|
Tension
over Kirkuk between Ankara, the Kurds of northern
Iraq and Washington appears to be mounting --
judging by recent statements emanating from Prime
Minister Erdoğan. It is interesting to note that
these statements have more anger embedded in them
than do the statements coming from the military wing
of late -- where concerns about developments in
northern Iraq are expressed in a much more guarded
fashion.
Inevitably, many are concluding -- on the basis of
these angry remarks -- which Turkey is poised to
intervene militarily if political developments in
Kirkuk are not to Ankara's liking. This at least
appears to be the way the matter is being picked up
in the West and the Arab world. It is also the way
mainstream Turkish papers are approaching the
matter.
It must be said at the outset that angry as
Erdoğan's remarks may be, they still contain a
critical safety valve, which should not be
overlooked. He is basically saying that Turkey
cannot remain a mere observer if things get out of
hand in Kirkuk, making it clear, in so many words,
that he is referring to the possibility of violence
breaking out in that oil-rich city, and turning into
a pogrom against the city's indigenous Turkmen. It
goes without saying that in such an event, not just
Turkey, but no one can remain a bystander.
The possibility of inter-communal violence in Kirkuk
is there, of course, as was stated recently in a
report prepared by the Brussels based International
Crisis Group. But there are also those who believe
that it is unlikely the Kurds will be the initiators
of any inter-communal violence, given that things
are generally going their way in post-Saddam Iraq.
None of this, however, alters the fact that the line
the Turkish government is pursuing is being picked
up by nationalist groups as a sign that Ankara will
intervene militarily if the demographic manipulation
by the Kurds in Kirkuk is codified as a result of
Sunday's elections. This is where the position taken
by the government becomes something of an enigma;
because -- while it is clear that the subtle safety
valve mentioned above exists -- Erdoğan must be
aware that his remarks are agitating nationalist
groups in a way that is bound to rebound on his
government.
“Why so?” The answer is simple. If the impression is
created that Turkey will intervene militarily, if
political developments in Kirkuk are not to her
liking, and it is seen in the end that there is no
legal or rational basis for Ankara to do so, and
that she therefore cannot do this, then the one who
will end up in the firing line will be Erdoğan. He
will be accused then by the same nationalists that
he agitated of being “politically spineless,” and
therefore “selling out on Iraq once again.”
Of course, Turkey can intervene in Iraq militarily
if she wants. She has the capacity to do so. There
would, however, be a very serious political and
economic price to pay if she does so without a
discernible threat to her security, or the existence
of pogroms against the Turkmen. The price paid will
not only include ruined ties with the U.S. the E.U.
-- not to mention the Arab world where her prestige
is currently high -- but also being dragged into a
military quagmire that will last years.
This is why there appears to be more sense
prevailing on this whole question on the military
wing today. It must also be said that senior Turkish
diplomats incline more towards the cautious line
adopted by the military, than the government's
bellicosity on this score. The question that
diplomats in Ankara are asking is, what is Erdoğan
trying to achieve by upping the ante, as he has been
doing of late, against Washington and the Kurds.
The answer for many Turkish observers is clear. He
is playing into a domestic gallery for the sake of
politicking. In other words, he is trying to court a
hard-core Sunni nationalist element that is
prevalent in Turkey, and which also has a not so
negligible presence within the AKP. If this is the
case, though, one cannot refer to this as
“leadership,” since playing to the gallery in this
way has more to do with demagoguery than anything
else.
Erdoğan brought this hard-core nationalist group
into line over many sensitive issues -- including
Cyprus -- prior to the December 17 Brussels summit,
which gave Turkey a date for the start of membership
talks with the EU. He should do the same on Iraq in
general, and northern Iraq in particular.
Instead of stirring the hornet's nest of
nationalism, Erdoğan should be paving the way for
Turkey to play a positive and proactive role in Iraq
by maintaining, among other things, a mutually
beneficial dialogue with the Iraqi Kurds -- who are
clearly not going to disappear because some in
Turkey want -- instead of projecting an image of
bellicosity which is bound to drive the Kurds and
U.S. even closer, and alienate Turkey in the West
generally.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr
Top |
® 