Though, no armchair economist could explain it, yet the uncertainty of global economy is looming in a century pregnant both with social and environmental turbulences that made decision making an up-hill task beyond any political formula to content. Verily, we moderns are trapped into an era where the classic game of nation-vs.-nation has changed forever as it has been accelerated and mingled with the dangerous game of nation-vs.-nature. The conflict within nations has ended up in the smoke of current finance crisis whilst the deep forgotten conflict with nature has pushed environmental events into global climate changes. Little wonder when Thomas L. Friedman is alerting us moderns of the like dilemma in a world that is getting ‘Hot, Flat, and Crowded’. And if the future should witness any sort of winner in this coming drama, wisdom would call politicians as to live up to the coming task and just to remove the uncertainty as early as possible by doing the expected thing. For, standing to the merit of a world builder, every politician has to admit worldwide that the remedy if any is “Co-Existence”; whether among nations and/or with provoked nature.

Accordingly, for a new-born region of Kurdistan the task ahead is a real partnership whether within a federal Iraq and/or with neighboring countries. Recently some have casted doubts about the reality of such a partnership with Turkey and which has rather been praised by the leader of Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), Nechirvan Barzani as none less than a strategic one. In short, whereas the “How” question on the proposed partnership reveals the surrounding difficulties, the answer on the “Why” question would justify it as an inevitable process. To explore more on the subject of matter, at the onset, delegations from KRG to the XV Economic Forum of Europe in 2005 and following XVI Economic Forum in 2006, had made the first step toward discussing possible economic ties with Turkey with its delegations in Poland. The answer was, though not official but encouraging enough as to be reported to the office of Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani. And with his talent of understanding, relevant attempts in this direction have been intensified ever since. Now to explore the prospects for such strategic partnership; albeit as a co-existence between Kurdistan and Turkey we must kindly remind ourselves of the dramatic changes in the merit and context of the concept of national security. And which all must pave the way for a complementary economy capable of achieving food, water and energy security (Gulan 807, 813, 817, 829). Dealing with all these vital issues, Kurdistan and Turkey can do a lot toward economic, social and political stability in the region. Further, and taking it for granted the geographic fact that the location of Turkey represents a bridge between East and West, one has to reckon with the fact that a bridge has front and back gates. And Kurdistan; as back gate in its north-&-south parts, cannot be disassembled from this strategic link. And through the suggested partnership with Turkey, Kurdistan isolation as land-locked with no access to sea-based trade can be ended.

What remains that the interactions between the means and ways for energy, water and food security would invite politicians on both sides as to tackle the so many complicated obstacles. All in all, this would call for economic and social developmental strategies along with a well-defined institutional economic policies. For what seem external challenges of energy security in Turkey can be mastered via the upper-stream energy opportunity in Kurdistan. And what seem the coming challenges of water and food security in Kurdistan can be rather tackled via the upper-stream of water basin in Turkey. Bear in mind that the mass-building of dams cannot secure a long term socio-economic solutions in southern region of Turkey without exploring the rest of fertile lands in farther south Kurdistan and all toward reviving the Upper-Mesopotamia as the 2nd potential bread-basked after Sudan in the Middle East. Alas, neither the generated revenues from selling crude oil in Kurdistan can offset the rising global prices of food in future. Nor the giant dams in Turkey can secure food security and socio-economic stability. Let alone the consequent ecological disasters of keeping huge bulk of waters without potential irrigated mass cultivation of the entire region of Upper-Mesopotamia. So it is up to the decision makers on both sides as to consider all these critical interactions all towards relevant industries and which cannot be tackled without real political commitments; for political wishes are not enough here. To that end, Turkey and Kurdistan have both now to endure the new odd: a delicate dance with each other amid regional tensions and anxieties for political changes toward democracy and development. The ambitious plan for future Kurdistan is on how to match democracy with reasonable development for all. And only then, the Kurds can afford a model for its economy-based hard power (Gulan 866).

In conclusion, what has not been achieved so far of a complementary economy; between Kurdistan part and the rest of modern Iraq and since its creation, seems to become an inevitable option now for Kurdistan and Turkey. The harsh lesson reveals that modern Iraq which was exporting food in 1950’s has ended up with exporting crude oil while importing every single commodity and service on earth. So while Iraq is still struggling political changes via painful democratization process, Kurdistan Region has enjoyed the political stability all toward economic structuring. However, we have to admit in pain that the region is still overshadowed by the coming danger of food crisis and what has become known as the ‘Hydrologic Conflict” (Gulan 817). And if the masses, their leaders, and the overlords of the on-going re-arrangement in the Middle East will not agree on a fair settlement, the hard task of standing against a sea of troubles would bedevil both stability and precious democracy everywhere in the region. And yet, apart from the surrounding difficulties toward a mutual understanding for economic ties between the Turks and the Kurds, decision makers in modern Turkey have to live up to the great wisdom of Sultan Suleiman in acquiring the relative diversity and tolerance according to Michael Hamilton Morgan in his “Lost History (2007)” all towards: ‘the unique mix of power tempered with fairness and diversity’. And this much seems certain the answer to the ‘Why” question for the strategic partnership under discussion, the hard choice is between the wisdom of welfare and the evil necessity of warfare… ___________________