Skip to comments.Turkey treating Iraqi Kurdistan 'as independent'
Posted on 08/12/2012 11:40:30 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Turkey has been dealing with Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region as though it were an independent state, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said in a statement released on Saturday.
Turkey is "dealing with the (Kurdistan) region as an independent state, and this is rejected by us," Maliki said in a soon-to-be broadcast interview with a Turkish television channel, according to the statement on his website.
If Turkey "wants to establish good relations, its relations with the region must be built through the gate of Iraq," Maliki said.
His remarks come after Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu visited Kurdistan and made a side trip to Kirkuk, a disputed city which Kurdish authorities want to incorporate into their region over the federal government's objections, without informing Baghdad.
The visit incensed Iraqi authorities and brought already-chilly ties between Baghdad and Ankara to a new low.
In July, a Kurdish official said the region had begun to export oil to Turkey without Baghdad's permission, a move which the Iraqi central government termed "illegal."
Baghdad and Arbil are at odds over issues including Kurdistan's refusal to seek approval from the central government for oil contracts it has awarded to foreign firms, and over a swathe of disputed territory in northern Iraq.
Two-way trade between Turkey and the three-province Kurdistan region -- which has its own flag, government and security forces but is still a part of Iraq -- amounts to billions of dollars per year.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Kurdish drive for independence (news search):
Iraq-Syria: Iraqi Kurdistan Welcomes Syrian Brethren, For Now
UN: 22,000 Iraqis in Syria return home to flee war
By Associated Press, AP
PKK-linked group says it attacked Turkish army bus http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-turkey-kurdsbre87b04z-20120812,0,6478842.story
U.S. and Turkey to Tighten Coordination on Syria
Kurdistan, image search:
The Turks realize that it would be a superbly good idea for there to be a “greater Kurdistan”, at peace with Turkey, as otherwise, the Kurds in Turkey will continue to be extremely pestiferous.
The salmon colored areas of the map are Kurdish, and for Turkey to agree to a Kurdistan that included northern Syria, and if there was a major war devastating Iran, the Kurdish territories in northwestern Iran, *in exchange* for which the Kurds would not threaten Turkey with division, the Turks would be quite happy.
Another great concern of the Turks about Iraqi Kurdistan is, oddly enough, the treatment of the ethnic Turks that live *South* of the Kurd territories, which form almost an ethnic barrier between the Kurds and the Iraqi Arabs south of them. This concern is enough for the Turks to have threatened the Iraqi Kurds with invasion if they are abusive to these ethnic Turks.
The Kurds, however, have not done anything menacing to these ethnic Turks, and instead have wisely become a major trading partner with Turkey.
As things are developing, the Kurds are gradually moving towards peaceful autonomy within Iraq, shouldering out the Arabs that Saddam moved to their territory, but not moving to secession as long as they can prevent the Iraqi government from moving against them with their veto. This demonstrates wisdom and carefully crafted diplomacy on their part that hopefully will benefit them in the long run.
will continue to be extremely pestiferous.
Is "pestiferous" a word? If so, it is an understatement.
Well, spell check liked it...
I think an independent Kurdistan is the key to stabilizing the region.
Here’s what I wrote on the subject of Iran, Iraq & Afghanistan a while back.
We SHOULD withdraw from Iraq via Tehran.
Heres how I think we should pull out of Iraq. Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. Its the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we dont want to play that role, Iraqs civil war will end with A or B.
Lets say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a withdrawal from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when were all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldnt really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who dont mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that dont secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they dont engage with Turkey. But that doesnt say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesnt relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isnt our problem, its 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), theyre fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didnt allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
Its time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your friend when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldnt be a wise move for them, theyd get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. Its time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, its a messy situation. If Turkey goes into the war on Irans side then they aint really our allies and thats the end of that.
I agree that its hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the 15 rules for understanding the Middle East
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that dont agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant allies like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that wed need as many folks in police and nurses uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didnt follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just havent won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, theyve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when theyre done with that, we can help negotiate with our other allies, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up whats left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
38 posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:55:19 PM by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
Turkey’s Islamofascist regime has reconciled itself, quickly, to an independent Kurdistan, which will become a buffer state between itself and Iraq and Iran. Whomever wins in Syria (and it will be a while, a year or more) will ASAP roll into Syrian Kurdistan to kick ass and take names. Turkey doesn’t want another Lebanon for its southern neighbor, and ultimately will support some Kurdish faction or other in its takeover of the Syrian Kurdish independence movement.
Whoops, and many thanks, may many read what you wrote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.