Sunday, February 3, 2008

Media and Alliance

In 1937 there was a major steel strike in Pennsylvania at Johnstown. Laborers were getting organized and this was a serious threat to the corporations because any compromise to the demand of their employees would raise their fixed costs, which meant they would have to pay more than they used to do. “Business tried out to a new technique of labor destruction…The idea was to figure out ways to turn the public against the strikers, to present the strikers as disruptive, harmful to public and against the common interests. The common interests are those of ‘us’, the businessmen, the worker, the housewife….Then there’s those bad strikers out there who are disruptive and causing trouble and breaking harmony…We’ve got to stop them so we can all live together.” (Chomsky, 24-25). How to succeed this? It can be achieved by controlling public mind and forming alliances which will support our policies.

This plan was later formulated as a step by step strategy that is called the Mohawk Valley Formula. “The Mohawk Valley Formula was a corporate plan for strikebreaking to discredit union leaders, frighten the public with the threat of violence, use of local police and vigilantes to intimidate strikers, form puppet associations of ‘loyal employees’ to influence public debate, fortify workplaces, employ large numbers of replacement workers, and threaten to close the plant if work is not resumed.” (Wikipedia).

The strategy the businesses followed against the steel strikers in 1937 is the same strategy that today AKP, the ruling party of the Turkish government, is following against the Kurds, in general, and the PKK in particular. The aim is to marginalize the PKK and annihilate it over time. It is an irony that AKP is trying to suffocate the screams of the Kurdish freedom movement with simple corporate logic. The Kurdish question has existed for at least 200 years and the accumulated problems that have been squarely in front of Turkey during that period can not be solved with such a simple corporate logic strategy. This strategy will only deepen the conflicts and may end up in a civil war, with the Kurds against the Turks. Thus, all the Kurds and Turks must force the Turkish government to face the Kurdish problem immediately.

Consecutive Turkish governments have ignored the Kurdish Question for a long time; despite Turkey’s longstanding denial policies toward the Kurds, it has only recently admitted Kurdish existence, de facto not de jure. The “recognition” of existence came at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, devastated, emptied villages, looting, rape, torture and other human rights violations; however, this recognition is not indicated in any written statement and did not go beyond a couple words mentioned in Turkish officials’ discourses in their visits to Kurdish cities, such as Amed.

After the coup in 1980, the Turkish military terrorized the Kurdish regions, burned villages, forced the Kurds to move to Western Turkey, raped and looted throughout the region. The creation of PKK is a reaction against such brutal Turkish annihilation policies against the Kurdish people. The Turkish government endeavored to wipe out Kurdish existence by physical destruction. Unfortunately, there was not any political or judicial way for the Kurds to ask for their rights and, thus, to defend themselves. Turkish laws and regulations did not reinforce equality but functioned as the tools to legitimate the annihilation policies. Kurds were not even considered as existing anyway. Under such oppressions and destruction, Kurdish youths soon founded PKK, a freedom movement, to defend themselves and their people against annihilation. For this reason, one Turkish government after another labeled PKK as “terrorists”. Always Turkey’s Kurdish policy is based on the Kurdish annihilation; thus, any resistance to such policies politically and militarily is brutally oppressed.

Although globalization internationalized the Kurdish Question, Turkey’s Kurdish policy--annihilationist policies--remained the same. It only adapted its lies to the new paradigm through national and international media. For this purpose, consecutive Turkish governments dictated to the media what should or should not be known by the people. Thus, the Turkish governments created a gigantic, bewildered herd within its boundaries, which neither can think nor can judge independently about Turkey’s most important problem, the Kurdish Question. Through the media, Turkish governments have brainwashed the majority of the Turkish people, partially assimilated the new Kurdish generations, covered and justified their Kurdish massacre under the policy called “War on Terrorism”.

Today Turkey’s ruling party, AKP, follows the previous governments’ annihilation policies. For this purpose AKP implements two major strategies to make its lies credible:

1- Using Turkish and International media,
2- Using alliances
a) Alliances with other countries
b) Alliances with political parties in Turkey
c) Alliance with military
d) Alliance with religious groups

1- Using Turkish and International media,

AKP uses the media to discredit and distort the truths about the struggle of the PKK both nationally and internationally. Recently, through new legislation, Erdogan, the AKP chairman and Prime Minister, can censor broadcasts related to “terrorism”. With this legislation, AKP aims to stop broadcasts deviating from mainstream media and hold a media monopoly about the news related to the Kurdish freedom movement or, in their words, “terrorism”. Thus, AKP will decide what the people should know or should not know about Kurds and the Kurdish Question. The anti-Kurdish propaganda imposed by all Turkish governments has created ultra-nationalistic masses of the people who consider themselves ethnically Turk. Such people even see an average Kurd on the street as a threat to their lives. In addition to a national media monopoly, AKP-affiliated TV channels, such as Ebru TV, TGRT, Samanyolu, and the like, also broadcast in other countries, mostly in the US and the EU. Through these channels, Turkey distorts the truth about the Kurds and PKK, and tries to create a basis of credibility for policies that are based on a denial of the Kurds, both nationally and internationally.

2- Using alliances

a)Alliance with other countries.
The AKP uses Turkey’s major strategic allies to make its anti-Kurdish policies recognized internationally. For this purpose AKP had several deals, mainly with the US, to accept the PKK as a terrorist group and to shut their eyes to Turkey’s inhuman policies.

The US –Turkey alliance started in the beginning of the Cold War. The US and Soviet Union (SU) were two powerful states which almost divided the whole world into two camps, capitalist versus communist. The world was turned into a chess board where the US and SU were the players and everyone else was a pawn. Turkey was a strategic pawn for the US. After the collapse of the SU, the US-Turkey alliance continued and events after 9/11, namely the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, gave a boost to this relationship.

The US is the sole super power of the world since the SU collapsed. Today, the US is seeking ways to maintain its “big brother” position, which favors and acquires great privileges to itself. The attacks of 9/11 created an incredible opportunity to be used as a pretext to intervene in strategic countries in order to align their policies to fit with the system that favors the US. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are two examples that are occurring in front of our eyes. However, there are several other operations that are being implemented covertly, such as the colorful revolutions in Ukraine, concerns about Darfur, the assassination of Benazir Butto, and the like. In all these incidents there is an aim: maintaining the status quo.

9/11 also created a new phase in the US-Turkey alliance; because the American “war on terror”, also known as Greater Middle Eastern Initiative (GMEI), put Turkey in such a “key country” position that the US would need to rely on it for the success of the GMEI. In March 2003, the US wanted Turkey to give permission to deploy US troops and move required munitions through Turkey; thus, it would be able to open a front against Saddam’s Iraq from the North. However, the US was too optimistic when it set all its war plans based on Turkey’s unconditional acceptance regarding the usage of its territory; because the AKP-led Turkish parliament refused to permit the US to use Turkish territory for the American war in Iraq. This rejection was a signal from Turkey about its dissatisfaction about the US-Turkey alliance. AKP wanted to take advantage of the Iraq War in a way that would allow it to bargain with the US for more privileges. The US was furious about the Turkey’s decision, but it was again the US which was invading another country to bring democracy. Since Turkey’s decision was a democratic decision, taken by representatives in parliament, the US neither could condemn nor could complaint about it. However, to insult Turkey, a few members of Turkish Special Teams got bagged in Iraq.

The current US failure in Iraq heightened Iranian-led Shia influence in the region. The only country that can counter balance Iran is its neighbor Turkey. This is another reason that the US needs Turkey. The AKP, on the other hand, knowing the US dependency on Turkey in the current political climate, pressured the US to take concrete steps against the Kurdish freedom movement, the PKK.

On November 5, 2007, Erdogan met Bush in the White House to make a deal. According to this deal the US would provide immediate intelligence to Turkey, allow it to make air strikes against PKK members in Northern Iraq, and close its eyes again to Turkey’s intensified abuses against the Kurds within Turkey’s borders. After the meeting with Erdogan, in addition to recognizing the PKK as a “terrorist” organization, the US declared it as a “common enemy”. In turn, as much as we know from different media sources, Turkey would keep the current US airbases open and, furthermore, it would allow the US to construct new bases close to the Turkey-Iran border. Thus, Turkey made the US to repeat its lies, based on Kurdish denial policies, and showed the US as a credible reference to other countries and their citizens in order to convince them that PKK was, indeed, a “terrorist” organization.

b) Alliances with political parties in Turkey

In the general election in July 2007, the AKP received 47% of the eligible votes throughout Turkey. Prior to the election, AKP gave the impression that it was willing to solve the Kurdish problem if voters made it the ruling party. Thus, many Kurdish voters cast their votes for the AKP. Unsurprisingly, the AKP is now misusing this mandate.

In Northern Kurdistan there were two main parties that received the most of the votes. One was the AKP and the other was the DTP, the pro-Kurdish party. After the elections, the AKP neither kept its promises about the Kurdish cause nor attempted to do so. Furthermore, it stood in a position to mediate or reconcile the other political parties in order to approve a parliamentary consensus for cross-border operations against the PKK. With the exception of the DTP, the AKP succeeded in receiving overwhelming approval for military operations from the other political parties. With this move, the AKP aimed both to marginalize the DTP in the parliament and forcefully silence the PKK.

Today, the DTP is under a severe political lynching campaign orchestrated primarily by the AKP, with the other parties willingly joining the campaign. Unlike the Turkish parties, the DTP was the only party in the parliament that opposed the use of military force in general, and cross-border operations in particular. Rather, it suggested achievable democratic solutions for solving the Kurdish Question. However, since the solution of Kurdish Question would end the dominance of the Turkish generals and the parties that benefit the status quo, the DTP labeled as the “separatist party” which praises terrorism. The DTP has subsequently been sued for immediate closure.

c) Alliance with military

When one looks back on the presidential elections, where Gul had been nominated by the AKP, one can clearly see the arm wrestling between the AKP and the Turkish generals for dominance in Turkish politics. The Turkish military never wanted Gul as president because it feared that the AKP would legislate laws to curb its powers. Gul, as president, would approve them immediately. However, something very different happened. Gul got elected without any serious opposition from the Turkish military. A question, then, becomes obvious: what made the Turkish generals accept Gul's presidency? The answer lies in the private meeting between Erdogan and the chairman of the Turkish General Staff ,Yasar Buyukanit, in Dolmabahce Palace, a short time before the July 2007 elections. Apparently Erdogan and Buyukanit came to a deal about Gul's presidency, in which the AKP would touch none of Turkish generals' privileges and would support their policies to the end. The AKP also used the monopoly of media manipulation to cover the generals’ black operations against the Kurds, such as Semdinli.

Before the July, 2007 elections, as an answer to a question posed by a journalist regarding a cross-border operations, Erdogan said “Has our struggle against 5000 terrorists in Turkey come to a close so that we can now deal with the 500 in Iraq?” However, two months after the elections, the same Erdogan said that there will be a cross-border operation in Northern Iraq no matter what it takes. His “U turn” reminded me of an old saying about politics: “Politics are the world's second oldest profession which is not very different than the first.”

Subsequently, the AKP accumulated more troops, exceeding 200.000, in the Kurdish regions; at least five cities, if not more, were declared as “security zones” where the military de facto and de jure has the authority to rule over the people in these cities.

In short, the AKP and the Turkish military (TSK) agreed on classic annihilation policies, dictated by the generals, towards not only the PKK but also all the Kurdish people in general.

d)Alliance with religious groups

The Kurds are historically conservative people and strictly adhere to their religion. It is this fact that religious people, primarily the shekhs and imams, had a distinctive position among the Kurds.

Today, knowing this fact, the AKP is using religious people, sects, associations, and schools to brainwash the Kurds and to cut their emotional and political affiliation with the PKK. Fethullah Gulen’s movement, which has strong ties to the AKP, is the most dangerous group due to its secret agenda. It is everywhere in North Kurdistan.

“Recently the Turkish based Zaman newspaper reported that Fethullah Gulen had filled planes with Turkey’s top businessmen and flown them to southeastern Turkey so they could go door to door to distribute meat and other foods to the poor in key cities.... Fethullah Gulen, founder of an Islamic educational movement and spiritual leader of tens of thousands of devotees around the world, has made a social revolution in Turkey. He is now one of the most influential people in Turkey. His followers will act upon whatever he says, doing what he wills… Today southeastern Turkey is in flames; the Kurdish people one more time are being labeled as terrorists. What kind of bridge of love and isles of peace is Gulen building in southeastern Turkey? Did Gulen ever dare to stand up against the unjust military presence involved in burning houses, kidnapping Kurds, raping women, and depriving everyone of the most important right of speaking their own language? Did he ever mention in public that the Turkish government is wrong and that Erdogan’s policy is oppressive?... Gulen now see the importance of winning the hearts and minds of Kurds by his tactic of distributing meat and sending businessmen to the region. It is because Gulen saw… that Kurds are wakening up from the drug of religion, no longer believing all the lies and deceptions but rather speaking up for justice and the right treatment of Kurds. Also, Gulen saw that the Kurds are gaining power on the ground that they did not have twenty years ago. So the question is, “How did Gulen help the Kurdish people by opening schools?” Yes, it is true that Gulen indoctrinates thousands of poor but very smart Kurds to deny their existence as a Kurd by not saying, “I am Kurd,” but instead teaches them to say, “I am Turk” Assimilating them so that they leave their identity behind is like stealing their mind but leaving their body, capturing their souls but leaving them only their empty wicker cage after the bird has gone.” (Mizell)

The AKP-led Turkish media broadcasted Gulen’s “aid” “without strings” over and over again to create sympathy for his movement among the Kurds in the region.

To conclude, the AKP is playing multidimensional games with national and international powers. The two tools most intensely and effectively used in these games are the national and international media, and alliances to marginalize and pacify the Kurds in general and suffocate the ongoing legendary Kurdish movement, PKK. These games, however, will not solve the Kurdish Question but will harden it. Instead of playing such games, the AKP must sit down to the table with the legitimate Kurdish party, the DTP, to solve the Kurdish problem in a democratic manner.Kurds are neither steel-strikers, nor is the Kurdish Question a problem to be solved with simple corporate logic.

Work Cited

Chomsky, Noam. Media Control: The Pectacular Achievements of Propaganda. 2nd ed. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2002.

Mizell, Aland. "Gülen’s new decree for the Kurdish problem in Southeastern Turkey: Steal the mind, leave the body." Kurdish Media. 2008. 2 Feb. 2008 .

Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 Feb. 2008 .

Friday, December 28, 2007


“Assume that five men who have acquired a rudimentary ability to speak and to understand each other happen to come together at a time when all of them suffer from hunger. The hunger of each will be satisfied by the fifth part of a stag, so they “agree” to cooperate in a project to trap one. But also the hunger of any of them will be satisfied by a hare, so, as a hare comes within reach, one of them grabs it. The defector obtains the means of satisfying his hunger but in doing so permits the stag to escape. His immediate interest prevails over consideration for his fellows.”(Rousseau, 234)

This example is very simple; however, its implications are vital. Today, the Kurdish people are mainly living in four parts of Kurdistan--in Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. In addition to these four countries we can also add a fifth category: the Kurds living in diaspora. As the example implies, the five hunters are the five parts of the lands in which the Kurds live. The stag is the freedom that all the Kurds are starving for and, finally, the hare is the short term benefits offered to Southern Kurdistan by the US in exchange for the freedom of all Kurdistan.

Ever since the British divided Kurdistan after World War I, its reunification has been made almost impossible by the policies implemented by its occupiers: Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. The bottom line of all these policies is to use one Kurdish group against the other. Thus, a “Good Kurd-Bad Kurd” policy is implemented. Even though this policy was used by the occupying countries to balance their power in the region at first, globalization recently enabled the international implementation of this policy. The regional “Kurdish Question” became an international problem through the intervention of the EU, the US and the other major powers. The promises of a hare to Southern Kurdistan, however, exacerbated the hunger of all the Kurds living in the other parts and widened the gap between each, because the award promised by the US to the Southern leaders required the continuation of the “ Good Kurd-Bad Kurd” dilemma. The only way that Kurds can get their freedom is through cooperation among themselves and not by accepting any short term benefits only for the leadership of one part of Kurdistan.

Today, in general we can see two main movements for the Kurdish rights struggle. One is PKK and he other is the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). For more than two decades PKK has maintained an armed struggle for the basic rights of the all Kurds living in all parts of the Kurdistan through the “Democratic Confederalism” project. The hard core of this project aims at autonomous structures within the occupier countries’ borders. The KRG, on the other hand, only has the aim of maintaining the gains it has been granted by the US, and it does not have any political or ideological project for the other parts of the Kurdistan. Since the position the KRG gained was given by the US, in order not to risk its gain, the KRG strictly follows the policies dictated by the US. Thus, it is completely dependent on the US.

With the cooperation of Iran, Turkey, and Syria, the PKK has been labeled as a “terrorist” organization for demanding basic rights. In the occupying countries, those rights are not only denied the Kurds, but also Kurdish existence is not recognized (Even though Iran has recognized the existence of the Kurds within its borders, it strictly avoids granting any rights to them). Furthermore, Turkey has pressured the US and most of the European countries to accept the PKK as a terrorist group. For this purpose, Turkey bribed both the US and EU by pouring millions of dollars to lobbying groups and giving big stakes in business interests to the US and European countries. It used the geostrategic importance of its territory as a bargaining chip against the US. Thus, it made its anti-Kurdish lies recognized by these major powers and justified its Kurdish annihilation policies as a legitimate right of a “war on terrorists”.

Most of the PKK members are in Turkey, where a small number reside in “Mountain Qendil”, in the KRG’s Northern Iraq territory. For more than one year Turkey has pressured the US to allow it to make a cross-border operation against the PKK members in Qendil. According to Turkey, PKK fighters in Qendil cross the border and attack Turkish soldiers in Turkish territory. However, this claim is neither true nor innocent; Turkey’s intention is not only to attack the PKK in Qendil, but also to destabilize the KRG and destroy it, if possible. Turkey sees the KRG as a growing danger for its own integrity; it fears that autonomy in Southern Kurdistan might influence its own Kurdish population, which may lead to separatist movements among Turkey’s Kurds.

On November 5th, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan visited the US president and made a deal with him. According to this deal, the US would provide intelligence to the Turkish army to use against PKK in Northern Iraq. In turn, Turkey would not conduct any comprehensive operation in the Kurdish territory in North Iraq. On December 16th fifty Turkish aircrafts bombed the Qendil region based on intelligence the US provided to Turkey. Turkish aircraft bombed more than a dozen villages in the Kurdish region, destroyed one school and a hospital, and killed five PKK members as well as two civilians. Since Turkey had permission from the US for these attacks, and since the Southern leaders were to obey US orders unconditionally, the leaders’ protest did not go beyond a weak grumbling.

Historically South Kurdistan’s leaders always depended on neighboring countries for maintaining their groups’ existence. For instance, Iran generally supported Talabani whereas the Baghdad government supported Barzani. For a period of time, Barzani’s KDP cooperated with Turkey against the PKK. The fact is both Kurdish factions were fighting against each other and the Kurdish people suffered. After the US invasion of Iraq, even though these two leaders appear to be united in order to profit by the gains granted by the US, today Turkey and the US are forcing them to have no relationship with the PKK and to shut down PKK camps and political offices in the Kurdish region. Furthermore, the KRG is expected to recognize the PKK as a terrorist group. The Southern Kurdish leaders are in a dilemma now: either condemn the PKK, label it as a “terrorist organization,” and maintain their current status for a while, or cooperate with the PKK and not allow other forces to play the “Good Kurd – Bad Kurd” game any more. If the KRG chooses the American-Turkish side, later on these two countries will come with new demands and force the KRG to do things it is not willing to do. The delay in the Kirkuk referendum, for instance, is a result of the compromise of the Barzani and Talabani. If they had taken a clear stand against American and Turkish demands for a delay, it is more than likely that the Kirkuk referendum would be held at the end of 2007.

Today, the Southern Kurdistan’s leaders must cooperate with the PKK. This is their historical responsibility. Why the Southern leaders? Because they are the only ones who can voice the demands of the Kurds in the international arena; they are considered the “Good Kurds” and they have opportunity to coordinate cooperation among Kurds living in places other than Southern Kurdistan. The Kurds in Northern, Eastern and Western Kurdistan are under severe pressure and are subject to physical and political annihilation. DTP, the pro-Kurdish party in Turkey, for instance, is under a political lynching campaign by both the Turkish political parties and the Turkish military. Another reason that the Southern leaders must take responsibility is that the policies of the US require the support of the Southern Kurds for the Greater Middle East project. For that reason, the Southern Kurdish leaders must be very careful in decision making. They must not put all their eggs in the same basket and be too optimistic that the US will be in the region forever. That is not true! Politics, and thus, the balance of power changes frequently, so they must seek the ways to secure all Kurdistan's general good, not only their own good. Besides, history and the recent air strikes of the Turkish air force in Southern Kurdistan clearly show how unreliable the US is with regard to keeping its promises. To make it clear, if the US is to choose Turkey or Southern Kurds, it will definitely choose Turkey. This was the first question the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan asked Bush in the meeting at the White House on November 5th . Bush made his choice. Who do you think he chose? The air strikes that began right after their meeting are clear indications of his decision, I think.

What should the Southern leaders do?
There are at least four vital points that the Southern leaders can do:

1) Create a common Kurdish National Policy,
2) Use oil contracts with Western countries as a card against them,
3) Found high quality universities to train the brightest youths from all over Kurdistan,
4) Use international media effectively,

1-Create a common Kurdish National Policy.

A common Kurdish National Policy is possible with a gathering of all the Kurdish parties to form guidelines for the policies that must be followed for the general good of all the Kurds. In that sense, primarily KDP, YNK, PKK, DTP and other, if any, Kurdish representatives must come together and make the whole world know that all the Kurds are united and will not let any power to crack their solidarity by using the “Good Kurd-Bad Kurd” dilemma.
The Kurdish National Policy must elaborate short- and long-term common political, economic, military, educational and cultural policies, such as the steps must be taken for democratic solution, the formation of a council that includes leaders from each part of Kurdistan, agreement on a common alphabet, a common Kurdish dialect for education, and the establishment of good ties with rising powers,such as China and Russia, thus, to coordinate the basket-egg calculation based on new power distribution.

2-Use oil contracts with Western countries as a card against them.

Kurdistan is an oil-rich region. Today the general US policy aims to control as many oil-rich regions of the world as possible, in order to control the growth of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization members--primarily China, which owes its growth to oil (Further information about declining US and rising China can be found in my previous posts Big Picture I, II, III). Several US oil contractors are in Iraq and pushing to legislate the Oil Law, which will give big stakes to US oil companies. Not surprisingly, many CEOs and board members of these companies are officials in the Bush administration.
The US and EU must be pressured primarily to recognize the Kurds' rights internationally and to stop supporting the lies created by the occupiers of Kurdistan; if they do not, their oil companies in Kurdistan should be shut down and the related agreements should be unilaterally terminated. Furthermore, the Southern Kurdish leaders must EXPLICITLY state that the Kurdistan Regional Government will seek new contracts with China if the US does not support the common policies of the Kurds. Additionally, the Southern Kurdish leadership must assure the US that American bases in Southern Kurdistan will be shut down if US support for Kurdish policies is found lacking.

3- Found high quality universities to train the brightest youths from all over Kurdistan.

As a part of the National Policy, the KRG must found special universities to serve for special needs. For that purpose, each part of Kurdistan must elect and send the brightest Kurdish students to such universities. Accommodation and other necessities of the students must be provided free of charge and scholarships must be available for such students. The best professors, Kurdish if possible, must be invited to teach in such universities. These universities must aim to train students in specific branches of knowledge, such as political science, to train future Kurdish leaders, or in economics, to train the best future economists, and the like. Some students must also sent to the best schools in other countries such as US, China, Russia and the EU countries for their further education and to become familiar with foreign cultures.

4-Use international media effectively
The Southern leaders must found TV channels in the US, EU, China and Russia, in order to spread the truth of the Kurdish Question. Primarily, Turkey and the other occupying countries use media to spread their lies internationally, misinforming people and playing the victim. For instance, Turkey has several TV channels, primarily in the US and the EU, which broadcast anti-Kurdish propaganda. Kurdish media must be founded in the diaspora countries for the purpose of attacking Turkish propaganda, and the propaganda of the other occupying countries, and tell people the truth of the Kurdish Question. Kurdish channels must broadcast in English, Kurdish and the formal language of each country.

To conclude, these times require the cooperation of the all the Kurds in order to survive. Thus the Southern leaders who had fought against each other, and against their own Kurdish brothers from Eastern and Northern Kurdistan in the past, must stop being a tool in the hand of the imperialist powers. They must take advantage of the positions they are given by the US to coordinate cooperation among all Kurdish people for the general good of all the parts of Kurdistan.

Southern leaders, look there! The hare is just in front of you... You have two options: either ignore the existence of the hare and cooperate with your brothers to hunt the stag for the benefit of all, or selfishly ignore the stag and chase the hare at the cost of losing the stag, thus leaving all your brothers in hunger. Even if you chase the hare, no one can guarantee that you will catch it; but if you cooperate with your brothers it is guaranteed that all will benefit.

1. Jean Jaques Rousseau, The Social Contract and Discourses, trans. G.D.H Cole, Everyman's Library Edition ( New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1950); esp. Inequality, pp.234.

Monday, November 12, 2007

The Big Picture 3

Oil flow is vital for the world economy. Any breakdown in the system causes severe imbalances in both world politics and economies. The Oil Boycott clearly showed this unwanted situation to the entire world. The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973. The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) declared that they would no longer ship petroleum to nations that had supported Israel in its conflict with Syria and Egypt. This included the United States and its allies in Western Europe. Soon oil prices increased rapidly, and due to the dependence of the industrialized world on OPEC oil, the price increases were dramatically inflationary to the economies of the targeted countries, while at the same time suppressive of economic activity.

The targeted countries responded with a wide variety of new, and mostly permanent, initiatives to contain their further dependency.15 The United States closely witnessed the effect of oil on the world’s economies and how important it was for stability. In this regard, it started using the oil flow as a tool to maintain its hegemony. As mentioned in the previous post, China and Europe are posing as two serious rivals to the United States. Both are dissatisfied with the status quo and they are seeking better power and resource distributions. The rapid growth of these rivals is based on oil and gas consumption. The more they consume oil and gas, the more they grow economically. For the United Sates, the only way to foil the threat of these rivals and maintain the status quo is by controlling the source of their growing dynamics, which is the oil-rich Middle East and Central Asia. Since the Middle East is the richest area in the world in gas and oil, and the rival powers try to influence the Middle Eastern countries, the U.S’ military, economic, and political presence in the region is necessary in order to control the oil and gas resources.

9/11 gave legitimacy to the United States for its presence in the Middle East in order to fight so-called global terrorism. Soon after the attacks, the U.S presented a new set of proposals for a Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI) to be adopted by the eight industrialized nations at their June summit in Sea Island, Georgia. The initiative is part of President Bush's "forward strategy of freedom," by which the expansion of political rights and political participation in the Muslim world is meant to combat the appeal of Islamist extremism.16 However, the GMEI was revised by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in June 2006 and the new term, New Middle East, was introduced to the world in a press conference in Tel Aviv. The new term replaces the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.” No matter what this project is named, it is all about securing the oil resources and taking full control of the region in order to control the rivals’ growth. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars both aim at this goal.

The United States had two goals in the war in Afghanistan. First, to try the efficiency of its new high-tech weapons; second, to contain another oil-rich country, Iran while enhancing the continuation of the ‘buffer zone series” it created as its allies. One can easily see the series of buffer zones created against the influence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization members: China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. This series includes India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Ukraine and Poland.

The ongoing politics gets its roots from the rivalry of the US and the rising threats of challenger powers. In March 2006, India and the US reached a nuclear deal that the US would give nuclear power assistance to India to step up its nuclear weapons’ productions. With this deal, the United States aims to contain China by using India as the counterbalance power in the region.

The debate over the installation of the “Missile Defensive Shield” in Poland also is an issue of arm wrestling among the rivals. The Bush administration pushes for such a project in Poland ostensibly to guard the European countries against Iran’s missiles. Russia, however, rejects the implementation of this project. It also “…formally notified NATO governments on Saturday that Russia will suspend its obligations under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a key cold war-era arms limitation agreement.” (Thom Shanker, NY Times, July15, 2007). The frequent colorful revolutions in Eastern Europe, in Ukraine for instance, were also part of the competition between the United States and the SCO for influence in those crucial regions.



2- Liu , Henry C. US dollar hegemony has got to go . Asia Times, 2002. 11 Apr. 2002 .

3- For more information see: The Federal Reserve Board. Currency and Coin Services . The Federal Reserve Board, 14 Mar. 2006 .

4-Heakal, Reem. " What Is the Quantity Theory of Money?." January 7, 2005

5- Colin Elman, “Introduction: Appraising Balance of Power Theory,” in John A. Vasquezand Colin Elman (eds.), Realism and the Balancing of Power: A New Debate (Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 2003), 8— 9.

6- Paul, T. V. Balance of Power : Theory and Practice in the 21st Century.
Palo Alto, CA, USA: Stanford University Press, 2004. p iii.

7- Beehner, Lionel. "The Rise of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization." Council on Foreing Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/10883/.

8- Ramonet I (2004) China wakes up and alarms the world. Le Monde Diplomatique, English edn,15 August.

9- Lardy (2000) Fiscal sustainability: between a rock and a hard place. China Economic Quarterly 2:36–41.

10- Ibid.

11- Bhaskarian (2003) China as potential superpower: regional responses. Frankfurt Voice China special edn. Deutsche Bank Research, January 15. http://www.dbresearch.com/prod/dbr_internet_en-prod/prod0000000000050878.pdf.

12- Shih (2004) The conduct of U.S.-Taiwan Relations 2000–2004, The Brookings Institution,Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, Washington, DC.

13- Pocha (2005) The geopolitics of oil. New Perspectives Quarterly 22:50–55.

14- Mulvenon and Swaine (2001) Taiwan’s foreign and defence policies: Features anddeterminants, RAND National Defence Research Institute (MR-1383-SRF), Santa Monica CA.

15-See, e.g., Alan S. Blinder, Economic Policy and the Great Stagflation (New York: Academic Press, 1979); Otto Eckstein, The Great Recession (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979); Mark E. Rupert and David P. Rapkin, "The Erosion of U.S. Leadership Capabilities," in Paul M. Johnson and William R. Thompson, eds., Rhythms in Politics and Economics (New York: Praeger, 1985)

16-Wittes, Tamarra C. "The New Proposal for a Greater Middle East Initiative: An Evaluation." The Brooking Institution. www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/wittes20040510.htm.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

The Big Picture 2

Today globalization is cracked by various events; the first was the economic and political unification of the European countries under the European Union. In 1992 the European countries signed the Maastricht Treaty, which led to the creation of the European Union, as well as to the creation of a new and common currency, the euro. The Union is one of a kind; it is a supranational and intergovernmental organization of 25 independent member states. Currently the Union has a single market and single currency. The European countries are now endeavoring to expand their economic and political influence both in Asian and African countries. Today the euro has become an alternative currency; it enables investors and other free market players to choose it when they think the dollar is not stable or when the dollar fluctuates. For this reason, in the short term, the euro will be a serious rival of the American dollar.

In addition to the European Union’s first cleavage on globalization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization poses another threat to United States hegemony. In 1996, China, Russia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan founded an organization called the “Shanghai Five”. After the joining of Uzbekistan, in 2001, the organization changed its name to the “Shanghai Cooperation Organization” (SCO). At first, the goal of the organization was solving border disputes and demilitarizing the border between China and the former Soviet Union; however, today the members of the SCO have closer ties by their signing of several economic treaties, their following common policies, and even their proposing cultural unification projects. They also maintain common military exercises such as Rubezh 2006 and Peace Mission 2007. In Rubezh 2006, 2,500 troops from the armed forces of Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, came together in a military exercise on August, 24-29, 2006, in Kazakhstan’s port of Aqtau, on the basis of the “Collective Security Treaty”. The aim of the maneuver was to train the military forces to combat terrorism; however, it seemed a kind of military exercise aimed at providing a sufficient preparation against America's military threats against Iran. Thus this exercise would show preparedness for a frontal confrontation in a possible American war in the region, particularly in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region, which has a vital importance for oil pipelines and oil transportation.

Some experts cite a convergence of interests among members in recent years, including improved ties between China and Russia, and the perceived threat posed by U.S. forces in the region. The more time passes, the more SCO members become homogeneous as a bloc. Lieutenant General William E. Odom, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, says the SCO is being used by Russia and China as a vehicle to assert their influence in Central Asia and curb U.S. access to the region’s vast energy supplies.7 There is a hidden or invisible high tension between the U.S and SCO members at the moment and the conflicts will be revealed in a more obvious way sooner or later. For instance, on July, 2005, after SCO members agreed not to allow any other countries’ military presence in the members’ territories, Uzbekistan ousted the U.S. base which had been positioned there to maintain the War on Terror right after 9/11.

The SCO is rapidly growing economically and militarily, and is becoming a serious rival of the Unites States. The main two actors of SCO are Russia and China. Compared to the other SCO members, China is considered a rising threat for the United States. A demographic colossus, China, with its population of 1.3 billion, only embarked on economic reform after the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, and especially after 1978 when Deng Xiaoping came to power. China, though still a communist country has ceased to be frightening to outsiders; in the euphoria of globalization, hundreds of companies that relocated their production to China (having sacked millions of workers elsewhere in the world) saw it as a goldmine for the shrewd investor. The network of special economic zones along its sea coast has quickly turned China into a phenomenal exporter, and it now leads the world in exports of textiles and clothing, shoes, electronic products and games. Its products are invading the rest of the world; especially the United States.8

Exports of China for the year 2003 amounted to 325.6 billion dollars, which is 44.5% higher than the exports of 2002. Imports amounted to 295.3 billion dollars. 9 A huge trade imbalance has been created with the US and in 2003 the US trade deficit with Beijing was USD 130 bn. In 2004 the trade deficit was almost USD 125 bn to China’s advantage. Foreign investment grew rapidly and it amounted to 181,5 billion yuan and the growth rate over the same period of 2002 was 28.6%. Direct foreign investment amounted to 129,7 billion yuan. 10. If China continues to grow at this rate, by 2041 it will overtake the US and become the world’s number one economic power. This would have major geopolitical consequences. It would also mean that by 2030 its total energy consumption will equal that of the US and Japan today. And since it doesn’t have the oil to satisfy such energy demands, between now and 2020 it will be forced to double its nuclear capacity, building two nuclear power stations a year for the next 16 years. 10 This rapidly growing giant will be a threat not only to the United States but also to the Asian countries, as well as other Shanghai Cooperation Organization members.

Even though China claims that its growth is peaceful, the allocation of gas and oil will bring an unavoidable China-U.S conflict, which the Power Transition Theory presumes. China takes careful steps, grows rapidly and silently, and sets its agenda wisely.

Over and above, China’s strategic thinking11 on its role in Asia has been shaped by the following strategies :

1) The need to secure the country from what are likely to be the main threats for China in the region. The first is the United States, which is a hyper-power determined to maintain a strong position in Asia including the sensitive areas to US concerns, such as Taiwan.12 Second, a potentially re-armed Japan, and third, irredentist claims on China’s western territories, such as the Xinjiang region the population of which comprises mainly of Uighurs and other Central Asian Muslims.

2) The urge to ensure that its interests can be protected in disputed areas such as the Spratly Islands.

3) The need to guarantee sufficient access to supplies of energy and important raw materials.13

4) The imperative requirement to possess sufficient military power to deter Taiwan from declaring independence. China’s policy makers want to increase their military advantage over Taiwan progressively, so that their bargaining clout over Taiwan keeps rising.14

Today 68% of the whole world’s trade takes place in the Asia Pacific region. China and most of the other Asian countries use the American dollar as currency in their trade. If China continues to grow at its current rate, it will dominate the region economically as well as militarily. Given the fact that the dollar’s credibility is being questioned as a result of recent events such as the mortgage crisis, deficits in macroeconomic balances, and the cost of wars, any shift from the dollar to Chinese yuan will be a disaster for the US. Economic vulnerability will bring political instability, which will worsen its economy. As a result, Asian countries will shift their currencies from the dollar to the yuan, as European countries changed from the dollar to the euro. One might ask why a shift from the dollar to the yuan, but not to the euro. It is because of the euro’s high value of exchange. A very valued currency limits international trade in terms of purchase power. If this shift takes places, then, according to the Quantity of Money Theory, the U.S will have an enormous surplus dollar in the world trade circulation, which will have no equivalent of sold services and goods. Thus, the value of the dollar will decrease rapidly and the global economy will suffer a severe regression. World markets then will prefer to shift to stable currencies. As a result, a new power distribution will occur, as the Power Transition Theory presumes.

(To be continued...)

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The Big Picture I

This article first examines the United States’ gradual rising dynamics after World War II, and how it became the sole superpower of the world after the collapse of the USSR. The threats that it is facing, its current politics on the world, (Iraq War,Afghanistan, etc...) and the reasons why the US's "superpower' role must end, will be explained according to Power Transition Theory, Balance of Power Theory and Quantity Theory of Money.

The United States took the first steps of economic globalization by Breton Woods System (1944), which was an international monetary management in order to regulate the economic relations among its allies. By Breton Woods American dollar has been accepted as the reserve currency. After the World War I and Great Depression the European countries were devastated by the war and their economies were in bad situation and were instable. By Marshall Plan, in 1947, The United States offered up to $20 billion for economic recovery, but only if the European nations could get together and draw up a rational plan on how they would use the aid.1Further more Breton Woods and Marshall Plan ended English currencies dominance on the world. In addition to Breton Woods and Marshall Plan, foundation of the World Bank also enabled the U.S to inject dollar, to developing countries by providing advices and funds with reasonable interest rates and thus to expand its influence on every part of the globe. Soon the American dollar became the reserve currency in world trade. Ever since 1971, when US president Richard Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard (at $35 per ounce) that had been agreed to at the Breton Woods Conference at the end of World War II, the dollar has been a global monetary instrument that the United States, and only the United States, can produce by fiat.2

According to The Federal Reserve Board, recent estimates show that between one-half and two-thirds of the value of currency in circulation is held abroad. Some residents of foreign countries hold dollars as a store of value, while others use it as a medium of exchange. Besides from 1995 to 2005, the value of currency in circulation increased 89.0 percent to $758.8 billion, which represents an average annual growth rate of 6.6 percent.3 In short, dollar became a hegemonic power to rule and reshape the world in the game called “capitalism”. Henry C. K. Liu, elaborates the dollar domination very well. According to him:

“World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars.”

In an economy there is a direct relationship between the quantity of money and the level of prices of goods and services sold. According to Quantity Theory of Money, a rapid increase in money supply leads to a rapid increase in inflation. Money growth that surpasses the growth of economic output results in inflation as there is too much money behind too little production of goods and services. In order to curb inflation, money growth must fall below growth in economic output.4

Since Nixon administration took the dollar off the gold standard, as mentioned above, it is neither fixed to gold nor has the equivalent good or services in the country. For this reason the American dollar’s value is only but only fixed to the stability of the United States. Any attempts to destabilize it, will also have instable effect on its currency as well. Thus economic and political issues are highly intertwined.

After the decline of the USSR in 1991, the United Sates became the superpower of the world and had an opportunity to expand the free markets, thus to be able to influence new territories. Soon economic superiority enhanced its political and military strength. Today economically, politically, militarily and technologically the hegemony of the United States is beyond debates.

According to Organski (World Politics, 1958), international system is in a hierarchic structure that looks like a pyramid. The strongest state is on the top of this pyramid and is called “dominant power”. The dominant power has the largest proportion of power resources (Economic, political, cultural and technological). There are also a collection of “great powers” which can be or may be the rivals of the dominant power. “Middle powers” follows the great powers in the hierarchic system and finally “small powers” come after the middle powers. These dominant powers, or hegemons, commonly arise and use their power to create a set of political and economic structures and norms of behavior that enhance the stability of the system at the same time that they advance their own security.

In other words, this state is interested in maintaining the "status quo" of the international system. Organski and Jacek Kugler defined status quo states as those that have participated in designing "the rules of the game" and stand to benefit from these rules. Challengers, or "revisionist states”, want "a new place for themselves in the international society" commensurate with their power. Revisionist states express a "general dissatisfaction" with their "position in the system", and they have a "desire to redraft the rules by which relations among nations work". At this point, Power Transition Theory (PTT) presumes that there should be counterbalancing and challenging powers against The US hegemonic power.

Today, there is neither a state nor a group of states considered as superpower or an equivalent of the United States in order to counterbalance it. However, as Power Transition Theory points out the world politics are creating alternative powers to counterbalance the imbalanced world. Counterbalance of a hegemonic power is presumed by balance of power theory as well. According to this theory, serious threats of hegemony are a sufficient condition for the formation of a blocking coalition, which leads either to the withdrawal of the threatening power or to a hegemonic war. (Levy,Jack The Causes of War and Conditions of Peace, Annual Review Pol. Sci. 1998,1:139,65) These blocking coalition, counterbalancing powers, are serious threats to the preeminence of the hegemonic powers and what if they are not controlled immediately the unipolar system will be replaced with bipolar or multipolar systems, which ever balances the world, in the cost of severe, hegemonic wars.

In short the Balance of Power Theory, Power Transition Theory, and Quantity Money Theory, indicate that the role of the US as the “World’s Policeman” will end soon. The European Union (EU) and Shanghai Cooperation Organization are two potential threats to the US to succeed this end; because they have the capability of cracking the globalization. Globalization is, simply, the accumulative results of those rules that strongest power set to get benefit from. In addition to Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) members and the EU countries, there are several unions and countries that are showing their dissatisfaction with the status quo. Iran, Venezuela Sudan,Syria, are a couple examples. Since all the dissatisfied countries have the same end, to get a better allocation of resources and a better position in the hierarchy, they all take steps towards common policies among each other against the dominant power. The logic behind these polices is, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The current debate between Bush and Putin over missile shield in Poland or the China’s first satellite destroyer missile in the space and Iran's nuclear enrichment activities are the signals from “challenging powers” to the dominant power. Thus, the challenger powers desire to end the unipolar world system and create a new system which will let them have a better position, in the ranks of in international arena (pyramid) and get more resources from the reallocation of the natural sources on the world.

(To be continued....)

Sunday, October 21, 2007


Recently, in Turkey, there is a severe debate over a possible cross border military operation against PKK in Northern Iraq, Southern Kurdistan. Political parties, business organizations, non-governmental organizations, military and civilians are debating about the costs and benefits of such an operation. Thus, all of Turkey is divided, basically, into two groups ; one sees the cross border operation as a crucial milestone to annihilate the Kurds' nation building activities in Southern Kurdistan, in general, and the PKK, in particular; the other defends that such an action will put Turkey in a troublesome situation and isolate it in the international arena--if still exists after the operation.

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq enhanced Southern Kurdistan's political position remarkably. After a long time, Kurds were on the brink of their independence. This fact gave fear to the neighboring countries because their main concern was the possible influence of an independent Kurdish state on the Kurdish populations within their boundaries. Turkey,the biggest coward, cooperated with Iran and Syria to weaken--or better, destroy--the new born Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). In addition to signing official and unofficial agreements against the Kurdish people and conducting brutal black operations in Kurdistan, Turkey used, and still is using, the PKK as an excuse to justify its military operations. Turkey claims that the PKK launches its operations from South Kurdistan, however most of the PKK fighters are located within Turkey, while only a small number of them reside on Mount Qendil. Turkey's operations aim to destabilize and then destroy the KRG. As the KRG practices its de facto independence, it faces Turkey's cross-border operation threats. Turkey is like a beast which has a thick piece of wood in its hand and threatens to hit people on the head at any moment. Repeating the same threats over and over tires people and they prefer to be hit once rather than be disturbed one hundred times. Thus, Turkey's credibility is beyond seriousness; however, if somehow it carries out a comprehensive cross-border operation aiming at KRG, that will not only be its last operation but also the last time the international arena knows it as the Turkish Republic. For that reason, let the Turks cross the border.

Firstly, in world politics the conventional wisdom is that major powers usually try to keep the “status quo”, even though in some international relations ( IR) theories the contrary is the case. Any remarkable deviation or any unexpected change from current policies or situations, requires a cost-benefit analysis for each state. If benefits are higher than costs, they take their position according to new change. If not, they will try to change the cause in way that will favor themselves. Turkey's cross-border operation would be a major change in the international arena in terms of political, geopolitical, economic, and military consequences. Since the status quo favors the major powers, they will oppose any operation which will result in new alliances, new threats, or the re-balancing of power distribution all over the globe.

For the US, it will not want one more problem in Iraq and more debates at home. For China, it will make sure that oil flow through oil-rich Southern Kurdistan will not be interrupted. Talabani and Hu Jintao, the president of China (PRC), reached several trade agreements and China erased all of Iraq's previous debts. Besides Turkey does not have a good reputation in the eyes of the Chinese government because Turkey sheltered ethnic Turk Uygur separatists from the Xingyan region of China. China wanted Turkey to hand them over but Turkey refused to do so. China definitely will be upset with Turkey's possible operation. Russia, on the other hand, is complaining louder nowadays about the American presence in the Middle East. Russian President Putin thinks that the U.S. aims to exploit the oil and water resources in the whole region, including countries over which Russia has influence. While urging the US to leave Iraq as soon as possible, Putin will not tolerate Turkey's cross-border operation as it may give an excuse to the US to remain in the region longer. In short, none of these “ big brothers” will permit Turkey to have a cross-border operation; furthermore, they are the permanent members of the United Nation's Security Council ( US, China, Britain,France and Russia). If Turkey has an operation, it will face several punishments ranging from economic sanctions to the use of military force, both of which will isolate Turkey from rest of the world.

Secondly, such a cross-border operation will internationalize the Kurdish Question. Turkey has spent an enormous effort to keep this question quiet and to hide her brutal policies against the Kurds until this day. Whenever a Kurdish newspaper uncovered the real face of the Turkish government, it was banned. The Kurdish TV channel, Roj TV, became a major issue between Denmark and Turkey. Finally, after losing the arm-wrestling against Denmark, Turkey tried to block the channel's frequencies so as not to be broadcast in Northern Kurdistan. A cross-border operation by Turkey, then, will alert the international media and will show the real face of Turks to the entire world.

Thirdly, a cross-border operation will contribute to the unification of all the Kurds. The imperialist powers always used the “ Good Kurds- Bad Kurds” card. According to this card some Kurds were allies and others were enemies; this dilemma deepened the conflicts between the Kurds. For instance, KDP and PUK fought against each other for years; KDP cooperated with Turkey and had brutal operations against its own brothers, the PKK gerillas; in Turkey the Kurdish village guards armed against their, sons, daughters, uncles and sometimes sisters. However, today the Southern Kurds have a semi-autonomous state, which has a parliament, president, constitution, and sovereignty. It lacks only one thing, independence. These gains belong not only to Southern Kurds, but are accepted as gains for all the Kurdish people. All Kurds around the world see the KRG as the legitimate face of Kurds in the international arena. Thus, any threat to this entity will be treated as a threat to all Kurds. The Kurds in Turkey will rebel, as will the Kurds in Iran and Syria, against their governments. For centuries, this may be the very first time that Kurdish nationalism will be at its peak level and thus may bring the only missing thing, independence.

Fourthly, Turkey's economy is very fragile. A great amount of money in circulation is based on money that does not create any value, such the money injected into the economy from the illegal drug trade. In an economy, the money in circulation must be equal to the goods and services produced. If not, it will lead to inflation, inflation will cause high interest rates, high interest rates are the last thing an investor wants. Lack of investments will cause high unemployment rate and high unemployment will lead to severe social problems. Since half of the money in the Turkish market comes from the illegal drugs, the other half is given to Turkey by International Monetary Fund (IMF) as loans. The boss of the IMF is the US, thus if Turkey insists on engaging in a cross-border operation despite the objection of the U.S., Turkey's economy will, more than likely, collapse.

With these facts, if Turkey still wants to have a military operation, let the Turks cross the border.