Kurds Offer Ceasefire - Turkish PM: We Won't Fight in Iraq

Turkish Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan, indicated today that Turkey should confine its fight against the outlawed Kurdish separatist group known as the PKK within Turkey's borders:

"Has the fight with the 5,000 terrorists finished domestically, that we should now be talking about Iraq?" Erdogan said when reporters asked him about a cross-border operation against separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) rebels.

Erdogan did not confirm whether he had the support of Turkey's all powerful military.  However, given the way their financial markets were destabilized after their (unacknowledged) limited cross-border raid last week, the pressure on the military to comply with Erdogan's change in focus is likely building.

As for the PKK, word has come that they are offering a cease fire in exchange for peace talks, with the qualification that they would defend themselves against attack:

Kurdish separatists declared a "unilateral cease-fire" in attacks against Turkey on Tuesday and said they were ready for peace negotiations, but the group maintained the right to defend itself.

More below the fold...

I've been suggesting for a while that the Turks and Kurds would find a way to deal with this prior to it escalating to a full scale cross-border conflict.   That's because neither the Turks nor the Iraqi Kurds (the PUK/KDP) can afford a Turkish/Kurdish civil war spilling over to Iraq.  Here's an analysis I did on the Turkish/Kurdish border situation on December 22, 2006:

But will the Kurds help themselves?

You've hit on a favorite subject of mine (warning: Kurdophile here).  

I agree that the situation is volatile, I consider it the potential tipping point of a larger war (as in, anywhere there is a Kurdish minority -- which is a lot of borders).  But, I'm not convinced the PKK will be able to hold on to their camps on the Iraq/Turkish border or in the Zagros Mountains.  

So, addressing just the Turkish/Kurdish issue (the Iranian/Kurdish situation requiring a longer post):

A (very) little history: (please see this link for more)

The PUK and KDP have, in the past, chased the PKK out of their territory after negotiations with the Turks.

4 October 1992, the Kurdish government in Erbil: "PKK should either withdraw from the border bases or be expelled.

And from this article in 2003:

Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul is claiming that American forces have clashed with PKK/KADEK forces in northern Iraq.

..."It is true that clashes took place yesterday," Gul has said. "Not only U.S. forces but also Kurdish 'peshmerga' fighters were involved in engaging the PKK. Some U.S. helicopters were also deployed.

A Kurdish friend  of mine was visiting a Peshmerga camp during that period.  He was surprised to find the Pêşmerge were cleaning their weapons in anticipation of a battle with the PKK.  When he asked them why they were doing it, their commander replied "Ez ĥes ji partî demokratî dikim (I like the Democratic Party)."

They have two well known sayings in Kurdistan:  "Kurds have no friends but the mountains" and "Leşkerê Kurdî bi hêz e, (Kurdish soldiers are strong)".

The two sayings are intertwined.  The Peshmerga are mountain guerillas with a long history of warfare.  They are stronger than the PKK and, frankly, one of the reasons you don't see the Sunni/Shi'a violence spilling over the Kurdî border. This is because the Iraqi Sunni/Shi'a know how how strong they are and that they practice blood feud (kill my brother, I will kill everyone you even might be related to...).

The influence of oil:

Kirkuk is the sticking point of any agreement with the Kurds.  To them, it's their Jerusalem.  They want it.  

Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey threw the gauntlet down about Kirkuk on this Dec. 19th Newshour interview.

Erdogan:  You speak of the more peaceful north. Well, the north, there are also some issues there, as well. For example, in the city of Kirkuk, the demographics of the city are being changed, and that is like a bomb that is ticking to explode.

There are Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds who live in that area, and the demographics must reflect the situation as it is. And Kirkuk must be granted a special status based on its historical background.

There is a referendum that is planned for 2007, and I don't think the referendum results will be very positive. And, in my opinion, the referendum must be postponed.

So he's put his terms forward.  Which is useful to the U.S., and not just because of the demographics.  It has to do with this oil find in Iraqi Kurdistan.

So now the western oil interests have a self-interest reason to need a stable Kurdistan.

When Erdogan puts forward an ultimatum:  Try to keep Kirkuk and you're screwed, he's not doing that in a vacuum.

Kurdish political activities:

The guy to watch in all of this is the son of the current president of Iraq, Qubad Talibani:

Christopher Allbritton:  Qubad Jalal Talabani, the deputy representative for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in Washington -- which has had sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler relations with the PKK -- told me via email:

There is much talk about US-Turkey action towards the PKK, but in reality, the US are already fighting a war on a few fronts (Al-Qaeda, Ansar, Saddam loyalists etc). The last thing would want to do is open another front. Secondly, the US and the Kurds (Iraqi), are on a very new and different playing field, in terms of the respect that each shows the other. The US would never do such actions with first consulting, and second receiving permission, from us. Our advice to the US and to Turkey has always been, the PKK are tired, regardless of what some idiots from within them think, the majority of them are ready to lay down their arms and go back to their homes. If the US can pressure Turkey into providing them with an amnesty (a real one!) then this problem will be resolved.

So... There's a Kurdish response.  Find a way for some of these Turkish PKK to come home.  Is he trying to help the PKK?  Perhaps.  Eithe way, it puts the onus on the PKK if they don't stop their terrorism.

In which case, they may just face the Kurdish Peshmerga (those best fighters in the regions) clearing out the PKK sometime in the near future.

There is also talk of the U.S. -- when they pull out of Iraq proper -- establishing bases on the Turkish/Kurdish border...another reason to clear the PKK out:

MARGARET WARNER: ...There are also ideas of moving American troops up to the more peaceful Kurdish area near the border with Turkey.

What would you say should be the U.S. military posture, say, in the next six months to a year?

RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN: The world must be prepared for the future in Iraq. And that's what must be carefully planned, based on the experiences that exist, and it must be done by seeking wise counsel.

And by doing that, and if such a road map is prepared based on a consensus, including the views and the opinions of the neighboring countries, this will help the people in Iraq to feel more secure about their future.

So, the question becomes: Will the Kurds help themselves to keep the peace?  

Given the:

• The discovery of a large oil field in their area and the new leverage that gives the Kurds.
• The clear statement from Erdogan regarding Kirkuk, the PKK and the hint above that he would not have a problem with U.S. troops on his border (he's stated elsewhere he'd welcome them)
• The U.S. as appointed a special envoy for "countering the PKK," Joseph Ralston.
• Qubad Talibani, Kurdish heir appearant, just married an American socialite and lives, for the most part, in the U.S.
• The U.S., the EU and almost everyone else as declared the PKK a terrorist entity.

From that point of view: The PKK are the ones looking lonely.  The hotspots to watch - vis-a-vis Turkey and Iraq are: Kirkuk, the overall volatility of Iraq, whether the U.S. puts their bases within Kurdistan, and, if they don't, what the Turks do to fill the void.

Either way, the Turkish/Kurdish border is one place in the Middle East where active diplomacy, albeit behind the scenes, seems to be taking place.

Whew... long winded... Sorry.  Like I said, I'm a Kurdophile.

by jhritz on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:36:58 PM PDT

What's not in today's news reports?  Just what Jalal Talabani's son, Qubad, or his counterpart, Barzani's son (the current Prime Minister of the Kurdish Regional Government) have been discussing with Turkey, but, given the information from December, my guess would be they've been talking.

From the CNN report:

"We are renewing our declaration to halt attacks against the Turkish army," Abdul Rahman Chaderchi, the PKK official in charge of foreign affairs, said in northern Iraq, where the rebels have several bases.

"We want peace and we are ready for negotiations, but if Turkey decides to attack our bases inside Turkey or inside Iraqi Kurdistan, then this unilateral cease-fire will be meaningless. If we are attacked, we will fight back and we have the ability to confront any Turkish aggression," he added.

"We want peace and we are ready for negotiations..."

Fingers crossed.

Here's my diary on the Kurds.

The link to the Reuters News Story.

The link to the CCN story with the confirmation of the PKK cease fire offer.

©2007 jhritz

•  Tips and Recommends

  and flames for anyone on either side who won't negotiate.

  by jhritz on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 08:50:28 AM PDT

•  Rec. on the run

  Sorry, I had to skim your diary because I'm on vacation and have to go soon. But from what I have read it looks like you've got a well though out diary. Turkey invading the Kurds would be very bad for the US. The Kurds seem to like the US and a Turkish invasion would make Iraq collapse even further. I agree that most likely the Turks and Kurds will find a way to avoid armed conflict.

  by BlueTide on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:01:22 AM PDT

  •  Thanks!

    BlueTide on vacation.  There's something very refreshing about that picture!

    Thanks for the feedback on the diary.  I have my fingers crossed, too.

    by jhritz on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:03:44 AM PDT

•  Interesting take...thanks.

  Reading this part of the material you provided:

  From the PKK official in charge of foreign affairs:  

  "We want peace and we are ready for negotiations, but if Turkey decides to attack our bases inside Turkey or inside Iraqi Kurdistan, then this unilateral cease-fire will be meaningless. If we are attacked, we will fight back and we have the ability to confront any Turkish aggression."

  Soner Cagaptay and Ali Koknar have an interesting and timely article at the Washington Institute:

  Further PKK violence will bring more Turkish incursions into Iraq. On May 30, the U.S. military relinquished military control over the northern Iraqi provinces of Dohuk, Irbil, and Sulaymaniya to the KDP and PUK. Since the U.S. military did not have a significant troop presence in these provinces to begin with, it was a largely symbolic move. Hence, any Turkish incursions into Iraq will now take place in areas outside U.S. military control. On June 7, the KDP and PUK declared that they would not engage the PKK. Nevertheless, as in the 1990s -- when Iraqi Kurds allied with Turkey against the PKK -- it seems that KDP and PUK assistance is one of the ways to defuse the current situation.

  This war of George Bush's is a war of bad metaphors and symbolic measures with no "gut" to back them up. We're backing our military away from direct involvement now in the hopes that KDP, PUK, and Turkey will find their own form of alliance to quell PKK violence. For the sake of peace, I hope it works. But once again, Bush has left peace to its own haphazard devices while creating turmoil for too many innocent families in Iraq. My prayer is for the Kurds and the Turks to work out a peaceful solution. It's important for the people of the region to understand that our hearts are with them for peace...not war.    

  by Iddybud on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:11:38 AM PDT

  •  Great post. Thanks!

    That's great info.  Much appreciated!

    Your last two lines:

    My prayer is for the Kurds and the Turks to work out a peaceful solution. It's important for the people of the region to understand that our hearts are with them for peace...not war.    

    Just.Perfect.

    Thanks.

    by jhritz on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:13:29 AM PDT

•  Great analysis

  After the very excited diaries lately, predicting catastrophe, it's nice to get a very informed, well-thought-out diary.  Great information.  

  by willb48 on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:13:26 AM PDT

  •  Thank you!

    I agree about the excited quip :O)

    One of the things I admire about the Kurds and the Turks are how pragmatic they are.  

    Thanks.

    by jhritz on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:14:37 AM PDT

•  great commentary

  and some dramatic flair! i was holding my breath until i read "barzani" and erdogan in the same paragraph.

  bilateral reporting on US and erdogan calculations of PKK movements have been relentless. it has distorted the credibility of the picture for me, one who's long subscribed to covert US strats to foment chaos.

  i've been (kinda) dieing to know if anyone was actually awake in the KRG.

  by MarketTrustee on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:54:18 AM PDT

  •  Thanks

    it is interesting to see what piques the Kurds and Turks natural pragmatism.

    I'd say they're very awake in the KRG.  

    Thanks!

    by jhritz on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:56:05 AM PDT

•  Very good news

  My mom has been doing research in Turkey for the last six months, and it's been clear to her that the last thing anyone she talked to wanted was another war.  The last one was a nightmare.  Most people she talked to thought the talk of war was bluffing tactics, and were much more worried about the Islamists and their conservative 30% taking over - but that seems less likely now too.  Inshallah.

  by sarac on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 10:45:08 AM PDT

•  Lesson for Jews and Arabs

  Assuming you, like me, have no known Kurdish family ties: doesn't this whole conflict seem completely incomprehensible and bizarre?

  The only parts that make any sense are the parts about how everyone should be nice to one another and stop killing one another and that any of the violence here creates a smaller economic/resource pie for all parties, to the extent that, even if the "victorious" violent party ended up with the whole pie, it would end up with LESS pie than it has now.

  It's obvious that the people on both sides have wonderful, detailed explanations stretching back before the time of Adam and Eve to explain why they ought to be killing one another. And, it's obvious that we're too foolish and naive and idealistic to ever really understand those regions.

  Because I'm so foolish and ignorant, what I personally understand is that a Turkish baby and a Kurdish baby are both babies and both deserve every wonderful thing that the world has to offer, and that, if you're going to create that kind of reality, you have to try to create peace, justice, mercy and prosperity for the adults who are rearing and educating those children, and the adults supporting the parents and teachers.

  Anyhow, I wonder if anyone else thinks this stuff reminds them about some other conflict in the world. Maybe in, oh, Belgium? Or was it, um, Malawi? No, I think the country name started with an I, or was that a P?

  by sclminc on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 11:26:28 AM PDT

  •  Well...

    as this is not an I/P diary, I'm reluctant to get into that point of view.

    From a Kurdish/Turkish perspective, however, the problem has to do with the way Kurdistan was sliced up and given away during the Conference at Lausanne, in 1923.  The British mapmaker had never heard of the Kurds, so he neglected to include their country in the new map he was drawing (that's the one that created Iraq).

    This is a colonial mistake that we're still paying for.  The Kurds and Turks know that, so they have some common ground to see the Brits as causative in their problems.

    A bigger problem is how the Turks have been treating the Kurds.  See the link on my sig line for more info about that.  It's pretty outrageous, imo:

    by jhritz on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 11:31:46 AM PDT

    •  The Turks may be the villains, but

      any violent Kurdish responses just give the Turks justification for actions that they otherwise could not justify.

      by sclminc on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 11:53:01 AM PDT

      •  No argument there

        I'm not a fan of the PKK or their tactics anymore than I excuse the Turks for oppression.  

        I do admire both the Kurds and Turks as people though.

        by jhritz on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 12:08:23 PM PDT

        •  typo - any more, not anymore n/t

          by jhritz on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 12:09:19 PM PDT

•  No

  The onus is on Turkey and the US to stop their terrorism.  The ceasefire began on October 1, 2006, and before it took effect, the US and Turkey rejected it:

  Turkish Daily News.

  Yeah, that's the same Joseph Ralston who's a director of Lockheed Martin, a lobbyist for The Cohen Group, and an advisor to the American Turkish Council, and as "special envoy" he managed to rake in $13 billion from Turkey for Lockheed Martin fighter aircraft sales since his appointment in August, 2006.

  by Mizgin on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 10:13:48 PM PDT

  •  I know who he is and I know about the last

    ceasefire and I know when it was broken and why.

    Look, Mizgin, I've told you this before.  I have enormous respect for the Kurdish people.  Frankly, I'm in awe of you all.

    I'm also not about to cut the Turks any slack for how they've treated the Kurds.

    That being said, here's the reality I mentioned to you before:  The world cannot afford a Turkish/Kurdish war.

    No matter what the provocation.  

    They will sell out the Kurds before they'd allow it.    And that goes for the west, EU, Russia, Iran, etc...  

    They will all sell you out.

    The Talabanis and the Barzanis know that.  Now matter how you feel about them, I doubt you'd disagree with me that they're pragmatists.  

    Which means the timing is not there for the separatists, not with the mess in Iraq, the interference from Iran, Syria, the current explosion in Palestine, in Lebanon, the new competition between Russian and the US (which, btw, is Russia's way of invalidating the EU, but that's another story), and especially not with Kirkuk looming under the next Iraqi referendum.

    It's not fair; it's reality.

    If you want to review a parallel in history (other than the Conference at Lausanne), I'd consider the way the east and west continually sold out the Czech (see Munich Agreement).  It was not in the world's interest, in the long run, to do that to the Czech, but they did it anyway.  And then they did again at the end of the war, when they forced Patton to wait outside Prague and let the Red Army go in...

    The Czech didn't get their country back for over 50 years and they're still having trouble holding onto it.

    Kurdistan has had a longer wait, no doubt about it, but the geography and the region is a bit more involved (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria...)

    If there's a way to peace between Turkey and the Kurds -- and believe me when I say that should include Turkey changing more of their ways than I can count -- then both sides should grab for it, before they end up being used as poker chips in the wider world's currently failing game.

    It's all about timing, you know?

    Regarding Ralston, it's highly unlikely any Bu$hCo appointee wouldn't be finding a way to enrich themselves.  Goes with the territory (again, doesn't make it right, just the reality).

    I wish things were different, but they're not.  

    Now, based on past interaction, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't agree with me.  Let me make the point that whatever anger you throw at me in return doesn't change the fact that I am in awe of the Kurdish people and hope for a future when things will be different.  

    I just want that future to be a peaceful one.  

    by jhritz on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:21:20 AM PDT

•  Define "Separatism"

  You are wrong in your remarks on "separatism."  That is American and Turkish propaganda, which you accept as absolute truth.

  The fact is that a political solution was offered last August.  Read carefully at the end:

  We would like as a movement to emphasize once again that the right solution is a democratic autonomy within the borders of Turkey. We believe that a solution in the unity of Turkey will be for the benefit of firstly the Kurdish people and all the people of the region.

  We call once again on all international and regional political forces and democratic circles to make an effort to start the democratic solution, to work for its success and to support the democratic resolution of the Kurdish question within the political borders of Turkey.

  Explain to me in detail exactly how that qualifies as "separatism."

  The fact is that the US and Turkey are the ones who rejected the ceasefire and a political solution before the ceasefire went into effect.  The US and Turkey, along with all the rest of the "civilized, democratic" world, are the warmongers.

  Good luck on the blowback you are reaping for yourselves.

  by Mizgin on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:05:32 AM PDT

  •  The only

    blowback I'm getting is from you (so far).  

    However, if your last line is meant as a warning that the Kurds will apply violent tactics to the US, I'd strongly encourage them (you?) to reconsider.

    I've said this to you before, but I'm asking you to really hear me:  There is ENORMOUS respect and sympathy (note I say sympathy, not pity) toward the Turkish Kurds right now within the US population and that population does not support our current administrations' policies.  

    Fact:  We have an administration headed toward the lowest popularity in our history.  The next time we can do something to change that administration is Nov, 08 and then months before the new administration gets their bearings.  That's the reality of our political system and the timing involved to change things.

    What will change that inevitable course?  If something happens to make us feel threatened and/or if we are attacked.  Then you'll see a very similar situation as one would expect in Iran if they're threatened and/or attacked - nationalism.

    And then blowback in return for blowback with a hell of lot more resources and a somewhat immature population (the US has only been around since 1776, after all) who get really, really upset about things like that.

    Which would be a damn shame, considering the US population, right now, admires the Kurds and wants to see the Turks stop their shit.

    Now, speaking of the Turks and without getting caught up in semantics about separatism vs. autonomy, let's look at it this way.  You have a powerful state in Turkey with a powerful military and a growing Turkish nationalistic movement (seen any wolves lately?) juxtaposed to/freaked out by a growing Turkish Islamic movement.  

    That's an awful lot of push-pull that gives all sides within the Turkish maelstrom an incentive to use others as scapegoats.

    Again, I'm not saying it's fair or that I agree with it, I'm just talking about the dynamics.

    And note that it's a Turkish state that has effectively stood up to the BushCo regime (note the refusal to let the US invade Iraq through Turkey).  That means the US does not have as much influence in Turkey as you may think and are walking on a few eggshells with them right now.

    When you add in Turkey's NATO position and the need the west has to hold on to Turkey as an ally, not only because of the debacle in Iraq and Turkey's successful slap in the face about the Iraq invasion, but because of the wider regional conflicts that are brewing.  At that point, it becomes an issue of strategy.

    Now, you talk about the past, the US and Turkey, along with the rest of the "civilized, democratic" world rejecting a ceasefire.

    Without saying whether I agree with your representation, I will say that I get it.  

    You're pissed.

    But what does that have to do with the Kurds' latest ceasefire offer?  Has it been rejected?  

    My point is that it should be taken seriously.  That the Turks should negotiate in good faith and work to bring about peace.  That the west should support that goal.  That it's time for everyone to look to the future, to improving the condition of those in the present.

    Your posts, if I'm not mistaken, seem to be looking more to the past.  Forgive me, but just I don't see that as a recipe for solving your present and future problems.

    One last thing:  I'm all for autonomy within the Turkish state (not that the Turks would agree with me).  I think the Turks have proven they won't treat the Kurds as equal citizens (speaking of the past).  

    That doesn't mean the Turks are ready for Kurdish autonomy, because I don't see that they have the incentive, internally -- regardless of what the US does (please don't blame everything on us -- that's scapegoating, too).

    But that doesn't mean you shouldn't negotiate with them.

    Again, the Turks are fighting their own potential civil war (nationalists vs. Islamists) and, from what I can see, are using the Kurds as a way to bring their people together against a common enemy.

    A Kurdish ceasefire in good faith and willingness to negotiate undercuts the Turks using them that way.  It's not only good strategy, it's a way to keep the Kurds from becoming the focus of the Turks' own pressures.

    And none of that has anything to do with the US  -- beyond the Bush administrations' mistakes in Iraq and around the world -- which is putting pressure on everyone.  

    Again, please remember that the US system puts specific timelines on how and when we can change administrations (every four years).  Something the majority of our country - if you read the polls - are trying very hard to do.

    If you make enemies of potential future friends, how is that good strategy?  We're not Saudi Arabia.  We don't have kings.  We change administrations when they prove to be incompetent.  And our current administration has done just that.  

    I can only ask you to look to the future, Mizgin.  Remember the Kurds are perceived in a very positive light by the actual people who do the voting in the US.  Don't stake the deck against yourselves because you misperceive our system or our ability to change things according to others' timing.

    My advice and my opinion, for what it's worth.

    by jhritz on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:33:58 AM PDT