How should Turkey react to the elections in Iraq?

The first-ever elections in Iraq since Saddam took power were finally held, and nobody can deny that regardless of their faults, it was a great leap forward.

The Shiites and Kurds welcomed the elections. The Sunnis overall, however, were not happy with them, simply because, although they are a minority at around 20 percent of the population, they were the ruling group during the Saddam era.

Unfortunately, not knowing how to react to this “democratic imposition,” the Sunnis seem more or less to have fallen under the control of Islamist terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda.

The majority of the Sunnis did not go to the polls on Sunday, but we can’t deny that it was the threat of terror that kept them from the polls as much as their personal opinions.

What worries Turkey most about this election is the possibility of the Kurds taking the full control of Kirkuk.

It is believed here in Turkey that oil revenue from Kirkuk may encourage Kurdish dissatisfaction with a stake in a federal government and push them to eventually demand an independent state, potentially attracting Turkish Kurds to join them.

It is not beyond the reach of the imagination that Iraq may eventually be divided, and thus an independent Kurdish state is not pure fantasy.

The difficulties the United States has encountered in its attempts to bring law and order to Iraq have caused people to imagine that the United States may pull out before order is established and that an uncontrollable internal conflict leading to separation would follow.

The statements of some Kurdish leaders also justify Turkey’s fears. These leaders are making populist comments on “total independence” to attract the Kurds to their side but are equally increasing Turkey’s negative view of them.

Turkey is bothered by the idea of a “Kurdish Kirkuk” and is facilitating a reaction through the Turkmens.

Nobody knows the exact population demographics of Kirkuk, but it is believed in Turkey that Kirkuk is historically a Turkmen city.

Turkey will urge an “autonomous Kirkuk” after the election, as the city has always been.

Turkey’s formal stance is that under the possibility of an internal war, Turkey will not accept a massacre of its brother Turkmens in northern Iraq.

I agree with the proposal that Kirkuk should remain an autonomous city after the election for the good of all parties involved in the area.

But I don’t agree with Turkey’s negative attitude towards Kurdish leadership in northern Iraq.

I see that Kurdish leaders sometimes act very selfishly, in a populist fashion and without a long-term perspective.

But we should not forget the multi-variant character of Iraq.

We should be well aware that the worst development for the area and for Turkey is an internal war in Iraq.

Turkey should accept the reality that it lost a primary role in Iraq after having rejected the March 1 resolution that would have allowed Turkey and the United States to act jointly in northern Iraq.

But it still has more to do.

Turkey should actively enrich its relations with the Kurds and should never allow them to fall under the control of Islamist terror groups that largely influence the Sunnis.

If Turkey plays only on the “Turkmen element,” Turkey may push the Kurds to ally themselves only with the Shiite majority in the country.

Turkey also needs the help of the Shiites to maintain the autonomous character of Kirkuk, as a Kurdish Kirkuk is also contrary to the benefit of the Shiites in Iraq.

So far, it seems to me that Turkey is playing only on the “Turkmen card,” and this is dangerous.

Turkey should be able to work and establish positive relations with all elements in the country.

It has all the advantages for this end, as everybody knows, Turkey is the strongest country in the Middle East.

Turkey should not only take sides with the Turkmens but should be able to act as an ağabey (big brother), a term everybody knows and respects in the area.