Which Kirkuk?

BY FERAI TINC
HURRIYET)- Why is the Democratic Society Party (DTP), which has so far preferred to hold its tongue on the Kirkuk issue, now saying that intervention in Kirkuk would disturb the Kurds living in Turkey and that they would consider an attack on Kirkuk an attack on Diyarbakir? Is it a coincidence that these remarks came at a time when people are talking about the possibility of Turkish officials meeting with Iraqi Kurds? In addition, can we also ask if it's a coincidence, considering that southeastern Anatolia would be the primary beneficiary of these meetings and all kinds of cooperation in every area? Indeed, is this a coincidence or the concerns of those who benefit from this atmosphere of conflict?
Iraqi Arabs I met at an international meeting said that Turkey 's remarks on the Kirkuk issue are strengthening our hand for bargaining. I told them that hoping for help from Turkey will bring them nothing. The Iraqi people can never reach a consensus by relying on foreign threats, because it can't be permanent. Today, Iraq is under occupation and in such a country, no social consensus, which is the foundation of a state, can be forged. Each step which aims to prepare Kirkuk's fate will be temporary, as long as today's conditions remain unchanged.
Anyhow, what's important for Turkey is to reach this consensus. If a consensus pleasing everybody can't be reached on Kirkuk , this will worsen the region's safety problems. As the lack of stability in Kirkuk and its turning into a field of conflict would create a new focal point for international terrorism, this very much concerns Turkey 's safety. However, how to allocate the oil wouldn't concern Turkey , but the Iraqi people. Besides, it's completely dishonest to try to score political points through Kirkuk . Those who argue Turkey should intervene in Iraq over Kirkuk are trying to score points through Turkish nationalism, and those who threaten that this would galvanize the Kurds living in Turkey are trying to cozy up to certain circles by fomenting Kurdish nationalism. This cozying up and messages not to launch operations against the terrorist PKK in Kandil, northern Iraq etc. are the tactics of certain politicians who only promise to give pain to the people. I consider the recent remarks of the DTP provincial leader in Diyarbakir part of this.
Some say intervention in Kirkuk will disturb the Kurds living in Turkey . Which intervention are they talking about? Are they talking about an intervention in Iraq , which is under occupation? Not only the US , but also all of its neighbors are already intervening in Iraq . Can one say that northern Iraq isn't under occupation now? Or how it would be realistic to say that Baghdad is under more occupation and Basra under less? Occupation is occupation. Look, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani discussed the oil matter two days ago. Were they alone? Of course not. After the meeting, when Barzani said that they had reached a consensus, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wasn't there, but the US Amabassador to Iraq Zalmay Halilzad was.