RIVAL KURDS IN NORTHERN IRAQ HAVE TO GET ON WELL WITH TURKEY

As the arguments regarding the reconstruction after U.S. operation against Iraq, it is stated that the dissension between the Kurdish organizations in Northern Iraq have teach its climax. The Kurdish groups that have been fighting for their interests in the north of Iraq for years, they are waging a hard struggle today to be influential in the region. The people react the efforts of the Kurdish groups to seize the power in Mosul and Kirkuk.

The leadership struggle between IKDP and PUK in the region is continuing. While KADEK (PKK) that is trying to find a base in the region, on one hand, accuses IKDP and PUK of cooperating with imperialist powers (U.S.A.-England) and founding a ethnically-based state with a nationalist approach, it makes cooperation calls for IKDP and PUK and tries to take part in the new structure on the other. IKDP and PUK officials do not take such calls of KADEK serious and make statements that “KADEK has no place in Northern Iraq”.

The news published in Nürnberger Nachrichten daily with the title “The Joy of Victory Did Not Last long; IKDP and PUK Started Quarrelling” on April 17, 2003 proves the developments;

“IKDP and PUK are in a strong competition for dominance in Northern Iraq. The war has not completely come to an end, but the two prominent Kurdish groups in Northern Iraq are in a hard competition to regain dominance in the region. IKDP leader, Barzani, who feels eliminated by his rival, complains that PUK entered Kirkuk last week and violated all agreements.

But only a few days had passed over the demonstrations of joy due to giving an end to the dominance of Iraqi Army in Mosul and Kirkuk. That situation has now become history. IKDP leader, Barzani, showed reaction, saying, “The happenings in Kirkuk is the violation of the agreements we reached. Talabani betrayed the agreements. We cannot be a mere spectator to this. PUK members have to evacuate Kirkuk urgently”.

Turkey severely reacted against PUK’s entrance to Kirkuk. Barzani immediately contacted with Turkey and offered cooperation to “make Talabani’s forces get out of Kirkuk”.

This incident, namely the Kurdish groups’ forming an alliance with another force against each other, is not a new thing. For example, two years ago, on August 1996, IKDP called the Iraqi troops to the region to make PUK get out of Irbil and caused the killing of PUK member Kurds.

The source of the problem between the Kurdish groups was the intensive disputes within PUK regarding the relations with the Ba’ath regime in 1960s. After long years of conflicts within the party, these disputes resulted in one of the executive leader’s, Talabani, separating and forming PUK in 1975. Violent conflicts took place between the two groups several times in recent years. But the most striking year in the relations is 1978. In that year, IKDP killed a PUK unit of hundreds of people, arrested and executed twelve senior PUK officials.

Forming variable alliances with Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus and Ankara, the two Kurdish groups fought against each other since then. The persuasion tours in the peace negotiations, which had been carried out through international initiatives, ended fruitlessly. The way of the treatment of the two parties towards the detainees was condemned by International Human Rights Organizations. Prior to the U.S. operation against Iraq, IKDP and PUK announced that they had come to an agreement. But this agreement was overshadowed again due to PUK’s entrance in Kirkuk.

IKDP and PUK also fought against PKK-KADEK that had been trying for a long to settle down in the region. Barzani and Talabani emphasized in their statements before and after the war that  “there is no place for PKK-KADEK in the north of Iraq” and that “PKK-KADEK is a terrorist group that has been continuing to carry out terrorist activities against Kurds”.

The war in Iraq in military respect ended, but the political struggle between the Kurdish groups regarding the reconstruction process of Iraq has just started.”

Meanwhile, the opinion was given place in the news broadcasted on CNN on April 17, 2003 that “people in Mosul and Kirkuk have exposed that they do not want U.S. troops and Kurdish groups. Showing reaction to the plundering of Mosul and Kirkuk by the IKDP and PUK forces, the people made the Kurdish groups recede”.

Some interesting determinations and warnings were given place in an interpretation published in Die Tageszeitung daily under the title “The Kurds in Northern Iraq Have to Seek an Agreement with Turks” on April 11, 2003;

 “After the fall of Baghdad, the critical days in northern Iraq have begun. The regime has collapsed, Saddam's soldiers in Kirkuk and Mosul left their positions, and Kurdish peshmergas entered these cities. As a result of the initiatives of IKDP and PUK forces, a new dissension and highly critical situation has emerged.

In lengthy negotiations before the US attack on Saddam's, U.S. administration promised the government in Ankara to see to it that the Kurds will not gain control over the two large cities in northern Iraq, and that the oil of Kirkuk will remain under national Iraqi control. In return, the Turkish Army should stay in its barracks.. If the United States wants to prevent others from emulating it, pushing through their own alleged security interests with military means, relying on their overwhelming power, it has to keep its promise and keep the Kurds far away from these cities. After the full-bodied announcements, the Turkish government cannot stand by and watch the militia troops of Barzani and Talabani present it with a fait accompli.

The Kurds would also be well advised if they at least pretended to act only on US orders. Now the political leadership of the Kurds in northern Iraq has to show that it is in a position to act wisely and coolly and stop giving free rein to their feelings. If Kurds want to inhabit in the region in peace and comfort for a long time, it is indispensable that the Kurdish leaders have seek an agreement with Turkey. And for this, it would certainly be better to present oneself as a reliable partner than to seize the, allegedly, favorable opportunity.

The Kurdish Leaders, who were backed by Turkey in their difficult times, should understand that there is no way out other than being friend with Turkey. The position of Mosul and Kirkuk has to be preserved within the territorial integrity and political unity and these regions should not be allowed to go under the control of any ethnic group.

The peculiar dynamics of the region have to be taken into consideration in the political formations and reconstructions of the Middle East. The formulas that do not take the geo-strategic and geo-politic location of Turkey into consideration and are imposed have no chance of success. The new balances to emerge in Iraq should not be of the qualification that might threaten the neighbors of this country, violate the peace and stability being tried to be set up in the region and lead to new conflicts and crisis.