|
|
|
Turkish soldiers
|
There is a famous saying in the
Middle East: no one ever forgets and everyone holds a grudge.
Look
at the Israelis, they cite 5,000-year old traditions as a stake
to claim whichever land they please. The Iranians have never
forgotten their darkest moments in history – when Alexander
the Great invaded and lay ruin to Persia, and when the Arabs
‘liberated’ or invaded and brought their empire to its
knees.
So,
it is no surprise at all that the Iraqi people, comprised of
Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis, Catholics, Shiites, Sunnis and
others, firmly reject the notion of Turkey sending 10,000 troops
to help the US and UK govern Iraq.
The
human rights track record of the former Ottoman Empire is still
fresh in the minds of Iraqis. The Turkish massacre of Assyrians
in Iraq and Iran in the early 1900s is also still fresh in the
minds of the Iraqis. And, lest we forget, the Turkish army is
still in a bitter struggle with Kurdish separatists that has
cost each side dearly.
Empirical
historical data shows that the Ottoman Empire left a bloody
trail in Iraq. In 1850, 10,000 Assyrians were massacred in Mosul,
capital of Nineveh province and part of the Ottoman Empire until
1918. In 1892, more than 3,000 Yazidis were killed by Ottoman
forces in Mosul.
The
human rights track record of the former Ottoman Empire is still fresh
in the minds of Iraqis. |
|
In
1925, the new Turkish army, under the tutelage of Kemal Attaturk,
suppressed a Kurdish rebellion by razing more than 180 Kurdish
villages and killing 250,000 men, women and children. In
Dirsim’s town square, the leaders of the rebellion were left
hanging as a warning to other Kurds and ethnic minorities. The
town was later renamed Tongli.
While
US forces have been involved in search and destroy operations,
often breaking down doors and rummaging through personal
belongings and taking people away for questioning in the Iraqi
towns of Aojah, Tikrit, Baqubah, Ramadi, Hilla, and Baghdad, the
Turkish Army also has a similar record. Take the Kurdish town of
Nusaybin near the Turkish-Syrian border. Turkish soldiers
routinely ransack through homes of suspected Kurdish
nationalists.
The
parallels between US activities in the so-called Sunni Triangle,
where support for ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is
strong, and Turkish activities against Kurdish separatists are
too ominous to ignore.
Turkish
Claims on Northern Iraq
When
Turkey sided with Germany and lost to the British and, their
then-allies, the Arabs, in 1918, it relinquished its former
Ottoman hold of the Levant (Syria and Lebanon), Palestine,
Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), and Iraq.
When
war against Iraq seemed imminent, Turkish politicians began to debate
“retaking” the cities of Mosul and Kirkuk. |
|
When
war against Iraq seemed imminent, Turkish politicians began to
debate “retaking” the cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, which they
had lost in 1918. This was not the first time Turkish
policy-makers would take such an initiative. At the end of Gulf
War I, in 1991, when Iraq was defeated by a coalition of 31
nations and was considered militarily incapacitated, Turkish
army generals contemplated invading the north of Iraq. They
hoped to strike down any whims of Kurdish nationalism and
simultaneously lay claim to the oil-rich fields of Mosul and
Kirkuk.
The
Turks believe they are backed by the now-defunct Lausanne Treaty
of 1923, which culminated four years of negotiations between
Turkey, World War I loser, and the victors. The Treaty says:
The
frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly
arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain
within nine months.
In
the event of no agreement being reached between the two
Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be
referred to the Council of the League of Nations.
The
Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that,
pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the
frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which
might modify in any way the present state of the territories of
which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
Britain
and Turkey never did come to an agreement, but Turkey maintained
that the Turkish-speaking residents of Mosul wanted to be part
of Greater Turkey, and that, at the time of signing the World
War I armistice, British troops had still not entered Mosul.
The
wrangling endured until 1926 when Turkey officially relinquished
control and claims of Mosul and its then 60,000 residents.
According to US State Department records on the demarcation of
the Iraq-Turkey border,
The
Turks, however, urged that the new international boundary follow
the southern border of Mosul vilayet, claiming that if a
plebiscite were held in the vilayet it would show a majority of
the population in favor of continued Turkish control there.
The
dispute was then referred to the League of Nations and in
October, 1924, the Council established the “Brussels Line”
as the provisional boundary between Turkey and Iraq – the line
following almost exactly the northern border of the Mosul
vilayet.
From
November, 1924 to March, 1925, a special three-member
Commission, appointed by the League, investigated the boundary
problem. Its recommendation, the following July, was that the
Brussels Line be accepted as the international boundary between
Turkey and Iraq. The dispute was then referred to the Permanent
Court of International Justice at the Hague for advisory
opinion, and in November 1925 the Court recommended the awarding
of the former Mosul vilayet to Iraq.
The
matter was then, at least, considered closed.
On
January 14, 2003, the Kurdish Observer reported that
Turkey had repeated its claims to the cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.
Iraqis
are absolutely astonished that, given the suspicion of
Turkey’s ambitions in Iraq, and the fact that no other Muslim
nation has offered to send troops unless under UN mandate, the
Bush administration would assume that Iraqis would welcome a
Turkish presence.
Iraq
analysts believe that Turkey is playing a waiting game. Turkish
generals realize that the Kurdish minority in the north of Iraq
will press for federalism as the concrete block of the new Iraqi
constitution. One of the founding principles of federalism is
the fait accompli of leaving a federation. Canada, for
example, operates on the concept of federalism. The government
of Canada is known as the federal government with individual
provincial governments. If a province chooses secession and
independence, as Quebec did several times in the 1990s, all it
has to do is call for a national referendum.
The
outcome of a national referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan is clear:
secession.
This
is one reason why the Turks accepted to deploy, despite the
outrage of Iraqis and the Organization of Islamic Countries
which sees any foreign deployment in an occupied Iraq as aiding
the occupier.
The
Turks believe that the Americans will eventually grow weary of
sustaining mounting casualties and eventually leave. The Turks
also believe that they may strike a bargain, as they did with
Saddam’s regime, and find some Iraqi general who will give
them free rein to polish up in Iraqi Kurdistan. After all, it is
in Iraq’s best interest that Iraqi Kurdistan not secede.
The
second reason?
Yes,
you guessed it O I L.
On
December 27, 2002, with the war rhetoric heating up, Murad
Murjan, deputy chairman of the Turkish justice and development
party, told the Turkish daily Sabah that Turkey was
staking its claim to 10 per cent of Iraq’s oil output as per
paragraphs of the Lausanne Treaty of 1926. Murjan seems to have
either gotten his history wrong or intentionally left out the
Brussels line of 1926 which complemented the Lausanne Treaty of
1924.
Two
days ago, the Bush administration dismissed qualms and concerns
from the Iraqi Governing Council concerning Turkish deployment
in the country. The Bush administration is so desperate to
relieve the psychological and human toll on its soldiers that it
is willing to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire with
a Turkish army presence in Iraq. In the next few days, the Bush
administration will bring its full force of coercion to bear on
the Iraqi Governing Council in order to force it to accept a
Turkish military presence. Such a measure will likely cause the
council to fracture with the Kurdish elements walking opting to
leave the governing body.
A
civil war may likely ensue.
Last
night, surrounded by 200,000 Shiite supporters, fiery Shiite
cleric Moqtada Sadr declared he was forming an Islamic state in
Iraq.
US
bungling in Iraq is beginning to reach new heights and the
country is about to burst at the seams.
Firas
Al-Atraqchi is a Canadian journalist of Iraqi heritage.
Holding an MA in Journalism and Mass Communication, he has
eleven years of experience covering Middle East issues, oil and
gas markets, and the telecom industry. You can reach him at firascape@hotmail.com.
|
