June 21, 2004
CAN'T GET TOOTHPASTE BACK IN A TUBE:
PLAN B: As June 30th approaches, Israel looks to the Kurds. (SEYMOUR M. HERSH, 2004-06-28, New Yorker)
[Patrick Clawson, of the Institute for Near East Policy] told me that Israel’s overwhelming national-security concern must be Iran. Given that a presence in Kurdistan would give Israel a way to monitor the Iranian nuclear effort, he said, “it would be negligent for the Israelis not to be there.”At the moment, the former American senior intelligence official said, the Israelis’ tie to Kurdistan “would be of greater value than their growing alliance with Turkey. ‘We love Turkey but got to keep the pressure on Iran.’” The former Israeli intelligence officer said, “The Kurds were the last surviving group close to the United States with any say in Iraq. The only question was how to square it with Turkey.”
There may be no way to square it with Turkey. Over breakfast in Ankara, a senior Turkish official explained, “Before the war, Israel was active in Kurdistan, and now it is active again. This is very dangerous for us, and for them, too. We do not want to see Iraq divided, and we will not ignore it.” Then, citing a popular Turkish proverb—“We will burn a blanket to kill a flea”—he said, “We have told the Kurds, ‘We are not afraid of you, but you should be afraid of us.’” (A Turkish diplomat I spoke to later was more direct: “We tell our Israeli and Kurdish friends that Turkey’s good will lies in keeping Iraq together. We will not support alternative solutions.”)
“If you end up with a divided Iraq, it will bring more blood, tears, and pain to the Middle East, and you will be blamed,” the senior Turkish official said. “From Mexico to Russia, everybody will claim that the United States had a secret agenda in Iraq: you came there to break up Iraq. If Iraq is divided, America cannot explain this to the world.” The official compared the situation to the breakup of Yugoslavia, but added, “In the Balkans, you did not have oil.” He said, “The lesson of Yugoslavia is that when you give one country independence everybody will want it.” If that happens, he said, “Kirkuk will be the Sarajevo of Iraq. If something happens there, it will be impossible to contain the crisis.”
In Ankara, another senior Turkish official explained that his government had “openly shared its worries” about the Israeli military activities inside Kurdistan with the Israeli Foreign Ministry. “They deny the training and the purchase of property and claim it’s not official but done by private persons. Obviously, our intelligence community is aware that it was not so. This policy is not good for America, Iraq, or Israel and the Jews.”
Turkey’s increasingly emphatic and public complaints about Israel’s missile attacks on the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip is another factor in the growing tensions between the allies. On May 26th, Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, announced at a news conference in Ankara that the Turkish government was bringing its Ambassador in Israel home for consultations on how to revive the Middle East peace process. He also told the Turkish parliament that the government was planning to strengthen its ties to the Palestinian Authority, and, in conversations with Middle Eastern diplomats in the past month, he expressed grave concern about Israel. In one such talk, one diplomat told me, Gul described Israeli activities, and the possibility of an independent Kurdistan, as “presenting us with a choice that is not a real choice—between survival and alliance.”
A third Turkish official told me that the Israelis were “talking to us in order to appease our concern. They say, ‘We aren’t doing anything in Kurdistan to undermine your interests. Don’t worry.’” The official added, “If it goes out publicly what they’ve been doing, it will put your government and our government in a difficult position. We can tolerate ‘Kurdistan’ if Iraq is intact, but nobody knows the future—not even the Americans.”
Once a people start thinking of themselves as a nation they are one--official recognition of that reality is just a formailty. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 21, 2004 1:02 PM
It seems to me that the Turkeys--excuse me, I meant Turks--lost their standing to influence postwar Iraq when they sided with the Axis of Weasels back in Feb. '03.
BTW, how's that EU membership that Chirac promised you working out?
Posted by: Mike Morley at June 21, 2004 1:13 PMMike:
We can't afford to push a Turkey that wants to Westernize back into the arms of the Orient.
Posted by: oj at June 21, 2004 1:32 PMIs tromping on a nascent Kurdistan every chance they get evidence of wanting to Westernize?
Posted by: jim hamlen at June 21, 2004 3:15 PMRight now, I think our debt to the Kurds outweigs whatever concern we might legitimately have for Turkish feelings.
Plus, justified payback is an ancient and honorable element of diplomacy.
Posted by: Mike Morley at June 21, 2004 3:50 PMIf the Turks attack the Kurds because they feel their interests are threatened, how exactly are we to stop them? By going to war with a NATO ally for a people without international recogntion, much less any standing treaty obligations?
The Kurdish question directly affects the state of Turkey's borders and soveriegnty. The US does not have an equivalent concern at stake. Ultimately, we may try to cover for the Kurds diplomatically, but if they push for too much, there's little the US will do.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at June 21, 2004 6:19 PMChris
I'm with Harry, in the senario you gave, which is that Turkey, in an effort to protect their interest attack the Kurds.
As to Turkey being our friend, OJ spends much of his time on this Blog talking about the EU being a failed experiment, yet that is the highest priority of the Turks and also one reason they failed to aid us in the invasion of Iraq. They didn't want to get on the wrong side of France or Germany.
Posted by: h-man at June 21, 2004 7:43 PMH-Man and Harry,
So in a scenario where we have to choose between a NATO ally and a state that doesn't exist yet, you want to tell the world that the treaties America signs mean nothing. You want to destroy the entire credibility that underlines alliances.
Makes no sense.
And it will never happen. If it's between the Kurds and Turks, we'll choose the Turks.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at June 21, 2004 8:05 PMh:
No, it isn't. Their reason was purely nationalist and quite sensible--Kurdistan complicates their lives. They were right to oppose its creation.
Posted by: oj at June 21, 2004 8:33 PMI've learned to take a few grains of salt before I start reading anything by Mr. Hersh these days.
Posted by: Brooks at June 21, 2004 9:30 PM"Once a people start thinking of themselves as a nation they are one--official recognition of that reality is just a formailty."
What about the Sioux Nation, Cherokee Nation, and other Native American nations?
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at June 22, 2004 1:25 AMChris
Again, you described a "unprovoked" attack on the Kurds. If you are suggesting that it is not "unprovoked", then we can discuss that. At the present time I know of no Kurdish border crossings into Turkey. As far as credibility of the alliance, it's a two-way street
OJ
"complicates their lives" You are correct. They might have to treat their Kurdish minority as equal citizens. Like you have said before, "the shah always falls".
It is rather interesting to see Turkey's Islamic government making not-so-veiled threats.
The stirrings of dormant empires past? Or just the naked truth that Turkey will never countenance any state called Kurdistan on its eastern or southern flank.
And so the chess (or poker?) game continues....
While the Turkish army bides its time, wondering whether membership in the EU is all it's cut out to be or merely a sword of Damocles hanging over Ataturk's grand revolution.
And Iran looms ever larger in the shadows.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 22, 2004 2:55 AMh:
No, that's not what such gropups want, otherwise no one would mind them. They want autonomy.
Posted by: oj at June 22, 2004 8:32 AMBarry:
They don't mind a Kurdistan that limits itself to the territory of other nations. But they want to keep the land they consider their own. Sound familiar?
Posted by: oj at June 22, 2004 8:34 AMSorry oj, you can indulge in wishful thinking all you want. They don't want a Kurdistan, period.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 22, 2004 9:21 AMdon't mind doesn't mean want
Posted by: oj at June 22, 2004 9:38 AMChris, before you started posting here, I referred to Clauswitz about the inutility of coalition allies. Nothing that has happened lately leads me to believe he was wrong.
I don't give a rip whether Turkey is our ally or not, so we might as well stand on principle.
If your principles are any good, in the long run you'll be better off.
(A longer version of this thought, based on the non-existence of the Geneva Conventions, was published today in The Maui News. My editors sat on it for a month, and I thought they'd spiked it. I was surprised to see it in print. Sometime later today, it ought to be posted at www.mauinews.com.)
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 22, 2004 4:16 PM