Sovereign Iraq, Mosul, Bashiqa… - ABDULLAH MURADOĞLU

Sovereign Iraq, Mosul, Bashiqa…

We have expressed many times that “regional countries” instead of “exterritorial powers” need to come together to find a solution for the Syrian and Iraq issues. And again, we have repeatedly said that regional powers have the responsibility to secure peace and calm in the center of the Islamic civilization. Unfortunately, for years there has been no progress and the future of the region is left to the decisions of the foreign powers. This is something like putting the cat among the pigeons. An imperialist division in the region was in question a century ago as well. They brought many “states” and “countries” to the table. But you couldn't really call these states. The people of these countries were never happy. And if the future depends on the decisions of imperialist powers, then they won't be happy for a while yet. These imperialist powers are not in the region out of their kindness.

The developments in Iraq and Syria directly affect Turkey's security. We have been dealing with terror attacks from the so-called “sovereign Iraq.” It is rather meaningful that Iraq, which has U.S., U.K., German, Italian, French and Dutch forces on its land for years, can name Turkey an “intruder” for having their forces in Bashiqa. In a written statement, Safin Dizayi, the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government's (KRG) spokesman, had stated that the Turkish soldiers trained the Mosul police and volunteering forces and that this was done with the knowledge and consent of the Iraqi regional government as well as the Defense Ministry. Former Mosul Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi supports the Bashiqa camp, too.

The so-called Central Iraqi Government had announced that the forces were there with the “permission” of the government. As if the U.S. and its partners had asked for permission when they were physically dividing Iraq into three pieces, governing the country for a long period and sharing the energy fields among themselves.

Why doesn't Iraq show the extensive tolerance that they showed to these “permitted powers” to their neighbors, which they have a shared history with – for 400 years – and have lived together in peace with for 90 years?

Turkey gave up its rights on Mosul, but got promises from the British mandate, Iraq, in terms of its border security. These commitments were included in the second part of the agreement signed on June 5, 1926. The clauses prescribed that in the case of armed groups going through the border and into the next country, they would be arrested and then sent to the country from which they came. The Border Military Command was the one responsible on the Turkish side, while the Mosul and Erbil governors were responsible on the Iraqi side to ensure that everything ran smoothly and security measures were met.

These commitments are of course not restricted to 1926. Every country that claims to be sovereign has the responsibility of fulfilling these commitments to its neighboring countries. “Sovereign Iraq” has the responsibility to abolish all terror camps within its borders starting from Qandil, and to ensure that all threats against Turkey are ended. Can “sovereign Iraq's” central government fulfill its promises? It needs to fulfill these promises before calling Turkey “intruder.” Otherwise, they cannot be called sovereign. It would not be meaningful.


Cookies are used limited to the purposes in th e Personal Data Protection Law No.6698 and in accordance with the legislation. For detailed information, you can review our cookie policy.