The Stakes In The Latest Petro-Political Games... - @MidEastTruth
 
 
MidEastTruth Forum Index
  Home | Cartoons | Videos | Presentation | Flyers | Forum | UN vs ISRAEL | Links | Update List  

MidEastTruth Forum Index  

Gerald Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive doctoral work in Middle East studies, has lectured on numerous university and other platforms. He has debated many of the best Arab and pro-Arab academics in public debates and on television. Mr. Honigman is widely published in academic journals, magazines, newspapers and other publications.


Help us stay online!
donate

Jump to:  
RSSTwitterFacebookYoutube

Post new topic   Reply to topic    MidEastTruth Forum Index -> Gerald Honigman
Reply to topic View previous topic  •  View next topic Reply to topic 

Posted by Honigman

  
Subscribe to our mailing list
Subscribe to our mailing list

MidEastTruth.com - the first 13 yearsMidEastTruth.com
The first 13 years!

 

What is Palestine? Who are the Palestinians?
What is Palestine?
Who are the Palestinians?


See Also:

 


PostMon Apr 01, 2013 12:02 pm     The Stakes In The Latest Petro-Political Games...    


Reply with quote

 
The Stakes In The Latest Petro-Political Games In The Middle East...

by Gerald A. Honigman

A dear friend and academic mentor of over four decades recently sent me an article by Ben Van Heuvelen and staff of the Iraq Oil Report (http://www.iraqoilreport.com/p.....ies-10512/) which added to the latest news I had received regarding the relations between Turks and Iraq's Kurds over oil. To say the least, this is a very volatile issue, for many reasons, and one in which I had done extensive doctoral studies myself several decades ago when, for most folks, Kurds were simply something Little Miss Muffet ate, including in academia (and they were the wrong curds).

Having said this, some greater perspective and background are in order...

After the break-up of empires in the wake of World War I, and all the conflicting promises which ensued to various peoples in the new age of nationalism in the Middle East, the League of Nations' Mosul Decision in 1925 was crucial to the fate of several parties.

It is doubtful that what would later become an independent Iraq could have survived without that northern oil attached to the Mandate of Mesopotamia, so the Brits worked very hard to see that this occurred. Since, afterwards, London did not need the support of the Kurds anymore (the majority folks in that oil-rich area, especially before Saddam's era of heavily Arabizing the Kirkuk-Mosul region), they dropped their promises, hints, or whatever of independence to them and tied their ambitions solely to Arab nationalism instead. Arab nationalism made its own temporary, reluctant peace with the Brits in order to keep the Kurds' aspirations squelched.

Since Mustafa Kemal ("Ataturk") and Reza Shah Pahlavi sealed the Kurds' fate in those other two area options, the only real chance they had in the post-WWI era for independence was in Mesopotamia--and now that was aborted as well.

The Turks always felt that the oil of the Kurdish north was stolen from them via the Mosul Decision. And that's why I have often written that the Kurds would have to find some way of sharing that oil with them--or risk invasion somewhere down the line if the Middle East's version of Europe's artificial state of Yugoslavia--Iraq--ever fell apart or looked like it was headed that way.

As the new article my dear friend sent me once again illustrated, the Kurds are playing a delicate balancing act here. And, unfortunately, the KRG's leaders are prone to the same corruption and such as is common elsewhere surrounding them.

While it is true that there is a very real "distance" between Iraqi Arabs and non-Arab Persians for a number of reasons (even if both are mostly Shi'a), Iran still has supporters in Iraq, and Iran is undoubtedly seeking the creation of a twin brother to its west. The Shi'a government in Baghdad's support of Assad in Syria is but one hint of how this game is being played. For its part, Washington is upset, among other things, over Iraq allowing its airspace and such to be used by Iran to supply Damascus (http://articles.washingtonpost.....hn-f-kerry).

With serious problems increasing between Arabs and Kurds over Kirkuk's oil, this plays right into both Turkey's and Iran's interests as well. Kurds and Assyrians lived in that particular neighborhood for millennia before an invading Arab or Turk ever set foot there.

Nevertheless, keep in mind that the one thing Turks, Arabs, and Iranians can all agree upon is that they don't want an independent Kurdistan and have held 3-way meetings in the past over this very issue. Yet, something else may be brewing now--at least with the Turks.

While Ankara is probably not ready to endorse full Kurdish independence, the non-Arab, Sunni Turkish Islamists now in control are currently engaged in fighting, at least, a bloody proxy war on behalf of fellow Sunni Arab Islamists in adjacent Syria against Iraq's Shi'a Alawi cousins.

On a related issue, the latest numbers from the Turkish Statistical Institute show about 23 million Kurds residing just within Turkey itself--well over one quarter of the entire population--and about 40 million in the region as a whole.

This, of course, has always given Ankara the jitters--especially after that Mosul Decision in 1925. What remained of the former mighty Ottoman Empire would tolerate no additional amputations. So, Kurds were declared to be "Mountain Turks," etc. and so forth...by the very people who insist that Arabs have a 22nd state. The recent news about Israel's probably foolish apology to Turkey was related to this as well--the Turks' full-fledged support of Hamas, Arabs dedicated to the murder of Jews and their sole state--as the Hamas charter (and Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah's too, for that matter--despite claims that it was changed) unabashedly proclaims. Why multiple states, partitions, road maps, and so forth on behalf of Arab nationalism, but none, zilch, nada for scores of millions of other native folks--like Kurds?

Via such duplicity a la Ankara, Hamas & Co. are heroes, while the PKK are merely terrorists.

Imagine, for one moment, if instead of the Turks' flotilla trying to break Israel's legal blockade of Hamas in Gaza (which the recent nauseating Israeli apology was about) that it was an Israeli ship carrying supplies, if that were geographically possible, to the Kurds' PKK instead. And imagine, if when the Turks tried to redirect the ship elsewhere, that they were violently attacked on board the Israeli vessel by Jews. Need I say anything more?

The current deals between Turkey and the KRG over oil and trade must take into account all of the above.

As someone who has fought with the pen for four decades now for Kurdish rights in the region and whose work has been on the recommended reference list of leading universities such as Paris's Institut d'Etudes Politiques (Sciences Po) since the early 1980s (ironically at the same time that I was being silenced via the tenured chief honcho in the doctoral program by seeing to it that I would be denied a Ph.D. dissertation advisor), while I am glad to see these recent developments, I am also very nervous at their implications.

One of the key missing ingredients for the creation of an independent, land-locked Kurdistan has always been something which would make it economically viable--and the Kurds' various enemies have understood this as well. The oil of the predominantly Kurdish north has the ability to fill this need--and has been increasingly doing so since the overthrow of Saddam.

The Kurds are walking a very precarious line. To succeed, they will need to have friends "other than the mountain"--as their age-old sorry saying goes.

Will the world--U.N., American State Department, European Union, and so forth--finally insist on justice for the region's very imperfect, divided Kurds as they have done likewise for at least as imperfect Arabs?

Right now, money talks--and international businesses are cutting their own deals. But, at some point, the issue of Baghdad's Shi'a Arab-dominated central control versus alleged Iraqi federalism a la America and Kurdish autonomy will likely come to a bloody head.

It's murderously interesting how alliances have changed as well.

When Saddam's Sunni Arabs were butchering both Sunni Kurds and Shi'a Arabs, the latter sought Kurds as allies. Now, with the Shi'a increasingly (with Iran's help) in control--despite continued Sunni jihadi suicide bombings and such from time to time, the Sunnis and Kurds are better buddies (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.c.....;nid=38647). The old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing again.

The Kurds have been used and abused by many assorted parties both in and out of the area for close to a century now. Unfortunately, that has included Israel as well in its overtures to the Turks. Jerusalem's alleged new rapprochement with Ankara will also come at the Kurds' expense--yet more Israeli arms and technology will likely be used against these people.

It's long past the time that the Kurdish cause be addressed with at least the same seriousness as that of other peoples who surround them. And, while doing so, the issue of how minorities such as Turkmen, Assyrians, and Arabs who live in predominantly Kurdish areas are dealt with must be considered as well--and not using the Turks', Persians', or Arabs' own subjugating policies as the blueprints.

http://q4j-middle-east.com


Facebook

 

Back to top  




Dear friends, we need your help!

If you find our work meaningful and useful,
please consider making a small donation
and help us stay online and grow.
Thank you for your support!



Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MidEastTruth Forum Index -> Gerald Honigman All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 



RSSTwitterFacebookYoutube






The MidEastTruth.com Forum | Powered by phpBB