|
Turkey needs constructive engagement with
Kurds on Kirkuk 15.8.2006
Vladimir van Wilgenburg, Journalist, Netherlands -
Opinion |
|
|
|
“So Turkey is welcome to
host many delegations from Iraq, but those of us who
know anything about Iraq simply because we spend
most of the year there know well that a lack of
dialogue with the Turkmens of Erbil or the Kurdish
leaders will not get Turkey anywhere in its fight
against the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
or on the Kirkuk issue” wrote Ilnur Cevik[1].
And Ilnur Cevik is right. I earlier wrote that
“Turkmen and Kurds could solve Kurdish issue in
Turkey and Iraq”. But this can only work when Turkey
engages the Kurds on a constructive way. It will not
work if Turkey doesn’t invite Turkmens without
Turkmen representatives from Hewler (Erbil).
Currently Turkey is saying, I quote Gül
[2]:”Needless to say that there is a tie between the
Turkish Republic and the Turkmen. The Turkmen, Kurds
and all other groups in Iraq are our relatives. We
have shown sympathy towards all of them”. |
Kurdistan Region of Iraq |
Abdullah Gül is saying this without inviting
representatives of the 200.000 Turkmens in Hewler (Erbil).
So it’s clear he isn’t showing sympathy towards all
of them.
Turkey’s stance towards Kirkuk also doesn’t show
their “sympathy” towards their Kurdish relatives,
but more the reverse situation. In the past Turkey
threatened to close the oil pipeline between
Iraq-Turkey, if Saddam gave the Kurds autonomy. As a
result Saddam didn’t accept the demands of the KDP.
After the establishment of the safe-haven, one of
Turkey’s red lines was the formation of a federal
Kurdistan region. But gradually Turkey had to accept
the reality.
They still like to call the Kurdish region “northern
iraq”, despite that the Iraqi constitution accepts
it as a “Kurdistan region”. Although some Turks say
that Kurdistan doesn’t exist, it were actually the
Seldjuk Turks who created the term Kurdistan in the
12th century.
But to get back to the problem: According to the
Turkish government the Kirkuk issue can only be
resolved via consensus. “The point is not to reach
unproductive results by holding a referendum, but
reaching consensus. [The point] is producing a
consensus by which people living there -- all of the
Turkmen, Kurds and Arabs -- will be able to live in
peace and quiet, and then taking this consensus to a
referendum. Otherwise, a referendum in itself will
not be a solution,” Gul said.
Gül states that the results will be unproductive no
matter what, this while Turkey doesn’t know the
outcome. Or do they know the outcome? Do they know
the majority of Kirkuk is Kurdish and that the
Arabisation campaign of Saddam changed the ethnic
balance in favour to the Arabic inhabitants of
Kirkuk? Apparently they do, because they think Kurds
are in the majority in Kirkuk.
Earlier elections (2005) have shown that Kurds are
indeed the majority in Kirkuk. The Kurdish Alliance
received 26 seats in the Kirkuk city council, while
the Turkmen front only received 8[3].
According to a census of 1957 49.1% of Kirkuk was
Kurdish, 28.7% Arabic and 21.8% Turkmen. In 1977
Kirkuk was 37.53% Kurdish, 44.41% Arabic and 16.31%
Turkmen (After Saddam’s new policies)[4]. After this
the number of Kurds and Turkmen only decreased.
The report of Turkish Daily News declares:”However,
with Kurdish settlers arriving in the city from
other parts of the country in large numbers,
Kirkuk's non-Kurdish residents are concerned that
the referendum would only confirm one thing;
inclusion of Kirkuk in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan
region”. My point is that these aren’t Kurdish
settlers, but Kurdish original inhabitants of Kirkuk,
who are returning to their birth place.
And can’t all inhabitants of Kirkuk vote? Isn’t this
enough? They can all vote, not only Kurds are
voting. A public referendum functions as a tool to
judge a community’s consensus on a special project
(In this case Kirkuk). Frankly a referendum is a
consensus.
But Kurds don’t have to worry, Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki[4] said the Iraqi government would
support the outcome of the referendum. And because
the referendum of 2007 on Kirkuk comes out of the
constitution, nothing can be changed.
Even the consulted Iraqi official by Turkey said a
result of the referendum would be decisive.
Therefore he tries to reach a consensus. He said:
”If Turkmens, Kurds, Arabs all agree on a formula,
such as a special status for Kirkuk, and if this
formula is put to a public vote, the result may be a
resounding “yes”, said the official, speaking on
condition of anonymity. “But if the people are asked
whether they want to be part of the Kurdish region,
the result would be divisive”.[5]
One can only conclude that Turkey will have to deal
with the inclusion of Kirkuk too. And I suggest to
Turkey to take a close look to my earlier article
about the solution of Turkmens and Kurds of the
Kurdish issue in Iraq and Turkey. And I could now
say could solve the problem of an endangered
Turkoman identity in Iraq.
Tarik H. Oğuzlu[6]], whom wrote about the endangered
Turkomen identity in Iraq, had several conclusions
on this issue. Two of them are very interesting. He
concluded: First, the Turkish approach towards Iraq
in general and the Kurds in particular should be
revised so that both Kurds and Turkomans are seen as
Turkey's true relatives in the region. Second, the
old policy of balancing the Kurds through the
strengthening of the Turkomans should be replaced by
the policy of constructive engagement with the
Kurds.
Also the Ankara-based International Strategic
Research Organization (ISRO)[7] agreed with me. In a
report they wrote: “The Iraqi Kurds and Turkmens'
interests don't necessarily contradict each other.
It's in Turkey's interests to bring the Iraqi Kurds
and Turkmens as close as possible. But in Turkey
some political groups are deliberately trying to
portray differences between the Turkmens and Kurds
as being greater than they really are for domestic
consumption. But in fact this not only undermines
Turkey's interests in Kurdistan (northern Iraq) but
also fuels a greater risk of polarization in Turkey
between ethnic Kurds and others.”
So Turkey please accept a constructive approach
towards Kurds, Turkmen and Kirkuk. It looks like the
inclusion of Kirkuk in the Kurdistan region is
inevitable and as ISRO says (I came to the same
conclusion before [8] ) the interests of Kurds,
Turkmen and Turkey doesn’t necessarily contradict
each other. In fact they can solve each others
problems.
Sources:
[1] Ilnur Cevik, “Is Turkey still playing Turkmens
card in Iraq?”
The New Anatolian, (9 August, 2006).
[2] “Gül: Referendum without consensus offers no
solution in Kirkuk”,
Turkish Daily News,(11 August, 2006).
[3] “Iraqi governorate elections Jan 2005”,
Wikipedia
[4] Mohammed M. A. Ahmed, Michael M. Gunter,
‘Kurdish Question And The 2003 Iraqi War”,
Kurdish Studies, (Mazda Publishers, 31 December,
2004).
[5] Fatma Demirelli, “Turkey seeks Iraqi consensus
on Kirkuk before referendum”,
Turkish Daily News, (10 August, 2006).
[6] Tarik H. Oğuzlu, "Endangered community: the
Turkoman identity in Iraq ", Journal of Muslim
Minority Affairs, (Routledge, Volume 24, Number 2,
October 2004), pp. 309-325(17).
[7] “Report: Turkey needs plan B to be ready for
division of Iraq”,
The New Anatolian, (8 August, 2006).
[8] Vladimir van Wilgenburg, "Turkmen and Kurds
could solve Kurdish issue in Turkey and Iraq",
KurdishMedia, (August 04, 2006).
http://vladimirkurdistan.blogspot.com/
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 