Kurds Warn Turkey Not To Invade
Filed under: Condoleezza Rice, Iraq, Kurds, PKK, Terrorism, Turkey, United States, War, War on Terror — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on May 28, 2007 @ 6:58 pm CEST
“Safin Dizai, a senior official from the Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and a close aide to Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani,” said that “Turkish tanks would not be allowed to cross into northern Iraq.”
Dizai pointed to the ongoing domestic debates in Turkey about a possible cross-border operation to crack down on the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) camps based in northern Iraq in the face of ongoing attacks inside the country.
“The people of Kurdistan will not remain spectators to the crossing of Turkish tanks and panzers into Kirkuk,” he was quoted as saying by the Doğan News Agency (DHA), which took excerpts from statements made by the Iraqi Kurdish official to Kurdish-broadcasting Web site “Nefel.”
Sadly for the Kurds, the Turkish military believes that a military operation is necessary: there are five PKK camps in Northern Iraq, from which the PKK launches attacks against Turks. Of course there was the terrorist in Ankara recently as well. The PKK has already killed more than 30,000 Turks.
Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gül, meanwhile, had a telephone conversation with Condi Rice, in which he told the latter that “the Turkish public was running out of patience due to the ongoing attacks in eastern Turkey.” He also urged Washington “to take urgent and effective measures to stop terrorist infiltrations from northern Iraq.”
Rice “did not touch upon the likelihood of a military incursion into northern Iraq by the Turkish army,” she did say, however, that the US is on Turkey’s side in the war on terrorism and she assured Gül “that Washington would increase cooperation with Turkey in that respect.” She also “expressed the U.S. administration’s dismay stemming from the killings of many civilians and soldiers in clashes with the PKK.”
Gül said that he didn’t talk with Rice about a possible cross-border operation in Northern Iraq. Of course “Washington has warned Ankara against a cross-border operation in northern Iraq, wary that such a move may destabilize a relatively peaceful region in the conflict-torn country and fuel tensions between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds.”
Turkey is a member of NATO, the Kurds support the US and live in a “relatively peaceful region” of the mess frequently referred to as Iraq. In other words: a lose-lose situation.
It will be interesting to see how the US will respond if Turkey invades northern Iraq. My guess is that the US will object pro forma. There will be a condemnation, because Washington does not want to lose the support of the Kurds, but Turkey will be given all the time and room she needs to destroy the PKK camps.
This is probably the best thing for the US to do: that, and doing something about the PKK problem herself.
1 gasdocpol
May 28, 2007 @ 7:30 pm CESTWhy not give Turkey something it wants in exchange for something the Kurds want?
If the world community guarantees the Kurds their own country in exchange for their promise that they will respect the Turkish border, both sides win.
IF THE KURDS DO NOT AGREE TO THAT ,THEY DON’T GET THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
2 mvdg
May 28, 2007 @ 7:50 pm CESTI thought about that solution as well, but the problem is that Turkey will never accept an independent Kurdistan. Besides that, the PKK strongly believes that southern Turkey ‘belongs’ to ‘them’. This means that they will not give up, so it’s a bit too hypothetical imo.
3 EB
May 28, 2007 @ 8:09 pm CESTWhy does Turkey give Kurdish people a land in exchange for something? What is it for? If all the minorities want their own land and get it, there would be no Turkey. Kurdish people have the same rights with Turks. We are equal everywhere. If they are not satisfied with that, well it is their problem.
4 lol
May 29, 2007 @ 12:40 am CESTkurds were really good allies with iraq and turkey… untill something named united states came up and told kurds that they would give them land… kurds agreed and want to hate turkey and iraq. united states messed it all up ! usa is drawing a map right now!!!
5 gasdocpol
May 29, 2007 @ 12:52 am CESTEB
I was saying that aseparate country be formed from the former Iraq on the condition that that country leave the Turkish Kurds alone.
I was never suggesting that Turkey cede that land to Kurdistan.
Obviously, no country would do that.
mvdg
If Turkey were properly assured by the world community and Kurdistan that Turkey’s border was respected and the agreement had teeth it would be to Turkey’s benefit that tensions were relieved.
6 donna
May 29, 2007 @ 11:44 am CESTafter reading the above state ments it was wrong of the americans to get involved and makes promises that they cannot keep. i sugest that all american and british troops stay out of other countries issues and let them sort them out there selves, as for the pkk they should be removed and let the turkish people and kurdish people live in peace instead of killing innocent people due to polotics
7 gasdocpol
May 29, 2007 @ 12:33 pm CESTDonna
I think that they call it “Interference in the internal affairs of other countries”.
Once the Bush White House pretexts for the war were disproven , the spinmeisters had to come up with the pretext that we were bringing democracy to Iraq.
That is like Hitler saying that he was marching into the countries of Europe to bring them the blessings of German culture.
I STILL THINK THAT, IF WE COULD MAKE A SEPARATE COUNTRY OUT OF THE PART OF IRAQ WITH THE KURD POPULATION, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE KURDS RESPECT THE TURKISH BORDER, WE COULD DEFUSE THE TENSION THAT NOW EXISTS.
THE KURDS IN TURKEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE TURKS JUST AS THE TURKS IN THE USA ARE AMERICANS. THEY CAN EMBRACE THEIR KURDISH HERITAGE WHILE BEING TURKS. THAT WORKS IN THE USA AND IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK IN TURKEY.
8 David
May 29, 2007 @ 4:59 pm CESTThe independent Kurdistan idea has a large number of problems, to put it mildly.
1. What will the rest of Iraq make of the dismemberment of their country?
2. Realistically speaking any independent Kurdistan will probably soon lay claim to the Kurdish populated parts of Turkey, even if they do not they will probably offer a safe haven to the PKK. I know people here will suggest all sorts of treaties etc. to stop this, but people break treaties….
3. Where do the boundaries of the state lie? Quite a few of the boundaries of the current Kurdish self governing region of Iraq are disputed and run through some of the biggest oil fields in the country. Mosul or Kirkuk, for example.
4. Kurdistan will be oil rich and landlocked. Which of its neighbours will assist it to remove its oil? Probably not Turkey and the rest of Iraq. Should it ally with Syria or Iran?
Encouraging an independent Kurdistan is not a good idea, in my opinion.
9 gasdocpol
May 29, 2007 @ 5:22 pm CESTDavid
Thank you fro your input
1. If it means an end to the intersectarian fighting that is paralyzing all of presentday Iraq, partitioning Iraq into 3 independant counties may be very attractive to all concerned.
2. IF the Kurds want their own country , they need to agree to respect the Turkish border and renounce all claims to lands occupied by Kurds in Turkey. That is why we need international participation for mediation, input and support and to give that agreement teeth.
3. The boundaries need to be hashed out. Again with international , including arab , participationfor input, mediation and support.
4. The Kurds want their own country. Deals can be made.
10 David
May 29, 2007 @ 7:41 pm CEST“1. If it means an end to the intersectarian fighting that is paralyzing all of presentday Iraq, partitioning Iraq into 3 independant counties may be very attractive to all concerned.”
That is a remarkably big “if”. Holding out a realistic prospect of an independent Kurdistan seems to destabalise the only part of the country that is currently (relatively) stable.
I fail to see how any other part of Iraq will agree to give up one of their main oil producing districts to give the Kurds a state.
“That is why we need international participation for mediation, input and support and to give that agreement teeth.”
I nearly laughed when I read this. Who in the international community actually supports Kurdish independence? Britain and the US are the most pro-Kurdish countries in the outside world, yet neither of them support it.
As for an agreement with teeth, the whole Iraq debacle was due to Saddam flouting international agreements about weapons inspections to give teeth to disarmament agreements, the whole Iran situation is due to that country’s disregard for its own signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
When it comes to enforcement and giving teeth to an agreement, international law is basically dead as the dodo. The international system has ceased functioning. No international agreement can have any teeth because nobody will act to enforce it.
As for the internationally agreed boundaries, well all problems can be resolved with goodwill, but goodwill is a commodity that seems to be completely lacking in the Middle East.
If Iraq were partitioned during the US occupation will anyone really recognise the boundaries as legitimate? I doubt it.
11 gasdocpol
May 29, 2007 @ 9:43 pm CESTThank you for your input.
A remarkably big if? Not nearly as big as IF Saddam had weapons of mass desruction and IF he were stupid and/or crazy to use them against the country that spent more on the military than the next 12 countries in the world COMBINED. I
IF Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
We got into an unecessary war that has cost thousands of lives lost or ruined , a trillion dollars and a trashed US reputation.
All those IFs turned out to be no but we went to war anyway.
Yes I use the word IF because we need to talk and answer some questions (unlike what happened in the run up to the war).
(I suspect that Harvard Business School touches on the concept of Risk vs reward and the majority of students there learn that. )
I think that the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites should be given the opportunity of dividing up the country’s resources so that the fighting will stop and everyone can get on with their lives. If after seriously looking at the pros and cons and they still want to fight, that is their problem.
If the representatives of the international community take a good look at the situation and see it unworkable so be it and it will have been ruled out. I submit that the question has not been adaquatly researched.
Saddam is gone now and Iraq has been taken apart . The international commmunity now has more clout in the region and agreements can be made to work now which would not have worked previously.
To say international law is dead makes a self fulfilling prophasy. WE NEED INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE UN. THE USA SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD IN STRENGHTHENING THE UN NOT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POWER FOR THE USA BUT FOR THE WORLD. IF YOU ARE AGAINST THE UN FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW YOU MUST BE AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY TOO. WHAT DO YOU WANT? MIGHT IS RIGHT? THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE?
YOU ARE RIGHT. IF IRAQ WERE PARTITIONED DURING US OCCUPATION , IT WOULD NOT BE RECOGNISED. WE NEED INTERNATIONAL INCLUDING ARAB PARTICIPATION.
12 David
May 29, 2007 @ 10:29 pm CEST“To say international law is dead makes a self fulfilling prophasy. WE NEED INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE UN. THE USA SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD IN STRENGHTHENING THE UN NOT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POWER FOR THE USA BUT FOR THE WORLD. IF YOU ARE AGAINST THE UN FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW YOU MUST BE AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY TOO. WHAT DO YOU WANT? MIGHT IS RIGHT? THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE?”
I do not want the law of the jungle, but that is pretty much what we have. I believe in US hegemony because the history of the world shows that there have always been hegemons. It is not a choice between a hegemon or some wonderful future of postmodern co-operation, it is the choice between one hegemon (the US) or one of the alternatives (China, Russia or if given the chance some Islamic caliphate).
The main reason that international law is collapsing is because the power of the USA and the western democracies themselves are collapsing. The UN has always had the problem of the Russian and Chinese vetoes, this is why the people of Darfur, for example, will continue to be slaughtered with impunity. Russia and China will cover for their fellow tyrants.
The non-democratic part of the world is quite happy to see the west in general and the US in particular brought low. A significent problem however is that a large section of the chattering classes in the west have adopted such a position of self loathing that they too are not averse to this happening. They idolise thugs like Chavez, Castro and the like.
When it comes to sorting out the Iraq mess, why should the Russians or the Chinese lift a finger to help the US? They believe that they are the main beneficiaries of US weakness as it enables them to increase their own role in the world. The Russians in particular seem to think that they can stir things with impunity.
The major imbalance in the international system is the fact that most countries in the world are not democracies. the UN is a club where tyrants get together and organise a campaign against Israel to provide a smoke screen for their own human rights abuses.
13 gasdocpol
May 30, 2007 @ 12:38 am CESTYou basically have the attitude of the Neoconservatives. They had their chance to have their agenda carried out with GW Bush in the White House.
I would submit that the USA has less power and respect than it did before the Iraq invasion.
I would submit that our army is tired and our equipment is worn out.
The worst part is that if we truly needed to go to war now, Americans do not have the stomach for it.
At the very least GW Bush is like the little boy who cried wolf.
14 Interested
May 30, 2007 @ 3:03 am CESTI for one, wouldn’t disagree with your assumptions - except this one.
Many people - probably a vast majority wanted nothing more than to mind our own business after the various escapades that Bush 1 & Clinton got us into - the seemingly endless ones.
Yet that one day 9/11 changed all of that, we were mad and demanded action - we demanded blood in retribution. Just as we did countless times America or her son’s and daughters were attacked.
There is nothing to give us any indication - any reason what so ever - if you pay the slightest attention to History - that it would be any different again.
A more proper argument would be - would our military have the resources to start anew - right now.
15 gasdocpol
May 30, 2007 @ 4:20 am CESTInterested
GW BUSH PUT HIS FINGER ON TRHE WORST POSSIBLE REACTION TO 9/11 BY INVADING IRAQ.
BESIDES THE NEEDLESS DEATHS AND INJURY AND MONEY WASTED AND DAMAGE IT HAS DONE TO AMERICA’S WORLD STANDING, IT HAS MADE THE THREAT OF TERRORISM WORSE.
IF THE INTENT WAS TO SHOW THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT MESS WITH THE USA, THAT IS TERRORISM ON OUR PART.
16 Interested
May 30, 2007 @ 8:58 pm CEST17 Interested
May 30, 2007 @ 8:59 pm CESTbah - 2nd paragraph make that not blockquoted
and it goes 1,2,3,4,5 not 1,2,3,5,5
18 gasdocpol
May 30, 2007 @ 11:03 pm CESTinterested
I think that we agree on most things but it is still not clear to me if you think that the Iraq invasion was justified in any way.
Would you agree that if someone thinks that the Iraq invasion had value in that it sent the message “not to mess with the USA” that would be supporting terrorism by the USA?
Would you agree that the Iraq Invasion was part of the Neoconservative agenda?
Would you agree that the Bush Administration as a whole “Cried Wolf!”
Would you agree that the Senate and House trusted and supported Bush in a time of national crisis?
19 Interested
May 30, 2007 @ 11:38 pm CESTI think we’re getting wires crossed.
My point was - and still is - that this nation, her citizens and her military will - as history has always shown - will stand up and demand another fight. We always have after each time we’ve been attacked. And we will again.
That is a separate situation and discussion as to “who” or “how” we attacked. Right or Wrong, the premise that we will - on a moments provocation - fight again. Holds water.
In regards to Iraq, yes I do. There is much - many - better methods to combat terrorism than the way we did it with Iraq. Some in retrospect, some with years of blinding our eyes.
Yes and no. Yes in terms that it is part of the agenda with the definition of Neoconservative’s we have in power today. No with the general movement - if you would call it a movement.
At the same time - and with equal strength I would give lambasting on a lazy Congress that did not fulfill it’s Congressional duties. And I would not stop at just the Republicans as so many are eager to do. There was also a very vocal minority who showed great cunning in minority tactics. They too were negligent. To only cast the stone at one half is to pick and choose.
Supported and being Competent/Diligent at the same time are another two separate topics. Did they support? For the vast part - yes. But in the manner they did their support they were grossly guilty of not fulfilling their Constitutional duties.
It’s important to remember that leading up to any invasion. The executive & the legislative branch walked hand in hand all the way too it. From that point on - the responsibility rests in the Executive branch in the Execution and the Legislative branch in the continuance.
20 gasdocpol
May 30, 2007 @ 11:59 pm CESTTo some extent ,we are arguing over different shades of gray.
Do you not have a problem with our attacking Iraq even though Iraq did not attack us?
Suppose that IF someone was indeed crazy and stupid enough to attack the country who spent more on military than the next 12 counries COMBINED and IF indeed he did have WMDs and a means of delivering them would Americans be enthusiastic about a preemptive invasion (not just a strike)even if we had not been attacked?
Pearl Harbor? - no disagreement. we would respond to an obvious clear attack like that.
I claim that Bush made misleading statements that convinced 70% of Americans that iraq had at least something to do with 9/11.
Will americans ever be able to trust our leaders again after that?
21 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 12:05 am CESTI said
Not only Pearl Harbor, don’t forget 9/11 - there was a clear call for action - again who we attacked is different than the call for action. There was similar calls after the Marine base suicide bombing & even the Cole bombing to name a few.
And I claim that to be really honest - you have to point fingers at a lazy, incompetent, and negligent Congress. Fact - Bush could not have gone to war longer than the Constitutionally authorized timeframe without Congress’s consent.
The cry’s about Bush lied - people died. Is a reckless statement.
22 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 12:05 am CESTer amend this
to this
23 gasdocpol
May 31, 2007 @ 1:10 am CESTDo you deny that bush lied?
Do you deny that people died?
Do you claim that there was no relationship between these two events?
24 gasdocpol
May 31, 2007 @ 1:13 am CESTI do have a problem with Hillary and Edwards trusting and supporting Bush.
The only promanent Dems who clearly opposed the war were Gore, Obama and Bob Graham.
25 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 4:14 am CESTYou cannot expect to be taken seriously if you choose to put on blinders and only blame one side.
Right back at you.
Do you agree that any President can only deploy troops for a limited time without Specific Congressional approval?
Do you agree that Congress’s job as the people’s branch is to not only propose legislation but for Congressional Oversight? (i.e. checks and balances)
Do you agree that Congress controls the duration of any war? (i.e. Funding & They can vote to override previous authorization)
Do you agree that the above items are Constitutional items and indeed some were upheld or overruled by the Judicial branch?
Do you also agree that irregardless of the Congress makeup at the time - it was impossible to grant Bush the authority to wage war without Support from both sides of the isle?
If yes - explain to me how Bush could have possibly waged war - for this many years on a country without explicit Congressional approval.
You cannot have one without the other - To attempt to do so is denying facts as well as denying our Constitution.
Again - It takes both sides - hand in hand up to the moment to authorize war. Once that happens the execution is the responsibility of the Executive branch, the duration is the responsibility of the Legislative branch.
To only blame one side as to how the authorization to wage war came to be - be it Executive OR Legislative is to be reckless and uncaring about true responsibility.
26 Sadettin
May 31, 2007 @ 3:12 pm CESTAs I see none of you are aware of the reality what is happening in Eastern Turkey, let me try to explain the real PKK and why there is a seperatist Kurdish movement in Turkey.
First of all when you want to comment on PKK, seperatist Kurds in Turkey and what’s going on Eastern Turkey, first you have to know somethig about GAP Project, a massive investment (more than 32 billion $ for the first half) project first designed to water the dry eastern plains of Turkey and after dry mid-Turkey plains by using Euphrates and Tigris rivers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Anatolia_Project
PKK attacks and seperatist movement starts with GAP project.
The main aim of this terrorist action was to cancel GAP project and force Turkey not to use Euphrates and Tigris rivers, and PKK was mainly supported by Syria and Soviets.
PKK was created for this reason.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/mfa-t-pkk2.htm
I believe that PKK is still alive for this purpose, we should not forget that water is more important than oil for this region.
27 mvdg
May 31, 2007 @ 3:15 pm CESTThanks for that additional information Sadettin. There might be something to that. I will have to read up on that.
28 David
May 31, 2007 @ 5:28 pm CESTInteresting point Sadettin.
Quite a few violent separatist movements like damaging the living standards of the people that they claim to represent, because this gives them the chance to blame the country that they are trying to break away from.
29 gasdocpol
May 31, 2007 @ 9:58 pm CESTInterested.
If you think GW Bush is wonderful you will cheer for his supporters.
If you think the Iraq war was a great idea, people who supported Bush on that one get some credit.
Bush has managed to outmaneuver the Dems on the war and he has gotten his way.
I personally think the war was a horrible idea and I think that anyone who supported Bush made a horrible mistake.
I would conclude that GW Bush brought out the very worst in the people that supported him .
I hold that against Hillary, Edwards, Biden and anyone else who voted or supported the war.
The only people that have earned my respect have been Gore, Obama and Graham all of whom clearly opposed the war.
BUT YOU GOT ME…… THE WAR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT CONGRESS.
It was Bush’s initiative but Congress stupidly supported him.
30 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 10:07 pm CESTYou should re-read what I write and not interject words that were not there.
I don’t see too many arguing against that at all.
Good - but I would encourage you to just as forcefully - make that point also.
Fair enough.
Exactly, I have no problem with anyone wanting to nail Bush to the cross for it - but I submit that to be credible you have to nail Congress on the cross as well.