DEFENDING SOUTHERN KURDISTAN
By Martin Zehr

Kurdish Aspect, CO
Kurdishaspect.com
doc102207MZ.html
Oct 22 2007

Now that Turkey’s Parliament has sanctioned military action against
the Kurdish Autonomous Region there is an immediate need to address
appropriate responses regarding international response to such
actions. The political leadership of the Kurdistan Regional Government
(KRG) is facing an historic moment in the history of the national
project of the Kurdish peoples. It options in addressing the reality
extend beyond simply military responses.

The response of Syria supporting the Turkish resolution is an
unwarranted intrusion into the current situation. The Islamic Republic
of Iran has notably opposed a military intervention by Turkey and this
may represent a significant counterbalance for Kurdish forces in the
region in dealing with this one particular issue. Internationally, the
United States has issued a statement that is singularly disconnected
from the very real threat of Turkish military actions. There is
precedent to this in the US government’s actions after the Persian
Gulf War when it stood by as Saddam Hussein murdered Kurds fighting
for freedom. Recently, neo-con columnists in the US have been adamant
in opposing the PKK’s presence within the Kurdistan Autonomous Region
and posing it as a provocation to Turkey.

One does need to keep in mind that the long war within Turkey against
the PKK has never been accompanied by ANY political concessions
regarding Kurdish cultural rights or national autonomy by the Turkish
government. One might give them some credit for repealing penal codes
that had resulted in the imprisonment of thousands after they had
been implemented following the military coup of 1980 in Turkey. One
could even applaud the repeal of the 1983 law outlawing the Kurdish
language. But what was given up in 1991 was taken back with the
"Anti-Terror Law" in 1992.

Never has Turkey been called to task for the forced displacement of
thousands of Kurdish villages in Turkey or its use of emergency rule
against Kurdish provinces. Never has it acted to repeal Article 301 in
the Turkish Constitution making it a crime to "insult Turkishness" that
provides the legal pretext for subjugation of the Kurdish culture and
political rights. Never has it addressed the disappearing of over 3,000
Kurds between 1992 and 1993 or the torture and murder of hundreds of
PKK and other Kurds. Now, the Turkish military moves are removed from
the context of its thirty years of military repression against Kurds in
Turkey. Clearly, the US is focused more on Turkey’s role as a conduit
for US military supplies to its occupation forces within Iraq than
it is in the real impact of a few thousand guerillas in the mountains.

The issue at stake remains the sovereignty of the Kurdish Autonomous
Region and its right to implement Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution
through the Kirkuk Referendum. It is evident that Turkey has not
succeeded in its attempt to manipulate the Turkmen population within
Kirkuk in a manner that could successfully defeat the vote to include
Kirkuk within the Kurdish Autonomous Region. Violations of the border
appear to be as lightly considered as human rights to the Turkish
governing party and the military elite.

Clearly, Turkey is presenting itself as a nation that is NOT prepared
to join the EU as a full partner through its continued denial of
human rights and its efforts to undermine the KRG. Turkey’s actions
now will demonstrate whether it can ever adopt policies required to
meet the standards established by the European Parliament for full
membership in the European Union. There is no "clear-and-present
danger" that can truly be documented in regards to the PKK that can
justify a Turkish invasion.

But, what can the international community do now in the face of
Turkish determination to intervene in the affairs of another nation?

Security Council Resolution 688 stands as a precedent for recognition
of Kurdish grievances. But the issue in this case is not the one
addressed previously about refugees fleeing from Saddam Hussein. Now
the issue is clearly one of whether a member state of the United
Nations is entitled to violate the territorial boundaries of another
nation. The issue needs to be posed in the context of the impact of
this invasion on the right to vote on the inclusion of Kirkuk and
not simply accept undocumented accusations regarding the role of the
PKK’s forces within the Kurdish Autonomous Region in attacks within
Turkey. It needs to be presented in the context of the fundamental
denial of Kurdish rights within Turkey.

In its resolutions on the Armenian genocide and the support of a
federal system within Iraq the US Congress has shown that it is willing
to confront the "uncomfortable" issues within the region without the
current administration’s prevarications acting as its guide. It would
be advised that Turkey take note of this as well. It is all very well
to be indignant when it comes to a non-binding resolution concerning
a crime not committed under its government’s auspices. It is quite
different to disregard international opinion regarding actions that
would further de-stabilize the region and incite not only domestic
opposition but profound international repercussions as well.

It needs to be said that such an incursion is by no means a first
for Turkey into Iraq, including a 1992 bombing raid of President
Barzani’s campaign office. The air attack within Turkey following
the 1992 Newroz New Year Kurdish demonstrations shows the resolve by
the Turkish General Staff to attack any and all signs of resistance,
whether peaceful or violent, whether in their own country or outside
of their national boundaries. The Turkish General Staff’s impulse to
attack its political opposition is not simply reserved for the PKK.

The Iraqi government needs to come to grips with its responsibility
towards the defense of its Kurdish residents if it is to continue to
present itself as the legitimate government of the Kurdish peoples
living in northern Iraq. There is too long a record of others within
Iraq standing by in the face of mass murders of Kurds for anyone
to accept the good intentions of a Baghdad government on faith. We
should all pay attention to how President Talibani is personally
delegated in addressing these matters, as well as how the refusal
of Turkey to recognize the KRG and President Barzani is addressed
in negotiations. How can a central government obscure or deny the
right of elected representatives of an autonomous region to represent
their people in any and all negotiations that involve the welfare and
future of Kurdish people? And how can that central government ever
earn the trust and loyalty of the Kurdish people by acting in a way
as to sacrifice them in the face of threatened aggression from without?

About the author :

Martin Zehr is an American political writer whose article on the Kirkuk
Referendum has been printed by the Kurdish Regional Government, PUK ,
Kurdishmedia.com, and Conservative Voice He is a Contributing Writer to
Kurdish Aspect where his articles have appeared on line and in print.