Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Kirkuk, Kurdistan, and the Future of Iraq
An Op-Ed today by Sandra Mackey raises serious issues about the Kurdish intention to incorporate Kirkuk and its extensive oil fields into their new "federal" territory. This is particularly significant in light of a growing Kurdish confidence that they will have a more decisive role in the new Iraq than would have been imagined.
The author points out that in the fifties the Turkmen were the largest ethnic group in Kirkuk while today this position has probably shifted to the Kurds. Their demand that the city and its environs become a part of their sphere is equally resisted by the Turkmen. Behind the demands of the Turkmen is the Turkish state. Turkey has a well-known interest in confining Kurdish territory because of fear that a powerful Kurdistan would re-ignite the demand of the Turkish Kurds, who may make up a fifth of the population of Turkey, for a more independent status. But Mackey also points out that Turkey has never accepted the accession of Kirkuk to the Iraq state, something that was engineered by the British in the 1920s after the Turks felt that their new borders had been established. Thus, they feel they have a right to intervene in Kirkuk that goes beyond the Kurdish issue and their sentimental attachment to folks they feel are like themselves (although whether "Turk" and "Turkmen" are actually the same is unclear to me).
What is particularly problematic for American leaders, military or civilian, is that we have made assurances to the Turks that we will not abandon their interests and allow the Kurds to push forward. Turkey is in NATO and it has stood with us strategically on many issues (although it played hard to get when we wanted to invade Iraq). According to Mackey we have told the Turks we are not going to allow the Kurds to take Kirkuk, and are reinforcing American troops in the area for this very reason. If this is so, then we may find ourselves fighting the only reliable friends we have in Iraq because we have other fish to fry. It will not be a happy ending to our current flirtation with the Kurds and their quite reasonable dreams of at last having a land of their own.
The author points out that in the fifties the Turkmen were the largest ethnic group in Kirkuk while today this position has probably shifted to the Kurds. Their demand that the city and its environs become a part of their sphere is equally resisted by the Turkmen. Behind the demands of the Turkmen is the Turkish state. Turkey has a well-known interest in confining Kurdish territory because of fear that a powerful Kurdistan would re-ignite the demand of the Turkish Kurds, who may make up a fifth of the population of Turkey, for a more independent status. But Mackey also points out that Turkey has never accepted the accession of Kirkuk to the Iraq state, something that was engineered by the British in the 1920s after the Turks felt that their new borders had been established. Thus, they feel they have a right to intervene in Kirkuk that goes beyond the Kurdish issue and their sentimental attachment to folks they feel are like themselves (although whether "Turk" and "Turkmen" are actually the same is unclear to me).
What is particularly problematic for American leaders, military or civilian, is that we have made assurances to the Turks that we will not abandon their interests and allow the Kurds to push forward. Turkey is in NATO and it has stood with us strategically on many issues (although it played hard to get when we wanted to invade Iraq). According to Mackey we have told the Turks we are not going to allow the Kurds to take Kirkuk, and are reinforcing American troops in the area for this very reason. If this is so, then we may find ourselves fighting the only reliable friends we have in Iraq because we have other fish to fry. It will not be a happy ending to our current flirtation with the Kurds and their quite reasonable dreams of at last having a land of their own.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
