GHOST OF "IRAQI KURDISTAN"

Washington and Ankara are embroiled in yet another "diplomatic skirmish". When commenting on the situation in Iraq, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice touched upon anti-terror activities on the border between Turkey and "Iraqi Kurdistan". Ankara quickly responded that Turkey bordered on Iraq and that there was no "Iraqi Kurdistan" on the other side of the border.

However, many observers believe that this insight into geography, which has developed into a rather sharp political dispute, has again exposed "a deep divide between Ankara and Washington on the problem of a future Iraq", as Soviet journalists of the 1970s would put it. To be more exact, the disagreement concerns the fate of the country's northern region, which is mostly populated by Kurds. Officially, Condoleezza Rice's statement did not in any way call into question the territorial integrity of Turkey, not even indirectly. However, Ankara is understandably worried about the risk of an actual dismemberment of Iraq and formation of a Kurdish state in the north, which could take control of large oil deposits. There is also concern about US attempts "to build bridges" with Kurdish leaders. The growing influence of Kurdish groups in the north of Iraq has already brought about a surge in terrorist activity on the territory of Turkey proper - in fact, not only in Eastern Anatolia but also in Istanbul and the Turkish resort Riviera.

Split factor  

The USA, however, has its own arguments. The Kurds are a very valuable ally for Washington, especially considering the fact that the Sunnis, a traditional pillar of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath regime, are in opposition, while Shiite society is traditionally influenced by Iran. Besides, Iraq's domestic instability and, alas, the weakness of its integrity are also undeniable.

References to a history and culture more ancient than those of European countries, especially the USA, are a long-standing political tradition in countries of the Middle East. However, as repeatedly indicated in the media, not all countries of the region can be considered stable and integral. This holds true for Iraq, no matter what Arab leaders may trumpet as the great, ancient civilization of the fluvial plane and the heritage of Babylon. Iraq appeared on the world map after World War II. The country largely consisted of three regions: the Shiite south which had historically been inclined towards Iran, the Sunni centre, oriented towards Arab countries, especially the Gulf region, and the effectively non-Arab north where the population is largely made up of Kurds and Turkmen. Furthermore, "the Mosul issue" was also discussed in the Lozano negotiations of 1923 but was postponed without decision. However, Demirel's famous statement that "Turkish borders end wherever oil starts" was made about the north of Iraq, namely about the Baba-Gurgur field which laid the foundation for Arab oil. Just as Yugoslavia was held together by the dictatorship of Josip Broz Tito, Iraq stayed afloat due to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, riots flared up on a regular basis here, while after the toppling of the Hussein rule, many countries bordering Iraq started talking alarmingly about the possible break-up of a country which had largely held out due to the manacles of repression. The emergence of local leaders frequently placed the USA in a very delicate situation. Washington initially said, with some anxiety, that the US military operation could be capitalized on by Iran. This proved that Iran could exert serious influence with the Iraqi opposition. Thus it was time to get their hands dirty with the Kurds who are ready to sponsor terror groups similar to PKK.

In any case, Ankara always demands that Washington take a more rigorous approach to the anti-terror fight in the north of Iraq, and openly vents its fury over what is being done to that end. The US position on the referendum in Kirkuk whipped up tensions even further. Ankara justifiably hopes that the interests of the Turkmen will be taken into consideration as well, while the USA is clearly afraid of undermining relations with the Kurds and Sunnis who were resettled to Kirkuk by Saddam. The Sunnis do not want to wait for the return of the Turkmen, and intend to determine the fate of the city right now.

Representatives of the Turkish authorities are sending the message that the introduction of Turkish troops to the north of Iraq to destroy PKK leaders based there is still high on the agenda. In addition, Turkish authorities are under strong pressure from public opinion. The January crash of an Antonov-26 plane in Iraq, which killed dozens of Turkish workers coming home from Iraq, was more than just a shock: the plane was shot down by a rocket from the ground. A surge in Kurdish terror activity in the south-east of Turkey has also been noted. Against this backdrop, opposition MP Suleyman Saribasi proposed a motion to the Turkish parliament demanding the resignation of foreign minister Abdulla Gul. In his opinion, the actual establishment of a Kurdish state in the north of Iraq and the problems impeding Turkey's application to the EU are the result of political blunders by the Turkish administration and the fact that Turkish Foreign Minister Abdulla Gul is not up to his job. The opposition failed to see the matter through to its logical conclusion - resignation. However, the signal was too obvious to be ignored.

"Allies" in deception  

However, whether Washington can indeed let Iraq break up and condone the establishment of a Kurdish state in its north is a subject for separate discussion. In any case, no matter how valuable the Kurds may seem in Iraq, Washington is hardly ready to jeopardize its relations with a Turkey which has control over the Bosporus and Dardanelles and to risk exacerbating the situation in at least three regional countries. At the same time, the diplomatic scuffle between Washington and Ankara has apparently inspired Kurdish and, what is particularly surprising, Armenian politicians who either believe or want to believe that the establishment of a Kurdish state in the north of Iraq has been resolved de facto and that it is now time to divide the "cake". And now everyone seems to be in the lobby. According to the Armenian Aravot newspaper, the presidium of the "National Union of World Iezids" has decided to elect the chairman of the Dashink Party, "former defence minister" of the so-called "Nagornyy Karabakh Republic", Samvel Babayan, as an honorary member of this organization. The president of the new "Union", Aziz Tamoyan, said that Iezids would support the Dashink Party in the forthcoming parliamentary election. The Yerevan-based Azg newspaper quotes a two-volume monograph of the chairman of the North Iraqi Democratic Party of Kurdistan, Masud Barzani, "Barzani and Kurdish National Movement", in which he dwells upon the biography of his father, Mullah Mustafa Barzani. Barzani describes the entire Kurdish movement as some kind of Barzani family business. The author alleges that his great grandfather, Sheikh Muhammad Barzani, was a spiritual leader of the Barzani clan. After his death one of his sons, Sheikh Abdulsalam, became both the head of the family and spiritual leader. After he was hanged by decision of the Ottoman Empire the holding of both spiritual and family power was prohibited. Then, one of Abdulsalam's sons, Sheikh Ahmad, became the spiritual leader, while Mullah Mustafa was chosen as military and political leader.

Then Masud Barzani moves to the most intriguing moment of his narration. It turns out that this is when "the Armenian genocide" began. Sheikh Ahmad received a letter in which Andranik asked for help and sent a detachment of his rebels to help him out. According to Azg, this is what Mullah Mustafa Barzani said about those developments: "Sheikh Ahmad sent a unit of 200 people to help Andranik. The unit was led by Velibey. I was part of that unit. However, when passing through the territories of "rayks" and "ashirats" who asked us where we were heading, we had to reply: 'We are going to crush the Armenians'. Unfortunately, the Turkish authorities have convinced the population that the developments of 1915 were a war of the Muslims against the Christians and that the Ottoman Empire was waging war in the name of Islam. We helped the Armenians by seeing them off to Syria. By helping the Armenians, we, in the fight against Turkish troops, lost 14 people."

So, who is speaking the truth: was it Velibey in the mountains when crossing the territories controlled by other Kurdish tribes, or is it Masud Barzani? Andranik's gangs in eastern Anatolia were eradicating the entire Muslim population without bothering too much about whether they were Kurds or Turks and, of course, without taking the trouble to go into the detail of tribal and ancestral affiliation of the Kurds. Hatred was so intense that when the decision to relocate the Armenians to Syria was being made, the authorities of the Ottoman Empire ordered that they be guarded from possible raids of the Kurds. Therefore, there is no doubt that Velibey's unit was indeed going to crush the Armenians. In today's geopolitical situation, and against the background of attempts to create a single anti-Turkish front, Kurdish leaders agree to turn a blind eye to the fact that some are ready to call their Turkish motherland as "ancient Armenian Tigranokert", while others as the "ancient Turkish city of Amada". People here are even ready to rewrite the history of their own participation in World War One. Furthermore, it is known that against the backdrop of "Armenian-PKK cooperation", attempts to "edit history" are being made all the time. Thus, in late December 2006, upon the initiative of a Kurdish-Dutch Culture Centre, the role of the Kurds in the developments of 1915 was discussed in Amsterdam. A source from the Armenian Culture Centre Abovyan in Amsterdam has said that a Kurdish writer from Germany, Geydar Isik, took part in the discussion. The writer is famous for having translated into Turkish yet another "masterpiece" of the Armenian version of "genocide". 

The Armenian side was represented by the chairman of the "24 April" Committee, which is part of the Federation of Armenian Organizations of the Netherlands (FAON), Nubar Sipyan. The objective was clear from the very outset: to invent a version of the 1915 developments whereby the Kurds would remain uninvolved. Thus it was the turn of heavyweights such as Masud Barzani to take centre-stage. He was sidelined after Jalal Talabani was elected Iraqi President.

It should be noted, however, that Barzani is not the first Kurdish leader to try to conjure up something like this. A quarter of a century ago, an agreement on cooperation with the Armenian ASALA was signed by the head of the then little known PKK, Abdullah Ocalan, who is now serving a life sentence on Imrali island. The lawyers for the head of the PKK, one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the Middle East, have recently stated that their defendant was "being poisoned by toxic metals". Some evidence was also submitted by French doctors. Lawyers claim that they have the results of the defendant's hair analysis. French toxicologist Pascal Kints was entrusted with the investigation. He discovered an increased concentration of chromium and strontium in the defendant's hair. Ojalan's Turkish lawyer, Mahmud Sakar, asked the UN or the Council of Europe to send an "independent medical commission" to conduct a complete medical examination. The Kurdish leader's Italian lawyer, Giuliano Pisapia, confirmed that Ojalan was suffering from "progressive poisoning" and ruled out the possibility of an external environmental influence on his condition. "There are only two possibilities remaining: food poisoning or water poisoning," he said. The Turkish lawyer, Irfar Dundar, who visited Ocalan in prison, said that his client was short of breath, had skin problems and pains which keep him awake all the time. 

Turkish authorities quickly denied the statements by the terrorist's lawyers and dismissed them as "totally false". "If Turkey was a country like that (where such methods are practised), it would have done that long ago, but we are a law-abiding country," Justice Minister Camil Cicek said.

At the same time, it is clear that while the story of "poisoning" Ojalan was originally intended to serve as a pretext to blame Turkey, it may now backfire on its very masterminds: not least because it is now possible to say ironically that Ojalan's lawyers have carefully studied the Litvinenko case and decided to apply their knowledge. The French have found themselves in the hot seat, too. We may recall that the most likely winner in the French "presidential race" and the political successor of Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy, is vigorously opposed to Turkey's membership of the EU. Another front runner, Segolene Royal, is after all, co-author of a scandalous draft law on responsibility for "genocide". At the same time, French medics have experience of participating in what are seen as dubious medical activity. According to informed sources, in 1974, the Iranian Shah was diagnosed as having leukaemia. The diagnosis was pronounced by French doctors. For obvious reasons, the Shah preferred to keep this information secret. And then, against a backdrop of instability in Iran, Paris provided asylum to Ayatollah Khomeini, who now had the opportunity, not only to enjoy media attention, but also to be in telephone communication with his supporters in Iran. And when it transpired after the Islamic revolution that the Shah was suffering from leukaemia and the diagnosis had been established by French doctors, experts had no doubt whatsoever that the information about the Iranian monarch's health problem was leaked to the higher echelons of power in Paris. There the decision was made to "take extra precautions" and build a bridge with the "rebellious ayatollah". It is now anyone's guess as to whom else knew about the Iranian monarch's illness.

There is another, more important, factor. Ocalan launched his "poison campaign" at a time when Kurdish circles had started selling the bear's hide even before the bear was caught, i.e. dividing power in a state that did not exist. Also, for Abdullah Ocalan the question is much more acute: he still has to find a way out of the Turkish prison on Imrali Island. However, it would be reasonable to expect something more plausible than "poisoned hair".

Under such circumstances, the excessive radicalism of Kurdish leaders and their readiness for extravagant action may bring about rather unexpected "twists". In any case, the USA is pushing Kurdish leaders and Ankara to find a mutual balance of interests. If this proves to be beyond them, other leaders will emerge from among the Iraqi Kurds with whom such negotiations will be possible.