would have to do something to assist Turkey but I don't see a whole of help coming their way from anywhere else.

Views?

 

[MarkOttawa]

exspy: Somehow I can't see an attack into Iraq being interpreted as an attack on a NATO member.  I also can't see the US assisting Turkey as that would be the end of friendly relations with Iraqi Kurdistan and would end any chance of the Kurds being helpful politically in Iraq.  In fact any serious Turkish attack would put everyone in a terrible spot.  I suspect the Americans are hoping that the most the Turks do is some sort of hit and run incursion.  They could condemn it while letting it run its course, while praying the Kurds grin and bear it.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[KevinB]

Mark -- he is talking about a Kurdish incursion into Turkey -- which would be a treaty requirement for NATO nations...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Ooops.  :-[  Since there have been lots of cases of small incursions into Turkey I still can't see NATO getting involved, and to my mind the chance of any major Kurdish incursion by the other factions in support of the PKK is just about non-existent.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[KevinB]

Depends on your idea of an incursion -- I dont consider 2-3 guys with AK's and Satchel charges an incursion. 

Secondly its non state actors that are conduction these at this point.  However the Kurds need to deal with this -- they VERY ruthlessly deal with any suspicious Arabs in town (read drive out the desert and bang.) but have been unable/unwilling to get their homegrowns to simmer down at the border.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As the Kurds are still (nominally) part of Iraq, any incursion by them in any size into Turkey would not be condoned by the Iraqi government and therefore would not be considered an “attack by another state”

Pure insanity, the Kurds could be the best thing that happens for the Turks, lots of economic trade deals in the waiting and a source of cheap oil. The Kurds need to reign in the PPK elements causing the problems in turkey, and the Turks need to ease up on their Kurdish population. Even a semi-independent Kurdish Province in Iraq is far better than a Iranian controlled state on Turkey’s border. The problem of course is that both the Kurds and the Turks have so much history between them and neither are good at forgetting it.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Tensions Rise as Turkey Shells Iraq
Spiegel Online, June 4
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,486535,00.html

Turkish patience is running out over the cross-border raids by Kurdish militants based in northern Iraq. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has urged caution, but Ankara is openly debating an incursion to root out the rebels. And it plans to take its case for action to the UN this week.

The signs have become increasingly ominous. For weeks, Turkey has been building up its military presence on its south-eastern border with Iraq in response to cross-border raids by Kurdish rebels. Potentially more concerning, Ankara has been openly considering an incursion into Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq in an attempt to root out members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) based there.

On Sunday, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates saw the situation as sufficiently heated to issue a warning to Ankara. "We hope there would not be a unilateral military action across the border into Iraq," Gates told reporters on Sunday.

Speaking after meeting with Asian government officials in Singapore, Gates said he sympathized with the Turkish frustration over the raids launched by Kurdish rebels from across the border. "The Turks have a genuine concern with Kurdish terrorism that takes place on Turkish soil," he said. "So one can understand their frustration and unhappiness over this."

But Ankara is unlikely to be placated by US sympathy. Indeed, the Turkish military shelled Kurdish positions on the Iraqi side of the border on both Sunday and Monday, according to the Belgium-based Firat news agency. Furthermore, the Dogan news agency reported that a suicide bombing had killed three soldiers at a military outpost in south-eastern Turkey on Monday.

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül asserted his country's right to act on Monday, telling visiting European Union officials: "We have every right to take measures against terrorist activities directed at us from northern Iraq."

And in an attempt to further highlight the issue, Ankara is to deliver a report to the United Nations this week, setting out its legal right to take action against the rebels. A Turkish foreign ministry official told Reuters on Monday that the country's UN representative Baki Illkin would hold talks with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon this week. "More cooperation from the United Nations is requested on this matter."

Ankara has long been urging US and Iraqi forces to crack down on the estimated 4,000 PKK guerrillas based in northern Iraq. But bogged down coping with the ongoing violence in the center of the country, they have been happy for the Kurds to run things themselves in the north.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Greymatters]

I think Turkey is very fond of following 'hot pursuit' guidelines...

 

[Bigmac]

      This is going to fuel the Turkish fire. I think it is now only a matter of when, not if, Turkish forces enter Northern Iraq.

Kurdish guerrillas kill 7 in attack on Turkish military outpost

SELCAN HACAOGLU

Associated Press

June 4, 2007 at 9:39 PM EDT

ANKARA, Turkey — Kurdish guerrillas fired rockets and grenades at a Turkish military outpost Monday, killing seven soldiers in an attack that heightened tension at a time when Turkey has threatened military action against Kurds in northern Iraq.

The army sent helicopter gunships and reinforcements to Tunceli province in southeastern Turkey after two guerrillas rammed a vehicle into the military post, threw hand grenades and opened fire with automatic weapons, the governor's office said.

Soldiers returned fire, killing one attacker who authorities said had explosives strapped to his body. Local media said the second attacker escaped injured.

Several other guerrillas simultaneously opened fire on the outpost from a nearby forest, the governor's office said. The attack left seven soldiers dead and seven injured. One of the injured was in critical condition, authorities said.

The attack came as Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told European Union officials visiting Ankara: “We have every right to take measures against terrorist activities directed at us from northern Iraq.”

Turkey's political and military leaders have been debating whether to stage an incursion into northern Iraq to try and root out Kurdish bases.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, whose country holds the EU presidency, said he “did not get the impression that Turkey would stage an incursion.”

A pro-Kurdish news agency reported Monday that Turkish troops shelled a border area in northern Iraq for a second day in an attack on Kurds based there.

Abdul-Rahman al-Chadarchi, a spokesman for the Kurdistan Workers' party, known by its Kurdish acronym, PKK, said by telephone there had been artillery shelling from Turkey into Iraqi territory at dawn and there had been simultaneous shelling from the Turkish and Iranian sides Sunday night.