ORSAM Report 102: HOW AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES COULD IRAQ BE SPLIT UP?  BEİNG READY FOR THE WORST (English)

The political crisis, which broke out in Iraq short while after the withdrawal of the U.S., brought up the political developments in Iraq in the shadow of the developments centering around the Arab Spring to the agenda again. The stability and future of Iraq started to be discussed both in Turkey and in world public opinion, and many possibilities ranging from good to bad was reassessed. The possibility of Iraq’s splitting has been brought up to the agenda on Turkish news and comments as well, and the arguments related to the solution of political crisis taking place in Iraq also started to be reflected in the press. It is not right to expect this dynamic and ambiguous process in Iraq to immediately turn into a big crisis in country in a short time. However, as all the developments taking place since the U.S. invasion of Iraq have showed over and over again, Iraq is becoming a country, which is getting hard to protect the territorial integrity and political unity with each passing day. It would be good to think the situation outside the box, rather than making simple predictions related to the future of Iraq, whose state authority was destroyed and where a healthy structure could not be established instead, and giving short answers to the question.

In this study, Iraq’s future is strived to be handled within the framework of the current developments in the country and the socio-political structure of the country. At the end of the study, the resulting table shows that there are 4 interrelated possibilities on the future of Iraq. Analyzing these scenarios, each of which are handled within the study, is increasing reasons for being pessimistic about the future of Iraq more and more with each passing day.

Content

  Presentation Executive Summary Introduction

1. Scenarios on the Continuation of the Current Situation in Iraq

1.a. Iraq With A Strong Central Structure

1.a.1. Strengthening the Central Government Through Democratic Methods:

1.a.2.  Strengthening the Central Government Through Armed Conflict

1.a.3. Establishing Centralism By Using the Tools within the System 1. b. Iraq with a Weak Central Structure
1.b.1. The Parties’ Weakening the Centralism on Their Own Wills

1.b.2.  Stopping the Conflict Before It Expands
1.c. Fragile and Unstable Iraq:
1.d. Civil War and Chaotic Environment:
2. The End of the Current Situation: Scenarios of a Split Iraq Scenarios on the Future of Iraq Full text               30 January 2012
]]> http://merryabla64.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/how-and-under-what-circumstances-could-iraq-be-split-up/feed/ 0 merryabla64 http://merryabla64.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/us-drones-patrolling-its-skies-provoke-outrage-in-iraq/ http://merryabla64.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/us-drones-patrolling-its-skies-provoke-outrage-in-iraq/#comments Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:02:47 +0000 merryabla64 http://merryabla64.wordpress.com/?p=11320 ]]> US Drones Patrolling Its Skies Provoke Outrage in Iraq

Monday 30 January 2012

by: Eric Schmitt and Michael S. Schmidt, The New York Times News Service | Report

A senior American official said that negotiations were under way to obtain authorization for the current drone operations, but Ali al-Mosawi, a top adviser to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki; Iraq’s national security adviser, Falih al-Fayadh; and the acting minister of interior, Adnan al-Asadi, all said in interviews that they had not been consulted by the Americans.

Mr. Asadi said that he opposed the drone program: “Our sky is our sky, not the U.S.A.’s sky.”

Please click on: http://www.truth-out.org/us-drones-patrolling-its-skies-provoke-outrage-iraq/1327947780?

Maliki’s new policy of targeting Turkey since   Dec. 2011, which has escalated tension with Ankara, appeared to come to a   halt on Jan. 25, when Hakim paid a visit to Ankara. However, Maliki still   keeps criticizing and condemning the Sunni-Arab leaders in the country. Over   the past week, the Baghdad deputy governor, the Diyala deputy governor and   the Salahaddin parliament speaker have been arrested for supporting terrorism.   All of them are members of the Sunni al-Iraqiya movement. Vice President   Hashimi, another Sunni-Arab politician, is still in Erbil. His motion to be   tried in Kirkuk has been dismissed by the Iraqi Supreme Court. Deputy Prime   Minister Salih al-Mutlaq may be replaced by another politician from Iraqiya.   It is useful to recall that Mutlaq is a former Baath member and that he   participated in the elections due to strong demand by the US and Turkey   despite the fact he was on a list of those banned from running for office   before the March 7, 2010 elections.

As Maliki takes a stronger stance against the   Sunni-Arab politicians, the troubles within Iraqiya are manifesting more   visibly. The leadership of the party, which protested the cabinet and the   parliament after the arrest of Hashimi and did not join the parliamentary   sessions, is now unable to control the party group. Some ministers and   deputies did not comply with the party’s decision to boycott the   parliamentary activities. The Iraqi Turkmen Front (ITC) in the Iraqiya bloc   endorsed the party’s decision; however, some of its ministers did not support   it.

To what point will Maliki escalate tension? When   he was elected prime minister in 2006, Maliki did not have strong tribal or   political support. He was appointed prime minister because he was not strong   not because he was strong. However, over time, he proved that he was a smart   politician, showing that a weak prime minister could actually turn into a   strong political figure. He attracted the support of civilian and military   bureaucracy, putting emphasis on the unity and integrity of Iraq. It has   become a fashion to wear badges and tags of the Iraqi map. Only nine months   after the general elections on March 7, 2010, Maliki was able to form the   government on Dec. 21, 2010. The new election system and the parties’   preference to take part in the elections as coalitions and political blocs   created a divided parliament and government. For this reason, after the   withdrawal of the US troops, Maliki has been trying to intimidate the   Sunni-Arab politicians. If he succeeds in this plan, Maliki, as argued by   reports and analyses, could turn his attention to the Shiite parties and then   the Kurds as well to secure a Shiite union in the country.

Maliki’s policies that have been escalating   tensions as of late have also led to escalated violence, particularly in   Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk. The manageable chaotic environment is about to be   replaced by an unpredictable chaos in the country.

http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-270053-malikis-new-steps-that-escalate-tension.html

Tony Hayward pockets first tranche of payments from Kurdistan oil venture with Genel Energy

guardian.co.uk,             Friday 20 January 2012

Former BP chief Tony Hayward. Photograph: Suzanne Plunkett/Reuters

Former BP boss, Tony Hayward will pocket more than £12m in a first tranche of payouts less

than a year after he set up his own company and then bet on Kurdistan being the next big province

for the oil industry.

Hayward who left his old employers with a £10m pension pot after the Gulf of Mexico

blowout,  exercised his rights to a 6.67% stake in the Genel Energy business along with

 his partners Nat Rothschild and two other executives. The four Genel backers are entitled

to a windfall nudging £160m as they swap their “founder” shares in the Vallares investment

vehicle they established in return for ordinary shares in Genel. Hayward and the other

founders of Vallares will not be able to sell their shares until 21 November under a

lock-in arrangement.

The oil investors who had poured £100m of their money into the business could

win a further payout.

They still control ‘C’ class shares that entitle them to 15% of any gains should

Genel shares rise above a specified price.

A statement from Genel pointed out the initial investment was “risk capital”

that left them facing a loss of up to £20m had they not completed a successful

acquisition within a specified time frame.

Vallares is still sitting on nearly $2bn (£1.6bn) raised in an initial flotation last

year because the cash was not required to merge with the Turkish-based Genel,

the largest oil producer in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Genel, with stakes in six

oilfields in northern Iraq says those interests amount to a potential 356m barrels

of proven oil reserves. Genel shares rose 1.2%to 855p still less than the £10 float price.

Posted on 18 January 2012.  

AKnews reports that up to 26 foreign companies are engaged in preparations to build a 500 MW power plant in Kirkuk.

Kirkuk currently requires 880 MW, but can only provide 450 MW: 240 MW from the national grid and 225 MW through a contract with Kurdish investor.

Rebwar Talabani, the Deputy head of Kirkuk Provincial Council, told AKnews that American, British, Turkish and Arab companies are building the 500 MW plant the Council approved last year.

The location for the project will be decided in coordination with the power distribution and transportation offices.

A small new power plant was built in December in the Darman village area of Kirkuk.

(Source: AKnews)

 http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2012/01/preparation-for-national-conference-to.html

At the end of December 2011,Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani, backed by the United States, called for a national conference of all of Iraq’s ruling political parties to try to resolve their on-going disputes. At first, it seemed like this would happen as planned, but nothing is that easy inIraq. First, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Lawand the National Alliance led by the Sadrists demanded that the meet happen in Baghdad, while the Iraqi National Movement (INM) and the Kurdish Coalition said it should occur in Kurdistan. Then, the INM demanded Vice President Tariq Hashemi’s terrorism case by dealt with at the conference; something that they had previously said should be excluded. Third, Maliki suspended the National Movement ministers that were boycotting the cabinet, escalating tensions once more. Finally, the INM is making empty threats about replacing Maliki, which only exposes their already weakened position. All together, it does not look like the conference will resolve much, as the soap opera of Iraqi politics continues.

The national conference that is supposed to bring all of Iraq’s major political parties together may not even get off the ground, because of arguments about where it is take place. The National Alliance made up of the Sadrists, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the Fadhila Party, and others demanded that the meeting happen in Baghdad. Iyad Allawi of the Iraqi National Movement (INM) on the other hand, said it should be in Kurdistan. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani threatened not to attend if it was in the capital. Allawi in turn, has stated that he would not go to the meeting if Barzani, and all the other party leaders were not there. There was a preliminary meet on January 15, 2012 to prepare for the main one, but it did not go anywhere, because nothing substantial was discussed. Members of the Kurdish Coalition have also expressed reservations about whether anything would be accomplished from the conference, because of the increasingly accusatory rhetoric between the INM and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law. Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani originally suggested the idea for the national get together on December 25, 2011. TheUnited States pushed the idea as well. At first, all the parties expressed interest in the meeting. When it came down to actually planning it, and coming up with the details however, all the divisions between the lists quickly came to the fore, which is why all the arguments are emerging about even the simplest of matters such as where it should happen.

Another sticking point in the national conference is what role the case against Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi of the INM will play. A State of Lawparliamentarian said that it and the National Alliance had agreed not to allow Hashemi’s charges to be discussed at the meeting, while the INM has asked that it should be. Not only that, but State of Law has threatened to try Hashemi in absentia if he did not appear at a court in Baghdad. The Vice President has refused to go to the capital, because he does not trust the integrity of the judiciary there, and said he would like the charges to be heard in Kurdistan instead. The Vice President has been there since the end of December to avoid the arrest warrant for him. To add to the drama, the government claimed it would air new confessions by some of Hashemi’s bodyguards charging him with more tales of terrorism. One officer in the security forces told the Guardian that all of Hashemi’s guards that had been arrested were tortured, but not confessed anything. He said the stories that three bodyguards aired on state-run TV implicating Hashemi in violence were all made up. Wanting to include Hashemi’s case in the national conference was a reversal for the INM. Before, it demanded that Hashemi have his day in court to prove his innocence, and rejected any political deal to resolve it. Now, they are asking for what they had earlier said no to. The change might come from the fact that it is looking increasingly unlikely that Hashemi can have his trial anywhere else, butBaghdad, and that means he could be found guilty of charges the INM believes are trumped up. A political arrangement may be the only way Hashemi can get out of his mess.

The dispute over the Iraqi National Movement’s boycott of the cabinet is continuing as well. The missing ministers were suspended by the rest of the cabinet, told they could not manage their ministries, nor make any decisions. This action has been a divisive issue within the INM, with some of its ministers not following the party’s orders. For example, one National Movement minister attended a cabinet session on January 17. Still, the INM has complained that Maliki does not have the power to suspend any boycotting ministers. The ministries hold tremendous power over jobs, services, and patronage for the political parties that run them. That’s why the premier is threatening to take away the INM’s positions, because it would cost their members dearly. That’s also a reason why several ministers have not followed the boycott.

Finally, Allawi and Deputy Premier Saleh al-Mutlaq have threatened to replace Maliki and hold new elections if the national conference fails, something they don’t have the power to do. For instance, the Iraqi National Movement held a meeting of its major leaders in Baghdad, and afterward, Allawi accused Maliki of moving towards a dictatorship. He went on to say that if the political dispute were not resolved, either a new premier should be named, or an interim government should be formed to hold new elections. INM members such as Mutlaq have been calling for new voting for quite some time now. There were even rumors that the National Movement was holding talks with the Kurdish Coalition, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, and the Sadrists about this matter. However, Speaker of Parliament Osama Nujafi, who is a leader within the INM, told the press that a new government was not feasible, because the list did not have the votes to replace Maliki. It is also impossible to form an interim government to hold elections unless Maliki steps down or is voted out, neither of which is going to happen at this time. Allawi, Mutlaq, and others of the National Movement are making bold statements against the prime minister, but they cannot back them up. The list can’t even decide amongst itself about what approach they should take. Some like Allawi and Mutlaq want to continue with their confrontational stance. The problem is they are acting from a position of weakness, because they don’t have the votes or support in parliament to take on the premier. Others like Speaker Nujafi, and some of the party’s ministers would like to work out the differences with Maliki, so they can maintain their positions. This also highlights the haves and have not’s within the list. Allawi doesn’t even have a government job, and is only a parliamentarian who rarely attends the legislature. Mutlaq also lacks any real authority. Nujafi and the ministers however control services, and what happens in parliament. That’s why they are more willing to compromise with Maliki, than others in their party.

The idea of a national conference never seemed to be a good concept. The problem is thatIraq’s political parties have been having meetings off and on since the parliamentary elections in March 2010. Besides the conference that finally created the government in December 2011, nothing much has come of them. In fact, that agreement, known as the Irbil Agreement, has not even been fully implemented with Maliki holding onto the security ministries for himself, and a National Council for Strategic Policy that Allawi was supposed to head torpedoed. Maliki was able to remain in office in part, by buying off members of the INM by offering them top spots in the new government. That created divisions within the list, which he has been able to exploit ever since then, keeping his main opposition weak. That’s why things like boycotting parliament and the cabinet have largely not worked against Maliki. He can still run the government, and some members of the National Movement haven’t even followed their party’s ban on continuing their work. If and when this national conference occurs then, it will likely solve nothing, andIraq’s leaders will continue with their bickering.

SOURCES

Abdul-Ahad, Ghaith, “Corruption inIraq: ‘Your son is being tortured. He will die if you don’t pay,’” Guardian, 1/15/12

AK News, “Hashemi rejects any political mediation to resolve the charges against him,” 12/26/11

Aswat al-Iraq, “Will withdraw confidence if national conference fails – al-Iraqiya,” 1/17/12

Brosk, Raman, “Maliki calls on Hashemi to attend the court before it is too late,” AK News 1/16/12

Dagher, Sam, “Iraq Political Leaders Seeking Maliki’s Ouster,” Wall Street Journal, 1/19/12

Ibrahim, Haidar, “Iraqi senior officials meeting for the emergency meeting,” AK News, 1/12/12

- “Iraqiya won’t attend crisis meeting without Barzani,” AK News, 1/12/12

- “Tense statements before national conference, Kurdish concerned,” AK News, 1/11/12

Juhl, Bushra, “Gunmen stormIraqcompound, kill 7 people,” Associated Press, 1/15/12

Al-Mada, “State law: Al-Mutlaq will not return to office,” 1/15/12

National Iraqi News Agency, “Awadi: the NA will not allow handling Hashimi’s case in the National Conference,” 1/16/12

- “BREAKING NEWS Jumaili: Iraqiya leaders hold to their stand on its lawmakers minister boycott Parliament, cabinet sessions,” 1/18/12

- “IS calls for a set of principles before holding the national conference,” 12/28/11

- “Mulla: Iraqiya rejects any political out of court settlement to Hashimi’s case,” 12/28/11

- “Salim Aljoburi : preliminary meeting for the National Conference not at the required level,” 1/16/12

Radio Nawa, “Talabani is preparing to hold a round table meeting after a request from theU.S.,” 12/25/11

Al-Shemmari, Yazn, “Sadrists reject holding the national conference outsideBaghdad,” AK News, 1/11/12

Surk, Barbara, “Iraq’s Sunni-backed Cabinet ministers suspended,” Associated Press, 1/17/12

UPI, “More confessions expected against Iraqi VP,” 1/17/12

Visser, Reidar, “After One Month of Boycotting: Iraqiyya at a Crossroads,”IraqAnd Gulf Analysis, 1/18/12

Al-Yusuf, Murtada and Brosk, Raman, “Hashemi repeats demands for trial in Kurdistan Region –Baghdadrefuses,” AK News, 12/21/11

Posted in Musings on Iraq

 http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2012/01/preparation-for-national-conference-to.html

By Sherwood Ross

19 January, 2012
Countercurrents.org

Western oil producers have emerged as the big winners of the Iraq war.

“Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq US and other
western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq’s oil
market,” industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera wire service.
“But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back
inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being
forced out of the country in 1973.”

“Western producers like BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell are enjoying their
best access to Iraq’s southern oil fields since 1972,” Business Week
noted in its issue of March 4th of last year. (1972 was the year
Saddam Hussein nationalized Iraq’s oil fields.)

Business Week quotes Andy Inglis, BP’s chief executive for exploration
and production as saying, “We see this as the beginning of a long-term
relationship with Iraq and will continue to look for further
opportunities.”

Dr. Abdulhay Yahya Zalloum, an international oil consultant and
economist, agrees the western firms have won contracts despite “a lack
of transparency and clarity of vision regarding the legal issues.” The
Iraqi government “gave a little piece of the cake for China and some
of the other countries and companies to keep them silent.”

A group led by BP will receive $2 billion per year to develop Iraq’s
Rumalia field and a Shell-led group is to get $913 million per year.
An Exxon-led group is to get $1.6 billion per year, Bloomberg News
reports. Each calculation is based on the agreed-to per-barrel fee
times the maximum production level, Bloomberg explains.

David Bender, a Middle East analyst at Eurasia Group, Washington,
D.C., told Bloomberg, “Iraq is one of the most attractive oil markets
in the world. The international oil companies may feel that getting in
at the beginning improves their long-term prospects.”

The only area of Iraq where oil firms fare better than fee-for-service
work is in the northern Kurdish autonomous region(KRG) where
businesses including Norway’s DNO International ASA are pumping crude
under production-sharing agreements “not recognized by the central
government,” Bloomberg reports.

It also turns out Hunt Oil Co., of Dallas, Tex., clinched a separate
deal in Sept., 2007, with Iraq Kurdistan Regional Government. Hunt
might not have won if its chief officer, Ray Hunt, was not President
George W. Bush’s friend and a major fund-raiser. Some folks think,
according to a front page New York Times report July 3, 2008, the deal
“runs counter to American policy and undercut Iraq’s central
government.” Apparently, Bush didn’t think so. Baghdad reportedly is
furious over it.

Hunt got this free pass to explore Kurdistan’s oil riches in Sept.,
2007, when it inked an exploration pact likely to give the firm a
share of the boodle of any future gushers. “Hunt would be the first
U.S. company to sign such a deal,” a State Department official told
the New York Times. And according to reporter Jay Price of McClatchy
News Service, the Iraqi oil minister, speaking for Baghdad, “called
the Hunt deal illegal.”

A State Department cable dated Sept. 12, 2007, and made public by
Wikileaks, “detailed official warnings from the U.S. government that
the contract, regardless of lease location, is legally risky due to
unresolved land and oil disputes between Baghdad and the KRG—and
that such a contract could further amplify conflicts between the
central and regional governments,” wrote Ben Lando of the
authoritative “Iraq Oil Report” Aug. 25, 2011. Hunt seemingly would
not have to press Bush hard for the insider’s deal.

Juhasz says that ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell aggressively lobbied their
governments “to ensure that the invasion would result in an Iraq open
to foreign oil companies” and that “they succeeded.”

She added that the U.S. and western oil companies and their
governments has been lobbying for a new national Iraq Oil Law that
would largely privatize the oil market along the lines of the old
Production Sharing Agreements—although such PSA’s have been rejected
in most countries because they provide “far more benefits to the
foreign corporation than to the domestic government.” Hunt’s deal with
KRG was of the PSA sort.

“The public is against privatization,” Juhasz told al-Jazeera, “which
is one reason the (Iraqi Oil Law) has not passed. The contracts are
enacting a form of privatisation without public discourse and
essentially at the butt of a gun. These contracts have all been
awarded during a foreign military occupation with the largest
contracts going to companies from the foreign occupiers’ countries. It
seems that democracy and equity are the two largest losers in this oil
battle.”

Note: the Obama regime “continues to pressure Baghdad to pass the Iraq
Oil Law” over the wishes of the majority of the Iraqi people. “Thus
far,” Juhasz said, “it has required a massive foreign military
invasion and occupation to grant the foreign oil companies the access
they have thus far garnered.”

Meanwhile, back at the pump, the boost in oil supplies has not reduced
the price of oil being extracted from American motorists. The laws of
supply and demand no longer appear to be working. According to
business writer John Egan of Technorati, the average price for a
gallon of gas last Feb. 26th climbed to $3.33, compared with $2.70 the
previous year. And wire service Agency France Presse(AFP) reports in
the Waynesville, Va., Augusta Free Press that “Average U.S. gasoline
prices began 2012 just under $3.28 gal, the highest number ever to
mark the beginning of a year and the fifth straight weekly increase in
price.”

As for the profit-taking of the big oil firms, Egan on Feb. 26, 2011,
wrote: “While we’re paying more to fill up, the three largest publicly
traded oil companies based in the United States have been filling up
on profits. Those three companies – ExxonMobil, Chevron and
ConocoPhillips – collectively pulled in an eye-popping $58.3 billion
in profits in 2010, according to financial figures announced in
January 2011. Mind you, that’s profit – the amount of money that
companies pocket after covering their expenses.”

Gas prices reached the point last year that, according to “The
Washington Post” of last April 30th, President Obama “blasted oil
companies for enjoying gangbuster profits while pump prices surged to
nearly $4 a gallon this week, and he again urged Congress to end $4
billion a year in subsidies for the oil and gas industry.”

“When oil companies are making huge profits and you’re struggling at
the pump, and we’re scouring the federal budget for spending we can
afford to do without, these tax giveaways aren’t right,” Obama said.
“They aren’t smart. And we need to end them,” the president added.

And Greg Palast points out in his book, “Armed Madhouse”(Plume), the
oil majors are not simply passive resellers of OPEC production but
have reserves of their own which rise in tandem with oil prices.

“The rise in the price of oil after the first three years of the
(Iraq) war boosted the value of the reserves of ExxonMobil Oil alone
by just over $666-billion,” Palast wrote. What’s more, Chevron Oil,
“where (Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice had served as a director,
gained a quarter trillion dollars in value.”

Iraq’s experience mirrors the prior overthrow in 1953 of the Iranian
government by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. This is recounted
in “An Enemy of The People”(Doukathsan) by Lawrence Velvel, dean of
the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. He notes that after CIA
Mideast Operations Chief Kermit Roosevelt created a state of anarchy
in Iran that toppled the elected government, the U.S. oil companies
cashed in.

“Our oil companies—Gulf, Standard of New Jersey, Texaco and
Mobil—received a 40 percent share of the new National Iranian Oil
Co., and the shah established a tyrannical dictatorship, with the
dreaded Savak (secret police) doing dirty work for him,” Velvel
writes. By the way, it may be noted that Iran in 1953 could not be
said to have the beginning of any nuclear weapon development as to
constitute a threat to Israel or any other country.

So what was the 1953 overthrow of Iran all about if not oil? The
pattern that has emerged over the past 60 years is that the
Pentagon/CIA have bullied their way into seizing the oil fields of the
Middle East, from which Western oil companies just happened to enrich
themselves. The history of past events in Iran and Iraq casts a
dubious light on the contemporary claims of U.S. politicians today
that Iran represents a mortal danger to Israel. The CIA overthrow of
Iran and the Pentagon attack on Iraq reveal it’s all about oil.

Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations consultant who
advises colleges, universities, magazines, and entrepreneurial
businesses

 We are extremely distressed to hear of the rocket launcher attack against the Embassy of the Republic of Turkey in Baghdad on the 18^th of January Wednesday. On behalf of myself, the Iraqi Turkmen and the Iraqi Turkmen Front Turkey Representation I protest this attack with vehemence and hope the perpetrators are apprehended without delay. Such attacks of terror targeting to destroy the stability being established in Iraq as well as harm the relationship between Turkey and Iraq are unacceptable.

We take the opportunity to wish the personnel of the Republic of Turkey Baghdad Embassy leading with the distinguished Ambassador, His Excellency Yunus Demirer and the staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey a speedy recovery and hope such a vile incident never recurs.

  Dr. Hicran Kazancı
  Iraqi Turkmen Front
  Turkey Representative