Turkey risks US anger over plan to attack Kurds

I have been following this story for some time now. In fact I just checked and I blogged about it April 27th using this article :

U.S. will help Turks stop Kurdish inroads from Iraq

Which discussed the fact Turkey has been very concerned about what they consider to be Iraq's strategical significance and importance to the Kurdish terrorist movement in Turkey, that was nearly 3 mo ago and I don't think any action has been taken by the US military.
In the article Condi Rice is quoted as saying :
"We believe that it is important that we make a joint effort through information sharing and other means to prevent any vacuum from being used as a way to inflict harm here in Turkey," she said, referring to the situation in northern Iraq in which a lack of American and Iraqi forces may have contributed to the problem.

I think this conflict is very difficult for the US. We have Turkey a nation we are committed to defend as our own through the NATO agreement, and yet the Kurds in northern Iraq have been one of America's greatest allies in our war in Iraq. Add in the factor that the Kurds in Turkey have faced horrible abuses under the hand of the government itself and yet what the Kurdish rebels are doing goes against all of our stated goals for the ME. Lastly consider the fact that Kurdish separatism threatens not only Turkey but also Syria and Iran.

How much responsibility does the US have for the Kurdish separatist operations, which we have already labeled and identified as being terrorist?

Do you feel Turkey has the right to step up military operations into northern Iraq in order to best defend itself?

Is there any comparison to Turkey's threats to invade Iraq in order to stop terrorist operations to what Israel is currently doing in Lebanon?

Good questions, bucket.

How much responsibility does the US have for the Kurdish separatist operations, which we have already labeled and identified as being terrorist?

The US does have some culpability here. Although the Iraqi government has given limited autonomy to the Kurds, the responsibility to control these militias is clearly an Iraqi problem (and hence, ours by extension).

Do you feel Turkey has the right to step up military operations into northern Iraq in order to best defend itself?

Yes, if the government of the area (in this case, Iraq and the US by proxy) cannot control these incursions, then Turkey has some right to react militarily.

Is there any comparison to Turkey's threats to invade Iraq in order to stop terrorist operations to what Israel is currently doing in Lebanon?

I think there is a legitimate comparison. The Iraqi army is not ready to defend the country and so either the US must bring these groups to heel or allow Turkey to do so. Attacks against a sovereign nation cannot be tolerated, whether they come from militias or national armies.

Hello there. As a citizen of Turkey, I think I can answer your questions.


A lot.

Many members of the Turkish Military have been quoted in the Turkish press saying that PKK (now Kongra-Gel) militants have camps/hideouts in Northern Iraq. Furthermore, these militants use nighttime to sneak past the border and then attack villages/military installations/government buildings.

US refuses to use force to remove these terrorists from Northern Iraq. I don't know if this is because of some hidden ploy or just plain incompetence but we in Turkey are not happy with the situation at all.


Good Question.

I would say yes. No matter how much I would like those camps to be destroyed, I do not think we have the right to violate Iraq's sovereignty. But on the other hand; we have lost about 30,000 civilian lives to ethnic terrorism and the last thing I want to see is more deaths. If the Iraqi government or the US Forces will do nothing, I think we have the right to go in and destroy these camps; provided that the civilian population is not harmed during the operation.


Yes and no.

Israel's operation in Lebanon has so far caused nearly 300 civilian deaths according to the PM of Lebanon. If my government is threatening to do the same (conducting an operation without caring about the consequences for the civilian population) then yes, it would be as barbaric as Israel's operation in Lebannon.

But, Lebanon and Northern Iraq are not the same place. Northern Iraq is not as densely populated as Lebanon and the PKK camps are not in cities but on mountains. There is no chance of civilian causalties other unless they are deliberately targeted.

How much responsibility does the US have for the Kurdish separatist operations, which we have already labeled and identified as being terrorist?

None what so ever. The responsibility for these lies with the Kurdish people in Northern Iraq, and then with the Iraqi government.
The US has liberated these people, certainly, but what they do with their freedom is their own responsibility.


Do you feel Turkey has the right to step up military operations into northern Iraq in order to best defend itself?

Oh, yes. Most certainly. Turkey has every right to defend itself and to take any measures it deems necessary to maintain the security of its people and territory.


Is there any comparison to Turkey's threats to invade Iraq in order to stop terrorist operations to what Israel is currently doing in Lebanon?

Only in the matter of scale. I don't believe Turkey is really threatened by Kurdish terrorism the way Israel is threatened by Muslim terrorism, but apart from that I see no fundamental difference between the two at all.

Now let me get this straight. Turkey has killed tens of thousands of Kurds. Levelled 3,000 Kurdish villages and towns and exiled 2,000,000 Kurds feels that it is now morally superior to Israeli acts? Interesting.

Most of those civilian lives lost were Kurds, not Turks. And yet you continually condemn Israel for the same acts. Sounds a lot like hypocrisy to me.

As barbaric as say what your government did to the Armenians? No if Israel acted like the Turkish government then the Palestinians might have a legitimate complaint, but until they murder a million or two Arabs I think that your country can keep the title for mass murder in the Middle East.

So tell us when is Turkey going to withdraw from it's illegal occupation of Cyprus?

So tell us when is Turkey going to withdraw from it's illegal occupation of Cyprus?
[/quote]

Why is the turkish occupation of a tiny country like cyprus illegal?

[quote name='DUVA' date='Jul 23 2006, 09:41 PM' post='192550']
So tell us when is Turkey going to withdraw from it's illegal occupation of Cyprus?
[/quote]

Why is the turkish occupation of a tiny country like cyprus illegal?
[/quote]
Because Cyprus is an independent sovereign nation. And there is no international treaties or laws that gives Turkey any claim to any part of Cyprus.

I am not even understanding why we don't give the Kurds a homeland of thier own- they have a more recent claim of indigenous inhabitation of that area than the Jews had to the palestine region- I mean, there hadn't been an Isreal for 2000 years- why not just give northern Iraq to the kurds as a homeland of thier own? Aren't they the largest ethnic population in teh world without a homeland? The turkish have slaughtered Kurds by the millions- easily as bad as teh germans against the jews- where is our moral duty to provide this group a homeland- especially since they , well , probably were, stauch supporters of the US? Heck, even allow them to have nukes to keep the turks in check?

Seriously- I think the Kurds have a really raw deal here compared to the jews- and a much more recent claim to a homeland!

Because the Kurds in Turkey have been asking for the same thing. Turkey said that the establishment of an independent Kurdish state in Iraq would be considered an act of war.

Um- we didn't care too much what the arabs had to say about Isreal- why should we give a rats fanny about Turkeys opinion on the matter either? Heck, at least they are the majority ethnic group where they live, and we are not asking anyone else to give up their land that is already living there! In fact- that is the exact same thing we are dealing with in Isreal now- except of course- prior to our establishing a nation there in 1948- Jews were not the majority ethnic group in the region, and had no real legal claim to the land in over 2000 years!

CR - You have hit the nail on the head. The only difference is that there has never been a Kurdish state. They have been trying to establish one for over 1,000 years but the Muslim world has refused to allow one yet.

While we on the subject maybe we can get an answer why the UN has never even met on the issue of the Kurds. I mean there have been over 35,000 Kurds and Turks killed over this matter (mostly Kurds), which is over 7 times as many killed in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That should mean that there would be at least seven times as many resolutions, yet there are exactly zero resolutions, nor has there even been one Security Council Special Meetings. Seems like this might be a disproportionate response to me.

It was the Ottoman government that committed genocide against its Armenian minority. Interestingly enough, the Ottomans used the Kurdish population of the empire to do much of the killing. The post Ataturk governments of Turkey are guilty of genocide denial but not of genocide.

When the Ottoman Empire was dissolved at the end of WWI the Kurds were suppose to get their own state. Unfortunately, this got in way of the Western colonial powers designs on the Middle East and its oil. However, the example of establishing Israel and the historical chaos that has ensued should give one pause about recommending changes to existing international borders. Far far better to pressure countries with suppressed minorities to grant them rights to develop their own cultures and participate fully in the political life of their governments. Incidentally, Iran does a far better job of this than Turkey. Since Turkey has been a strategic ally of the US it has been shielded from such pressures and from UN investigations and resolutions. The legacy of Ataturk and his emphasis on a unitary Turkish state also makes it difficult.

Many critics of the decision to invade Iraq, myself included, warned at the time of the danger of the disintegration of Iraq and subsequent Turkish intervension to prevent the establishment of an independent Kurdish state. Afterall, the long stuggle between the government and the Kurdish rebels within Turkey wasn't exactly unknown. Perhaps posters would be interested in this perspective on the current situation.

Huh. How could anyone confuse the genocide carried out by the Ottoman Empire with the Republic of Turkey? Such lapses have been interpreted of subconscious markers of preference on lately and classified as racism.


Au contraire. Kurdistan was recognized with the Treaty of Sevres. Ataturk’s political mobilization put a violent stop to that idea. But whatever. To the winner the lands. Besides, we don’t mind Turkey’s resurging top-down militant secularism when militant Islamists step out of line.


Ignorance is bliss! Who’s with me and Loreng?


You are correct about Kurds being the largest ethnic group without a state. They inhabit Iran, Turkey, Syria, and other countries. Now consider the implications of a Kurdish irredentist movement in the Mid East. It’s not an isolated case of secession restricted to one state. States would rather not have to put down a multinational ethnic-genealogical nationalism, a movement based on separatism instead of fusion. Mid East states, with a few exceptions, can barely scrounge up enough syncretic nationalism to stitch diverging and often opposing identities together within their borders.

How much responsibility does the US have for the Kurdish separatist operations, which we have already labeled and identified as being terrorist?
I’m not sure it’s a lot. Our support of Kurdish mobilization has been focused on the overthrow of Saddam. With Saddam out of the picture the Kurds are no more brazen than Sunnis and Shiites in terms of looking out for their own interests in the insurgency. If we’re responsible for the Kurds’ takeover of Kirkuk, a hotbed of conflict between the interests of Iraqi Kurds a tiny Iraqi Turkish minority, then we’re personally responsible for the casualties of every suicide bomb. Negligence in terms of post-war planning and security is probably more accurate.

Do you feel Turkey has the right to step up military operations into northern Iraq in order to best defend itself?
Current events would indicate yes... I wonder how well the U.S.’s refusal to nod at Turkey’s operations would be received internationally. I don’t think you can stuff the pre-emptive cat back in the bag.

Is there any comparison to Turkey's threats to invade Iraq in order to stop terrorist operations to what Israel is currently doing in Lebanon?
According to one article “15 soldiers, police and guards were killed in fighting with the guerrillas in the past week” and Turkey has suffered terrorist attacks in the past. I would say yes if Turkey can positively identify a Kurdish group linked to a suicide bomb, kidnapping, or launching missiles (this one should be pretty easy) from Iraqi territory.

I wish the Kurds luck in avoiding ethnocide. It's too late for Palestinians. Kurds proved quite industrious following the Gulf War and should manage. Assistance and recognition for another independent state in the Mid East by an international body won’t go over well with the support of countries we need and another flash point for hostilities will not do favors for the region.

Could you clarify? I'm not sure I understand (it's early maybe I'm slow). Loreng was exactly right, there isn't a single resolution regarding the Turkish/Kurd matter.

That was an illuminating link, though. The first resolution demanded that Turkish military forces leave Cyprus...a few decades later they started calling it Turkey/Cyprus and requested a decrease in military forces.

You're both quite right. I don't know why I thought there was a Kurdish population in Cyprus.

I did some research into Kurdish incursions in Iraq's northern territories and UN resolutions came up with some unexpected hits. What condemnation I could find came from the Arab League, France, and Iraq itself. According to one article, Iraq granted asylum to some Kurds. I don’t know what became of them. The Arab League's condemnation probably had more to do with concerns of eroding national sovereignty and stability in the region than love for the Kurds or thawing on the idea of a new Kurdistan. The usual "Anti-Semitic" peacenik NGOs joined in the Turkish bashing.

As far as I can tell there is no UN Resolution to speak of directly to these incidents, but I came across the following:



I’ll see if I can come up with a resolution that was vetoed later.

I also came across this article that I think exacerbates the problem:


Kurds took over Mosul and Kirkuk almost immediately following the invasion.

I didn't come any closer towards finding out whether a resolution was proposed, so I can only guess by what I've read that the U.S. would've vetoed it had a resolution come up for a vote.


Actually quite a wasted exercise. The UN will always unfairly target Israel for some people, regardless of what Israel does, and bank on it to deflect criticism towards Israel.

So after stating that I was in bliss because of my ignorance in this matter. You then produced a bunch of information on a totally different matter. Then state that I was correct in the first place you now state it is a wasted exercise because we use it to deflect criticism towards Israel. Which it wasn't in the first place. Some ignorance.

My point was that people like you and fma are hypocritical and that if you felt that your view points are valid against Israel then you should have the exact same view points against any other nation, including their own.

You have proven that you do not hold the same view point nor does the rest of the world. The UN has done nothing about the civil war in Algeria (in which there have been over 1,000,000 casualties), the ongoing disputes in Dafur, Turkey, etc. To the sole exclusion of Israel. With such double standards you have shown why organizations like most NGOs, UN and ICJ are worthless. In your words 'actually quite a wasted exercise'.

I do not disagree with the idea that Turkey has to defend itself, I was merely using your own view points that you have expressed toward Israel and used them for Turkey to show that you do not hold other countries to the same standard. A very illuminating exercise. So I have to ask why?

Do you want an apology? Big people ask for and give them.

I don’t think I produced a “bunch of information on a totally different matter”, although I regret engaging your UN sideshow. I was looking for a resolution, then a hint of a resolution, and finally any U.S. involvement. I don’t have a problem acknowledging my country’s failure to inject basic morality in its foreign policy. I even go through the treasonous motions of looking for faults.

Tell me how am I supposed to interpret:
Except as the UN only cares to condemn Israel?


Resolutions (if that’s what you’re talking about) on Darfur, Algeria and Turkey exist. If you’re not, do I need to remind you that the UN is a subnational organization? It can’t act without the material support of states? That its peacekeeping forces and logistical support are contingent upon the pockets and volunteered personnel of member states? Speaking of double standards it seems to me people like to complain about the UN’s effectiveness but don’t want their country to volunteer the manpower or support necessary for the UN to fulfill its obligations. It’s a popular double entendre. Did you support US forces on the ground in Darfur or not? Because every time the question of US troop deployments to hotspots and states engaged in genocide come up I hear dozens of reasons why we shouldn’t get involved by ourselves and with the UN.


I do, but in this case I’m looking at the Kurds as Israel with their desire to form their own independent state and disrupt the region. My position hopefully makes sense now if I wasn’t clear enough before. I don’t think I even want to know how you can condemn Turkey for actions against Kurds on Iraqi soil a decade ago and give the impression of no reservations about a major Turkish operation inside Iraq now. Their secularist fanaticism hasn’t dropped in recent years as far as I know.


If I have to choose between an irredentist movement disrupting several Middle East states and Turkey defending itself, I’ll choose the latter. I think it’s the lesser of two evils, but I'm not going to wrap Turkey's territorial disputes with Iraqi Kurds in "self defense."

Edited to add:


I have to wonder if a) Turkey will turn them back on its own, b) demand the U.S. cough up more money if it wants Turkey to behave, or c) somehow use these dopes as leverage with the U.S. in their campaign against Iraqi Kurds.

to finally answer my own questions...


How much responsibility does the US have for the Kurdish separatist operations, which we have already labeled and identified as being terrorist?

I think the US does have some responsibility, as she does for all of Iraq and the upsurge of sectarian violence that has emerged since the invasion. I think the other article I linked to in which I quoted Rice from is the US recognizing her responsibility to this situation, I just am not sure how much the US is willing to do about it right now, our plate is full. Turkey wasn't the best of allies pre-invasion so I don't think any of her concerns on this matter are on the priority list of things to do for ally nations.


Do you feel Turkey has the right to step up military operations into northern Iraq in order to best defend itself?

Surely every nation has this right, to some extent. But a nation must always have to take into account how well such actions will be perceived by the region and allied nations. I don't think the US or Iraq would appreciate Turkey acting on this right. I also think Turkey will have to consider how the EU would react to such actions.


Is there any comparison to Turkey's threats to invade Iraq in order to stop terrorist operations to what Israel is currently doing in Lebanon?

No, I don't feel the comparison's are like enough to make good equivalents, but I do think there are many similarities.

Lesly I doubt 200 idiots from Iran is enough of a leverage. Turkey has little negotiating power on this subject. It is EU membership she is after so in accordance on some issues she will have to act more Western-ized than Muslim-ized if she is ever going to convince those opposed to her accession. Allowing Iranian Islamic Jihadi suicide bombers free passage to incite violence against non-Islamic nations surely feeds into the fears many EU states have about allowing Turkey EU membership. Also under pressure from the opposition for Turkey's membership the political rights and needs of the Kurds has gained more and more focus and has become one of the major issues regarding the EU's concerns for Human Rights in Turkey.
In other words I feel there is a lot of pressure for Turkey to act responsibly in regards to this issue, but having Israel act , in what is the opinion of many around the world, so irresponsibly, I was concerned that this may offer what Turkey would feel was cover or a distraction to do what she knows would not be welcomed.