The turmoil in Iraq has taking direction in a way that it would affect the region as a whole with its consequences that might lead a regional mayhem. Especially after the execution of Saddam Hussein, the civil war discourse has been the main theme when international community discusses Iraqi issue. In this short, though modest, piece of writing the main focus will be the future of a possible Kurdistan.
The turmoil in Iraq has taking direction in a way that it would affect the region as a whole with its consequences that might lead a regional mayhem. Especially after the execution of Saddam Hussein, the civil war discourse has been the main theme when international community discusses Iraqi issue. In this short, though modest, piece of writing the main focus will be the future of a possible Kurdistan. If Kurdistan were established what would be the regional balance for Kurds themselves is the tenet of this writing. Realizing the fact that it is highly debatable for someone who is from Turkey and speculates (or gives advise) about the future foreign policy of Kurds in Iraq, however, from an academic perspective, I guess I am entitled to speculate.
First of all, it is better if we set the background issues related to topic. Historically, northern and southern Mesopotamia (South-eastern Turkey and Northern Iraq) has become the scene of competition among the powers that exist in the area. However, as a historical experience whoever is strong in the area either from south or north controls the all Mesopotamia especially through economic trade and political interaction. After decreasing Saddam’s influence (or control) in northern Iraq, especially after the first Gulf War, Turkey has become the dominant in the area. It was also the case when Iraq was using Kirkuk-Yumurtalik (Turkey-Iraq) pipeline as means of using another way to open the world. But, despite much margin of economic loss, Turkey cut off this pipeline as showing its support to coalition against Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait. After the first Gulf War interestingly Iraq’s dependence on Turkey through trade decreased but Kurds’ dependence on Turkey for security and trade increased. It was especially the case for Iraqi Kurds. Before the occupation of Iraq by the US-led coalition in 2003, the Iraqi Kurds were dependent on the good will of Turkey for the fulfilment of specific needs. These are simply included the continued presence of the Poised Hammer force on Turkish soil for reasons of security and the UN humanitarian help; the import and export of supplies through Turkish ports; the openings of new road links and a new telephone network with Turkey.
Given the fact that Turkey, Iran and Syria and Arabs at large all oppose the emergence of a sovereign Kurdish state in post-Saddam Iraq, and each actually have the capacity to undermine any existing Kurdistan’s stability and security. Most importantly, if exist, Kurdistan will be a landlocked state.
Because of historical and religious reasons, the Kurds in Iraq have problems with the all-surrounding countries. Syria and Iran, because of their Shiite government and intentions to play Shiites card within Iraq created tense relations between Kurds and them. Although Kurds have a problematic relations even with Turkey, the intensivity of this relations between Turkey and Kurds, in comparison with that of Kurds to Iran and Syria, are less and possible to find solutions.
In any possible scenario, if Kurds announce their independent in the north, the Shiites would also seek an independent state in the south of Iraq. This simply means the scattering of Iraq and would be costly especially for Sunni Arabs and Turkomans. If this situation exists, the leaders of Kurdistan would find in an environment summarized as follows: in the north Turkey, in the south newly emerged Shiite state depending on Iran, in the east Iran, in the west Syria, with all of which Kurds has problematic relations. Then the issue will be with which state surrounding Kurdistan problems how soon and how easily could be solved, since Kurdistan would need international opening. I believe in this case Turkey would come to spotlight due to several reasons. Turkey’s main concern stems from domestic contingencies, therefore, if Kurdistan leaders would guarantee not to intervene Turkey’s internal Kurdish issue, there is no reason for Turkey not to develop good relations with newly established Kurdistan. However, the problematic areas would not be easy to solve with other surrounding countries Iran, newly existing Shiite state and Syria. It is because the problems between them are not security related, but religious and societal. This would lead to a situation whereby Kurdistan depends on Turkey.
Even until recently and today Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) has relied on transit across the Turkish border for humanitarian assistance, legitimate trade, and the smuggling of oil and many other commodities. These explanations make clear that once Kurdistan is landlocked, as it was in the last ten year, in the future Kurdistan will depend on Turkey more than any other country.
While keeping this reality in mind, it can be argued that Kurds would benefit from an economic recovery in post-Saddam period provided by a stable and sovereign Iraq, rather than seeking an independent Kurdistan. Softening their stance on autonomy and supporting a unified Iraq would enable Kurds to avoid the wrath of Iraq’s neighbours and even win their gratitude. This is a case particularly for Turkey. In any case, if a Kurdistan exists in northern Iraq, Kurdish economic well being in terms of international trade would remain largely at the mercy of Turkey and other neighbouring states. As landlocked and surrounded by the enmity of neighbouring states, after the establishment of a Kurdish state, the tough times await for Kurds.
As argued above that Turkey’s relations with Iraqi Kurds could be solved easier than those with the other Iraqi neighbours, after Kurdistan’s existence if current conditions exist, such as the tension between Kurdish leaders and the governments of Syria and Iran, one can easily claim that, the survival of Kurdistan, if not existence, would depend on Turkey more than any other country and any other time in history. Therefore, in any case, a land-locked Iraqi Kurdistan can acquire enormous benefit from good relations with Turkey, and likely suffer enormously in their absence.
For the Kurds, post-Saddam period is an historical opportunity to control or at least exert their influences on all Iraq, rather than seeking an independent state but then soon-to-be-turned another dependency, only changing from Saddam’s mercy to the goodwill of Turkey.
Originally published in A DIFFERENT VIEW, Issue 11, February 2007, pp. 10-12, and WORLD STUDENT PRESS AGENCY website (www.studentpa.info)
No comments:
Post a Comment