{"id":284,"date":"2007-05-03T06:03:37","date_gmt":"2007-05-03T11:03:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=284"},"modified":"2007-05-03T06:11:58","modified_gmt":"2007-05-03T11:11:58","slug":"kirkuk-too-many-american-friends","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=284","title":{"rendered":"Kirkuk: Too Many American Friends?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Geopolitical chess is a complica<\/title>Geopolitical chess is a complicated affair.<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes there are too many enemies: circumstances demand that one enemy is prioritized and “lesser” evils are often reconstituted as the enemy of my enemy, i.e., my (provisional) friend.<\/p>\n<p>The US-Soviet alliance against Germany in World War II is the canonical case.\u00c2\u00a0 Similarly, <a href=\"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=210\">I have noted<\/a> that Cheney, for example, may at some point feel obligated to choose between antipathy toward Iran and Russia.<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes, however, there are too many friends: circumstances demand that one friend is prioritized and the “lesser” friend is sacrificed at the altar of the paramount friendship.<\/p>\n<p>In the current moment, the US appears to have “too many friends” in Northern Iraq: Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds are both considered “strategic allies.”\u00c2\u00a0 Both parties, for example, are <a href=\"http:\/\/voanews.com\/english\/2007-04-09-voa72.cfm\">pressing the United States to pick a side<\/a> in their battle for control of the city of Kirkuk and its vast oil resources.<\/p>\n<p>David Ignatius made the point in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2007\/04\/17\/AR2007041701457_pf.html\"> a recent <em>Washington Post<\/em> column<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The Bush administration has tried to finesse the problem, hoping to keep \ttwo friends happy: The Kurds have been America’s most reliable partner in \tIraq, while the Turks are a crucial ally in the region. But in recent weeks, \tthis strategy has been breaking down.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>There are at least two contentious issues: the idea of a “referendum” to determine the political fate of Kirkuk and the degree of “regional autonomy” in the new hydrocarbons law.<\/p>\n<p>Turkey opposes Kurdish autonomy (i.e., favors the “integrity” of the centralized Iraqi state) and consequently opposes both the referendum and regional control of oil.<\/p>\n<p>If push comes to shove, Turkey’s Chief of General Staff Gen. Ya\u00c5\u0178ar B\u00c3\u00bcy\u00c3\u00bckan\u00c4\u00b1t has <a href=\"http:\/\/www.turkishdailynews.com.tr\/article.php?enewsid=70637\"> threatened to intervene militarily<\/a> in Kurdish-dominated Northern Iraq.<\/p>\n<p>On the related referendum and the oil questions, one might imagine that the US would tend to squeeze the Kurds, not the Turks.<\/p>\n<p>Where is the dilemma?<\/p>\n<p>Ignatius identifies one key Kurdish asset: “U.S. hopes for long-term military bases in Kurdistan.”<\/p>\n<p>Be that as it may, Turkey is, among things, <em>absolutely central<\/em> to US efforts to thwart Russian monopolistic control of energy pipelines.<\/p>\n<p>One key Bush administration “diplomat” on this front is Matthew Bryza, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs.\u00c2\u00a0 Bryza <a href=\"http:\/\/news.independent.co.uk\/business\/news\/article2458902.ece\">leads the fight<\/a> against Russian energy giant, Gazprom.<\/p>\n<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/ankara.usembassy.gov\/statement_020107.html\">a February 2007 roundtable with Turkish journalists<\/a>, Bryza explained the nature of the US-Turkey strategic energy relationship in relation to Russia and the Caspian:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>So on energy security… [one thing] we did that was really substantial \twas our partnership in Caspian energy which obviously meant \tBakhu-Tblisi-Ceyhan which many people thought would never happen, and meant \tthe South Caucasus gas pipeline which is about to open.<\/p>\n<p>Today what we want to do is build on those pipelines, expand the corridor \tthat currently exists for natural gas and make it a major one, a big one, a \ttransit route that will help Europe diversify its gas supply so that it \tdoesn’t feel so much monopoly pressure from one direction. Our goal is not \tto have a confrontation with GazProm, but our goal is to increase \tcompetition, healthy commercial competition which in the long run is good \tfor everybody, including for GazProm itself, by the way. The key to making \tall that work is helping the Azerbaijani Government work with investors to \texpand gas production in Azerbaijan as quickly as possible to make sure gas \tis available to fill the pipelines that will go from Turkey to Greece and \tItaly, as well as [the Nabucco] pipeline from Turkey to Bulgaria, Romania, \tHungary and Austria.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In that same interview, Bryza was cagey but still relatively clear about US policy on the Kirkuk referendum:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Question: Are you saying that if you allow the Kirkuk Referendum to go \tahead, you’re going to put your signature to divide the country into three, \tat least, different countries or nations, whatever you name it. So do you \tagree with the Turkish vision in that?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Deputy Assistant Secretary Bryza: When the referendum in Kirkuk would \ttake place is not determined, right?<\/p>\n<p>Question: It is determined in the Constitution. It will happen before the \tend of this year.<\/p>\n<p>Deputy Assistant Secretary Bryza: Or will it? Who knows if it will. Will it \tactually?<\/strong> I don’t know if it will.<\/p>\n<p>Question: What does the U.S. think about Turkey’s position on it? Do you \tagree with the Turkish assessment on Kirkuk? If the referendum goes ahead it \tis going to be leveraged to divide the country or the Kurds.<\/p>\n<p>Deputy Assistant Secretary Bryza: The way I would answer that is to say that \tour goal, as President Bush just said, is to maintain a unified Iraq. \tAnything you hear to the contrary, any pundits or political speculation, \twhether they be people in power or out of power, to the contrary, is false. \t<strong>Our policy is to support a unified Iraq. We understand how sensitive, how \tdangerous the situation in Kirkuk is<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>The Governments of the United States and Turkey and Iraq, and Baghdad, I \tmean, share a common vision when it comes to Kirkuk in terms of not wanting \tthat situation to lead to the breakup of Iraq, right? And wanting there to \tbe a way to resolve the difficult property questions and demographic issues \tthat are what’s really fueling the political fire in Kirkuk.<\/p>\n<p>So on timing, et cetera, I don’t have anything else to say. And if you \treally want to get down into the details of that, please talk to our Iraq \tpolicy people. But in general I can say <strong>we do share the Turkish society \tand government’s vision that if Kirkuk is not managed properly it can become \ta terrible problem that works against our shared goal of maintaining a \tunified Iraq<\/strong>. That’s our goal. We’ve got to do that.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.turkishdailynews.com.tr\/article.php?enewsid=66268&mailtofriend=1\"> Did Cheney give a more straightforward promise<\/a> to Turkish Gen. Ya\u00c5\u0178ar B\u00c3\u00bcy\u00c3\u00bckanit when the two leaders met in February?\u00c2\u00a0 I wouldn’t be surprised if he did.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.today.az\/news\/politics\/36250.html\">When Turkey came to Bryza for support on the hydrocarbons law<\/a>, Bryza offered up what appeared to be a vague response:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>“One: We completely understand why Turkey is uncomfortable,” said Bryza. \t“Two: we unequivocally favor Iraq’s territorial integrity, which President \t[George W.] Bush reiterated in his recent speech on Iraq. Three: the \thydrocarbon law was not written by us but by a sovereign state that is \tIraq.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The “third” leg of that answer is, presumably, meant to deflect criticism.\u00c2\u00a0 But given the massive US involvement in drafting that law, Bryza’s answer seems intended as a way to call attention provisions of the law that <em>favor the Turkish position<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>And, undoubtedly, this helps explain recent news, first announced by <em> <a href=\"http:\/\/english.aljazeera.net\/NR\/exeres\/B623B1FE-266E-4CA4-ABC3-14F71E8CB8EB.htm\"> Al Jazeera<\/a><\/em> and now reiterated by the <em> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/05\/03\/world\/middleeast\/03iraq.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all\"> New York Times<\/a><\/em>, that the Kurds are balking at the terms of the new law.<\/p>\n<p>Ed Wong of the <em>New York Times<\/em> has actually been <a href=\"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=205\">reporting on Kurdish discontent for some time<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Shiites and Turkey are united on the centralization provisions of the hydrocarbons law.<\/p>\n<p>If the US is going to squeeze the Kurds on this one, then Sunni political forces constitute a crucial swing vote.<\/p>\n<p>Edward Wong and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the <em> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/05\/03\/world\/middleeast\/03iraq.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all\"> New York Times<\/a><\/em> report that Sunni Arab parliamentarians look set to stand with the Kurds:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Contributing a further layer of complication, a Sunni Arab legislator \tsaid Wednesday evening that the main Sunni Arab bloc, which has 44 \tlegislative seats, objected to any discussion of the law in Parliament at \tthis time. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Acceleration in presenting it is inappropriate since the \tsecurity condition is not encouraging,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said the legislator, Saleem \tAbdullah. He said Sunni Arabs were also worried that the law would give \tforeign companies too large a role in the country\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s oil industry. Sunni Arab \tpolitical leaders supported cabinet approval of the draft law, but appear \tambivalent now.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This is, shall we say, a <em>very strategic<\/em> ambivalence…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Geopolitical chess is a complicaGeopolitical chess is a complicated affair. Sometimes there are too many enemies: circumstances demand that one enemy is prioritized and “lesser” evils are often reconstituted as the enemy of my enemy, i.e., my (provisional) friend. The US-Soviet alliance against Germany in World War II is the canonical case.\u00c2\u00a0 Similarly, I have […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=284"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}