13
January 2004
2. "Iraq to enshrine Kurdish self-rule", Stunning victory for ethnic minority inspires outrage in Syria, Turkey
3. "U.S. Mustn't Permit Kurds to Split Off from Iraq", Iraq's Kurds, who have been strong and consistent supporters of the U.S.occupation, are now engaged in a fierce dispute over autonomy that could derail efforts to create a sovereign Iraqi government by July's deadline.
4. "Al-Jazeera TV conducted a poll on an independent Kurdish State", On 7-10 January 2004, the Al-Jazeera Arabic Television website conducted a poll amomg Arabs asking whether an independent Kurdish state in Iraq should be established or not.
5. "Turkey’s Kurdish nightmare", Ankara may indeed have transformed its fear into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Today, as Kurds are drawing the borders of their federation in northern Iraq by including the oil-rich Kirkuk province in their territories, Turkey finds itself with no leverage over American policies.
6. "Iraq Partition Will Have Grave Consequences: Prince Turki", Any plan to split Iraq into ethnic Kurdish, Sunni or Shiite territory would have grave consequences for the region, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, Saudi ambassador to Britain, said in Abu Dhabi yesterday.
1. - The Guardian (UK) - "Turkey's pivotal role":
January 12, 2004
Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will have a lot to talk about when he meets George Bush later this month on his first official visit to Washington. Turkey is worried about Iraq and, in particular, the possibility that the Kurdish areas on its border may move towards de facto independence from Baghdad once the US-led coalition relinquishes control on June 30. Security and terrorism will also be high on the agenda, following last autumn's Istanbul bombings; Turkey is to host a Nato summit there in May that Mr Bush is due to attend. Despite its refusal last year to assist in the invasion of Iraq, or to join the occupation force, Ankara will be looking for continued US financial help. Mr Erdogan will also be able to report on his talks this week with Syria's bogeyman president, Bashar Assad.
But there will be another issue on the White House agenda that might be considered more pressing than all the above: Cyprus. The clock is ticking towards the accession of the republic of Cyprus to the EU on May 1. But as matters stand, that accession will take place without the northern, Turkish-controlled third of the island, despite all the best, past efforts of UN, US and British envoys in support of the settlement plan proposed by Kofi Annan. Last month's elections in the north unfortunately did not produce a clear mandate for the pro-settlement parties, even though most resident Turkish Cypriots, like the Greek-Cypriot majority, want an end to a partition whose 30th anniversary approaches.
This is an utterly absurd state of affairs that has dragged on for
far too long. Mr Erdogan knows it; the Greek Cypriot and Greek governments
know it; the EU knows it, too, and has frequently pointed out how
it casts a pall over Turkey's membership hopes. Perhaps the US will
be able to find a way of conveying this to those Turkish generals
whose obstinacy ties Mr Erdogan's hands and who are widely held, along
with Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash, to be the main obstacle.
American assurances on the containment of Kurdish ambitions might
help (although they would hardly please the Kurds). A new Turkish
initiative on Cyprus, incorporating "limited but important"
changes to the Annan plan, was being formulated in Ankara this week
and will likely be discussed in Washington. Even if flawed, it should
be taken up as a basis for reviving dialogue. Greece, despite the
distraction of its coming election, has a clear interest in helping
a reunited Cyprus beat the May 1 deadline. If ever there was a moment
to resolve this superannuated dispute, this is it. 
2. - The Globe and Mail - "Iraq to enshrine Kurdish self-rule":
Stunning victory for ethnic minority inspires outrage in Syria, Turkey
SULAYMANIYAH (IRAQ) / January 12, 2004 / By Orly Halpern
After long negotiations and bitter arguments, Kurds in Iraq have won a historic deal granting them virtual autonomy in a future federal Iraq.
The deal was thrashed out between Kurdish leaders and members of the Iraqi Governing Council, and sets the stage for a division of Iraq on ethnic lines.
U.S. administrator Paul Bremer has made clear he is wary of any ethnic breakup of Iraq, but his suspicion is nothing compared to the outrage the Kurdish victory has caused among the country's neighbours.
Syria and Turkey, bitter enemies on the brink of war only a few years ago, have already held crisis talks, fearing the Iraqi move could fuel the separatist dreams of their own large Kurdish minorities. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is set to meet U.S. President George W. Bush later this month to get assurances that Iraqi Kurdish separatism will be held in check.
Federalism is a sensitive matter for Iraqis, who fear that separations along ethnic and sectarian lines will lead to the country's breakup. One option meant to avoid such divisions was to partition Iraq into its 18 governates. But Kurdish members of the governing council worked tenaciously against this alternative.
Now Iraq's proto-constitution, or Fundamental Law, will decree Iraq a federal state when it comes into effect on March 1. Kurds will continue to have autonomy over the three provinces of Erbil, Dohouk and Sulaymaniyah, where they have effectively ruled themselves since a 1991 uprising against former president Saddam Hussein.
The decision is a relief for Kurds, whose greatest fear with the fall of Mr. Hussein's Baathist regime was that they would have to give up effective self-rule and become part of a centrally governed Iraq.
It also marks a stunning victory for the five Kurdish members of the 25-seat governing council, who refused to give in to calls that such a decision be made after next year's election.
"We have been almost free for 12 years, and now we have given up some of our privileges to join Baghdad," said Razek Aziz, deputy minister of relations and co-operation in Sulaymaniyah. "[But] we will never give up the idea of a federal state," he added.
Kurdish leaders insist their autonomy plans are not complete. They want to annex three more northern Iraqi provinces -- territory that includes the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, which they dream will one day be the capital of a united Kurdistan.
But in Kirkuk, the proposal has already sparked interethnic bloodshed, as Arabs and Turkmen hostile to the idea clashed with Kurds last week. In one major demonstration, eight Turkmen and Arab demonstrators were killed after being fired on by mainly Kurdish police.
Arabs fear for their future in a Kurdish-ruled state. "It's impossible to think of Kirkuk as part of Kurdistan," said Taher Yassin, 36, a third-generation Kirkuk Arab dressed in the traditional Arab tunic and keffiyeh, or head covering.
"If that were to happen, where would I go? Where would my children study?" he said. "I don't speak Kurdish very well."
Kurds argue that Arabs arrived in force in Kirkuk only when Mr. Hussein expelled hundreds of thousands of Kurds after Kurdish and Shiite uprisings in 1991. Many of their former homes, they say, are now occupied by Shia Arabs forcibly relocated from the south.
"Kirkuk should be part of Kurdistan," said Nasser Rashid, 30, a waiter at a local restaurant dressed in baggy Kurdish sharwal pants and balancing typical Kurdish fare on a tray. "The Arabs ruled for 35 years and now it's our turn."
Still, some Kurds are already going beyond federalism. A group of
Kurdish intellectuals is organizing a referendum to ask Iraqi Kurds
whether they want to be part of Iraq or an independent country. "Ask
anyone in Kurdistan," said Sherko Bekas, one of the organizers.
"They all want an independent state."
3.
- Newsday - "U.S. Mustn't Permit Kurds to Split Off from Iraq":
January 12, 2004
Iraq's Kurds, who have been strong and consistent supporters of the U.S.occupation, are now engaged in a fierce dispute over autonomy that could derail efforts to create a sovereign Iraqi government by July's deadline.
Kurdish leaders are demanding to retain the free hand they have enjoyed in governing themselves as an autonomous region - politically and economically, including the management of oil resources - since the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Shia leaders, representing the nation's 60 percent majority, will have none of that and are threatening to boycott the planned transfer of power to an interim government unless the Kurds back down.
The dispute goes beyond the strenuous objections raised in Iraq. It is raising hackles in Turkey and Syria, both of which have significant Kurdish minorities clamoring for the creation of an independent Kurdistan around the potential nucleus provided by the Iraqi Kurds. Indeed, the Kurdish question is at the top of the agenda of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he meets with President George W. Bush later this month.
Bush and the U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, have been handed a ticking political bomb. To defuse this potential crisis they will have to make some adroit moves: The Kurds must be assured they will retain a high degree of autonomy, but only within the sovereign context of a united Iraq. Shia and Sunni Arabs must then be persuaded they, too, can look forward to forging autonomous regions within a federal context - a sovereign central government in Baghdad with limited control of largely self-governing states or regions.
The details, however, will be devilish. The three Kurdish provinces are geographically and ethnically distinct. The rest of the nation, with mixed populations, is not so easily partitioned. A number of Sunni and Shia provinces may have to be combined.
The fear among Iraq's neighbors is that restive Kurds would split
from Iraq, attracting other Kurdish irredentists and destabilizing
the already volatile region. That must not happen. It's up to Bush
and Bremer to see it doesn't.
4. - KurdishMedia - "Al-Jazeera TV conducted a poll on an independent Kurdish State":
13 January 2004 / By Dr Hussein Tahiri
On 7-10 January 2004, the Al-Jazeera Arabic Television website conducted a poll amomg Arabs asking whether an independent Kurdish state in Iraq should be established or not.
There were 77512 votes; 40.3 percent of voters supported the establishment of an independent Kurdish state while 59.7 percent opposed it.
One cannot read much into this kind of opinion polls. It, nevertheless, is significant in that 40.3 percent of Arabic speaking voters in the Middle East supported an independent Kurdish state.
This poll also shows that the Kurds still need to work much harder
to explain their cause to the people of the Middle East. It might
be possible to increase the number to over 50 percent should a good
dialogue with non-Kurds be established.
5. - Daily Times (Pakistan) - "Turkey’s Kurdish nightmare":
By Omer Taspinar / 13 January 2004
Ankara may indeed have transformed its fear into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Today, as Kurds are drawing the borders of their federation in northern Iraq by including the oil-rich Kirkuk province in their territories, Turkey finds itself with no leverage over American policies.
In the run up to the American invasion of Iraq, Turkey did something nobody expected. The Turkish parliament denied American troops access to its soil, effectively blocking the launch of a ‘Northern Front’ against Baghdad.
European countries opposing the war, the Arab world, and most Turks were pleasantly surprised. The decision was heralded as a much-welcomed sign of a democratic coming of age. The reality, however, was far more complex.
Yes, the Turkish public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to a war in Iraq. Ignoring this fact would have been undemocratic but certainly not unprecedented. Turkish politics, after all, is full of examples where public opinion was sidelined by the Kemalist military and political establishment. Turkey’s understanding of secularism is just one example. Making headscarves illegal in the public sphere and the policy of banning political parties with Islamic proclivities are not decisions supported by the Turkish masses. The truth is that Turkish public opinion seldom carries the day when Kemalist principles or national interests are at stake.
This is why Turkey’s refusal to let American soldiers on its soil was more than a mere display of democratic maturity. In fact, the reason Turkey acted the way it did had more to do with the Turkish military’s frustration with American plans to arm Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq. Equally troubling for Ankara was the Kurdish willingness to help Americans, despite being hurt several times in the past by US policies.
Not only the military but most nationalist Turks were suspicious of Kurdish motives. After all, the Iraqi Kurds already had a very good deal in northern Iraq. Prior to the American invasion, Kurds had established a quasi-independent entity in the no-fly zone. Why were they now willing to risk all their gains for a war that would create a normalised Iraqi centre asserting its national authority over the whole country?
Surely, suspicious Turkish generals argued, Iraqi Kurds must have been promised something even better by the Americans. But what exactly? A Kurdish Federation? Maybe even an independent Kurdish state that most pessimists predicted. So the logical conclusion of such thinking was: why support the United States if the result would be a Kurdish federation or an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq?
It is true that Turkish Parliamentarians and not the Turkish army had the last word over cooperation with the Americans. But the Turkish military, an institution that generally does not shy away from guiding or rather warning the executive and legislative branches about strategic foreign policy matters ( i.e. Cyprus) was conspicuously silent prior to the parliamentary vote or March1 ,2003 . This silence was more than enough to encourage Turkish MPs to vote against cooperation with the Americans.
The Turkish military was indeed extremely nervous and confused about what the Americans wanted to achieve in a post-Saddam Iraq. This was not lost on Paul Wolfowitz who indirectly blamed Turkish generals — and not Turkish democracy— for the outcome of the March 1 vote. Wolfowitz’s anger with Turkey’s was understandable: he was the one who repeatedly pointed out that Turkey was behind the United States. In that sense Wolfowitz’s war plans took Turkey and the northern front for granted. This proved to be a grave mistake that could have cost dearly in terms of American lives. In many ways, it was the relatively easy US military victory in southern Iraq that left Wolfowitz and Ankara off the hook.
Now, was there a certain sense of logic in the way Turkey acted? The answer is no. There was simply no logic in indexing relations with the United States on the Kurdish question. Yet for Turkey the fear of seeing an independent Kurdish state in Iraq was so real that it clouded all strategic and rational thinking.
By not supporting the United States in Iraq, Ankara is now realising that it may indeed have transformed its fear into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Today, as Kurds are drawing the borders of their federation in northern Iraq by including the oil-rich Kirkuk province in their territories, Turkey finds itself with no leverage over American policies. The simple fact is that Iraqi Kurds have become the best friends of the United States on the ground. So much for Turkey’s strategic thinking and the Kurdish paranoia.
Omer Taspinar is Co-Director of the US-Turkey Project at the Brookings
Institution in Washington D.C. and Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins
University, School of Advanced International Studies.
6. - Arab News - "Iraq Partition Will Have Grave Consequences: Prince Turki":
JEDDAH / 13 January 2004
Any plan to split Iraq into ethnic Kurdish, Sunni or Shiite territory would have grave consequences for the region, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, Saudi ambassador to Britain, said in Abu Dhabi yesterday.
In a speech on the impact of the “New Iraq” on Gulf states, Prince Turki also warned that the country could degenerate into a regional base for terror.
His comments, carried by Reuters news agency, reflected regional fears the United States will opt for a federal solution for ethnically and religiously fragmented Iraq, which some of Iraq’s neighbors believe could destabilize the Gulf, for example through the rising power of Shiites in southern Iraq or Kurdish autonomy in the north.
“There is a set of dangers facing Gulf countries. The first one is linked to the occupation of Iraq which can lead to many scenarios, the most dangerous of which is the partitioning of Iraq which will have dangerous consequences on all of us.”
“The second (scenario) is that Iraq becomes a den for terrorists, attracting all kinds who see in it an opportunity to practice their inhuman crimes that violate all divine laws,” he said in the UAE capital.
A third possibility is that Iraq remains “an American colony” and base for American forces, run according to US self-interest, he said. The envoy said division of Iraq would achieve a long-time Israeli policy which he said advocated small ethnic and religious cantons in the Arab world unable to threaten the Jewish state’s security.
Iraq’s neighbors have frequently expressed fears that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, who ruled Iraq for more than a quarter of a century, could split Iraq in three — the Kurdish north, the Sunni center and Shiite south.
American plans for an accelerated handover of sovereignty to Iraqis are running into problems over a US pledge of autonomy to Kurds, and Shiite disgruntlement over an American blueprint for an indirectly elected national assembly.
Washington said it would not step in to prevent Iraqis taking potentially
divisive decisions to allow some Kurdish autonomy in the north, a
position that alarms Iraq’s neighbors with Kurdish minorities
such as Syria, Iran and Turkey.