Kurdish megalomania.
Do Iraqi Kurds have any option to say no for being cannon-fodder for Iran-operation?
The article is much propaganda, i will say something in correction to it later.
But first:
From Congress library clearing question how many Kurds exist in Turkey:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Turkey.pdf
Much propaganda, but nice to see, how Kurds in N. Iraq see theirself the current situation and comeing situation on Iran....
http://www.kurdistanobserver.com/
Do Iraqi Kurds have any option to say no for being cannon-fodder for Iran-operation?
The article is much propaganda, i will say something in correction to it later.
But first:
From Congress library clearing question how many Kurds exist in Turkey:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Turkey.pdf
Much propaganda, but nice to see, how Kurds in N. Iraq see theirself the current situation and comeing situation on Iran....
http://www.kurdistanobserver.com/
Turkey Playing with Fire
Mar 2, 2006
Since coming into power of the Islamists in Turkey in 2002, the Turkish and American relations has started a steady decline. This has opened a window of opportunity for Kurds in Iraq and in the region. What is the future of Kurdish, Turkish and US relations in the region?
TURKEY, KURDS AND TURKMEN
600 years before coming into power of Erdogan, the Ottaman's first empire collapsed. in 1402, the Ottomans were defeated by Taimur lang, another Turkish-Mongol leader. Taimur who is now the national hero of Uzbakistan was helped by the Turkmen principalities in defeating the Ottomans. The same Turkmen that Turkey is now crying for. The humiliating treatment of the Ottoman sultan Bayazid by Taimur is documented in history. The sultan was put into an iron cage and was witness to his naked wife(s) serving the Taimour army and the Turkmen and his wives being debauched by them. The sultan did last for a year and after that he committed suicide.
Contrast this stormy relations of Ottomans and Turkmen with the relations that the Ottomans enjoyed with the Kurds in their second period after 1500. The resurrection of Ottoman and defeat of Persia and later expansion of Ottomans as far as Tabriz and Baghdad was not possible without the assistance of Kurds. In the last two centuries of Ottoman rule, the Kurdish-Ottoman relations started to deteriote and the Ottomans decided to put an end to the autonomy that the Kurds enjoyed under their rule.
In the Ottoman era, the Sunni Kurds and Ottomans saw the shiite safavids in Iran as their enemies. In contrast those Turkmen who were shiites and Alavi sided with the shiite enemies of Ottomans. The Ottomans main progress was westward and in Europe they were blocked by the Polish hero Jan Sobiesky in 1683. After 1683, the decline of Ottoman started and it reached to the point that the over extended empire turned into the sickman of Europe. The Ottoman records in its final decades show a series of financial deficits and the disastrous mistake of the Ottoman sultan in WWI put an end to a decling empire which was extended over three continents. Have the Ottomans not sided with the German-Russia axis in WWI, the Ottomans would have continued to progress and economically recover by the discovery of oil in Iraq and middle east.
TURKISH COLD WAR HANG OVER
After WWI, Turkey inherited the Ottoman legacy and with the rise of Bolsheviks and Communism in Russia, Turkey under Ataturk turned into an ally for the west. Ataturk's bold attempt ended the religious rule of Ottoman Sultan and replaced the religious monarchy with a
republic. One can contrast the success and speed of the implementation of these reforms in Turkey and in Europe. Perhaps the main weakness of the republic was the failure of it to incorporate the successful multilevel structure of the Ottoman's federal structure to deal with the Kurdish subjects of the republic.
After WWII and creation of NATO, Turkey turned into an important front against the Soviet Union and blocking it from accessing the warm waters. The special status that Turkey enjoyed in its cold war era was a major factor in US and west's support for it in the region. The 1974 invasion of Cyprus by Turkey and the mistreatment of Kurds in Turkey was tolerated by US because of this special status. Turkey was treated like a spoiled child in the cold war period and especially after the stormy relations of the US and Saudi Arabia and the Iranian revolution in the 70's, Turkish importance soared.
With the fall of Soviet Union and the incorporation of Warsaw pact countries into NATO and the newly created structure of EU, the special status of Turkey was affected and it is time for Turkey to get used to its new status. The rise of Islamists in Turkey and the cooling of relation between Ankara and Israel was another blow to the declining status of Turkey. In the post cold war era, Turkey is caught in the competition between US and EU in the region and it can no longer play the partner role that it played for both in the cold war. Geographically, Turkey cannot ignore the EU which is its immediate neighbor and the EU cannot ignore Turkey because Turkey is "the port" and the bridge between Europe and Asia. Islamic Turkey and Christian Orthodox Russia are now competing with each other as the gateway of the Christian Europe to the east. But the more Turkey gets closer to EU (or even to Russia), the more it moves from the US orbit. The Turks are now in a dilemma, should they follow the US or the EU? After cold war, the Turk's are moving towards replacing US with Russia and going towards EU membership at the same time.
The Turks would like to join the EU, but at present they are too big and too underdeveloped
for EU and EU may reject them. For joining the EU, the Turks need to bring their regulations in line with the EU and give the same special status that the Kurds and European subjects enjoyed during the Ottoman era. The Kurds in Turkey would like to join the EU structure and their leaders such as Leyla Zana are aware that the implementation of EU reforms by Turkey is in line with Kurdish interests in Turkey. Ironically, Kurds need Turkey to get into the EU structure, but Turkey without Kurds has a better chance to get into the EU. (1) the population of Turkey (without Kurds) is less than the population of Germany and France and (2) without Kurds in Turkey, the Turks would not have many problems in terms of minorities. But Kurds need Turkey.
KURDISH TURKISH RELATIONS
The reality is that any confrontation between the Turks and Kurds will damage their chances for getting on board the EU train. If Turkey joins EU, the Kurds will gain a status in EU too, so the Kurds in Turkey should put on hold the Kurdish separation file and do their best to bring Turkey and Kurds into the EU structure. The Turks should appreciate and acknowledge this period of calm and both Kurds and Turks in Turkey should realize that they are in the same boat heading towards the EU and do not try to shake the boat.
But the more the Turks get closer to the EU, the more they move away from the US orbit, although some US Politicians look at the enlargement of the EU as a way for EU becoming weaker in terms of its unity. With Iran (under the rule of Mollas) in the orbit of EU, a window of opportunity has opened for the collaboration between US and the Kurds in Iraq and in the region. In US war in Iraq, the Kurds saw the opportunity that the Turks provided and helped the US to succeed in its war. The success in this war in Iraq has become a legacy for the US president George Bush and the Kurdish support helped him to defeat Saddam, calm Iraq and get re-elected for a second term.
The next two targets of the US, Syria and Iran have both a Kurdish minority who can help the US in a possible war with Syria or Iran. The collapse of the Syrian minority shiite regime in the Sunni dominated Syria is much easier than a US war with Iran in which the Kurds will again play a major role. In the absence of Turkey, the role that Kurds can play increases and Turkey will face the double wrath of US if it tries to harm the only ally of the US in the region.
The Kurdish leadership has played its cards very well in supporting US. By jockeying for power in Baghdad, Kurds are expected to win the presidency of Iraq. A Kurdish president in Baghdad means that any confrontation between Turkey and Kurds in Iraq will automatically turn into a war between Turkey and Iraq: an Iraq which has the history of attacking its two neigbours Iran and Kuwait in the past for territorial expansion. An Iraq-Turkey war will turn into a united Arab-Turkish confrontation because the Arabs are fully aware that once the Turks pass the Kurdish mountains and reach Kirkuk, there is no barrier that stops them from resurrecting the Ottoman rule in the region. The Kurds should also be careful to fully synchronize and align their moves in the region with the US policy in the region and at the same time bargaining with the US over the re-unification of Kurdish lands as the opportunity arises in Syria and then Iran. With the death of Arafat, Iran have managed to open a new front in Palestine against US and this will further delay the US war against Iran.
One can clearly see that by threatening Kurds in Iraq, Turks are going towards a confrontation with the US and Arabs. Any confrontation will de-stablize Turkey and may even cause an early disintegration of Turkey. The Turks are playing with fire and damaging their own EU chances.
The present focus of Turkey on Kurdish land and Kurdish oil is against Turkish interests in the region and Turkey instead should focus on its 30 Millions Azeri kins in Iran, a policy which is more in line with the developments in the region. In this century what is expected is that the Kurds will form their own state like the Azeris, and the Kurds in Turkey will separate from Turkey the same way that the Azeris will separate from Iran. Will Turkey be linked to Azeri regions and Azeri oil will depend on Kurdish and Turkish relations and a drastic change in Kurdish policy of Turkey in the coming years. What the Kurds and Turks should realize is that Turkey is the potential bridge between Kurds and their Indo-European kins in Europe and the Kurds are also the potential bridge between Turkey and their Turkic kins in Asia. This is not a zero sum game and both Kurds and Turks can win in the region if they learn to play the game together and learn lessons from the 400 Ottoman history of Turkish Kurdish relations in the region.
In "Turkey Playing with Fire" [2], I looked at some aspects of Kurdish-Turkish relations. Since then there have been developments in Kurdish Turkish relations and the possibility of the visit of President Barzani to Turkey. In this second part, I look at potential moves in front of Kurds and Turks in the region. Is there a scenario in which both Turks and Kurds win? And how to achieve that win-win scenario?
HISTORY OF KURDS AND PERSIANS
For the past 2500 years, Kurds and their ancestors the Medes have been struggling against the domination of the Persians. Kurds have not given up the struggle and at the same time they have witnessed the rise and fall of empires and arrival of new neighbors especially to their North.
Over the past 3500 years, in the north of their territories, they have seen the rise and fall of the Hittites, the fall and rise of the Persians, and then the Greeks spearheaded by Alexander and more recently, the rise and fall of the Ottoman Turks. The last have decided to stay for good and become Permanent neighbors of the Kurds.
History tells us that the short living northern neighbors of the Kurds have been a source of threat and a source of opportunity for them. The Hittites joined the Assyr ians to bring down the Mitanni's first Indo-Iranian civilization in the world. The Hittites themselves disappeared later and the Medes successors of Mitanni managed to defeat their Assyrian enemies and resurrect the glory of Mitanni and establish their capital Hang-Mitanni in present Hamadan. The past and present names of the city reveal the transformation of the Mitanni into Mad (i.e. Medes).
The Medes established the second Indo-Iranian civilization in the region and introduced a satrap-based notion of federalism in government. This is the time period that the Persians come into the picture and they manage to sneak their way into the imperial system and replace the Medes rulers in the empire and corrupt the Mitraism religion of the empire that linked the empire to the Mit-ra worshiper Mit-annis. The Persians manage to rewrite the history and to destroy the his tory of ancestors of the Kurds, the Medes and the Mitannis.
The Persians adopted the federal satrap structure and extended the empire to new boundaries and even invaded Greece. But the infighting over the empire, the move towards a more centralized power-sharing brought the inevitable defeat of the Persians by the Greeks and put an end to more than1000 years of Mitanni-Medes-Persian empires.
The arrival of Parthians and Romans in the scene started a new cycle in history of the Kurds who were religiously and linguistically more affiliated with the Mitra kings (Mitrades =Mehrdad) of Parthia than the later Zoroastrian Persian Sasanids. Once again the Sasanid Persians manage to sneak their way into the Parthian imperial system and again corrupt the federal empire system by gradually bringing a more centralized system and make it vulnerable to the invasion of Sunni Arabs.
Like Persians, the Kurds became followers of a new religion and they adopted Sunni Islam. The Persians later gradually converted to Shiism as the Shiite clergy closely collaborated with the rising Mongols in the region and eliminated the followers of other Islamic sects to the extent that the Sunni scholars referred to the Shiites as heretics to be killed.
KURDS, TURKS A ND PERSIANS
In this historical context, we see the arrival of the Turks in present Turkey and the start of the Safavid-Ottoman era in which Shiism became the state religion of Safavids and was further strengthened. A new chapter of collaboration between Kurds and Ottoman Turks started based on religious grounds. A collaboration that put Sunni Kurds at odds with the Shiite Persians and put the Sunni Ottoman Turks at odds with Turkmans and Shiite Turks ruling as Safavid kings.
Although at present the Islamists are in power in both Iran and Turkey, but the competition between Iran and Turkey is not based on religion as in the Ottoman-Safavid era, at least from Turkish perspective. Iran plays two games: playing her Shiism cards for Persians and Azeris and playing Iranian nationalism card for the Kurds, Baloch and Afghans at the same time.
The Turks after WWI became secular and have not been playing the Sunni Ottoman card for almost a century. Even now, the Turks are interested in joining with the Shiite Azeri Turks and Turkmans and playing religious card will be against that goal, but they can play the Sunni card for Arabs and Kurds to gain in the region.
The Islamists in power in Turkey play the Turkish nationalist card for Azeris, but they are making the mistake of playing the same card with Kurds that put them into conflict with them and turning the game into a zero-sum game: i.e. Kurdish win is equal to Turkish loss and Kurdish loss is equal to Turkish win. In reality the game is a loss-loss game for both Kurdish and Turkish players.
The Turks have been manipulated by the Persians to play this nationalistic anti-Kurd game in the region and in the background the Persians have supported the Kurdish struggle in Turkey as a guarantee to distract Turkey from focusing on Azeri Turkish regions. The Persians have been manipulating the Kurds too and the situation of the Kurds in Iran clearly shows the real intentions of the Persians.
Both Kurds and Turks in Turkey are being manipulated by the Persians and clearly the winner of this game are neither Kurds nor Turks, the winners are the Persians. The Kurds and Turks are in a loss-loss situation. Are they aware of this situation and how can they turn the table ?
FROM A LOSS-LOSS to A WIN-WIN GAME
In [2], I highlighted a scenario in which the Kurds and Turks in Turkey will win if they respect each other's rights and don't rock the boat which is heading for Turkish EU membership. They can join the EU club together.
Let's assume that that move does not work for different reasons. Is there another Win-Win strategy for Kurds and Turks in the region? Or they will decide to fall back to a zero-sum game that only one party can win?
In a zero-sum game, Turkey and his allies will face many difficulties if they want to win without bringing the Kurds to their side. In [3], I highlighted a scenario in a zero-sum game in which the Turks will be the only losers of the developments in Iraq and Iran will be the ultimate winner of the invasion of Iraq. The question is whether Iran will manage to survive the remaining term of Bush's presidency to enjoy the fruits of victory in Afghanistan and Iraq?
So far, the sensitivity of Turkey towards Kurds has prevented interesting scenarios from materializing and has prevented the US from fully committing to a strategic relationship with the Kurds in the region. As a result, US is losing the end game in Iraq and the region; and the present instability and civil war in Iraq wi ll ultimately put an end to any plan for US to attack Iran.
As I wrote earlier in [2] "The present focus of Turkey on Kurdish land and Kurdish oil is against Turkish interests in the region and Turkey instead should focus on its 30 Millions Azeri kins in Iran, a policy which is more in line with the developments in the region."
US is partly to blame, because US has failed to alig n the Turkish and Kurdish interests in the region and bring the two parties on a table to struck a deal in which both Kurds and Turks win. Such an opportunity presently exists in Iran if US and the Kurds in coordination with Turkey spearhead an attack on Iran with the goal of establishing a liberated government in the western provinces of Iran consisting of Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Ilam and Khuzistan.
Such a liberated Zagros region then can decide to exchange the Turkish Azeri regions in Iran with the Kurdish regions in Turkey and bring some sense and stability to the whole region. An immediate outcome of such a scenario will be the collapse of the Iranian regime. Iran after losing its western non-Persian regions will also be more stable and can concentrate on establishing a Persian country with links to Persian speaking regions in Tajikistan and Afghanistan.
This minimal change in the borders will pave the way for creation of a Turkic speaking union and an Iranian speaking union in the region. So the outcome of this is a more stable region.
This could be a win-win game and both Kurds and Turks can win in the region if they learn to play the game together based on the lessons from the 400 Ottoman history of Turkish Kurdish relations in the region.
http://www.kurdistanobserver.com/
Being overly literal amuses me.
