Turkey in Iraq

US DEFENCE Secretary Robert Gates should put something a lot more substantial on the table than his pull-out advice when he sits with the Turkish leadership. Ankara has already made it pretty clear that withdrawal from Iraq’s Kurdish north will be dictated by successes on the ground, not predetermined timetables as both Baghdad and Washington would have liked. So while the relatively calm Kurdish areas come under increased fighting, the responsibility of finding a solution acceptable to all parties concerned once again falls on Washington for a host of reasons. Turkey’s assault is justified and its frustrations understandable. There are no two views that Turkey has to defend itself against the attacks and acts of terror by the Kurdish separatists. A lot of the debate before the actual aerial and ground assault focused on the Iraqi occupation forces’ ‘kid gloves’ treatment of the rebels taking refuge in the country’s north. Since both the US and the EU have branded the PKK terrorists, their refusal to clamp down on them following the occupation was seen in Ankara as a policy of dichotomy of sorts, exempting PKK from the terrorist list temporarily to appease the Kurdish faction of the sensitive Iraqi alliance. America and Iraq again dillydallied when the Turkish parliament okayed the military option, perhaps deciphering the move as a show of frustration that could be settled with amicable rhetoric. Now, with the fighting long underway and loss of life mounting, there is danger of the urban-guerilla pattern that inflicts much of the war against terrorism finding its way to the Kurdish areas also, throwing Iraq all but completely out of control of the occupiers.
Turkey is not going to leave the job half done. Therefore, Robert Gates and Co should not be surprised if their words fall on deaf ears in Ankara. What is needed is offer of a sincere effort to accept the PKK faction operating inside Iraq as part and parcel of the problem of terrorism that the coalition was stitched together to combat in the first place. Failing complete commitment, Turkey is unlikely to simply retreat to its own territory, waiting for the next round that will probably see the Kurds attempt revenge strikes inside the Turkish heartland. The American establishment has made a poor showing in Iraq. And with its take on the latest crisis to visit the country, it seems no lessons have been learnt and the establishment remains oblivious to ground realities. Turkey is simply not going to abandon its most serious strike to date on a struggle that has already claimed more than 30,000 lives. It will go for the jugular. If Washington and Baghdad really wish to curtail Turkish incursion, they should help it handle the PKK once and for all.





Failure in Kenya

KOFI Annan is a patient man, but the respected former UN secretary-general has had his patience tested to the limit by the failure of his month-long effort to bring agreement between Mwai Kibaki, who claimed victory in December’s presidential election, and his opponent Raila Odinga, who asserts that the results were rigged during a three-day delay by the Electoral Commission. Annan’s people have made it clear that while he has apparently obtained agreement on salient issues from both Kibaki and Odinga, once the matters returned to the negotiators appointed by both sides, the points have once again been disputed. Although Annan does not spell it out, the main problem has been the Kibaki camp. Odinga, aware that his claim that the vote was rigged is widely supported by the international community, has played the more statesman-like role, accepting in principle an interim power-sharing administration before the election is rerun or the votes recounted. Odinga’s agreement to postpone indefinitely mass demonstrations by his Orange Democratic Party supporters originally scheduled for today also looks responsible. But, in fact, Odinga knows that even though his supporters have not been exclusively responsible for the bloodletting and mayhem that has seen more than a 1,000 dead and 600,000 people forced from their homes by communal violence, further demonstrations would be seen by the international community as provocative and undermine his political position. By acceding to Annan’s request to stop them from going ahead, he captures another piece of the moral high ground.
Unfortunately appearing to be in the right is not going to solve this dangerous standoff. Kibaki still holds the reins of power and the police have demonstrated their willingness to support him. An official complaint to them about a very specific instance of ballot rigging has reportedly “disappeared” into the bureaucracy. Opposition politicians are not prepared to turn to the courts because they maintain the judiciary has been packed with Kibaki supporters. Meanwhile, threats by an angry EU to take stern economic measures seem only to have hardened the resistance of ministers Kibaki quickly appointed after the election. That he may have wrecked his economy and brought violent tribal-based discord to a country once renowned for its stability, clearly does not bother Kibaki or he would have backed away from his present obdurate course of action, the minute the likely consequences became clear. Instead, he seems much like other Third World leaders. Prepared to cling on to power and the enriching opportunities it brings to him and his cronies, rather than put his country first. The irony is that much of the violence has been between poor Kenyans who have been entirely let down by what was one of Africa’s most flourishing economies. This may well be Kofi Annan’s toughest ever challenge and somehow he must keep both sides negotiating. A country’s homogeneous future is at stake.

—Arab News