28.02.2008

Turkey's action endangers region

Kurdistan was, till now, the only stable part of Iraq. Turkey's military campaign has put an end to that and will trigger all manner of dangerous consequences, writes Esen Uslu

Turkish armed forces have launched a combined operation over the border into Iraqi Kurdistan. Up to 10,000 troops are involved. The pretext is to destroy the ‘terrorist’ camps and bases of the Kurdish Workers Party, the Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan or PKK, which have long been established in the rugged and inhospitable mountains along the Turkey-Iraq border in a thin land strip about 20 miles deep. These PKK camps and bases are used as staging posts for cross-border raids, as well as acting as logistic and command centres for guerrilla operations inside Turkey. Ominously, Turkey has declined to give Iraq a timetable for the withdrawal of its troops.

Turkey’s military invasion into Iraqi Kurdistan is being supplemented on its side of the border with an operation, code-named ‘Sun’, in an escalation of the previous weeks’ air raids. Turkey claims that hundreds of PKK supporters have been killed.

Since last spring the deployment of a large number of troops, as well as heavy armour and artillery, has continued unabated. But the generals have been adamant that only a sweep across the mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan would provide a magical cure for the ‘Kurdish problem’. Despite the historical failure of the tactic pursued by the Turkish military - in effect nothing but punishment raids by expeditionary forces - every new generation of the army top brass insists on repeating it yet again.

Every time they claim that recently acquired material and technical superiority will ensure success where before there was failure. In the late 1920s the British tried aerial bombing for the first time. Then in the 1930s the Turkish air force deployed its own newly acquired toys in the Dersim mountains. But scorched earth tactics have never produced the ‘desired’ result - the forcible assimilation of Kurds into the Turkish nation.

The army also claims that ‘victories’ won on the battlefield have been turned into defeats by the politicians, whom they blame for failing to take economic measures to find sufficient employment for the Kurdish poor, thereby shoring up their loyalty to the Turkish state. But what they claim to be ‘victory’ has always been the brutal suppression of uprisings and the pursuit of guerrilla forces which refuse to surrender deep into the territory of other countries. When Kurdish people living within the borders of Turkey make use of favourable international circumstances to demand their rights, they are assisted by guerrillas who come back over the border once more. This cycle has been repeated for the whole of the 20th century.

The recent change in the plot of this all too familiar story came with the establishment of the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq under the auspices of the US-led occupation. The crux of the matter is the possible independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, made viable through control of the Kirkuk oilfields. The Kirkuk region, with its Turkmen and Arab population, as well as its Kurdish majority, will be the first item on the agenda when a long postponed referendum takes place shortly to determine the future of the region.

Turkish finance capital, together with nationalist and reactionary forces, including the army generals, see the Kirkuk and Mosul oilfields as their natural sphere of influence historically, which means that Kurdish independence must be prevented by all possible means. The Turkish establishment has been exerting pressure on the US to stop any transfer of the Kirkuk region to the control of a Kurdish autonomous government. To date that policy has been successful in securing the postponement of the proposed referendum.

The Turkish incursions should also be seen in this light. The bargaining between the US and Turkish sides that had been going on behind the scenes for almost a year finally produced an agreement that allowed Turkish military operations within limits defined by the US army and directed at targets identified by US intelligence made available to Turkish forces.

US policy consists of a two-pronged approach: on the one hand, the US is pacifying or partially satisfying the Turkish side by permitting cross-border operations, while, on the other hand, it is pressurising the unruly Kurdish guerrilla forces in order to persuade a sufficiently large section to become an instrument of its Iranian policy by converting them into docile forces needing to cooperate with the US.

Therefore it has been prepared to rein in the government of the Kurdish autonomous region, persuading it not to actively oppose Turkish army operations against the guerrilla bases that it cannot control itself. The two prime factions operating within the government of the Kurdish autonomous region - the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan - calculate that they would gain a lot from the defeat of PKK forces. True, the PKK has been a useful card to play against Turkey, but the guerrillas are also regarded as unruly proletarian elements unwilling to accept Kurdish ‘autonomy’ under the auspices of the US.

Such a devil’s bargain - or treachery - is the norm in the affairs of the Middle East. However, once the Turkish army began its notorious ‘body count’ tactic to register their ‘victory’ and started demolishing bridges over mountain streams, the chilling reality of its operations began to hit home in the southern cities of the autonomous region. When the situation became unbearable for large numbers of Kurds, and shia politicians in the federal government also began to raise objections, the Kurdish leaders were forced to register their opposition to the Turkish invasion.

They are also fully aware that the previously proposed ‘security zone’ along the border may be unilaterally imposed by the Turkish side. This would mean the occupation of part of Kurdish autonomous territory for an indeterminate period by a considerable force and would render any referendum for Kirkuk unworkable. Despite Turkish and US assurances that the cross-border operations will be limited in time and scope, the fears of the Kurdish autonomous region leaders are not without foundation. When the Kurdish side registered its opposition, Turkish military communiqués responded by objecting to wounded guerrillas being treated in the hospitals of Kurdish autonomous cities. The veiled threat is apparent.

With the commencement of cross-border operations, the recently elected islamist president of Turkey, Abdullah Gül, reversed his previous position of ignoring Iraqi president Jalal Talabani (himself a Kurd, of course) and invited him to Turkey for talks. This attempt to placate him was not sufficient to close the wide gap between Turkish and Kurdish positions. Bridging such a wide gap is even quite difficult for the US, for all its delicate touches.

The traditional restraints imposed by the European countries on the excessive actions of Turkey seem to have disappeared when it comes to the latest incursions. Not even the Russians raised serious objections and the Iranians are also bolstering their troop levels and weaponry in the border region. The Kurdish guerrillas will have a very difficult time indeed in the coming days.

The working population in Iraqi Kurdistan, Iran and Turkey will also suffer as a result of the heightened nationalism and reaction whipped up by reactionary political forces in support of the military. Meanwhile, left and democratic forces in those countries lack any real ability to mount a serious challenge and international solidarity is practically non-existent to date.

Without the meaningful solidarity of the European working class, the occupation of a large area of Iraqi Kurdistan by Turkish troops might drag on with unpredictable consequences. Considering the stepping up of US rhetoric against Iran, these developments do not bode well for the region.