|
Well thanks for this article handsom, it was informative for us Turks once again. No name calling here. I just want to share some of my thoughts on the establishment of a Kurdistan, and some of the possible intentions that may lurk behind such an idea.
True, the idea of establishing a new country called Kurdistan, which will supposedly include southeastern Turkey, parts of Iran and Iraq, has been around for a while. But, on the contrary to your suggestion, this idea has nothing to do with the thoughtful & benevolent sentiments about giving ´landless people´ their land that they can call their own in the name of justice or fairness. The Kurdish issue, as well as the Armenian issue, has always been political tools designed, implemented and propogated by Western countries. Depending on the specific geopolitical circumstances of each time period, the Kurdish & Armenian cards are played by the big players, such as the US, Germany, France, and the UK, for the sole purpose of protecting their vested interests in the region. The involvement of Germany & the UK in funding & arming the PKK, and escalating violence in Turkey is well known. (That is also the main reason why both countries today have a lot of Kurdish immigrants. In accordance with the vested interests of these countries, they found it more suitable to play the Kurdish card, rather than the Armenian card. The Kurdish issue served their purposes better. As a side effect of their past involvement, both Germany & the UK are having serious problems with organized crime. The Kurdish mafia in London has completely taken over the lucrative business of trafficking heroin, which used to be the playing field of the Turkish organized crime groups in the past. The situation is similar in Germany and Holland as well. But this is just a side effect, and doesn´t have much to do with the topic..)
Whether the Turkish army reacted the right way or not to these externally imposed challenges is debatable. However, the real cuplrits behind this state-sponsored terrorism were Germany & the UK, not really Turkey. I have always felt that the Turkish army should have been smarter and have employed different tactics to deal with the problem. For over a decade, over one third of the government´s revenues went into dropping bombs on its own land and people. The Turkish army literally shot itself in the foot.
The Armenian issue, on the other, has always been supported and escalated by France. That is why there is, to this day, a strong Armenian lobby in France. The US plays both cards depending on their key interests. Although the Armenian lobby is not as strong as it is in France, the Armenina issue, from time to time, re-surfaces and becomes part of the political tools intended to "show a stick under the table." Currently, the US is toying with the Kurdistan card; but tomorrow they may suddenly switch to the Armenian card depending on how things go. I don´t think I need to tell you that neither issue has any humanitarian basis or that any of these civilized Western countries give a damn either about Kurds or Armenians. They don´t. They see and use them as pawns on a global chessboard. Both are used as political tools that are intended to benefit the interests of foreign powers. You may wonder about what these interests are, and I would suggest paying attention to the shifting power dynamics in the region over the last decade.
The first invasion of Iraq, which followed the fact that Saddam´s Iraq became the first major oil producing country to start selling oil in Euros rather than in the standard petro-dollars, was intended specifically to send a clear message to the rest of the oil producing countries that any deviation from the petro-dollar standard would not be tolerated by the US due to the understandable consequences it would have on their economy. Of course, CNN did not reflect this reality. The reason why Saddam´s act was perceived as a serious threat to US interests is simply because, for the past thirty years, the US economy has been benefitting from all other countries having to buy their oil exclusively in US dollars. Oil, today, is exchanged on three platforms - NYMEX in New York, the London Petroleum Exchange and the platform in Singapore. The critical point is that, regardless of where you get your oil, you have to pay for it in US dollars. Norway is an exception, but it is also not a major player. When the only currency in which you can buy oil is the US dollar, every country in the world had no choice but to keep excessive amounts of US dollars in their reserve banks. Over two thirds of the US dollars in circulation are actually outside the US, retained by countries like Japan, China, Taiwan, India, Singapore etc. Imagine what would happen, if the status quo was broken; the oil-producing countries started selling oil in Euros or another currency; and the rest of the world that had been keeping huge amounts of US dollars in their reserves started dumping these petro-dollars into the the money markets to exchange them for Euros or any other currency. It would lead to hyper inflation in the US, and cause its economy to collapse over night.
The US simply went in; passed along its message to any other leader entertaining similar thoughts; and left with Saddam still in power. They could have replaced him with another puppet government, but they didn´t. For some reason, they decided to keep their old puppet in power. Saddam and the Bush family go way back. They used to shake hands in the White House during the days that Saddam was obedient. The issue of why Saddam was not replaced after the first invasion has never been satisfactorily answered.
The current monetary policies of the US give tremendous financial advantage to the US at the expense of the rest of the world. Before the Bretton Woods Agreement was abolished by Nixon in 1973, all currencies were pegged to a gold-standard meaning that countries could only mint as much as the gold that they possessed. This was changed, and the US switched to a floating system in which it had the absolute advantage of printing money at the cost of the ink & paper it was printed on. Just to give you an idea; the cost of buying, let´s say, 2 million dollars worth of oil is actually the cost of the paper and the ink that will be needed to print those banknotes by the Federal Reserve - not its equivalent value in gold. And, when everyone else has to pay for their oil in dollars, the US can understandably afford to have the huge trade deficit they have been running for years without collapsing. However, as I said, all of this dynamic depends exclusively on the rather vague notion of faith that other countries place on the reliability of the US dollar and its hegemony as the only currency in which oil can be traded.
Let´s move onto Iran. After the Shah incident, Iran became a rouge state primarily because the western oil companies from Britain & the US were nationalized, and these countries lost all control over the affairs of Iran. The freaking mullahs took over the business; partnered with Russia, China & Pakistan; and went stray against western interests. The know-how of the nuclear capacity that Iran is accused of developing was provided to Iran, as well as to China & Pakistan, by no one else, but Russia. In retaliation, Israel & the US passed the nuclear know-how to India. There is actually a military pact in place between Russia, Iran, China and Pakistan in which these four countries agree to aid each other in case of a military attack by the West. Quite similar to the concept of the NATO. Russia got into this deal in exchange for Iran to cease its support of pan-Islamic movements in its resource-rich Central Asian regions, which Russia perceived as a threat. It was also done in retaliation to the CIAs involvement in the Afghan-Russian War, which was actually the birth place of the mujaheddin & al-Qaida. Most of those being accused of being terrorists or insurgents today got their first training at the hands of seasoned CIA operatives, who had carried out similar operations in places, such as Chile, Nicaragua, Bolivia etc. Another fine example of state-sponsored terrorism.
The US saw a good opportunity in fostering oppressive & fundamentalist pan-Islamic regimes in Central Asia in the hopes of de-stabilzing the Soviets, and it back-fired on them in the long-run. In addition to partnering with Russia, Iran, like Saddam, is also guilty of the crime of attempting to sell its oil in alternative currencies than the petro-dollars. Iran has been actively promoting the idea of establishing a new platform to be based in Paris that would trade oil in Euros. Iran´s longer-term ambition is to establish a new Middle Eastern currency, called Drahma, similar to the Euro, and convince all major oil producing countries in the region to trade exclusively in this new currency. As a result, the US has chosen to demonize Iran for developing nuclear weapons so that the excuse would be there to justify a future attack against Iran, if Iran did not abandon its ambitions.
Let´s go back to the second invasion of Iraq. The invasion has multiple purposes. The first purpose was to replace Saddam as he became increasingly disobedient as a puppet. The second purpose was to look for an alternative to Saudi Arabia. The greedy Saud family, which was put in power by the Brits, and later dominated by the Americans, has never been anything, but another puppet dictatorship funded & supported by Western powers. They have been exploiting the resources of their country; filling their own pockets and serving American interests at the expense of the rest of Saudi Arabians. It is estimated that they own over 10 percent of all real estate in the US in colloboration with Citibank & the Carllyle Group - a major player in arms dealing. Because they have been so greedy, and have not invested into anything in Saudi Arabia other than into their own body-guard armed forces & and an oppressive police force, there is much dissent among the youth. There is nearly 40 percent unemployment, and a very pessimistic view among the young Saudis. It is very likely that, through a popular revolt, the Saud family may be toppled over in the near future. If that happens, or if it is organized/arranged to happen, Iraq will become the new base for the US to operate within the Middle East replacing Saudi Arabia. It is an ideal location in the sense that the US will be able to reach Iran, as well as any other part of the middle east, including Turkey, while exploiting the oil resources.
With the scenario that I have tried to construct, I think it is reasonable to assume that it would be in US interests to support the formation of an independent Kurdistan, which would naturally lead to the destabilization of both Turkey and Iran. An artificial state, such as Kurdistan, which would have no resources other than the Mosul-Kirkuk oil reserves would be nothing but a new puppet regime for the West. I wonder how this equation would translate for the average Kurd. A country of their own, but also a country that does not really belong to them. We will see if this scenario will realize. There are certainly obstacles that could challenge these ambitions. Russia, for example, does not favor the idea at all. And, believe me when I tell you that Russia is still the second most influential player on the field. Don´t make the mistake of assuming that the Soviets collapsed and lost the Cold War.
The collapse of the USSR was staged. It was a chess move. There is a reson why Russia produces the best chess players in the world. This staged collapse served two purposes and benefitted Russia, while damaging the US. The first purpose was to severe the bond between the US and Western Europe, which had been in existance since the end of the Second World War. The EU had no choice but allign itself with the US in exchange for a possible, or imaginery, Russian Invasion, while Russia had to carry the burned of supporting an Eastern European block that was useless in the sense that Eastern European countries alligned with Russia lacked valuable natural resources. What mattered to Russia was not the resource-poor Eastern Europe, but the resource-rich Central Asian states, which are still under the sphere of influence of Russia despite their independence. Russia, cleverly, got rid of its Eastern European burden; gave the Western Europe the impression that they didn´t need US support anymore, which lead to a diversion of US and European policies; managed to retain its Central Asian territories and secretly continued its role as a major player in the scene.
Everything really depends on how the big boys will cut a deal to establish the new power dynamics. Kurdistan may or may not be part of that plan. Analysts often state that there are two regions in the world, whose destabilization could lead to a third world war. These regions are Turkey & Iran. We will see what happens.
I don´t agree with you that what you posted has anything to do with the rights of Kurdish minorities, or their struggle to retain their culture, while forming an independent state. There a lot of realities under the appearances that you seem to miss, if you truly believe this is about justice or fairness. This is a political game.
|
