As Turkey amasses troops on its border with northern Iraq in preparation for a possible military intervention to deal with the Kurdish rebel group the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), Iraqi and American officials are urging restraint.
With Iraq already mired in a civil war, a Turkish attack could place the United States in an even more contentious position in the region.
To learn more about what's behind this military posturing, I sat down with Malik Mufti, an associate political science professor who specializes in international and Middle Eastern politics. Mufti is an expert on Turkish affairs.
Jamie Bologna: It has been in the news lately that Turkish troops are amassing on the border with Iraq. Do you think Turkey is really going to invade to deal with the PKK?
Malik Mufti: That's the big question that everybody is wondering about. [Wednesday morning] I heard on the BBC that there was some kind of attack by the Turks, but it wasn't the big invasion everybody is talking about. Certainly you can't rule anything out at this point.
There's, as you know, a Kurdish insurgency within Turkey that's been going on for quite a while. It has actually been going on since the early '80s. There has been a lull that, over the last couple of years, has re-intensified.
JB: Is that because of the Iraq war?
MM: To some extent. The roots of Turkey's problem with the Kurdish insurgency are domestic - they are internal. But it is true that the collapse of a central authority in Iraq has created this autonomous region in the north in which the PKK, the Kurdish guerilla group within Turkey, has set up bases and from which they are launching attacks into Turkey.
From the Turkish government's perspective, this is an intolerable situation. In the last few days and couple of weeks, a large number of Turkish soldiers have been killed in attacks. ...
The problem is that the northern Iraqi region is one of the most stable and least problematic areas within Iraq for the United States. The leadership there wants Americans to stay. It's one of the few parts of Iraq that isn't, right now, involved in civil war. A Turkish intervention ... is something the United States doesn't want because it is aligned both to the Kurds and to the Turks.
JB: So this places the United States in an impossible situation.
MM: It places the U.S. in a very difficult situation. What the United States has been doing is trying to tell the Turks, "We will put pressure on the northern Iraqi Kurds to try to reign in the PKK activity there; we don't think a military intervention is advisable.'" So the Americans have been trying to discourage the Turks from intervening militarily.
It seems also that the Turkish civilian government would rather not intervene. The military seems to be pushing harder in Turkey for an intervention in northern Iraq. Even within the military there's a recognition that an intervention is likely to cause troubles in Turkey's relationship with the United States, which is important to them, and it is also not by itself likely to solve Turkey's Kurdish problem. ...
The dilemma is that the PKK has been ratcheting up its attacks. It is not like it is backing down. It has been intensifying, indicating that maybe those elements would like to see a Turkish attack. ...
JB: What is the aim of the PKK? Is it to create an independent, autonomous Kurdish state?
MM: What they say is that they are fighting for Kurdish nationalism and Kurdish rights in Turkey. Whether this means total separation, whether it means something less that - autonomy - isn't very clear.
Their leader, who is now in prison in Turkey, has talked about some kind of a framework in which the Kurdish people would remain part of the Turkish Republic but enjoy considerable political and cultural autonomy.
There's also a political movement in Turkey, the Democratic Society Party it is called, which represents Kurdish interests but presents itself as an electoral, not a military or revolutionary, organization.
This party, which has now 20 seats in Parliament, also calls now for a federal autonomy within the Turkish republic. But the Turkish government doesn't recognize the PKK as a legitimate interlocutor; it views it as a terrorist organization.
JB: Does the Iraqi government have the power or strength to do something about the situation in the north?
MM: The Iraqi government does not. But the Iraqi Kurdish leadership in the north might. And it might because it probably would be able to put significant pressure on the PKK, but it will cost them because the PKK is well-armed, well-trained and they have a presence and support there as well. ...
In the last few days the president of Iraq, [Jalal] Talabani, asked the PKK to either stop attacking Turkey from here, or if you don't accept that then you have to leave the region. So [he wants] to resolve this in a way that satisfies Turkey without prompting an intervention. ...
JB: What are the implications for NATO?
MM: Turkey is a NATO ally. Technically, according to article five of NATO, if a member is under attack, the other NATO members have an obligation to support and stand by that ally.
The Turks are saying, "Look, we're dealing with a terrorist organization, which you, the Americans, say you are fighting. Why is it that you're not helping us and supporting us in bringing pressure to bear on the PKK?'" Turkey has the second biggest military within NATO numerically, so the Americans are very concerned about keeping it anchored.
JB: What role does Iran play in this?
MM: It is very interesting because there are also PKK-affiliated or related [groups in Iran], but it is not entirely clear. There is group called PJAK, which is the equivalent of the PKK, but against Iran. It is fighting for the rights of Iranian Kurds.
JB: Because the area known as Kurdistan covers parts of Iraq, Turkey and Iran.
MM: Yes, it covers South-East Turkey, northern Iraq and northern Iran, so it straddles that entire region. PKK-like organizations are simultaneously attacking Iran from northern Iraq. ... The Iranians and the Turks are in exactly the same situation: They have a convergence of interests in suppressing Kurdish nationalism.
But the Americans have been much less willing to even give lip service to the Iranian Kurds - to reigning in the Iranian Kurds - because it suits American interests to have the Iranian Kurds ratchet up pressure against the Iranian regime. This leads to a certain double standard.
JB: Turkey's trying to enter into the EU. How will this play into that?
MM: The EU has, in the past, expressed its concern about Kurdish rights in Turkey. There's a reservoir of sympathy for the peaceful Kurdish movement in Turkey from the EU. Those in Turkey who want to join the EU tend to be the types who want to see a deepening of democratization and are more open to a multilevel approach to the Kurdish problem: one that includes dialogue and so on. ...
JB: Would a military incursion escalate the problems we're dealing with in Iraq with the civil war?
MM: It would be a disaster; it would be terrible. Because the United States would find itself aligned to both sides, and this is exactly the kind of situation the United States wants to avoid: being caught in the middle in a conflict [between] two allies.
Jamie Bologna is a senior majoring in political science and Spanish. He can be reached at james.bologna@tufts.edu
