Cyprus-Forum.com

[-mikkie2-]

Turkey tones up Kirkuk warning
Thursday, January 20, 2005


ANKARA – Turkish Daily News


Ankara sent a sharpened warning yesterday to Iraqi Kurds over attempts to gain control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk as the countdown for Iraqi polls on Jan. 30 begins.

The Foreign Ministry said yesterday that hundreds of thousands of settlers have been shifted to Kirkuk, even though neither these people nor their families were historically not linked to Kirkuk in any way, and warned this was against the principles for return of Kirkuk residents who were forced out of the city during Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaign.

“Nobody could expose somebody else's territory to an illegal fait accompli,” said Ministry Spokesman Namık Tan. “Iraqis from different communities that inhabited the region have confirmed that this process (of shifting population) has been taking place at a pace and intensity which does not fit into the historical realities and has materially and politically been stimulated and supported by certain political parties.”

[-mikkie2-]

Well, it seems that Turkey is up to her old tricks again.

They call the return of Kurds who were kicked out of Kirkuck by Saddam settlers!

Will we be seeing another 'peace operation' soon?

“Nobody could expose somebody else's territory to an illegal fait accompli,” said Ministry Spokesman Namık Tan. “Iraqis from different communities that inhabited the region have confirmed that this process (of shifting population) has been taking place at a pace and intensity which does not fit into the historical realities and has materially and politically been stimulated and supported by certain political parties.”

And doesn't this smack of the biggest double standard you could ever hear? So its ok for Turkey to bring in thousands of settlers to Cyprus from another country! Seems that some things will never change.

[insan]

And doesn't this smack of the biggest double standard you could ever hear? So its ok for Turkey to bring in thousands of settlers to Cyprus from another country! Seems that some things will never change.

Great analogy, mikkie! How much knowledge do you have about history of Kirkuk? It seems to me that puting blame on Turkey is a kind of self-amusement for you. How much Turkey gets in trouble that much you feel yourself happy, eh?

[-mikkie2-]

And what make you an expert on Kirkuck?

That city was historically populated by Assyrians, Turkmens and Kurds. Saddam deported many of these people to other parts of Iraq and filled their places with his own tribe.

I assume its OK for Turkmens to return to Kirkcuk, but not the Kurds!

In any case, Turkey accuses the Kurds of putting illegal settlers in Kircuck when Turkey herself has done the exact same thing in Cyprus.

Don't you think Turkey should not be criticised if she in one breath accuses the Kurds of 'illegally' settling in Kirkuck and on the other she supports the exact same thing in Cyprus.

I think the analogy is quite clear, don't you think?

[insan]

And what make you an expert on Kirkuck?

Did I say that I'm an expert? I just asked you how much do you know about Kirkuk.

That city was historically populated by Assyrians, Turkmens and Kurds. Saddam deported many of these people to other parts of Iraq and filled their places with his own tribe.

True.

I assume its OK for Turkmens to return to Kirkcuk, but not the Kurds!

Kurds are trying to kick Turkmens out and be the majority of Kirkuk. That's the problem for Turkey.

In any case, Turkey accuses the Kurds of putting illegal settlers in Kircuck when Turkey herself has done the exact same thing in Cyprus.

I totally agree with you at this point but AKP government wasn't who imported thousands of settlers.

Don't you think Turkey should not be criticised if she in one breath accuses the Kurds of 'illegally' settling in Kirkuck and on the other she supports the exact same thing in Cyprus.

You are right. Turkey should call at least half of the settlers back to Turkey. Particularly those who came afterwards 90s.

I think the analogy is quite clear, don't you think?

Now it became a bit clearer.

[-mikkie2-]

I am glad we have an understanding then.

Kurds are trying to kick Turkmens out and be the majority of Kirkuk. That's the problem for Turkey.

Don't you think that perhaps Turkey might have an ulterior motive in claiming that this is happening? I seem to remember a few months ago a report in the press that Turkey suggested that she had a legitimate claim over northern Iraq, including the oil rich region of Kirkuck. She basically did not recognise the creation of Iraq after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Perhaps a similar thing to what Saddam claimed about Kuwait - that it was not a legitimate country and that it was part of Iraq. Look what happened to him in the end!

So, from my point of view, I am suspicious of the motives of Turkey because they do seem to be looking for an excuse to intervene in some way.

[pantelis]

Turkey lost the game in Iraq. They were never invited as an equal partner to begin with, and have chosen to stay out of the game alltogether. Now, they are making desperate attempts to become relevant...... but it is too late.
Soon, the americans would leave Iraq, after they divide it up into two "friendly" states, leaving the Kurds and Shiites to deal with their Sunni minorities.
Some US bases will be maitained in the areas near the oil-fields, of cource.
Just a thought.

[insan]

I am glad we have an understanding then.

I'm too.

Don't you think that perhaps Turkey might have an ulterior motive in claiming that this is happening? I seem to remember a few months ago a report in the press that Turkey suggested that she had a legitimate claim over northern Iraq, including the oil rich region of Kirkuck. She basically did not recognise the creation of Iraq after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

I don't think so, mikkie. The ones who suggested that Turkey had a legitimate claim over Northern Iraq were some historians not Turkish officials.


"The TGS (Turkish General Staff), which has gone into the details of the Mosul affair, has taken note of Ataturk’s analysis of this question. Ataturk says in his famous Great Speech that Mosul was lost in Lausanne and later on in the League of Nations because it was not in Turkey’s hands, while Anatolia and Thrace had been purged of the enemy during the independence war. “There can be no diplomatic gain afterwards, without a powerful military gain first,” says Ataturk in his history of the Independence War. He explains in his Great Speech that the Ottoman commander, Ali Ihsan Pasha, made a mistake in November 1918 by giving into the British protest and evacuating Kirkuk and Mosul that were in Turkish forces’ hands when the Montros Armistice was signed on October 30th, 1918. "


http://www.turkpulse.com/irak.htm

So, from my point of view, I am suspicious of the motives of Turkey because they do seem to be looking for an excuse to intervene in some way.

The Turkmens constitute the third largest ethnic community in Iraq with no less than a population of two million. It is hoped that with such a
population these people would acquire their rights, which has not been the case so far. The new political atmosphere in Iraq offers better opportunities to the Turkmens. The significance of the Turkmen population lies in the calculations as to the final status of Iraq. In case the Turkmens are regarded as one of the three constituent peoples of Iraq, the prospects for a better life for the Iraqi Turkmens must be supported by
Turkey. Why?

There are 3 reasons:

1- They are considered Turkish descendant people.
2- Instead of having Kurds as a border neighbour who claim a seperate state on Turkey's soil, it's better to have Turkmens as a border neighbour.
3- Turkmens claim that kerkuk and erbil are considered as two of the major Turkmen cities and there are reliable sources which prove their claims.


Where's the problem?

Kurds, claim that majority population of Kerkuk was once Kurdish but expeled by Saddam and because of this recently they started to massively move to Kerkuk in order to change its demographics and take the city in the borders of federal state of Kurdistan which palaned to be formed in near future.

Naturally, Turkey supports the Turkmen thesis. What should she do? Should she desert the Turkmens to their destiny?

Nowadays there are plans to make the Kerkuk city an autonomous multi-ethnic area as Kurdish leader Talabani cited "city of brotherhood" but the latest developments in Kerkuk don't prove that what he wishes about Kerkuk is also what other groups of Kurds wish. You know there's a strong extreme wing among Kurds who wants an independent Kurdistan which its borders starts from Iraq, goes into Turkey, Iran, Syria and Russia. This is also constitute one of the major concerns of Turkey regarding the developments in Northern Iraq.


My impressions tell me that a big bloody conflict will breakout in that region and soon will spread over to mediterrenean/Far East then to Europe.

Another conspiracy theory? ehh?

[insan]

[insan]