24
February 2003
2. "KADEK calls for national unity", KADEK Presidential Council member Osman Ocalan stated that a secret special war was imposed in order to break the will of the Kurdish movement.
3. "Kurds brace for Turks", as the US and Turkey approach a deal that would allow the US to insert troops and equipment into northern Iraq across Turkey's border, Kurdish leaders are ratcheting up their opposition to a Turkish military role in the area.
4. "Annan optimistic on Cyprus agreement before end of month", UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said on arrival in the Turkish capital Sunday he was optimistic an agreement on the divided island of Cyprus could be reached before his own deadline of February 28.
5. "The real meaning of Iraq", the debate over Iraq has exhausted everybody. But more discussion is the only road that will get the world to the right outcome - we need another debate, another struggle to make this the United Nations' leadership moment.
6. "Turkey puts focus on future of Kurds", Turkey wants US guarantees that the Iraqi Kurds would not be allowed to "declare independence" and that US forces would take control of the oil cities of Kirkuk and Mosul.
7. "Iraq Kurds oppose Turkish presence", Kurdish officials in northern Iraq warned yesterday of clashes between Turks and Kurds should Turkey follow through on its plan to send thousands of troops into the region in case of a U.S.-led war against Iraq.
8. "Former Islamist PM Erbakan back to Turkish politics as ban expires", a five-year political ban for Islamist activities on former Turkish prime minister Necmettin Erbakan ends on Sunday.
1. "Kurdish Observer - "ECHR was informed of the isolation":
KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan's English lawyer Timothy Otty informed the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Committee for Preventing Torture (CPT) that Turkey kept his lawyers and family members from visiting him, did not allocate a reliable vehicle and did not allow visit other than Wednesdays, asking their intervention. On February 19 Otty was not allowed to go to the island where Ocalan was being kept on the grounds of "bad weather conditions".
MHA/FRANKFURT / 22 February 2003
KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan’s English lawyer Timothy Otty informed the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Committee for Preventing Torture (CPT) that Turkey kept his lawyers and family members from visiting him, did not allocate a reliable vehicle and did not allow visit other than Wednesdays, asking their intervention. On February 19 Otty was not allowed to go to the island where Ocalan was being kept on the grounds of “bad weather conditions”.
Talking to MHA, Otty said that they had asked Chief Prosecutor Emin Ozler for another day to visit him, adding the following: “But they say that the visits could not be made any other day, only on Wednesdays. And the justification is that the island is a military zone.” Otty went back to London and sent a detailed report to ECHR and CPT. A CPT delegation visited Ocalan on February 17. The English lawyer continued with words to the effect: “It is not a satisfying situation and its continuation cannot be accepted. We do our best to find a solution.” Otty reminded that his lawyers in Turkey would try to visit him next Wednesday.
Otty had also this to say: “I have previously be able to visit him. Whenever I went to Turkey I could visit him. This time it caused disappointment. But it is not the main problem. The main problem is that the access of his lawyers –including me- every week is blocked.”
On the other hand Ocalan’s case is pending in ECHR. The Court
officials stated that they expected a decision on March.
2. - Kurdish Observer - "KADEK calls for national unity":
KADEK Presidential Council member Osman Ocalan stated that a secret special war was imposed in order to break the will of the Kurdish movement. Calling on the Kurdish organisations to succeed national unity for a common policy, Ocalan said that KADEK, PUK and KDP were under the threat of destruction.
MHA/FRANKFURT / 23 February 2003
Participated by telephone in the “Rojev” program on Medya TV, KADEK Presidential Council member Osman Ocalan commended on the recent developments. Ocalan said that Kurds were under attacks that could not be ever compared, adding the following: “A secret special war is imposed. They try to imply the policy of destruction and denial. Kurds are deprived of any rights. Our President is under isolation. We want steps to be taken toward a solution. If Turkey continue this policy, it will pay a high cost.” The Council member pointed out that the main subject of the negotiations between USA and Turkey was the Kurdish question.
The disagreement: the Kurdish question
Ocalan underscored that Turkey measured its own existence with the destruction of Kurds and the disagreement between USA and Turkey arouse from the Kurdish question.
“Turkey attempts to deprive Kurds of any rights. They make negotiations with USA. It is not money they disagree, it is the Kurdish question. They do not want to give Kurds any rights in the new Iraqi government, on the other hand they want to give Turcomans living in South Kurdistan some rights,” said Ocalan.
Kurds targeted
The Council member stressed that KADEK, PUK and KDP were targeted, calling on all the Kurdish organisations to decide on a national politics. Ocalan continued with words to the effect: “Neither steps are taken towards a Kurdish unity nor a parliament convenes. The Kurdish forces in the South are in a blindness. They cut off the branch they are sitting on. We make a call to all the Kurdish forces. We invite them to agree on a common politics. We do not say to wage a war against Turkey. A common politics, a politics guaranteeing the interests is necessary. We are not against the rights granted to Turcomans. But Turkey must respect the existence of the Kurdish people in the South and Kurdistan as well.”
Warning to Syria and Iran
Ocalan attracted attention that Turkey and its neighbours implemented the old policy of the I. World War on the Kurdish question and emphasized that Iran and Syria had recently attacked on Kurds.
The Council member continued with following words: USA intervenes the Middle East. The countries in the region know very well that such an intervention will weaken them. Turkey states that it is not known what will occur after the intervention. It states that in case that Kurds mobilises their forces its own existence will be endangered. It tries to establish alliances with Syria and Iran against Kurds. Iran launched operations against Kurds on its borders. There are attacks on Kurds by Syria. To this day Syria has been established friendly relations with Kurds. But after the new government they attacked on Kurds too. We emphasize that the attacks are not of their interest. We emphasize that they should not consent to Turkey’s aspirations. Targets in South Kurdistan are well-known. The position of Kurds is still uncertain. They do not solve their problems with the Iraqi regime. And they want their rights granted when a take-over occurs.
“Forces in the South in a blindness”
“PUK and KDP have been often used against the Kurdish movement. When it is time to take steps toward a solution on the Kurdish question, Turkey targets all the Kurdish forces and KADEK. Therefore all fears must be put aside and responsibilities must be shouldered. We say that the forces in the South are in a blindness and they have to take steps according to the KADEK’s wishes. In case that a unity is not established, Turkey will make them ineffective in the South. Solitary confinement of our Leader must be lifted. There must be a plan to solve the Kurdish question both in South and North Kurdistan. If Turkey does not solve the problem, it will cause death for 30-35 years again, it will harm itself and remain backward. The war will not bring gains to anybody. There is no winner in war. Therefore everybody must take steps to avoid the war.
“AKP attacks”
“The AKP government attacks on Kurds. A new person often worse than the old one. If you do not consider the Kurdish question it will cease to exist. The Kurdish people do not want a life without freedom. The Kurdish people must give both AKP and the state a lesson.
Serhildan in spring
“The Kurdish people must prepare themselves for a serhildan
(popular uprising) in spring. The serhildan will begin on March 8
until the end of May and it will take an important place in history.”
3. - The Christian Science Monitor - "Kurds brace for Turks":
A poll shows 83 percent of northern Iraq's residents oppose a Turkish military intervention.
ARBIL, IRAQ / 24 February 2003
by Cameron W. Barr
As the US and Turkey approach a deal that would allow the US to insert troops and equipment into northern Iraq across Turkey's border, Kurdish leaders are ratcheting up their opposition to a Turkish military role in the area.
"Any [Turkish] intervention under whatever pretext will lead to clashes," warns Hoshyar Zebari, a senior official of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), which administers the western portion of northern Iraq. "It would not be helpful," he adds with a touch of understatement, "for the image and reputation of the US, Britain, and many of these countries that want to help the Iraqi people to see two of their allies - Turkey and the Kurdish parties - at each other's throats."
Mr. Zebari's comments, delivered at a press conference yesterday in Arbil, the capital of the Kurdish-run autonomous region in northern Iraq, constitute yet more trouble for US officials attempting to ready a second front against Iraq. Until now, Kurdish officials have criticized US plans to allow the Turks a military role without hinting at the potential for violence.
The problem for the Kurds - whose interests have never ranked high with their neighbors or distant powers - is that Turkish cooperation likely will trump Kurdish discomfort in the eyes of US war planners. The Turks are demanding billions of dollars in cash and loan guarantees, which the US is prepared to provide, and a military role in the invasion (see story).
Military issues are still being discussed, said Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis yesterday. Turkey wants to have troops in northern Iraq under its control - as opposed to US command - and to supervise the armament and disarmament of the Kurdish groups to avoid the weapons falling into the hands of Turkish Kurdish rebels.
The latter element particularly rankles Kurdish leaders, who see no reason to disarm before anyone else does.
"The price we will pay to get the second front is to let the Turks in," says Henri Barkey, a Lehigh University political scientist and former State Department adviser on Turkish and Kurdish affairs.
Letting the Turks in will allow them a say in the evolution of the new Iraq, but it may also provoke Iran and other countries in the region that also have a stake in shaping the new state.
The US and Turkey appear close to agreement on a plan which includes provisions for tens of thousands of Turkish troops to enter northern Iraq during a US invasion. Turkey says the forces are needed to prevent Kurds from fleeing into Turkey and to protect members of Iraq's Turkmen minority, with whom Turks share linguistic and ethnic roots.
The Kurds say Turkey has another goal: To undermine the autonomy of the region the Kurds have governed for 12 years and prevent them from seizing control of Kirkuk, traditionally a predominantly Kurdish part of Iraq and the site of some of the country's most productive oil fields.
"People in northern Iraqi Kurdistan are more scared of the Turkish military than of Saddam," says Nasreen Sideek, minister of reconstruction and development in the KDP administration. A poll printed this weekend by an independent Kurdish newspaper indicated 83 percent of the residents of autonomous northern Iraq oppose Turkish "intrusion."
The Kurds - roughly 25 million stateless people spread mainly across Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey - have provoked anxiety and repression from these states since the breakup of the Ottoman empire in the early 20th century.
But the 1991 imposition of a "no-fly zone" in the northern part of the country and the withdrawal of Iraqi forces and officials have given them a space in which to fashion a quasi-state that sometimes seems like a way station on the road to independence.
Not at all, say Iraqi Kurds, insisting that while they want to preserve their autonomy in a new Iraq, preferably through a federal system of governance, they have no designs on statehood. Ms. Sideek, the development minister, argues that "we have been acting as Iraqis for the past 12 years," a period in which Iraqi Kurds might have made a decisive move toward independence. "I run this ministry according to Iraqi laws."
Even so, some Kurds do reveal more expansive political ambitions, albeit obliquely. "As a nation, we would like to have our own state," says Bapier Sleman, the head of a small political party based in Arbil called the Kurdistan Persecuted Peasants Movement. "But looking at the situation right now - regionally and internationally - the federal solution is the best for this stage."
Presumably it is this sort of comment that fuels Turkey's desire to hobble Kurdish autonomy. Turkey has brutally repressed a rebellion by its own population of Kurds - some 15 million people, or 20 percent of Turkey's population - and its officials may fear that a vibrant, largely self-governed Kurdish region in Iraq will inspire renewed nationalism among Turkish Kurds.
The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which runs the eastern portion of the Kurdish haven in northern Iraq, does not seem quite so strenuous in its anti-Turkish rhetoric. PUK leader Jalal Talabani indicated on Feb. 15 that he would limit himself to verbal criticism of Turkish and US plans for the invasion and its aftermath. "We cannot fight Turkey, we cannot fight the United States of America, but we will say our words," he told reporters.
As Mr. Talabani's comments suggest, Kurds recognize that they can do little militarily against Turkey, a NATO power whose forces are vastly superior to those of the Kurds. That is why some Kurds are considering nonviolent resistance against a Turkish presence.
As Sideek observes, "We cannot stop Turkey with guns; we don't have the capacity. The only way we can stop them is by using our bodies and we will do it if necessary."
KDP official Zebari argues that the Kurds do have some leverage with the US, more than any other group in the Iraqi opposition. "The only people who are on the ground are the two main Kurdish political parties," says Zebari, drawing a distinction between the KDP and PUK, and a wide variety of exiled groups and parties who have fought the Iraqi regime mainly from abroad.
The Kurds have succeeded, with crucial help from the US, in building two parallel but relatively democratic administrations in northern Iraq.
"Nobody can bypass us, nobody can ignore us in the long-term,"
Zebari says.
4.
- AFP - "Annan optimistic on Cyprus agreement before end of
month":
ANKARA / February 23, 2003
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said on arrival in the Turkish capital
Sunday he was optimistic an agreement on the divided island of Cyprus
could be reached before his own deadline of February 28.
"I'm still hopeful and I think we can do it if the will is there,"
Annan told a press conference at Ankara's Esenboga airport, referring
to the proposed reunification agreement.
Annan is due to discuss the Cyprus question with Turkish leaders on
Monday before travelling to Athens on Tuesday and Nicosia on Wednesday.
"The European Union is due to meet for the signature of the treaty
of accession of 10 new members including Cyprus (in April),"
he said. "I hope that the treaty will be signed on behalf of
a united Cyprus. This is also the strong preference of the EU.
"For that to happen, the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots
have to decide in separate simultaneous referendums on March 30 to
approve a
comprehensive settlement and bring about a new state of affairs,"
Annan said.
"For this to happen, the leaders must come to terms in time for
those referendums to go forward.
"My purpose here is therefore to discuss with the Turkish government,
as I will do in Athens with the Greek authorities, how the two otherlands
can rally in support of this last effort and assist the parties in
coming to terms," Annan continued.
"The opportunity is open. It is clearly in the interest of all,
Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Greec and Turkey to seize the opportunity
now."
The United Nations is pressing for a reunification deal between the
island's Greek and Turkish communities by February 28, to allow a
united
Cyprus to sign a European Union accession agreement in April, in time
to meet the island's 2004 planned entry date.
Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders have been deadlocked over the UN
plan since mid-January.
Annan earlier this month asked Greece and Turkey -- Cyprus's guarantor
states, along with former colonial power Britain -- to begin talks
on
reunification plans, including provisions for both countries to maintain
military forces on the island following a peace deal.
Athens has said it favours a total withdrawal of all foreign military
forces from Cyprus, where Ankara maintains some 30,000 troops in the
breakaway north.
Annan's visit comes after the Greek Cypriot electorate last week dumped
veteran president Glafcos Clerides in favour of Tassos Papadopoulos,
widely seen as a hardliner, to negotiate a deal with Turkish Cypriot
leader Rauf Denktash.
Papadopoulos Sunday arrived in Athens for a two-day visit, during
which he is expected to meet with the Greek president, prime minister
and foreign affairs minister.
Cyprus has been divided since 1974 when the Turkish army invaded the
northern part of the island in response to an Athens-engineered coup
which sought to make the island part of Greece which was then ruled
by a military junta.
5. - The International Herald Tribune - "The real meaning of Iraq":
February 24, 2003
The debate over Iraq has exhausted everybody. Many people now think
an American invasion is inevitable; many more are desperate just to
get whatever happens over. There's nothing less satisfying than calling
for still more discussion. But more discussion is the only road that
will get the world to the right outcome - concerted effort by a wide
coalition of nations to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons
of mass destruction. We need another debate, another struggle to make
this the United Nations' leadership moment.
Right now, things don't look promising for those of us who believe this is a war worth waging, but only with broad international support. The United States has an invasion force in place, and the military's schedule seems to demand that it attack within a few weeks before spring brings on withering desert heat. Washington has some support among other nations, but few have much to offer in the way of troops or financial support.
Saddam Hussein, meanwhile, has been skillful at providing the pretense of progress to international inspectors without seriously cooperating. Iraq has drawn the United Nations into a game of find the handkerchief, in which the burden is on the inspectors to sniff out hidden weapons. All this puts an enormous weight on whether Hans Blix, the chief UN inspector, chooses to dwell on Iraqi resistance or points to areas of cooperation. The inspectors should never be put in the position of deciding international foreign policy.
While the possibility of Saddam experiencing a last-minute conversion seems minuscule, there is one quick way to test whether it's possible. Iraq has Al Samoud-2 missiles, weapons it built at great expense and effort. Blix has already stated that they exceed the limits the United Nations placed on Iraq after the Gulf War. On Friday, Blix told the Iraqis to destroy them.
This week the United Nations should tell Saddam he must let the inspectors watch him get rid of his missiles immediately, or outside forces will do it for him, with the support of the international community. That clear message would resolve the most frustrating problem for those who want the United Nations to nail down its position as the arbiter of world crises - how to get France and its supporters to define their own bottom line rather than simply criticizing Washington's.
Saddam Hussein is nobody's hero in this story. Although many Americans are puzzled about why the administration chose to pick this fight now, it's not surprising that in the wake of Sept. 11, President George W. Bush would want to make the world safer, and that one of his top priorities would be eliminating Iraq's ability to create biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Of all the military powers in the world, Iraq is the one that has twice invaded its neighbors without provocation and that has used chemical weapons both on its military foes and some of its own restive people.
North Korea may be a greater danger, but North Korea has not been told by the United Nations to disarm and stay disarmed. And, although the Bush administration is careful to steer clear of this argument, the very fact that North Korea has the international community in a bind is a cautionary tale for making sure that no other despotic governments run by irrational adventurers get hold of nuclear arms.
Many non-Americans, and large numbers of Americans, wonder whether this administration is capable of dispassionate judgment as it relentlessly pushes for war. All too often, U.S. officials have undermined their own case by demonstrating reckless enthusiasm for a brawl, denigrating allies who fail to fall in line or overstating their case against Iraq, particularly when it comes to a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. But to his credit, President Bush worked hard to achieve the unanimous support of the Security Council for Resolution 1441, and more broadly to make his case before the United Nations and the world. This may be an administration intent on making war, but so far it has also shown itself willing to give the United Nations both time and space to make up its mind.
It seems clear to us that the United Nations should enforce its own orders and make Iraq disarm, even if that requires force. But in the end, sometime in March, the United States may have to decide whether it should do the job on its own.
When that happens, the arguments on both sides are sure to be couched in the highest moral principles. But the real calculations will be entirely about the odds of succeeding. If military victory over Iraq is swift, and if it can be accomplished without extensive casualties to American soldiers or Iraqi civilians or damage to neighboring countries or the area's oil fields, Bush's popularity will soar. If occupation forces unearth proof of a large nuclear program, stockpiles of terrifying biological weapons and real evidence of serious collusion between Saddam Hussein and international terrorists, many of the international leaders who are riding the crest of anti-Americanism now will start looking very foolish.
But things could go terribly wrong, very quickly. The war could be brutal and protracted, especially if Saddam unleashes biological or chemical weapons against Israel or American troops. He may also succeed in setting fire to his oil wells, or disabling those in neighboring countries, crippling the world economy. And if he is destroyed, there is every possibility of a vicious struggle for the lucrative spoils among the disparate clans and ethnic groups in Iraq, drawing in Turkey, Iran and others. In the chaos, the weapons of mass destruction that Americans went to war to eliminate could wind up being ferried out of Iraq and sold to the highest terrorist bidder. And just as the American military's presence in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War precipitated the growth of Al Qaeda and Sept. 11, the long-term occupation of Iraq will create resentment in the Muslim world that could lead to more, not less, terrorism.
All those risks, we repeat, are worth taking in the context of a broad international coalition, and some might even be diminished if the world acts together. The United States is still traumatized by the discovery on Sept. 11, 2001, that we live in a world of unimaginable danger. Some of America's traditional allies knew that already, from long and terrible experience. Some are still trying to face up to it. But the rational response is to work together to make the world safer, not to ignore obvious dangers in hope that the likely will not become inevitable.
Our own guess, when we calculate the odds in Iraq, is that the war is likely to go well in the short run, but that the long run will be messy, difficult and dangerous. If America acts virtually on its own, it is hard to imagine either the Bush administration or the American people having the staying power to make things right. Washington may be counting on Iraq's oil revenue to pay for rebuilding the country after the war, but the oil wells could be damaged in the fighting. It seems certain that an administration that will not give up tax cuts to pay for the war itself is not going to inflict economic pain at home to pay for the cleanup. And while Americans have always shown themselves willing to risk anything, even their own children, for a critical cause of high purpose, their support for this particular fight is thin as a wafer and based on misapprehension that Iraq is clearly linked to terrorism.
Our overriding concern is that the United States is, and seems likely
to remain, a nation whose military might and economic power so outstrip
any other country that much of the world has begun comparing it to
ancient Rome. The test now is whether America will find a new way
to exercise its power in which leadership, self-discipline and concern
for the common good will outweigh its smaller impulses. An invasion
of Iraq that is not supported by many traditional allies, or those
powers the United States needs to be allied with in the best possible
future, will send a message that Americans can do whatever they want.
But it is not going to make the rest of the world want to root for
America to succeed. The real test of American leadership is only incidentally
about Iraq. It is whether the United States will further split the
world into squabbling camps, united only by their jealousy of American
power, or use its influence to unite the world around a shared vision
of progress, human rights and mutual responsibility.
6. - The Financial Times - "Turkey puts focus on future of Kurds":
By Gareth Smyth in Arbil, northern Iraq
February 24, 2003
Nine kilometres north-east of Arbil, the "capital" of the
Kurdish-run enclave of northern Iraq, is a grim shanty town of breeze
blocks, tarpaulin and mud.
The 50,000 residents of Banislawa are among around 130,000 refugees from Kirkuk, a city under Iraqi government control, and their future was thrust centre-stage yesterday by Yasar Yakis, Turkey's foreign minister.
Mr Yakis said his country's agreement to open bases for US forces for any attack on Iraq depended not just on receiving $5bn (&euro4.6bn, ?3bn) in grants and $10bn in loans guarantees from the US, but on a set of other reassurances about the future of northern Iraq.
Turkey, he said, wanted US guarantees that the Iraqi Kurds would not be allowed to "declare independence" and that US forces would take control of the oil cities of Kirkuk and Mosul.
Mr Yakis said there was a danger that if the refugees returned to these cities, the Kurds might seize Iraq's northern oilfields.
His statement increased tension with the Iraqi Kurds, already deeply suspicious about Turkish plans to send up to 55,000 troops into northern Iraq, ostensibly for humanitarian purposes.
The Iraqi Kurdish parties have rejected all the reasons advanced by Turkey to justify its proposed intervention, and insist their aim is to achieving their rights within Iraq rather than by asserting independence.
Though they are committed to returning refugees to Kirkuk and other areas "Arabised" by the ruling Baath party since the 1970s, they stress this should be in an orderly manner.
The issue certain to be raised at this week's meeting of Iraqi opposition parties in the Kurdish enclave. The meeting, originally scheduled to begin on February 15, could begin as early as today in Salahuddin and will bring together a 65-member steering committee elected at an earlier meeting in London.
A Kurdish spokesman yesterday confirmed that a "high level" US representative was also expected to take part, although it remained unclear whether this would be Zalmay Khalilzad, US President George W. Bush's special envoy.
The Kurdish leadership meanwhile stressed yesterday it would continue discussions with Turkey and would try to clarify Turkey's intentions at a meeting with its military on 25 February.
"We hope there will be more transparency," said Hoshyar Zebari, a senior official in the Kurdistan Democratic party (KDP), one of two Kurdish parties controlling northern Iraq.
But the Kurds have also said that Turkish forces would be resisted if they crossed into Iraq.
"We will oppose any Turkish military intervention - believe me, there will be clashes," Mr Zebari said yesterday.
The Iraqi Kurds believe that Turkey's real concern is that the example of autonomy for Iraq's 4m Kurds, possibly endorsed by a new regime in Baghdad, would prove attractive to Turkey's 15m Kurds. There is bitterness among the refugees of Banislawa. Samad Ali Bahram, a man of 53, said he left Kirkuk on February 2 with his four sons and wife after he was tortured. He has cuts on his legs and body, and few remaining teeth.
Mr Bahram's family shares two rooms with a family of 18. But in the midst of his confusion and sadness, he is clear whom he blames for his plight.
"The source is Saddam," he says, tears welling in his eyes. "Just kill Saddam, the mad dog."
"We will wait for our [Kurdish] government to say it is time
to return," said Kafia, a 70-year-old woman in Banislawa. "We
pray to God that we can return to our house in safety. Look, my feet
are stuck in the mud, I cannot even walk to the road."
7. - ASSOCIATED PRESS - "Iraq Kurds oppose Turkish presence":
IRBIL, Iraq / February 24, 2003
by Borzou Daragahi
Kurdish officials in northern Iraq warned yesterday of clashes between
Turks and Kurds should Turkey follow through on its plan to send thousands
of troops into the region in case of a U.S.-led war against Iraq.
The two main Kurdish parties expressed unified opposition to any deployment,
charging that the Turkish presence will destabilize the autonomous
area in northern Iraq.
"We will oppose any Turkish military intervention," said
Hoshyar Zebari, foreign relations chief of the Kurdistan Democratic
Party (KDP). "No one should see us as bluffing on this issue.
Any intervention under whatever pretext will lead to clashes."
Latif Rashid, a spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, added
that "all the Iraqi parties were dismayed" by the Turkish
plan.
In exchange for allowing U.S. forces to use its territory as a staging
ground against Iraq, Turkey wants to send thousands of troops into
northern Iraq to prevent the creation of an independent Kurdish state
and keep Iraqi Kurdish groups from seizing oil fields.
Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis said his country's parliament
is likely to vote early this week on allowing tens of thousands of
U.S. combat troops into the country to attack Iraq from the north.
A few issues remain to be negotiated concerning the economic, political
and military conditions of the deployment, he said in an interview
yesterday with private television CNN-Turk.
Turks fear that a Kurdish state would encourage the separatist goals
of Turkey's restive Kurdish minority. Turkey also wants a role in
any post-Saddam Hussein administration, the prominent Turkish daily
Hurriyet reported yesterday.
The Kurds' comments raised fears that U.S. troops in northern Iraq
could be caught in the often-bloody, generations-old struggle between
Turks and Kurds for control of the strategic region near the borders
with Turkey, Syria and Iran.
Turkish and U.S. officials agreed yesterday to jointly supervise the
Iraqi Kurdish armament and disarmament, Turkey's Anatolia news agency
reported. The move is an effort to keep weapons from falling into
the hands of Turkish Kurdish rebels with bases in northern Iraq. Officials
would not confirm the report.
In Washington, Turkey's ambassador to the United States said his country
planned to send troops into northern Iraq, but only for "humanitarian"
reasons. More than 1,500 Iraqi Kurds died of starvation, dehydration
and illnesses while trying to reach the Turkish border at the end
of the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
"There will be a Turkish military presence in northern Iraq,"
Ambassador Faruk Logoglu told "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer"
on CNN. "But the main purpose of that presence will be to address
the humanitarian situation, because we know that a lot of people are
going to be displaced because of military action."
Kurdish leaders said they felt betrayed.
"I was inviting the U.S. to come here," said Nasreen Sideek
Barwari, a minister of reconstruction for the KDP. "But the moment
the U.S. started to talk about Turkey, that's when I started to speak
out against a U.S. occupation."
Iraqi opposition leaders have gathered in this autonomous Kurdish-run
region to discuss the future of a post war Iraq. More than 50 of the
65 delegates elected during a December meeting in London have arrived,
enough for a quorum.
But the start of the meeting, delegates said, hinges on the arrival
of Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House envoy to the Iraqi opposition.
Mr. Khalilzad's plans were not known. Some delegates also want to
wait for the outcome of a meeting tomorrow between Kurds and Turks,
which Mr. Zebari said would focus on Turkey's military plans.
8.
- AFP - "Former Islamist PM Erbakan back to Turkish politics
as ban expires":
ANKARA / February 23, 2003
A five-year political ban for Islamist activities on former Turkish
prime minister Necmettin Erbakan ends on Sunday, Turkish media reported.
Erbakan, a pioneer of political Islam in a mostly Muslim country with
a strictly secular regime, is now set to assume the leadership of
the latest incarnation of his outlawed former party.
In 1998, the constitutional court outlawed Erbakan's Welfare Party
(Refah) for "anti-secular activities" and banned the veteran
leader, along with four of his associates, from politics until 2003.
Erbakan's government had already been forced to resign in 1997, after
only a year in power, following pressure from the army, which considers
itself the guardian of Turkey's secular principles.
Subject to a party congress in March, 77-year-old Erbakan is now set
to take over leadership of the Happiness (Saadet) party, which has
no
parliamentary representation, having failed to get 10 percent of the
votes in last November's elections, according to Anatolia news agency.
Like the ruling Justice and Development (AKP) party, the Happiness
party was created following a 2001 ban -- also for "anti-secular
activities" -- on the Virtue (Fazilet) party, which itself had
been created by former Welfare members.
Happiness is led by people considered close to Erbakan, while the
conservative AKP party presents itself as moderate, democratic and
secular.
After their sweeping electoral victory last November, the AKP majority
in parliament made legal amendments to enable their leader, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, to stand for office after being banned because of
an earlier conviction for
inciting religious hatred.
If he wins a parliamentary seat in March, he will become prime minister.