A question for Turks

[♪alt13]

Turkey has almost no oil. Turkey is number 62 in the world for oil production. Behind France, Italy, Japan, Australia, Denmark, Vietnam to name a few.

There is only 1 thing that I think can fix this problem. Increase standards of living. (Booming economy, more rights etc).

Native Americans and Mexican Americans don't complain too much about America because living standards are pretty good. If Turkey receives booming economy where the standards of living for all its citizens including its Kurdish citizens increase greatly, I think it would cause less terrorists to form. You think Nazi's would have come to power if Germany wasn't so dirt poor from WW1?

That's part of it but there is more to it.

The Mexicans have a state. So regardless of whether they are living in it they feel like they have a national identity. (I think)

The sentence above probably does apply to first and second generation Mexican Americans(I think) but also all Americans tend to identify ourselves as people belonging to a set of documents(The US Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, etc.). Almost all immigrants share a similar if not greater pride in them as natural born citizens do in my experience.

While I think Native Americans share pride in being US citizens they also were scorned pretty hard. Honestly the biggest reason we likely don't have a serious Native American independence movement is due to one of the worst and most complete genocides in modern history. Most NAs either don't speak their native tongue or speak it as a second language. In fact there is a real threat that most if not all Native American languages could become extinct in the next 100 years. The Native American population in the US is also, largely for the same reasons, surprisingly small.

from wikipedia

The 2010 Census showed that the U.S. population on April 1, 2010, was 308.7 million.[105]

Out of the total U.S. population, 2.9 million people, or 0.9 percent, reported American Indian or Alaska Native alone. In addition, 2.3 million people, or another 0.7 percent, reported American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races. Together, these two groups totaled 5.2 million people. Thus, 1.7 percent of all people in the United States identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, either alone or in combination with one or more other races.

To add further perspective. While only 0.9% reported being American Indian or Alaska Native alone 13.2% reported being Black or African American alone and 17.1% reported being Hispanic or Latino alone. There is not to my knowledge 1 majority Native American city or town in the whole of the US that approaches 100,000 people. You see Native Americans, their language, and their culture has been almost completely annihilated. A fact most Americans still have a hard time facing.

There have been some pushes over the years from groups like AIM(American Indian Movement) and there are members of the Lakota Sioux that want an independent Nation in parts of what is now Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. The truth is reservations are probably the closest Native Americans will get to having an Independent Nation not because they never wanted one but because they were pushed to the brink of extinction.


That's the way I see it anyway

 

[Tarkanian]

Really? Why? Is the primary problem ideological, ethnic, economic, sectarian? (a little surprised by your last sentence tbh)

belated nationalism.
Kurds are on a roll and they are in right in the middle of a full throttle nation-building process.
Nation building is a fascinating phenomenon, which is, as Dutch reminded, apt to be "illogical" at times.
You need to find stuff or create some, which should define your group as well as some "others" who shall play the evil guy.
For Balkans, that other was the Turks.
I am afraid, Kurds of Turkey seriously "dislike" the entity called Turk.
Because this entity also offers an "identity" which tend to -succesfully- create a melting pot in the expense of local identities.
Turkey has its own peace process, making use of sophisticated peace instruments.
In such processes you, first of all things, have to reject the archaic winner-loser dichotomies; all those stemming from zero-sum-game logic.
However, despite the fact that Turkish government has been succesful in its delicate approach, I have failed to see the same responsible attitude on behalf of Kurdish parties and politicians. They have been utterly singing hymns of victory, which defies the logic of peace building and conflict resolution methodology.
They have been raising the bar and voicing -for Turkish society at least for now- unacceptable demands.
They have amassed serious popular support in their regions and everybody there believes Government was brought on to its knees.
Now that is wrong.
In Semdinli PKK tried to raise the flag of revolt, like 2 years ago. There has been an efficient censorship but I know for a fact that PKK aimed to create a controlled zone and failed at that with 6 to 9 hundred corpses left back, in a week!
In a week!
That is one of the biggest military fiascos PKK experienced!
Following this, now enter the rather victorious and imprudent attitude, which really don't appreciate the insightfulness of the government approach but tie everything to their military prowess (?).
This hunger cannot be stopped!
Kurds will want moar, Turks will reject and chaos, mayhem and bloodshed baby!
Barzani "is" another actor BTW, PKK is someone else.
There is no such thing as a Kurdish side. There are many Kurdish sides jockeying for power.

 

[ema]

Really? Why? Is the primary problem ideological, ethnic, economic, sectarian? (a little surprised by your last sentence tbh)

I would think that he's also afraid of the government, the ruler party, AKP. Erdoğan is not only a wannabe dictator but also a stupid one. He has a New Ottoman dream and he sees the Kurdish controversy as a tool in that. Now in hindsight, I think he wanted to have a word on the Northern Syria when he was trying to take down Essad. I think he though he could have authority on the newly designed areas in Rojava(Northern Syria) and he would use those lands as negotiation assets and give some lands from there to the Kurds to process his ongoing so called peace course.

Of course he screwed up with his Syrian policy and now we have to deal also with Isil thanks to him. But a bigger mistake of him was, in my opinion, the figure he has chosen to negotiate his so called Peace Course with. The leader of the PKK, Apo, who should have been executed when we caught him. But instead we revoked the whole supreme punishment just not to hang him. Anyway, Apo is just the leader of a pathetic terrorist group, he didn't lead Kurdish people, he didn't lead Arab people in the Southern Turkey, he didn't lead Turkish people in the Southern Turkey, he didn't lead any sect, religion, ethnic groups or whatsoever in the region and he did nothing to have the tutelage of any of those people, but now, thanks to Erdoğan, he holds a great authority over all people living in those lands, while he's in prison in an isolated island. Erdoğan even put the highest ranked military personnel into prison for the negotiations he was doing with Apo.

Btw, I'm calling it so called peace negotiations because there isn't anything resembling peace with the PKK conflict. PKK continues arming and they are kidnapping 10-16 years old kids to recruit, they are recruiting from the universities, and violence continues in the Southern Turkey while also the Kurdish people gets slaughtered by secretly AKP-supported Isil terrorists. It's just so much for negotiating peace.

What do you think about the Scottish independence referendum? How about the Ukrainian situation? Are there any parallels themes in Turkey? Does belonging to the EU make it easier for the UK to just vote on it? Is it shared language?

Funny you asked about Scottish issue as I recently read one of my fav writers on the subject. He was complaining why all the Scottish and similar conflicts/deals(like ETA, Ira, Wales etc)were bad examples(those are being discussed in Turkey a lot) for comparing with the Kurdish issue.

The Kurdish separatists want a separated independent country(lands) with an independent army. The non-separatist but strong Kurdish nationalists want strong autonomy with legislative, executive power along with the power on the oil and other resources on the area. These are far from what British gave or willing to give to the Scottish, Northern Ireland or Wales. This is the case even though those fellas have their own major history of state/governmental structures. They had kingdoms, states, armies, wars and everything related to state tradition unlike Kurdish people. They had fronts, borders, they stayed much more homogenous, and now they want their independence "back".

As for the referendum, a British friend of mine thinks it's a joke and will be useless. According to him, the majority of the UK don't even think that the Scottish parliament has the power to order such a referendum and he thinks it's unlikely the results will get any recognition to lead a full independence. Maybe UK would give them more independence as in legislative power or etcetera if the results are overwhelmingly pro-independence but otherwise, he thinks it will be noneffective.

Now comparing the referendum with Turkey's situation, I don't think there would be any referendum for the independence of the Kurdish people ever, but there might be one for a federation-like structure for a local Kurdish parliament etc in a couple decades. But for the sake of being hypothetical, even if we had a referendum for a Kurdish independence a la Scottish referendum, the results would be overwhelmingly a big NO to it because, unlike the Scottish referendum, it would have to include all of the Turkish citizens in the voting process, so not a chance. There wouldn't be any chance of positive outcome for the Scottish independence either, if all the UK citizens were voting.

About the Ukraine question, obviously no countries or international organizations think that the Crimea referendum is legal and fair. Only Russia and its a few satellite friends, like Kazakhstan and Armenia recognize it. Beyond being illegal, the results are suggesting it was awfully a fraud. How can the outcome be 97% in favor of joining the Russian Federation when almost the half of the Crimea are Ukrainians, Crimean Turks(Tatars) and other ethnic groups. And that demographics is after only the heavy Russification of the lands. In 1900, 40% were Tatars, and only a quarter of the population were Russian, but they settled over a million Russians there over the time so now, more than half of the population is Russian while Ukrainians are in the minority and the Tatars are almost disappearing at only 12%.

 

[ema]

belated nationalism.
Kurds are on a roll and they are in right in the middle of a full throttle nation-building process.
Nation building is a fascinating phenomenon, which is, as Dutch reminded, apt to be "illogical" at times.
You need to find stuff or create some, which should define your group as well as some "others" who shall play the evil guy.
For Balkans, that other was the Turks.
I am afraid, Kurds of Turkey seriously "dislike" the entity called Turk.
Because this entity also offers an "identity" which tend to -succesfully- create a melting pot in the expense of local identities.
Turkey has its own peace process, making use of sophisticated peace instruments.
In such processes you, first of all things, have to reject the archaic winner-loser dichotomies; all those stemming from zero-sum-game logic.
However, despite the fact that Turkish government has been succesful in its delicate approach, I have failed to see the same responsible attitude on behalf of Kurdish parties and politicians. They have been utterly singing hymns of victory, which defies the logic of peace building and conflict resolution methodology.
They have been raising the bar and voicing -for Turkish society at least for now- unacceptable demands.
They have amassed serious popular support in their regions and everybody there believes Government was brought on to its knees.
Now that is wrong.
In Semdinli PKK tried to raise the flag of revolt, like 2 years ago. There has been an efficient censorship but I know for a fact that PKK aimed to create a controlled zone and failed at that with 6 to 9 hundred corpses left back, in a week!
In a week!
That is one of the biggest military fiascos PKK experienced!
Following this, now enter the rather victorious and imprudent attitude, which really don't appreciate the insightfulness of the government approach but tie everything to their military prowess (?).
This hunger cannot be stopped!
Kurds will want moar, Turks will reject and chaos, mayhem and bloodshed baby!
Barzani "is" another actor BTW, PKK is someone else.
There is no such thing as a Kurdish side. There are many Kurdish sides jockeying for power.

Turkish government is far from being successful at anything related to the Kurdish problem. The biggest mistake is, imo, dealing with PKK. Yep, PKK brought the AKP on its knees. But it's far from that bad picture you draw public wise. It's bad in some cities but most of the cities with Kurdish majority, there isn't that dislike you talk about towards the Turkish entity.

I agree with you on many points especially with your previous post but I think you overreacting to the chaos that Erdoğan created. When they are gone, I believe the waters will be much more still.

 

[Tarkanian]

Turkish government is far from being successful at anything related to the Kurdish problem. The biggest mistake is, imo, dealing with PKK. Yep, PKK brought the AKP on its knees. But it's far from that bad picture you draw public wise. It's bad in some cities but most of the cities with Kurdish majority, there isn't that dislike you talk about towards the Turkish entity.

I agree with you on many points especially with your previous post but I think you overreacting to the chaos that Erdoğan created. When they are gone, I believe the waters will be much more still.

I think this so-called peace process will create a much stronger nationalist and secessionist PKK, which thinks it has defeated Turkey.
This mistaken self-perception will cause a huge increase in the violence, methinks.

add-on: I trhink almost in every Kurd there is a nationalist. I have been proven wrong but the majority has been won by the PKK.

 

[♪alt13]

So what about the Iraqi Kurds? Can they exist in peace within a federal Iraq or is independence their best option there? Considering all the historical problems in Iraq and the present situation.

If they were to become independent of Iraq do you see that as effecting Turkey positively or negatively long term/short term?

 

[ema]

So what about the Iraqi Kurds? Can they exist in peace within a federal Iraq or is independence their best option there? Considering all the historical problems in Iraq and the present situation.

As far as I know, many years ago,Turkey has declared that an independent Kurdish state is a cause of war, whether it's outside of our borders or not. It's still current I guess but some some governors with Kurdish roots in the government, started to talking about it and trying to insinuate the idea. I don't know what would be the exact reactions of the Turkish state though.

In my point of view, I don't buy much into the arguments of "Turks had 16 empires in the history, Kurds had nothing so they don't deserve and can't do/have anything". I believe that the Kurds have every rights to establish a nation/state as long as it's out of our borders, and if they are gonna do it within the justice(which seems very unlikely for now because they are already drunk with power in the Northern Iraq). But now they are big in number, about 30-35 millions in the region(not only Iraq) and they are breeding and growing very fast(no offense intended) so they are closer than ever.

However, there are very huge problems in the way. First, the area is, as all you know, a crazy crazy ****hole, a total mess. There are sunni-shia conflicts, there are sunni-sunni conflicts, there are mad groups in the region like Isil, Al-Qaeda, Iraqi Hezbollah, Al-Nusra, Free Syrian Army and there are struggling governments of Iraq and Syria for their territorial integrity and there are about a thousand other large and small military groups that can produce another Isil at anytime anywhere. Also, the Kurdish people are very scattered around the area and they just can't migrate for the sake of an independent Kurdistan with an uncertain future. Plus, there is Iran that surprisingly objected very strongly to the independent Kurdistan idea just recently.

And there are HUGE interest conflicts between the big actors. Russia, Iran, UK, US and China are all watching the things with eyes full opened. Even only the Mosul and Kirkuk are enough to make one of these countries(plus Turkey) to take an action. UK is already very vigilant on the subject. Turkey is also very very sensitive about those places as we couldn't save them from the British and had to leave to Iraq. After the US Iraq invasion, the Kurdish people got the authority like they did in all Northern Iraq, and the first thing they tried was to de-turkify the cities. They also unarmed Turkmen people as much as they could, poor guys are the only disarmed ethnic group in the whole mid-east. So Turkey has its reasons to act about Mosul and Kirkik, which are the dream of the independent Kurdistan.

Just at this point, I should say that, if the Kurds really really want to establish their free Kurdistan, they have to be a LOT more modest. If you just google imaginary Kurdistan maps, you can see how high they are flying. None of the regional powers would let them to have those dreams, not in a billion years. But anyway, now they are busy with fighting against the Isil and to me, it's a good exercise for them in the way of their goals, as they are, for the first time in their history, trying to play on a different level, holding a governmental power(basically the current Iraq) and fighting against guerrillas/terrorists with a more regular army.

If they were to become independent of Iraq do you see that as effecting Turkey positively or negatively long term/short term?

I really have no idea about this question, it's just too complicated and there are too many variables. But basically, I could say, if it's going to happen through a painful road, like wars, crisis, hostility and all, it would obviously very corrosive for Turkey. But if there is a chance for it to happen within the cooperation, assistance or guidance of Turkey(it can happen if it benefits Turkey somehow) with a good and friendly start up and with a strong peace treaty, I'd say it could be good for the both sides. But even in that case, I really don't think that the majority of the Kurdish people in Turkey would leave Turkey because, like I said in the previous posts, we are just way too much unified in Turkey to simply disintegrate and people just do not leave their families/homes.

 

[♪alt13]

How it seems to me and why I asked the question I did.

All the reports about Iraqi Kurdistan focus on Turkey and particularly Erdogan as the King Maker. They also point out that Turkey would be unlikely to support and may indeed actively oppose an independent Kurdistan in Iraq because it might encourage the PKK.

I think everyone understands that Iraq, despite the **** hole it has become, is of great Geo-strategic and Geo-political interest to a great many nations. In fact it's **** holiness is due in part to the extra-national "attention" it gets. The shi'ite led government that has been consolidating more control of the country represents a decided power shift towards Iran. It seems there is probably little Turkey could do to enhance their influence in Baghdad. At the same time Turkey's influence has been increasing in Erbil. It seems that an Iraqi Kurdistan, whether fully independent of Iraq or with greater autonomy, would be so dependent upon Turkey as to be almost a satellite of or continuation of Turkey itself.

Oil. In which direction will the oil from Kirkuk flow? North towards Turkey or south to the Gulf? It is doubtful that if Baghdad controls Kirkuk that they would put it in a pipeline that flows through Iraqi Kurdistan.

Ethnic Turks in Iraq. Despite the years of distrust I imagine that with Isis on their doorstep many Iraqi Turks might prefer a Turkish backed Kurdistan to the chaos that is the alternative. Turkey would assuredly demand a guarantee that the ethnic Turks rights were respected. Turkey would have the power/influence to enforce their demands.

I tend to think that most people just want to lead a decent life with opportunity and free of persecution. I don't think that most people heavily invest themselves in extreme politics if they have little to gain and a lot to lose. The Media sells a great Turkish fear of a revitalized Kurdish independence movement and I wanted to see to what degree that was the truth.

It seems that if Turkey can walk the tight rope of supporting greater autonomy of Iraqi Kurds(most likely silently) whilst subduing Kurdish nationalist urges within her borders, she has a great deal to gain.

 

[ema]

How it seems to me and why I asked the question I did.

All the reports about Iraqi Kurdistan focus on Turkey and particularly Erdogan as the King Maker. They also point out that Turkey would be unlikely to support and may indeed actively oppose an independent Kurdistan in Iraq because it might encourage the PKK.

I think everyone understands that Iraq, despite the **** hole it has become, is of great Geo-strategic and Geo-political interest to a great many nations. In fact it's **** holiness is due in part to the extra-national "attention" it gets. The shi'ite led government that has been consolidating more control of the country represents a decided power shift towards Iran. It seems there is probably little Turkey could do to enhance their influence in Baghdad. At the same time Turkey's influence has been increasing in Erbil. It seems that an Iraqi Kurdistan, whether fully independent of Iraq or with greater autonomy, would be so dependent upon Turkey as to be almost a satellite of or continuation of Turkey itself.

Oil. In which direction will the oil from Kirkuk flow? North towards Turkey or south to the Gulf? It is doubtful that if Baghdad controls Kirkuk that they would put it in a pipeline that flows through Iraqi Kurdistan.

Ethnic Turks in Iraq. Despite the years of distrust I imagine that with Isis on their doorstep many Iraqi Turks might prefer a Turkish backed Kurdistan to the chaos that is the alternative. Turkey would assuredly demand a guarantee that the ethnic Turks rights were respected. Turkey would have the power/influence to enforce their demands.

I tend to think that most people just want to lead a decent life with opportunity and free of persecution. I don't think that most people heavily invest themselves in extreme politics if they have little to gain and a lot to lose. The Media sells a great Turkish fear of a revitalized Kurdish independence movement and I wanted to see to what degree that was the truth.

It seems that if Turkey can walk the tight rope of supporting greater autonomy of Iraqi Kurds(most likely silently) whilst subduing Kurdish nationalist urges within her borders, she has a great deal to gain.

What do you think about the US perspective?

A free Kurdistan is maybe an even bigger deal than the Iraq war as far as the impact it can create. So no doubt, the US have projections and preferences on the matter. To me that is the biggest determinative, what American state wants. Because only what they want happens in the mid-east, even if it can go out of their control or turn into a disaster, they still have the biggest word, over Turkey's or any other state's word. Right now they are letting(maybe they have to let for now) the Isis/Isil run the show but it's so bound to change when/if the US decides to the something about it.

 

[♪alt13]

What do you think about the US perspective?

A free Kurdistan is maybe an even bigger deal than the Iraq war as far as the impact it can create. So no doubt, the US have projections and preferences on the matter. To me that is the biggest determinative, what American state wants. Because only what they want happens in the mid-east, even if it can go out of their control or turn into a disaster, they still have the biggest word, over Turkey's or any other state's word. Right now they are letting(maybe they have to let for now) the Isis/Isil run the show but it's so bound to change when/if the US decides to the something about it.

It is true that the US is, has been, and will continue to be heavily involved in the mid east but I think the US gets less of what it wants than people think.

Sending Troops back to Iraq,especially unilaterally, is politically untenable for the US. Our failure to destroy, with airstrikes, the US supplied Iraqi weapons that Isis has seized I think shows the level of unwillingness the US has to get involved militarily.

Turkey and the Kurds
Iraqi Kurdistan was an important ally to the US before during and after the Iraq war. That being said, they do not rank even close to Turkey for their importance as an ally. To a Large degree I think we want what Turkey wants. Right now that is a unified Iraq(probably with greater Kurdish control of oil).

Baghdad and Iran
Iran and the US are not buddies, but right now they both want a unified Iraq. Iran would like a Shi'ite dominated Iraq to be her best friend. One that can ease any US embargo. They definitely do not want an independent Kurdistan on their border and would probably like to roll back the autonomy it now has. The US wants a unity government in Iraq. An Iraq in which the Kurds and the Sunnis can tamper down Irans influence and to some degree prop up our own. Factionalism in Iraq is fine with the US as long as it remains united. The US would like to maintain an Iraq in political stalemate. So even though Iran and the US both want a united Iraq what that means is 2 different things to both of them.

Isis
100% unacceptable for them to have an actual state. This will not happen. No one wants it.

Iraqis
What the US wants is one thing the way things are is another. The Kurds won't give up Kirkuk and Baghdad probably doesn't have the power to take it back. Isis controls the center and short of the Kurds and Shi'ite working together(an increasingly unlikely scenario) the Iraqis won't be able to stop them. Maliki will need to step aside and his successor is going to have to make major concessions to both the Kurds and Sunni to hold Iraq together.

Can the US and others convince the Shi'ite leadership. We will see.

 

[DutchJazzer]

too bad the arab tribes have not united yet.
soo much they can accomplish.

 

[Tarkanian]

lemme give you guys an insider then;
ISIS is a British creation.
name of the game is as usual petroleoum.
Kurds may enjoy the wealth but not Arabs for they are too big.
oil + plitical power = disaster
oil + minorities and/or fragile regimes (like that of Saddam) = bliss

 

[♪alt13]

lemme give you guys an insider then;
ISIS is a British creation.
name of the game is as usual petroleoum.
Kurds may enjoy the wealth but not Arabs for they are too big.
oil + plitical power = disaster
oil + minorities and/or fragile regimes (like that of Saddam) = bliss

dude come on

Why would the British want the disruption to oil markets that this may cause, especially considering that like most nations right now they are still facing an economy that is fragile? Why would they want a majority of Iraqs oil to end up inside a "Shiastan" that would likely be way closer to Iran than with the west?

Isis was given an opportunity in Iraq by Maliki's poor policies towards the Sunni.

Stop with the conspiracy theories.

 

[Tarkanian]

dude come on

Why would the British want the disruption to oil markets that this may cause, especially considering that like most nations right now they are still facing an economy that is fragile? Why would they want a majority of Iraqs oil to end up inside a "Shiastan" that would likely be way closer to Iran than with the west?

Isis was given an opportunity in Iraq by Maliki's poor policies towards the Sunni.

Stop with the conspiracy theories.

BS
I toleja, this was an insider.
You will find out later.

add-on: https://archer.wikia.com/wiki/ISIS

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Have you guys made Bo Mccalebb a citizen yet?

 

[ema]

Have you guys made Bo Mccalebb a citizen yet?

Ahh, Bo dear Mccalebb. He made us champion in the Turkish league but was a disappointment in the Euroleague. We let him go. He will seek to sign with an NBA team now. He can be an excellent back up for any team that needs a hearted, spirited, piercing guard. If he can't find a deal in the NBA, he will sure find a good team in Europe again. I wish him the best, he was a fan favorite.