Ferai Tinc: Kirkuk under occupation

And is it a coincidence that these statements have come at the same time that Turkish diplomacy is busy debating whether or not Ankara should engage the Iraqi Kurdish leadership in talks?
 
And what if we add in the calculation that any talks with the Iraqi Kurdish leadership, and/or any cooperation with them on the struggle against the PKK, would only work to the advantage of the southeastern regions of Anatolia?

So are the DTP's statements really a coincidence, or a reflection of tension from the current atmosphere?

* * *

Speaking with some Iraqi Arabs at an international conference awhile back, I was told by them "Turkey's comments on Kirkuk from 'above' are strengthening our hand in terms of bargaining.....We will not make concessions when it comes to Kirkuk."
 
I told them not to depend on help from Turkey on this subject.
 
It will not be possible for the Iraqi people to overcome the foreign threats to them by turning their backs on these threats.
 
Iraq is under occupation today. A country under occupation cannot bring its society to agreement on many subjects.

For as long as the current conditions don't change, every step taken in the attempt to sketch out a future for Kirkuk will only be temporary.

* * *

As it is, from Turkey's perspective, the important thing is to bring about societal agreement on the question of Kirkuk. If there is not an agreement made over Kirkuk which pleases everyone, the security problems in this region will only become more complicated and difficult to fix.
 
As Kirkuk becomes more and more unstabile, it will create a new center for international terrorism, and this will be of direct interest to Turkey. Because what really does not interest us is how the Iraqis will decide to divide up their petrol. To make politics over any subject but the above mentioned, when it comes to Kirkuk, is simply lying.

And just as those who defend the idea of Turkey intervening militarily in Iraq on the basis of Kirkuk are after winning points from Turkish nationalist factions, those too who defend the idea that any intervention by Turkey in Kirkuk will spark the Kurds in Turkey to action are after winning points from the Kurdish nationalist factions.

This is how I analyze the statements from the DTP Diyarbakir head this last weekend.

Some are saying that any interference by Turkey in Kirkuk will make the Kurds living in Turkey uncomfortable.
 
But what "interference" are they referring to?

Interference in an Iraq which is already occupied?

Not only America, but all of Iraq's neighbors, with Iran at the forefront, are constantly interfering in Iraq.Â

Is it possible to say that today Iraq's northern region is not already under occupation? Or is it more realistic to line up major Iraqi cities descending order of which ones are more or less occupied? (Baghdad, Basra, Kurdistan.......)

Occupation is occupation.

On Saturday afternoon in Suleymaniye, Iraqi President Talabani met with Iraqi Kurdistan regional leader Barzani, and they discussed the petrol bill in Iraq. Were they alone? Of course not. While Barzani announced after the meeting that they had come to an agreement, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki was not there, but there was another person standing next to Talabani. Who? The US representative to Iraq, Zalmay Halilzad.