There are several developments in Northern Iraq that may place additional strains on the relations between Ankara and Washington in the days ahead.
Next month there’ll be a population survey in Kerkuk in preparation for the Iraqi elections in January. The news stories suggest that the Kurdish administration in the North is bringing Kurds by the busloads into Kerkuk and quartering them in tents on the outskirts of the city. Kurds claim they are just “Kurdish refugees going back home.” Even the American sources took notice of this sudden swell in the Kurdish population in Kerkuk, a city that had a Turcoman majority for centuries. Turks are upset that the U.S. commanders in charge are not doing anything to stop this attempt to change Kerkuk’s population composition.
The second development is no secret at all: the occupation of Iraq is not going well for the United States. The resistance continues with an ever rising death toll. No end seems to be in sight. It is no accident that Gen. John Batiste, the commander of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division, mentioned the possibility of a “civil war” in Iraq. This was another I’ve-told-you-so moment for Ankara which warned Washington repeatedly in the past about exactly such a development.
The third item is the amazing interview with Osman Ocalan, the brother of imprisoned PKK chief Abdullah Ocalan, published a few days ago in daily Milliyet. In that eye-popping interview, Osman Ocalan, who has left PKK in less-than-amicable circumstances to form his own group, declared his intention to forgo all violence and dive into regular politics. Another PKK commander is quoted in the same interview apologizing for the tens of thousands of deaths PKK’s terror campaign has triggered in southeast Turkey since 1984.
So the PKK seems to be split, but what does that mean as far as the Turkish-US relations is concerned? Remembering the past statements of the senior officials of the Bush Administration that Washington is looking for a “non-military solution” in Northern Iraq, a number of Turkish commentators started to ask if Osman Ocalan’s new-and-improved profile is Washington’s new move in that direction.
The fourth item is the recent escalation in the US-Turkish relations over the U.S. strikes in Tel Afar, a city 30 miles west of Mosul with a Turcoman-majority population. The U.S. attacks killed 28 Turcomans and forced thousands to flee the city. Washington maintained that the U.S. forces were attacking “insurgents” and not the Turcomans but that explanation satisfied neither the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs nor the Turkish press.
The result: “Is the United States trying to squeeze the Turcomans out of the region and establish a Kurdish-only zone while forcing Osman Ocalan join hands with Talabani, and perhaps with also Barzani?” is the question asked these days by a number of Turkish observers.
If, in the aftermath of the U.S. presidential election in November, Washington decides to “declare a victory” and pull out of Iraq, the chances of the current precarious balance in Northern Iraq spinning out of control is very high.
Then not only Turkey but Iran and Syria will also “get involved” in Iraq. That’s why Washington needs to hedge its bets on the Turkish side as well because long after the American troops leave the area, the Turks, Kurds, Iranians, and Arabs will continue to live as neighbors. And all parties will remember how even-handed Washington had been while it had a good chance to do so.
A long-term and more even-handed approach will serve the interests of both Turkey and the United States much better given the fact that it will be very hard to perpetuate the current state of affairs after the U.S. presidential elections in November, regardless of who wins it.