CUMHURIYET- Columnist Hikmet Cetinkaya comments on a possible US military attack on Iraq and its consequences on northern Iraq. A summary of his column is as follows:
Will the US be able to get the support of Arab countries in its plans to carry out a military campaign against Iraq? The Arab peoples are overwhelmingly opposed to such an operation. But what are these countries’ opinions of a possible Kurdish state being established in northern Iraq? If asked such questions six years ago, Saddam Hussein’s enemies would have surely preferred to hold their tongues. Their attitude then was shallow, for Arabia, Syria and Kuwait secretly relished the thought of a fragmented Iraq. Both Israel and Iran, too, were in a similar mood then. In April 1995, my colleague Ergun Balci wrote: ‘A Kurdish state would mean to Israel the destruction of its most dangerous foe, Iraq, and at the same time a US roving patrol force in charge of controlling the Arab states.’ Now here’s a question: How pleased would Israel be if a Kurdish state were founded today in northern Iraq? The answer is, I think, a lot.
Turkey has the Nov. 3 elections looming near. Yet, none of the political party leaders are addressing a possible war in Iraq or a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. While certain very important decisions are being taken at top levels of the state, Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit is turning a blind eye to efforts to establish a Kurdish state in northern Iraq which will, no doubt, encourage certain radical movements in the near future. But there is a truly dangerous situation developing in the region. There are Kurdish groups in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Not only Turkey, but also those two neighbors, are deeply concerned about a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Both know very well that a Kurdish state in northern Iraq will act under US auspices, and they suspect that this Kurdish state will try to incorporate into itself the Kurdish populations living in their own territories.
What about the countries around the Persian Gulf -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the others? These countries aren’t yet true nation-states, and still retain some sort of tribal order. Would the dismantling of an Arab state like Iraq not presage a similar fate a decade hence for other Arab states? What if a Shiite state is founded in southern Iraq immediately after the central government in Baghdad is overthrown? Let’s take a look at what some Middle East experts say: ‘If a Shiite state is established in southern Iraq, it would definitely take a pro-Iran stance. There are currently 650,000 Shiites in Iran who fled Saddam’s regime, and their leader is also living in Iran. If Iraq loses its territorial integrity, it won’t take very long for a large Shiite state to be formed.’ They add: ‘The fragmentation of Iraq would make things in the region even worse. Rather than a fragmented Iraq, a weak Saddam regime would be preferable.’ Yet the US is determined to strike against Iraq. What the Bush administration wants is to take control of the oil resources in the Middle East, rather than resolving its conflicts. Turkey puts great importance on Iraq’s territorial integrity, and it is on guard against the formation of Kurdish state in northern Iraq. And Saddam Hussein... He has the power to crush the nascent Kurdish state in northern Iraq whenever he wants. Yet, he prefers not to do so. The US and Great Britain are planning for the next half century in the Middle East. Clearly, the region has become the stage for a very dangerous game.
SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION