9 December 2002

1. "Let's claim our Leadership", KADEK Presidential Council member Murat Karayilan stated that there was not any other practice like the one imposed on KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan, saying "We must claim our Leadership. The Kurdish people must raise its voice with actions."

2. "Erdogan enters Turkey by-election", Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan, banned from being prime minister, plans to stand in a by-election, his AKP party said.

3. "Europe's path for Turkey", by Javier Solana. the writer is high representative of the European Union for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

4. “EU: Turkey's Membership Depends on Cyprus”, Turkey's chances of joining the European Union will improve if the two sides to the Cypriot standoff accept a U.N. plan to reunify the Mediterranean island, the European Parliament president said Sunday.

5. “EU Chief Rejects Date for Turkey Talks”, European Union Leader Rejects Idea of a Timetable for Talks on Turkey's Possible Membership.

6. "The big winner in the EU expansion: Washington", the European Union's coming enlargement to 25 members, including many former Soviet bloc countries now entering NATO, seems sure to increase the United States' overall influence in Europe and within the EU - while putting aside for the time being the idea of an emergent Germany leading the continent from Berlin.

7. "Turkey has special place in US plans", Turkey has long occupied a very special place in the hearts and minds of the 'Attack Iraq' crowd that remains the dominant voice in the administration of President George W. Bush.

8. "To Build Coalition, U.S. Legislators Tour Iraq's Kurdish Region", a delegation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee toured Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq today and pledged American support as part of the coalition being assembled against Saddam Hussein.

1. - Kurdish Observer - "Let's claim our Leadership":

KADEK Presidential Council member Murat Karayilan stated that there was not any other practice like the one imposed on KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan, saying "We must claim our Leadership. The Kurdish people must raise its voice with actions."

MHA/FRANKFURT / 8 December 2002

Participated by telephone in "Rews" program moderated by Resat Akgul on Medya TV, Murat Karayilan asked for the Turkish state to abandon its unlawful policies on KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan immediately. Karayilan drew attention that the Turkish state attempted to make the Kurdish people inactive. The council member stressed that the Kurdish people must raise its voice against the policies on their leader as well as the other matters.

A new concept is developed

"We are an organized people and must organize ourselves more and struggle against the policies of decay with legitimate actions. We must claim ourselves and our Leadership with actions. And the new government must be aware of them. The state attempts to carry out the new concept through AKP. And AKP gives green light. This will bring new dangers with itself. A new and historical process is on the way as far as the Kurdish struggle is concerned" said Karayilan.

The concept is implemented by the state

Calling attention that the international conspiracy was still imposed on the Kurdish people, Karayilan added the following: "They attempt to bury the main problem, prolong it and make the people inactive on the matter. The concept is implemented by the state deliberately."

"Our Leadership needs urgent actions"

Murat Karayilan continued with words to the effect: "The policy of decay is imposed on Abdullah Ocalan as well as other prisoners in F-Type Prisons. The approaches to our Leadership are a barometer of the Kurdish people. Every adverse approach to him is also the one to our people and our struggle. There is no any other practice like that in the world. It is entirely a political approach and is developed in parallel to the concept. They want to strangle our people with it. Our people must be sensitive and claim the struggle. They disregard the honor of the Kurdish people by way of the tricks played on our President. We want to warn them on the matter. Such policies do not secure peace, on the contrary they will cause violence and confusion. We are willing to give them time. But what is urgent is to improve the conditions of our Leadership."

"We warn USA"

Karayilan stated that the statue of Turkey was attempted to be raised together with the operation on Iraq. Stressing that there were secret agreements and secret policies to be implied for the operation, Karayilan said the following: "We warn the state and the government as well as USA. USA wants to get agreements signed for the operation. It should be well known that the Kurdish people will not be deceived anymore. Nobody can talk of stability in a part of Kurdistan where the Kurdish question is not solved."

"Their program cannot be a solution"

Pointing out that a new process had begun with the November 3 elections, Karayilan drew attention to the following matters: "Turkey has a number of grave problems. The economical crisis is not the only matter. There are gangs, burned villages, murders by unknown perpetrators and the like. The government do not express any of them. The basic problem is the lack of a solution to the Kurdish question. As long as it is not solved, it is not possible to solve the others."

"There is no evident step"

The council member stated that AKP Leader Tayyip Erdogan was against the Iraq war but could show it only by taking steps, adding that the policies on the Kurdish people should be abandoned.

He continued with words to the effect: "They consider reconciliation with all sectors of the society the main thing. There are gangs and the government is willing to reconcile with them. If they approach to the problems like this, then democracy and human rights cannot be defended. It means a renunciation of them. They say democracy but in fact there is no evident step towards it."

2. - CNN - "Erdogan enters Turkey by-election":

ANKARA / 9 December 2002

Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan, banned from being prime minister, plans to stand in a by-election, his AKP party said.

Erdogan was banned from standing in the November 3 general election, which his party overwhelmingly won, because of a conviction for inciting religious hatred by reciting a poem.

He plans to run in the by-election early in 2003, that could open the way to making him the next prime minister, Justice and Development Party (AKP) said on Monday.

"Erdogan will be a candidate for Siirt," the AKP said on its web site, Reuters reported.

Voting irregularities led to the cancellation of ballots in the southeast constituency of Siirt, prompting a by-election, probably in early February.

Siirt elected three MPs to parliament on November 3, one from the AKP, one independent and one from the main opposition Republican People's Party.

The AKP has enough parliamentary seats to push through legal changes that will end Erdogan's ban from public office.

Erdogan has denied allegations by Turkey's armed forces and judiciary of having a radical Islamist agenda. He said he has turned AKP into a moderate conservative party.

Abdullah Gul, a close colleague of Erdogan, is prime minister but was widely expected to step down should his party leader enter parliament, Reuters reported.

Erdogan's bid for election has been supported by opposition leader Deniz Baykal.

3. – The International Herald Tribune - "Europe's path for Turkey":

BRUSSELS / 7 December 2002 / Javier Solana*

Turkey is a subject of intense discussion in Europe today. The reasons are obvious - the change in the political landscape in Ankara and the expectations this has generated; the historic opportunity for a solution to the Cyprus issue offered by Kofi Annan; and the decisions to be made this month by the European Council at Copenhagen on the next steps in the EU enlargement process.

This debate contradicts those who say that Europe is impersonal, beyond the reach and influence of its citizens.

The debate is an important one. But we must be careful to avoid misunderstandings and pointless controversies.

Turkey has already booked its place in Europe. In December 1999 the European Council recognized Turkey's full candidate status. This was unanimously agreed upon by the 15 EU heads of state and government.

No one challenged that decision. No one can challenge it today on the grounds of geography. To do so would endanger the enlargement process and the principle of inclusiveness which has sustained it.

What is at stake here is the very principle which lies at the origin of the European Union, a conviction close to the heart of Europeans, including those about to join the EU. It must continue to determine our future.

If Turkey wishes to assume its place in Europe, then, like all other candidate countries before it, Turkey itself must chart the course that gets it there. Only Turkey can answer two crucial questions: Can it take the road to Europe? And does it wish to do so?

To answer the first question, Turkey must meet the criteria required for the initial stage of accession negotiations. The Ankara government admits that this is not yet the case. This is already clear in the decision it has made to place a new legislative package before Parliament, following the highly encouraging measures already adopted last summer. These new reforms underline Turkey's determination to succeed.

Will it be enough to make up the necessary ground and satisfy the criteria defined for the other candidate countries in Copenhagen back in 1993? Will these essential reforms be adopted and put into effect before the next European Council meeting? This is something we shall be discussing on Dec. 12. Between now and then it is for Turkey to act.

Does Turkey wish to take its place in Europe? Only Turkey can answer that question. The Cyprus settlement plan proposed by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, on Nov. 11 offers Turkey an opportunity to write a new chapter in the history of an island that has for too long been divided.

During my recent visit to Ankara, some argued that it was dangerous to try to resolve a 40-year problem in only four weeks. They are mistaken. Annan's plan is not a piece of opportunism linked to the Copenhagen deadline. It is the courageous and ambitious culmination of years of international efforts and shuttle diplomacy.

Both parties in Cyprus must agree to the plan and see to its implementation. Who could possibly prefer that a divided, rather than a united, island join the European Union? The inhabitants of Cyprus? Of Turkey? I don't believe so.

The future of Europe is intrinsically linked to that of its defense. If Turkey wishes to take its place in Europe, then it must also play its part in the European defense project. If Turkey understands and accepts this, it will wish to contribute toward the definition of permanent military arrangements between NATO and the EU.

The place is waiting. The route toward it is clear, including the Kofi Annan plan. The time has come to match words with actions. At Copenhagen, Turkey has an opportunity to answer the questions which are asked of it.

I believe that together, Turkey, the EU and our partners can play our part in bringing this journey to a close and in seeing Turkey take its place in Europe.

*The writer is high representative of the European Union for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

4. - The Guardian – “EU: Turkey's Membership Depends on Cyprus”:

NICOSIA / 9 December 2002

Turkey's chances of joining the European Union will improve if the two sides to the Cypriot standoff accept a U.N. plan to reunify the Mediterranean island, the European Parliament president said Sunday.

Pat Cox, the parliament's president, told reporters Sunday during his two-day visit to Cyprus that he believed there would be a ``new dynamic to European Union-Turkey relations'' if both Cypriot sides accepted the U.N. blueprint.

The United Nations wants the leaders of both Cypriot camps to accept a detailed plan for reunification before Thursday's opening of the European Union summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The summit is expected to formally invite Cyprus to join the EU and to give Turkey a starting date for its own accession negotiations.

Cyprus has been split into a Greek Cypriot-controlled south and a Turkish-occupied north since Turkey invaded in 1974 after an abortive coup by supporters of union with Greece.

U.N. envoy Alvaro de Soto embarked on an urgent new round of talks with rival Cypriot leaders Sunday to persuade them to accept the U.N. reunification plan.

President Glafcos Clerides, the Greek Cypriot leader, and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash, both accept the plan as a basis for negotiations. They say there is not enough time before the summit to negotiate and change different provisions of the plan they consider unacceptable.

``Right now we must push for the very best solution between the island and its neighbors and between its neighbors and the European Union,'' Cox said.

5. - The Associated Press – “EU Chief Rejects Date for Turkey Talks”:

European Union Leader Rejects Idea of a Timetable for Talks on Turkey's Possible Membership

FRANKFURT / 8 December 2002

The Danish prime minister, whose country holds the rotating European Union presidency, rejected the idea of a schedule for Turkey to start membership talks with the EU, saying Ankara must be treated like other candidate nations.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in an interview to be published Sunday, told the German weekly Welt am Sonntag that Turkey must fulfill all political criteria and have a timetable for meeting those criteria before the EU can consider talks on accession. Earlier this week, EU members France and Germany said they planned to use next week's summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, to propose a schedule for Turkey that would allow membership talks to begin in July 2005.

Rasmussen flatly rejected that idea, telling Welt am Sonntag, "No date will be given in Copenhagen." The German and French proposal also was criticized by Turkish leaders, who said 2005 was too far away for a nation that has demonstrated a strong desire to join the EU. Turkey long has been a key member of NATO because of its strategic location near the Middle East and the former Soviet Union.

But Turkey's efforts to join the EU have lagged, partly because of concerns about its human rights record. Some European leaders have angered Turkish officials by portraying the EU as a club of Christian nations ill-suited to integrating a secular Muslim country.

The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid, but many EU governments want Turkey to carry out further democratic reforms. To meet EU norms, Turkey in August granted language rights to minorities and abolished the death penalty.

In February, after a severe financial crisis, Turkey embarked on economic reforms backed by a massive International Monetary Fund aid package.

6. - The International Herald Tribune - "The big winner in the EU expansion: Washington":

PARIS / 9 December 2002 / by John Vinocur

The European Union's coming enlargement to 25 members, including many former Soviet bloc countries now entering NATO, seems sure to increase the United States' overall influence in Europe and within the EU - while putting aside for the time being the idea of an emergent Germany leading the continent from Berlin.

The entry of these essentially pro-American countries of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU, according to a German official, also signifies the end of any attempts within the EU to define itself and its evolving foreign and security policy as aligned against the United States.

"You can no longer muster a majority for that," said Karsten Voight, the German Foreign Ministry's coordinator for German-American relations.

These orientations, previously a subject of wary articulation in public, are now being openly acknowledged by EU policymakers as they prepare for a summit meeting in Copenhagen on Thursday and Friday that will open the community further eastward and address Turkey's possible membership.

For policymakers in several European countries, the new members-to-be from the old Soviet world, after a decade's transition from subjugation, remain existentially concerned with maintaining their national independence and identity. This means that the new EU members continue to see the United States, rather than any European neighbor or the EU itself, as the principal guarantor of their young democracies, and the essential political reference point in creating a future that is secure and prosperous.

As far as the controversial candidacy of Turkey goes, the United States, at virtually no cost and at high profit in its relations with Ankara, has been the single, unequivocal backer of its entry into the EU for decades. Until recently, much of Europe appeared to be satisfied with making long-term assurances to Turkey on eventual membership that some EU leaders clearly hoped they would never have to fulfill.

With Turkey's future in the EU still vague, the increase in American influence in the EU is channeled through the former Soviet satellites.

"What they want to join is the euro-Atlantic community," said Denis MacShane, Britain's minister for Europe, using a phrase heard with frequency these days that reflects the newcomers' mindset blending the EU and NATO increasingly together. "They want the Atlantic to be the same width as the Oder or Dneipr rivers."

Although the United States through James Baker 3d, when he was secretary of state, specifically talked as the Berlin Wall came down of forging a more "organic" relationship with the EU - perhaps with less conviction than opportunism - it has obviously no interest now in speaking officially about a development that is to its advantage, but enormously sensitive in relation to European self-esteem.

President Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland caught that note recently in insisting, "To say that we're a Trojan horse of the United States" in the EU "is unjust." But he also asserted that "there would be no Europe without American democracy," and that the EU's stringent conditions for entry meant risking "what there is left of enthusiasm" for joining the organization.

German leaders were reported struck by the bluntly pro-American tone of a recent initiative of the so-called Vilnius Group, 10 former Soviet bloc countries, presenting themselves as part of a potential coalition committed with the United States to the disarming of Iraq.

A declaration by the group, virtually all EU candidates, coinciding with the NATO summit meeting in Prague in November, showed them to be ahead in terms of support for the Americans than many of the EU's senior member states. In describing their ultimate goals in being participants in both the EU and NATO, the countries spoke of their commitment to peace and stability throughout the "euro-Atlantic community."

All the same, America's increased insertion in the process of European unification is not what history might have expected.

In the early 1990s, following Germany's reunification and the fall of the Soviet Union, it was widely assumed that Germany would be the dominant beneficiary of Europe's opening to the East. Besides the economic advantages of Berlin's proximity, it was often thought that Germany would provide political leadership for the countries of the old Soviet orbit and in the process emerge as the essential political force, East and West, in all of Europe.

As discussions about shifts in Europe's political center of gravity to Berlin became commonplace, countries like France or the Netherlands guardedly expressed concern about German predominance in a reorganized and revitalized Europe.

But reality worked in other ways. In Germany, the last decade has been one of economic stagnation, with a vast drain of resources going toward absorbing the debris of East German Communist rule. In the process, the old West German type of high-cost, low-risk capitalism virtually disappeared as a model for development.

While the German economy has remained predominant in commerce with Eastern Europe, its power diminished overall in European and international terms. At the same time, neither Germany's political reach nor Germany's comfort in acting as an initiator or defender of democracy palpably increased.

In the end, Germany was seen less as a prime mover in opening up NATO membership to the former satellite states, than as a hard, largely self-interested bargainer laying down tough economic and social conditions for the individual applicants' entry into the EU. In the process, what 10 years ago was once the notion of Eastern Europe (or Turkey) lining up in grateful allegiance behind Germany on a unified Continent, disintegrated.

Voigt, the Social Democrat who serves as the German Foreign Ministry's coordinator for American relations, put the situation this way: "The Germans are needed, but they have to think more generally. There is a problem, and it involves the view of a Germany acting provincially.".

More important, with the addition of the former Soviet bloc countries to the EU, Voigt said: "Any concept attempting to define the EU as an organization that is basically against the United States is no longer able to muster a majority. That temptation is finished. As an enlarged Europe comes into being and defines itself, that view of (an antagonistic) Europe, or that American analysis of what the EU means, is overtaken."

This interpretation or perception appears to have reached some of France's most sophisticated European planners, a number of whom have been the most prone to regard an expanded EU as creating a global force to counter-balance for the United States.

Jacques Delors, the former president of the European Commission, now talks, for example, of a Europe whose ambition is to be "influential." This contrasts with the French notion of "Europe puissance" - or roughly, Europe as a competitor for world political power - that has had extensive appeal in Paris.

But interpretations of the significance of the growth of American influence through the enlargement processes, and at a time the EU is trying a more unified foreign policy and security approach, is not characterized only as one of advantage to the United States.

Poland, for example, has been describing itself as a bridge to understanding between the United States and Europe.

Friedbert Pflueger, the foreign policy spokesman of the Christian Democrat grouping in the German Bundestag, said flatly that the "influence of the United States will be fostered by the Central and East European countries which look more to the U.S. than to Europe."

But he analyzed the circumstances as essentially positive ones, especially in a situation where opinion polls and politicians in Europe, as well as the substantially higher economic growth rates projected for the United States than for the EU in 2003, have recently emphasized their conflicts and differences.

"This double enlargement by Central and East European countries," Pflueger said, "is a great chance. The idea that these new countries could serve as a bridge has real importance to both sides of the Atlantic, which are growing apart."

7. - The DAWN - "Turkey has special place in US plans":

WASHINGTON / 9 December 2002 / by Jim Lobe

Turkey has long occupied a very special place in the hearts and minds of the 'Attack Iraq' crowd that remains the dominant voice in the administration of President George W. Bush.

First, it is the only predominantly Muslim member in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Second, its generals have cultivated a military alliance with Israel against hostile Arab states, one that was heavily promoted by the Jewish neo-conservatives who dominate the top ranks of the political appointees around Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the administration's leading hardliners.

In fact, the chairman of Rumsfeld's Defence Policy Board, Richard Perle, and his undersecretary for policy, Douglas Feith, have worked as paid lobbyists for Turkey and have also advised the Likud Party, proposing five years ago the creation of an Israel- Turkey-Jordan axis that would permanently alter the balance of power in the Middle East.

Third, Turkey occupies an especially valuable piece of real estate for anyone contemplating an invasion of Iraq. While the main thrust of any US ground attack will almost certainly be launched from Kuwait, the advantages of a second front in the north are deeply compelling to US military planners.

Fourth, and by no means last, the fact that Turkey holds regular elections and enjoys at least the formal institutions of a democratic state makes it particularly attractive at a moment when the United States is trying to persuade the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East, that it should be seen as a liberator, not as an invader of a benighted Arab nation.

In this view, long espoused by the neo-cons, Turkey "can be an example for the Muslim world" as the most hawkish of the Pentagon neo-cons, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, said last March in one of the administration's first public utterances of its oft-repeated mantra that invading Iraq could transform the entire region by bringing democracy to Arab states long denied it.

During his visit to Ankara last week, precisely to persuade the new government of Prime Minister Abdullah Gul to permit tens of thousands of US troops to use Turkish territory as a launching pad into Iraq, Wolfowitz was effusive in his praise of Turkish democracy.

He even invited the powerful chairman of the ruling Justice and Development Party, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to meet Bush at the White House, despite the fact that Erdogan, a devout Muslim whose party swept out the traditional secular parties in elections last month, is barred from holding public office for violating the country's long-standing secularist constitution.

As a message to Arab states and others who doubt Washington's altruistic intentions, Erdogan's appearance at the White House should speak very loudly to those who fear that Washington's confrontation with Iraq and its "war on terrorism" is stoking a "clash of civilizations", say US officials.

"Our receptivity to the outcome of last month's election in Turkey clearly demonstrates this point," said Richard Haass, director of the State Department's Policy Planning staff, in a major address on US support for "Democracy in the Muslim World".

Haass quoted approvingly from Gul's remarks on taking office last month that his party wanted to prove that a Muslim identity can be democratic, transparent and compatible with the modern world.

"Americans are confident that the Turkish people can prove all this and we want to help them make it so," said Haass, who stressed that democracy went beyond elections in requiring adherence to the rule of law, checks and balances "such that no one voice dominates unquestioned," and "competition between legislative and executive branches", among other key attributes.

In this context, some analysts were surprised to read The Washington Post's account of the Wolfowitz trip to Ankara, published within hours of Haass' address.

Turkey's 20-year-old constitution requires the nation's parliament to approve the deployment of foreign troops on Turkish soil, according to the Post. "But a Western diplomat noted that most of the US requests likely will be decided by Turkey's National Security Council, which includes the military's politically powerful general staff, along with senior elected officials."

Moreover, when Turkey's Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis, citing domestic "public opinion", suggested that US troops could operate from Turkish territory only if the United Nations Security Council authorised military action in a new resolution, the same "Western diplomat" told the Post that the foreign minister had gotten it wrong.

"He was trying to straddle a position and he just went too far," the not-so-mysterious source told the Post's reporters, who travelled with Wolfowitz from Washington. "He was trying to bridge this public position that action in Iraq must await a second UN resolution, and the position of many others in the government that ... it is in the Turkish national interest to line up."

Lest there be any doubt about who these "many others in the government" may be, the Post gave a hint when it quoted "one senior general" as dismissing Yakis' statements as "personal opinion".

"Turkish support is assured," said Wolfowitz on the record, after meetings with top Turkish officials, including senior generals.

While that may be true for senior generals, it almost certainly did not apply to the Turkish general public, according to the results of major surveys that were released here after Wolfowitz's visit by the Washington-based Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

According to one poll taken in Turkey just last month, 83 per cent of Turks oppose allowing US forces to use bases in their country to wage war in Iraq. Moreover, a solid majority rejected the notion that Washington's motivations in waging war were for anyone's benefit but its own.

Indeed, less than one in three of more than 1,000 Turkish respondents said they approved of Washington's "war on terror", compared with better than two-thirds approval in all five NATO member-countries surveyed. Three in four Turks agreed with the statement that the United States fails to consider the interests of other countries in conducting its foreign policy.

The survey found that only 30 per cent of Turks had a favourable image of the United States, a whopping 22 per cent drop from the same survey two years ago, and the fourth lowest of the 44 countries surveyed, after Egypt, Pakistan and Jordan.

The poll results for Turkey, observed former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, helped illustrate the gap in "what we're asking countries to do in terms of (their) leadership versus what people want us to do".

"The essence of what we believe in - we in the United States - is that people should be free to determine their own future," Wolfowitz told a group of Turkish reporters last July. "Turkey is proof that democracy can work for Muslims."

8. - The New York Times - "To Build Coalition, U.S. Legislators Tour Iraq's Kurdish Region":

ERBIL / 7 December 2002 / by C.J. Chivers

A delegation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee toured Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq today and pledged American support as part of the coalition being assembled against Saddam Hussein.

It was a bit of high-level American engagement on Iraqi soil, and Kurds appeared pleased with what they heard. Borrowing from a local saying that Kurds have no friends but the mountains, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware and the committee's chairman, told a special session of the Kurdish parliament that "the mountains are not your only friends."

The remark was seen as an unmistakable signal of American support, and Senator Biden received a round of grateful applause. Since Mr. Hussein's Baath Party took power in 1968, Iraq's Kurds have endured forced expulsions, mass executions and poison gas attacks. Residing in a dangerous and isolated pocket of the Middle East, they make no secret of their need for friends.

With the possibility of war looming, the Senate delegation is on a weeklong trip visiting leaders in northern Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel and the Palestinian territories. They will also meet with Gen. Tommy R. Franks of the United States Central Command, which is conducting an exercise in Qatar.

Northern Iraq, with its overwhelming Kurdish population, is a vital area in the event of war, a possible staging ground for American troops and sanctuary for Iraqi refugees. But for Kurds, thoughts of removing Mr. Hussein summon a mix of joy and unease.

Since 1991, when the United States and Britain began enforcing a no-flight zone over much of the Kurdish region, Kurds have created a lively autonomous zone in an area outside Mr. Hussein's control. Iraqi Kurdistan, as the region calls itself, has such instruments of democracy as elections and a free press, and such signs of modernism as cellular phone networks and Internet cafes.

Should Mr. Hussein be removed from power, in all likelihood Kurds would rejoin Iraq, and be reshuffled into a government in which they would be a minority. They worry that much of their gains could be lost. They also worry that if Mr. Hussein senses he is cornered, they would be vulnerable to chemical or biological attacks.

Aware of those misgivings, Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, reassured the parliament that the Kurdish experience could be a model for greater Iraq. "America is your friend and partner in this exercise," he said.

Speaking from a city just a few hours drive from Baghdad, he also delivered a strong message to Mr. Hussein. "Saddam's regime must be accountable for the crimes against humanity, and the crimes against Iraq's Kurds, that it has committed during his brutal reign," he said.

In addition to addressing the legislators, the senators toured a refugee camp, met with aid organizations, and with widows of the village of Barzan, where Iraqi troops seized thousands of boys and men in 1983.

Gurbut Muhammad Ahmed, whose husband is among the vanished, pressed close to the senators and described the day the men were rounded up. Mr. Hussein's troops took all the boys 10 or older, and the elderly and handicapped as well. Almost 20 years have passed, without a word of their fates.

"We want to be told whether they are alive or dead," Ms. Ahmed pleaded.

While the message of American support was strong, it was not unconditional, and had its limits. The senators repeatedly turned away questions about whether Kurds might be enlisted to fight alongside American troops, or about providing logistical support or chemical weapons defense for Kurdish fighters and civilians. "We're not hear to broker war-plan arrangements for the Kurds," Senator Hagel said.

Moreover, although the senators encouraged Kurds to expect to be part of a central government in Iraq, they also made clear, in a private session, that American support depended in part on Kurdish behavior.

One American official who attended a closed dinner between the senators and senior Kurdish leaders said Senator Biden emphasized what was expected of the Kurds: that they would participate in a united Iraq, for all ethnicities and parties, and that the two primary Kurdish parties - the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party - resist falling back into the civil war they fought in the mid-1990's.

He also told them, the official said, that "Kurds have to be committed to understanding the concerns of their neighbors" - a reference to Turkey.

Turkey, an essential American ally in any significant military action, has told Washington that it worries about Kurdish ambitions in Iraq spreading to its own restive Kurdish minority. Kurds and Turks have also been sparring over the future of Kirkuk, an oil-rich city just south of the current Kurdish zone to which both Kurds and Turks stake claims.

Senator Biden's concern about Kurdish solidarity was evident as he departed, when he told Barham Salih, prime minister of the portion of Kurdistan controlled by the Patriotic Union, and Nechervan Barzani, prime minister of the Kurdish Democratic Party portion: "Just stay together. Stay together. We need you."

The United States has behaved inconsistently toward the Kurds in the past, encouraging their troops to action in 1975 and 1991, only to withdraw support. The Baath party routed the Kurds each time.

Mr. Barzani, who admitted that some past experiences with Americans have been bitter, said this time he sensed a difference. "Now the interests of us, and the United States' interests, are closer together," he said.