Zaman, Turkey
Sept 9 2005
PKK: The Name of the Metal Storm in Turkish-US Relations
by Melih Can
Not a single day goes by that Turkey does not face a new PKK attack
or a mine explosion. And not a single day goes by that Turkey does
not enter into a polemic on ”terrorism” with countries it thinks
are friendly.
It is true that lately, Turkey’s agenda has almost gotten stuck on
terrorism and the fight against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party
(PKK), also in the context of terrorism. The problems in the fight
against terrorism and the PKK, which were the main topics Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US President George W. Bush
discussed during Erdogan’s visit to the United States, continue full
swing.
Under this framework, controversial statements made recently on the
PKK issue, especially by Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)
leader, Massoud Barzani, who has been elected the president of the
northern Kurdish region, Bush congratulating [Jalal] Talabani and the
Iraqi Kurds on the “regional government,” and all the events that
surfaced afterwards, were obvious realities even though they seemed
to us like an April Fool’s Day joke made by our strategic partner.
New developments seemingly will occur in Turkish-American relations
both in the South and the East. And there are efforts to increase the
confusion in Turkish foreign policy day after day with the carrot and
stick policy. There are efforts to drag Turkey into a real paranoia
by putting it in a dilemma over “how much a friend and how much an
enemy?” On the other hand, some try to inculcate into us the “wait
and see policy.” But why? First of all, frankly speaking,
developments that are taking place in the south of Turkey, in the
north of Iraq and the US attitude towards the PKK continue to disturb
Turkey, and these constitute the biggest confidence problems in
relations. The recent events and counter statements that will
aggravate the issue do not elude attention, pieces come together and
become more meaningful.
Treating the terrorist as a militia
The BBC and Reuters referring to the PKK terrorist organization as
“militia” recently, was in fact not a chic attitude. As a matter of
fact, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European & Eurasian
Affairs Dan Fried said that the PKK, which is a terrorist
organization, is also America’s problem and implied that a
trans-border operation in northern Iraq by Turkey against PKK
terrorists could “bring the forces of both countries against each
other,” adding, “There are words Iraq will also say.’
Frankly speaking, we wonder whether these words will be in Arabic or
English? And we also know that the “dominant” one will do the
talking. In this context, when the fact that Barzani was elected the
president of the Kurdish region in the north and the attitude
displayed against the PKK by the US government are put together,
Turkey comes face to face with a terrible scenario. In particular,
the role given to Barzani and the Barzani tribe during this
transition period is very important. Even the personality of Massoud
Barzani automatically answers many questions. Contrary to Talabani,
Barzani is presented to us as more uncompromising, an inflexible man
who orchestrates chaos, a tribal leader who can start and continue a
bloody war over a so-called Kurdish state in the north.
Hence, the Barzani tribe is a right choice, especially at a time when
allegations about “their genes” and expectations about the
establishment of a so-called “Kurdish state” under the umbrella of
the Unites States and mentorship of the Israeli state are at the
peak. At this very point, as an interesting coincidence, the PKK
steps in and its place in this game can be better perceived.
The attitude of the regional countries, Turkey, Syria and Iran
against a Kurdish state is known. Some red lines – if they do not
change afterwards – have been formed on this subject. And despite
statements by these three countries that they would not allow the
establishment of such a state, the presence of Kurds in their
respective countries in various proportions is a reality. In other
words, if in case they object, these countries, in the first place,
may have to deal with the problems within their own borders. This is
called the PKK in Turkey. On the other hand, the uneasiness of US
administration over the warm cooperation that has been taking place
among the regional countries in recent years, and Washington’s
expectations in this context, are quite obvious. The latest events
have a potential of breaking Turkey’s resistance and creating
“doubts” and “problems” in its relations with the other countries in
the region. Even this joint attitude, that is not very well formed,
is enough to perturb the US. And the name given to it is the call for
democracy, reforms and integration with the world. In plain words,
its name is double-standards.
What should Turkey do?
While Turkey continues to be contented with “strategic relations,”
the US continues creating its own “strategic partners” in the region.
This name was Israel in the past but is now the so-called states of
“Kurdistan” and “Mountainous Karabakh.” Each of them is a piece of a
chain, stretching out from Khazar to the Red Sea. What would happen
if you want to interfere in these goings-on and terrorism being
nourished just beyond your borders? The answer is quite simple, you
would be invited to the “Metal Storm” with an implied threat by the
“mandated” country. The justification is handy: “Violating the
borders of a sovereign state.” Especially at a time when a
“pre-emptive strike” sword is hanging over your head. Turkey is being
dragged into a real deadend in its foreign politics. The reflections
of this deadend inevitably have also started to manifest themselves
in its domestic politics. As a matter of fact, True Path Party (DYP)
leader Mehmet Agar claimed that Turkey has lost its ability to carry
out a military operation beyond its borders during Justice and
Development Party (AKP) government. Agar claimed that Turkey has been
made to depend on foreign countries even in the fight against
terrorism, in addition to its economy and foreign policy. Similar
expressions are often used by Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader
Deniz Baykal as well as other politicians. In reply to all these
criticisms, Prime Minister Erdogan tries to display a determined
attitude and says, `We have to overcome the PKK problem. Consult or
not consult, we can use our right of hot pursuit.”
This situation created between the PKK and the AKP is certainly a
matter the present government does not approve of, either. However,
the fact that the AKP government has put Turkey into a reform and
restructuring process, especially into the process of full EU
membership, and it seems to be doing all these with the EU reccipe,
will certainly continue to make these allegations and accusations
remain on the agenda. Like every political party, the AKP government
as well would certainly like to be in Turkish political movement in
the process after this. Maybe because of this, in order to be able to
overcome its “obsession and blindness with the West” a little bit,
the AKP recently has started to turn its attention more to the “East”
and “South.” It would not be wrong to evaluate the recent visits in
this sense. Turkey has started to understand the necessity of
compensating for the disappointments it experienced in the West by
turning to the East just as the other Eastern states did. At least,
this is what our historical memory seemingly orders us to do. As a
matter of fact, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw did not utter
these words in vain, “Let’s not treat Turkey harshly, let’s be more
courageous, let’s put Turkey next to us instead of pushing it far
aside.” The British vigilance has said this so far and will also
continue to do so tomorrow. But what is important is our wakefulness
and vigilance.
The Kurdish factor, in the context of the PKK and Northern Iraq,
continues to create important curves and testing fields in
Turkish-American relations. In other words, the current attitude and
policy the US is pursuing in the region, within its intentions, is
far beyond being a turning point in relations between “two allied
countries,” but is galloping at full speed towards a breaking point.
“Turkey’s terrorism test” continues. Turkey is looking for an
attitude between “Metal Storm” and “being in bed with an elephant.’
In this case, Turkey will either find another course to flow into, or
renew its marriage or return to its roots. However, in any case, the
one who loses will be “the pawn” again!