PKK: The Name of the Metal Storm in Turkish-US Relations
by Melih Can
Zaman, Turkey
Aug 17 2005
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!