There has recently been much debate on whether Turkey should join a pre-emptive military strike on Iraq to disarm that country from any capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, preferably by changing the regime in that country. While how much international legitimacy the US may obtain for such a unilateral or coalition action against Iraq and what could be the exit scenarios are at the moment are unknown. Yet this should not prevent Turkey from studying its legitimate interests and obligations in Iraq as policy input while determining the attitude it should adopt in case of a US direct military intervention in that country.

Under the current situation, Iraq has been under a UN economic embargo and prevented from establishing air control in the South and North of the country, and has no control in the North which is administered by Kurdish factions. Iraq can  legally export oil within the limits of the UN ‘oil for food program’. It is suspected to have a secret program to develop WMDs.

Iraq was a good trading partner of Turkey before the Gulf war and was able to prevent Northern Iraq from becoming a haven for Kurdish terrorists through hot pursuits. In 1980s President Saddam’s attitude towards Turkey was pretentious and had irritated Turkish statesmen.

As a result of its war with Iran and later with Kuwait Iraq failed to pay significant amounts of debts to Turkish companies. During the Gulf war Turkey had to shelter for a considerable period approximately four hundred thousand refugees from Iraq. It also lost the revenues from the Kirkouk-Yumurtalik pipe line, and the total accumulated losses of the Turkish economy reached about 30-40 billion dollars. During the post-Gulf War period the lack of  border trade caused serious unemployment in South East Turkey preparing a favorable ground for PKK to recruit young people to its ranks.

In recent years PKK activities in Turkey has practically come to an end although about 5000 of its armed members are sheltered in Northern Iraq. The main two Kurdish factions in Northern Iraq are engaged in building a separate administration and are not hiding their intention to create an independent Kurdish state. Under these circumstances Turkey’s interests and obligations may be reviewed under the following headings:

a) Preventing Northern Iraq from becoming a haven and a base for PKK (now Kadek) terrorist organization. As stated above the existence of about 5000 terrorists from Turkey being stations in Northern Iraq carries a security risk for Turkey although the PKK leader is serving a life sentence in Turkey and the organization has changed its name and pretends to have become a political faction. The fact that the currently Iraq based members are not yet disarmed and disbanded casts a serious doubt as to the declared position of the former terrorist organization.

It may be worthwhile to note that while EU countries have recognized PKK as a terrorist organization they have so far refused to recognize Kadek which is a new name for PKK under the same category, preferring to wait until they commit a terrorist act, disregarding the existence of its armed forces in Northern Iraq.

So long as Kadek maintains an armed force in Turkey’s vicinity Turkey has to remain vigilant against this dangerous irritant.

b) No independent Kurdish State in Northern Iraq :  It was at the end of the First World War when the Ottoman Empire was defeated by the Allies that the victors tried to impose a Kurdish State covering parts of Turkey and Iraq. After the signing of the Lausanne Peace Treaty that established the current Turkish state this idea was relinquished. Since the PKK terrorist activities that started in 1980s to set up a Marxist-Leninist  Kurdish state, there has been some support particularly in West European countries for the establishment of a Kurdish State covering parts of Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Turkey being a unitary state where everyone has equal rights is firmly adamant against separatism. For this reason, it considers setting up of  an independent Kurdish state in Northern Iraq as opening the Pandora’s Box.

Nevertheless, benefiting from the current nebulous state of affaires in Iraq the Kurdish factions in Northern Iraq  have established a parliament and have even drafted a constitution for a state. While ostensibly they claim that they would not seek independence from Iraq their preparations belie their statements. Also the United States assures Turkey that they are also against the setting up of a Kurdish state it is not possible at this moment to foresee what will be the actual situation after a war in Iraq and after the US forces leave that country following their military intervention.

If Turkey fails to control the developments in Northern Iraq for an undefined period of time there is the risk of the establishment of an independent Kurdish state that might eventually be given recognition by some European countries. If Turkey is not in the group that may shape up future Iraq after a possible US intervention, the partitioning of Iraq may also become inevitable. In either case Turkey  will have to maintain a vigilance on the possible turn of events.

c) Protection of the legitimate rights of Turcomans: Turcomans in Iraq is an ethnic group speaking Turkish and with close relationship with Turkey. They are settled mostly in the regions of Mosul,  Kirkouk as well as in other parts of Iraq. In a Declaration on the occasion of termination of the British mandatory regime in Iraq the Government in Baghdad on May 30, 1932  irrevocably accepted to grant minority rights to Kurds as well Turkcomans living in Northern Iraq. Later Baathist Governments in Baghdad have ignored the eternally binding terms of this declaration by creating separate status for Kurds completely ignoring the existence of about 2 million Turcomans. They are threatened by the Saddam regime which has much persecuted the Turcomans and by the Kurdish tribes who want to have themselves as the principal dominant ethnic element in Northern Iraq. Turkey is very sensitive on the preservation of the legitimate rights of the Turcomans in Iraq.

It may be feared that in case of a war or the creation of a Kurdish state in Iraq  not only the rights but also the very existence of the Turcomans may be endangered. This issue also requires vigilance on the part of Turkey.

d) Weapons of Mass Destruction:  Turkey is a member of all international instruments banning or controlling WMDs and their delivery means. It is known that in the course of past decades Iraq has used these weapons against its enemies and against the people in Northern Iraq. Although under the control of UN inspectors these weapons were to be destroyed how much of this was carried out before the inspectors were dismissed from Iraq is in doubt. These weapons, if they exist, or to be developed secretly  may constitute a threat when   control and use of them are left to  a leader who has used them in the past both for its neighbors and the people of Iraq. It would be in Turkey’s interest if such a danger is totally eliminated.

e) Possible Mass Exodus:  As was the case during the last Gulf War, a new war involving Iraq may lead to a Baghdad attack on Northern Iraq and cause once again a mass exodus of people towards Turkey. In the last case Turkey had had  to look after about 400,000 refugees for a considerable period with very small contribution from the international community. In order to prevent such an eventuality Turkey has already taken adequate measures inside Northern Iraq so that such refugees can be looked after and protected within Iraq. This might necessitate not only humanitarian but also military measures inside Iraq.

f) Loss of Trade: Before the Gulf War Iraq was a good trading partner of Turkey. Turkey benefited from an assured supply of oil from Kirkouk-Yumurtalik oil pipeline. There was a flourishing border trade and Turkish construction companies were taking past in construction projects. The Gulf war dealt a heavy blow on the Turkish-Iraqi trade limiting it to what Turkey could benefit from oil for food policy of the United Nations. Continuation of the embargo on Iraq hurts not only overall trade between Turkey and Iraq but constituted a heavy blow on the people on the border regions trading with Iraq. Therefore, the continuation of the current economic embargo on Iraq is to the detriment of Turkey, even though it is difficult to see how and when the embargo can be terminated so long as the present conditions prevail.

Conclusion:  

a) Because of the reasons given above the continuation of the current state of affairs in Iraq is absolutely against Turkey’s national interests;

b) A change of regime that would re-establish the unity of Iraq with the protection of minorities as foreseen in the 1932 declaration is desirable.

c) It is also desirable that conditions that would allow the lifting of the UN economic embargo should fulfilled preferably peacefully. If this cannot be secured only through sanctions, even though this is most desirable and if force has to be used, Turkey must take appropriate steps to protect its interests by assuring adequate cooperation to ensure that at the end of operations Turkey will be in a position to protect its interests in Northern Iraq.

d) What these steps should be ought to be determined by the exigencies of the operations with utmost consideration to be given first to maintaining a strong Turkish armed presence in Northern Iraq, and avoiding as far possible from entering into direct confrontation or clash with Baghdad.

 A strong peaceful united Iraq, as a neighbor of Turkey is a cardinal factor for the preservation of peace and balances in the Middle East. Such an Iraq will be an excellent economic partner of Turkey further enhancing Turkey’s policy of peace and cooperation with all her neighbors.