-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Pakistan: Who wants another Israel?
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
See links, articles below commentary
sent by Paul Wolf - Nov 8, 2007
Who wants another Israel?
by Paul Wolf
Western news media continue to hype Benazir Bhutto as the cure to
Pakistan's woes. The one Pakistani politician not arrested by Dictator
General Pervez Musharraf is supposed to convince the growing insurgency
that she represents the people of Pakistan rather than the United
States. Another losing strategy dreamed up by the military-thinktank
complex in Wa****ngton that seems to have no ability to understand
foreign cultures. I'm rooting for Imran Khan, always my favorite
Pakistani politician. And for the Pakistani lawyers, who've brought an
unprecedented degree of prestige upon the most distrusted of
professions.
Once again we must turn to the Asia Times for the bulk of real news
re****ting - and I'm counting all world news media combined - on the
unfolding crises in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or was that Pakistan and
Turkey .. ugh, I mean, Kurdistan? Whatever happened to Iran - weren't
we about to start another war there? It's hard to tell what's going on
these days.
A video journalist but just expressed her frustration to me that despite
her having a really great story idea, the budgets of all the major
western networks are allocated primarily for election stories, even
though our presidential election is a year off. I guess the only way
the US public could be informed about impending armageddon would be if
Hillary and Ruliani got on an airplane for Khandahar. Barak Obama and
Ron Paul can protest all they want, and their efforts are certainly
appreciated, but they simply don't represent the target voter, and
can't have much effect.
For now, that is. By next year these wars will be totally out of
control. Why can't the campaign planners for the frontrunners bet on
the obvious? I suppose it's because these candidates are followers, not
leaders. But with proper planning, a real leader could beat them.
A correction to my previous email - it was Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan who met with Bush, not the Turkish President as I
absent-mindedly wrote before. Whatever. The meeting was a formality and
Turkey is just waiting for the PKK to give it an excuse to invade
"northern Iraq".
Paul
1. Taliban stage a coup of their own
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK08Df01.html
2. Pak losing territory to pro-Taliban rebels
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
3. Imran Khan flees house arrest, goes into hiding
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=79614
4. Who wants another Israel?
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/870/op1.htm
5. And Now, Turkey
http://www.forward.com/articles/11978/
6. Turkish decision weighs heavy for US
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK08Ak03.html
7. Bush's Turkey shoot
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK07Ak01.html
8. President G|l: It is now soldiers' turn to deal with PKK
http://www.todayszaman.com/
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK08Df01.html
Taliban stage a coup of their own
By Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times, Nov 8, 2007
KARACHI - While the world's attention focused on the troubles of
President General Pervez Musharraf following his declaration of a state
of emergency in Pakistan at the weekend, the Taliban have launched a
coup of their own in Afghanistan and the Pashtun areas of Pakistan.
Pakistani troops had prevented the Taliban from launching their planned
post-Ramadan (Muslim holy month) offensive into Afghanistan by invading
the Pakistani North Waziristan and South Waziristan tribal areas on
October 7.
The Taliban managed to set up a counter engagement by stirring their
network in the Swat Valley in North-West Frontier Province, which took
the pressure off the Waziristans. The November 4 declaration of an
emergency and the preparations before it was enforced distracted the
military. As a result, several villages and towns in the Swat Valley,
only a drive of four hours from Islamabad, have fallen to the Taliban
without a single bullet being fired - fearful Pakistani security forces
simply surrendered their weapons.
The Taliban have secured similar successes in the northwestern Afghan
province of Farah and the southwestern provinces of Uruzgan and
Kandahar, where districts have fallen without much resistance.
A new wave of attacks is expanding the Taliban's grip in the
southeastern provinces of Khost and Kunar. And on Tuesday, the Taliban
are suspected to have been responsible for the massive suicide attack
in northern Baghlan province in which scores of people died, including
a number of parliamentarians, most notably Sayed Mustafa Kazimi, the
Hazara ****'ite leader.
Such unexpected offensives have become a hallmark of the Taliban. They
surprised many with their successful spring offensive in 2006, when the
West had already anticipated their demise.
The Taliban occupied several key districts in the southwest and then as
the winter snows closed in - normally a time for the guns to fall
silent - they struck ceasefire deals with coalition troops. The aim was
that once the weather improved, they would launch a mass uprising and
force the surrender of major cities.
However, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) coalition sprung
a surprise of its own by breaking the ceasefire agreements and
conducting military operations one after the other from December 2006
onwards against the unprepared Taliban.
This forced the Taliban's abrupt retreat from im****tant arteries and
effectively ended the dream of a mass uprising this spring. Instead, the
Taliban turned more to the use of improvised explosive devices and
suicide attacks to irritate the enemy rather than cause serious damage.
NATO was relaxed during the month of Ramadan as Afghans generally don't
fight in this period, and with the winter setting in, it was believed
that the next Taliban action would only take place next spring.
But the Taliban have taken advantage of Pakistan's political troubles -
the Pakistani army is busy saving its political interests in Islamabad -
to keep on fighting in what is probably their first real winter
offensive.
The fate of the Taliban's offensives in Afghanistan and Pakistan are
closely linked with the fate of Musharraf's second coup. He will have to
restore the country to normalcy very quickly. If not, the Taliban will
go from strength to strength and a vital US-led "war on terror" theater
will be closed.
Political shambles
"It is the duty of every citizen, and especially lawyers, to struggle
for the supremacy of law, independence of the judiciary and real
democracy," lawyer Shaukat Rauf cited Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed
Chaudhry as saying in a telephone address to the bar in Islamabad on
Tuesday.
Chaudhry is one of thousands of lawyers and opposition members to have
been arrested or placed under house arrest since Saturday.
Chaudhry's defiant call illustrates that rolling back the emergency is
only a part of the problem - what is wanted is the reinstatement of
deposed judges and the full restoration of an independent judiciary.
The imposition of the emergency came as the Supreme Court was about to
deliver its verdict on whether Musharraf could run for president while
still serving as army chief. Last month, he was reelected by an
overwhelming majority in national and provincial assemblies.
The opposition boycotted the polls and asked the Supreme Court to
intervene and the judges ordered that official results be withheld
until a verdict was reached. It is thought the court planned to rule
against Musharraf, hence emergency rule.
Chaudhry has had run-ins with Musharraf before. He was suspended in
March for alleged malfeasance (the real reason was the judiciary's
opposition to Musharraf's role as army chief). Widespread protests and
violence followed, and eventually when the Supreme Court reinstated
Chaudhry, the Musharraf regime had little choice but to accept the
decision.
Chaudhry might be detained for now, but he has emerged as a formidable
foe for Musharraf, and his following is growing by the day.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Pakistan/Pak_losing_territory_to_pro-Taliban_rebels/articleshow/2526820.cms
Pak losing territory to pro-Taliban rebels
The Times of India, 8 Nov 2007
ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI: Pakistan is fast losing chunks of its territory to
pro-Taliban rebels. On Wednesday, it lost yet another town in the
picturesque valley of Swat to the rebels with which, say officials
privately, as much as 70% of the valleys 94-km stretch is under the
control of Mullah Fazlullahs band of automatic-toting militants.
Re****ts said that the militants have taken control of key towns like
Matta, Khazakhela, Madyan and Charbagh.
According to one agency re****t, the town of Kalam, too, has fallen to
the militants after dozens of paramilitary troops and policemen
surrendered their weapons. Before capturing Kalam, the militants
captured Bahrain, a strategic town poised over the raging Swat river.
At a number of government offices in these towns, the Pakistani flag was
brought down and replaced by black-and-white flags, reminiscent of the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan. By Wednesday evening, Fazlullahs private
FM radio station (because of which the cleric is known as "Mullah
Radio") was proclaiming the territorial gains.
The significance of Pakistan losing territory in Swat lies in the fact
that this is not the countrys tribal fringes; rather it has been a
settled area of Pakistan, just a few hours drive northwest of Islamabad.
The seemingly relentless march in Swat of Fazlullahs Tehreek
Nafaz-e-Shariat Muhammadi (the Movement for Enforcement of Islamic
Laws), one of a clutch of pro-Taliban groups in Pakistan, represents
the real challenge faced by Pervez Musharraf. Radical groups have
spread out into the heart of Pakistan from the troubled tribal belt
bordering Afghanistan, and are threatening to throw the country into
Taliban-style autarky.
In Swat, for instance, Fazlullahs band, backed by fighters from
Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Waziristan, has not only driven out
government officials, but has also shut down almost all girls schools,
set fire to shops selling Indian and western music, beaten up barbers
shaving beards, and recently, blown up a 1,300-year-old carving of a
seated Buddha cut into a 45-metre-high rock face - one of Swats top
tourist attractions. Ironically, Swat is an ancient seat of
enlightenment, marked with planned towns and spiritual renaissance.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=79614
Imran Khan flees house arrest, goes into hiding
November 08, 2007
Imran Khan, the leader of Tehrik-e-Insaf, released a statement through
his ex-wife, saying he had fled house arrest and gone into hiding.
Jemima Khan, Imran Khans ex-wife, released a statement in which he said
he was first placed under house arrest at his home in Lahore on
Saturday. He said police ransacked his house and roughed up his family.
He escaped before they returned to take him to jail.
He said he was in hiding for fear of reprisals from General Musharrafs
government. They are using sheer force against lawyers, human rights
organizations, political activists and all genuine opposition leaders
are in jail, Khan wrote in the e-mail statement. The police have
ransacked my house and ill treated my family members.
Imran Khan went on to accuse former prime minister Benazir Bhutto of
secretly working with Musharraf because she was also threatened by the
judiciary. Her party has not been touched by the authorities, Imran
said.
He warned that Musharrafs move will only ignite more extremism. When you
suppress democratic forces, then the only way to resist is through
militancy, he said.
Meanwhile, Imran Khan made a haggard-looking appearance in a video
issued from hiding on Wednesday, calling for protests against President
Pervez Musharrafs state of emergency.
Imran went underground on Sunday, a day after police placed him under
house arrest at his home in Lahore.
If we dont resist, it will take Pakistan on the path of destruction,
Khan said in the short video message broadcast on Geo television. He was
filmed against a plain grey background and was unshaven, speaking
animatedly into the camera.
Imran is safe. From an unknown place he is leading the movement, said
retired Admiral Jawaid Iqbal, a spokesman for PTI.
For his security we are not disclosing his location. But he will soon be
with the people of Pakistan. The situation in Pakistan is worse than
Iraq at the moment, Iqbal added. Agencies
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/870/op1.htm
Who wants another Israel?
Arabs act as if the partitioning of Iraq is a new idea, writes Ayman
El-Amir*
Al Ahram, Egypt, 8 - 14 November 2007, Issue No. 870
Participants in the recently concluded Iraq Neighbours Conference in
Istanbul breathed a sigh of relief as they tem****arily defused what
seemed to be an imminent large-scale Turkish military incursion into
northern Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels who carried out lethal
cross-border attacks on Turkish troops. The United States, through its
participating Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, assured Turkey that
the culprit, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), was a common threat.
Iraqi and Turkish officials agreed to suppress the PKK's activities and
close down some of its affiliated offices. And the final communiqui of
the conference endorsed the principle that Iraq's neighbours should not
allow the use of their territories as staging grounds for terrorist
activities -- a covert US reference to Iran as well. But this is only
part of the story.
The conference, and the subsequent meeting between US President George W
Bush and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Wa****ngton may
well put an end to this mini-crisis, if only to avoid direct
confrontation between the Turkish army, a NATO member, and US
occupation force commanders, which are the real decision-makers in
Iraq. Iraqi Kurdish leaders, both in the north and in the central
government, led by President Jalal Talabani, will go along. First, they
do not want to rock the fragile boat that is Iraq. Second, they do not
want to compromise the objective of moving the north from the status of
regional government to semi-independence in the larger scheme of things.
The fundamental issue in abeyance is the decades-long aspiration for the
creation of a state of Kurdistan. At issue is whether in the imperfect
world of geopolitics, the creation of such a state would be a fulfilment
of the post-World War I Woodrow Wilson principle of self-determination
or a violation of the recognised sovereignty and territorial integrity
of four states of the region -- namely, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey.
Is a state of Kurdistan a World War I historical remiss that should now
be rectified by redrawing maps and territorial borders? Are the Kurds
creating the case of another Kosovo, or could the contiguous Kurdish
tribal settlements in four sovereign states follow the example of Jewish
settlements in Palestine under the British mandate and stake a claim to
a national home for the Kurds with international assistance? Was the US
Senate's non-binding resolution calling for the partition of Iraq along
ethnic and religious lines a misguided step or the work of pro-Kurdish
lobbyists, particularly from Israel?
Israel has a strategic interest in breaking up Iraq, the only Arab
country that once had serious ambitions of acquiring nuclear technology
under Saddam Hussein. Israel bombed out the nascent Iraqi nuclear
reactor at Osirak in 1981 and is agitating to have the US do the same
in Iran. A divided Iraq would stoke ****a-Sunni rivalry that could
easily slide into a low-intensity civil conflict by proxy that would
pit ****a Iran and its Arab sup****ters against US-allied Sunni Muslim
states. In the meantime, Israel would build a political-military-
economic alliance with a semi-independent Kurdistan Regional
Government, with oil wealth that would be considerably enhanced by the
prospect of taking over Arab Kirkuk and Mosul. This would allow Israel
to break out of its isolation as a non- Arab pariah in the Middle East
and join hands with another non-Arab entity in a mutually reinforcing
alliance. The new Kurdish stronghold would benefit from Israel's
military power and technology, and Wa****ngton-backed policies, to build
and strengthen other Kurdish minorities in Iran, Syria and Turkey for
the ultimate objective of building the independent state of Kurdistan
on territories sliced off these countries. Israel would benefit from
extended Kurdish family alliances to destabilise its opponents,
dominate the Middle East and reshape it in its own interests. That
would be the new Middle East the US is hoping for, with Israel hovering
over the oil and gas riches of the region.
Israeli-Kurdish clandestine partner****p gained momentum following the
2003 US invasion of Iraq, with the blessings of the neo-conservative
architects of the war. It is an open secret that Dick Cheney's
Israeli-backed strategists planned the partition of Iraq. The US
invasion's first civil administrator L Paul Bremer demarcated the map,
dividing the country along religious and ethnic lines. Israeli
penetration of Kurdish ranks involved funding, arms supplies, training
in information gathering and sabotage and commando operations. The
northern Iraqi Kurds benefited from Israeli expertise and training in
building up their informal armed forces, the peshmerga, which some
estimate are 70,000 strong.
The extent to which the PKK participated and benefited from the
Israeli-Kurdish partner****p is uncertain, but the Turkish government of
Erdogan seems to be extremely worried about its implications.
Additionally, Israeli violations of Turkish airspace in carrying out its
secret air raid into Syria last month further strained the
intelligence-sharing, military and economic cooperation arrangements
that Wa****ngton had cultivated for years between the two countries.
Turkey has had a long history of struggle with the PKK and its
sympathisers in northern Iraq. However, Erdogan's government now
regards the PKK's activities as a national security threat as the
Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq gains more strength and
independence under the authority of the US occupation and the new Iraqi
constitution.
As much as the Iraqi Kurds benefited from autonomy arrangements under
the regime of Saddam Hussein they equally suffered the cruelty of his
vengeance. The mass murders of Kurds in Halabja and Anfal bear a
devastating witness to that criminality for which Saddam and his top
aides were tried and executed. This also provided an advantageous
op****tunity for Israeli agents to persuade their Kurdish partners that
their problem is not very much different from the Jewish problem in
Europe -- a minority with its distinct cultural heritage dispersed and
persecuted in different parts of Europe. The Jewish problem, which was
epitomised by genocide during the Nazi era, was only resolved through
the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Thus, the Kurdish
problem presents a similar analogy and can only be resolved by a
similar solution: an independent state of Kurdistan. It is a
misleading, self-serving argument.
Empires and states rise and fall in times of historical upheaval. World
War I brought to an end the Hapsburg and the Turkish empires while the
Bolshevik revolution terminated the rule of the Romanov dynasty. The
former Yugoslavia was cobbled together after the defeat of Nazism in
World War II -- a patchwork of ethnic, cultural, religious and political
incongruities. It lasted for less than five decades under the iron-fist
rule of Josip Broz Tito before it began to disintegrate in 1990 with
bloody consequences in the vengeful Balkan tradition. However, when the
former Soviet Union crashed less than two decades ago its 12 republics
did not disintegrate. They simply turned independent.
This is the age of separatism following upon the heels of the national
liberation era. Ethnic minorities in several parts of the world are
posting their claims for independence based on ethnic distinction or
discrimination, persecution or alienation. This, to varying degrees, is
the case in Abkhazia, Chechnya, Ossetia, southern Sudan, and Kosovo
where, in reality, the Serb minority is the one facing ethnic
intimidation by the ethnic Albanian majority that is pressing for
independence.
The US invasion and destruction of Iraq has left one-fifth of its
population dead or displaced but helped further the cause of an
independent Kurdistan. The new Iraqi permanent constitution, negotiated
and then adopted by referendum in October 2005 under the influence of
the US occupation, moved autonomous Kurdistan as close as it can get to
independence under a system of quasi- federalism. Under Article 53 of
the constitution, Kurdistan has its own regional government, national
assembly, constitution, security forces and Kurdish as official
language. The Kurdistan Regional Government's authorities often find
occasion to unfurl the flag of Kurdistan alongside the Iraqi national
flag. It prints its own stamps and issues its own currency. It is now
staking a claim to oil-rich Kirkuk and to Mosul as part of the region
- -- a claim that is disputable and strongly resisted by the two cities'
Arab, Turkomen and Assyrian populations.
If claims to independence can be justified under cir***stances of
persecution, genocide or ethnic distinctiveness, why could not the
Tutsis in Rwanda or the Muslim minority in Srebrenica claim
independence? In terms of numbers and atrocities, they certainly
suffered more than the Kurds suffered under Saddam. International law
does not prescribe secession as a solution for ethnic cleansing.
Turkey's strong apprehension of a stronger regional government in Iraqi
Kurdistan is understandable and justified. What is not understandable is
the Arabs' squeamish reaction to the ongoing partitioning of Iraq,
beyond rhetorical statements about preserving the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Iraq. Israel has been working hard on cloning
itself in Kurdistan, and the Arabs are watching, leaving it to Turkey
to protect their interests.
* The writer is a former correspondent for Al-Ahram in Wa****ngton, DC.
He also served as director of UN Radio and Television in New York.
http://www.forward.com/articles/11978/
And Now, Turkey
The Jewish Daily Forward, Nov 09, 2007
The crisis coming to a boil along Turkeys border with Iraq, pitting
Turkish troops against Iraqi-based Kurdish rebels, could hardly come at
a worse time for America or the West. Turkey, population 70 million,
straddling the Asian and European continents, is the most secularized of
Muslim nations and the one most critical to the strategic planning of
Israel, America and Europe. For all that, Turkey suddenly finds itself,
in the wake of the 2003 Iraq invasion, facing a re-energized insurgency
from its most disgruntled minority, the Kurds.
At press time, Turkey was perilously close to responding with an
invasion of Iraqs Kurdish region. The invasion, if it comes, could prove
devastating to Americas hopes for pacifying Iraq and to Israels hopes
for successful negotiations with its Arab neighbors.
Most disheartening of all, this crisis was predictable. Indeed, it was
predicted, well before the American invasion of Iraq that set the
current events in motion. Yet America proceeded with its invasion, and
now the chickens are fluttering back home.
Turkey has been fighting a counter-insurgency war for years against
Kurdish nationalists, who seek an independent Kurdish state stretching
from eastern Turkey through northern Iraq into Iran. Israel once
sympathized with the Kurds, but since its ties to Turkey blossomed into
a full-scale alliance in the 1970s, it has sided with Turkey. Turkey is
now Israels closest friend in the Muslim world, and an essential
intermediary in Israeli-Arab contacts.
Europe, for its part, has struggled for years to define its relation****p
with Turkey, which seeks member****p in the mostly post-Christian
European Union. European negotiations with Turkey over the Muslim
nations role in the secular society of post-Christian Europe has taken
on an anxious symbolism in the European imagination, standing as a
surrogate for the larger question of Islams place in Europe. For Israel
and Europe alike, a rupture in Turkeys ties to the West - meaning,
first of all, Wa****ngton - would be extremely dangerous.
As for Wa****ngton, it relied heavily on the Kurds, with their hatred of
Saddam Hussein, as a lynchpin in its plans for post-Saddam Iraq.
American planners never seriously considered the possibility - a
near-certainty to many observers - that the newly liberated Iraqi
Kurdistan would quickly present Turkey with an intolerable irritant.
As Turkey lost patience, a crisis would erupt in Turkeys relations with
Iraq, then with America, then with Israel and finally with Europe.
Pentagon officials dismissed the scenario as a fantasy, just as they
dismissed the near-certain emergence of a ****ite-led Iraq closely allied
to Iran. But they were wrong, and now we are here.
Americas best hope now, from all available signs, is that the Iraqi
Kurds will crack down on their brothers insurgency and that Turkey will
be patient and give the Kurds time to act. Neither of those seems
likely. At best, Turkey is likely to give Wa****ngton and the Kurds a
few weeks to play at pacification, and then it will cross the border
with a force large enough to make an impression but small enough to
avoid touching off a regional conflagration.
The implications for Israel are sobering. Jerusalem has long known that
sooner or later it would have to begin a painful, dangerous negotiating
process with the Palestinians and the Arab League. It assumed it could
count on the sup****t of its friends in the West and the Muslim world.
If Turkeys relations with the West enter a crisis period just as those
Israeli-Arab negotiations begin, Israel will enter the talks more
vulnerable and alone than it anticipated, thanks to the work of its good
friends in the White House. And yet, proceed it must. Hold on to your
hats.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK08Ak03.html
Turkish decision weighs heavy for US
By Sami Moubayed, Asia Times, Nov 8, 2007
DAMASCUS - Twenty-four hours before Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan landed in Wa****ngton on Monday, a column appeared in the Turkish
daily Zaman concerning his meeting with President George W Bush. The
columnist, Mustafa Unal, wrote, "It is crucial to note November 5 as a
turning point for Turkey's fight against PKK [Kurdistan Workers' Party]
terrorism."
He added, "Turkey has no time to wait to conduct a cross-border
operation .. The sensitivity of PKK terrorism is very high among the
Turkish public. If the administration in Wa****ngton leaves Turkey alone
in the fight against terrorism, bilateral relations will be dealt a
heavy blow."
Before that, the commander-in-chief of the Turkish armed forces said
that any military operation into Iraqi Kurdistan would wait until after
the Bush-Erdogan summit. That statement was echoed by journalists,
analysts and observers from around the world. It was believed that if
diplomacy failed, then the 100,000 Turkish troops amassed on the Iraqi
border would be given the green light to roll into Iraq, as mandated by
the Turkish Parliament, to root out PKK terrorism.
Dozens of editorials by Turkish journalists, along with statements by
Turkish officials, however, stressed that Turkey will not be waiting for
an okay from the White House if it decides to cross the border into
northern Iraq. The argument went, "We seek permission from nobody!" This
is a matter of national security, the Turks added, that should be of
high concern for Wa****ngton for its own "war on terror". There was a
dangerous presumption in Turkey, however, that if the US decided to
clamp down on the PKK, right after the Bush-Erdogan summit, then the
terrorist group would automatically disappear.
The opposite, however, is correct.
US sup****t can curb PKK activity, and tem****arily end its military
presence in northern Iraq, but it won't make the PKK "go away". The
Kurdish rebels have been in revolt since the late 1970s. They have
launched an open-ended war against the mighty Turkish army and
inflicted, over a 30-year period, heavy damage and a death toll of
nearly 40,000 Turks.
They began to lose their power base when their leader, Abdullah Ocalan,
was arrested in 1999 (thanks to Turkish cooperation with US
intelligence) and suffered heavy blows when Erdogan came to power in
2003. An old theory still stands in Turkish-Kurdish relations. Radicals
(like the PKK) get frustrated when they are confronted with moderates
like Erdogan. The Turkish leader only turned to force when PKK
terrorism got out of hand. His initial response was "dialogue".
He allocated large sums for investment in Kurdish districts where the
PKK is popular in southern Turkey. He provided jobs and op****tunities
for young Kurds, to turn their attention from military activity, and
promised during one of his visits to the Kurdish districts, "The
Kurdish problem is everybody's problem, but above all, mine."
Suddenly, the attractiveness of rebellion dwindled within the Kurdish
community in Turkey. It seemed more logical for these young people to
live a stable life, equal to their Turkish counterparts, and make
money, own a house, buy a car and get married, than to get carried away
to the mountainous regions of Iraqi Kurdistan where they would have to
live in caves as outlaws combating the Turkish state.
That's when the PKK stepped in, to restore credibility to itself. It
pushed Erdogan to the limit - wanting him, almost, to launch an
offensive against northern Iraq. That would restore credibility to the
Kurdish rebellion. It would give them an excuse to fight back - since
radicals like to be confronted by men with guns, not economic
incentives. It would enable them to cry foul play in the international
community and accuse the Turks of "genocide".
A best-case scenario for them - probably - would be if the US joins in
the war against the PKK. That would endear them to the anti-American
public that is mushrooming across the world. Being targeted by the US
would bring about international sympathy. Usually, legitimacy follows
sympathy, and pretty soon, as one Turkish journalist put it, "Next
thing you know the international media refer to them [the PKK] as
'militants', 'insurgents' and finally as 'freedom fighters'."
Iran adds its voice
Meanwhile, in an attempt to defuse Turkish-Kurdish tensions, Iran has
urged the Iraqi government to postpone a referendum on whether the city
of Kirkuk should join the Kurdish Regional Government. Many believe
that part of the Turkish-Kurdish problem is Kirkuk. The Turks, in
addition to wanting to rid themselves of the PKK, are horrified at the
possibility of the oil-rich city going to the Kurds, which would enrich
and empower them
- - inspiring them into more rebellion against the Turkish government.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has to date said that implementing the
referendum, called for by the Iraqi constitution, "is mandatory". Maliki
is allied to Kurdish politicians in Iraq who are strongly opinionated on
the issue of Kirkuk. He has promised to sup****t them on this one, if
they help keep his coalition cabinet in place. He now faces a dilemma,
however, since in as much as he needs to please the Kurds, he does not
want to say "no" to the Iranians.
The proposal to postpone the issue of Kirkuk was made at the weekend by
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki at the international
conference on Iraq held in Istanbul. He proposed a two-year delay on the
referendum, which is supposed to take place before December 31.
Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Maliki government, said, "We accept
the advice, but we refuse to let anyone interfere with Iraq's internal
affairs." The government of Iraq has to date made no preparations
whatsoever on this issue, due to its sensitive nature, except to
facilitate the uprooting of Arab residents of Kirkuk to increase the
city's Kurdish population.
They claim that these Arabs were illegally brought to Kirkuk by Saddam
Hussein in the 1970s for the opposite reasons: to increase the Arab
population at the expense of Kurdish residents of Kirkuk. When asked
whether the referendum would take place on time, Dabbagh said, "I don't
expect that. Because of the security situation in Kirkuk we have not
done a census, which needs to be done before the referendum."
Najat Hasan of the Kurdistan Democratic Party said a delay was
acceptable, but only for two months, adding that anything longer would
be a constitutional violation.
All of these thoughts must have been running through Erdogan's head as
his plane landed in Wa****ngton at 3.30am on Monday. Before departing,
Erdogan had said he would demand "concrete measures" from Bush. He
added, "Our visit comes at a time when [Turkish-US] relations are
undergoing a serious test." He wrapped up, "We have run out of
patience."
The two leaders talked about various ways to minimize damage in Iraq if
the Turks were to invade Iraqi Kurdistan. Erdogan repeated a request,
originally made at the Istanbul conference, for the extradition and
arrest of 150 members of the PKK, based in Iraq and Europe. Most of
them are residents of northern Iraq, while a significant number are
based in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria and Russia.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a US ally and a Kurdish nationalist, who
had earlier said that extraditing the PKK was a "dream" for Turkey, then
came out with a new argument, saying that he had no information that
such a "wanted" list even existed.
Erdogan added that his country was disappointed with the slow pace of
response from both the US and Europe. Major European media outlets have
not referred to the PKK as a "terrorist" organization, although the
European Union brands it as such. France and Belgium cracked down on PKK
activists in 2006 but refused to hand them over to Turkey.
The Turks claim that had the US been more firm, then Europe would have
behaved differently on the Kurdish issue. Among the dangerous PKK
commanders who were arrested - then released - by the Europeans were
Riza Altun, in charge of Europe, and Nedim Seven, in charge of purse
strings and youth affairs.
Many in Europe are still sympathetic to the Kurds, claiming that they
are the only major ethnic group in the world that still does not have a
national home (presuming that what the Palestinians have is a state).
At the Wa****ngton summit, Erdogan bluntly said, "We have decided for an
operation, the Turkish armed forces will determine its methods." He was
informing the US president - rather than consulting him. He then added,
"We are expecting tangible steps from our strategic ally."
President Abdullah Gul, meanwhile, on Tuesday said that Turkey had made
a decision on how to proceed against PKK militants in northern Iraq and
had informed the US of this decision. He did not elaborate, other than
to say the PKK issue "should be handled through soldiers not through
diplomats".
One of the problems that makes Bush reluctant is Iraq. In addition to
the 70% of supplies channeled to US troops via Turkey, the Turks are a
major component in the economic revival of Iraq. They are heavily
involved in investment, banking, construction and commerce with the
Iraqis. All that could come to an end and shake the already dislocated
Iraqi economy.
If the US is left with no option but to help the Turks against the PKK,
diverting its attention from central Iraq to its Kurdish north, other
militias will get the upper hand in their war against the United States.
This applies to the Mahdi Army of ****'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, former
Ba'athists and al-Qaeda. That makes Bush think twice before saying "yes"
to Erdogan.
On the other hand, Bush, who has been dying for a "success story" in
Iraq to score him points among the US public, finally found it in
al-Anbar province after the US started funding Sunni tribes to combat
al-Qaeda. Violence has been reduced in these provinces, enabling Bush
to say, "All is not lost. Victory is still in sight." But these Sunni
tribes are 100% opposed to any partitioning of Iraq or giving the Kurds
their separate entity.
If Bush continues to sup****t the Kurds, on Kirkuk and other issues
related to separatism, it might inspire ****'ites to demand the same for
their districts. That has already happened with the ambitious Abdul Aziz
al-Hakim of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, who is calling for an
autonomous ****'ite district in southern Iraq, similar to the Kurdish one
in the north. This leaves Sunnis in central Iraq - where there is no
oil - and no real republic anymore.
For two years, various US decision-makers, including Defense Secretary
Robert Gates and former ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, have been
advising Bush to promote reconciliation between ****'ites and Sunnis,
claiming that only that would bring an end to the Sunni insurgency. That
started to materialize with the Anbar "success story". The Sunnis, even
those working with the Americans, however, would abandon them in a
minute if the Americans gave the Kurds the green light to take Kirkuk.
Anbar province would be set ablaze again.
The only way forward for the US is therefore to side with the Turks, as
this serves the US's interests best. If the US were to side with the
Kurds, it would alienate the Sunnis of Iraq, the pro-unity ****'ites of
Iraq (Muqtada and the Mahdi Army), the seculars of former premier Iyad
Allawi, the Turks, the Iranians and the Syrians (who both suffer from a
similar PKK problem).
Whereas, if the US sides with the Turks, the only ones who would sulk
would be Iraq's Kurds and Maliki. The move would be widely welcomed by
Iraqi Sunnis - and, perhaps, encourage them to cooperate further with
the US in combating al-Qaeda in Iraq; the case that really matters to
the Bush White House.
If the US decides to do that, it would have to put its full weight
behind keeping Kirkuk out of Kurdish hands. Then it would have to come
up with a formula to divide the oil revenue of the city equitably for
all in the country.
It is now up to Bush as to whether he contains or magnifies the
Turkish-Kurdish problem. But if the Turks do invade northern Iraq,
Erdogan can safely say: "Don't say we didn't warn you."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK07Ak01.html
Bush's Turkey shoot
By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times Online, Nov 7, 2007
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a fine politician, knew
even before he set foot in Wa****ngton on Monday that President George W
Bush could not possibly have anything tangible to offer him on the
explosive Turkey vs Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) dossier, apart from
Pentagon aerial intelligence passed on to Turkish generals.
Erdogan, although describing himself as "happy" with his talks with
Bush, may have left with nothing substantial. But at least he got a
sound bite from Bush, who upgraded the PKK to the status of an enemy of
America. Bush told Erdogan, "The PKK is a terrorist organization.
They're an enemy of Turkey, they're an enemy of Iraq and they're an
enemy of the United States."
Pity the US president could not possibly follow his own logic and add
that the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK - the PKK's Iran arm -
is an enemy of Iran, an enemy of Iraq but a friend of the United States
- - which is arming and financing its fighters.
Last week, talking to his Justice and Development Party members of the
Turkish Parliament, Erdogan stressed that he needed Bush to "clearly
define [the US] road map" concerning the PKK. That would mean, from a
Turkish point of view, direct US intervention against both the PKK and
its protector, Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud
Barzani. Bush promised nothing of the kind.
Erdogan has accused Barzani of protecting "terrorists". Barzani has
replied he would not hand over any of his Kurdish cousins accused of
staging raids into Turkey from northern Iraq. If Bush did nothing about
it, Erdogan said, "we will do our own job", which is what Turkish
generals are really itching for: a search-and-destroy-the-PKK invasion
of Iraqi Kurdistan. In other words: a new Iraq war. Even after the "Mr
Erdogan goes to Wa****ngton" mini-movie, the chances of Turkey "doing
its own job" remain high.
Blame it on Iran
Bush could not offer anything substantial because he would have had to
admit his administration's impotence at securing any of its neo-imperial
possessions' borders; this is what led the PKK to use Iraqi Kurdistan in
the first place to coordinate its attacks in Turkey.
Iran also was not expecting that Bush would deliver anything to Erdogan.
But then there are always the "unknown unknowns" in the bigger picture.
Nobody knows whether Bush and Erdogan have discussed the fine print in a
World War III (according to Bush) or World War IV (according to deranged
neo-cons) scenario, which is being sold by the White House as caused by
Tehran.
Way beyond Turkey's troubles with the PKK, it all comes back to the
stark fact that Turkey simply cannot accept a virtually independent
Iraqi Kurdistan in its southeast border - exactly the outcome sought by
the US-Israeli axis.
Bush and his inner circle have bought time to calculate the odds on whom
to double-cross. Will it be North Atlantic Treaty Orgaization ally
Turkey, with its handy Incirlik base, anti-US public opinion and no
oil; or pro-US Iraqi Kurds, with lots of oil and their Israeli-trained
peshmerga (armed forces)? Tough call. A poker player familiar with Bush
administration methods would bet on a double double-cross, complete
with a "blame it on Iran" sequel and a "bomb Iran" grand finale.
Ankara's logic remain flawless, at least from a "war on terror" angle.
If Wa****ngton invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq to fight "terrorists",
Ankara has the same rights to invade its terrorist-harboring neighbor,
which just happens to be an American neo-colony. The irony is obviously
lost on the Bush administration.
The Turkish leader's visit to Wa****ngton was upstaged by a new coup
perpetrated by that irrepressible US ally running a failed state,
General President Musharraf of Pakistan. But at least the popularly
elected Erdogan is now free to impose economic sanctions on Iraqi
Kurdistan. Flights from Istanbul to Irbil have already been cancelled.
Electricity and food will become scarce. Just the mere threat of
sanctions led the PKK to look for a settlement. Last Friday a PKK
leader, Abdul Rahman al-Chadirchi, had already started asking Turkey
for a peace plan.
Pick your terrorist
At a meeting in Istanbul this past weekend of foreign ministers of all
Iraq's neighbors, plus the permanent members of the UN Security Council
and selected G8 members, it emerged that a solution for the unholy mess
was coming from Iran. Embattled Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had
met with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Baghdad last
Wednesday, and "urged Iran to help defuse the border crisis". Tehran
duly provided Baghdad with intelligence on the PKK, according to Iranian
sources. But Baghdad did nothing - because the Bush administration
blocked its every move.
Why? Simple. Tehran intelligence revealed that the PKK - anticipating a
Turkish military attack - was now trading Iraqi Kurdistan for northwest
Iran. That's what Osman Ocalan, brother of jailed-for-life PKK leader
Abdullah Ocalan, and a founding member of the PKK, told The
Independent's Patrick Cockburn in Irbil.
As Asia Times Online has re****ted, the CIA has armed and financed the
Iranian arm of the PKK, the PJAK, in its attacks against the Iranian
government. Not only does Tehran share the same plight with Ankara, it
would also expect Baghdad's cooperation on the issue. No wonder the Bush
administration - for which the PKK are "terrorists" and PJAK are not -
had to squash the initiative.
But with 15 million Kurds in eastern Turkey, 5 million in Iraqi
Kurdistan, 4 million in northwest Iran and 1 million in Syria, "the
partition of Kurdistan works in our interests", Ocalan said, referring
to PKK's extreme mobility. The Bush administration for its part is not
exactly dispirited by the PKK's ability to "destabilize" Iran or Syria.
Erdogan's priorities, on the other hand, as revealed once again this
Monday in an interview with Claudio Gallo from Italian daily La Stampa,
are admission to the European Union, Turkey's territorial integrity ("if
only Baghdad had the will do dismantle the terrorist bases in the
north") and the Turkish public's feelings about it. So between Bush and
a hard place, he'd rather choose the latter, in the form of a strategic
alliance with both Iran and Syria to combat what Ankara sees as
dangerous Kurdish separatism. Turkey and Iran - commercially and now
politically - are getting closer and closer.
Wa****ngton is more the loser because virtually no one in Turkey is
shedding tears for what happens to their 57-year-old alliance. According
to the June 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project, no less than 83% of
Turkey's public opinion had an "unfavorable view" of the US, ahead of
Egypt and Jordan (both at 78%) and Pakistan (68%). All of these
governments - but not their populations - are US allies. It's fair to
assume these numbers are rising.
Russia for its part cannot but applaud the newfound Turkish-Persian
entente. Non-stop Bush administration heavy handedness is actually fast
erasing historical grievances and paving the way towards a new Eurasian
configuration, with Turkey-Iran getting closer to Russia-China.
Dance, Pandora, dance
Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq opened a Pandora's box that only
now starts to be seen for its true incendiary potential. Turkey
threatening to strike Iraq to protect its national security is a carbon
copy of Bush invading Iraq in 2003. Moreover, "Iraq" is actually no
more; it's been smashed into three virtually independent statelets -
exactly what Israel wanted in the first place.
Israel is so keen on an independent Iraqi Kurdistan because this is the
way towards a new Kirkuk-Haifa oil pipeline (the old one was shut down
in 1948) - which will pass though three American bases and cross
US-friendly Jordan. A complicating factor is that at the same time Tel
Aviv avidly coddles racist, Kurd-hating Turkish generals.
Turkey badly needs oil, as much as Israel. Turkey most of all cannot
stand an independent Iraqi Kurdistan because it is focused on Mosul and
Kirkuk's oil wealth. For any Turk with an Ottoman Empire memory,
Mosul's oil fields, only 120km from the border, should belong to
Turkey; after all they were stolen by the British Empire as it drew the
artificial borders of Iraq in the early 1920s.
Both the treaties of Sevres (1920) and Lausanne (1923) did everything to
exclude Mosul and Kirkuk - both with a Turkman majority - from Turkey,
so the new republic would be deprived of oil. It's not hard to imagine
Turkish generals dreaming of a modern Turkey swimming in oil wealth as a
certified regional superpower, spreading its wings over the Middle East,
the Balkans, the Caucasus and as far as Central Asia. The equation is
inescapable: if Wa****ngton could invade Iraq to grab its oil, why not
neighbor Turkey, who owned the oil in the first place?
Bye bye Wa****ngton
The astute Erdogan knew even before setting foot in Wa****ngton that the
solution to the Turkey-PKK crisis lay in a frank Wa****ngton-Tehran
dialogue.
But for that to happen, he knew Bush and the neo-cons would have to drop
their faithful ally the KRG and their useful destabilizing force, the
PKK/PJAK. And they would also have to abandon the pretence that Iraq is
"stabilized" while at the same time threatening to attack Iran, which
is a regional power not interested in any destabilization.
Unlike scurrilous President General Musharraf in failed state Pakistan,
Erdogan is an elected leader whose public opinion will seriously fault
him for not caring about the national interest. So for the moment he is
"happy" with Bush's sound bite. He'll wait - for just a little while. If
nothing moves, Turkey will strike. Hard. And Wa****ngton won't even get a
phone call.
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=126493
President G|l: It is now soldiers' turn to deal with PKK
Zaman, Nov 7, 2007
President Abdullah G|l emphasized the im****tance of handling the
terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) issue through soldiers, not
through diplomats, from now on, as he was heading to Azerbaijan for an
official three-day visit yesterday.
Speaking to re****ters on board the plane, G|l focused on a recent
meeting between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdopan and US President
George W. Bush at the White House on Monday where Bush promised Erdopan
that the US would share military intelligence in the hunt for PKK
militants, which launch deadly attacks into Turkey from bases in
northern Iraq.
G|l said Turkey had made a decision on how to proceed against the PKK
militants in northern Iraq and had informed the United States of this
decision.
"We have already made our decision on the issue. We have decided that
from now on, the PKK issue should be handled through soldiers not
through diplomats," G|l said, recalling the fact that Turkey has
already exhausted all diplomatic channels.
G|l said part of Erdopan's goal in his trip was to share with the United
States the decision that the country has made on how to deal with the
PKK. "Turkey had made its preparations and had decided what to do on
the issue before the prime minister left," he said.
Indicating that all the options in tackling the PKK still remain on the
table for Turkey, the president did not specify what decision had been
made regarding a military incursion, but made clear that Turkey feels
that the PKK is leading to instability in the region itself.
"Iraq's stability cannot be limited to fighting terrorism in Baghdad or
other regions," he said. "The terrorist organization in the north is
also disrupting Iraq's stability."
He noted that the responsible party for Iraq is the US, which officially
invaded the country, hence as an ally, Turkey not only seeks cooperation
from it in fighting the PKK but is also reminding the US of its
responsibilities.
The president also complained about some publications abroad. "Turks are
readying to invade Iraq," he said, labeling these as attempts to tarnish
Turkey's image. "They want Turkey to retire into itself both abroad and
at home. But we will continue fighting the PKK both at home and abroad.
I want to underline this in particular. Directing our focus only abroad
to deal with the PKK is meaningless."
G|l and a delegation of state officials and businessmen were met by
Azerbaijani Prime Minister Artur Rasizade and Azerbaijani Foreign
Minister Elmar Memmedyarov at the Haydar Aliyev Air****t. Later, they
visited the grave of the former president of Azerbaijan, Haydar Aliyev,
and laid a wreath at the Eternal Flame in Martyrs' Avenue.
G|l's program includes a one-on-one meeting with President ]lham Aliyev,
meetings with Chairman of the Azerbaijani Parliament Oktay Asadov and
Prime Minister Rasizade and a speech before members of Parliament.
*
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Our main website: http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHNHIuiz2i76ou9wQRAstcAJ0Qz9qQlr20kGUHi8MN4SrvIxlt8QCfUGsm
kKOKiuO7vTFUm9KUXLgblrg=
=J87A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
