Guest Op-Ed: PKK Terrorism Undermines US Policy in Middle East

An informed observer writes anonymously:

'“With our understanding of the worries of the Turkish friends, we are ready to undertake urgent negotiations with senior Turkish officials to discuss all points of disagreement,” he said. (NYT)

The Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Authority (KRG) is not a party to the “negotiations” because they are not a state Turkey recognizes.

The Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), under US law, is a “terrorist organization.” The Mahdi Army and split-ups and spin-offs (terms derived from the US Internal Revenue Code) are not “terrorist organizations.” The US military is attacking the Mahdi Army, but not the PKK.

The PJak [the Kurdish guerrillas from Iranian Kurdistan, based in Iraq] is not a “terrorist organization,” but consideration is being given to designating the Qods Force or the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps a “terrorist organization.”

A “terrorist organization” attacks civilians in order to achieve a political objective by inducing political decision-makers – affected by public opinion arising from civilian deaths – to change their policies.

Attacks against military forces are – by definition – not “terrorist acts.” They are “acts of war.”

The PKK, during the past two weeks, has committed both “terrorist acts” and “acts of war,” except that, not being a state, they cannot be deemed to have committed acts of war.

Turkey’s General Staff is not interested in “negotiations,” they are interested in actions which would eliminate the PKK as a threat to Turkey’s national security. The “Bush Doctrine” of preemption – applied to justify the invasion of Iraq even although there was no “armed attack” or “imminent threat,” and notwithstanding that no such attack could be predicted on the basis of facts upon which all relevant parties could agree – can be applied without controversy (except by the objections of the KRG) to justify an Iraq incursion by Turkey’s Army.

Will the Maliki Government or the US Government commit do doing anything about the PKK? The Security Council mandate requires the US Government to contribute to establishing and maintaining law and order. Both the PKK and Turkey’s Army, if it made an incursion into Iraq, would be breaching law and order by their activities in Iraq. The responsibility to do something about the activities of the PKK is within the jurisdiction of both the MNF-I and the Iraq Government. Determining which government takes precedence depends upon whether the Iraqi Security Forces are “ready” to assume the responsibility. A state of readiness to accept the responsibility cannot be determined without the consent of the US Government. The three Provinces comprising the Kurdistan Regional Government’s territory have been determined to be within the area of responsibility of the Iraq Government (they have been “handed over” by the MNF-I [Multinational Forces]).

If anything is to be done about the PKK, only the Iraq Government has the formal responsibility to do whatever it is. The US Government should have nothing to do with it. In the past, the US Government would have had over-riding influence with respect to the matters being discussed. The failure to obtain from Turkey’s government transit rights for the 4th Infantry Division was a “tipping point” in the standing, credibility, power and influence of the US Government in the Middle East. It has yet to be determined what, if anything, the US Government does to “force” (the term used in the Saudi Council of Ministers resolution with respect to the establishment of the Peace and Security Committee, now displaced by Quartet Representative Blair) the Government of Israel to make commitments that would satisfy those who are yet to determine whether or not they will attend the November Conference.

That decision by the US Government will be the ultimate defining “tipping point.” The Iraq Government has no power or influence with respect to that decision. There will be an effective November Conference only if the relevant parties have agreed in advance on what should be done at the Conference. That is customary procedure for major international conferences. It is deemed to be “mysterious” in this case.

The Iraq Government is “sovereign” or not “sovereign,” depending upon which issue is being discussed. With respect to the PKK, the Iraq Government should have the jurisdiction and power to make the final decision. The jurisdiction and power should be exercised by the Iraqi Army (and National Police) taking “all necessary measures” to eliminate the PKK. That probably will not happen because the US Government will not endorse or even permit the actions to be taken. There are factions, even within the White House, in favor of restructuring the National Police completely or leaving it as it is. The latter course would be “conservative,” the former “radical.” The US Government must (should) make up its mind. As matters stand, its designations of who is a “terrorist organization” require one result, but its policies are inconsistent. If the “rule of law” is the standard, the MNF-I would cease its attacks against the Sadr Movement (and split-ups and spin-offs) and undertake “all necessary measures” against the PKK in Iraq. Who should determine who is and is not a member of the Mahdi Army? Obviously, Muqtada al-Sadr.

The problem is not “complexity.” The problem is US Government ambivalence. The Bush Administration is ambivalent notwithstanding the clear indication of the will of a majority of Americans expressed in public opinion polls. Which of the US and Iraq Governments, if either of them, will act in accordance with the principle of democracy and the rule of law? The decisive factor appears to be the national security interests of the State of Israel and the Republic of Iraq, in that order. Except for its military presence in Iraq, strictly and accurately construed and applied, the US has no “national security interests” in Iraq or Palestine-Israel. The absence of a “national security interest,” instead of leading to a complete recusal, permits flexibility in determining what is to be done by both Republicans and Democrats. Messrs Hagel, Warner and others are retiring, unable to “stay the course” with the nonsense reflected by the analysis set forth above. No one is loudly blaming them, all implicitly recognizing the nonsense.

It used to be a sign of “sophistication” to cut through nonsense to an ultimate “reality.” In the Internet Era, post-September 11, everyone is sophisticated. Yet the bottom line result is not different. Plus ca change …

As President Putin said in his “seminal” Munich speech, the way to go forward is to go back to the UN Charter.

There is a change. The only country with a clear policy, applied consistently, is the People's Republic of China. The PRC will prevail in applying “the rule of law.” Which comes first, the political or economic component? The political component comes first, except in the case of the PRC. '

Turkish Press reaction to Armenian Resolution

The USG Open Source Center translates and summarizes Turkish press reaction to the US congressional resolution concerning the Armenian genocide.

'Turkey: Roundup of Press Reactions to House Resolution on Armenian Genocide
Highlights of reports and articles in the Turkish secular press about a resolution supporting allegations that Armenians were subjected to genocide by the Ottoman army in 1915 which was approved by the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs on 10 October
Turkey -- OSC Summary
Friday, October 12, 2007

Istanbul Milliyet (Internet version-WWW) in Turkish--centrist, mass appeal daily, one of the country's top circulation papers, owned by Aydin Dogan, head of the Dogan Media Group--carries a 600-word report entitled "Turkey's Bargaining Chips" which highlights possible actions that could be taken by Turkey in order to persuade the US House of Representatives not to ratify the resolution in a plenary session. According to diplomatic sources, an authorization bill which the Turkish Government intends to push through Parliament in order to send Turkish troops into Iraq can be used as an important bargaining chip.

In addition, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is expected to tell the Bush Administration during his upcoming visit to the United States in November that cooperation between Turkey and the United States about Iraq and other issues could be seriously hurt if the resolution eventually clears the House of Representatives. According to the report, Turkey may also use other options such as imposing prohibitions and restrictions on US military activities in Incirlik air base, refusing a possible US request to use Mersin port during a troop pullout, preventing or restricting the use of Habur border crossing, refusing possible US requests to join peace-keeping operations, furthering political and economic ties with Iran, including the conclusion of an energy agreement which the United States strongly opposes, and disqualifying US companies vying for military contracts.

In a 400-word article entitled "The Armenian Resolution," Milliyet columnist Taha Akyol accuses Armenian nationalists of resorting to "the ugliest forms of dirty tricks such as using humanly and religious feelings for fueling hatred and vengeance, issuing threats, and bribing people." He says: "Various US presidents described the events that took place in 1915 as a 'mass massacre.' But, Armenian nationalist were not satisfied. Their primary objective in convincing parliaments to pass 'genocide' resolutions is to prepare the ground for making forcing Turkey to meet their political demands and to pay compensations. This is a political assault."

Pointing out that American politicians downplay angry reactions voiced in Turkey, Akyol concludes by saying: "We should show them that Ankara is not bluffing and American interests in the region and the Armenian State have started to suffer harm."

In a 400-word article entitled "Why did not the Strategic Card Work?" Milliyet columnist Sami Kohen says that efforts made by the Armenian lobby in the United States and their influence on the US Congress outweighed the strategic arguments of the Bush Administration. Ascribing the passage of the resolution to pressure put and tactics used by the Armenian lobby and distrust toward Turkey due to the rejection of a motion on Iraq in 2003, Kohen points out that there are signs indicating that Ankara intends to take concrete action rather than making statements in response. He comments: "The matter should be handled not emotionally, but by taking Turkey's interests from a broad perspective despite public outrage. In other words, steps to be taken should be effective and produce the intended results without causing much harm to as or severing basic external ties. Turkey is still able to use its 'strategic card' for that purpose."

In a 300-word article entitled "Incirlik Card," Milliyet columnist Derya Sazak says that the Turkish Government which, he notes, has cooperated with the United States in the past five years is in a state of shock. Sazak asserts that expansionist policies pursued by the United States in the Middle East has changed the situation. He says: "Today the United States has new allies. A process started in the US Congress about 'Armenian genocide' at time when Turkey was planning a cross-border operation in northern Iraq because of the PKK's presence there. The 'friendly and allied' United States scored the 'Armenian genocide' goal after Johnson's letter about Cyprus, the embargo, and the 'hood' incident in retaliation for the rejection of a motion on 1 March (2003) which were among the crises witnessed in recent past. What else should happen to prompt Ankara to close down Incirlik?"

Istanbul Hurriyet (Internet version-WWW) in Turkish--centre-right, mass appeal daily, country's top circulation paper, owned by Aydin Dogan, head of the Dogan Media Group--carries a 400-word editorial entitled "Blame Falls on us, not the US Congress" by Oktay Eksi who says that a propaganda campaign waged by the Armenian diaspora will attain its goal this time. Eksi points out that successive Turkish governments did not allocate sufficient resources and personnel in order to refute Armenian allegations and to conduct an aggressive campaign like Armenians. He cautions: "Unless our government realizes the gravity of the situation and takes action based on 'war logic' rather than making empty statements, we would miss the last opportunity and face a defeat."

In a 400-word article entitled "The Biggest Retaliation," Hurriyet columnist Ferai Tinc points out that retaliation threats issued by Turkey were ignored by US congressmen because they have lost their deterrent effect and turned into political tactics mainly targeting the Turkish public. Stressing that Turkey may resort to official retaliation, Tinc says: "I am not sure whether such official retaliation could be effective. But, I know that actions it has taken in Iraq, its indifference to the PKK's terror campaign, stopping its efforts in Cyprus, and the last resolution have irreparably tarnished the United States' image in the eyes of the Turkish public. In my view, retaliation in the form of a nation's judgment is the biggest, most effective, and lasting retaliation."

In a 350-word article entitled "We Lost our Nerves," Hurriyet columnist Tufan Turenc says that Turkey was shaken by what he describes as a second blow delivered by the United States at a time when the Turkish nation was grieving for soldiers killed by PKK guerillas. Turenc criticizes the government for not responding to insidious plots hatched against Turkey and says: "Even the United States did not take them seriously although they had obeyed and sworn allegiance to it. The Armenian resolution was approved amid a big round of applause from an Armenian audience. There is no doubt that genocide will be recognized by an overwhelming majority of the members of the House of Representatives. The Justice and Development Party could not cope with terrorism and the Armenian question."

Istanbul Sabah (Internet Version-WWW) in Turkish -- Center-right, mass appeal daily; under state receivership since April 2007 pending investigation into alleged wrongdoing by former owner Turgay Ciner -- carries a 400-word editorial entitled "Shackles" by Erdal Safak cautions that if a resolution supporting Armenian allegations of genocide will sooner or later ratified by the US Congress because Hillary Clinton who, he says, describes the events of 1915 as genocide and is a staunch supporter of Armenian claims will succeed US President Bush. Safak also says that Turkey actually drew unnecessary attention to Armenian allegations by resorting to retaliations against countries where resolutions about Armenian genocide were adopted by parliaments and showed that it was its Achilles' heel although it could have resolved the problem 15 years ago without much fuss.

Istanbul Vatan (Internet version-WWW)-- Center-right, mass appeal daily, published by a group of former Sabah columnists allegedly with financial backing from media tycoon Aydin Dogan --carries a 600-word article entitled "For the Sake of Justice" by Gungor Mengi who predicts that the resolution will not be ratified by the Senate and President Bush even if it clears the House of Representatives, adding that Turkey should devise a new strategy aimed at totally eliminating the possibility of the passage of a resolution about Armenian genocide as a result of a decrease in the United States' dependence on Turkey due to security considerations.

Who Lost Turkey?

Turkey has been the strongest ally that the United States has had in the Middle East since the end of WW II. The Marshall Plan started with Northern tier states like Turkey and Greece. Turkey joined NATO and was a key player in the American victory in the Cold War. As a secular government, Turkey stood against the rising tide of Muslim radicalism. To the extent that Turkey is moderating its long-term secular militancy, and moving toward fair elections, it may be providing a model for a moderate, democratic Middle East. Its economy is growing rapidly, foreign investment is in the billions. Turkey is in short, almost everything the US could have asked for in the Middle East.

But the Bush administration has, during the past five years, increasingly thrown away this asset, and now is in danger of losing a close and valued ally altogether. It is unclear what US interests are served by this repeated and profound damage inflicted by Washington on Turkey, or what Ankara ever did to us that we are treating them so horribly. (The dismissive treatment in some ways began when the US promised Turkey $1 bn in aid to offset the damage to its economy of the Gulf War in 1990-1991, but then Congress formally decided by the mid-1990s to renege on the pledge. No one has ever explained why we stiffed them.)

The threat of a Turkish hot pursuit of PKK guerrillas into Iraqi Kurdistan is starting to have an effect on Kurdistan's economy and stability. Inflation is high and some Turkish businesses that had won bids to operate in the Kurdistan Regional Authority (KRG) are going back home in fear of trouble. Getting banks to underwrite economic enterprises is getting harder, which could result in a slowdown for Iraqi Kurdistan. This area was the last in Iraq not to be hit hard by instability, but tensions are growing.

Imagine what things look like from a Turkish point of view. Remember that Turkey is a NATO ally, that it stood with the US during the Korean War (in which its troops fought), during the Cold War, and during Bush's war on terror. Turkey gives the US military facilities, including the Incirlik Air Force base, through which large amounts of materiel for the US forces in northern Iraq flows.

First, the Bush administration insisted on invading Iraq and overthrowing the secular Iraqi government. It thereby let the Salafi Sunni and the Shiite fundamentalist genies out of the bottle and created vast instability on the southeastern border. It would be as though a US ally had invaded Mexico and inadvertently unleashed a Marxist peasant rebellion against San Diego. Secular Turkey already felt itself menaced by the Shiite ayatollahs of Iran and by the rising Salafi and al-Qaeda trends, and the US made everything far worse.

Then, the US gave the Kurdistan Regional Authority control over the Kirkuk police force and unleashed Kurdish troops on the Turkmen city of Tal Afar. (The Turks look on Iraq's 800,000 Turkmen as little brethren, over whom they feel protective, and don't want them dominated by Kurds).

The Kurds promptly announced their aspiration of annexing 3 further provinces, or at least big swathes of them, including the oil province of Kirkuk, and including substantial Turkmen populations. Not only was that guaranteed to cause violence with the Arabs and Turkmen, but it would give Kurdistan a source of fabulous wealth with which it could hope to attract Kurds in neighboring countries to join it, a la German Unification after the fall of the Berlin Wall - except that this unification would dismember several other countries.

Then the Kurdistan Regional Authority gave safe haven to 3,000 to 5,000 Kurdish guerrillas from eastern Anatolia in Turkey who have been killing Turks and blowing up things, reviving violence that had subsided in the early zeroes. Despite the US military occupation of Iraq, Washington has done nothing to stop what Turkey sees as terrorists from going over the border into Turkey and killing Turks. Turkish intelligence is convinced that the camps in Iraqi Kurdistan are key to weapons provision for the PKK, and that funding is coming from Kurdish small businessmen in Western Europe.

PKK guerrillas have just killed 13 Turkish troops on Sunday and in the past few weeks have killed 28 altogether. If guerrillas were raiding over the border into the United States and had killed 28 US troops I think I know what Washington's response would be.

The the US Congress abruptly condemned modern Kemalist Turkey for the Armenian genocide, committed by the Ottoman Empire, provoking Ankara to withdraw its ambassador from Washington. I have long held that Turkey should acknowledge the genocide, which killed hundreds of thousands and displaced more hundreds of thousands. The Turkish government could then point out that it was committed by a tyrannical and oppressive government-- the Ottoman Empire-- against which the Kemalists also fought a long and determined war to establish a modern republic. I can't understand Ankara's unwillingness to distance itself from a predecessor it doesn't even think well of--the junta of Enver Pasha and the later pusillanimity of the sultan (the capital is in Ankara and not Istanbul in part for this very reason!)

But no dispassionate observer could avoid the conclusion that the Congressional vote condemning Turkey came at a most inopportune time for US-Turkish diplomacy, at a time when Turks were already raw from watching the US upset all the apple carts in their neighborhood, unleash existential threats against them, cause the rise of Salafi radicalism next door, coddle terrorists killing them, coddle the separatist KRG, and strengthen the Shiite ayatollahs on their borders.

The Congressional vote came despite the discomfort of elements of the Israel lobby with recognizing the mass killing of Armenians as a genocide. Andrew E. Mathis explains Abraham Foxman's intellectually bankrupt vacillations on this issue. Foxman and others of his ideological orientation have been forced grudgingly to back off their genocide denial in the case of the Armenians by a general shift in opinion among the American public, and his change of position may have removed any fears among congressional representatives that the Israel lobby would punish them for their vote. (Turkey and Israel have long had a strong military and diplomatic relationship, which the Israel lobby had earlier attempted to preserve by lobbying congress on Turkey's behalf with regard to some issues. But the Israel lobby is now split between pro-Kurdish factions and pro-Turkish factions, and the pro-Kurdish ones appear to be winning out. Richard Perle & Michael Rubin of AEI are examples of the pro-Turkish Neoconservative strain in the Israel lobby. They are losing.)

In 2000, 56% of Turks reported in polls that they had a favorable view of the United States. In 2005 that statistic had fallen to 12%. I shudder to think what it is now.