Political Jazz

[Rubo]

Political Jazz

 

There have been questions raised on this forum about recent developments about Iraq and US motivations weather oil or other reasons for campaigning for war.

It is rather peculiar situation that in US, media portrays motivations for going for war mainly characterized as anti terror operation and elimination of mass weapons of destruction.

The view from my balcony is rather critical- valid questions that one should ask.

A. Do people on TV, “experts” have insider knowledge that we general people don’t?

B. Does CIA leak real information about US policies to media or the leaks are mainly manipulated to suit the agenda.

C. Is it justifiable that democratically elected officials keep vital information out of reach of its people? Since they may end up sending their young boys and girls to die for a cause purely fabricated to begin with?

I approach these questions from the perspective of doctors who suspected Germs existence but locked necessary information and knowledge to know it precisely.

The U.S. imports about one-half of its petroleum from foreign sources. Without large investments in alternative energy sources, predictions are that by 2020, the ratio will increase to two-thirds. It follows, then, that the U.S. looks to secure its sources in the world's oil-producing regions - the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, the Caspian region. The May 2001 Cheney Report on the Administration's National Energy Policy makes it clear that U.S. energy security is a high priority of U.S. foreign policy.

Our energy concerns have been evident in our military operations globally, especially the focus on activities which hamper oil production and delivery channels. The Gulf War, for example, protected oil interests in the Middle East. The recent U.S. deployment of several hundred special forces in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia had the stated purpose of boosting the Georgian military's ability to fight terrorists. The major goal of that training, however, was based on concern for the protection of the pipelines carrying oil from the Caspian Sea across Georgia to ports on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. The pipelines were considered possible targets for militias in the area…I can go on and on.. in short oil may prove the real culprit in the end.

[Rubo]

Dear EZ, short answer, reelection: furthermore Americans learned that Iraqi’s are not much of a fighters, more verbal bravados then real action. I still remember T. Aziz proclaiming that American soldiers will swim in their own blood-some blamed it on Arabic as being a poetic language.

[EZ]

What I am still wondering is, why would a war be the only solution to get rid of Sadam Hoessein?

 

If Sadam is the problem, why not concentrate on him? Why make so much fuss? I don't see why he should be reason to risk numerous war casualties and god knows what else.

[gamavor]

More interesting is that the whole process of chest thumbing of the Americans is directed not only to Iraq, but that way they try to combine two things in one.

First it is the war on terrorism and the second is the war with Iraq. More and more people are tutored to believe that both are actually different sides of the same coin.

On the side the ideological preparation for the war goes together with some trash hauling left and right which sole purpose is to differentiate the bad guys from the good guys in a typical American style.

In the recent two months it was revealed that more than half dozen NATO countries (or rather companies originating from those countries) were doing business with Iraq, most of the time prohibited by UN military equipment. Among them 90 German individuals and companies, Chech Republic, France, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, Britain, former Yugoslavia etc... The end client is not always the Iraqi Government that is why some of the deals were blurred.

[KoRn]

The US is making a huge mistake by going into a war with Iraq and destabilizing the region once again. The excuse that its making for going to Middle East is a bull****.

One thing that really interests me when the US really starts the war is wheater the Kurds in the north will demand and even declare their authonomy and what role would Turkey play in case that happens. I read that the Turks are going to be very cautious about it so that it wouldn't happen. I also read that once Saddam Hussein is overthrown [for some kind of a reason I don't believe that he will be]the Turks will try to occupy northern Iraq for the oil [which is very unlikely]. I think that US needs Saddam over there so that US will have a good reason to be present in the Middle East for the oil and destabilize the region whenever it fells like. If the US was so eager of getting rid of Hussein, they would have done it long time ago.

 

What role do yuo guys think that the Kurds & the Turks will be playing in that war???

[THOTH]

Korn -

 

I think most of the oil is in the south. And getting rid of Hussein may not be quite as easy as it sounds (But perhaps easier now that certain legal restictions have been removed...)

[KoRn]

THOOT

 

I know that most of teh oil is in the south.

I was just saying what I read.

[Rubo]

Dear KoRn, I am by no means an expert on this subject but I thought these articles may answer your questions

 

Turkey concerned about repercussions of war against Iraq

Last Updated Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:31:51

ANKARA - Turkey's powerful military fears that the Kurds of northern Iraq will use any U.S. attack on Baghdad to push for an autonomous state.

Turkey fought a bloody 17-year war against Kurdish separatists, and has threatened to intervene militarily in northern Iraq if there's any sign the Iraqi Kurds are moving towards full independence.

In the southern Turkish city of Diyarbakir, a few hundred kilometres north of the border, the regional government is preparing for the possibility of another war next door and another flood of Iraqi Kurdish refugees.

Vice-governor Huseyin Nail Atay fears a repeat of the region's woes after the Gulf War. "Turkey suffered a great deal after the Gulf War," he said. "Thirty per cent of our export trade was with Iraq. That was lost. And terrorist attacks in southeastern Anatolia reached the highest levels ever."

One of the bitterest legacies of the Gulf War, for many Turks, was the creation of a special enclave for the Kurds of northern Iraq, a protected no-fly zone monitored by British and U.S. warplanes.

The Turkish government in Ankara says the enclave has been exploited for years by the PKK - Kurdish guerrillas - bent on independence for Turkey's sizable Kurdish community. "The Kurdish elements there felt they were somewhat protected by the United States," says politician Mumtasz Soysal.

Iraqi Kurds have enjoyed far more autonomy under the protection of the no-fly zone than Turkey's Kurdish population can even dream about. A few weeks ago rival Kurdish factions - the KDP and the PUK - put aside their differences to re-open a regional parliament.

Soysal says if the Kurd's declare an autonomous state in a post-Saddam Iraq, it will only be a matter of time before Turkey's Kurds demand the same. "Even if it is not the policy of that Kurdish state, basically it will be a destabilizing element for all the neighbourhood including Turkey which has the largest Kurdish population."

But it's about more than an independent Kurdistan. It's also about oil and Turkish fears that the Iraqi Kurds will make a grab for the oil-rich regions of Mosul and Kirkuk.

Hardliners in Turkey say that can never be allowed to happen.

Umit Ozdag who runs a conservative think tank close to Turkey's political and military establishment, says control of the oil would give the Kurds enough money to sponsor an independent state.

Ozdag says not even Turkey's traditional loyalty to the United States would prevent Ankara from protecting its own interests if it came down to that.

"We don't need to warn KDP or the PUK, we need to warn just the United States. If something happens to Kirkuk we're going to dispatch our troops to Kirkuk to take it back from the Kurds. It's enough," said Ozdag.

And so southern Turkey remains extremely tense with a heavy military presence plain to see, especially in the border areas with large Kurdish populations, which are still under a form of martial law.

Written by CBC News Online staff

 

By Antoine Blua

Comments from top officials in Turkey, Iran, and Syria -- all neighbors of Iraq with sizeable Kurdish minorities -- appear to indicate a growing rapprochement between the three countries on the issue of a possible U.S.-led war on Iraq. The governments fear a U.S. attack could lead to Iraq's disintegration and the creation of an independent Iraqi Kurdish state that would encourage breakaway aspirations among the Kurdish minorities in their own states. RFE/RL asked two journalists who frequently visit the region how Kurdish communities feel about the potential U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein.

Prague, 23 October 2002 (RFE/RL) -- Turkey is seen as a key player in any U.S.-led attack on the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, whom Washington accuses of developing weapons of mass destruction. Ankara could provide air bases for U.S. warplanes or even troops in the event of a war.

But Turkey -- along with other Iraqi neighbors with sizeable Kurdish minorities -- fears a U.S. attack could spark a chain reaction of Kurdish breakaway movements throughout the region. Ankara says the possible disintegration of Iraq following a U.S. invasion could lead to the creation of an independent Iraqi Kurdish state and that other such states might follow.

As many as 12 million to 15 million Kurds live in southeastern Turkey. There are roughly 5 million to 7 million in Iran, about 4 million in northern Iraq, and 1.5 million in Syria.

The Turkish newspaper "Hurriyet" reported that the Turkish government conveyed its concerns on 21 October to U.S. General Tommy Franks, who would head any U.S. attack on Iraq. Franks was in Ankara for talks on Iraq with Turkish military officials.

The paper says the Turkish government issued a number of warnings, saying it would reject the establishment of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq and a federal system in post-Hussein Iraq. Ankara also objects to the use of Kurdish fighters to overthrow Hussein and the proposal to leave the oil-producing cities of Mosul and Kirkuk to Kurdish groups. "Hurriyet" also reported that Ankara has asked for $4 billion from the United States to compensate for lost trade in the event of a war.

To date, however, Iraq's Kurds deny they are seeking independence. Instead, they say they are seeking a federal setup in a post-Hussein Iraq.

RFE/RL spoke to two journalists who frequently visit the region about how the Kurdish communities in the region regard potential U.S. military action against Iraq.

Hiwa Osman is a Kurdish-affairs analyst based in London. He said Baghdad and its neighbors have always feared that a strong Kurdish element in Iraq would encourage Kurds in nearby countries to distance themselves from their respective central powers. "[Neighboring states] see it as a security headache, basically, if the Kurds of Iraq were to get [an independent state]. [Neighboring states] usually view it as a step toward independence, although the Kurds of Iraq have not been asking for independence. And [iraqi Kurds] have been repeating over and over again that what they are asking for is federalism within the framework of Iraq," Osman said.

Osman said that while many Kurds dream of establishing a Kurdish state, most see this as an impossible goal and do not realistically pursue it.

Northern Iraq has been out of Baghdad's control since the 1991 Gulf War and is held by the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). In September, KDP and PUK leaders signed a peace agreement, reactivating the unified Kurdish national assembly elected in 1992.

The majority of Iraqi Kurds, Osman noted, support the KDP and PUK and their aim of a post-Hussein federal system. People believe they would be much better off being part of a federal democratic and pluralistic Iraq as opposed to being in a landlocked independent state, he stressed.

Osman noted that the Kurds of the region sympathize with their fellow Kurds in Iraq and would like to see the end of Hussein's repressive rule. "The majority of the Kurds all over the Middle East are very supportive of a strike against Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein. They say: 'We are against a strike that would kill innocent [Kurdish] civilians. But at the same time, if there is no other way but war to remove Saddam Hussein, let's do it,'" Osman said.

Michel Verrier is a Berlin-based journalist who contributes to the French monthly "Le Monde Diplomatique." He said that he does not know any significant Kurdish political force in Iraq with plans to establish an independent Kurdish state. He also said Kurdish groups are not necessarily prepared to offer full backing to any form of U.S. military intervention. "The Kurds from Iraq are actually waiting for a precise definition of Washington's plan or goals. Of course, they are not ready to support any project. In recent days, for instance, they have reacted cautiously to the latest proposal from Washington to establish a military government in Baghdad after a military intervention that could last a year or more. The example would be the administration that the United States put in place in Germany or Japan after World War II," Verrier said.

For Iraqi Kurds, Verrier said, any military intervention has to be followed by a democratic process supported by Iraqis themselves, permitting the creation of a transitional government in Baghdad, the organization of elections, and the establishment of a constitution for all of Iraq.

In northern Iraq, Verrier pointed out, the Kurds have implemented important democratic reforms. The population enjoys freedom of speech and an economic situation largely superior to that of the rest of the country. Iraqi Kurds are keen to keep this "bubble of liberty" they have established and to help extend it throughout Iraq.

At the same time, Verrier noted, the Kurdish communities in the region dream of a democratic Iraq that would strengthen Kurdish demands in neighboring countries. "There is a convergence between the Kurds in Iraq, Turkey and Iran. They do not propose the complete transformation of the region's borders to establish an independent Kurdish state that would unite the Kurds from different countries. First, [they want] more democracy and the recognition of their rights in the frame of the countries in which they are living today. Second, [they want] to participate fully in political life in the framework of the central state," Verrier said.

Osman said the Turkish government does not recognize the Kurds as an ethnic group but classifies them as "mountainous Turks." As a result, Turkey's Kurds have been deprived of all their cultural, linguistic, and historical rights, such as studying their language or broadcasting in Kurdish. "There has been a complete suppression of any Kurdish demands or any Kurdish rights in terms of them wanting to live as normal citizens of the Turkish Republic. At the same time, the Kurdish regions of Turkey are suffering very severe economic hardships. They have been neglected by the authorities," Osman said.

The decades-long state of emergency in force in Turkey's Kurdish region was lifted this June, three years after the end of the Kurdistan Workers Party's guerrilla activities.

In August, the Turkish parliament adopted measures to bring Turkey's laws in line with the standards of the European Union, including guaranteeing the right to teach what the law calls "languages and accents spoken by Turkish citizens," a reference to Kurdish, which remains a taboo word. But some have complained that the strict guidelines of the new language-freedom laws make them practically meaningless.