19.01.2007

Everyone knew that a tough year was in store for Turkey. As the hairpin turns approached, the intensity could be felt more and more. Focusing only on the presidential elections was wrong so we started to talk of northern Iraq and Kirkuk. Now, Kirkuk is a candidate to be one of the biggest fiascos in recent history.

My first visit to the region in 1994 was to cover a Turkish cross-border operation. On one of those days when we could come and go with the tens of thousands of soldiers as we pleased, this soldier’s complaint remains meaningful to me: “The foundations of a Kurdish state are being laid here and we are just watching.” In another visit last year, we saw that those foundations have been built upon. All that remains is to wrap up the legal procedures and the opening ceremony.

Turkey is lacking something, even on issues such as Kirkuk where the impression of being in control is given. The fierce voice of the government and opposition is in fact an alarm signal. When we look at who made mistakes and where, the resultant list is really huge. First of all, all of us are guilty for failing to catch up with the late Turkish President Turgut Özal and failing to support his prescient proposals. The soldiers who opposed Özal and made him out to be a reckless adventurer… Those who panicked that this man would become a hero by taking Mosul and Kirkuk… The opponents who put their foot down because it would have been impossible to overthrow Özal had he achieved this… His own populist party who supported him no matter what… Everybody is guilty.

After the Özal era, the problem was reduced to a question of security and left to the military. We tried to achieve results with tanks and cannons in what is the most significant diplomatic chess game in recent history. We attempted to peel fruit with a sword. We directed people whose jobs and natures did not suit their task into diplomatic labyrinths. We could not establish any policies but the subject fueled domestic politics. The opposition who opposed operation Poised Hammer forgot about their former statements after taking power. What was correct: what they said in opposition or what they did in government? We could not figure it out. Is the intensity of the debate today part of the game between the government and opposition or is it aimed at developing a common policy? Is it likely that we will be able to use the region’s economic dependency on Turkey as an instrument? We cannot predict.

We have been giving financial and spiritual support to Turkmen for years. However, we missed the details and shot ourselves in the leg at times. The Turkmen are scattered and weak. And they do not forget to state their reproach while they express their gratitude. We considered the region to be important for our own geopolitics and turned the Turkmen into pawns, to be used as an excuse and a tool for intervention. Consequently, they received the short end of the stick and were put on the spot in front of their neighbors. We treated the local broadcaster television channel like one of the national Turkish channels. Luckily, local patterns are starting to stand out nowadays.

We have not been able to strengthen our opposition to a Kurdish state; something we have never developed beyond slogans. We have not been able to employ diplomacy to benefit from the struggle for economic and political power between Talabani and Barzani. We have not been able to find common ground with Shiite and Sunni Arabs who share our feelings and views about Kirkuk.

Our mistakes at the negotiation table helped make the mistakes on the ground even larger. Kurds in the region used to think of Turkey as their protector against Saddam and an arbiter in their conflicts with each other. Turkey used to intervene to end their bloody feuds. It would be too easy to say that Kurds brought us to this point with theirdisloyalty and opportunism. We should question who squandered the initiative and how.