The independence adventure of Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) leader Masoud Barzani has led to the formation of very striking alliances in the region. Essentially, it is always most ideal for the people and nations of the region to solve problems amongst themselves, without leaving room for foreign intervention. Turkey always emphasized such rapprochement during the Justice and Development (AK) Party rule. There is no problem that cannot be solved through dialogue among the countries in the region.
Throughout history, these nations lived in an atmosphere of long-term peace and stability incomparable to that in Europe. There is an atmosphere of culture and faith that makes this possible. This atmosphere is ruined by foreign interventions. As the colonial-occupying forces that redesigned this region at the end of World War I were dividing countries, they also tried to sow seeds of cases that cannot be solved among the people. Despite this, the factors drawing people together are stronger than those dividing them.
Ethnic or sectarian disagreement claims are certainly disintegrating factors distancing people from one another. National formations based on ethnicity or sects at a time when the world has a tendency to integrate and unite, are maneuvers that fuel hatred and separation rather than peace and brotherhood, in violation of the course of the world. Turkey’s objection to Barzani’s independence adventure is never a stance against Kurds. Understanding Turkey’s stance in this way would certainly be very wrong. The end of the adventure in question has essentially demonstrated how such a demand or attempt is baseless, unnecessary and harmful.
As a result, Barzani was not the only one to lose. As a matter of fact, everybody suffered a small loss. Do not pay attention to the profit-loss calculations. An atmosphere that was somewhat functioning was spoiled, a vase has been broken. The distance caused by the intention of separation, the disappointment after pursuing a dream, the betrayal of those who set off on a path together, the trust turmoil that remains and of course now, the excessive oppressive superiority and hostility caused by those taking it as a duty upon themselves to fix this mistake.
Perhaps Barzani himself is the one responsible in the first degree for all that has happened. However, the presence of a policy that has obliged him to this process a little through manipulation and a little by forcing him must also be taken into consideration. We previously mentioned in this column: The central government of Iraq has not been able to establish an unbiased administration that represents all elements of the country. It was neither able to embrace the Sunnis not the Sunni Kurds.
The atrocious practices of the Hashd al-Shaabi forces that have been established against Daesh and given legal status by the central government have caused a grave distance and feud between the Sunnis and the central government. The Iraqi government insisting on not giving the KRG the share it deserves from the budget and failing to fulfill its commitments has increased the pace of the Kurds’ emotional disconnection from Baghdad. The truth is that the status of Kurds in Iraq has never been like that in Turkey.
In addition to Kurds, the Baghdad administration has also failed to embrace the Sunni Arabs as well. The Shiite identity makes its absolute dominance crystal clear, reflecting this on all its political choices and policies. The prevalence of red-green “Ya Hussein” posters and flags on roadsides, squares, public buildings, and all public areas throughout Baghdad and Basra, is, itself, an open reflection of choosing sectarianism and violence against Sunnis. Such a symbolic aggressiveness has no room in the history of the region. This is a fairly new method of exposing the ruling government. A method of exposure that does not have the slightest respect toward the people with whom they live together, that abuses them. Baghdad, Basra – as a matter of fact, all of Iraq – are places where, historically, multiculturalism thrived. These cities surrendering to such an abusive approach today is not very promising in terms of the region’s future.
In response to this, let’s say there must be good in whatever happens. Turkey forming an alliance with the Iranian and Iraqi administration against Barzani’s dangerous adventure does not mean that this sectarian violence and abuse, which is no less dangerous, is approved.
When opposing Barzani, who ignored Kirkuk’s multicultural structure and declared it exclusively a “Kurdish city,” it is not possible to accept the approach of the Hashd al-Shaabi that wants to make Kirkuk an exclusively “Shiite city.” Kirkuk is neither exclusively Kurdish, nor exclusively Arab, nor exclusively Sunni or Shiite and, as a matter of fact, it is not a Turkmen city either. Kirkuk is a city that is home to all these ethnicities, a city where one does not try to wipe out, abuse and isolate the other. Kirkuk is Kirkuk.
In a concerned speech which drew attention to Hashd al-Shaabi’s practices in Kirkuk, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said, “A different kind of operation needs to be carried out with our interlocutors if these units turn toward Sinjar and Makhmour.” This should be evaluated as an appropriate warning.
We need to recognize that closing off the area to foreign elements and solving our problems among ourselves upon regional developments will be much better for us all.
However, when doing this, we as the parties, need to remember that our diversity, deep-seated in our history, comes from respecting one another and abiding by each other’s laws.
Based on this, Turkey will not allow Hashd al-Shaabi to oppress the Kurds simply because they are angry with Barzani.
The new alliance Turkey has formed with Iran and Iraq is, first and foremost, directed toward observing and replacing this law.
