Irak’ta Türkmenlerin Statü Arayışı: Türkmen Haklarını Düzenleme Yasası

Irak’ta Türkmenlerin Statü Arayışı: Türkmen Haklarını Düzenleme Yasası *
Bilgay Duman, ORSAM Ortadoğu Uzmanı

Irak’ta şiddet ve siyasi tartışmalar sürerken, Türkmenler siyasi ve hukuki haklar elde etmek ve bu hakları garanti altına almak amacıyla şimdilik taslak halinde olan bir yasayı gündem haline getirmiştir. 18 maddeden oluşan bu taslak yasa Türkmenler arasında çeşitli platformlarda gittikçe tartışılmaya başlanan bir konu olmuştur. “Türkmen Haklarını Düzenleme Yasası” olarak adlandırılan bu taslak yasa, Türkmenlere siyasi, idari, kültürel ve eğitim alanlarında avantajlar sağlamaya yönelik olarak düşünülmektedir. Öte yandan yasanın Türkmenlere fayda sağlayıp sağlamayacağı değerlendirmeleri bir tarafta tutulursa, Türkmenler adına çıkarılacak olan bu yasa Irak tarihinde bir ilk olması itibariyle önemlidir. Bu noktada yasa taslağının içeriğine geçmeden yasanın hazırlanma sürecine değinmek yerinde olacaktır. “Türkmen Haklarını Düzenleme Yasası” olarak adlandırılan bu yasanın temel dayanağı, 26 Temmuz 2012 tarihinde Irak Parlamentosu’nda Türkmenler ilişkin olarak kanun hükmünde sayılan rapor olmuştur. Rapordan önce de Irak Türkmen Cephesi’nin öncülüğünde yapılan çalışmalar sonucu 21 Nisan 2012’de Irak Parlamentosu’nda Irak tarihi boyunca ilk kez Türkmenlere özel bir oturum düzenlenmiş ve Türkmenlerin sorunları, sıkıntıları ve talepleri dile getirilmiştir. Irak Parlamentosu’nun Türkmen özel oturumunda ele alınan konular ve öneriler raporlaştırılmıştır.(1) Bu raporun Irak Parlamentosu’nda kabul edilmesinin ardından Türkmen haklarının yasa çalışmaları başlamıştır. Irak Türkmen Cephesi Diyala Milletvekili Hasan Özmen’in koordine ettiği 18 maddelik yasa taslağı, yaklaşık bir yıl süren çalışmalar sonunda hazırlanmıştır.

Bu yasayla düzenlenen konular ve maddelerin içeriğine bakıldığında Türkmenler hukuki olarak kalıcı bir statü arayışında olduğunu da göstermektedir. Ancak Türkmenler adına böyle bir yasanın çıkacak olması bile Türkmenleri Irak içerisinde özel bir konuma oturtacaktır. Bu anlamıyla Irak’ta kurucu unsur olan Türkmenler, özel statülü bir toplum haline gelecektir. Bu tarz bir yasanın Yezidi, Şebek, Keldaniler gibi azınlık toplumları tarafından da talep edilmesi ve mecliste çıkarılması durumunda Türkmenler de genel çerçeve içerisinde değerlendirilerek azınlık konumuna sürüklenebilecektir. Türkmenlerin azınlık statüsü içerisinde yer alıp almamasının getireceği avantaj ve dezavantajlar başka bir yazının konusu olmakla birlikte bu yazıda yasanın içeriği değerlendirilecektir.

Yazının ekinde yer alan yasa taslağının içeriğine bakıldığında 26 Temmuz 2012’de Irak Parlamentosu’nda kabul edilen “Türkmen Hakları Raporu” ile benzerlikleri olduğunu söylemek mümkün olmakla birlikte, temel bir tartışmayı da gündeme getirebilecek niteliktedir. Özellikle Türkmen Hakları Raporu içerisinde yer alan “Irak Parlamentosu, Türkmenlerin üçüncü ana unsur olduğunu kabul eder” İfadesine karşıt olarak yasa tasarısında pozitif ayrımcılık içeren ifadelerin yer alması Türkmenlerin azınlık statüsüne sokabilecek nitelikte olacaktır. Zira “Türkmen Haklarını Düzenleme Yasası” taslağının 3. maddesinde Türkmen İşleri Yüksek Konseyi adı altında tüzel kişiliğe sahip olacak ve Bakanlar Kurulu’na bağlı olacak kurumun başkanının bakan düzeyinde temsil yetkisine sahip olacağı söylenmektedir. Bu durum uygulamada Türkmen İşleri Yüksek Konseyi Başkanı’nın, “Türkmen Bakanı” olmasına yol açabileceği gibi Türkmenlere verilmiş bir kota olarak da algılanabilecektir. Ancak mevcut durum itibariyle Türkmenler Irak’ta biri vekaleten olmak üzere 3 bakanlığa sahiptir. Bir “Türkmen Bakanı” olması durumunda Irak genelinde siyaset yaparak bu konumları elde etmiş Türkmenlere itiraz edilebilir. Ayrıca Türkmen İşleri Yüksek Konseyi Başkanı’nın hükümet tarafından atanacak olması da bu konseyi hükümete bağlı kılabilecek bir pozisyon oluşturmasına sebep olabilecektir. Böylece konseyin bağımsız çalışmalar yapabilmesi de zorlaşacaktır.

“Türkmen Haklarını Düzenleme Yasası” taslağının birinci maddesinde bu yasanın amacının Türkmenlerin Irak toplumu içerisinde siyasi, idari, kültürel ve eğitim haklarının korunması olduğu dile getirilmektedir. Irak Anayasası’nda özellikle siyasi, kültürel ve eğitim konularına ilişkin açık ifadeler bulunmaktadır. Örneğin Irak Anayasası’nın 39. Maddesiyle Irak vatandaşlarının dernek ve siyasi parti kurma ve bunlara üye olma özgürlüğü güvence altına alınmıştır. Nitekim Irak’ta başta Irak Türkmen Cephesi olmak üzere faaliyet gösteren 20’ye yakın Türkmen partisi bulunmaktadır. Böylece Türkmenlere Türkmen adıyla siyaset yapma hakkı tanınmıştır. “Türkmen Haklarını Düzenleme Yasası” taslağının ikinci maddesi de Türkmenlerin adil temsiliyeti üzerine kurulmuştur. Burada adil temsiliyetten kavramının Türkmenlerin nüfus oranına vurgu yaptığı düşünülmektedir. Ancak Irak’ta halen 1977’den sonra bir nüfus sayımı yapılabilmiş değildir. Etnik nüfusa göre yapılan son sayım da 1957 senesine dayanmaktadır. Bu nedenle Türkmenlerin nüfus oranını tam olarak bilmek mümkün değildir. Buradan hareketle adil temsiliyet açısından bir oranlama yapmak da mümkün olmayacaktır.

Türkmenlerin yüksek siyasi kararların alınmasına iştirak etmesi de bir koşul olarak dile getirilmektedir. Irak Parlamentosu’nda mevcut durum itibariyle 10 Türkmen milletvekili bulunmaktadır. Türkmenler Irak Parlamentosu’nda alınan kararlara bu anlamda katkı sunabilmektedir. Burada yapılması gereken şeyin Türkmen halkını siyasi sürece angaje edip, Türkmenlerin siyasete katılımının arttırılması olduğu düşünülmektedir. Yani daha açık bir ifade ile varolan Türkmen siyasi partilerin Türkmen halkını seçimlere katılmaları için ikna etme ve Türkmen partilerine oy verme çabalarını arttırması, Türkmenlerin Irak’taki siyasi ağırlıklarını da arttıracaktır.

Diğer taraftan “Türkmen Haklarını Düzenleme Yasası” taslağının 2. Maddesinin 12. Fıkrasında Türkmenlerin eğitimin tüm aşamalarında, anadilin ve özel olarak kullanılan alfabenin geçerliği olacağı ve Türkmenlerin yoğunluk teşkil ettiği okulların Türkmen eğitiminin kapsamında olması öngörülmüştür. Ancak zaten Türkmen eğitimi 2003 sonrasında Türkmenlerin yoğun olduğu başta Kerkük olmak üzere Musul, Telafer, Tuzhurmatu, Kifri ve Erbil’de Türkmence eğitim veren okullarda yapılmaktadır. Irak Anayasası’nın 4. maddesi de bunu güvence altına almıştır. Ayrıca 2012 yılında Irak Eğitim Bakanlığı’na bağlı olarak kurulan Türkmen Eğitim Genel Müdürlüğü de Türkmen okullarıyla ilgilenmektedir. Bununla birlikte Irak merkezi hükümeti ve Bölgesel Kürt Yönetimi’nin Türkmen okullarına yeteri kadar kaynak sağladığını da söylemek zordur. Bu anlamıyla burada üzerinde durulması gereken ana meselenin Türkmen eğitimine kaynak aktarımının çoğaltılmasına çalışılması olduğu düşünülmektedir.

“Türkmen Haklarını Düzenleme Yasası” taslağının 9. Maddesi ise 3. Maddede kurulması öngörülen Türkmen İşleri Yüksek Konseyi Başkanı’na Irak hükümetinin, Türkmen örgüt ve kurumlarının yurt dışında, kendileri ile aynı etnik özellikleri, dil ve kültürü paylaşanlarla iletişim ve temas kurabilmesi amacıyla hükümetler, yönetimler veya yerel hükümetlerle anlaşma veya protokoller yapma yetkisini verebileceğini dile getirmektedir. Bu maddeyle Türkmen İşleri Yüksek Konseyi, Irak hükümetine bağlı federal bir yönetim haline getirilmektedir. Nitekim taslağın 13. Maddesi de Konsey’in merkez ve şubelerini korumak üzere federal polise bağlı bir alayın oluşturulmasını talep etmektedir. Bu alayın Konsey’in koruma gücü olarak algılanacağını söylemek yanlış olmayacaktır. 10. Maddede ise Konsey’in hükümet dışı örgütlerle işbirliği yapabileceği söylenmekle birlikte Türkmenleri ilgilendiren konularda Irak devletinin kurum ve kuruluşlar ile muhatap olma yetkisine sahip olduğu belirtilmektedir. Böylece Türkmen İşleri Yüksek Konseyi, Türkmenler adına bir koordinasyon merkezine de dönüşmektedir. Taslağın 11. Maddesi de Konsey’e bir sivil toplum örgütü niteliği kazandıracak içeriğe sahiptir. 11. Maddede, Konsey’in gelirinin devlet bütçesi ve Konsey’in etkinliklerinden elde edeceği gelirin yanı sıra yurtdışından yapılacak bağış ve yardımlara dayanacağı ifade edilmektedir. Bununla birlikte yurt dışından alınan bağış ve yardımlar Konsey’i siyasi olarak zor duruma düşürebilir. Bu yasanın kabul edilmesi ve Konsey’in kurulması durumunda yurt dışından alınacak yardım ve bağışların bu Konsey’e karşı olan/olabilecek tarafların konseyi “diğer ülkeleri taşeronu” olarak suçlamasına neden olabilecektir.

Sonuç olarak “Türkmen Haklarını Düzenleme Yasası” taslağını bu haliyle hem haklar ve özgürlükler hem de kurumların yapısal niteliği açısından bir statü arayışı olarak algılamak mümkündür. Bu yasa Türkmenler adına bazı kazanımlar sağlayacak olsa da yasanın varlığı bile Türkmenleri bağlayıcı nitelikte durumlar ortaya çıkarabilir. Yasa tasarısının belki de ana taşıyıcı sütünü olan Türkmen İşleri Yüksek Konseyi Başkanı’nın Bakanlar Kurulu tarafından atanması Türkmenleri tamamen hükümete bağlı kılabilecek pozisyona getirebilir. Mevcut yasalar ve anayasal hükümler doğrultusunda bile hükümetin Türkmenlere yönelik aldığı tedbirlerin yeterli olmadığı ve özellikle Türkmen bölgelerine yönelik güvenlik zafiyetinin aşikar olduğu dikkate alınacak olursa, Konsey’in ne derecede işlevsellik kazanacağı da şüphelidir. İşlerlik kazanmayan böyle bir kurumun Türkmenler arasında da tepkiye yol açması muhtemeldir. Bu nedenle Türkmenlerin gerçek nüfus potansiyelinin ortaya çıkarılmasını ve Türkmen halkının siyasete katılımını sağlayacak bütünleştirici çalışmalara ağırlık verilmesinin yerinde olacağı düşünülmektedir.
* Yasanın tam metni ektedir.

(1) Rapor için bkz. http://www.orsam.org.tr/tr/trUploads/Yazilar/Dosyalar/
201283_T%C3%9CRKMEN%20KARAR%20METN%C4%B0.pdf,
Erişim: 21 Ekim 2013.

Metnin Tamamı

Where Do The Turkmen Stand In Political Polarization In Iraq?

Where Do The Turkmen Stand In Political Polarization In Iraq?


Bilgay Duman, ORSAM Middle East Specialist



In the recent period, the politics in Iraq has centered on a new polarization. Even though its lines are not quite clear, the struggle between the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his opponents/rivals seems to come to light. Especially the meeting held in Arbil, on 29th April can be considered as one of the most important indicators of this. In the meeting, which is suggested to have been held upon the call of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and with the participation of the KRG leader Massoud Barzani, who is known to oppose to Nouri al-Maliki, the Sadr Group leader Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi Parliament Speaker and among the Iraqiya List leaders Usama al-Nujeyfi, Iraqiya List leader Ayad Allawi, and Jalal Talabani, it was stated that the last
political tension in Iran was talked and solutions were proposed for the problems. The fact that Barzani, who accused Maliki for being “dictator” and Sadr had a separate talk before the meeting also drew the attention. 

The fact that those groups headed by the aforesaid two leaders are in the “key position of the governments in Iraq”, including the government formed after the 2010 elections, increased the importance of this talks still more. Despite the fact that the “National Conference”, which is planned to be held to overcome the crisis within the government and to be held with the participation of all political groups in Iraq, have not been somehow carried out, it is extremely important to hold such a conference.

Kerkük’te Denge Yeniden Kuruluyor

Bilgay Duman, ORSAM Ortadoğu Uzmanı

Artık klişe haline gelen söylemle Irak’ın denge noktası Kerkük’te yeni bir dönüşüm yaşanıyor. ABD’nin 2003’te Irak’a girişinin ardından Kerkük’e yönelik Kürt gruplar tarafından yapılan haksız müdahaleler ve sonrasında ABD yönetiminin Kerkük’teki yönetim dengesini Kürt grupların lehine oluşturması, Kerkük’teki anlaşmazlıkların odak noktası haline gelmiştir.

Saddam sonrası dönemde il yönetimlerinin belirlenmesi amacıyla her vilayette olduğu gibi ve bu çerçevede Kerkük’te de seçimler yapılmıştır. Ancak seçim, ABD’nin yanlı tavırları sonucunda sıkıntılı geçmiştir. Seçim için kentteki Türkmen, Arap, Kürt ve Asurî grupların her birinden 39, toplam 156 temsilci il meclisinin 24 üyesini, ABD'nin “bağımsız” delege olarak Kerküklü işadamları ve aşiret liderleri arasından seçtiği 144 temsilci ise ABD güçlerinin onayına sunulacak 12 kişilik “bağımsız” listeyi belirlemek için sandığa gitmiştir. Her grubu temsilen altışar kişi seçilerek il meclisinin 24 üyesi belirlenmiştir.

Bağımsız olarak seçilen 12 adaydan da dönemin ABD güçlerinin komutanı General Reymond Odierno, il yönetimindeki 6 kişilik bağımsız adayı tespit etmiştir. Ancak Türkmenler ve Araplar, ABD'nin bağımsız delegeleri belirleme tarzı, seçilen 144 delegenin büyük çoğunluğunun Kürt olması ve belirlenen 6 bağımsız temsilcinin de 5’inin Kürt olmasına itiraz etmiştir.(1)

İtirazlara rağmen Odierno kararı onaylamış ve ardından belirlenen il yönetiminde vali, vali yardımcıları ve konsey başkanı seçilmiştir. Oluşturulan 30 kişilik il yönetim heyeti Kürt asıllı Aburrahman Mustafa’yı vali olarak seçmiştir. Ayrıca meclis başkanı olarak da Mehmet Tahsin Kâhya, iki vali yardımcılığının birinin Arap diğerinin ise Türkmen olması kararlaştırılmıştır.(2)

Ancak bu durumu Türkmenler ve Araplar protesto etmiş ve bu haklarını kullanmamıştır. 30 Ocak 2005’te yapılan ilk yerel seçimlerde Kürt gruplar 41 üyeli il meclisinde 26, Türkmenler 9, Araplar ise 6 sandalyeye sahip olmuştur. Kürt grupların Kerkük yönetimindeki ağırlığı elde etmeleri nedeniyle, hem vali hem de vilayet meclisi başkanı Kürt gruplar tarafından belirlenmiştir.

Türkmen ve Arap üyeler Kürt grupların Kerkük’teki haksız uygulamalarını gerekçe göstererek, vilayet yönetimini çok kez protesto ederek, yönetimden çekilmiştir. 2005’te kabul edilen anayasada Kerkük’e özel bir durum atfedilerek, 140. Maddeyle Kerkük için 2007’nin sonuna kadar bir yol haritası çizilmiştir. Buna göre Kerkük’te demografik haksızlıkların giderilerek bir nüfus sayımı yapılması ve ardından Kerkük’ün statüsünü belirleyecek bir referandum yapılması öngörülmüştür. Kerkük’teki özellikle mülkiyet anlaşmalarının çözülmesi ve demografik haksızlıkların giderilmesi amacıyla 2011’e kadar dört ayrı komisyon kurulsa da Kerkük’teki sorunlar çözülmemiştir.

Kerkük’teki sorunların giderilmemesi nedeniyle 2007’nin sonunda yapılamayan referandum Kerkük’teki süreci belirsizliğe itmiştir. Özellikle Kerkük’teki mülk anlaşmazlıklarının çözülememesi ve halen 36 bine yakın davadan sadece 5 bine yakınının sonuçlanması, Kerkük’teki sorunun çözülmesinin uzun yıllar alacağını akıllara getirmektedir.

Kerkük Mülk Anlaşmazlıkları Komisyonuna göre 2011 yılına kadar sadece 2006’daki davalar bitirilebilmiştir. Yani 2011 yılına kadar beş yıllık dava dosyaları bulunmaktadır ve her geçen gün dava sayısı artmaktadır.Öte yandan 2009 Irak’ta yapılan yerel seçimlerden önce 2008 Temmuz’un da çıkan yerel seçim yasasında Kerkük için yeni bir yol haritası daha ortaya konmuştur.

Buna göre Kerkük’teki yönetimden Kürt, Türkmen ve Araplar’a yüzde 32, Hıristiyanlara ise yüzde 4 pay verilmesi ve Kerkük Vilayet Meclisi Başkanı’nın Türkmen olması öngörülmüştür. Ayrıca Kerkük’te bir nüfus sayımı yapılarak, haksızlıkların giderilmesi ve buna göre seçmen listelerinin oluşturularak, Kerkük’te yerel seçimlerin yapılması planlanmıştır. Ancak yine Kerkük’te süreç uygulanamayınca Kerkük’te yerel seçimler yapılamamış ve yönetim aynı şekilde devam etmiştir.

Kerkük’teki yönetimdeki dengesizlik, mülkiyet sorunların, Kerkük’teki sosyal, siyasi ve ekonomik sorunlar Kerkük’teki kırılma noktalarını genişletmiştir. Son dönemde Türkmenler, Araplar ve Kürtler arasında yaşanan olaylar Kerkük’teki tansiyonu daha da arttırmıştır. Kerkük’te son 5 aylık dönemde hem şiddetin artması hem de milis güçlerin Kerkük’e yönelik müdahale çabaları da kentteki ipleri gerilmesine yol açmıştır. Tunus ve Mısır olaylarının etkisinin Irak’ta da hissedilmesi ve Irak’taki hükümet ve yerel yönetimlere yönelik protesto gösterilerinin Kerkük’te de yapılmasının ardından, silahlı Arap güçlerin şehre girmeye çalışmasına karşılık, Kürt Bölgesel Yönetimi’nin 5 bin kişi olduğu söylenen peşmerge birliklerini Kerkük’e göndermesiyle Kerkük yine Irak’taki gündemin üst sıralarına oturmuştur.

Kerkük’teki gerginlikle birlikte Irak Cumhurbaşkanı Celal Talabani’nin, KDP lideri Mesut Barzani ile yaptığı görüşme sonrasında klasik söylemini kullanarak yeniden “Kerkük Kürtlerin Kudüs’üdür” açıklamasını yapması, Irak iç siyasetinde Kerkük yoğun şekilde tartışılmaya başlamış ve hatta Irak parlamentosundaki bazı milletvekilleri Celal Talabani’ye bu açıklamayla ilgili soru önergesi vermiştir.

Öte yandan Kerkük siyasi gündeminin yanında, şehirdeki gösterilerin devam etmesi ve valinin istifasına yönelik baskılar Kerkük Valisi Abdurrahman Mustafa ve Kerkük Vilayet Meclisi Başkanı Rizgar Ali istifa etmiştir.Yaşanan bu gelişmeler hem Kerkük hem de gruplar arasındaki siyasette yeni dengeleri beraberinde getirmektedir. Zira Kerkük İl Meclisi Başkanlığına Türkmen üyelerden Hasan Turan’ın getirilmesi gündemdedir. Kerkük’te 6 yıl sonra yaşanacak bu değişim Türkmenlerin 2010 seçimleriyle Irak siyasetindeki yükselişinin devamı niteliğindedir.

Bu noktada Türkiye’nin Irak politikasındaki ve Kerkük konusundaki tutumunun da etkili olduğu düşünülmektedir. Öte yandan Kerkük Valiliğinin de değişecek olması, Kürt gruplar arasındaki siyasi dengeyi de etkileyecektir. Zira istifa eden Kerkük Valisi Abdurrahman Mustafa, KDP’lidir. Ancak Abdurrahman Mustafa’nın yerine getirilmesi düşünülen Necmettin Kerim, KYB üyesidir. Bu iki parti arasındaki dengeyi değiştirecektir. Her ne kadar Irak’ın kuzeyinde KDP ve KYB arasında ortak bir yönetim olsa da KDP ve KYB’nin yönetimsel anlamda halen bir mücadele içerisinde oldukları bilinmektedir. Kerkük’teki Kürtler arasında KYB’nin büyük ağırlının bulunmasına rağmen daha önceki valinin KDP’li olmasının, KYB’de rahatsızlık yarattığı bilinmektedir.

Bu nedenle KYB’li bir politikacının Kerkük Valisi olması, KYB’nin KDP karşısındaki kazancı olarak görülebilir.

Ancak Kerkük’te asıl sorun Arapların şehirdeki yönetimsel dönüşüme nasıl tepki vereceğidir. İlk izlenimlere göre, Arap gruplar Kerkük’teki dönüşümü, “Kürt-Türkmen anlaşmasına” bağlamaktadır. Bundan önceki süreçte Kerkük’teki siyasette Türkmen ve Arapların birlikte hareket ettiği görülmüştür. Araplar grupların bu algılamasının çapı genişlerse, Kürtlerle Araplarla arasında yaşanan gerginlikler, Türkmenler ve Araplar arasında da yaşanabilir. Bu gerginliklerin kıvılcımları son 2-3 ayda Kerkük’te yaşanan olaylarda görülmüştür. Buna en iyi örnek Kerkük’ün Tazehurmatu ilçesine bağlı Beşir Köyünde Türkmenler ve Araplar arasında yaşanan çatışmadır.

Bu nedenle Kerkük’te atılacak adımların uzlaşma araçlarını kullanarak şehirde yaşayan bütün grupların içerisinde yer aldığı bir süreç dahilinde atılmasının Kerkük’teki en iyi çözüm yolu olduğu düşünülmektedir. Daha önce Kürt grupların bazı uygulamalarında görüldüğü gibi tek taraflı çözüm çabalarının Kerkük’ü içerisinden çıkılmaz bir sorunlar yumağına dönüştürmesi muhtemeldir.

Kaynaklar
(1) Radikal Gazetesi, “Kerkük’te Seçim Kavgası”, 25 Mayıs 2003.
(2) Radikal Gazetesi, “ABD’nin Dediği Oldu”, 29 Mayıs 2007.


17 MART 2011

Discussion about the objectives of the Turkmen

http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/showmeeting.aspx?ID=8



Discussion about the Objectives of the Turkmen


The 12th of the Meeting of Turkmen Intellectuals which is periodically organized by the ORSAM was held on Saturday, March 5, 2011 in the ORSAM conference hall. The students who are in Turkey for education showed a great interest to the meeting that was directed by the ORSAM Adviser Habib Hürmüzlü and which was entitled as “Perspectives About the Objectives of the Turkmen” . In the meeting which was organized as two sessions, the speakers shared their knowledge in the first session; in the second session the negotiators stated their opinions and this session was ended with the question and answer period.

The speakers participating in the meeting:

• Associate. Prof. Dr. Tarık Gündüz,
• Dr. Cüneyt Mengü,
• Hasan Demirci,
• Haydar Hadi Dakuklu,

And the negotiators participating in the meeting:
• Aydın Beyatlı,
• Mehmet Behcet İzzet,
• Adil Selbi,
• Mehmet Suphi

Tarık Gündüz, the first at getting the floor, told that for the aim of reaching an objective the language phenomenon must be protected and it must be transferred from generations to generations. Stating that the objective that was clearly declared in written for the first time by the Turkmen was presented by the National Turkmen Party, Tarik Gündüz said that this objective was about Turkmen’s obtaining their social, cultural, political and economic rights in the territorial integrity of Iraq. Claiming that the objective unity was weak among the Turkmen, Gündüz explained that the Turkmen institutions and the Turkmen leaders in Iraq and the other countries must establish a platform by coming together and draw a road map after agreeing upon the objectives.

Supporting his ideas by giving examples in history, Hasan Demirci who took the floor after Tarık Gündüz, said that the Turkmen proved their existence in the process of history, but the Turkmen abstain from the Iraqi identity, which harms to the Turkmen, and for this reason the Iraqi administration alienates the Turkmen. “For an objective, you need to have belief” said Demirci and added that the Turkmen have an immediate need for a decision mechanism that they believe in. Pointing out that all the groups that shape the Turkmen policy and try to be effective in it have different priorities from each other, Demirci stated that all these priorities must be combined and canalized to a single institution, and all these groups must work collectively.

Haydar Dakuklu, one of the Turkmen students, said that the objectives of societies generally correspond to the social objectives; however the Turkmen do not meet in a common point in terms of the political objectives. Emphasizing that in respect of the current situation, the territorial and national integrity in Iraq has been broken, Davuklu questioned why the Turkmen insist still on the territorial and national integrity of Iraq. Stating that the objectives of the Turkmen must be realistic, sustainable and long termed, Davuklu expressed that the Turkmen must be in agreement in terms of their objectives. Davuklu also mentioned that defending the Turkmeneli Region is of utmost importance and added that the objectives of the societies must be oriented towards the social motivation and the youth.

Defining the objective as an indispensable reason of life for people, Cüneyt Mengü, the final speaker, said that the power should be parallel to the objective. Stating that the first objective of the Turkmen is to be mentioned in the Constitution as the third nation in Iraq, Mengü told that the main objective of the Turkmen must be to obtain some privileges in the regions where there is an intense Turkmen population, which was defined as a legal autonomous by Mengü.
After the speakers, Aydın Beyatlı, one of the negotiators, stated that the strategy and the objective must be dealt separately and the Turkmen have adopted different objectives depending on the conditions of the period. Supporting that it will be more realistic if the Turkmen choose an objective in accordance with their force, Beyatlı said that in the meetings of the opposition during the 1990s all the groups in Iraq had accepted that the Turkmen population constituted the 6% of the Iraq population, and now this percentage of %6 can be brought forward as an administrative, economic, social and political demand. Beyatlı said also that a portion of %6 taken from the Iraqi government will be a significant step for the Turkmen and then the real percentage of the Turkmen existence which is 13% can be demanded.

Another negotiator Mehmet Behçet İzzet said that the foremost objective of the Turkmen is the constitutional recognition. Stating that the Turkmen should be ready for any kind of possibility in Iraq, İzzet argued that there may be a change in Iraq as well like the ones having happened in the Middle East. Expressing that in that context the Turkmen must possess an economic and political force, İzzet opposed to the claim that Turkey has not made any contribution for the Turkmen and said that the Turkmen should consider about what they have demanded from Turkey until today.

One of the Turkmen students, Mehmet Suphi said that the Turkmen youth also must play a role and asked to the Turkmen elders for letting the Turkmen youth for this. Supporting the idea that the Turkmen must be realistic, Suphi claimed that in these conditions the Turkmen do not have enough power to determine their national interests. “The Turkmen policy is indexed to the individuals.” said Suphi and added that every Turkmen politician talk about the necessities, but these necessities are not supplied even by them. “If there is an anthem, a flag, a regional map, why is not this defended?” asked Suphi and underlined the importance of that the Turkmen follow the policies which are appropriate to the current situation.

The final negotiator Adil Selbi emphasized that the first objective of the Turkmen in Iraq is to conserve their existence. Stating that he can draw various strategies, Selbi said that a partnership commission must be founded among the Turkmen institutions for the aim of determining the objectives and the strategies. “The Turkmen must act in an organized manner.” said Selbi and mentioned the importance of strengthening the Turkmen identity. Expressing that the Turkmen have some problems at determining their objectives, Selbi said that there is not a communication or connection among the Turkmen regions, the people living in the Turkmen regions are unaware of each other, and there is rivalry among these regions.


MARCH 9 2011

THE FINAL COMMUNIQUE OF THE TURKEY-IRAQ RELATIONS

THE FINAL COMMUNIQUE OF THE TURKEY-IRAQ RELATIONS

HISTORY AND OPENINGS TOWARDS THE FUTURE

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM HAS BEEN DECLARED


To read the article please click on the link below

http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/showActivity.aspx?ID=71

An international symposium titled “Turkey – Iraq Relations:
History and Openings towards the Future”, which was collaboratively
organized by ORSAM, Atatürk Research Center and Iraq Embassy
Cultural Attache’s Office, was held in Ankara between
9th and 10th June 2010.
Many academics, experts, researchers and strategists gave
presentations during the symposium.

Minister Mehmet Aydın: “Let’s rewrite the history of the Middle East together.”



THE FINAL COMMUNIQUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
TITLED TURKEY-IRAQ RELATIONS: HISTORY AND OPENINGS
TOWARDS THE FUTURE


The opening remarks of the symposium was given by the Minister of the State Prof. Dr. Mehmet Aydın. Mr. Aydın touched upon the importance of the process in which states and societies get to know each other, and added that this process is a continuous action which renews itself. He said that history can never be consumed and therefore the history of the region has to be rewritten in consistence with the aforementioned process. Aydın added that: “the history of this region is not written by the minds of this region. This history was written by the third parties. First of all, sound knowledge must be produced. No matter how much knowledge you may know, there is always more to learn. We should seek each other’s counsel, correct the wrongs in a chivalrous way, and include them in the books once again. We shall read about what you have written on Turkey-Iraq relations and you shall read ours as well. Together we shall correct the wrong pieces of information. We shall transfer this knowledge to our children and that knowledge shall contribute to the culture. The history courses that my generation has taken should be reviewed in a substantial way. It is a fact that each nation-state established the structure of the system on differences rather than commonalities, in order to emphasize the difference between one another. We built our former relations on differences. However, we shall build on commonalities now.

Aydın said that “the destiny of the Middle East is not in its hands” and added that “External intervention and meddling create much trouble. However, we, ourselves are guilty. Unless we can build our knowledge of the past on solid grounds, unless we plan our future depending on the knowledge we attain, and unless we can apply those plans, someone comes and gets everything torn apart in a small touch. We are excluded from a number of issues ranging from the drawing of our borders to our cultural life. Those who have history like we do, well not reach salvation unless they face their history and learn from it. “ Aydın touched upon the issue of axis shift and said those: “this region is at a crossroads. We are aware of this. Therefore, we shall reflect upon our relations and produce our own knowledge. Those who cannot understand this judge us with aiming to resurrect the Ottoman Empire, which has been extinct. However, our good relations in our neighborhood are a boon for the West and European security as well. There is no reason to get disturbed. Turkey-Syria relations and Turkey-Iraq relations will further develop. Such development is to the advantage of third parties as well. It is in the interest of Israel that the relations within the region get better. Future and well-being of Israel depends on the stability of all the states in the region. It is not possible for a state to be safe, secure and in peace, who is on hostile terms with its neighbors. Aydın hoped that the following meetings will prove to be successful as well.

Prof. Dr. Eraslan: “Time has confirmed that Ataturk was right.”

The Director of the Atatürk Research Center Prof. Dr. Cezmi Eraslan said that peoples of Turkey and Iraq have centuries old common values and there is a fraternity between them. Eraslan touched upon the issue of the attitudes of the founders of Turkey towards the Arabs and remarked that “In the Misakı Milli document, which is the first basic text of Turkey, the right of self determination our Arab brothers in the places that they form the majority is recognized”. Eraslan told that Mustafa Kemal Pasha defended the idea of gaining independence first, then going into a cooperation in several instances that a union with the Arabs was suggested, and he put that Turkey sought for peace in its region after it was founded, consistent with the application of the “Peace at Home, Peace in the World” principle. Eraslan reminded the words of Atatürk during the Saudi King Faisal’s visit on 7 July 1931: “Apart from the effect of the geographic and economic factors that affect the developing relations among nations, common interests and policies towards peace and stability cause Turkey and Iraq to get closer to each other”. Eraslan said that the time has confirmed Atatürk’s words. Eraslan told that this symposium contributed to the efforts by both two nations aimed at learning their own history through original sources, and he remarked that they are ready for further joint efforts.

Kanbolat: “Future has not been written yet. It is us intellectuals’ responsibility to write it”

The Director of ORSAM, Hasan Kanbolat emphasized in his speech at the beginning of the symposium that the intellectual dialogue is needed alongside with dialogue in political sphere, in order to understand the transformations in Iraq’s and Turkey’s recent history and make the mutual perceptions healthier. Kanbolat said that: “Men of letters, historians, sociologists, political scientists and International Relations experts from both countries must spend a great deal of effort. We consider this meeting as a part of an effort that is aimed at mutual understanding. We believe that the symposium will create the means for intellectuals from both countries to get to know each other. Cooperation among the intellectuals will bridge the gap between peoples of the two countries. Examining the historical dimension of the relations between the two countries will shed a light on the history and provide us with a better understanding of the future probabilities. Increasing cooperation between Turkish and Iraqi academics will reinforce the bridges between the peoples. The future has not been written yet. It is us intellectuals’ responsibility to write, organize and establish it. We need to change the course of the developments if we don’t want to face the worsening of the relations. We need to research on the ways to make our peoples live in better conditions. We need to get rid of our biases. Civilization requires consensus, trying to understand and accepting the differences. We need civilization more than anything.”

Iraq Cultural Advisor Prof. Dr. Muhammed El Hamdani gave a speech in the beginning of the symposium and said that Turkey-Iraq relations go deep in history the borders that were drawn afterwards could not hamper the fraternity, and that there is a commonality built on 1200 years together. Hamdani told that: “We lived shoulder to shoulder in the past. Great powers separated us. Then what must we do for the future? We need to get rid of misunderstandings. We must build a future in which we can live together”.

In the afternoon session of the first day, Turkish-Iraqi relations during the Seljuk-Ottoman eras were approached. Zemnun Yunus El Taii, Director of Musul Research Center, made a presentation about the administrative, financial and security regulations in Mosul during the Tanzimat Period. Taii told that the Ottoman presence left its marks in all Iraqi cities, which had effects that are still felt, and that the practices of the Tanzimat Period had positive outcomes.

Prof. Dr. Gülay Öğün Bezer told in her presentation about the Turkish-Iraqi relations in the Seljuk Era that the Turkish presence in Iraq started in the Abbasid Era, when Turkish soldiers were recruited; the Turkish presence gained political and military importance in the middle of the 11st century during the migration of the Oguz people; and after the Battle of Dandanakan in 1040, Tugrul Beg focused on the region. Bezer remarked that Tugrul Beg had an attentive relationship with the Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad and he made sure that the Caliph would not interfere in his sovereign area and gain political power. Bezer claimed that the Seljuks and their followers made good use of migrating Turks and told about the settling and construction practices, which, according to Bezer, constitutes one of the main sources of Iraq’s cultural and historical richness.

Osman Said, director of Science and Culture Forum in Fallujah, remarked that Baghdad and Istanbul are twins in science and Baghdad experienced a high level of development since the Ottomans conquered it. Said told that many madrasas and mausoleums were built and repaired in Baghdad in the Ottoman era, which eased the difficulties of the Ottomans’ decline, thanks to the high number of theologians and scientists in Baghdad. Said emphasized that scientist from the late era of the Ottomans helped build the state structure of Iraq.

Dr. Hut: “The Ottoman Empire struggled against Iran, not against the Shiites”

Assoc. Prof. Davut Hut from the Marmara University told in his presentation about Iraq in Abdulhamit II era that Iraq constitute a buffer zone between the Ottoman State and Iran and therefore the pressures by Iran had been influential in Ottoman’s administrative approach towards Iraq. Hut expressed that it would be wrong to state sectarian principles as the reason of the Ottomans’ approach towards the Iraqi Shiites and the prime reason is Iran’s political initiatives on the Shiite society. Dr. Hut reiterated that the policies of Mithat Pasha and Abdulhamit II had widespread influence on Iraq despite some side effects, and those policies reinforced the Ottoman control of the region, which has started to wane.

Prof. Nuri: “Arab Nationalism is an Abused Concept”
Turkey-Iraq Relations in the 20th century was the subject of the second session. Prof. Dr. Dureyd Abdulkadir Nuri, Deputy Iraq Culture Attache, said: “Turks lived alongside the Arabs when they arrived at Iraq... Turks are modest as a gift of creation. The word, “Servant” etched to the insignia of the Ottoman sultans. Turks never used force in an unjust way. They did not pursue material gain. They resisted the pressures of Zionism”. Nuri said that he is against the term of Arab Nationalism and told that “It is few in number that adapts this ideology. This is a concept, which was always abused from behind the curtain”.

Prof. Dr. Kursun: “Turkey and Iraq Do Not Know Each Other”

Prof. Dr. Zekeria Kursun from Marmara University, emphasized that Turkish and Iraqi societies do not know each other, which constitutes a serious problem. Kursun said: “Modern Turkish society does not know the Iraqi society. Intellectuals and authors do not know. During the nation-building and self-determination both sides forgot about the other. However, until the 1950s, statesmen from both countries talked in Turkish”. Kursun cited that “A supreme commission consisting of Turkish and Iraqi social scientists must be formed. We shall determine the main priorities in many fields, from history to society. What matters most is the mutual translation of the scientific books. We need to make Arabic, Turkish and Persian the languages of the intellectuals. We need to agree on the concepts to be used. We need to learn about each other from ourselves, not from third parties.”

Prof. Dr. Allaf: “We Need to Create a Generation Nourished on Facts”

Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Halil Al Allaf, director of Center for Regional Studies in Iraq, claimed that perceptions of the Arab world towards Turkey have changed after the March 1st Decree, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey has taken a historical decision, a great majority of Turkish people is against the invasion of Iraq, and Turkey has spent efforts for the independence and stability of Iraq since the beginning. Allaf said that “Turkey is an element of stability in the region. We have our best neighborly relations with Turkey. Our historians need to get together and work on common terms and concepts. We need to create a new generation nourished on facts and common culture.

Retired Ambassador Bilal Şimşir shared his assessments on the principles and practices of the treaty between Turkey and Iraq, which demarcated the border in 1926. Şimşir said that the relations, which were initially problematic, normalized in a short time. He also remarked that some border security issues still prevails as they did in the past.

Dr. Saad Abdulaziz Muslit from Mosul University said that an infusive cooperation rather than a discriminative one is needed and he cited “We should develop political consultation, and cooperation in economy especially in industry.”

“Attention to the Water Problem”

On the second day of the symposium, the future of Turkey-Iraq relations was handled. Prof. Dr. Osman Horata, the chair of the session, stressed that common energy projects, common cultural heritage, common foreign policy decisions and the water issue will go to the forefront in the future of the relations and said “The most important problem that can trouble the two countries might be the waters of Euphrates. If brave decisions are taken and implemented with a good will, this problem can disappear”.

Assist. Prof. Serhat Erkmen, ORSAM Middle East Advisor and Head of the Department of International Relations in Ahi Evran University reminded that Turkey was the only country that had the most obvious stance towards the invasion of Iraq and Turkey spent a great deal of effort for reconciliation efforts that included all groups after the invasion. Erkmen claimed that regional dynamics such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, the lack of solution in Palestine and Lebanon and Iran-USA tensions might influence Turkey-Iraq relations besides the dynamics of bilateral relations, and he predicted that the common strategic mentality between Ankara and Baghdad will continue. Erkmen claimed that, besides all these, common stance in fight against terrorism and water problems might continue to trouble the relations.

Dr. Basil Al-Gurayri from Iraq Center for Strategic Studies, remarked that Turkey, thanks to its latest regional initiatives, has become a central power, which pursues policies that solve problems rather than creating them. He also claimed that the great powers sought to punish Turkey for its policies in 2003; however time has confirmed that Turkey was right. Gurayri argued that Turkey was determined not to watch passively. Gurayri claimed that the water issue is not only and economic issue for Iraq, the water is the lifeblood of Iraq, therefore both countries must agree on it as fast as they can.

Asst. Prof. Veysel Ayhan, ORSAM Middle East Advisor from Abant Izzet Baysal University, Department of International Relations claimed that Turkey did not want a structure in Iraq, in which a group oppresses the others, rather Turkey hoped for a solution in Iraq, in which different groups can live together. Ayhan said that “What makes Turkey different from other countries in relations with Iraq is that Turkey does not exclude other groups while keeping relations with one of them. For Turkey, the stability in Iraq requires a structure to be built, in which participation by all groups to the political system is possible”. Ayhan remarked that from the First World War to 2005, the agenda of the region has been determined by external powers, and he claimed that “The problems were sought to be solved in Western capitals, and this brought more problems. We need to solve our problems ourselves”.
Dr. Cumeyli: ‘Let’s Arrange the Instruction Books Reciprocally’

Dr. Adnan Cumeyli talked at the last session, general evaluation, and declared that there is a need for a joint work to arrange the instruction books in both countries and said that the need Turkey’s archive because Iraq’s were looted at the invasion.

Prof. Dr. Gökhan Çetinsaya said that the necessary works should have been done about the 400 year old Ottoman heritage and the universities both in Iraq and Turkey are insufficient about this work. Çetinsaya explained that, like building a modern Turkey after Tanzimat Period, there have been some period like that in Iraq too and said that people born in 1880’s and grew up in Ottoman system built the modern Iraq. He added that the strategic benefits of Turkey and Iraq lead them to help each other, and Turkey has the understanding of ‘safety for everyone’. Çetinsaya emphasized that both Turkey and Iraq needs a political background to make the pluralism and different groups live together.

Prof. Dr. Bayat: “The English were afraid of a Turkish-Arab Alliance’

At the general evaluation session, the researcher in the Organization of the Islamic Conference-IRSICA, Prof. Fazıl Bayat, said that it was intentionally alleged by the English that the hostility between Arabs and Turkish, but they tried so hard to make this accepted by public polls and was actually successful. Bayat said these: ‘I’ve attended conferences at different Arab countries. Some of the terms they use drove me crazy. They say especially ‘Ottoman invasion’ and ‘Ottoman colonialism’. There was a congress that I’ve attended too in Damascus. All of the professors said that ‘Ottoman had frozen us for 400 years’. I’ve asked them this question: ‘What is frozen is either eaten or chucked out. Have they eaten you or chucked you out?’ I couldn’t get any answers. Those people have hostility in them. Is there have been really something to make it that way? I will give two examples. The Ottoman Empire spread over Arabic countries in 1516 and it continued for years. But we cannot put a clear date about when they leaved. Ottoman leaved Algeria in 1835 and this follows other countries too. Baghdad belonged to Ottoman until 1917. Ottoman flags were waved. Ottoman troops were withdrawn and occupation forces seized the city. A big meeting was held at the Ottoman barrack. They invited the people: ’Ottoman flag will be down and English flag will be up there. Come and watch the ceremony’. People ran through there but they all watch the ceremony crying. It is a person from Baghdad who records this historical anecdotal. Think about it, should Arabs have a hostility to Turkish, would those people had cried? This is the first example. The other one is this: When Ottoman withdrew in 1918; they brought the son of Şerif İhsan Pasha, who was educated up by Ottoman, as a king. First they made him chief executive and then king. The Arab nationalists there said ‘What have we done’. But it’s no use crying over a past mistake. They had agreed with English, they had been a part of their game, and there had nothing left. At that time the War of Independence in Anatolia was going on by Atatürk. They sent a delegate to Atatürk by there. They said ‘Let’s make a new Arab-Turkish country.’ This takes place even in English resources. I ask you, if there had been hostility would they want this? Churchill, the Minister of Defense at that time, hears this and delivers a speech. He says that for years their policy was to create hostility between Arabs and Turkish and after this time they will never accept that Turkish and Arab come together and make an alliance. Besides, after this English and French shared the region. They have found writers for rent to spread the so-called hostility between Arab and Turkish. They made writers to write thousands of books and articles. Now, what are in the Arab libraries are those writings. Arab historians show their opinions by those books. They show those books as resources at first hand. Are they right? No, they are wrong. I’m an Iraqi and I’m asking you Turkish: We are always blaming Arabs, and they are always referring to English sources. What are we doing as Turkish? Turkish Historical Society published some books in English, French, and Russian, but what about Arabic? You write them, show them the truth. They want the truth. It is our mission to show them the right way. Yesterday Mr. Basil said that we should institutionalize our relations and added that our governments can do this. This may be true for Turkey. If Turkey had taken a decision, it will continue for years. But it is not true for Iraq. I’ve worked in Representation Ministry at Saddam period. A sentence is still in my mind: ‘We change the constitution with a decision. Can’t we change a decision that you have said?’ I mean there may be institutes or there may be not, we should address to people. We should change the mistakes in their minds.’’

Assoc. Prof. Özlem Tür, ORSAM Middle East Advisor from METU, reminded the slogan of Foreign Minister Davutoğlu, “common destiny, common history, common future”, and said that many efforts focused on whether the interior dynamics of the region can bring about a new period, independent from the outside intervention. Tür claimed that in Turkey-Syria relations, the water issue has degraded into a technical issue when the political and economic relations developed. She argued that a similar situation is possible in Turkey-Iraq relations as well.


THE FINAL COMMUNIQUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
TITLED TURKEY-IRAQ RELATIONS: HISTORY AND OPENINGS TOWARDS THE FUTURE

The joint organizers of the international symposium titled “Turkey-Iraq Relations:
History and Openings towards the Future” has decided on the following points.

1. Continuing bilateral scientific contacts between universities and research centers in regular intervals,

2. Reviewing the phrases in school textbooks and studying together in order
to correct mistaken phrases, and establishing a joint commission for the task,

3. Publishing the symposium papers in Turkish, Arabic and English, and distributing them to the universities and research centers in the two countries,

4. Holding the following Turkey-Iraq relations symposiums in Baghdad and
Mosul by expanding the subject and participation, under the Iraq Ministry of
Higher Education hosting,

5. Promoting the widespread teaching and learning of Turkish and Arabic in our countries,

6. Spending efforts to make possible the mutually sharing of historical
resources and archival materials by attaching the necessary importance to
our common historical legacy,

7. Establishing contacts with the relevant authorities in order to start
scientist exchange programs.


Prof. Dr. Cezmi ERASLAN
Director of Atatürk Research Center

Prof. Dr. Muhammed El-HAMDANİ
Iraq Cultural Attache in Ankara

Hasan KANBOLAT
Director of Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies

Northern Iraq Observations 2: Influence of the Iraq Parliamentary Elections on the Kurdish Interior Politics

Oytun Orhan, ORSAM Middle East Researcher
http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/showArticle.aspx?ID=231

The events in the north of Iraq during the elections and the results of the elections have shown that the Kurdish politics has not normalized yet. It is seen that a movement, which may receive general support from the Kurds throughout all the areas that they live, are not present yet. The primary reason for that is the Kurdish voters still favor regional and tribal allegiances while casting their votes.



Besides, the political parties do not allow other political parties to propagate freely in their own areas. That control, which was previously upheld by violence, is now maintained through legal means. Each party dominated the areas they are strong in. Those views are shared by most Kurdish opinion leaders. Especially the Goran (Change) Movement frequently expresses their views on the frauds during the elections. However, it is strongly believed that if there had been free elections in Duhok, the Kurdish Islamist parties would have won.

The most important outcome of the elections in terms of the Kurdish interior politics is that KDP’s strength in the north has grown further. It is even to the extent that, some experts that we talked in Arbil has labeled KDP as “the sole authority”. The most probable outcome of such a view is that the alliance between KDP and PUK, which rests on the distribution of resources in half shares, might collapse. KDP might consider that its weight in the alliance has distinctively risen, so it does not have to share resources with PUK in half shares. During our talks in Arbil, in which KDP is dominant, it is observed that such views started to emerge. Above all, KDP has gained the psychological upper ground compared to PUK. The practical outcome of this might be the increasing share of KDP on resources, posts and privileges due to increased pressure over PUK. However, it is not realistic that KDP will be the sole determinant factor in the Kurdish politics.



Issues like “Kirkuk, Article 140, oil, the status of the peshmarga, presidency”, which the Kurds consider as “national problems” need the collaboration of the Kurdish parties, which hinder the KDP to gain the advantages of the election victory to the full extent. According to Dr. Sabah Suphi Hayder, the Head of the Department of Political Science in Salahaddin University, “the greatest factors that unite the Kurds are Kirkuk and the status of disputed areas”. KDP is unable to acquire advantages for the Kurds in those issues by working alone. For this reason, KDP officials evaluate the strategic alliance in a deliberate way. In the words of Pistivan Sadik, the Arbil representative of KDP, “strategic alliance is a national issue and Kurdish national interests come first. For this reason the strategic alliance will never collapse”.



Besides, KDP needs the support of PUK, for the regional government presidency. The last factor that drives KDP towards carrying on the strategic alliance is the increasing power of the Kurdish Islamist parties. KDP would want to keep PUK on its side against the Kurdish Islamists. All political groups in the Kurdish region are focused on the provincial elections that are to be held in October. Each party will individually take place in this election. Questioning the strategic alliance between KDP and PUK is mostly postponed to the post-elections period.

In this context the Kurds, leaving aside their problems, have signed an agreement on May 8th 2010, In order to have a stronger position in Baghdad. Five Kurdish parties, which won seats In the Parliament, have decided on acting together as a united front in Baghdad. The united front will enter the government negotiations on behalf of all five parties and all Kurdish parties will enter the government. Each party will have a share based on its proportion in the Parliament. The Kurds seek to compensate for their relative weakness after the elections. In the words of Dr. Sabah Suphi Hayder, the Head of the Department of Political Science in Salahaddin University, “the Kurds have to unite against the others despite their problems within each other”. This means that the Kurds consider Baghdad as a means to protect and further their acquisitions in the Kurdish region.

It was not possible in the previous election, to determine the power base of each party, because the parties took place in the blocs and the closed list system was adopted. It is now clearly known for the first time that which party is strong where, for the reason that the open list system was adopted. KDP won 30 seats and is the indisputable winner in terms of the Kurdish interior politics. Considering the results in a different perspective suggests that KDP’s success relies on its formulation of election strategy. Yet, the Goran and PUK are over KDP in terms of the vote count. PUK and Goran representatives that we talked in Sulaimany stated that it is completely a failure in the election strategy.KDP achieved success through focusing on candidates that are less in number. Asos Hadi, journalist from Sulaimany, puts that “KDP got 600,000 votes, while Goran got 420,000 and PUK got 410,000. The total votes of Goran and PUK exceed those of KDP; however KDP won more seats in the Parliament than PUK and Goran combined. This is totally a failure in election strategy.” Considering the distribution of votes, it is early to suggest that KDP is the center of attraction for the Kurds. However, it can be said that KDP’s political strength compared to the other political parties will rise.

One of the most critical issues regarding the Kurdish interior politics is the future of PUK and Talabani. PUK lost a great deal of political power in the regional parliamentary elections of 2009. The Goran Movement, which was established by former members of PUK, got 24% of total votes in the regional parliamentary elections. Although PUK has slowed its decline against the Goran Movement in March 7 Elections, the dual structure of the Kurdish politics based on KDP and PUK has collapsed. The future of PUK, which was dealt the most severe blow by the mentioned collapse, is focused on the period after Talabani. Talabani’s charismatic leadership is seen as the power that holds PUK together. However, Talabani has problems related to his health and the period after him is being discussed in a covert way. PUK will have difficult times, if Talabani retires from politics. The PUK Congress, which will be held in October, is of great importance, because it will shed some light on the period after Talabani. After the Congress, it is expected that significant changes will take place within PUK and important signals about the post-Talabani period will be seen. Now there are six fractions within PUK competing against each other. Talabani’s presence is considered as the factor hindering conflict and disintegration. According to Cemal Hüseyin, Editor-in-Chief of the Gele Kurdistan TV, which is the media arm of PUK, “the post-Congress PUK will in no way same as the pre-Congress PUK”.

Finally, looking at the perceptions among the Kurds on the results in Kirkuk province, it is possible to say that the results were blow the expectations. PUK and Goran candidates that we had the opportunity to talk before the election, predicted that the Kurds would gain eight and the Arabs would gain four seats out of the twelve seats of Kirkuk. They predicted that the Turkmans wil at most gain one single seat or none at all. Therefore, it was unexpected for the Kurds that they won six seats, the Arabs won four seats and the Turkmans won two seats. Besides, Al-Iraqiya list is the first in total votes cast. The results rule out the legitimate grounds for the claims of the Kurds over Kirkuk.



Kurdish politicians and opinion leaders that we talked after the elections were adamant that he results do not constitute a defeat for the Kurds. They claim that total votes of all Kurdish parties are more that the votes won by al-Iraqiya. However, it can be said that the Kurds are in second position in the total votes cast as well. That is because; the Turkmans and Arabs were divided into several parties just like the Kurds. Therefore, it is seen that non-Kurdish votes are greater in number when all Kurdish parties’ votes and all Arab and Turkman parties’ votes are compared.


June 15 2010

Interview with Iraqi Turkmen Front Chairman Sadettin Ergec

Dr. Sadettin Ergeç, Iraqi Turkmen Front Chairman, Iraqi Parliament Kerkuk Deputy

http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/showArticle.aspx?ID=137


As Iraq is entering a critical phase, ORSAM held an interview with Iraqi Turkmen Front Chairman Saadettin Ergeç on December 25 at the ITF Turkish representative office about the future of the Turkmen society in Iraq. Ergeç shared his opinions regarding politics in Iraq, the electoral law, pre-electoral alliances, developments in Kerkuk, the situation of the Turkmens and relations between Turkey and Turkmens.

Full text