Thursday, 1 March 2007Turkey must act immediately to secure Kirkuk using even the most extreme measures since any delay would bring Turkey no advantages but many disadvantages, according to Scott Sullivan, a former Washington government employee.
In his article "Turkey must strike immediately to take Kirkuk and Basra" posted on www.petroleumworld.com, Sullivan stated that the longer Turkey waits to take this action, the more Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani can change the facts on the ground by allowing more Kurds to resettle in the oil-rich region. Also if Turkey does not strike, Sullivan argued, the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) will strengthen its combat capabilities in Kirkuk, and it would better be able to coordinate an internal uprising in Turkey with the defense of Kirkuk.
Sullivan cited 10 main reasons for the necessity of a Turkish strike on Kirkuk and Basra.
1. Turkey now knows, if it had any lingering doubts, that the U.S. favors an independent Kurdistan and the Kurdish annexation of Kirkuk, as shown by the favorable U.S. stance on Iraq's oil law, which opens the way to both Kurdish objectives.
2. The U.S. has demonstrated that it is prepared to deceive Turkey about its pro-Kurdish stance, as when the U.S. defends its stance on Iraq's oil law. In other words, U.S. assurances that it will restrain the PKK in Kirkuk are worthless and are humiliating for Turkey, while emboldening the PKK, when Turkey accepts them.
3. Turkey is deceiving itself if it believes the Iraqis want to discuss the Kirkuk issue in good faith. Postponing the Kirkuk referendum, scheduled for later this year, is not an option for Baghdad, which is in the hands of Iran and the Kurds.
4. Assured of Iranian and U.S. support, the Kurds have no incentive to compromise on Kirkuk. As time goes by and the U.S. support is formalized in agreements, the more eager the Kurds will be eager to escalate against Turkey in hopes of drawing Iran or the U.S., hopefully both, on their side. Moreover, as the Iranian-U.S. partnership deepens in Iraq, they will coordinate their actions against Turkey, especially in Kurdistan.
5. Time is not on the side of Turkey in building military capabilities in Kirkuk. The longer Turkey waits, the more Barzani can change the facts on the ground by allowing more Kurds to resettle in Kirkuk, while each day more of the pro-Turkish population is forced out of Kirkuk.
6. With each passing day the PKK is able to strengthen its combat capabilities in Kirkuk. The opposite is true for pro-Turkish forces, such as Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, which is growing weaker by the day due to U.S. repression.
7. If Turkey takes Kirkuk now, Turkey can count on the support of Syria and Saudi Arabia, including participation in a Turkish-led peacekeeping force. If Turkey waits, the U.S. is provided the opportunity to co-opt or coerce both against Turkey.
8. As Iraq's new oil law kicks in, Kirkuk will experience a financial bonanza that will underwrite a military buildup, to Turkey's disadvantage. Moreover, the international oil companies will increasingly become stakeholders in Kirkuk.
9. With each passing day, Kurdistan takes on more of the trappings and the legitimacy of a genuine state. This trend is obviously not to Turkey's advantage. In this context, European support for the Kurdish state will grow as time goes by.
10. With each passing day the PKK is better able to coordinate an internal uprising in Turkey with the defense of Kirkuk. As this PKK capability improves, Turkey may discover that the military option for Kirkuk is no longer on the table and that the PKK has prevailed in Kirkuk and in Turkey itself.
The New Anatolian
01 March 2007 |
Thursday, 1 March 2007
Turkey must strike immediately
|
|
