It comes despite tensions with Iraq, whose prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has declared Turkey a « hostile state », and with Iran, to which Ankara has this year sold billions of dollars worth of gold, but which is on the opposing side to Turkey in the Syria conflict.
Ah yes. Export to Iraq continue to happen despite tensions. I think most of the world (not sure Financial Times is the best place for world views) understands that Turkey’s exports to and imports from “Iraq” are the tensions between Turkey and Iraq, at least economically.
Much of my analysis of the world depends on my theory of war. I believe all war is about economic considerations, and fought by people with little economic considerations. For war to break-out between Turkey, Iraq, and eventually Iran someone has to get the guys with little economic considerations to start fighting. In the Middle East there doesn’t seem to be a shortage of those willing to fight, especially for “no” economic considerations.
I don’t think Financial Times wants to hear about that one, so they are bias away from truth, but are at least fact based when they analyze how an economy like Turkey’s distributes itself in the world.
In other words they fudge when they use Nouri al-Maliki’s name in their article, but use the data of imports and exports to make it seem like it is all tied together.
The reason this story has no ties to truth: Turkey isn’t really dealing with Iraq, only a small Kurdish part of it. This Kurdish part is both Sunni and Shia, and because of their ties, the Kurds become the “middleman” between Turkey and Iraq.
Financial Times should stick with the story that Iraq is still not one State, even after years of civil war, and name the people Turkey is actually dealing with, leaving out Nouri al Maliki’s.
Or the Financial Times should create another story that says Nouri al-Maliki is in control of his country, and mentioned his name in this article, in context as the person Turkey is dealing with.
I mean, the Financial Times’s article is the first story, but to me the way it is written makes the article seem like the second story.
The Financial Times’s article is truthful enough, but if a choke point develops in “Kurdistan” for the products Turkey imports into and exports from Iraq (and eventually into Iran, Syria), I wonder how much incentive Turkey will have in a few generation to “un-choke” it.
If a choke point develops I think there would be enough people, with little economic consideration, to fight.
And fight they will, if they are not given economic considerations.
At the time of choke points, I doubt Europe will look anymore tempting to Turkey, generations from now, as exports from Iraq is mostly in the form of oil, and the “choke-point” will affect Europe, Asia, as well as Turkey.