Article

2005-03-07 Iraq-Jordan

Kurdish-Turkomen Plan to Grab Kirkuk`s Oil Revenues

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-07 3:34:44 PM|| || Front Page|| [11141 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I wouldn't entirely discount this. If you had Sunni Arabs on one side of you and Kurds on the other, who would you ally with?

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-07 4:35:03 PM|| 2005-03-07 4:35:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Phil, well, if I were a Turkoman, I would have been indoctrinated since I barely crawled about lazy, no-good arabic scum. Sooo ... despite some misgivings about Kurds as well (troublemakers), I think my choice would be somewhat predetermined.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-07 4:42:26 PM|| 2005-03-07 4:42:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I regularly check out the Turkish press, and while there is a fair amount of seething over the Kurdish issue, there is also a strong real-politik thread that says Turkey should have friendly relations with the Kurds. Turkey may even be quietly pushing this.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-07 5:02:04 PM|| 2005-03-07 5:02:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Questions that need to be answered: would this mean that Kurdistan and the Turkomen enclave would remain in Iraq? And if so, would it just be the Kurds recognizing the Turkomen enclave, or would they be a separate federal district recognized by the central government? Second, I suspect there being no direct land route between the enclave and Turkey is very intentional. But at the same time, there is a Syria to Iran connection. Is this solely to act as a buffer against the Arabs of the South, or do the Turkomen share interests in these two countries too? Third, does this so totally disconnect northern Iraq from the South that it creates two separate nations? If the central government has no influence left in the North, and the Kurds no longer fear the threat of Turkey, what compels them to continue to be part of Iraq?

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-03-07 5:13:41 PM|| 2005-03-07 5:13:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 That this is even being discussed neatly defangs Turkey's posturing. After all, their original position was based on protecting their tribal cousins, and if they push the Kurds too hard, the turkmen will lose Kurdish protection. Well done -- it this is indeed real. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2005-03-07 5:40:58 PM|| 2005-03-07 5:40:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Anonymoose, let's say that at the moment it is in a process of fermentation.

It can be, though, probably separated in phased elements.

1. Kurds and Turkomans will join forces in the federal context. In other words, the Kurdish area would be expanded to include the Turkoman areas.
In return, Turkomans would have their representation guaranteed in the Kurdish local government.

2. I do not want to peer in a crystal ball, but some major shifts are likely to happen in ME in the near future. Syria may not survive in its current incarnation and I tend to believe that Turks may go along with some scheme of split up where Kurds may get a nice strip reaching from the current Iraq-Syria border to Mediterranean. It would be a good exchange for Turkish territorial integrity. This may happen gradually, there is still issue of Iran and until that is resolved, any sudden moves may make the region highly volatile.

3. In the post-ME-shakeup, Kurds will gain independence. Their state would include the current Kurdish Iraq, the northern Syrian strip and less likely--some parts of north-western Iran.
This would be underwriten by Turks with a provision that any Kurdish claims on the Turkish territory are invalid. As for Iraqi Turkomans, they may be better off to tie their future with Kurds than opt for independence, because their strip has little to offer as resources go. It is also possible that some degree of population exchange would be arranged between Turks and Kurds, it would make a good sense.

As a consequence, the rest of the Iraq is likely split as well, along sunni and shi'a lines, albeit sunnis would be smarter not to let that happen--they would be a snack for anyone, unless they form some alliance with either Jordan or whatever is left over from Syria.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-07 5:57:35 PM|| 2005-03-07 5:57:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I doubt in a Syrian carve up that the Kurds will get access to the sea but they will get north east Syria. Kurdish direct access to the sea lessens their dependence on Turkey and not in Turkey's interest.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-07 6:19:23 PM|| 2005-03-07 6:19:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Sobiesky: Okay, let's throw the deck of cards up in the air. If Syria collapses, I can well imagine a northern slice becoming part of Kurdistan, along with the assumption of power by the Sunni majority over the Alawite. Lebanon almost has to purge its foreign-backed radical element, Hizbullah, or it will become a divided nation. However, the BIG issue is Iran. If Iran becomes unstable, for whatever reason, there is a large chunk that is ethnically Kurdish (see ethnic map http://tinyurl.com/6tpmp), and would be irresistable to a greater Kurdistan, if the Iranians could not protect it. However, if any partitioning of Iran happens, the whole country could be Balkanized overnight, much like what happened to Yugoslavia.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-03-07 6:37:42 PM|| 2005-03-07 6:37:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 If a Turkish enclave in Iraq is to have any viability and security, it has to link physically with Turkey.

So take the west end of the Turkmen enclave on that map, and punch it northwest to Turkey. Oops, that goes through Syria. Wotta shame. The northeast of Syria goes to the Kurds, the north central to the Turkomens (mebbe to the Med), the Damascenes keep their part of Syria, and maybe the Turks decide to be real gents and let the Turkish Kurds join an independent Kurdistan.

Well okay that last part doesn't happen, but the rest is intersting speculation.

Posted by Steve White 2005-03-07 6:50:25 PM|| 2005-03-07 6:50:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Phil, the portion of the coast that would fall into Kurdish sphere is rather narrow (25km, north of Lakatia) and underdeveloped, just beaches. Turks probably have nothing to worry about, and as the pipelines go, they are already routed through north.

Anonymoose, yes, Iran is an unknown. Azeris and Kurds have some claim beef, Azeris would gain an especially big chunk. The other minorities are fragmented except Pashtun on the eastern frontier, so it would be a bit harder for them to have some leverage.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-07 7:03:04 PM|| 2005-03-07 7:03:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 My scenario for an Iranian breakup starts with Iraqi Shiias invading Khuzestan (formerly called Arabistan) to protect their Shiia Arab kin. Oman exercising its historic claim to the north shore of the Straits of Hormuz would be an unlikely but very nice bonus. Then of course there are the Baluchis.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-07 7:25:47 PM|| 2005-03-07 7:25:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Steve, ye'r probably right that Turks may try to connect the Turkoman areas to Turkey. The question is how that would resonate with EUros (Turkey's membership in Holy EU Empire). I think they may be ambivalent as there is really no Turkish minority to speak of in Syria.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-07 7:41:05 PM|| 2005-03-07 7:41:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Phil, Baluchis, 'f course, forgotten'em.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-07 7:50:50 PM|| 2005-03-07 7:50:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 The Kurds wouldn't want the Turkomen involved directly with the Turks. That would inevitably result in their trying to grab the Kurds' oil. If the Turkomen and the Turks are separate, then the Turks are motivated to be nice to the Kurds, and the Kurds are motivated to be nice to the Turkomen. The Turks would even have to guarantee Kurdistan from Arab invasion, because that would have to cross the enclave to get there. That is why, if Syria changes hands to be ruled by the majority Sunni, there is a bit of a problem, in that the Kurds will have to choose which they dislike more, exposure to a Sunni threat, or exposure to a united Turkey and Turkoman threat. I would guess they would feel less threatened by Syrian Sunni than Iraqi Sunni. N.B.: The Iraqi Sunni and the Syrian Sunni might kiss and make up, creating a third problem...

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-03-07 8:16:07 PM|| 2005-03-07 8:16:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Sobiesky: There may not be a Turkish presence in NE Syria, but there is a Kurdish one there. Mostly along the border with Turkey, where the old RR line ran (runs?). If that area gets pulled off, I think I know who is going to claim it.

Posted by jackal 2005-03-07 10:21:39 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-03-07 10:21:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Just found this negotiating paper prepared by American lawyers for the Turkomen. It was written pre-election and rather foolishly assumes Turkomen would get a majority in Kirkuk. However, it did remind me that in a federal state, the states (provinces) control natural resources.

Here is a good map of Iraqi ethnic groups. It shows the Turkomen in 5 or 6 separate pockets. I very much doubt you could create a contiguous territory from them.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-07 10:42:59 PM|| 2005-03-07 10:42:59 PM|| Front Page Top

00:00 Classical_Liberal
23:57 Classical_Liberal
23:44 Sobiesky
23:42 gromky
23:29 Eric Jablow
23:23 Eric Jablow
23:18 Seafarious
23:14 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:12 Eric Jablow
23:11 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:10 RWV
22:44 Frank G
22:43 Frank G
22:43 mmurray821
22:42 phil_b
22:41 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:41 3dc
22:40 mmurray821
22:35 jackal
22:35 Paul Moloney
22:34 Paul Moloney
22:34 .com
22:33 jackal
22:30 jackal