Wednesday, May 03, 2006


"God defend me from my friends; from my enemies I can defend myself." ~ Anonymous.

One of the most accurate assessments of the current situation in Kurdistan seems to be coming from Russia. There is no doubt that Russia is a regional player and has been heavily involved with the Middle East lately, particularly with Turkey and Iran, as well as the rest of the Arab/Muslim world. During the Cold War, Russia cultivated relationships in this part of the world, and they seem to be at work to renew those relationships. As a result, it should be no surprise that the Russians are carefully watching the military moves of Turkey and Iran. Add to all that the energy resources of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and there is something to sweeten the pot.

A Regnum News Agency article accurately relates the build up of recent events, seen in the light of Condoleeza Rice's recent trip to the region at the end of April, a trip that coincided, coincidentally, at the same time that Turkey and Iran began to mass their security forces up to, and into, South Kurdistan.

We are reminded of the flurry of activity between Washington and Ankara back in December, 2005, when the CIA, FBI, and ATC met with a number of officials of the Ankara regime. The Ankara visits were reciprocated, also in December, 2005, by Yasar Buyukanit's 6-day visit to Washington, as a guest of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Buyukanit is scheduled to become chief of the Turkish General Staff this August, which means that he will become the de facto ruler of Turkey. Throughout the winter, officials from both governments continued to visit and meet, and this activity, all in preparation for Rice's visit, was capped by the March, 2006, visit of General Peter Pace to Ankara, to meet with the current chief of the Turkish General Staff, Hilmi Ozkok. In all of these meetings, the same themes were discussed: PKK, Iraq, and Iran.

The result? A new relationship defined by something called a Common Strategic Vision, in which, as Rice said in Ankara, "Turkey is the US' key partner":

The brief few-page Common Strategic Vision will consist of three main chapters: (1) fight with terrorism, (2) relations with the EU, (3) Big Middle East project and addenda concerning Cyprus, PKK, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process and relations with Russia. To date, the US has a similar document only with India.

The Turkish public, steeped as it is in anti-Americanism, was properly groomed to accept Rice's visit by massive propaganda efforts by the Turkish media. This is the same media that was grooming the same public for violence during Newroz, a grooming that should have also served to propagandize Washington about the grave threat of the PKK (i.e. the Kurds). Unfortunately for the pashas, Kurds did not respond according to propaganda. This resulted in the need to provoke the Kurds in a much more visceral way, which Turkish security forces did by firing on Kurds who had attended funerals of four PKK gerîlas in Amed, at the end of March. This provocation, and the propaganda campaign that followed, paved the way for Rice's visit and helped to secure US approval of the use of Turkish military force against Kurds:

. . . Rice did not give a specific yes to Turkey’s request to stifle PKK’s positions in Northern Iraq or to let it do it itself. At the same time, she hinted that the US may close its eyes on this, i.e. on a forthcoming Turkish military operation in Northern Iraq. It’s noteworthy that Turkey launched this operation while Rice was still in its territory. So, we can say that the US has, in fact, given a sanction to it.

[ . . . ]

Yet one more interesting point of fact is that Turkey had launched its all-time big anti-Kurdish military campaign exactly by the time of Rice’s Ankara visit. Fearing Europe’s anger, Turkey had, thereby, tried to “legitimize” its action. Turkey’s goal is to curb the activity of Kurds in its south-eastern regions, to provoke them into counter-action and, with US acquiescence, to track the fighters down to Northern Iraq and to put an end to them there. This is, in fact, a repetition of campaigns it used to hold in Saddam times.

According to the article at Regnum, this renewed military cooperation between the US and Turkey may also mean that the US has bought Ankara's arguments about Kerkuk, thereby effectively handing over this Kurdish city to future Turkish control. At the same time that Turkish and Iranian security forces began attacking Kurds, Ankara's current proxies, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, began moving into Kerkuk. This arrangement was most likely made by al-Ja'afari during his trip to Ankara in February, 2006. In al-Ja'afari's entourage, Kurds were conspicuous by their absence. This might also explain the coincidental formation of an Iraqi Turkmen group in Kerkuk last month, whose goal is an autonomous Turkmen region in Iraq. Since the US has returned to its pattern of betrayal, has it approved Turkey to secure an autonomous Turkmen region in Kerkuk?

The speculation is that the US is using the Kurds, dangling independence before them, but always just out of reach, in an attempt to guarantee Kurdish cooperation with Washington's plans, especially regarding Iran. If this is the game, the Kurds should cease all cooperation with the US, particularly since it has approved the bombing of Kurds. There should also be no cooperation with the US as regards its plans for Iran, especially if those plans will call for the use of indigenous gerîla or insurgent forces. Already, the Kurds in PJAK have been fighting the mullah regime, but the US has also given approval, most likely through Turkey, for Iran to cross the Iraqi border and bomb Kurds. Is it any coincidence that the Turkish Transport Minister managed to arrive back from Iran in time to meet with Erdogan, after his MGK meeting on 27 April?

Since the US approves of the attacks on the only Kurdish "insurgents" who have been attacking the mullah regime, how does the US think it will use Kurds to "break stability in Iran through local Kurds?"

For more information on PJAK, including how some in the US have already tried to use PJAK for their own interests, see the Middle East Foundation blog. Keep in mind that, like the PKK, PJAK has never targeted Americans, unlike the MEK, to whom it is compared by certain ignoramuses (i.e. US congressmen and the author of that blog entry) at that link. Check the links in that blog article, too. An interesting read can be found at a Caucaz article, from August, 2005, on PJAK. Last August, during the serhildan in Rojhelat, it was PJAK who actively engaged Teheran's dirty security forces. Everyone else stood around and watched.

In the meantime, the KRG announces that it's waiting to issue a statement on Iran's bombing, a bombing which, so far, has resulted in the death of one civilian Kurd. Instead of sending pêşmerge to defend Kurdish lives and property against an aggressor who has committed an act of war, why is the KRG still unable to decide what position to take? Does it need Rice's approval?

There is one other interesting item of note from the Regnum article:

Turkey’s key argument is the fear of its generals that a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran may break the balance of forces between Ankara and Tehran.

Pakistan is in the nuclear club. Iran claims to be in the nuclear club. Turkey has recently begun propagandizing its desire for "nuclear energy." Isn't that the excuse Iran uses? The truth is expressed in the fear of the pashas, and it should be seriously suspected at this point, that the pashas want nuclear parity with the neighbors. They will use the US to keep Iran off balance until they have at least achieved the same level of nuclear capacity that Iran claims to have. They are not interested in nuclear energy. They want a bomb.

Turkish propaganda for this, the most recent betrayal of Kurds by the US, has already hit the American media. The Turkish propagandist, Tulin Daloglu, was last heard from during the flurry of Washington/Ankara visits last December. Lo and behold, she turns up again, at The Washington Times to propagandize Rice's recent visit. This piece of propaganda is in the critical mode, telling us how the US hasn't done enough to help Turkey battle "terrorists." She is trying to appeal to American fears of terrorists (i.e. Kurds). Notice too, how she lies by ommission regarding joint Turkish/Iranian miltary operations against PKK. She speaks of such theoretical operations using the conditional mood, "The Turkish military should launch an operation in Iran, in conjunction with Iranian forces, against the PKK." Now I am scratching my head and wondering why she thinks that Turkey should launch an operation in Iran against PKK when it has already launched an operation in Iraq against PKK. But she doesn't mention anything about that, does she?

With the exception of Syria, Iran's boy who has enough troubles of its own, she lies again, saying: "Even in the absence of a common military operation with Iran and Syria against the PKK . . ." The reality is that there is already a common military operation between Turkey and Iran, in Dohuk Governorate, Hewler Governorate and in Kerkuk.

Her last line gives away Turkey's objective:

Iranian cooperation with Turkey, a NATO country, against a terrorist organization recognized by both the United States and the EU could open an unprecedented dialogue.

Go on, suckers! Fall for it!

Please note: The use of democratic means of protest are forbidden in Amed. The best way to prevent such legitimate political expressions is to arrest the organizers.


Anonymous said...

Dest xwesh. Your article touches on everything and reveals the truth as always. Job well done.

KN said...

Mizgîn, take a look at this article from Turkish Daily News. While America still sees Turkey as a vital ally (I haven’t a clue as to why that is). It is still supporting its friends in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

Mizgîn said...

Gelek sipas, hevalê min anonymous! Bijît!

KN, look, does the US really have "friends" in "Iraq?" This is politics and there are no friends in politics, only allies. If the US, Turkey, Iran, Iraq work only for their own interests, then Kurds should do the same. We all know that the US did not liberate "Iraq" so that Kurds could be free; they did it for their own interests. It just also happened to coincide with South Kurdistan's interests.

Turkey, which is so hypersensitive about its own "territorial integrity," is perfectly happy to violate everyone else's "territorial integrity" to secure its interests. Remember North Cyprus? All of this BS about PKK or "terrorists" is just that--BS. Otherwise, why deploy anywhere from 250,000 to 300,000 troops in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, and place a good chunk of those on, and over, the border? In order to fight an alleged 5,000 lightly-armed gerîlas? Turkey is telling the world that it takes 60 mehmetciks to fight one PKK gerîla. Pretty damned embarrassing for a war-mongering, militaristic state, don't you think?

Turkey has violated the "territorial integrity" of "Iraq," and the US hasn't done anything about it. Obviously, this violation of "territorial integrity" serves US interests as much as Turkey's.

Still, I would REALLY like to see how US weapons systems stand up against US weapons systems. It would be REALLY interesting to see whether Turks or Americans are better trained on those systems. And it would be REALLY interesting to see how the TSK stacks up against a REAL army, instead of unarmed civilians or those lightly-armed gerîlas.

That is one show I would definitely pay to see.

arcan_dohuk said...

the best thing for kurds now is for the US to bomb Iran and Iran retaliate. Sadr has repeatidly promised to defend iran and syria if they are attacked, he will get whats coming to him soon. turkey, whatever decision it takes, will suffer. if it chooses to remain neutral, US-Nato relations will fall apart. it will be the second time that it has turned its back on the US. as a matter of fact, rumsfeld was in atlanta yesterday discussing NATO's role and how the US should distance itself from that body. turkey is its second largest member. so he is basically saying that we should distance ourself from turkey. this may mean that turkey has already decided to deny a strike from its soil. if turkey does decides otherwise, it turns itself into a target. iran will cutoff its gas pipelines and attack turkey's major cities thereby hurting the already struggling tourist economy. iran will support the PKK, the turkish hezbollah and other extremist groups. it will launch a proxy war against turkey for years to come. the iraqi shiites may push for an american withdrawl or worse, they may decide to take up arms and force the american's and british out. sunnis arabs with the help of syria will begin bombing american forces more. at the end of the day who will america have then? Kurds must not let american strike iran from northern iraq. we need to distance ourselves from any such plans.

Mizgîn said...

Arcan, Turkey is not neutral. It is an ally of Iran. As for NATO, I have wondered how long it will remain in existence. I don't see that it has any significant role to play in anything anymore. It is a leftover from the Cold War.

However, the US is not going to abandon its old ally when there is plenty of energy resource potential in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and you can bet that Turkey is going to play every angle to get the most out of everyone. While the US has been courting Azerbaijan, I read recently that the Azerbaijani government will not allow the US to use its territory in any attack on Iran, and this is one of the effects of Turkey. It is VERY close to Azerbaijan.

As for Iran supporting PKK, I don't know about that since PJAK has come into being. Besides, Iran is one of the great supporters of other organizations through which they can carry out their policies. I wonder too, how long it will take for the Sunnis and Shi'a to sort each other out. They may be busy with each other for a while, and they have been attacking each other more than either have attacked Americans.

Sadr should have been taken out by unknown assailants in April, 2003.