Turkish-Iraqi border was set up with the Ankara Agreement of 1926. The territories relinquished to the Kingdom of Iraq was essentially a turnover to a whole Iraq.

If there is going to be a division of Iraq and if this region includes Kirkuk, does Turkey have the right to be interested in this turnover activity as it is in the interest of Turkey to keep this region as part of an integral Iraq?

 

An Inhouse Debate on the Future of Iraq

February 22, 2007

Seyfi Tashan, Oktay Aksoy, Yuksel Inan

 

Seyfi Taşhan: In a statement in New York, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül said that the Turkish-Iraqi border was set up in the year 1926. Before that this area was part of the governorship of Mousul in Northern Iraq. This part which was relinquished to the Kingdom of Iraq was essentially a turnover to a whole Iraq. If there is going to be a division of Iraq and if this region which includes Kerkuk, to be turned over to another state, then Turkey has the right to be interested in this turnover activity and it is in the interest of Turkey to keep this region as part of an integral Iraq. Now, we would like to discuss this subject in our panel. In our panel we have Professor Yüksel İnan from Bilkent University, Retired Ambassador Reşat Arım and Retired Ambassador Oktay Aksoy. I would like ask to Prof. İnan, what does he think of this statement?

Yüksel  İnan: This statement is highly interesting. I think it has been raised at a point where all the views not only probably from the point of view of Turkey but also from the point of view of Europe and the States is being condsidered. In order to raise a comment and try to interpret the statement of the Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül I think it would be better to give a brief account of what had happened in the past. In order to recall the memories of people, I would like to draw your attention to the Treaty of Lausanne. Because all throughout the Lausanne Peace Conference, discussions related to the Turkish-Iraqi border, the main issues were Musul, Kerkük and surrounding areas such as Süleymaniye which were all part of the Mosul Vilayet (Governership) of the Ottoman Empire. But there was divergence of views and it wasn’t settled through negotiations and according to the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne, the parties were required, in other words in a compulsory manner, to resolve disputes within nine months after the Treaty of Lauzanne entered into force. The negotiations failed between Turkey and UK as mandatory power over the present Iraq. The dispute was referred to the Council of the League of Nations as an obligation. The League established a Commission composed of three prominent figures. These were selected from Belgium, Sweden, and a former cabinet member of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This Commission conducted an investigation in that particular area and prepared a report. Turkey objected to the report on the grounds that it was a biased report. But eventually had to accept its recommendation that more or less delineated the borders that were in reality drawn by British geologists who had left possible oil bearing regions on the side of Iraq.

Seyfi Taşhan: What was the attitude of Turkey at that time? Did Turkey demand a referendum in the region?

Yüksel İnan: Well, Turkey had actually demanded a Referendum but for several reasons Turkey was not in a position to insist on them, reasons being unknown from my point of view but probably Turkey had seen certain dangers. Nevertheless, we considered the report as biased because during that period the ethnic division of the total population of the area consisted of 1/3 Arabs, 1/3 Kurds and 1/3 Turkmens; according to the report those three communities preferred to live within the boundaries of Iraq. Well, it ought to have certain sociological reasons and right now it requires research related to that. But what had happened during that time was that Turkey had to except the recommendation of the report. But to refresh memories with regard to Turkey’s interests and links to the region, an agreement was reached to provide for oil concessions to the amount of 500,000 British pounds annually for 25 years. With these agreements the question of boundaries were settled but Turkey continue to have keen interest in this region so long as Turkmen continue to live there. Turkmen population figures are not on record but reliable sources say that their numbers in Iraq amount to 2-2.5 million, even though they are fairly scattered all over Iraq. Ethnic ties along with geography create Turkish interest in whatever is happening in Northern Iraq as well as in entire Iraq. When Turkey left Northern Iraq to the Government in Iraq, Northern Iraq became part and parcel of the totality of Iraq. So long as Iraq remains a unitary state, Turkey’s interests will remain as it has been. But let us assume for one moment that Iraq is split into three and one of them becomes Northern Iraq where majority of the Turkmen live. Turkey cannot close its eyes to such a development. Furthermore, there is the question of security. International law says that no country can live within unsecured borders. That will be another border controlled by other people and we have to tackle with such a situation.

Seyfi Taşhan: Let me turn to Ambassador Arim. Do we have such precedents in the history of the Turkish Republic where after having turned over an Ottoman Region to another party with a Treaty signed at the time but we have maintained an interest?

Reşat Arım: Before answering your question I would like to make a general comment on Turkey-Iraq situation. Up to now Turkey has been very careful not say anything about the future of Iraq. It seems that today we are faced with a new situation where the status quo in Iraq does not seem to be relevant anymore. There is the big danger of a partitioning of Iraq. Therefore, Turkey is obliged to look into the future and take into account all kinds of possibilities. For instance, there is talk about NATO coming to into Northern Iraq or into Iraq. Tomorrow there may be talk about taking the situation in Iraq to the United Nations. Situation is such there are many possibilities regarding the future of Iraq. Therefore Turkey has put on the table all of its options. These options do not include territorial ones because Turkey has no territorial ambitions. But Turkey should make it clear what is involved in Iraqi territories. That is probably why the Turkish Foreign Minister Gül referred to what had happened after the Treaty of Lausanne and the Turkey-Iraq relations at the time. In discussing all possibilities we have to take into account also the relevant factors referred in many cases in international law. Regarding your question on whether there have been any other cases, we may talk about Cyprus. In the 19th Century the administration of Cyprus was left to Great Britain and then during the First World War Great Britain annexed the Island of Cyprus. With the Treaty of Laussane Turkey accepted this situation. Now there is a new situation created when Britain decided to relinquish its sovereignty in Cyprus and an independent Cyprus was created. In the creation of the new Cyprus state Turkey was involved. This is the result of a new situation being created in country that belonged to the Ottoman Empire leading once again to Turkish involvement. A similar situation may happen elsewhere as Cyprus may create a precedent.

Seyfi Taşhan:  I would like to turn to Ambassador Aksoy and ask him, what security dangers can Turkey perceive from a portioning of Iraq into three states from the perspectives of its own security as well as the overall security in the Middle East?

Oktay Aksoy:  The possibility of a division in Iraq presents, in the first place a danger of Shiite domination in the Middle East; Iran being the major power in the Gulf region may extend its influence into Iraq and later extend its pressure on the Shiites in the Gulf region. Such a development may be perceived by some countries in the region as a threat to their security. This may also be considered as a threat to the free flow of oil from this region to the world markets. Apart from that Iran, Turkey and Syria that are bordering Iraq will be very much affected by the new situation and individually Turkey will be concerned with the fate of the Turkmen population in Iraq, Syrians, majority of whom are Sunnites although they are ruled by a Shiite minority, will be concerned with the fate of Muslims and the position of their own Kurdish minority. Could all these possible changes in the circumstances be interpreted as “rebus sic stantibus”, allowing changes in the earlier Treaties, I wonder.

Seyfi Taşhan: Thank you all. It has been a good discussion with a pessimistic outlook. Therefore, it seems that all our hopes are now pinged upon the success of the new strategy announced by President Bush in the hope that its success, though dubious, may lead to a united Iraq.