|
Now
Available from
CounterPunch for Only $11.50 (S/H Included)
Today's
Stories
February
5, 2004
Benjamin
Shepard
Turning NYC into a Patriot Act Free
Zone
Khury
Petersen-Smith
A Report from Occupied Iraq: "We Don't Want Army USA"
Mokhiber
/ Weissman
The 10 Worst Corporations of 2003
Teresa
Josette
The Exeuctioner's Pslam? Christian Nation? Yeah, Right
David Krieger
Why Dr. King's Message on Vietnam is Relevant to Iraq
Christopher
Brauchli
Monkey Business: Of Recess and Evolution in Georgia Schools
Norman
Solomon
The Deadly Lies of Reliable Sources
Cockburn
/ St. Clair
Presenting President Edwards!
February
4, 2004
Brian
McKinlay
Bush's Australian Deputy: Howard's
Last Round Up?
Mark
Gaffney
Ariel Sharon's Favorite Senator: Ron Wyden and Israel
Judith
Brown
Palestine and the Media
Frederick
B. Hudson
Moseley-Braun and the Butcher: Campaign for Justice or Big Oil's
Junta?
Kurt Nimmo
Bush's Independent Commission: Exonerating
the Spooks
M.
Junaid Alam
Philly School Workers Fight for Fair Contract
Fran Shor
Whose Boob Tube?
Kevin
Cooper
This is Not My Execution and I Will Not Claim It
February
3, 2004
Alan
Maass
The
Dems' New Mantra: What They Really Mean by "Electability"
Nick
Halfinger
How the Other Half Lives: Embedded
in Iraq
Rahul
Mahajan
Our True Intelligence Failure
Neve Gordon
The Only Democracy in the Middle East?
Laura
Carlsen
Mexico: Two Anniversaries; Two Futures
Jordan
Green
Democratic Patronage in Northern New
Mexico
Terry
Lodge
An Open Letter to Michael Powell from the Boobs & Body Parts
Fairness Campaign
Hammond
Guthrie
Investigating the Meaningless
Website
of the Day
Waging Peace
January
24/5, 2004
Patrick
Cockburn
Iraq's Shia: "Our Day Has Come"
Laura
Flanders
State of the Conservative Union
Simon
Helweg-Larsen
Enter Berger: Signs of Hope in Guatemala
Dave
Lindorff
Ground Control to Maj. George
Susan
Davis
The Birdwatcher Menace
Alexander
Cockburn
The Fog of Cop Out: McNamara 10, Morris
0
January
23, 2004
Yonathan Shapira
An Israeli Pilot Speaks Out
Standard
Schaefer
Italian Philosopher Giorgio Agamben
Protests US Travel Policy
Josh
Frank
In Defense of Polluters: Howard Dean's
Vermont
William
A. Cook
Rule by the Corrupt and the Capricious
January
22, 2004
Sam
Smith
Howards End?
Patricia
Koyce Wanniski
Lost in Space
Alexander
Lukin
Putin and the Clans
Katherine
van Wormer
Dry Drunk Confirmed: O'Neill's Revelations
and Bush's Mind
Forrest
Hylton
The Prisoner, the President and the Mafia
|
February
6, 2004
Are the Kurds in the Way?
US
Policy and the Kurdish Nation
By RON JACOBS
If
one recalls the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and UK,
they will remember the Turkish legislature’s refusal to allow
US ground troops to use Turkish territory as a staging area. The reasoning
behind this vote was twofold. Not only did the vote represent the way
the Turkish people felt about the impending war, it also served the
strategic needs of Turkey, in that it made it more difficult for the
US military to seize and control the massive Kirkuk oilfields.
As
it turned out, it was the Kurdish forces that ended up in control. This
is a mixed blessing for the Turks. On the one hand, the Turkish military
has military superiority over the Kurdish forces, thanks to the largesse
of the US defense industry, yet at the same time, the Turkish government’s
mortal enemy now have more power than ever before thanks to their military
control of the traditionally Kurdish region in northern Iraq. It is
this power that makes the Turks nervous, out of a fear that it could
be the beginnings of a genuine Kurdish state.
Already,
the two main players in the post-Saddam Iraq-Kurdish milieu— the
KDP (Kurdistan Democratic Party) and the PUK (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan),
under the leadership of Mustafa Barzani and Jalal Talabani, respectively—have
made deals with various US and European oil companies regarding the
Kirkuk and Mosul oilfields. Of course, these deals cannot go far without
the approval of the US occupation authorities. This is one reason why
the aforementioned Kurdish leaders are doing whatever they can to keep
on the good side of the Americans. Of course, it’s not like the
relationship between these two men and the US is something new. Both
groups took CIA money and assistance after the First Gulf War, under
the guise of operating a safe haven for the Kurdish people. As it turned
out, this safe haven was in reality a staging area for US attacks on
the Iraqi state. Because of this, the Iraqi military, along with the
PUK, launched a military assault on the KDP and defeated them. Over
200,000 Kurds died in this war. A power sharing agreement was worked
out between them in 1998.
If
it weren’t for CIA and other US monies going to these men and
the groups they head, they would not be in the position they are in.
Suffice it to say that the primary differences between the Kurdish leaders
and Ahmed Chalabi is an arrest warrant or two. Neither Talabani or Barzani
are what one might call men of great integrity. In fact, the Barzani
family has been on the CIA payroll since the 1960s and Talabani openly
collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s government in the 1980s and
1990s, a historical fact that renders his current patriotic fervor quite
hollow. They are, however, men who know how to profit from the Kurdish
grassroots desire for a homeland. This isn’t to say that they
have no patriotic emotions; it’s just that it is more pecuniary
interests that truly drive them.
As
local and western media speculate on the identity of the February 1
suicide bombers in Irbil that killed dozens of Kurds, another news item
slipped past the notice of most. During the last week of January, Paul
Bremer (Colonial Overseer in Iraq), gave notice to another group of
Kurds that the United States would begin military operations against
the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party), a formerly Marxist-Leninist organization
dedicated to armed struggle in the name of Kurdish independence. In
terms of the public mission of the US military in Iraq, there is no
real reason for this move. Instead, this decision by the US reflects
a deal that Washington worked out with the government of Turkey, which
has fought this organization and Kurdish independence since time immemorial.
In return, one assumes that Turkey will not move troops into Kurd-held
territory in Iraq, at least for now.
For
those who are not familiar with the PKK, let me briefly surmise their
history and political philosophy. In their over quarter century of existence,
this group has waged a consistent struggle for a Kurdish homeland. Unlike
the other two parties, they are not on the CIA payroll and consider
Turkey to be as great of an enemy of the Kurds as Iraq. Consequently,
their primary struggle has been against the Turkish government—a
government which until recently forbid the teaching of the Kurdish language
in predominantly Kurdish schools and has fostered an ultimately racist
attitude on the part of the Turkish people against the Kurds. Originally
of a Marxist-Leninist economic and philosophical nature, the PKK has
modified its approach towards Kurdish liberation over the years. It
continues to proclaim its desire for a just and democratic Kurdish land—either
via some type of autonomous arrangement with other governments or through
a true independent nation.
Despite
its long history of armed struggle, the PKK declared its desire to proceed
peacefully towards its goals in 1999 after the arrest of its leader
Abdullah Ocalan by Turkish, Israeli and US security forces (and an agreement
between the PKK and Turkish government). In the subsequent years, Ocalan
avoided execution and the PKK began organizing itself as a mainstream
political party in Turkey. Unfortunately, their drive for legitimacy
was denied by various elements within the Turkish government and society,
which led many of its members to once again take up arms. In addition,
the manest did not include the PKK leaders who were understandably hesitant
to go along with the plan for this reason and from a concern that they
might see their power diminished. These guerrillas are currently living
in the mountains of northwestern Iraq and are the target of the US military,
which has promised the Turks that they will deal with these forces.
All of which brings us back to the essence of the US war in the Middle
East—Israel and oil.
Israel
wants to see the pipeline between Hiafa and the Kirkuk oilfields reopened.This
pipeline was built by Britain during its colonial occupation of the
region and has been closed since the creation of Israel in 1948. The
US, Israel and Turkey have a defense agreement which means that these
governments will try to work together to get what they want. When it
comes to the Kurds, this means that Turkey gets help in preventing Kurdish
self-rule, Israel gets a cheap and steady oil supply, and the US gets
a tighter grip on the Middle East and some oil profits as a bonus.
Ron
Jacobs lives in Vermont. He can be reached at:rjacobs@uvm.edu
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax--Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links / |