"It is only in folk tales, children's stories, and the journals of intellectual opinion that power is used wisely and well to destroy evil. The real world teaches very different lessons, and it takes willful and dedicated ignorance to fail to perceive them."
~ Noam Chomsky.
~ Noam Chomsky.
I used to think IWPR was a fairly decent source of news, especially from such places as Iraq or Afghanistan, but I think I'll have to reasses my judgement.
IWPR has a piece up about the PKK and the KRG, in which it claims that the KRG is supposed to "end the fighting between it's neighbors and Kurdish rebels based inside its borders."
How is the KRG supposed to do that when those who need to sit downn to "end the fighting" are the Ankara regime and the Kurds of North Kurdistan, including the PKK?
Henri Barkey, author of a recent report on the region for a Washington-based think-tank the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told IWPR the KRG could seek to persuade the rebels to agree to some form of deal “and ensure that a demilitarisation is done honourably”.
Now we have just seen where the PKK itself stands with regard to a political solution with the Ankara regime, in Hasan Cemal's series from Kandil (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4), all of which were available from the original source at Milliyet days before the IWPR piece was published. Later we had the piece from the London Times which included statements from Murat Karayılan that were the same as in the Hasan Cemal series.
So why didn't IWPR or Henri Barkey call attention to the position of the PKK as regards a cessation of hostilities? Why did they ignore PKK's position on the matter altogether?
And the same can be said of the jackass who passes for the "US embassy official in Ankara" who spoke to the author of the IWPR piece. Are we to believe that the diplomatic jackass had absolutely no clue about Hasan Cemal's series? I find that impossible to believe. The Americans know very well but have their own reasons for keeping the fighting going and those reasons are $$$$$.
The jackass continues:
Unlike the KRG, the United States endorses military action as part of a broader solution to the conflict. A US embassy official in Ankara told IWPR Washington’s strategy to end the fighting included supporting Turkey “with intelligence sharing and other operations”.
The Washington regime supports a losing strategy because its military-industrial complex benefits from it by the billions and, for this reason alone, the US has no reason to see an end to the fighting.
The US stepped up its engagement in the region in 2007 by classifying the PKK as a terrorist organisation – a move which effectively bars the group from any potential US-backed peace talks.
That's plain bullshit. If the US wanted peace talks, the US would overlook its bogus "List" and start to force the issue of negotiations.
“The PKK has conducted more than enough violent acts to justify being labelled a terrorist organisation,” said the US official, when asked whether the move to proscribe the group may have weakened prospects for an eventual settlement by affirming Turkey’s military strategy.
We should acquiesce to this statement, shouldn't we, since it's uttered by a member of the world's biggest terrorist organization--the Washington regime--whose violent acts make even the Ankara regime's violent acts pale in comparison. Of course, if it had been Americans in the position of Kurds in Turkey there would have been no uprising against repression because Americans are sheep. On the other hand, if they had engaged in uprising, they, too, would be terrorists.
To rise up against severe repression and gross human rights abuses is not terrorism. It's a natural reaction.
More from the jackass:
The US official stressed that military operations alone would not solve the conflict. She said leaders in the region were working towards “a comprehensive solution that includes other aspects of the Kurdish issue”, such as economic and social development.
"Military operations alone would not solve the conflict," but that's the only option either the Washington or the Ankara regime considers. Again: $$$$$$. Let's also note that it was immediately after Obama's visit to Turkey that the Ankara regime engaged in terror operations against the DTP, arresting its members in the same way that it arrested members of every other pro-Kurdish political party in Turkey's atrocious history. Doesn't that make it look very much like the Americans gave the green light for the terror operations?
And I'd like to know which "leaders in the region" are working to solve the Kurdish issue? Does this mean the Turkish security forces who rounded up the DTP politicians and workers? Does this mean the AKP who went all over The Southeast in the days before the 29 March electcion, handing out washing machines, refrigerators and cash?
But Barkey says the US “has not been as energetic as it could have been” in pursuing a resolution of the conflict.
Oh but the US has been very energetic in pursuing a military resolution, particularly when it appointed Lockheed Martin board of directors' member Joseph Ralston as its "special envoy" to coordinate the PKK for Turkey. Again: $$$$$
However, the KRG has kept its forces out of the conflicts, claiming it does not have the means or the grounds to retaliate.
“The KRG can’t attack or oust PJAK and PKK because [Iran and Turkey’s] problem is not with the KRG,” said Jabbar Yawar, a top official in charge of Kurdish forces.
This isn't quite the truth, is it? The fact of the matter is that the pesmerge know they got their asses kicked by PKK when they teamed up with TSK in the 1990s to annihilate the guerrillas and they don't want to do that again. At the time, Turkey itself tucked its tail between its legs and ran back across the border dragging its body bags behind it.
Yawar said Kurdish troops can defend the borders “if there are any ground assaults, but not against bombardments and aerial strikes”.
Well, that's not quite true either. It was PKK who defended the border during TSK's February 2007 land invasion and not the peşmêrge.
The KRG has long ruled out military action against the rebels, as demanded by Turkey and Iran. It has also avoided retaliating against its neighbours, as demanded by the Kurdish street.
The KRG rules out military action because the peşmêrge remembered what happened to them the last time they went to get a piece of PKK. If the Americans are so gung-ho to settle this situation for Ankara, let them go to the mountains and give it a try! A word of warning, however: You have to leave your Bradley's behind. Whatever you need, you'll have to carry on your back. Good luck and thank you for giving your lives for Atatürk's descendents.
There's also mention of the "Kurdish" conference in this piece:
In March, Iraq’s president and the leader of one of its two major Kurdish parties, Jalal Talabani, announced plans for an international peace conference drawing together the region’s Kurdish political groups.
The conference could have seen the triumphant climax of the KRG’s careful diplomacy if, as many had hoped, it yielded a declaration demanding the PKK and PJAK disarm.
But the meeting, due to have been hosted in Iraqi Kurdistan, was postponed. The reasons behind the cancellation are unclear. However, the delay has highlighted the problems the KRG faces as it seeks to promote peace beyond its borders.
TSK's been demanding PKK's disarmament for decades; the KRG will have the same luck as TSK in doing the same. However, the reasons behind the cancellation of the "Kurdish" conference are crystal clear: DTP won massively over AKP on 29 March and that means that the "Kurdish" conference, demanded by AKP and the Americans, would not be the proper vehicle for a joint Turkish-American demand for disarmament if DTP were sitting at the same table wearing their victory laurels.
No, there is nothing at all mysterious about the indefinite postponement of the "Kurdish" conference. Nor is there anything mysterious about this piece in IWPR; it's propaganda for the status quo.
To read more on how the media promotes the status quo, take a look at an analysis by Sibel Edmonds on how Newsweek deliberately screwed up reporting her case, in order to make her look less credible than she actually is. You'll find it at the first in her series on Project Expose MSM.