by John R. Thomson and
Hussain Hindawi
Posted May 17, 2006
Human Events Online this March, John Thomson reiterated the compelling case for a decentralized Iraq ["America in Iraq: These Colors Must Not Run"], which we had originally proposed in articles published in February and June 2004. We therefore welcome the recent publication by Sen. Joseph Biden (D.-Del.) and Leslie Gelb in the New York Times of their article, "Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq." Our only question to them and others is "Gentlemen, what took you so long?" ...read article
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
''Iraq's Impending Fracture to Produce Political Earthquake in Turkey''
17 May 2006
nusual political stability in Turkey faces upheaval from Iraq's impending fracture along sectarian lines. The birth of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq will end Turkey's E.U. accession hopes. The collapse of the accession process will strongly undermine the legitimacy of the ruling Justice and Development Party (A.K.P.), making it increasingly vulnerable to political attacks from Turkey's secular establishment. These attacks could prompt the disintegration of the Erdogan government as soon as the end of 2006. ....read article
nusual political stability in Turkey faces upheaval from Iraq's impending fracture along sectarian lines. The birth of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq will end Turkey's E.U. accession hopes. The collapse of the accession process will strongly undermine the legitimacy of the ruling Justice and Development Party (A.K.P.), making it increasingly vulnerable to political attacks from Turkey's secular establishment. These attacks could prompt the disintegration of the Erdogan government as soon as the end of 2006. ....read article
Iraq sensitivity
Yusuf KANLI
ARTICLE SUMMARYReports from Iraq are not in any way comforting for the Turks, who are very much worried about the possible disintegration of our neighboring country. Continued insurgency on the one hand, failure to forge a national unity government though five months have passed since elections, signs of growing tensions along religious lines, increased cross-border violence from outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorists inside Turkey and the failure of Iraqi government troops and U.S. forces to take action against the PKK presence in northern Iraq remain serious irritants for the policy-makers in Ankara. Contrary to public disclosures, however, Ankara's attention is not focused solely on how to .....read article
ARTICLE SUMMARYReports from Iraq are not in any way comforting for the Turks, who are very much worried about the possible disintegration of our neighboring country. Continued insurgency on the one hand, failure to forge a national unity government though five months have passed since elections, signs of growing tensions along religious lines, increased cross-border violence from outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorists inside Turkey and the failure of Iraqi government troops and U.S. forces to take action against the PKK presence in northern Iraq remain serious irritants for the policy-makers in Ankara. Contrary to public disclosures, however, Ankara's attention is not focused solely on how to .....read article
Talabani slams Iran, Turkey interference
BEIRUT, Lebanon, May 16 (UPI) -- Iraqi President Jalal Talabani lashed out at neighbors Iran and Turkey for interfering in Iraq's domestic affairs, warning Baghdad could reciprocate.
Talabani was quoted as saying Tuesday in Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat that "Iraq is not a weak country. The neighbors can create problems for us and we also are capable of causing problems for them."
He said, "if Iran allows itself to interfere in Karbala because it is a Shiite city and Turkey feels it can interfere in Kirkuk, that will open the way for very dangerous consequences."
"In that case," he added, "Iraq will also have the right to interfere in Khozestan in Iran on the grounds that it has an Arab population and the same applies to Alexandrite in Turkey which has an Arab population."
Talabani stressed, however, that Iraq and Iran have had historic relations which were both positive and negative "but there is always room for agreement and also between Iraq and Turkey agreement is possible."
He acknowledged that the two countries have plausible reasons to interfere in Iraq since the Kurdistan Labor Party attacks Turkey from Iraq's Kurdish north; a Kurdish group in Iran has done the same, taking refuge in northern Iraq.
"Nevertheless, we need to find a solution in order to eliminate all the pretexts used by Iran and Turkey to hit Iraqi territories," he added.
Talabani was quoted as saying Tuesday in Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat that "Iraq is not a weak country. The neighbors can create problems for us and we also are capable of causing problems for them."
He said, "if Iran allows itself to interfere in Karbala because it is a Shiite city and Turkey feels it can interfere in Kirkuk, that will open the way for very dangerous consequences."
"In that case," he added, "Iraq will also have the right to interfere in Khozestan in Iran on the grounds that it has an Arab population and the same applies to Alexandrite in Turkey which has an Arab population."
Talabani stressed, however, that Iraq and Iran have had historic relations which were both positive and negative "but there is always room for agreement and also between Iraq and Turkey agreement is possible."
He acknowledged that the two countries have plausible reasons to interfere in Iraq since the Kurdistan Labor Party attacks Turkey from Iraq's Kurdish north; a Kurdish group in Iran has done the same, taking refuge in northern Iraq.
"Nevertheless, we need to find a solution in order to eliminate all the pretexts used by Iran and Turkey to hit Iraqi territories," he added.
U.S.-Iran dialogue
By Tulin Daloglu
May 16, 2006
ANKARA, Turkey. -- Much speculation surrounds the letter Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent to President Bush. Could he be trying to prevent a pre-emptive strike against his country with pro-active diplomacy? "It really was a kind of philosophical and indeed religious attack on U.S. policies," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, brushing aside any suggestion that it could start a direct U.S.-Iran dialogue. But Iran's desire to engage speaks more loudly than the letter itself. read article
May 16, 2006
ANKARA, Turkey. -- Much speculation surrounds the letter Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent to President Bush. Could he be trying to prevent a pre-emptive strike against his country with pro-active diplomacy? "It really was a kind of philosophical and indeed religious attack on U.S. policies," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, brushing aside any suggestion that it could start a direct U.S.-Iran dialogue. But Iran's desire to engage speaks more loudly than the letter itself. read article
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
The U.S.A. is establishing peshmerge suburbs overnight in the areas vacated by our slain Turkmen brothers and those forcibly expelled from Telafar.
Yeniçağ 16.05.2006 
The U.S.A. is establishing peshmerge suburbs overnight in the areas vacated by our slain Turkmen brothers and those forcibly expelled from Telafar.The U.S.A. is killing our Turkmen brothers in Iraq and stroking the Kurds’ backs. There are claims that the Arabs in Telafar City which has been recently bombed by the U.S. military, are migrating to the southern part of Iraq, while the Kurds are establishing suburbs in Northern Iraq’s Kirkuk and Telafar cities overnight. ...read
The U.S.A. is establishing peshmerge suburbs overnight in the areas vacated by our slain Turkmen brothers and those forcibly expelled from Telafar.The U.S.A. is killing our Turkmen brothers in Iraq and stroking the Kurds’ backs. There are claims that the Arabs in Telafar City which has been recently bombed by the U.S. military, are migrating to the southern part of Iraq, while the Kurds are establishing suburbs in Northern Iraq’s Kirkuk and Telafar cities overnight. ...read
Monday, May 15, 2006
ICG Urges US to Take Active Role in Kirkuk Issues
Posted GMT 5-11-2006 15:17:17
Ankara -- A leading Brussels-based think tank urged the U.S. yesterday to immediately take active measures to prevent the city of Kirkuk, Iraq from potentially escalating into ethnic clashes, reported news channel NTV.
Joost Hiltermann, the Middle East project director from the International Crisis Group (ICG), said in an address at the Middle East Institute in Washington that Iraqi Kurds are determined to include the oil-rich city under the authority of the Kurdish regional government. He added that these efforts will receive a harsh response from both Arabs and Turkmens.
"The U.S. should stop leaving this issue to Iraqis. This is a mistaken policy," stressed Hiltermann. Recalling next year's planned referendum on the future status of Kirkuk, and mentioning his fears of a possible increase in tension in the near future as Kurdish groups change the demography of the city, Hiltermann suggested that Washington should become actively involved with the issue rather than leaving it for the Iraqis to deal with. The ICG expert also criticized the U.S. for sending mainly Kurdish security officials to Turkmen-dominated cities like Tal Afar.
During his speech, Hiltermann also said that the strong Turkish military and the Turkish government have differing views about relations with Iraqi Kurds. He said that the military looks upon the Iraqi Kurdish political groups more harshly than ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party, which has been in favor of developing economic links and investments in northern Iraq.
Ankara -- A leading Brussels-based think tank urged the U.S. yesterday to immediately take active measures to prevent the city of Kirkuk, Iraq from potentially escalating into ethnic clashes, reported news channel NTV.
Joost Hiltermann, the Middle East project director from the International Crisis Group (ICG), said in an address at the Middle East Institute in Washington that Iraqi Kurds are determined to include the oil-rich city under the authority of the Kurdish regional government. He added that these efforts will receive a harsh response from both Arabs and Turkmens.
"The U.S. should stop leaving this issue to Iraqis. This is a mistaken policy," stressed Hiltermann. Recalling next year's planned referendum on the future status of Kirkuk, and mentioning his fears of a possible increase in tension in the near future as Kurdish groups change the demography of the city, Hiltermann suggested that Washington should become actively involved with the issue rather than leaving it for the Iraqis to deal with. The ICG expert also criticized the U.S. for sending mainly Kurdish security officials to Turkmen-dominated cities like Tal Afar.
During his speech, Hiltermann also said that the strong Turkish military and the Turkish government have differing views about relations with Iraqi Kurds. He said that the military looks upon the Iraqi Kurdish political groups more harshly than ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party, which has been in favor of developing economic links and investments in northern Iraq.
Barzani’s speech: Discrepancy between words and reality
Saturday, May 13, 2006
KurdishMedia.com - By Shakhawan Shorash
.....Barzini underlines the importance of freedom of speech and individual freedom, but neither exists in Kurdistan. All is controlled by the ruling party and everyone has to do what the ruling party appreciates. This has been the daily reality for the past 14 years. If journalists and writers criticize a negative phenomenon, they have to respect the party’s unwritten limits and censorship. No direct criticisms toward the party leaders are tolerated. Even indirect or general critics risk punishment, besides encountering sanctions and ill treatment in different ways. Consequently those who prize the party and its historical “victories” are increasing in number, while realistic and honest people are decreasing in number. .... read
KurdishMedia.com - By Shakhawan Shorash
.....Barzini underlines the importance of freedom of speech and individual freedom, but neither exists in Kurdistan. All is controlled by the ruling party and everyone has to do what the ruling party appreciates. This has been the daily reality for the past 14 years. If journalists and writers criticize a negative phenomenon, they have to respect the party’s unwritten limits and censorship. No direct criticisms toward the party leaders are tolerated. Even indirect or general critics risk punishment, besides encountering sanctions and ill treatment in different ways. Consequently those who prize the party and its historical “victories” are increasing in number, while realistic and honest people are decreasing in number. .... read
Patronage roils Iraqi unity
By Dan Murphy Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor BAGHDAD – Five months after Iraq's last election, the effort to create a national unity government to reconcile warring factions by sharing cabinet posts among Kurds and Shiite and Sunni Arabs is foundering. The latest impediment is squabbling among the dominant Shiites parties.
The country's new Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was expected to unveil his cabinet Sunday. Instead, a member of the Shiite Islamist United Iraqi Alliance confirmed it was pulling out of the government, angry at the way seats are being distributed.
The country's new Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was expected to unveil his cabinet Sunday. Instead, a member of the Shiite Islamist United Iraqi Alliance confirmed it was pulling out of the government, angry at the way seats are being distributed.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Three Iraqs Would Be One Big Problem
By ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN
Published: May 9, 2006
Washington
Skip to next paragraph
Readers’ Opinions
Forum: The Transition in Iraq
SOME pundits and politicians have been floating the idea that America consider dividing Iraq into three ethno-religious entities, saying this would not only stem the insurgency but also allow our troops an earlier exit. They are wrong: fracturing the country would not serve either Iraqi or United States interests, and would make life for average Iraqis even worse.
The first problem is that Iraq does not have a neat set of ethnic dividing lines. There has never been a meaningful census of Iraq showing exactly how its Arab Sunnis, Arab Shiites, Kurds and other factions are divided or where they live. The two elections held since the toppling of Saddam Hussein have made it clear, however, that Iraq's cities and 18 governorates all have significant minorities.
Thus any effort to divide the country along sectarian and ethnic lines would require widespread "relocations." This would probably be violent and impoverish those forced to move, leave a legacy of fear and hatred, and further delay Iraq's political and economic recovery.
Moreover, Iraq is heavily urbanized, with nearly 40 percent of the population in the multiethnic greater Baghdad and Mosul areas. We have seen in Northern Ireland and the Balkans how difficult it is to split cities, and with Iraq's centralized and failing services and impoverished economy, violence and economics cannot be separated. Deciding where Kirkuk, a key oil city, belonged would pit the Kurds against all the rest of Iraq's factions. Basra, the nation's port, is already under the sway of Shiite Islamist militias and could lose all of its secular character if the nation divided. In addition, the nation could not be partitioned without dividing the army, the security forces and the police. The regular military is largely Shiite with a significant number of Kurds. The Ministry of Interior forces are largely Shiite, and the police are hopelessly mixed with militias and local security forces that split according to local tribal, sectarian and ethnic ties. Dividing the country essentially means dividing the army and security forces and strengthening the militias — all of which would lead to more violence.
And of course, there is no way to divide Iraqi that will not set off fights over control of oil. More than 90 percent of Iraq's government revenues come from oil exports. The Sunni Arab west has no developed oil fields and thus would have no oil revenues. The Kurds want the northern oil fields, but have no legitimate claim to them and no real way to export the oil they produce (their neighbors Iran, Syria and Turkey have restive Kurdish populations of their own and thus no interest in helping Iraq's Kurds achieve self-sustaining freedom). Control of Basra would also be an issue, with various Shiite groups looking to separate and take control of the oil in the south.
Dividing Iraq would also harm regional stability and the war on terrorists. Sunni Islamist extremist groups with ties to Al Qaeda already dominate the Sunni insurgents, and division would only increase their hold over average Iraqis. And with Iraqi Sunnis cut out of oil money, Arab Sunni states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be forced to support them, if only to avoid having the Islamist extremists take over this part of Iraq.
Iran, of course, would compete for the Iraqi Shiites. The Kurds have no friends: Turkey, Iran and Syria would seek to destabilize the north and exploit the divisions between the two main Kurdish political unions. In the end, these divisions could spill over into the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world, creating a risk of local conflicts and the kind of religious tension that feeds Islamist extremism.
Washington has made serious mistakes in Iraq, and they may lead to civil war. Dividing Iraq, however, is virtually certain to make things worse. It would convey the message that America has been defeated and abandoned a nation and a people. Even if one could overlook the fact the United States effectively broke Iraq and has a responsibility to its 28 million people, it is impossible to deny that leaving behind a power vacuum in an already dangerous region is hardly a viable strategy.
Anthony H. Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of "The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics and Military Lessons."
Next Article in Opinion (3 of 9) »
Published: May 9, 2006
Washington
Skip to next paragraph
Readers’ Opinions
Forum: The Transition in Iraq
SOME pundits and politicians have been floating the idea that America consider dividing Iraq into three ethno-religious entities, saying this would not only stem the insurgency but also allow our troops an earlier exit. They are wrong: fracturing the country would not serve either Iraqi or United States interests, and would make life for average Iraqis even worse.
The first problem is that Iraq does not have a neat set of ethnic dividing lines. There has never been a meaningful census of Iraq showing exactly how its Arab Sunnis, Arab Shiites, Kurds and other factions are divided or where they live. The two elections held since the toppling of Saddam Hussein have made it clear, however, that Iraq's cities and 18 governorates all have significant minorities.
Thus any effort to divide the country along sectarian and ethnic lines would require widespread "relocations." This would probably be violent and impoverish those forced to move, leave a legacy of fear and hatred, and further delay Iraq's political and economic recovery.
Moreover, Iraq is heavily urbanized, with nearly 40 percent of the population in the multiethnic greater Baghdad and Mosul areas. We have seen in Northern Ireland and the Balkans how difficult it is to split cities, and with Iraq's centralized and failing services and impoverished economy, violence and economics cannot be separated. Deciding where Kirkuk, a key oil city, belonged would pit the Kurds against all the rest of Iraq's factions. Basra, the nation's port, is already under the sway of Shiite Islamist militias and could lose all of its secular character if the nation divided. In addition, the nation could not be partitioned without dividing the army, the security forces and the police. The regular military is largely Shiite with a significant number of Kurds. The Ministry of Interior forces are largely Shiite, and the police are hopelessly mixed with militias and local security forces that split according to local tribal, sectarian and ethnic ties. Dividing the country essentially means dividing the army and security forces and strengthening the militias — all of which would lead to more violence.
And of course, there is no way to divide Iraqi that will not set off fights over control of oil. More than 90 percent of Iraq's government revenues come from oil exports. The Sunni Arab west has no developed oil fields and thus would have no oil revenues. The Kurds want the northern oil fields, but have no legitimate claim to them and no real way to export the oil they produce (their neighbors Iran, Syria and Turkey have restive Kurdish populations of their own and thus no interest in helping Iraq's Kurds achieve self-sustaining freedom). Control of Basra would also be an issue, with various Shiite groups looking to separate and take control of the oil in the south.
Dividing Iraq would also harm regional stability and the war on terrorists. Sunni Islamist extremist groups with ties to Al Qaeda already dominate the Sunni insurgents, and division would only increase their hold over average Iraqis. And with Iraqi Sunnis cut out of oil money, Arab Sunni states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be forced to support them, if only to avoid having the Islamist extremists take over this part of Iraq.
Iran, of course, would compete for the Iraqi Shiites. The Kurds have no friends: Turkey, Iran and Syria would seek to destabilize the north and exploit the divisions between the two main Kurdish political unions. In the end, these divisions could spill over into the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world, creating a risk of local conflicts and the kind of religious tension that feeds Islamist extremism.
Washington has made serious mistakes in Iraq, and they may lead to civil war. Dividing Iraq, however, is virtually certain to make things worse. It would convey the message that America has been defeated and abandoned a nation and a people. Even if one could overlook the fact the United States effectively broke Iraq and has a responsibility to its 28 million people, it is impossible to deny that leaving behind a power vacuum in an already dangerous region is hardly a viable strategy.
Anthony H. Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of "The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics and Military Lessons."
Next Article in Opinion (3 of 9) »
Monday, May 08, 2006
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Election Results Fail To Reflect The Realities, Ergec
ANKARA -
''Elections results in Iraq fail to reflect the realities. A large Kurdish population was transferred to Kirkuk, which is an oil-rich city,'' Iraqi Turkmen Front (ITF) Chairman Sadettin Ergec who is visiting Turkey reaffirmed on Thursday.
In an exclusive interview with the A.A. correspondent, Ergec said they arrived in Turkey to get ''moral support''.
Stating that Turkmens were living under tough conditions, Ergec said ''countries neighboring Iraq have an important role to resolve the problems of Iraq since problems may spread to those countries''.
Ergec defended that relations (between Turkmens in Iraq and Turks) recessed after the rejection (by Turkish parliament) of the motion (allowing US troops to enter northern Iraq through Turkish territory --on the eve of Iraq war). -ELECTION RESULTS-
''I think it will be wrong to make assessments based on the results of recent elections since they fail to reflect the facts. On the other hand we expect Turkey to assume a more active role in the future,'' he noted.
Pertaining to the situation in Kirkuk, Ergec reaffirmed a very large Kurdish population was transferred to Kirkuk after 2003 to influence the results of the referendum scheduled by the end of 2007.
''The region is already in a state of excitement. Because of this, we demanded all the Iraqis and not only those living in the Kirkuk province must take part in the referendum,'' Ergec added.
In an exclusive interview with the A.A. correspondent, Ergec said they arrived in Turkey to get ''moral support''.
Stating that Turkmens were living under tough conditions, Ergec said ''countries neighboring Iraq have an important role to resolve the problems of Iraq since problems may spread to those countries''.
Ergec defended that relations (between Turkmens in Iraq and Turks) recessed after the rejection (by Turkish parliament) of the motion (allowing US troops to enter northern Iraq through Turkish territory --on the eve of Iraq war). -ELECTION RESULTS-
''I think it will be wrong to make assessments based on the results of recent elections since they fail to reflect the facts. On the other hand we expect Turkey to assume a more active role in the future,'' he noted.
Pertaining to the situation in Kirkuk, Ergec reaffirmed a very large Kurdish population was transferred to Kirkuk after 2003 to influence the results of the referendum scheduled by the end of 2007.
''The region is already in a state of excitement. Because of this, we demanded all the Iraqis and not only those living in the Kirkuk province must take part in the referendum,'' Ergec added.
The US betrays the Kurds again: American-Turkish rapprochement over the Iranian crisis
RAGNUM
The growing tensions over Iran are beginning to have an immediate impact on the foreign political stance of Turkey. On the one hand, the US is very much interested in involving Turkey in its anti-Iranian coalition, and on the other, Turkey is very much interested in using this opportunity for strengthening its foreign political positions. And so, they are beginning a big haggle.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has got into the spotlight by her visits to Greece, Turkey and Iraq on her way to Sofia for the April 28-29 informal NATO FM summit. Turkish media called Rice’s visit “a new page in the history of bilateral relations.” Turkish officials said it was very fruitful. In fact, Rice’s 16-hour visit was a good chance for Turkey to further improve its cooperation with the US, particularly, over Iran and the Kurdish rebels.
When in March 2003 the Turkish parliament refused to provide US troops a land corridor for attacking Iraq from the north, the Americans grew cold towards Turkey. They put all blame on Turkish generals and said that, henceforth, they would cooperate with politicians, namely, with the Party of Justice and Development (PJD), an Islamist force that has been in power since 2002. This was in line with the US’ Big Middle East project, where Turkey was supposed to assume leadership as an 'Islamic moderate'.
But the crisis over Iran has made Turkey’s generals relevant again. Since December 2005 the US military officials have been frequent guests in Turkey, and the Turkish generals have gradually restored their status in the country’s internal politics. Even though PJD will be the only ruling party in Turkey, at least, till the autumn 2007 parliamentary elections, and the acting Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has excellent chances to win the spring 2007 presidential race, the Bush administration is improving its relations exactly with the Turkish military.
In March 2006 Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace visited Turkey and met with Chief of Turkey’s General Staff, General Hilmi Ozkok and Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. The sides discussed the problems of Iran, PKK, the internal political situation in Iraq, the visit of a HAMAS delegation to Ankara.
This was exactly the agenda of Rice’s meetings with the Turkish top officials. Rice met with President Ahmed Necet Sezer, Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. The sides agreed to draft a Common Strategic Vision. In Ankara Rice said that Turkey is the US’ key partner. The brief few-page Common Strategic Vision will consist of three main chapters: (1) fight with terrorism, (2) relations with the EU, (3) Big Middle East project and addenda concerning Cyprus, PKK, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process and relations with Russia. To date, the US has a similar document only with India.
The Turkish public had been well prepared for Rice’s visit. On the eve of the visit, all Turkish media reported that during the last few years the US has been providing the Turkish armed forces with information support, particularly, through the Echelon global surveillance system. Even though most of this information was about PKK (it was this very source that enabled the Turkish armed forces to hold a series of successful operations in Turkey’s south-eastern regions in March-April), Rice did not give a specific yes to Turkey’s request to stifle PKK’s positions in Northern Iraq or to let it do it itself. At the same time, she hinted that the US may close its eyes on this, i.e. on a forthcoming Turkish military operation in Northern Iraq. It’s noteworthy that Turkey launched this operation while Rice was still in its territory. So, we can say that the US has, in fact, given a sanction to it.
One more interesting point of fact is that before coming to Ankara Rice had signaled that she supports Turkey’s position on Cyprus, thereby, creating a favourable climate for her talks in Ankara. Particularly, in Athens she said that Turkey is already a European country and that the Republic of Cyprus should do its best to make Turkey’s EU membership a reality. Ankara made a reciprocal gesture: it turned down Iran’s request for National Security Secretary Ali Larijani’s visit to Turkey. The Turks advised Larijani to put off his visit for early May, i.e. after Rice’s visit. They may well act as a go-between at the talks with Larijani by telling him what the US has said. This is quite typical of Ankara: to get most of the tensions between two allies and to act as a negotiator between them.
Yet one more interesting point of fact is that Turkey had launched its all-time big anti-Kurdish military campaign exactly by the time of Rice’s Ankara visit. Fearing Europe’s anger, Turkey had, thereby, tried to “legitimize” its action. Turkey’s goal is to curb the activity of Kurds in its south-eastern regions, to provoke them into counter-action and, with US acquiescence, to track the fighters down to Northern Iraq and to put an end to them there. This is, in fact, a repetition of campaigns it used to hold in Saddam times.
The events of the last week have confirmed this conclusion. Turkey was holding its military campaign while Rice was talking with Turkish leaders in Ankara and had crossed the Iraqi border when Rice was still in the Turkish capital. During the night of Apr 26-27, after being informed that fighters from the PKK training camps in Khaftanin and Metina (Northern Iraq) were planning to infiltrate into the Turkish territory, the Turkish army launched a preventive attack, threw back the enemy and pursued it into the Northern Iraqi territory. Armed with night vision cameras, the Turkish soldiers liquidated the covers of the Kurds.
The chief of Turkey’s general staff, Gen. Hilmi Ozkok refused to answer any questions. Instead, Ms Rice “calmed down” the Iraqi authorities by saying that Turkey was not going to cause damage to Iraq but was only trying to destroy PKK bases. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the same. This means that when in Ankara Rice gave her consent to Turkey’s operation in Northern Iraq. We can’t yet give all the reasons of this consent but, undoubtedly, it was the result of 'horse trading' .
The next day Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul confirmed that Turkish troops had violated the Turkish-Iraqi border but said that the Iraqi authorities' protests were uncalled for (the note of protest handed by Iraqi Ambassador to Turkey Umran Sabah) as “the destruction of PKK fighters in the territory of Northern Iraq is good for Baghdad too.” “For as long as Iraq is unable to guard its own borders, we’ll do it ourselves,” Gul said. This statement shows how confident Turkey is in this matter. It undertakes to 'protect' the border of a neighbor country without its consent and, in the meantime occupies, part of its territory. Obviously, Washington has not only agreed to but also guaranteed Turkey’s actions.
In his turn, the leader of the Iraqi Democratic Party of Kurdistan Masud Barzani attempted to refute the fact of the Turkish invasion into Iraq. This shows that, sacrificed by the US once again, the leaders of Iraqi Kurdistan are trying to save their faces. Meanwhile, the Turkish troops are reported to have gained control over 20-km area in Northern Iraq and to be holding a large-scale operation to destroy PKK fighters. They have already destroyed the Zap training camp near Ahmediye – 30 km deep into Iraq. During the operations Turkish planes heavily bombed the PKK bases. Availing itself of the opportunity, Turkey’s general staff has hurried to deploy a 110,000-strong corps on the border with Iran and to say that this border is fully controlled. This may be part of Turkey’s preparations for the anti-Iranian campaign.
Summing up the results of Rice’s visit to Ankara, we can say that the US is pressing hard on Turkey so as to prevent the recurrence of the Mar 2003 events, but, at the same time, it is catering for some of Ankara’s major interests. According to confidential information, Rice has demanded a straightforward answer from Turkey – “who is it with: with the US or Iran?” The Turkish officials are pretending they have given no specific promises to Washington yet and will act in line with the UN Security Council’s resolution. But there are facts that prove that during its secret talks with the DS and Pentagon and earlier this year with Tel Aviv, Turkey showed that it might well join the US and Israel.
Turkey’s key argument is the fear of its generals that a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran may break the balance of forces between Ankara and Tehran. Turkish military analysts say that the decades-long peace between Turkey and Iran is fragile and is based on the parity of their armed forces. At the same time, the political rulers of Turkey, namely, the pro-Islamist PJD, fear that strong Iran may be a strong enemy in the struggle for sway in the Muslim world and want to weaken it.
But given the growing anti-American moods and upcoming elections in the country, PJD would still like to get the UN SC’s sanctions for the military campaign against Iran: PJD is careful in its policies and is not going to say yes to whatever the US wants. Meanwhile, Turkey’s General Staff, on the contrary, hopes that joint actions with the US will help it to strengthen its position in own country and to curb the further rise of Islamism there, particularly, to prevent PJD leader Erdogan from becoming president.
This is proved by the following circumstances: (1) a number of scandalous differences between PJD and US officials, particularly, the premier’s advisor Zapsu’s appeal to Washington not to give up PJD and Erdogan; and (2) the frequent visits of US representatives to Turkey. So, we can assume that Rice’s promise of a new strategic partnership treaty soon may well come from an agreement between Pentagon and Turkey’s General Staff. And so, we can accept the view of Turkish analysts about “a new stage” in Turkish-American relations with one proviso: just like several years ago, the US and Turkey will build their relations on the basis of military cooperation. Ankara has two problems the US can help it to solve: Cyprus and PKK. Rice’s Athens statement that Cyprus should do its best for Turkey to become an EU member, the entry of Turkish troops in Northern Iraq (something Ankara has been demanding for three years already) and the US’ connivance in the matter show that Ankara and Washington have, in principle, agreed on their cooperation over several important directions, including over Iran.
The approval of Turkey’s entry into Iraq may also imply that the sides have agreed on Kirkuk. Particularly, the Turkish prime minister and foreign minister told Rice that this town is very important in both internal political and regional terms and one can’t leave it under the control of one ethnic group. By “ethnic group” they obviously meant the Kurds.
There is a strong possibility that Washington is playing a situational game with several players at once. Getting strong support in Iraq in 2003, the US realized once again how important it is to cooperate with the Kurdish Peshmarga. But, obviously, Washington is not hurrying to give the Kurds official independence so as to have something to offer the next time the Kurds may become useful. In case of a campaign in Iran, the US will need not only Turkey, but also Kurds: who will help it to keep up stability in Iraq and to break stability in Iran through local Kurds. There is a strong possibility that Kurds may be used by Iran. And so, by letting Turkey into Northern Iraq, i.e. Kurdistan, Washington has, on the one hand, dealt a card to Ankara but, on the other, secured a card for itself – for promising at later meetings with Kurds that it will urge Turkey to withdraw from Kurdistan if they promise to cooperate over Iran. Ankara perfectly knows that the US’ approval of its campaign in Northern Iraq does not yet mean approval of its deployment in that territory.
So, obviously, in the next 10-15 years the US’ foreign policy will be focused on Middle East, Caspian Basin, Caucasus, Central Asia, South-Eastern Asia. Apparently, the US still needs Turkey as a military and political partner. Besides, Turkey is still the only partner of Israel despite the recent tensions over the PJD’s Islamist policies.
Turkey also needs the US. If Iran gets stronger, and the balance of forces in the region is changed, Turkey will find it hard to keep its positions alone. Turkey is obviously conceding in its relations with the US so as not to face Islamism tête-à-tête. Today it wants Washington just to curb Iran but not to war with it. If a war starts Turkey will find it hard to avoid being involved. But for the time being, it is just trying to capitalize on the regional crisis.
At its regular monthly conference on April 27, Turkey’s National Security Council focused on Turkey’s military campaign against PKK, Rice’s contacts in Ankara and the new government and nuclear program crises in Iraq and Iran, respectively. Particularly discussed was the strategy of Turkish military operations on the other side of the border. It’s noteworthy that after the 5.5-hour conference the Turkish premier had a tête-à-tête meeting with Transport Minister Yildirim, who had just come back from Iran. The council also discussed internal political problems, particularly, the strengthening of the Islamist policy.
Naturally, for us the dynamics of Turkish-American relations are interesting mostly in terms of Turkey’s relations with Russia and its role in the Caucasus. Having decisive rapprochement plans with Turkey, the US, at the same time, demands that Ankara stop its big plans with Moscow. Particularly, when in Ankara, Rice demanded that Gazprom be removed from the 600 mln EUR project to connect the gas networks of Turkey and Greece. She had earlier demanded the same in Athens. Some sources say that Rice proposed replacing the Russian gas by the Azeri one to be imported to Turkey via the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline. This demand has upset Turkey’s plans to become a mediator between Russia and Europe and to, thereby, show its importance for the EU. But Turkey’s tighter relations with the US may lead to its stronger positions in the Caucasus, particularly, in the South Caucasus.
So, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipelines, to be launched in 2007, will link Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey even tighter. In Ankara the US and Turkey might also discuss the building of a railroad Kars (Turkey)-Tbilisi-Baku, particularly, the possibility of US support in the project. If we add to this the talk that Turkey may be allowed to have a greater say over the South Caucasus, we may well assume that very soon the Russian military bases in Georgia will be replaced by Turkish troops under the NATO aegis. Then, by forcing Georgia to populate the Turkish-Georgian borderline regions with ethnic Turks (Meskhetins), the EU and the US will chain it up to the West, with Ankara gaining bigger influence over Tbilisi’s policy.
Ankara has repeatedly said that it is ready to become a mediator in the Karabakh peace process. This would give Turkey the authority of big regional power. Despite Armenia’s resistance, the US may well involve Turkey in the process, though, initially, just as an observer. In summary, we should note that the unpredictability of the developments over Iran and the further deepening of Turkish-American relations are very negative factors for Russia’s positions in the South Caucasus.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has got into the spotlight by her visits to Greece, Turkey and Iraq on her way to Sofia for the April 28-29 informal NATO FM summit. Turkish media called Rice’s visit “a new page in the history of bilateral relations.” Turkish officials said it was very fruitful. In fact, Rice’s 16-hour visit was a good chance for Turkey to further improve its cooperation with the US, particularly, over Iran and the Kurdish rebels.
When in March 2003 the Turkish parliament refused to provide US troops a land corridor for attacking Iraq from the north, the Americans grew cold towards Turkey. They put all blame on Turkish generals and said that, henceforth, they would cooperate with politicians, namely, with the Party of Justice and Development (PJD), an Islamist force that has been in power since 2002. This was in line with the US’ Big Middle East project, where Turkey was supposed to assume leadership as an 'Islamic moderate'.
But the crisis over Iran has made Turkey’s generals relevant again. Since December 2005 the US military officials have been frequent guests in Turkey, and the Turkish generals have gradually restored their status in the country’s internal politics. Even though PJD will be the only ruling party in Turkey, at least, till the autumn 2007 parliamentary elections, and the acting Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has excellent chances to win the spring 2007 presidential race, the Bush administration is improving its relations exactly with the Turkish military.
In March 2006 Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace visited Turkey and met with Chief of Turkey’s General Staff, General Hilmi Ozkok and Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. The sides discussed the problems of Iran, PKK, the internal political situation in Iraq, the visit of a HAMAS delegation to Ankara.
This was exactly the agenda of Rice’s meetings with the Turkish top officials. Rice met with President Ahmed Necet Sezer, Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. The sides agreed to draft a Common Strategic Vision. In Ankara Rice said that Turkey is the US’ key partner. The brief few-page Common Strategic Vision will consist of three main chapters: (1) fight with terrorism, (2) relations with the EU, (3) Big Middle East project and addenda concerning Cyprus, PKK, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process and relations with Russia. To date, the US has a similar document only with India.
The Turkish public had been well prepared for Rice’s visit. On the eve of the visit, all Turkish media reported that during the last few years the US has been providing the Turkish armed forces with information support, particularly, through the Echelon global surveillance system. Even though most of this information was about PKK (it was this very source that enabled the Turkish armed forces to hold a series of successful operations in Turkey’s south-eastern regions in March-April), Rice did not give a specific yes to Turkey’s request to stifle PKK’s positions in Northern Iraq or to let it do it itself. At the same time, she hinted that the US may close its eyes on this, i.e. on a forthcoming Turkish military operation in Northern Iraq. It’s noteworthy that Turkey launched this operation while Rice was still in its territory. So, we can say that the US has, in fact, given a sanction to it.
One more interesting point of fact is that before coming to Ankara Rice had signaled that she supports Turkey’s position on Cyprus, thereby, creating a favourable climate for her talks in Ankara. Particularly, in Athens she said that Turkey is already a European country and that the Republic of Cyprus should do its best to make Turkey’s EU membership a reality. Ankara made a reciprocal gesture: it turned down Iran’s request for National Security Secretary Ali Larijani’s visit to Turkey. The Turks advised Larijani to put off his visit for early May, i.e. after Rice’s visit. They may well act as a go-between at the talks with Larijani by telling him what the US has said. This is quite typical of Ankara: to get most of the tensions between two allies and to act as a negotiator between them.
Yet one more interesting point of fact is that Turkey had launched its all-time big anti-Kurdish military campaign exactly by the time of Rice’s Ankara visit. Fearing Europe’s anger, Turkey had, thereby, tried to “legitimize” its action. Turkey’s goal is to curb the activity of Kurds in its south-eastern regions, to provoke them into counter-action and, with US acquiescence, to track the fighters down to Northern Iraq and to put an end to them there. This is, in fact, a repetition of campaigns it used to hold in Saddam times.
The events of the last week have confirmed this conclusion. Turkey was holding its military campaign while Rice was talking with Turkish leaders in Ankara and had crossed the Iraqi border when Rice was still in the Turkish capital. During the night of Apr 26-27, after being informed that fighters from the PKK training camps in Khaftanin and Metina (Northern Iraq) were planning to infiltrate into the Turkish territory, the Turkish army launched a preventive attack, threw back the enemy and pursued it into the Northern Iraqi territory. Armed with night vision cameras, the Turkish soldiers liquidated the covers of the Kurds.
The chief of Turkey’s general staff, Gen. Hilmi Ozkok refused to answer any questions. Instead, Ms Rice “calmed down” the Iraqi authorities by saying that Turkey was not going to cause damage to Iraq but was only trying to destroy PKK bases. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the same. This means that when in Ankara Rice gave her consent to Turkey’s operation in Northern Iraq. We can’t yet give all the reasons of this consent but, undoubtedly, it was the result of 'horse trading' .
The next day Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul confirmed that Turkish troops had violated the Turkish-Iraqi border but said that the Iraqi authorities' protests were uncalled for (the note of protest handed by Iraqi Ambassador to Turkey Umran Sabah) as “the destruction of PKK fighters in the territory of Northern Iraq is good for Baghdad too.” “For as long as Iraq is unable to guard its own borders, we’ll do it ourselves,” Gul said. This statement shows how confident Turkey is in this matter. It undertakes to 'protect' the border of a neighbor country without its consent and, in the meantime occupies, part of its territory. Obviously, Washington has not only agreed to but also guaranteed Turkey’s actions.
In his turn, the leader of the Iraqi Democratic Party of Kurdistan Masud Barzani attempted to refute the fact of the Turkish invasion into Iraq. This shows that, sacrificed by the US once again, the leaders of Iraqi Kurdistan are trying to save their faces. Meanwhile, the Turkish troops are reported to have gained control over 20-km area in Northern Iraq and to be holding a large-scale operation to destroy PKK fighters. They have already destroyed the Zap training camp near Ahmediye – 30 km deep into Iraq. During the operations Turkish planes heavily bombed the PKK bases. Availing itself of the opportunity, Turkey’s general staff has hurried to deploy a 110,000-strong corps on the border with Iran and to say that this border is fully controlled. This may be part of Turkey’s preparations for the anti-Iranian campaign.
Summing up the results of Rice’s visit to Ankara, we can say that the US is pressing hard on Turkey so as to prevent the recurrence of the Mar 2003 events, but, at the same time, it is catering for some of Ankara’s major interests. According to confidential information, Rice has demanded a straightforward answer from Turkey – “who is it with: with the US or Iran?” The Turkish officials are pretending they have given no specific promises to Washington yet and will act in line with the UN Security Council’s resolution. But there are facts that prove that during its secret talks with the DS and Pentagon and earlier this year with Tel Aviv, Turkey showed that it might well join the US and Israel.
Turkey’s key argument is the fear of its generals that a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran may break the balance of forces between Ankara and Tehran. Turkish military analysts say that the decades-long peace between Turkey and Iran is fragile and is based on the parity of their armed forces. At the same time, the political rulers of Turkey, namely, the pro-Islamist PJD, fear that strong Iran may be a strong enemy in the struggle for sway in the Muslim world and want to weaken it.
But given the growing anti-American moods and upcoming elections in the country, PJD would still like to get the UN SC’s sanctions for the military campaign against Iran: PJD is careful in its policies and is not going to say yes to whatever the US wants. Meanwhile, Turkey’s General Staff, on the contrary, hopes that joint actions with the US will help it to strengthen its position in own country and to curb the further rise of Islamism there, particularly, to prevent PJD leader Erdogan from becoming president.
This is proved by the following circumstances: (1) a number of scandalous differences between PJD and US officials, particularly, the premier’s advisor Zapsu’s appeal to Washington not to give up PJD and Erdogan; and (2) the frequent visits of US representatives to Turkey. So, we can assume that Rice’s promise of a new strategic partnership treaty soon may well come from an agreement between Pentagon and Turkey’s General Staff. And so, we can accept the view of Turkish analysts about “a new stage” in Turkish-American relations with one proviso: just like several years ago, the US and Turkey will build their relations on the basis of military cooperation. Ankara has two problems the US can help it to solve: Cyprus and PKK. Rice’s Athens statement that Cyprus should do its best for Turkey to become an EU member, the entry of Turkish troops in Northern Iraq (something Ankara has been demanding for three years already) and the US’ connivance in the matter show that Ankara and Washington have, in principle, agreed on their cooperation over several important directions, including over Iran.
The approval of Turkey’s entry into Iraq may also imply that the sides have agreed on Kirkuk. Particularly, the Turkish prime minister and foreign minister told Rice that this town is very important in both internal political and regional terms and one can’t leave it under the control of one ethnic group. By “ethnic group” they obviously meant the Kurds.
There is a strong possibility that Washington is playing a situational game with several players at once. Getting strong support in Iraq in 2003, the US realized once again how important it is to cooperate with the Kurdish Peshmarga. But, obviously, Washington is not hurrying to give the Kurds official independence so as to have something to offer the next time the Kurds may become useful. In case of a campaign in Iran, the US will need not only Turkey, but also Kurds: who will help it to keep up stability in Iraq and to break stability in Iran through local Kurds. There is a strong possibility that Kurds may be used by Iran. And so, by letting Turkey into Northern Iraq, i.e. Kurdistan, Washington has, on the one hand, dealt a card to Ankara but, on the other, secured a card for itself – for promising at later meetings with Kurds that it will urge Turkey to withdraw from Kurdistan if they promise to cooperate over Iran. Ankara perfectly knows that the US’ approval of its campaign in Northern Iraq does not yet mean approval of its deployment in that territory.
So, obviously, in the next 10-15 years the US’ foreign policy will be focused on Middle East, Caspian Basin, Caucasus, Central Asia, South-Eastern Asia. Apparently, the US still needs Turkey as a military and political partner. Besides, Turkey is still the only partner of Israel despite the recent tensions over the PJD’s Islamist policies.
Turkey also needs the US. If Iran gets stronger, and the balance of forces in the region is changed, Turkey will find it hard to keep its positions alone. Turkey is obviously conceding in its relations with the US so as not to face Islamism tête-à-tête. Today it wants Washington just to curb Iran but not to war with it. If a war starts Turkey will find it hard to avoid being involved. But for the time being, it is just trying to capitalize on the regional crisis.
At its regular monthly conference on April 27, Turkey’s National Security Council focused on Turkey’s military campaign against PKK, Rice’s contacts in Ankara and the new government and nuclear program crises in Iraq and Iran, respectively. Particularly discussed was the strategy of Turkish military operations on the other side of the border. It’s noteworthy that after the 5.5-hour conference the Turkish premier had a tête-à-tête meeting with Transport Minister Yildirim, who had just come back from Iran. The council also discussed internal political problems, particularly, the strengthening of the Islamist policy.
Naturally, for us the dynamics of Turkish-American relations are interesting mostly in terms of Turkey’s relations with Russia and its role in the Caucasus. Having decisive rapprochement plans with Turkey, the US, at the same time, demands that Ankara stop its big plans with Moscow. Particularly, when in Ankara, Rice demanded that Gazprom be removed from the 600 mln EUR project to connect the gas networks of Turkey and Greece. She had earlier demanded the same in Athens. Some sources say that Rice proposed replacing the Russian gas by the Azeri one to be imported to Turkey via the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline. This demand has upset Turkey’s plans to become a mediator between Russia and Europe and to, thereby, show its importance for the EU. But Turkey’s tighter relations with the US may lead to its stronger positions in the Caucasus, particularly, in the South Caucasus.
So, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipelines, to be launched in 2007, will link Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey even tighter. In Ankara the US and Turkey might also discuss the building of a railroad Kars (Turkey)-Tbilisi-Baku, particularly, the possibility of US support in the project. If we add to this the talk that Turkey may be allowed to have a greater say over the South Caucasus, we may well assume that very soon the Russian military bases in Georgia will be replaced by Turkish troops under the NATO aegis. Then, by forcing Georgia to populate the Turkish-Georgian borderline regions with ethnic Turks (Meskhetins), the EU and the US will chain it up to the West, with Ankara gaining bigger influence over Tbilisi’s policy.
Ankara has repeatedly said that it is ready to become a mediator in the Karabakh peace process. This would give Turkey the authority of big regional power. Despite Armenia’s resistance, the US may well involve Turkey in the process, though, initially, just as an observer. In summary, we should note that the unpredictability of the developments over Iran and the further deepening of Turkish-American relations are very negative factors for Russia’s positions in the South Caucasus.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Sen. Biden: Iraq Should be Divided into 3 Regions
01/05/2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Iraq should be divided into three largely autonomous regions -- Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab -- with a weaker central government in Baghdad, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) said on Monday.
In an op-ed article in The New York Times, Biden, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee's top Democrat, said the Bush administration's effort to establish a strong central government in Baghdad had been a failure, doomed by ethnic rivalry that had spawned widespread sectarian violence.
"It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor," said Biden and co-author Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Iraq's Sunnis, the driving force behind the insurgency, would welcome the partition plan rather than be dominated by a Shiite-controlled central government, Biden said.
He said the division of Iraq would follow the example of Bosnia a decade ago when that war-torn country was partitioned into ethnic federations under the U.S.-brokered Dayton Accords.
Biden billed his plan as a "third option" beyond the "false choice" of continuing the Bush administration policy of nurturing a unity government in Iraq or withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.
As part of the plan, the United States should withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by 2008, except for a small force to combat terrorism, Biden said.
Under Biden's proposal, the Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Iraq should be divided into three largely autonomous regions -- Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab -- with a weaker central government in Baghdad, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) said on Monday.
In an op-ed article in The New York Times, Biden, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee's top Democrat, said the Bush administration's effort to establish a strong central government in Baghdad had been a failure, doomed by ethnic rivalry that had spawned widespread sectarian violence.
"It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor," said Biden and co-author Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Iraq's Sunnis, the driving force behind the insurgency, would welcome the partition plan rather than be dominated by a Shiite-controlled central government, Biden said.
He said the division of Iraq would follow the example of Bosnia a decade ago when that war-torn country was partitioned into ethnic federations under the U.S.-brokered Dayton Accords.
Biden billed his plan as a "third option" beyond the "false choice" of continuing the Bush administration policy of nurturing a unity government in Iraq or withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.
As part of the plan, the United States should withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by 2008, except for a small force to combat terrorism, Biden said.
Under Biden's proposal, the Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Rice, in Greece and Turkey, Holds Talks on Iraq and Iran
NY TIMES
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: April 26, 2006
ANKARA, Turkey, April 25 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured Turkish leaders on Tuesday that the United States would step up efforts to stop Kurdish insurgents in Iraq from infiltrating into Turkey, but she cautioned the government not to send troops to Iraq to do the job.....read more
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Shiite Militias Move Into Oil-Rich Kirkuk, Even as Kurds Dig In
Control of Iraqi City Has Long Been in Dispute
By Jonathan FinerWashington Post Foreign ServiceTuesday, April 25, 2006; Page A16
KIRKUK, Iraq -- Hundreds of Shiite Muslim militiamen have deployed in recent weeks to this restive city -- widely considered the most likely flash point for an Iraqi civil war -- vowing to fight any attempt to shift control over Kirkuk to the Kurdish-governed north, according to U.S. commanders and diplomats, local police and politicians.
Until recently, the presence of the militias here was minimal. U.S. officials have called the Shiite armed groups the deadliest threat to security in much of the country. They have been blamed for hundreds of killings during mounting sectarian violence in central and southern Iraq since the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in February.......continue
By Jonathan FinerWashington Post Foreign ServiceTuesday, April 25, 2006; Page A16
KIRKUK, Iraq -- Hundreds of Shiite Muslim militiamen have deployed in recent weeks to this restive city -- widely considered the most likely flash point for an Iraqi civil war -- vowing to fight any attempt to shift control over Kirkuk to the Kurdish-governed north, according to U.S. commanders and diplomats, local police and politicians.
Until recently, the presence of the militias here was minimal. U.S. officials have called the Shiite armed groups the deadliest threat to security in much of the country. They have been blamed for hundreds of killings during mounting sectarian violence in central and southern Iraq since the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in February.......continue
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Assassination On Turkmen Politician in Kerkuk
A Turkmen Politician killed by Kurdish terrorists in Kerkuk.
Sabah Ketene, a memeber of the Turkmen Council and former president Iraq Turkmen Front was killed by three Kurdish militia members by machine gun shot from a black car right front of Ketene's house in Kerkuk at 11:00 am in April 22 2006.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
END SECTARIAN VIOLENCE
By Tulin Daloglu
April 18, 2006
Four months after holding its historic national elections, Iraq still has failed to form a government. The parliamentary session that was supposed to be held yesterday has been postponed to a later date. The problem appears to be Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari, but in fact it runs deeper. "Not standing up the government fuels the sectarian violence," said Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, senior adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Iraq. Mr. Jeffrey says the United States has not "put the torch to sectarian violence." He is right -- but not completely...... continue
ITF visits Turkish Polititians
Visit to MHP (Nationalist Action Party)
kerkuk.net 19.04.2006
Iraq Turkoman Front Turkish Representative Ahmet Muratlı visited Mr. Devlet Bahçeli, the Chairman of Milli Hareket Partisi (MHP) in his offices at the party headquarters to invite him to the reception to be held at the Ankara Hilton Hotel to celebrate the 11th Founding Anniversary of ITF.
More Details
Visit to DSP (Democratic Left Party)
kerkuk.net 19.04.2006
Iraq Turkoman Front Turkey Representative Ahmet Muratlı visited Demokratik Sol Parti (DSP) Chairman Zeki Sezer in his offices at the party headquarters to extend him an invitation to the reception to be held at the Ankara Hilton Hotel on the 24th of April to celebrate the 11th Founding Anniversary of the ITF.
More Details
Visit to Hür Parti (Freedom and Change Party)
kerkuk.net 19.04.2006
Iraq Turkoman Front Turkey Representative Ahmet Muratlı visited Hürriyet ve Değişim Partisi (HÜR PARTİ) Chairman Yaşar Okuyan in his offices at the party headquarters to extend him an invitation to the reception to be held at the Ankara Hilton Hotel on the 24th of April to celebrate the 11th Founding Anniversary of the ITF.
More Details
Visit to SHP (Socialdemocratic People’s Party)
kerkuk.net 19.04.2006
Iraq Turkoman Front Turkey Representative Ahmet Muratlı visited Sosyaldemokrat Halk Partisi (SHP) Chairman Murat Karayalçın in his offices at the party headquarters to extend him an invitation to the reception to be held at the Ankara Hilton Hotel on the 24th of April to celebrate the 11th Founding Anniversary of the ITF.
kerkuk.net 19.04.2006
Iraq Turkoman Front Turkish Representative Ahmet Muratlı visited Mr. Devlet Bahçeli, the Chairman of Milli Hareket Partisi (MHP) in his offices at the party headquarters to invite him to the reception to be held at the Ankara Hilton Hotel to celebrate the 11th Founding Anniversary of ITF.
More Details
Visit to DSP (Democratic Left Party)
kerkuk.net 19.04.2006
Iraq Turkoman Front Turkey Representative Ahmet Muratlı visited Demokratik Sol Parti (DSP) Chairman Zeki Sezer in his offices at the party headquarters to extend him an invitation to the reception to be held at the Ankara Hilton Hotel on the 24th of April to celebrate the 11th Founding Anniversary of the ITF.
More Details
Visit to Hür Parti (Freedom and Change Party)
kerkuk.net 19.04.2006
Iraq Turkoman Front Turkey Representative Ahmet Muratlı visited Hürriyet ve Değişim Partisi (HÜR PARTİ) Chairman Yaşar Okuyan in his offices at the party headquarters to extend him an invitation to the reception to be held at the Ankara Hilton Hotel on the 24th of April to celebrate the 11th Founding Anniversary of the ITF.
More Details
Visit to SHP (Socialdemocratic People’s Party)
kerkuk.net 19.04.2006
Iraq Turkoman Front Turkey Representative Ahmet Muratlı visited Sosyaldemokrat Halk Partisi (SHP) Chairman Murat Karayalçın in his offices at the party headquarters to extend him an invitation to the reception to be held at the Ankara Hilton Hotel on the 24th of April to celebrate the 11th Founding Anniversary of the ITF.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Blame flies over Iraqi leadership stalemate
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraqi politicians in the past few days have begun using uncommonly bitter language to blame one another for the impasse over a new government, a development that suggests that stalemated talks are nowhere near success....continue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
