Turkish politics in Northern Iraq

The activity that best fits the definition of the concept of politics is probably diplomacy. Diplomacy is advancing on open paths to maintain relations with parties you certainly cannot call friends, yet cannot sever ties with either, at minimal damage or even maximum benefit. Diplomacy also encompasses the ability to convert potential assets into tangible resources.

In the past, one of the biggest problems in Turkey's foreign policy was its inability to display a political or diplomatic performance that would utilize its existing assets with high efficiency. Behind the myth of "Turkey's strategic geopolitical importance," both our politicians and bureaucrats sat back idly, thinking of nothing other than leaving an established order just as they found it.

Politics also requires shaking things up to a degree. When Turgut Özal, who displayed a notable performance in diplomacy, passed away, his successor Demirel defined his mission in his very first statement upon being elected President as "putting the displaced stones in the country back in their places."

Everyone is aware of Turkey's geo-strategic location, but those who answer why it is so fail to realize what the passage of time has changed. A mindset of politics and diplomacy that properly tracks how a changing world can alter both the significance of geographies and the reasons behind that significance is always of paramount importance.

Indeed, the consecutive events we have experienced in the field of diplomacy during this period demonstrate just how important politics or diplomacy is. The Cyprus issue, for instance, had become a total "subject of political depression" for Turkey over the last 30 years. Today, when the Cyprus issue was made somewhat more open to diplomatic negotiation, what was feared did not happen at all. We have officially overcome the problem of national depression. The Cyprus issue has now become a matter that troubles the Greek Cypriot side, and even the EU side, forcing them to confront their own sincerity and consistency. Turkey has earned the right to enjoy the psychological superiority of this political maneuver for a long time.

Likewise, in recent days, we witnessed how countries—including Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt—with which the Greek Cypriot side had agreed for oil exploration permits in the Mediterranean, all backed down upon Turkey's firm warning on this matter. All these countries that backed down are those with which Turkey's diplomatic relations have recently intensified significantly. Had these diplomatic bridges not been reinforced, could Turkey's warnings have yielded such a clear result? I think not.

Israel's acceptance of being held accountable to Turkey regarding its unilateral decisions to conduct excavations at al-Haram al-Sharif is a major gain in itself; however, this cannot be attributed solely to Israel being afraid of Turkey. Once diplomatic relations are established, especially when the parties mutually benefit from these relations, they create a realm of opportunity that cannot be easily risked being lost.

Regarding the approach toward the Kurds of Northern Iraq, it is truly a strange situation that Turkey still fails to resort to its diplomatic capabilities, which it benefits from so extensively these days… It is not calculated at all that by refusing to engage with the Kurds as interlocutors, Turkey has actually forced itself to deal with them in a severe manner and rendered them far more of a diplomatic party. A political approach that does not even mention the name of the person who is currently—whether one likes it or not—the President of Iraq is merely scoring an own goal. When officials of the grand Republic of Turkey speak in such a manner, it becomes inevitable for those unacknowledged figures to become overly familiar and brazen toward Turkey, increasingly feeling themselves to be actual parties to the matter. Yet these figures, who are ignored but whose future say in Iraq seems certain, are people who still keep an ear turned to Turkey—so much so that they would melt at any warm message from Turkey. Not necessarily because they love Turkey so much, of course, but because Turkey is by no means dispensable for them. When Turkey does not engage with them, they do not simply vanish; rather, Turkey achieves nothing other than gaining their chronic hostility. This sullen attitude, which encourages and prompts the Kurds to seek options elsewhere, can only be recorded as a failure.

To begin with, a political understanding in Kirkuk based on the concept of "our kinsmen" is fundamentally flawed. If the Republic of Turkey is to resort to a concept of "kinship" in this context, it must act on the premise that everyone in Northern Iraq (whether Turkmen, Kurd, or Arab) is "our kinsman." Otherwise, Turkey must calculate not how this policy echoes in Northern Iraq, but primarily what kind of response it receives in Diyarbakır.

For a few days, there have been rumors of a disagreement between the Government and the Military on this issue. But at the same time, there are strong indications that these rumors are a distortion by the media. I hope this is the case. Otherwise, Turkey does not have the luxury of maintaining a childishness that is completely unbecoming of the diplomatic quality it has displayed in other matters.