by Ugur Akinci, Ph.D.
http://tork.blogspot.com
The insistence of the two major Iraqi Kurdish groups, Masoud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Unity of Kurdistan (PUK) that “Kerkuk is a Kurdish city” helped consolidate a Turkmen-Arab front on the issue.
Both major ethnic groups insist that Kerkuk, where 40% of Iraq's oil is produced, is an “Iraqi city” and should not be left under the exclusive control of KDP and PUK within an ethnic-based federative “Kurdish state.” Arab countries like Egypt, Jordan and Syria seem to be supporting the “Kerkuk is Iraqi” position.
Syrian President Bashar Asad, who will pay an official visit to Ankara on January 5, is quoted in the Turkish press saying that “I also draw a red line at a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. We are not only against a Kurdish state but all similar proposals that target Iraq's territorial integrity.”
Egypt's support for the Turkmens was also heard loud and clear during the recent visit of Turkmen Front President Abdullah Abdurrahman to Cairo where he met with Arab League Secretary General Amr Musa and Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmet Mahir. Besides supporting Iraq's unitary status, Musa and Mahir emphatically stressed their opposition to “one ethnic group” establishing hegemony “over the others” in northern Iraq. The Turkmen Front was even offered to open an office in Cairo, similar to the existing offices of KDP and PUK.
Another concrete development which supports Turkmens even further is Egypt's promise to provide the Turkmens with the necessary military training to render them an effective part of the new Iraqi army. Egypt responded positively to the Turkmen request to receive such training. Kurds and Arabs, the other Iraqi elements that will form a part of the Iraqi security forces, will be trained in Jordan.
Where is Turkish participation?
All these developments beg the obvious question: why is Turkey missing from this picture? Isn't Turkey, a country which has one of the most modern armies in the region, a country which borders Iraq and has ethnic ties with the Turkmens, is the first logical choice for such a role?
Turkey might be a “logical” choice but apparently it is not deemed a “political” choice by some others.
Perhaps we should ask the question a bit differently: why wouldn't the United States approve such a role for Turkey? Is this some sort of “retribution” for Turkey's March 1, 2003 refusal to provide an over-land passage to the U.S. 4th Infantry Division?
Some influential Turkish columnists, like Hurriyet's Sedat Ergin, do certainly think so. Such observers point out that while after the First Gulf War of 1991 Kerkuk's status as an Iraqi city was confirmed by Washington, 12 years later the same policy made a U-turn and transformed into full-support for KDP and PUK designs over Kerkuk.
The fact is, in Washington right now we do have an Administration which makes no bones about rewarding its friends and punishing its antagonists. The recent controversy over denying the European Union companies any piece from the post-Saddam reconstruction pie is a case in point. So there may very well be senior officials in Washington determined to send yet another “message” to Turkey regarding the consequences of less-than-total-and-immediate cooperation with the Bush Administration.
However, from Ankara's point of view, the discussions about Kerkuk's future status becomes a matter of national prestige and yet another test of Erdogan government's leadership. The upcoming visits of Syrian President Bashar Asad to Ankara and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to Washington carry a special significance in terms of re-establishing Turkey's clout in the region as a country that has a serious role to play regarding the future of her ethnic brethren right across her southern border.