“My life Kirkuk, my love Kirkuk

Falling for every word Kirkuk

Far away from the beloved

Whose candle is burning Kirkuk

They destroyed your castle Kirkuk

They cut down your children Kirkuk

Your death was announced from an adorned minaret Kirkuk”

These lines are from an elegy written for those who were martyred during the 1959 massacre.

It’s a historical fact that Turkic tribes travelled to Iraq even before Anatolia. Turk’s journey to Iraq began when Abbasid Caliph al-Mu’tasim decided to form a new army in 836, inviting Turkic Mamluk beys. With the condition of not blending in with the local populace, Turkic troops flocked into the region. Caliph al-Mu’tasim moved the capital from Baghdad to Samarra, a city founded for Turks whose population reached 35,000. Ultimately, Turks served at every level of the Abbasid government. In fact, in his manuscript titled “Tales from the Caliphate Army and Turks’ Virtue,” Arab scholar al-Jahiz wrote that “ideas about racial discrimination in order to protect Islam are false, especially after living under peace and trust that is facilitated by Turks.”

Kirkuk – the capital of culture and politics

The region encapsulating Kirkuk and Mosul was under the rule of Turkic states like Seljuks, Timurids, Jalairids, Kara Koyunlu Turkmens and Ottomans for many centuries. Ruled by the Ottomans for four centuries, Kirkuk was the capital of Mosul Province which was formed in 1850 and more importantly the source for administrators who were commended with the administration of the region. Indeed, despite all political changes, 22 Turkmens, 8 Arabs and 4 Kurds of Talabani and Barzanji families have served as the mayors of Kirkuk between 1875 and 2003. Even after World War I and during the British rule, Turkmens were present in the administration. Despite British occupation and rule, Turkmens never hesitated to side with Turkey in political matters. Due to the Turkmen stance in the Mosul dispute, half-spy half-researcher Gertrude Bell was forced to write that “Turkish families in the region should be closely surveilled by Britain because of their desire for a Turkish administration and opposition to Faisal’s kingship.”

It’s known that Turkmens have lived in Kirkuk city center with extended families since the Ottomans. Constructing an educated class, Turkmens work as traders, medical doctors, pharmacists, teachers and engineers. Rural surroundings of Kirkuk were historically populated by the Kurdish Talabani tribe. While Turkmens consists of Shiites/Ja’faris, Alawites/Bektashis and Sunnis, it is known that Talabanis are usually Sunni/Shafi’i and Barzanjis are Qadiris.

Oil was struck, valor was gone

This continued to be the case until World War I with little changes. However, it all changed after 1920. The swiftly growing oil industry in the British Iraq changed the demographics of the country. While Turkmens stayed away from the oil sector, it was attractive for Kurds and Arabs. Considered as slums, new districts like Arapha emerged with the influx of people to Kirkuk.

Founded in 1921, Iraq has gone through around 20 coups and a similar number of assassinations and political murders. The number of thwarted coup attempts is unknown. Deaths caused by plane crashes, alleged heart attacks and suicides could be also included to these counts, as all of them are questionable.

The reality is that this turbulence continued until Saddam’s rule. With the terror emerging as a result of the tyrannical understanding of the Ba’ath mentality, everything calmed down. Saddam didn’t only eliminate those who openly opposed him; he also killed those who were suspected of opposing along with their families.

General politics, assimilation

Including the Ba’ath rule, all those who were in charge of Iraqi politics aimed to assimilate Turkmens and demographically engineer the cities heavily populated by Turkmens. For instance, Saddam was gifting dowry to all Turkmen women who were marrying with men of Arab descent, while providing houses and employment to Turkmen men who were marrying with women of Arab descent in any city of Iraq, with the exception of Kirkuk. Under the Ba’ath rule, Kurds along with Turkmens were forced to identify themselves as Arabs when officials asked. This policy caused certain Turkmen families, especially the Bayats, to Arabize. Despite this, youth who were believed to be spreading Turkish nationalism and had similar political stances with Turkey were surveilled by the Mukhabarat –the regime’s intelligence agency- and were sentenced to various punishments, including execution.

Those who paid a price for Kirkuk: Necdet Koçak

I want to talk about Necdet Koçak whom I always remember and loved as a brother and whose death still pains me. I know that Necdet Koçak is a symbol of all martyred Kirkuk citizens since 1959 in the eyes of Iraqi Turkmens.

Koçak was born in Kirkuk in 1939. He finished his early education in Kirkuk and then came to Turkey to attend the Faculty of Agriculture at Ankara University in 1958. He graduated in 1962 and returned to Kirkuk. He started to work for the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. He came to Turkey once again in 1964 to conclude his doctorate studies. He became an academic at the University of Baghdad in Iraq. He was arrested in March 1979 with the charge of “being a Turkish nationalist.” His wife Ayten Koçak extracts:

“Saddam’s henchmen came to our house on January 15, 1980 late at night. They told me that I could visit Necdet in prison. I went to the prison named Abu Ghraib near Baghdad the following day. They let me in. He [Necdet] was in a miniscule cell that a person could hardly fit, at a pitch-black corridor. Colonel Abdullah Abdurrahman and Adil Şerif were staying in the neighboring cells. Because of the ceaseless torturing, all three of them were exhausted. Colonel Abdullah Abdurrahman had lost his eyes because of diabetes and was writhing. Their bodies were covered with wounds. There were burn marks on both sides of Necdet’s temple. It was obvious that he was tortured with electricity. They didn’t allow us to speak properly. Necdet informed me about execution decision and said that the banner of struggle should never fall. It was his last will. We bid our farewells, then.”

This, and similar stories to Necdet’s did not end with Saddam’s downfall. The last act of the coup which tore the social fabric occurred with the First Gulf War in 1991. Then, the American invasion in 2003 opened Pandora’s box. The first outcome of the invasion was the US-controlled destruction of civil and land registries in Kirkuk. Those who were exhilarated with the downfall of Saddam and the Ba’ath regime in 2003 did not know what to do when Washington began to “Kurdicize” the region. The historical texture was completely eradicated. The era marked by bombings and assassinations aiming to intimidate Arabs and Turkmens, attacks not being investigated and forced immigration of Turkmens to other countries, especially Turkey, has now started.

The Geneva Talks held in order to find a diplomatic solution to the Syria problem failed as expected and attention is now turned again towards the front where the violence had never stopped during the talks. The principle reason behind this failure was the unwillingness of the Russian-Iranian-Damascene axis to stop its offensive against the opposition and the disinclination these governments showed to diplomatic efforts to find a lasting solution to the crisis.

The military advancements that they lately achieved by their irresponsible aggression apparently convinced them of the possibility of a military victory on the front. Thus the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis chose to buy time in Geneva by coming with unacceptable conditions from the opposition’s viewpoint. The ambivalent attitudes shown by the international community and the resultant lack of a solid and homogeneous block to check their moves is the fundamental factor which encouraged them.

As the Syrian branch of PKK, PYD is openly conducting an armed struggle against Turkey and uses every means to create a civil war in the country.

While Moscow and Tehran are determined to keep the Assad regime intact and to restore Syria’s territorial integrity around the Baath regime at every humanitarian cost there is no similar determination in the opposition. Those parties which are assumably discontent with the policies pursued by Moscow and Tehran make anything but a uniform entity for they have different and conflicting visions regarding Syria’s future and ending the humanitarian crisis in the country. The fact that Turkey and its Western allies failed to agree on PYD’s position and on whether or not it would be invited to Geneva created a serious, if for a short while, and exemplified the complicated the situation on the “opposing front”.

As the Syrian branch of PKK, PYD is openly conducting an armed struggle against Turkey and uses every means to create a civil war in the country. Thus, the insistence of the US and other Western powers to see this terrorist organization as a viable “ally” is a major source of discontent in Ankara, the Turkish capital. Having been a long-standing ally of the West for 60 under the NATO framework Turkey finds it hard to understand why these countries, which explicitly recognized PKK as a terrorist organization, regard the PYD as their ally in Syria. Then, how should we understand the current situation?

First of all, we must answer why, at the cost of angering Turkey, these states particularly the US supports the PYD? Two explanations can be suggested for this. Firstly, lacking a holistic strategy about what to do in Syria, the US and others chose to fight against Daesh as the prime enemy and regarded the “secular” PYD as a reliable partner in this fight. This capacity of PYD was supposedly proven by its victories against Daesh. Finding the opposition fighting against the Assad regime too “Islamic”, the US is engaged in efforts to create an artificial armed group that is in line with its own interests as done previously in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem is that by definition such a group lacks the societal basis necessary to direct the future of Syria and it is not in fact against the Assad regime. Yet Washington and others do not really seem to pay much attention to this. In the first instance PYD is expected to fulfil its responsibility in the fight against Daesh; and at a later stage, the intention is to use the presence of this armed group as a trump card to shape the future of Syria. For this reason, the US intends to keep control over PYD against the Damascene administration supported the Russia-Iran axis. However, having been aware of Washington’s plan, Moscow and Tehran have already started moves to grasp this force out of the US hands. This situation points to a soon-to-come US-Russia struggle over PYD. Time will show how the PYD gets affected by this struggle.

http://thenewturkey.org/the-threat-of-daesh-sleeper-cells-and-how-to-contain-it/

The second explanation regarding the US backing for the PYD could be its effort to check Turkey’s Middle East policy over PYD. Being uncomfortable by the policies followed by AK Party administration on Middle East without taking into account the interests of Washington and Brussels, these countries want to minimize Ankara’s role in the region by supporting PYD. As PYD gets stronger so does PKK and the control they establish over a large territory in Syria encouraged the latter to end the Peace Process with the Turkish state and to resume its terrorist activities. Trapped in such a complicated situation at home Turkey would have little incentive to properly pursue its Middle Eastern policies. Such a strategy of limiting the Turkish regional power and turning Ankara into an actor obedient to the Western policies carry the severe risks. President Erdogan’s reproval to the US by asking the Washing administration whether it is with Turkey or the terror organizations PYD and YPG shows the negative consequences of this policy on Turkey. The US needs to urgently decide whether it has chosen Turkey or the PKK/PYD as its ally and to stop its policy of trying to discipline Ankara by use of the PYD.

Considering PYD’s position within the framework of the Geneva talks and the latest developments in Syria, we see that the organization has placed itself against Daesh by reading the civil war conjecture within the country correctly, and that it has also set up its position on the Assad regime in a way that won’t be bothersome for either the US or Russia.

Whether Washington develops a holistic strategy for Syria will be a fundamental factor determining the path of the conflicts in the country. Finding a definitive solution to the Daesh terror is, for the Obama administration, a clear priority compared to preventing the Russian advancements in the region. Yet such a definitive solution can only be found once a holistic solution to the Syrian crisis is realized. Just as the airstrikes conducted against Daesh will not altogether bring an end to such terrorist organizations like it, the concentrated attacks by Russia, Iran, and the Assad regime which completely disregard civilian lives as well as the abandonment of remaining cities will lead to increased radicalism in Syria. This in turn will continue to supply convenient grounds for these types of organizations.

Having turned a blind eye on the Russian military and political advancement in the region and limited its Syrian strategy to the struggle against Daesh, the US structured a due diplomacy throughout the Geneva talks. In this frame, while attempting to include PYD in the talks, it has not demonstrated the necessary attitude against Russia and Iran in order to stop their attacks against the opposition and civilians while the talks were still continuing. While cities were being bombed on one hand, the talks produced no concrete achievements and ended in failure.

Considering PYD’s position within the framework of the Geneva talks and the latest developments in Syria, we see that the organization has placed itself against Daesh by reading the civil war conjecture within the country correctly, and that it has also set up its position on the Assad regime in a way that won’t be bothersome for either the US or Russia. It did not act against the Assad regime not to make Russia and Iran edgy, it does not openly support the Damascus administration in a way that would make the US uncomfortable. The US and other Western powers ignored the partnership of PYD with the Assad regime in certain cities. PYD is certainly following an extremely risky strategy. How long can it keep the autonomous regions it created by angering the Sunni Arabs and Turkey? When it kept between the American and Russian bid for power, which side will it choose?

Maybe these questions are still needs answers, but the historical experience shows that global actors easily switch the tools they use for their Middle Eastern policies. Thus the US or Russia, or any other state, can stop supporting PYD and take a hostile position. In this case, the PYD will have to face alone the regional actors it has disturbed. For this reason, the PYD needs to act with the awareness that non-regional actors such as the US and Russia will not be permanent in the Middle East, and that on the contrary, countries such as Turkey will continually have a role in shaping the region.

The Geneva talks showed that the Syrian civil war will continue for an uncertain period of time. After all, the ongoing attacks of the Russia-Iran-Assad block demonstrate the fact that these actors still insist on an offensively military method. Whether or not they will achieve their goal will be determined by the resistance of the opposition, the attitudes of the states which support them, and whether the passive policies of Western countries such as the US will continue or not. In the meantime there is, unfortunately, to reason to hope that the number of casualties and refugees will drop. Let’s hope the international community takes, in the nearest future, firm and determined attitude to stop the humanitarian crisis in Syria.

The Syrian crisis is in its fifth year and there is still no workable solution in sight. On the contrary the recent developments especially the Russian military involvement in support of the Assad regime will only escalate the gravity of the situation.

From the outset, Russia, along with China and Iran, sided with the Assad regime. Yet, the alliance has a relatively long history. It dates back to the beginning of the 1960s when the socialist secular Ba’ath party took over power in Syria (1963). Russians opened a military base in Tartus, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. This collaboration hit its peak after the death of Jamal Abdel Nasser, with his successors leaping into the arms of the USA. In the 1970s, Hafez Assad as a “secular Baathist,” after taking power in Syria, searched for a cover for his sectarian rule and legitimized it by lending his support to the Palestinian cause. Hafez Assad started to fight against the USA, Israel’s main sponsor, and thus befriended Russia, the enemy of imperialism and supporter of the “struggle of people.” Russians continued to support Hafez for years in various fields: military, economic – the Euphrates dam project for instance – and in many scientific missions. Syrian political propaganda about steadfastness and confrontation always included the readiness of Moscow to build an air defence bridge in case of a war with Israel.

Relations started to weaken in 1986, during the Perestroïka years, when the issue of the Syrian debt to Moscow (13.4 billion USD) was highlighted. Having problems with Russians, Hafez Assad turned to the USA and adopted a more friendly approach towards it. Assad’s troops participated to the international coalition led by the United States during the Second Gulf War against his old enemy, the Baathist Saddam Hussein. In time, relations between Russia and Syria strengthened again starting in 2001 when Russia wrote off the parts of the Syrian debt and lowered it to 3.6 billion USD; the pace of rapprochement and cooperation has been increasing since.

In the last five years Russia has been a keen supporter of Bashar Assad and eventually, decided to intervene militarily in Syria and as it claimed to fight terrorism and takfirist groups. But why did the Kremlin actually intervene? What is the truth about its intentions? And most importantly, how should we read this intervention?

http://thenewturkey.org/rebalancing-turkey%E2%80%99s-foreign-policy/

It is clear that the USA’s role as sole superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been seriously challenged with Putin’s coming to power. It is also clear that Putin, with his upbringing and military intelligence mentality, wants to restore Russia’s old glory and perhaps even fulfill the country’s most important strategic dream of gaining a foothold in the Mediterranean Sea.

Such an ecclesiastic welcoming by the Russian Orthodox Church will fuel religious sentiments and can create an explosive ground reaction  and resistance in Muslim streets. Confirming this understanding, the first heralds of what will follow came in the Islamic fatwas released by Saudi Arabian religious authorities to fight Russians in Syria

First, there is no doubt that the Russian intervention in Syria is a wrong decision. Putin was and is still supporting Assad, in his war against his own people. Yet the error does not lie in this only – at the end of the day nobody cares about civilians. The error is that Russia will probably sink in the Syrian quagmire just as the United States sank in Iraq, and the elimination of “extremist takfiris groups” will take a very long time. Russia doesn’t seem disturbed by this factor, as it announced lately the expansion of its military base in Latakia to accommodate 200 additional aircrafts, as well as the expansion of the port of Latakiato, a harbor which can host an aircraft carrier and more than 12 battleships. It thus becomes clear that the Russians have come to stay and that they have tied up their survival in the region with Assad’s survival.

It wouldn’t be irrelevant to say that Russian intervention will turn the war more destructive, more destabilizing and more catastrophic for everybody with higher levels of damage and losses. Due to the Russian viewpoint on military action and its definition of success for military campaigns – Russian intervention in Chechnya is the best example- this intervention will force more Syrians to flee from conflict areas, meaning more refugees knocking on Europe’s doors. Furthermore, it gives Assad more power and strength to continue his political actions and course.

One of the most prominent manifestations of destabilizing the relative stability of the region was Turkey’s harsh response to the Russian aircraft violation of its airspace. It is known that the United States and Russia have reached a memorandum of understanding regarding flying over Syrian skies and that Israelis guaranteed the safety of their skies during Netanyahu’s visit to Moscow only a day after the Russians declared their intentions to conduct air strikes in Syria. Yet due to the fact that NATO has long borders with Syria and with the “Islamic State” (via Turkey) the possibility of an accident between the two powers remains as a threat to global security for the indefinite future.

On the other hand, Russian intervention will increase the indignation among Arab countries, particularly the ones who were and still are continuing to support the revolution of Syrian people against Assad and insist on his departure as a precondition for negotiations to build the Syria of tomorrow. It is possible that Saudi Arabia may become keener to supply Syrian opposition with more money and weapons to reinforce its statute and strengthen its position vis-à-vis the Russian-Iranian Shiite alliance with which Saudi Arabia is in open war on the Yemen front.

Moreover, to Muslim discontent Russia is no longer a communist atheist state, but a growing Christian power. Communist Russia was never really welcomed in the Muslim world and will not be welcomed now as it debuts its military intervention in an Arab Muslim country from a religious standpoint. The Russian Orthodox Church has blessed the military intervention, calling it a “holy war.” Such an ecclesiastic welcoming by the Russian Orthodox Church will fuel religious sentiments and can create an explosive ground reaction  and resistance in Muslim streets. Confirming this understanding, the first heralds of what will follow came in the Islamic fatwas released by Saudi Arabian religious authorities to fight Russians in Syria. Sunni Islamic extremism will inevitably be pushed further, an extremism that has become the focus of the Russian Christian-Iranian Shiite-Assad axis. Again, this will not result in anything but more extremism and more bloodshed.

The sad reality is that the Russian mistakes of today are only paid for by unarmed Syrian civilians who have seen their country torn to pieces by war for the last five years.

By intervening in Syria Russia has stopped any incentive for dialogue between parties. The rebels have declared their rejection of the United Nations’ mediation which they had previously accepted. The Assad regime, on the other hand, never displayed any real intentions to partake in dialogue and does not seem to hesitate in escalating the destruction of the country in order to keep its position.

It is evident that after the launching of bombings on the “terrorists,” Russia seems to desire to deprive the West of any partnership in a future political solution, by targeting not only ISIS troops, but also striking the moderate factions close to Washington, and all the forces opposed to the Assad regime. Russian aircrafts are reportedly avoiding bombing ISIS sites in addition to the fact that ISIS and Russians are concurrently trying to destroy Syrian opposition, in accordance with their own ambitions: Russians for the reasons mentioned above and ISIS in order to establish itself as the sole Sunni power keeping back the Shiite tide.

Most probably even if Russia has enjoyed some success in the first phase of its plan, the next stage will not be an easy one. The Russian military air force and artillery are empowering the Syrian regime where it already has a formidable superiority over the insurgents, namely firepower, yet leaving Assad’s key problem, manpower, unaddressed. It should be noted that many local sources confirm that defections from the Syrian army are still continuing to this moment.

More Islamic extremism won’t please the West, will bring more conflicts in Syria, and reshuffle the cards. The United States and Europe will not be in favor of standing idly in front of a new escalation of extremist forces – the world has not yet finished with the monstrosity called ISIS. United States jets have already bombed a mortar factory belonging to the non-jihadi Jaysh al-Sunna rebels, who were preparing to hit the Alawite Mountains.

In the end, we must not forget the fundamental fact that Bashar Assad did not earn his presidency by elections, as his father, and his regime is accepted as a repressive and dictatorial regime. Putin is also far from being perceived as a democratic leader; he is pretending to seek a “political solution” that comes on the back of soldiers, aircrafts and advanced missiles in Syria. Napoleon once said “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” The sad reality is that the Russian mistakes of today are only paid for by unarmed Syrian civilians who have seen their country torn to pieces by war for the last five years.